So, you have an open category for submitting *any* idea and it will get considered fairly?

To the NSF? I don't know. They need to have categories because they can only offer money for things when they have people to understand what is being studied. Isn't that exactly what you said you wanted?

YJ - Oh, I didn't know Al Gore was now a "climatologist", and yet he was the beacon of climate truth at one point.

Your suggestion that all truth from the AWG Club comes only from "climatologists" is fraudulent on the face of it.

"Climatologists aren't close minded against climate change deniers. It's just that the deniers are unable to counter the vast and favorable body of data supporting AGW. "

<smack forhead> Good lord, man. You must own stock in the kool aide company.

What vast body of data supporting AGW? First, cooling has stopped. Second, all the predictions are wrong. Third, they keep confessing they don't know what the hell is going on when it is pointed out they are consistently wrong...so they say things like "they just have to find the hidden heat..."

I BEG you to exercise reason, my good man. The data doesn't exist that you claim to believe. The onyl thing that exists is the manufactured statements proclaiming the results of the data they *wish* existed...like the imaginary data supporting CO2 as a cause of global warming (as opposed to it's true nature as a lagging indicator)

"OK, but "health" is a huge field. You seriously want one organization for *all* science, medicine, and technology? I doubt that would help anything. "

I think one organization made up of YJ, Abge, Draug and I would be sufficient. An agreement of three would secure funding. Each of us would be given a mansion, a perpetually stocked kitchen with a gourmet chef, booze (if needed) and all the hookers we want to keep us from the temptation of bribery.

Oh, and both a PS4 and an Xbone.

krelln, whoah, you are confounding two very different things.

My claim is that only climatologists are adequately prepared to comment on the truth or lack thereof of global warming. Anybody who is not a climatologist should either be listening to them, or shutting the fuck up.

What I am not saying is that anybody who speaks in favor of AGW is a climatologist, so I'm not sure where this is coming from at all. Al Gore's statements are, at a basic level, as irrelevant as Rush Limbaugh's. I haven't paid enough attention to what Al specifically says on AGW to tell you how legitimate I think his statements are.

---

On to your second post. I'm sorry, we've been here before, on multiple occasions. This is what happens: You keep bringing up the same talking points, I keep refuting them, you get pissed off or I get frustrated, and then before you know it everybody is trying to kidnap everybody else's teenage daughters :) Rinse and repeat, and a few months later you bring up the same points all over again, as if you didn't hear me (you probably didn't).

This is the point where, "why would anybody want to debate krellin?" becomes a legitimate question. I LIKE you krellin, so long as we aren't talking about a narrow range of topics. So for the sake of that, let's just not get into it.

I'm happy to talk about stuff like Al gore and who we should be listening to, but as far as challenging each other on actual points of research, I'm just drawing the line as it's futile. Neither of us is qualified to have an opinion, to say, "I don't trust this data because xyz." That's why we ask the experts.

Yellowjacket you are wrong in your assumption. I have spoken to several climatologists. I would start by saying that the one I have particularly in mind would fully endorse your view on AGW. He was, however, extremely sceptical about both computational modelling and the provision of funding dictating the direction of research. On the first point he quoted an eminent modeller who was insistent on a recent geological period being cold at the Poles (I think he mentioned the Arctic rather than the Antarctic) despite fossil evidence which indicated the presence of alligators. This modeller even went on to say that the palaeontologists must be wrong because his model was most assuredly correct. On the second point the climatologist in question regretted the fact that his department now had to apply for funding on a local (or tactical) level, while, in his view, the Global (or strategic) level remained pregnant with so many unanswered questions. It is up to you whether you believe this or not.

I am not sure I agree with you on the robustness of the AGW case. It was the publication of the (in my view appalling) “climategate emails” which prompted me to read much more around this subject. In particular Phil Jones’ evidence before the select committee was perhaps the most defensive public performance I have ever witnessed by any professional scientist in receipt of large amounts of public funding (I believe from the US Department of Energy, amongst others). If you wish to view it here is a link to one of the five episodes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AK0oGnqtVXo

Finally, you picked up on just one sentence in my original post – any chance of addressing some or all of the other points I raised. I would welcome your views.

fullhamish: That's the thing: I don't have any. I've done enough independent digging around to convince myself that there is a consensus among the experts. Just like with krellin, I'm not going to hash over individual talking points in an area that is outside my expertise, and yours. I will watch the video, however, if it is presented by an expert.

I do not believe that you have spoken to several climatologists. There is no reason you would not provide names so I can judge the merits of their arguments and credentials for myself.

Well then I am afraid that your arguments boil down to no more than an appeal to authority. If that is good enough for you, then so be it. Personally I like to try and fully understand things that catch my interest as much as I can. Horses for courses I suppose.

If you hate appeals to authority so much, I assume you don't do anything your doctors tell you.

Be careful with that strawman you've got there.

I'm taking the argument to it's logical conclusion. The idea that you're considering the opinions of those who've spent years studying the subject is somehow a negative thing for your argument is a truly ridiculous position, and thus deserves to be ridiculed.

Something isn't necessarily true because the experts agree on it, but no-one is claiming so. What is being claimed is that it is a lot more likely to be true than otherwise.

ROFL fullhamish.

An appeal to authority is not fallacious if the authority in question is actually an expert.

Lern2logicnub.

Really though, that isn't to say you shouldn't try to enhance your own knowledge (good on you!) but as an (emerging) expert in one scientific field, I know exactly how hard it is to be considered an authority on anything. I don't have the time to become an expert on everything - so I trust the experts out there when my own field isn't being considered.

What is your field of study, Yellowjacket?

