New York Post uses University of Louisiana :-)

[Turbine]

It's getting hot in here, and I thinks it be caused by Humans.

[Just1More]

4U, my criticism of the ecosystem damage modeling miscalculations with the BP oil spill have nothing to do with the value of models. Stop and listen for a second. It is the premature and definitive conclusion aspect I have a problem with. What substantial data and modeling does man have that understands Earth climate science? If it were so well understood, do you think tree rings would have been the greatest scientific tool utilized in the 21st century to analyze Earth's historic climate... and provide the kinds of politically derived conclusions made? I love science. I love what some people get to do in science vocations. I despise unscientific conclusions. Planetary climate science is so massively complex... the data is infinitesimally small... yet our conclusions are bold and definitive. Scientists should not allow that to be.

[Ragin4U]

I've been no more personal than you have been when you attack the ethics of hundreds or thousands of scientists.
I understand that you are saying that "science" is perfect and I guess that is where you are losing me. Everything has an actual value. The temperature in this room has an actual value but the measured value will always have a discrepancy. The closest science can get to the true value is just "almost", never perfect.
Scientists dont get published and they dont get research dollars without a strong foundation for their work. Publication, in a peer-reviewed journal, not on Dr. Oz or some other charlatan's tv show, means that other scientists get opportunity to replicate the study or experiment. The biggest problem facing the scientific community isnt ethics or research, its communication and education. The general public, for the most part, misunderstands the verbiage of science. They equate a theory with a hypothesis, guess or general idea that Jim came up with in the shower. If I am discussing science with a general audience and someone says "oh that's just a theory" I know not to discuss scientific concepts with that person because they do not have a basic understanding of science and how it works.
You have repeatedly stated that you dont want scientists to state conclusions until some nebulous time that they have enough proof and I say you are absolutely wrong. Other scientists and the public would never get to replicate, study and generally poke holes in work unless it is communicated. Conclusion is an important part of gaining knowledge and communicating that knowledge. A conclusion doesnt mean "this is it and there is no other possibility". It means this is the most probable outcome based on the data that is available. A high school science background makes this clear. Science is probability. You stated that science is perfect when it refers to cigarette smoke as a carcinogen but to get technical, only some of the 4000 or so chemicals contained in cigarette smoke are carcinogenic. And to further the analogy to include all of science there is still some possibility, however slim and maybe statistically irrelevant, that benzene,arsenic, etc are NOT carcinogens. Thats what scientists try to convey, that the probability is that the current climate effects that are being observed are PROBABLY due to human activities. Now there is variation as to what those probabilities are depending on the scientists or group.
You state that scientists dont want to say "we dont know yet" and nothing could be farther from the truth. Scientists understand that when they say "this happens because of this" they mean "to the best of our knowledge, using the data at hand, this is what we know". This is why science has a communication problem.
You are correct when you state that just because science hasnt nailed down every last possibility when it comes to cigarette smoke yet it is still labeled a carcinogen. Likewise, just because science hasnt nailed down every last possibility when it comes to climate change, doesnt mean that the probability isnt there. I'm ok with my doctor saying "Joe, because of your family history of heart disease, you should only eat cracklins every other day". He's not saying I will die of heart disease, just that there is an increased probability. I will follow that advice because the consequences of not following an expert's advice could be catastrophic.
You seem to accept the idea that science has concluded cigarette smoke is a carcinogen but when the same scientific processes deem climate change anthropocentric, you balk. I dont understand that. It seems that you would want an autopsy of the patient before you would accept the diagnosis. If the idea of human driven climate change is correct, we are looking at one of the last stages where we may be able to do something about it. To wait after the autopsy for "proof" will be too late.
Speaking of scientific models, the models are only as good as the data fed into them. Two of the best ways to get data on climate and atmospheric concentrations of oxygen ,CO2, etc is from tree ring data and ice cores. I'm not sure why this is a problem.

