Forget global warming: Welcome to the new Ice Age

[F8L]

Interestingly enough I'll be attending a talk by Jeff Price (one of the authors of the IPCC reports) tonight titled "The Real Day After Tomorrow" on the subject of climate change. Maybe I'll use one of these sunspot ideas to prompt a discussion.

[Alric]

Originally Posted by amped

Typical questions would be: Show the methodology used to derive the data, how, where, when (season), and who did the measurements, what was their background and qualifications, who funded the study, etc.

All are taken from peer-reviewed journal articles or institutionally funded research stations. Better than contrarian blogs I would say...

[scargi01]

Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling

Just throwin it out there...

[tripp]

Originally Posted by Alric

All are taken from peer-reviewed journal articles or institutionally funded research stations. Better than contrarian blogs I would say...

Not necessarily. There are examples of that most definitely NOT being the case. However, I don't know of it being the case in climate research.

[Alric]

Originally Posted by tripp

Not necessarily. There are examples of that most definitely NOT being the case. However, I don't know of it being the case in climate research.

You mean the "Better than contrarian blog" part? I am curious. Can you give me an example?

[amped]

I think it may be incumbent upon you to first provide your sources and their methodology, plus other answers to questions solicited in your other post.

[Alric]

Originally Posted by amped

I think it may be incumbent upon you to first provide your sources and their methodology, plus other answers to questions solicited in your other post.

Well..I am not the contrarian here.. but there you go. On the warming art pages the references are at the bottom of the page:

Image:Carbon History and Flux Rev.png - Global Warming Art

Image:Instrumental Temperature Record.png - Global Warming Art

Image:1000 Year Temperature Comparison.png - Global Warming Art

NOAA Paleoclimatology Program - Oerlemans 2005 Glacier Length Records Temperature Reconstruction

Image:Solar Cycle Variations.png - Global Warming Art

I would be interested if you can provide ANY DATA of the same caliber and with appropriate time scales.

[amped]

Thanks Alric. I don't have the data at my fingertips and am scrambling/packing to fly out of the country tomorrow.

I'm sure someone else will pick it up from here. The data is ample and out there, but given the disagreement among climatologists, I doubt if we'll influence each other much either way.

At any rate, Google gives the following when asking for a list of "scientists disagreeing with global warming".

scientists disagreeing with global warming - Google Search

[Alric]

I've seen things like these before in my own field:

Project Steve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And with regards to climate change, most scientific societies have released statements of agreement with the science. This encompasses many thousands of scientists worldwide:

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I've always thought it hilarious that the last remaining dissenting statement is from the American Association of Petroleum Geologists.

That is why I prefer data or discussions out of peer reviewed journals.

[tripp]

Originally Posted by Alric

You mean the "Better than contrarian blog" part? I am curious. Can you give me an example?

I mean peer reviewed and institutionally funded research. A great example is cholesterol and diet research. A fellow by the name of Ansel Keyes and many of his minions basically dominated the study of heart disease. Their thesis (actually Keyes assumption) was that fat causes heart disease. By the 70's this was considered a fact, despite the fact that the research showed otherwise. This had a massive influence on what research got funded and what questions were asked. By creating a "consensus" researchers assumed a lot of things as fact that were never proven by Keyes' research, or any research that tried to prove his thesis. Good research that showed the opposite was considered "not in the totality of evidence" supporting Keyes' view point. The result was that bad science was accepted as fact and a generation of health practitioners were advocating practices that weren't backed up by good science and may actually be detrimental to public health. Read the book "Good Calories, Bad Calories" and you'll get an interesting look at it. Reading it had the effect of making me more wary of "consensus" positions. I don't think it applies to the climate debate but frankly, I'm not really equipped to make a good decision because I like the knowledge. However, simply stating there's a consensus and peer reviewed articles doesn't necessarily mean anything. It might, but it might not.