Global Warming: "Pseudoscientific Fraud"

[Moliere]

The last IPCC report actually says there is no trend on the number of hurricanes. It did claim hurricane intensity has increased in the Atlantic since the 1970s.

Last I heard, the latest hypothesis is that climate change isn't making storms more common, but it should be making them stronger. Not sure how accepted it is though.

Sounds convenient

Just to sum up the conversation, the planet is getting warmer but no one has any idea what that means. Is it the policy makers that are making the wildly incorrect guesses as to the ramifications or is it the scientists? Some of these predictions seem to me to follow the same model that evangelicals make for allowing same sex marriage.....it'll cause the end of society!

Why can't people just say "the earth is warming faster than usual because of stuff man is doing and we have no idea what that will impact but it would be better if we just try to keep things as status quo as possible"? I guess that doesn't scare people enough so we end up with pie in the sky predictions of doom and gloom.

[woot]

I am not part of the process of NASA funding. And if NASA does what you say, then it should stop and return to its basic purpose. If it needs that information for take offs, landings, and other aspects of interstellar exploration, then it should keep that but not for purposes unrelated to its basic charter. It seems I would oppose more organizations pursuing unrelated projects. Thanks for pointing out how much bloating we have in our budgets.

NASA's charter includes funding and conducting planetary science, such as studying the atmosphere of Mars and other planets. Like a great many scientific endeavors, the comparative method is one of the most effective, so they also study our own atmosphere. It seems like you're just flailing about at this point. What would it take to get you to admit that you don't have the necessary background to form a valid opinion about this?

[woot]

Sounds convenient

Just to sum up the conversation, the planet is getting warmer but no one has any idea what that means. Is it the policy makers that are making the wildly incorrect guesses as to the ramifications or is it the scientists? Some of these predictions seem to me to follow the same model that evangelicals make for allowing same sex marriage.....it'll cause the end of society!

Why can't people just say "the earth is warming faster than usual because of stuff man is doing and we have no idea what that will impact but it would be better if we just try to keep things as status quo as possible"? I guess that doesn't scare people enough so we end up with pie in the sky predictions of doom and gloom.

This post betrays your complete and utter ignorance. The greenhouse effect is extremely well understood. Your post, like so many others, also makes the fundamental mistake of conflating the science and the policy discussion. You're pissed at some politicians, so you lash out at the scientists, many of whom have absolutely no interest in the policy discussion. Any role that an individual scientist plays in the policy debate is a personal choice of that individual and has nothing at all to do with the validity of the science as a whole. You're no better than those who blame evolutionary biology for killing god, as if our work is driven by the desire to change society rather that to learn about how the universe works. Maybe scientists should be banned from studying anything that might have any impact on society. We'd hate for science to affect the sacred economy, wouldn't we?

[Topper]

NASA's charter includes funding and conducting planetary science, such as studying the atmosphere of Mars and other planets. Like a great many scientific endeavors, the comparative method is one of the most effective, so they also study our own atmosphere. It seems like you're just flailing about at this point. What would it take to get you to admit that you don't have the necessary background to form a valid opinion about this?

I don't have the background to form a valid opinion of what? As a voter, I have a right to opine on governmental expenditures. I don't have the background to conduct the research. I admit that.

Your comparative analysis makes sense, and thanks for the clarification. If that is its purpose and usage, then I could approve such funding. However, I can see how the findings could be misused for public policy debate.

[woot]

I don't have the background to form a valid opinion of what? As a voter, I have a right to opine on governmental expenditures. I don't have the background to conduct the research. I admit that.

Your comparative analysis makes sense, and thanks for the clarification. If that is its purpose and usage, then I could approve such funding. However, I can see how the findings could be misused relevant for public policy debate.

FTFY

[Topper]

FTFY

And I am a dirty capitalist, while you can sit on your ivory tower, except when you want funding. Then the status of the economy is vitally important to you.

[woot]

And I am a dirty capitalist, while you can sit on your ivory tower, except when you want funding. Then the status of the economy is vitally important to you.

Did you respond to the wrong post, or is this intended to be a generic insult apropos of nothing? Of course the economy is vitally important; I doubt anyone would dispute that. But tomorrow's economy is just as important as today's, and the short-sighted people worried more about maintaining their current power or wealth at the expense of their children and grandchildren don't seem to care.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Last I heard, the latest hypothesis is that climate change isn't making storms more common, but it should be making them stronger. Not sure how accepted it is though.

It is kind of a semantics issue. If storms are becoming more severe, then the frequency of extreme events is increasing, right?

[woot]

It is kind of a semantics issue. If storms are becoming more severe, then the frequency of extreme events is increasing, right?

Ah I see. That wouldn't be inconsistent then. Still, it seems like that could be misleading, especially since, as we've seen in this thread, the anti-science folks don't seem to do well with nuance.

[Jeff Lebowski]

NASA's charter includes funding and conducting planetary science, such as studying the atmosphere of Mars and other planets. Like a great many scientific endeavors, the comparative method is one of the most effective, so they also study our own atmosphere. It seems like you're just flailing about at this point. What would it take to get you to admit that you don't have the necessary background to form a valid opinion about this?

It goes well beyond that. One of NASA's main missions from the beginning has been launching satellites. Many of these satellites perform remote sensing on various things such as snowpack, vegetation, ocean temperature, soil moisture, clouds, etc. This data forms the backbone of much of the climate research.

[creekster]

It is kind of a semantics issue. If storms are becoming more severe, then the frequency of extreme events is increasing, right?

That depends on what "extreme" means. It also makes me wonder if that conclusion offers a meaningful distinction, which goes back to the definition.

[SCcoug]

I'm glad Topper has narrowed down his scientific funding priorities to either theoretical or practical projects.

[Pelado]

You would be amazed at how much data is available. You can look at things like tree rings, ice cores, sediment layers, etc and get a pretty accurate picture going back thousands of years. Fascinating stuff.

I'm somewhat familiar with those methods being used to determine temperatures going way back. Do those methods also give reliable information on extreme weather events (hurricanes, tornadoes, etc.) such that we can accurately determine how much different current weather events are from the past centuries?

[Topper]

Did you respond to the wrong post, or is this intended to be a generic insult apropos of nothing? Of course the economy is vitally important; I doubt anyone would dispute that. But tomorrow's economy is just as important as today's, and the short-sighted people worried more about maintaining their current power or wealth at the expense of their children and grandchildren don't seem to care.

No. I will have to dig it up, but there is a liberal economist who argues you do the most vital, immediate things first. Because we don't know what effects and how much retrofitting industries to maybe help out or reverse the environmental changes, we should work and spend money on items which are more likely to have an immediate affect. It's a balancing act of choosing which catastrophes to avoid. The immediate ones are the ones government traditionally addresses. And that is very pragmatic.

[Jeff Lebowski]

That depends on what "extreme" means. It also makes me wonder if that conclusion offers a meaningful distinction, which goes back to the definition.

Not sure I follow you. Let me give you an example: I met yesterday with the water manager at snowbird. He said that in the last five years or so they have had two 100-yr storms in the canyon. These are storms that have a 1/100 probability in any given year. Droughts also seem to be more severe in general (Texas and NoCal are good examples).