[Turbine]

The general public, for the most part, misunderstands the verbiage of science. They equate a theory with a hypothesis, guess or general idea that Jim came up with in the shower. If I am discussing science with a general audience and someone says "oh that's just a theory" I know not to discuss scientific concepts with that person because they do not have a basic understanding of science and how it works.

How do you feel about, or what is your opinion on, something Einstein stated as fact?

"It is the theory that decides what we can observe."

[Just1More]

4U, it isn't "personal" when I discuss the misbehavior of those involved in climate science. I never said anything about their communication regarding the science. They have supported conclusions being made by governments, political groups and the massively ignorant unscientific public leaders. Either they should state that "for the purposes of politics involved in climate science, we have nothing to provide"... or actually go on the offense for the poor use of their information and attack these groups for making horrendously premature decisions.

You are balling up my analogy on cigarettes as carcinogens for no good purpose. The point isn't to dissuade a scientist/medical researcher from giving even imperfect conclusions that save lives... with only a consequence to the tobacco industry. The point with respect to climate science is that science has defended the claim that the huge penalty if we do not act on the relatively thin information... it's ok... it is astronomically bigger than the penalty if we are wrong (about man and his manipulation of the greenhouse effect). THAT is incorrect! There's a HUGE penalty politically that could throw mankind into a catastrophic tilt. This gets brushed off and it should not.

So without question, I want this to move to the forefront of what science discusses with the ignorant public. There's a giant difference between what scientists communicate amongst themselves... how they challenge each other... and how this gets presented to the public. My statement of them Please is in casually giving conclusions to the public. All the general public is doing now is saying "I believe in it because scientists all agree". Agree on what? They only agree man is contributing to greenhouse gases. They aren't capable of concluding the things politics is using this information for. And they cannot stay out of that result. They need to be far more in tune with the massive impact energy decisions have globally... or specifically state "what we are studying cannot be used to make deterministic decisions". What people keep calling "climate scientists" are scientists in 99% fields of science without direct planetary climate at its core. There is massive misrepresentation of the science involved and its ability to be conclusive in several substantial ways.

To me, your medical viewpoint is equivalent to thinking you know something about a brain tumor and cutting half of the head off to remove the tumor and save the patient. The world agrees that the fossil fuel side of the head being cut off is inconsequential to the future of the person. I represent the patient that has a highly functioning brain and only request that the doctor study the tumor and the need for amputation a little closer before putting me under and telling my wife to sign the amputation paperwork. The premature decisions in the political circles due to irresponsible statements (IMO) by the "climate science gang" is unacceptable. And targeting people that say so is also unacceptable.

Let me ask you this, Joe... one publication stated that our greenhouse gas contribution (given we will continue to contribute for many more decades regardless of how fast we curb CO2 emissions) is already past catastrophic. This claim was by several noted scientists. What would you say if they said "it doesn't matter what we do - so let's just keep doing it and see if we're right."? I think you'd have a similar attitude to me. You'd say, "Please and keep studying. You can't get this wrong." Well, that's what I'm saying. I don't like either sides of this adventure. But only one side is being treated like a major potential catastrophe.

[CajunRed]

...on the other hand, I'll keep it short.

OIL.

[Ragin4U]

Turb-I'm not sure of the context of that quote. If he meant it to be a comment on focusing so narrowly that we miss the bigger picture, I agree. How do you take it?
Two of my favorite quotes from Einstein are "Nature shows us only the tail of the lion. But I do not doubt that the lion belongs to it even though he cannot at once reveal himself because of his enormous size." Also that God does not play dice with the universe. I really like reading his viewpoints on religion and the interface of science and religion.

J1m--You are still stuck on the idea that there is no such thing as climate science or climate scientists but thats just incorrect. It takes many fields of science to understand a complex set of interdependent processes. Just as a paleontology requires many subsets of knowledge and expertise. Or meteorology. Or astronomy. None of it is done in isolation.
You think that politicians make a scientific conclusions and then force scientists to go along with it? Is that what you mean by this statement? --"They have supported conclusions being made by governments, political groups and the massively ignorant unscientific public leaders."--
I do not advocate for cutting off the head with the possible tumor nor do I advocate for turning of the coal, gas and oil spigots. I DO advocate for limiting my exposure to things that may cause a tumor or make it worse. I DO advocate for making rationale decisions about our energy future because if we F it up, there arent any redos. My future is pretty much decided. I'm concerned for the planet that my kids and grandkids will see in their old age.

