Wilsons Sandbox

>Between Nov 2012 and 2013 there were 2258 peer-reviewed climate articles by 9136* authors.  One author rejected man-made global warming. >The Union of Concerned Scientists says, "The science is clear. Global warming is happening. We are the primary cause."

>'Scientists need to back up their opinions with research and data that survive the peer-review process.  A Skeptical Science peer-reviewed survey of all (over 12,000) peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' and 'global warming' published between 1991 and 2011 (Cook et al. 2013)

[b]From:[/b] Norm Keller [b]To:[/b] DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com [b]Sent:[/b] Wednesday, March 26, 2014 4:32 PM [b]Subject:[/b] Re: [Bulk] Re: [DSN_KLR650] My Gas tank still whistles   You use words like tribalism, and conclusions. Huh? Those are all tenets of the global warming crowd. Yep, used those terms. They are also the tenets of the other side in large. Interview people supporting either side and the conclusion that most have no demonstrable basis for their position. Tribalism.   You say the population lacks the means to decide what's credible? Poppycock. Empirical data is just a key stroke away. You say we aren't supposed to believe a medical doctor can hold a valid scientific opinion (Michael Crichton I presume?) yet you want us to take a politician turned environmental activist views as gospel? (Al Gore studied journalism and did poorly in science and avoided math)   The problems are that sifting through the vast amount of data in order to form a conclusion which can even be superficially defended is not of interest to most people because they have other demands on their time and attention; and, weighing the credibility of the claims requires expertise beyond that of all but the fringe.   I do say that we shouldn't accept a medical doctor's opinion on geology....do you think that's a poor basis for supposing expertise?   Why would you assert my position rather than to ask me? I never mentioned Michael Crichton or Al Gore and would not assert the credibility of either one. Please do not set up straw men. I hadn't asserted that either position pro or anti climate change be accepted but rather asserted that there are few who are holding rational positions. I believe that can be defended or would not have made the assertion....   How about the professor of Meteorology at MIT Richard Lindzen, also a lead author for the IPCC third assessment report on climate change who has criticized the "scientific consensus" on climate change as alarmist and for what he terms catastrophism.   So one name, unknown to me? We can cherry pick back and forth but to what end? I have not taken a side on this issue in this thread. If you like throwing out names, how about Project Steve regarding the evolution/creationist debate?  "...gathered 7733 signatures of verifiable scientists.[21] During the four days of the petition...." who were named "Steve".   Let me play devil's advocate (although this is no longer a paid position in the Catholic Church) as I still am not asserting a position other than that the consensus of scientists working in the field leads me to accept that this is the most reasonable theory: one scientist criticized the scientific consensus. OK, that's how science works, or should work, testing, questioning, but until the accepted theory is over turned, the most reasonable course of action might seem to be that of scientific practice which is to tenatively use that theory... or would it not? You started your second response by saying you know some foresters who believe climate change is ongoing. RIGHT! It always has and always will! That's natures way.   My point was that your making a claim and attempting to support the claim by a personal appeal to authority....or by an appeal to personal authority would be more accurate.... fails if other foresters do not share the position. If not all trout jump for flies then trout are not all, "fly jumping after fish".     What's dangerous is squandering our nations treasure trying to "fix" a problem that doesn't exist through onerous taxation and government manipulation or having our Supreme Court rule that CO2 is a "pollutant" that needs to be regulated. The most important chemical reaction on planet earth is photosynthesis. Three things are required for photosynthesis take place. Sunlight, water and you guessed it CO2. This chemical reaction is the basic building block of all life on our planet. But somehow now it's a pollutant?   Only dangerous if it's the wrong model/theory, or wouldn't you agree that if those who are claiming that climate change may be reaching an irreversable tipping point are right, then we might at least consider that something be done? Only devil's advocate again.... By the way, do you (or anyone!) know what the "correct" average temperature of our planet should be?   Nope! Do you?   If not, then why ask me a specious question since it is clearly that?   And you own a ST 1100, a KLR, and.... Just wondering how you square that? Serious question.   Square what? I used to own a KLR, acquired an ST1100, subsequently sold the KLR, after some years sold the KLR, sold some other bikes, acquired another KLR. I did it because I wanted to ride those types of bikes....thought you were talking climate so happy to contrast the two bike types and my personal usage..