This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

johnb24's Profile

johnb24's Avatar Joined almost 4 years ago
Gender: Male

Latest Discussions Started by johnb24

Possible help for Catholics - last commented 29 November 2010 09:31 PM

More Discussions by johnb24

Latest Comments by johnb24

Go to: While temperatures rise, denialists reach lower

johnb24's Avatar Jump to comment 82 by johnb24

Physics is a positive science. For example, the critical assumptions of the standard model are repeatedly, rigorously tested. By contrast, economics is largely, but not exclusively, a normative science where critical assumptions are not rigorously tested –often they can’t be.

Climate science, based on physics, is a positive science. However, climate science as interpreted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is largely a normative science. Critical assumptions used in the models have not been rigorously tested, thus the results are projections, not predictions.

As Vincent Gray of New Zealand, an IPCC expert reviewer since the beginning, writes: “It is the total absence of satisfactory prediction, instead of the IPCC ‘projections’ which leads me to state, unequivocally, that there is no scientifically based evidence that climate has been shown to be affected by emissions of trace gases into the atmosphere.”

Mon, 06 Feb 2012 23:03:38 UTC | #915167

Go to: While temperatures rise, denialists reach lower

johnb24's Avatar Jump to comment 78 by johnb24

Well, I asked some questions in my posts, and you have not answered them.

It think that a few of the signatories of the letter to the WSJ would fall into the set of reasonably competent (at least) climate, and other, scientists. Climate science was never a speciality of mine during my working days as a minor physicist. However, if such "foolish" people (i.e. the signatories of this letter and others who are like-minded) can hold chairs at places such as Princeton and MIT, perhaps I should have been more ambitious during my career.

I am unqualified to evaluate the evidence about supposed AGW (maybe you are too), but it seems clear to me that many serious and respected physical scientists have doubts (or more) about the orthodox view expounded, I note, by most mainstream politicians.

PS: Richard Muller must know (surely?) that greenhouse gases do not act like "a blanket" to keep us warm.

Sun, 05 Feb 2012 22:01:22 UTC | #914896

Go to: While temperatures rise, denialists reach lower

johnb24's Avatar Jump to comment 75 by johnb24

What about the highly respectable scientists, such as the ones who signed the letter to which I have referred?

Are climate scientists really the people whose expert opinion should be the most valued? This may sound a silly question - but perhaps people such as physicists with a good knowledge of radiant energy transfer or atmospheric physics are better placed to comment on much of the detail.

At 70+ years of age, I recall clearly the astronomers, of all people, who gave their opinions all too readily to questions about space travel and re-entry into Earth's atmosphere in the 1950-1960s. The people whose opinions should have been sought of course were the rocket, and other, engineers. Are the professors at Princeton and MIT in the pay of the fossil fuel trade - or are they just silly people?

Sun, 05 Feb 2012 20:51:20 UTC | #914879

Go to: While temperatures rise, denialists reach lower

johnb24's Avatar Jump to comment 72 by johnb24

No, johnb24, that is not the case. What you have listed is the denial position that has been completely refuted by the facts carefully measured by the professionals who spend there careers doing so. Also, it has been independently checked and verified by scientists funded by the very industries who support denial. Read back through this thread for plenty of links to information that will help you understand the true situation.

,,,and also to Alan4discussion (thank you both for your comments).

But you seem to me to ignore the contributions from large numbers of very respectable scientists. As only one such example I quote here the recent letter to "The Wall Street Journal" from some concerned scientists: LINK: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html

These individuals include:

Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva. Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service. Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris. William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology. Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT. J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting. William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton.

ALL science, of course, is ALWAYS open to change and revision and never set in stone like the 10 commandments. This is the fundamental nature of all empirical knowledge.

Sun, 05 Feb 2012 16:21:24 UTC | #914823

Go to: While temperatures rise, denialists reach lower

johnb24's Avatar Jump to comment 69 by johnb24

Is it not the case that both the British Met Office and the University of East Anglia (England) have stated that records show that the recent gentle warming phase ceased about 15 years ago? These reports have appeared in the press and until a few days ago on the websites of these organisations. The press release was issued, so I have read, at the "Pearl Harbour" hour last Sunday.

I have read that some 10 years or so ago the temperature records from some two-thirds of weather stations ceased to be used in the compilation of "global" temperatures. The one-third which remained are located mainly in urban and semi-urban locations.

But these points aside the question is not so much "has the Earth been warming, or is it still?" but rather what is the cause of the warming if warming is indeed taking place.I believe that it's quite well-established that CO2 atmospheric concentration has increased AFTER past warmings - so it is not the cause of any warming, but rather the result of warming (higher sea surface temperatures leading to reduced CO2 solubility).

Sat, 04 Feb 2012 21:31:27 UTC | #914657

More Comments by johnb24