• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Bob Park and Global Warming

Diamond

Illuminator
D
Joined
Jun 2, 2003
Messages
4,729
Apparently Bob Park believes the earth is getting warmer and that anyone who disagrees is a conservative:

from WHAT'S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 1 Aug 03 Washington, DC

2. CLIMATE STUDY: EMBRACED BY WHITE HOUSE, BUT TRASHED BY EDITOR.
The widely held view that the 20th Century was the warmest of the millennium is disputed in a study by two astronomers, Soon and Baliunas of Harvard-Smithsonian, published in the January issue of the journal Climate Research. Both authors are associated with the conservative George C. Marshall Institute, known for its Star-Wars believers and warming deniers. The Bush administration took the unusual step of inserting a reference to the Soon- Baliunas paper in the EPA's recent report on the environment, replacing a statement that temperatures have risen significantly in recent decades. The editor-in-chief of Climate Research, Hans von Storch of the University of Hamburg, believed the review process of the Soon and Baliunas paper was flawed and wanted to publish an editorial to that effect; von Storch was prevented from doing so by the publisher and has resigned in protest. Meanwhile, other papers strongly dispute the Soon-Baliunas study.
Click to expand...

My reply is thus:

Dear Bob,

Your latest protest against the Harvard meta-study doth protest too much. Having read the paper and corresponded with one of the authors (Willie Soon), I would have to characterise your dismissal (without actually saying what is wrong with the study) as unscientific and absurd.

The Harvard meta-study was an overview of some 240 papers relating to regional climate across the globe stretching out over the last forty years. As such, it provided no new data in itself, but what it did do was establish that the conclusions of exceptional warmth for the 20th Century were, at very least, unsupported by the overwhelming majority of papers. It did establish that, for example, the so-called "Little Ice Age" (roughly 1450-1880) and the preceding Medieval Warm Period (900-1400) really were global climatic phenomena, and that the average temperatures during the MWP were higher than they are today (which was fortunate for vikings to be able to grow grain in Southern Greenland, something impossible today)

It also showed severe methodological problems with the study that the IPCC trumpeted, the study by Mann et al (referred to by some as the "Hockey Stick" because of its distinctive shape), in particular the use of a very small number of tree rings taken from Western North America to reconstruct the years 1000-1400, whose data proved to be no more insightful than a table of random numbers.

There are no "global warming deniers" as such, certainly not the authors of this study. To suggest that we are not in a warming phase currently is absurd, as we have been warming gently since the end of the "Little Ice Age", although with a cooling phase 1940-1978 which caused much flapping about "Global Cooling" in the 1970s. No-one denies this, Bob. What is the subject of intense debate is whether the recent warming is due to mainly human factors and cannot be ascribed to natural factors such as the increasing brightness of the Sun since the "Maunder Minimum" of the 17th Century. There is strong evidence from ice cores that rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere do not drive global temperature but rather the reverse.

Therefore to label scientists like Soon and Baliunas as global warming deniers (which appears to be spat out by some with the vehemence of Holocaust denial) is perjorative and wrong. To claim that the scientists results are somehow due to the malign influence of conservative think-tanks, rather than the scientific method, is in my view, to engage in "smashmouth" politics of the worst kind.

As for von Storch, it seems to me unlikely that he would have been prevented from editorialising about the Harvard study by his publisher unless the publisher feared the editorial threatened the stated scientific standards of the publication. It doesn't surprise me at all that other papers criticise the conclusions of the meta-study, but then that's what proper scientific inquiry is all about, Bob. Dissent and discussion about data.

The basis of scientific inquiry is free inquiry into the evidence, not beating well-qualified scientists over the head with ideological hammers about which think-tank they're "associated with".

They clearly didn't get the answer you were looking for, Bob. But guess what? Science is not in the business of confirming your or my prejudices.

Sincerely

....
Click to expand...

So far no reply. I'm not expecting one, but its worth a go...
 
LuxFerum said:
What do you know about climate studies?
Click to expand...

Only what I read in them, the same as anyone else.

Shall I publish the correspondance between myself and Willie Soon?

Is this an argument for authority being constructed or do you have a point?
 
LuxFerum said:

How much do you read about that?and where?
Click to expand...

*sigh* This is going to be _such_ an interesting thread.

I read both the reports themselves AND the debate about them both pro- and con-.

Is there a point to these questions?
 
yes, you are just a spectator, and I think that your opinion on the subject is not relevant.

just my 2 cents.
 
Actually, the information in this letter matches that of Bjorn Lomborg's in "The Environmental Skeptic." As more data becomes known, and as certain politicians push outrageously expensive environmental treaties like Kyoto, the data is not supporting such drastic moves. But the environmental movement is a cult, not a rational endeavor, and politicians like Al Gore have been uncritical supporters of environmental fundamentalists and its too late to back down now, so they launch personal attacks against climatologists. The climatologists themselves rely on government funding, so it is difficult to take a stand, although I do have confidence they are reporting accurate data. The big problem is that fundies want to cut emmisions back to 1990
(Kyoto) or to 2000 (proposed by the Democrats.) This would critically injure the US economy and the world economy, all for nothing. This measure would, according to the latest models make almost no impact on the current trend. In short- fund more climate studies (which G.W. Bush is going to do,) rather than do something drastic and foolish in ignorance.
 
Diogenes said:


In this instance, I think ' 2 ' is a highly inflated figure.. Do you have any data to support your assertion?
Click to expand...
2_cent_coin-t.gif
 
LuxFerum said:
yes, you are just a spectator, and I think that your opinion on the subject is not relevant.

just my 2 cents.
Click to expand...

I do not believe you are qualified to make such a statement.

just my 2 cents.
 
Diogenes said:
Great post Diamond.. Will be interesting to see if Park responds..
Click to expand...

Thanks.

I'm not holding my breath, though. What is this about the question of climate change that causes such politicization? Surely the questions of climate change are firmly in the realm of science. Is there a "conservative" science or a libertarian one? Is there a communist climatology or an anarchistic atmospheric science?

What difference does what a person believe about politics or religion that validates or invalidates his or her scientific inquiry? :confused:
 
arcticpenguin said:
Hey, Diamond,

As long as you're here, fill us in on the biological origins of homosexuality.
Click to expand...

No. Start your own damn thread.
 
I suspect the politicisation is due to several factors:-
1.The scientific data are complex and ambiguous. Even the pros argue about what they mean.
2.A growing public conscience about environmental issues has forced politicians to pay attention. (Or at least lip service)
3.Politicians come in several varieties. They don't understand the data either, but they know about populist issues.
4. The people don't understand the data either, but they know politicians are liars. However, they trust some even less than others.
5. So, instead of listening to confused scientists, we are listening to ignorant, lying politicians. This usually starts wars.
The only question then is whether we need desert camo or snowsuits.
 
Soapy Sam said:
I suspect the politicisation is due to several factors:-
1.The scientific data are complex and ambiguous. Even the pros argue about what they mean.
Click to expand...

Definitely.

2.A growing public conscience about environmental issues has forced politicians to pay attention. (Or at least lip service)
3.Politicians come in several varieties. They don't understand the data either, but they know about populist issues.
4. The people don't understand the data either, but they know politicians are liars. However, they trust some even less than others.
5. So, instead of listening to confused scientists, we are listening to ignorant, lying politicians. This usually starts wars.
The only question then is whether we need desert camo or snowsuits.
Click to expand...

I think that when we honestly don't know or don't understand the complexities, we tend to trust those who give the most definite answers, even if that certainty is caused by stifling doubts.

Politicians love climate change because they can raise taxes and blame somebody else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom