Climate scientists feeling the heat
As public debate deals in absolutes, some experts fear predictions 'have created a monster'
That article does raise a good point, but I hardly think that it's the same as your point. "Nearly all climate scientists believe the Earth is warming and that human activity, by increasing the level of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, has contributed significantly to the warming." None of the people in that article seem to support your view; all they're saying is that the nuances and uncertainties are not being made clear enough. There are nuances and uncertainties in any science. Even your hated IPCC -- which I read part of today -- goes on at length on the uncertainties in the models in the chapter on modeling
(while at the same time, saying they are still useful). Nothing in the article says that the extreme results you hear about in the political sphere are impossible, only that global warming will maybe not be as bad it could be. All it's saying is that scientists need to make clear that there are potential results that are not extreme but could still be bad. Did you even read the article?
Quote:"Antarctic sea ice edge expanding"
: Sure. This isn't a problem.
First, short term observations should be interpreted with caution: we need more data from the Antarctic, over longer time periods, to say with certainly what the long term trend is. Second, regional change is not the same as global mean change. Third, there are very reasonable explanations for the recent observed cooling, that have been recognized for some time from model simulations. However, the models also suggest that, as we go forward in time, the relative importance of increasing radiative effects, compared with atmosphere and ocean dynamic effects, is likely to increase. In short, we fully expect Antarctica to warm up in the future."Arctic ice thickening, expanding"
: Looks like your article's a wee bit out of date
. By the way, the article says "The team felt it would be irresponsible to attribute the polynya to greenhouse warming." What is probably meant is something like the way the Realclimate folks put it
[...] there is no way to prove that [a meteorological event] either was, or was not, affected by global warming. For a single event, regardless of how extreme, such attribution is fundamentally impossible. We only have one Earth, and it will follow only one of an infinite number of possible weather sequences. It is impossible to know whether or not this event would have taken place if we had not increased the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere as much as we have. Weather events will always result from a combination of deterministic factors (including greenhouse gas forcing or slow natural climate cycles) and stochastic factors (pure chance). Due to this semi-random nature of weather, it is wrong to blame any one event such as Katrina [or a polynya] specifically on global warming - and of course it is just as indefensible to blame Katrina [or a polynya] on a long-term natural cycle in the climate.
I just figured I'd bring that up before you pounced on it (although that makes the assumption you've read anything I linked to.) RealClimate has more here
, and a whole bunch of stuff on the Arctic and Antarctic in general
The article also comments on how the Greenland ice isn't melting. Eh, not true."Surface vs. satellite readings"
: The article comments that there's no record of heating in the lower troposphere, despite what models predict. Surprise!
Looks like there was a mistake "where one of the corrections applied to the UAH MSU 2LT record had been applied incorrectly, significantly underplaying the trend in the data." Now, wouldn't you know it, things have changed.
It will not have escaped the notice of keen observers that the satellite/model discrepancy has been used extensively in certain circles to cast doubt on the models, surface temperature record and our understanding of basic physics. Some recent examples for instance, used the UAH 2LT record absolutely uncritically (despite the fact that there have been many previous revisions, and that other analyses give very different results). Recently, one of these authors was quoted as saying: ["]... as long as weather satellites show that the atmosphere is not warming, I cannot put much faith into theoretical computer models that claim to represent the atmosphere but contradict what the atmosphere tells us.["] Since the satellites now clearly show that the atmosphere is warming at around the rate predicted by the models, we will report on his no-doubt imminent proclamation of a new found faith in models as soon as we hear of it..."Models shown to be inaccurate . . . again"
: True, sea ice is still not perfect in the models
. But not all is lost:
However, even with quite simple formulations of sea ice, in transient simulations, some AOGCMs demonstrate ability to realistically reproduce observed annual trend in the Arctic sea ice extent during several past decades of the 20th century (see Chapter 2, Section 18.104.22.168), which adds some more confidence in the use of AOGCM for future climate projections (Vinnikov et al., 1999)
On the whole, the IPCC finds that "[ocean-atmosphere c]oupled models have evolved and improved significantly since the SAR [Second Assessment Report]. In general, they provide credible simulations of climate, at least down to sub-continental scales and over temporal scales from seasonal to decadal. The varying sets of strengths and weaknesses that models display lead us to conclude that no single model can be considered “best” and it is important to utilise results from a range of coupled models. We consider coupled models, as a class, to be suitable tools to provide useful projections of future climates." So I guess the sea-ice isn't a problem too much. (Lastly, a mathemetician examines simulations in general
and clears up some misconceptions.)
