John Abraham and Scott Mandia - Climate Science Strikes Back
Posted: 19 November 2010 10:05 PM   [ Ignore ]
Administrator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  170
Joined  2009-06-02

For the community of scientists who study the Earth’s climate, these are bewildering times.

They’ve seen wave upon wave of political attacks. They’re getting accustomed to a public that grows more skeptical of their conclusions even as scientists grow more confident in them.

No wonder there’s much frustration out there in the climate science world—and now, a group of researchers have organized to do something about it. Their initiative is called the Climate Science Rapid Response Team, and it pledges to organize dozens of researchers to help set the record straight.

But can scientists really maintain a war room? What would that look like? How far can they go in fighting back against misinformation, without leaving themselves politically exposed?

To answer these questions, Point of Inquiry called up two of the initiative’s founders: John Abraham and Scott Mandia.

John Abraham is an associate professor of engineering at the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul, Minnesota. He has some 80 published papers, conference papers, and patents to his name.

Scott Mandia is a professor of physical sciences at Suffolk County Community College in Selden, New York. He runs the “Global Warming Fact of the Day” group on Facebook, and is known as @AGW_Prof on Twitter.

http://www.pointofinquiry.org/john_abraham_and_scott_mandia_climate_science_strikes_back/

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 November 2010 12:15 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4400
Joined  2010-08-15

http://www.pointofinquiry.org/john_abraham_and_scott_mandia_climate_science_strikes_back/

A rapid response team for helping inform the public.
A group of concerned citizens agreeing to step out and help better communicate with the media and the world.  What makes this special is they’re genuine climate scientists.  Some question such stepping out of character, but, considering the AGWHoaxer Echo Chamber that seems to get more obtuse with every season.  Why not.  Besides scientists are family people and care as humans too.

Nice Interview.  Great mission.  I wish them luck.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
I was surprised by one omission that’s worth bringing up.  When speaking of messages to convey to people about weather and climate, such as responding to inevitable up coming snow storms.  No mention was made of trying to convey an appreciation for our planet as the heat engine that it is. 

Climate is a heat engine
It, along with water and land, soaking up the sun’s energetic radiation then distributing the absorbed energy - through the transport of energy, heat, and moisture by way of weather.

As I remember the jet stream has drifted further north.  That may be a result of global warming, and the result is that it will reach deep and draw chilled air from further north, down into mid latitudes. Resulting in periodic extreme weather events as the weather fronts snap the arctic-mass whip across mid-latitudes.  Near the coast we got extra humid air these days. As these arctic fronts roll through these moisture rich areas, snow storms are inevitable. 

Remembering we live on a heat engine, we should also realize that as more cold gets sucked out of the arctic, it is warming and melting.  Global warming is “global”

As for temperatures not agreeing with the straight uphill graph some expect - unaccounted heat transfer goes on between our melting cryosphere and atmosphere ~ Oceans are collecting heat and recent deep sea surveys make clear that heat is indeed being transported out of shallow waters and into deeper ocean water - even more than expected.  So there are these huge vectors at work and we are measuring them and they are telling a serious story.  Sure we don’t know everything but we know enough to finally get serious.

And so on,


sorry for going on, guess I’m hoping scott or john might look in on us   smile

 Signature 

We need each other, to keep ourselves honest

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 November 2010 04:17 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2425
Joined  2007-07-05

I confess that I have a hard time thinking much of these scientists making a big deal about CO2 and saying nothing about planned obsolescence.  Doesn’t unnecessary manufacturing mean unnecessary CO2 production?

But shouldn’t scientists have noticed planned obsolescence 40 years ago?

Their response is not too rapid.  It sounds like they just want to get better at the propaganda games.  The problem is the schools weren’t doing a good enough job of teaching science 20 and more years ago.

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 November 2010 05:33 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2423
Joined  2007-09-03

What truth if any is there behind the claims in the 11/19/2010 IBD editorial that what is really driving the IPCC is not an interest in saving the world from a climate catastrophe but income redistribution from wealthy nations to poorer nations, and this is just an avenue to that end

But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy

original page
http://thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1877-ipcc-official-climate-policy-is-redistributing-the-worlds-wealth.html

IBD
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/554439/201011191859/The-Climate-Cash-Cow.aspx

Likewise National Review
http://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore/253552/ipcc-climate-policy-redistributing-worlds-wealth-greg-pollowitz

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 November 2010 12:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4400
Joined  2010-08-15
Jackson - 21 November 2010 05:33 AM

IBD
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/554439/201011191859/The-Climate-Cash-Cow.aspx

Sad article, who knows how much truth is in it - but it sure is another reminder people are instinct driven ass-holes all the way around - rich, poor, etc., etc.  Does anyone believe Earth’s natural processes on this planet, including what society is injecting into that biosphere, give one fig for our games - twittering away precious time obsessing over ‘me-first’ while the tide continues to bare down on us.

psikeyhackr - 21 November 2010 04:17 AM

I confess that I have a hard time thinking much of these scientists making a big deal about CO2 and saying nothing about planned obsolescence.  Doesn’t unnecessary manufacturing mean unnecessary CO2 production?
But shouldn’t scientists have noticed planned obsolescence 40 years ago?

Shouldn’t society as a whole have noticed that the advertising fed ‘planned obsolescence’ was bound to cause hell for some generation(s) down the line?
But, shouldn’t we also stop using business and political motives, concerns, to justify ignoring the incoming science?