Well I thought that we were discussing AGW. I tried putting forward some views on the matter, I wasn't aware that any contrary views had been expressed apart from a reference to "experts". Are we to stop discussing football because we have not played professionally or politics because we have not studied it at degree level? No, of course not, what makes AGW so special? Is it perhaps amongst some of us an article of faith?

At yellowjacket, a touch of the deductive there I think. In that case, from my perspective, you need to think for yourself and get a little more inductive. Go on, search look and question. If you are indeed a budding scientist there can be no better exercise in critical thinking. :-)

"At yellowjacket, a touch of the deductive there I think. In that case, from my perspective, you need to think for yourself and get a little more inductive. Go on, search look and question. If you are indeed a budding scientist there can be no better exercise in critical thinking. :-)"

fullhamish,

Presumably the majority of (relevant) scientists who agree with AGW are thinking deductively/inductively/scientifically, and still come to the same conclusion.

If you, as a non-expert attempts to draw your own conclusion from the (limited set) of data that you have been exposed to, comes to a different conclusion from the consensus, doesn't this suggest that either there is something wrong with either A. the experts analysis or B your analysis.

If this is the case. Where have we gone wrong? Is it the data or is it flaw within the reasoning? And who has made the mistake?

I would suggest if you choose A - that you might be overestimating your competency (The Dunning-Kruger Effect - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect)

With regards to the minority of (relevant) scientist who who disagree with the mainstream AGW view - this is (assuming they are not corrupt and that they are competent) - this is because they have been following independent lines of inquiry. And while there is always potential that one of these independent lines of inquiry will bear fruit, and overturn the currently accepted models (and it does happen) - most of the time these lines of inquiry yield little, or turn out to be wrong. Of course new lines of inquiry are necessary. That is is how scientist progresses.

BUT until these new lines of inquiry have been accepted by mainstream scientist - why would you, a non-expert consider these yet-to-be-validated models to be more correct that currently accepted models?

@fullhamish. I think spyman more than adequately addresses much of what you say. To add my own few cents, the thing is, any "results" that I come up with in this field, unless I am willing to dedicate a huge portion of time to it, are completely useless in a discussion. They are as easily dismissed as, well, as I'm doing to the points you raise.

No, you are not to refrain from discussing football. I'll engage happily on the level I'm capable of doing so. But don't try arguing against Kevin Green on how to run a Zone Blitz. This is what you are proposing.

I encourage everybody to come to their own conclusions and think independently. But in a science as complex and vast as climatology, isn't using the conclusions the experts have come to the best starting point? Keeping with the football analogy, if you start a new franchise and have no idea how to build a defense, you don't design it from scratch - you look at what the rest of the coaches are doing and start from there.

@spyman 1 year away from a PhD in Medical Physics.

FSM willing.

What does Funny Smelly Matt have to do with it? Is he helping you study for finals?

@YJ

Please excuse this less-than-graceful hijack, but I'm curious as to why you went into Medical Physics rather than EE.

Because I am a foolish foolish man who doesn't enjoy employment?

Really though, my dad was in the field, and he passed away just before I graduated from college. It seemed a worthy torch to pick up.

Fair enough. I wasn't questioning the field so much as the specific degree.

Oh, well the engineering counterpart is biomedical engineering, and they are actually very closely related... just the usual theory vs. application differences.

@yj, this consensus you speak of, it all started with the IPCC. That's when the media and the politicians started speaking of consensus. Have you ever read the list of names and degrees on the IPCC report? It's not exactly a who's who of climate research. Have you ever taken a look at the climate scientists who disagree with AGW?

http://cfact.org/pdf/2010_Senate_Minority_Report.pdf

It isn't scientists who keep claiming there is a consensus, its people who want cap and trade and carbon credits to make them wealthy who keep saying the C-word.

And your comparison of med-phys and bio-eng, raises a huge BS flag in my mind. I might be wrong, but I think you might be lying about being a year away from a PhD in med-phys if that's how you characterize the two fields. And every one of your prior posts supports my theory. It's always been pretty clear to me who the science-minded people are around here, and you have never made that list in any discussions about math or science. Is your undergrad in physics? Because we've had many discussions about that in the past and I dint recall you ever speaking up about it.

I call bullshit!

phil - just like the lie of consensus, and the cherry-picked data, and the constantly erroneous dire predictions of chaos and doom...

...the *true believers* will also be oblivious to this bit of revealing truth.

It is religion, not science, that they believe in, and as with any Faith-based religion, facts are irrelevant.

haha philcore. Call bs away. I have absolutely no motivation to prove anything to you regarding my professional credentials, such as they are.

----

I find it interesting that the report you cite (I only read the first bit) has 16 quotes at the beginning... have you counted how many are from climatologists?

One. Dr. Hans Jelbring. How many peer reviewed papers has he published regarding climate change?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/peerreviewedskeptics.php?s=192

That's how many. Need I go on?

So 1000 scientists disagree. If you extrapolate the ratio of quotes on this page that are from actual climatologists to those from people who are about as as credible as I am (a crude metric, but it's a fine first order guess) you get 1/16. So 62 climate change scientists that they could find to put their name on this thing. How many scientists support the AGW model?

Well, take your little hind end to Google Scholar or your favorite pub search engine and type in "climate change." Let me know how many results come up from peer reviewed journals (hint, it's over two million). Then let me know how many you can find that actually provide evidence against AGW.

That, my friend, is a consensus.

---

If you can't show me any actual, peer reviewed articles, I'm not interested in a damn thing you have to say about consensus, because it's clear you don't know anything about it.

"And your comparison of med-phys and bio-eng, raises a huge BS flag in my mind"

I know nothing about either field... But if you google medical physics and bio engineering you will find that they are generally represented by the same professional organisations, and part of the same university department, and in some the same undergraduate course. There does appear to be a close relationship between the two fields. What makes you sceptical?