Will somebody put out that light?http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/s ... 30320.html
Surely a 100+ year upward trend in solar output simply can't have a thing to do with temperatures on Earth...
Of course it has to do with the temperature. The question is whether an increase in solar output can explain the warming trends by itself. As you can read here
and see here
, it doesn't. It also helps if you've read the article:
Further satellite observations may eventually show the trend to be short-term. But if the change has indeed persisted at the present rate through the 20th Century, "it would have provided a significant component of the global warming the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports to have occurred over the past 100 years," he said.
That does not mean industrial pollution has not been a significant factor, Willson cautioned.
Just because the heating is not all anthropogenic does not mean that none of it is, or that only a minority of it is. These findings, incidentally, have come into question since that Space.com article was published in 2003. There is some evidence that Willson's findings may just be incorrect:Here
: "In their paper, they combine Lean et al (1995) proxy data for the TSI with recent satellite TSI composites from either Willson & Mordvinov (2003) [which contains a trend] and of Fröhlich & Lean (1998) [data from the same source, but the analysis doesn't contain a trend, henceforth referred to as 'FL98']."Here
: "The trend found by Willson and Mordinov in contrast to the other two composites seems to be an artifact for two reasons: a) the positive trend is not due to a long-term increase but the result of a short episode of increase (1989-1992) found in the data of one satellite (Nimbus 7). This increase has not been measured by the other satellite measuring at this period (ERBS); b) other indicators of solar activity, which are closely correlated to TSI (sunspot number, faculae, geomagnetic activity) show no trend in that period. Thus it seems very likely that the solar influence on global warming of the last two decades found by Scafetta and West is based on an artifact in the Willson and Mordinov composite."
And let's look at the IPCC, which you hate so much:
We conclude that climate forcing by changes in solar irradiance and volcanism have likely caused fluctuations in global and hemispheric mean temperatures. Qualitative comparisons suggest that natural forcings produce too little warming to fully explain the 20th century warming (see Figure 12.7). The indication that the trend in net solar plus volcanic forcing has been negative in recent decades (see Chapter 6) makes it unlikely that natural forcing can explain the increased rate of global warming since the middle of the 20th century. This question will be revisited in a more quantitative manner in Section 12.4.
In summary, despite various caveats in each individual result, time-series studies suggest that natural signals and internal variability alone are unlikely to explain the instrumental record, and that an anthropogenic component is required to explain changes in the most recent four or five decades.
Of course there's an influence. It's just not enough to explain what we see.
And finally, do any of the 'resistiance is futile' proponents of human caused climate change ever mention the fact that Earth's axis is not stable? Its angle wobbles a bit all the time and for a few thousand years it's been tilting more upright- heading towards its minimum angle. Several thousand years from now it'll be headed back towards its maximum tilt.
Less tilt = an overall milder climate, warmer polar regions but not too much effect on the equatorial region.
Do you mean the Milankovitch cycle
? Yeah, they know about it. They mention it. It also takes place over far greater timescales than global warming proponents are talking about. We're not talking change over the next thousands of years, we're talking about change over the next century or two.
The Arctic and Antarctic circles are headed poleward
approximately 200 meteres each 18.6 years, advancing and retreating with the short-period wobble but still averaging more towards the poles than away. [...] There's most likely some complex equation to express the variable number that is the latitude of those circles.
(Edit: corrected per year to 18.6 years.)
Er, what's your point?
Another component that absolutely nothing can be done to alter is the precession of Earth's axis. The way it's currently pointed results in less of a temperature variance between summer and winter in the northern hemisphere than there is in the southern hemisphere. Thus the north has an overall more temperate- cooler climate. The greater southern variance is what drives the powerful storms around Antarctica in the spring and fall.
As precession moves the axis around, eventually it'll be tilted so that the springs and summers happen at the apsis points of the orbits, which will even out the summers and winters in the north and south.
But all those hard facts about the planet beneath out feet get lost in the hoo-ha over whether or not human activity has any net effect on climate.