[Ragin4U]

I am unsure what the potential catastrophe is if we move towards lowering greenhouse gas emissions.

[Just1More]

Turb-I'm not sure of the context of that quote. If he meant it to be a comment on focusing so narrowly that we miss the bigger picture, I agree. How do you take it?
Two of my favorite quotes from Einstein are "Nature shows us only the tail of the lion. But I do not doubt that the lion belongs to it even though he cannot at once reveal himself because of his enormous size." Also that God does not play dice with the universe. I really like reading his viewpoints on religion and the interface of science and religion.

J1m--You are still stuck on the idea that there is no such thing as climate science or climate scientists but thats just incorrect. It takes many fields of science to understand a complex set of interdependent processes. Just as a paleontology requires many subsets of knowledge and expertise. Or meteorology. Or astronomy. None of it is done in isolation.
You think that politicians make a scientific conclusions and then force scientists to go along with it? Is that what you mean by this statement? --"They have supported conclusions being made by governments, political groups and the massively ignorant unscientific public leaders."--
I do not advocate for cutting off the head with the possible tumor nor do I advocate for turning of the coal, gas and oil spigots. I DO advocate for limiting my exposure to things that may cause a tumor or make it worse. I DO advocate for making rationale decisions about our energy future because if we F it up, there arent any redos. My future is pretty much decided. I'm concerned for the planet that my kids and grandkids will see in their old age.

Quit attributing something to me that I did not say. I never said there isn't "climate science". I said that there are very few climate scientists. Being that the science of climate is the combination of wide disparate fields of science makes it inherently complex. Understand? There are always fields working together, but in the case of climate science... it not only requires tremendous fields of cooperation... studying and determining many of the components at work is beyond our current reach. The challenge of proving cause and effect, quantifying consequences, and calculating probabilities is hugely difficult. Non scientific people are demanding answers with the predisposed judgement that we're running out of time and the cost quench is imminent and enormous. The science and math just are not all there. I've looked for it... and what you find is contributions from way too many disconnected sources. And many non science people are interpreting science findings incorrectly intentionally to satisfy their agenda. We all know there's something to the accumulation of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. It's the multitude of other questions that get rapidly glossed over and removed.

Again, you keep loading up on the consequence (unsubstantiated) that we're heading for a catastrophe without acknowledging that rapid removal of US hydrocarbon fuels has massive consequences. They don't appear as dire... but they are. The answers to climate consequences by hydrocarbon fuels must be far more exact before acting against them. Plus the silly notion there are "green fuel" alternatives that still allow our economy and national/world defense to thrive is preposterous.

[Just1More]

I am unsure what the potential catastrophe is if we move towards lowering greenhouse gas emissions.

Unilateral lowering the use of abundant fossil fuel resources by the US, while other developing economies build up their industrial mite, world trade capability, and military size and strength, will have irreversible consequences. To pretend otherwise is foolish. I have far more proof that man can and will destabilize the little remaining stability of this world than anyone has proof of imminent climate catastrophe caused by man made greenhouse gases. To ignore that fact while we tinker with world energy balances is foolish. We need to get this right. Hasty decisions have consequences too.

[Ragin4U]

We import 25% of the oil we use domestically, how does lowering that % hurt the US strategically, militarily and economically? Maybe I'm dense but it seems pretty straight forward that if we can power our country on LA crude, 'Merican sunshine and Freedom wind, we would be in good shape globally.

[Ragin4U]

As far as the science et al, I hope you are right and most of the scientific community is wrong. I certainly appreciate the discourse.
Maybe we can meet up in 20 years and see where we are. I'll pick up a couple of bottles that should be fantastic by then.