 Signature 

We need each other, to keep ourselves honest

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 November 2010 02:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6162
Joined  2009-02-26
psikeyhackr - 21 November 2010 04:17 AM

I confess that I have a hard time thinking much of these scientists making a big deal about CO2 and saying nothing about planned obsolescence.  Doesn’t unnecessary manufacturing mean unnecessary CO2 production?

But shouldn’t scientists have noticed planned obsolescence 40 years ago?

Their response is not too rapid.  It sounds like they just want to get better at the propaganda games.  The problem is the schools weren’t doing a good enough job of teaching science 20 and more years ago. psik

I am not sure that is a fair statement. The morality of “planned obsolescence” is not part of science. And science regularly presents data to update the current knowledge of scientific research. It’s just not sexy in most cases (people don’t want to hear they are responsible) and only when we have Headlines about the discovery of a new planet or 10,000 dead fish wash up on the shores is there any popular interest. Einstein did become a “superstar” because of the Headlines in news.

[ Edited: 21 November 2010 02:04 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 November 2010 04:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2425
Joined  2007-07-05
Write4U - 21 November 2010 02:00 PM

I am not sure that is a fair statement. The morality of “planned obsolescence” is not part of science.

So maybe this is also deals with the problem of how we look at science.  A lot of people act like science is what is in some boring book and not really about reality.  And I suppose this is because a lot of science is that esoteric.  Like what difference does it make whether the Big Bang was 15 billion or 20 billion or 30 billion years ago?

But if scientists are going to say this rise in CO2 matters and we need to do something about it and that human beings are responsible for it then they should come clean about what human being are really doing to cause it.  You watch television and comes across like it is mostly driving cars.  But how much CO2 is the result of making cars.  How much energy does it take to melt down a car?  So if we had made cars last twice as long since 1950 how much of a CO2 reduction would that have been?

I don’t know.  But I have never heard any scientist raise the question.

I don’t give a damn about the morality of it.  If we don’t know the results of doing it then how do we know whether or not it is important?

Einstein did become a “superstar” because of the Headlines in news.

I just researched that.  He didn’t become famous until after the 1919 eclipse confirmed his results.  Since he started publishing in 1905 I suppose it was pretty impressive that it took 14 years and sending a ship to watch an eclipse to confirm his predictions.  And then the ideas were so damned weird.  Plus it was right after a really depressing war. 

I would bet most people with degrees in physics today don’t really understand the ideas if there was a way to truly reading their minds.  I think they mostly just memorize the equations.  LOL

But I do think this CO2 business is serious and most people act like, “Oh well, the idiot scientists are full of shit again.”  But the scientists can’t say it is really dumb to redesign cars since the laws of physics don’t change.  So I am inclined to regard them as full of shit since they won’t talk about the whole picture.

Can they decide whether or not economists should ignore the depreciation of all of the cars?

NO!  We have this intellectual territoriality.  Everybody is supposed to stay inside their little intellectual box and not point out any nonsense in any other intellectual box.

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 November 2010 04:31 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6162
Joined  2009-02-26

Just saw a tv program which showed that modern farming and the use of farm machinery is responsible for a large part of CO2 pollution. Now there is a cunundrum.
Interestingly, Prince Charles of England is an avid proponent of organic farming and has practised organic farming for some 25 years on his large family estate.

[ Edited: 21 November 2010 04:33 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 November 2010 06:08 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
Rank
Total Posts:  16
Joined  2010-05-08

Isn’t the global population increase of our species really the the elephant in the room that most scientists are not willing to discuss? I find it sad that human population growth was something that WAS talked about in the 70’s, but now doing so seems to be taboo. James Lovelock (Gaia Theory) recently said in a BBC interview that he (and other scientists) believe that the earth can support about one billion homo sapiens, assuming that they live sustainably. Lovelock also said (I paraphrase): it won’t make nearly enough difference even if all 6.7 billion people on the planet went green tomorrow. Priorities.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 December 2010 12:23 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  1
Joined  2010-12-30

Worker Bee-Attitudes


The fallacy of the poles of conservative/capitalism and liberal/communism can be summed up in this statement: 

One man’s work is another man’s war and one man’s war is another man’s work.

Life feeds on life.

This present state of one man being oppressed by another will be rectified when the individual has admittance to a utilitarian technology that is advanced enough to be applied toward an individual sustainability. 

The pivotal philosophies then will not be self defeating. 


Vincent E. Sucec 2/25/09


PIE

Morality is based on, has evolved, through the need for equal distribution – the portion. Portions create economics, social strata and structure.

If you have to enforce fairness it isn’t fairness. The statement “freedom isn’t free” describes this illogical premise.

Conservatism will always be the vehicle, the catalyst for antagonism, upheaval and therefore “cause” social change.

Liberalism desires to safeguard the portions to insure fairness, but how can you distribute the portions equally without “minimum wage” workers to distribute?

There is no perfectly equal / moral portion of anything in the material world. It is an impossibility. Man must rise above this superstition through conceptualizing a perpetual abundance – then the social strata will follow suit. 

The gap between supply and demand in social terms is the gap between the scientist and the leader. Through social revolt and renascence this gap closes.

Our superstitions of getting our fair share describes mans current incapacity in grasping the meaning of utility. That is why we are subconsciously superstitious of anything “free.”

When we can elect leaders who are scientists our reactionary attitudes will have evolved. 


Vincent 12/7/10

Profile