naked capitalism

Dave of Maryland says:

Hello Emca,

I will do it for him.

You need to go back to university & study carefully what passes for “science”. Who “makes” science & how. When you do, you may agree with Bismark & his famous comment on sausage, that the process of its manufacture is unpleasant to watch.

Scientists appeal to “truth” as the ultimate authority, but in practice, “truth” is whatever can be made to pass muster. Science has, in the past, as well as in the present, passed off good-sounding speculation as truthful fact. In reality, the scientific standard for “truth” is self-referential. This is one of its many paradoxes. Ask any librarian. Science textbooks are routinely discarded after 30-ish years. The science they contain is no longer any good. If it isn’t good any more, what was it way back when? Sausage? We know more? Please. Engineering builds on earlier foundations, which can be traced. Science reinvents itself. Like fads, which it all to often unfortunately resembles.

The theory of global warming might be true, or it might not be true, but for the duration of the theory itself, there will be no challenges from the scientific community. Science works by consensus. Global warming is as good an example as any.

The theory of global warming, like all theories, started in a vacuum. There was no prior theory as to planetary warming, good or bad. There was a previous theory, back 40 years ago, that said we were entering a deep freeze (go back & check), but that theory had lain dormant for some decades.

Suddenly someone comes up & grabs headlines (his name shouldn’t be hard to find) by declaring the world is getting hotter & so we should all watch out.

This excites other scientists, it gives them something to do. Some support the theory, some hesitate. Notably, the effort required to refute is very often beyond the means of anyone who would be qualified to do so. We end up with good-sounding theories that arrive more by consensus than anything else.

This, of course, feeds the ego of the original scientist, and his immediate circle. Which is another scientific quirk, in that science is a field of egos who need to be fed.

Once a theory has been established by these slippery means, no reputable scientist will put his name on the line to refute it. The scientific world is, in fact, replete with stories of scientists who tried & who were shunned for their troubles. Careers ended. Lives destroyed. Among a long list of taboo subjects include Velikovsky, astrology, anything psychic, ghosts, UFO’s, God, religion, life after death, on & on. And while all these subjects are properly debatable, what passes for for “science” in these fields is nothing short of infantile. Which merely leaves the door open for charlatans of all sorts.

Science is a racket, it’s gone on for 300 years, it was born deformed. Sometimes

emca says:

I asked for a scientific paper support a non-human induced global warming scenario and I get an opinion piece from the WSJ.

Nether /Dave of Maryland or /J have provided the link requested (although /J at least links a scientist in the field, albeit name we understand much, much more often than his work) .

So to make the matter simpler, I will.

Linzon 2001 abstract titled (his must important on the topic), “Does the Earth Have an Adaptive Infrared Iris?” hypothesized that infrared radiation leakage has a negative feedback having an overall cooling effect. The explanation is here:

Does the Earth have an Iris Analogue

This assertion is challenged here (based a 2002 paper):
Evidence Against the Iris Hypothesis

Linzen has recently (2009) return with his own rebuttal, but has yet to prove assumptions of positive feedback parcel to current climate models are flawed (that is, prove his Iris Hypothesis).

Linzen touches on the topic of water vapor in the atmosphere; so as I’m tired of providing links my commenter(s) can’t or won’t offer, and in the line of support of human intervention in global climate phenomena I offer this recent paper on the subject:

Schmidt et al. 2010

and this analysis of the above:
on Water Vapor Feedback

and this:
Water vapour: feedback or forcing?

While we can’t know all, at least we can weigh the preponderance of evidence (this is the basis of judicial wisdom, is it not?). There is ample arsenal of recognized documentation supporting human induced climate change. Need I list it?.

By the way I still ain’t hearing much in the way of refutation to the original Climate Progress article’s multiple assertions.

Response?

emca says:

/Paul Repstock

Unless you live in the Arctic, I doubt whether you’ll see a 27.4 deg. F temperature rise (location, location).

Also this is worst case scenario which only states what has been shown in 10% of the model runs. You might notice that according to the chart shown, if you lived in the south Atlantic (Helena Island), the temperature would show only about a 3.6 deg. F increase (average annual worst case scenario).

To your last statement, in a different sense, if worst case scenarios should come to pass, then many of us will not be here to argue the point.