Yeah, climatologists never know anything about orbital mechanics!
the Milankovitch timescale is long and the forcing barely varies due to orbital changes over 100 years so no, they aren't included (they would be for people modelling the last glacial maximum); solar forcing is modelled by change in total solar irradiance (probably as a total number; not sure if changes at different wavelengths are included)
The effects of precession and similar cycles are known. They're studied. It's just that they don't matter at all on the timescales we're talking about. Global warming is an effect on the scale of decades and centuries, not the thousands or tens of thousands of years that precessional effects have.
As for whether a meteorologist is 'qualified' to weigh in on climate change, I suggest contacting the AMS
to find out what their requirements are for certification.
James Spann's autobiography
says only that he got a degree in Broadcast Meteorology from Mississippi State University. (As well as a degree from University of Alabama in electrical engineering, which doesn't have much to do with climate.) The meteorologist in question does not appear to have much of a background in climatology, which as I pointed out involves quite different processes and timescales than meteorology. Of course, there's nothing preventing James Spann from learning about this on his own. How do we tell if someone is qualified to weigh in on a topic? Having an educational background in the field helps, but it's no guarantee that you know what you're talking about (and not having a degree does not mean you don't know). You need to look at what the person says on the topic. James Spann's blog entry gives three reasons to deny global warming: "look at the money", "no one I know accepts it", and "climate always changes". Only the last one is anything approaching scientific, and even that fails, as I pointed out earlier. Other meteorologists might be able to weigh in on the topic with reasonable arguments, but James Spann has shown no real reason to take his arguments seriously.
So you're saying certified meteorologists are incompetent? What was that you said about insults?Being a certified meteorologist does not necessarily make you an expert on climate change.
They're different fields of study. Spann might be an excellent forecaster and meteorologist but he's given no competent rebuttal to global warming. Scientific organizations don't need to know your competence in every field, they need to know your competence in the fields they want people to be competent in. A world class neurosurgeon who is also a creationist might be plenty competent to run an ER but totally incompetent to curate at the Smithsonian Natural History Museum. If the Weather Channel requires that its employees have a competence in climate change, being competent in other things, but not that, is not going to cut it.
By 'the media' I meant TV and newspapers. Most people don't go to the effort of doing any searching on anything beyond what they see and read there. When the majority of those stories are over-sensationialized hype, it drowns out any voices of reasonable skeptics, what few the TV news and papers bother to publish anything from.
Because a global warming skeptic has never been in the newspaper or television. The folks at Realclimate frequently have rebuttals
to Wall Street Journal articles
denying global warming. Senator Inhofe probably gets tons of air time and newspaper coverage, being a senator and vocal skeptic of global warming. And, as Gavin Schmidt
points out: "[W]hen Patrick Michaels made the same complaint to CNN - that their climate news stories weren't 'balanced' - a quick scan of their interviewee lists revealed that the scientist most frequently on CNN .... was none other than Michaels himself." Oh, and let's not forget the bestselling book
by Michael Crichton
, and there was probably quite a buzz about that when it came out. But I guess the Wall Street Journal, a senator, CNN, and a bestselling author don't count as "media". And that's just the stuff I could find with a quick search. I'm sure you can find tons of people denying global warming on TV shows (I bet you'd find a bunch on Fox News) and in newspaper op-eds.
So, only climatologists should be allowed to or to be considered qualified express their opinions on this issue? Any of the earth sciences like geology, archaeology, biology etc has to consider the effects of climate and its change over time. For the other way around, any climatologist who fails to consider the astronomy of the solar system is ignoring a large part of the science of climate.
You do not have to be a climatologist to express your opinion. You need to have reasonable arguments that are supported by the evidence. Anyone can learn about the details of climatology, but a climatologist is probably going to have more exposure to the details, fundamentals, and evidence of climatological topics. Maybe the people on your big petition are competent to discuss climatology, but where's the evidence that they are? What articles have been written and published by these people that we can look at to determine if their knowledge of climatology is sufficient to be taken seriously? The fields their degrees are in aren't even listed! We don't know what those advanced degrees are in. Art? Philosophy? English? They're just names on a list. A list, that I might add, is apparently a pretty crap piece of work.
# The petitioners could submit responses only by physical mail, not electronic mail. But older signatures submitted via the web were not removed.
# Signatories to the petition were requested to list an academic degree; 86% did list a degree; petitioners claimed that approximately two thirds held higher degrees, but never provided evidence confirming this claim.
# Petitioners were also requested to list their academic discipline; the petition sponsors claimed that 13% were trained in physical or environmental sciences (physics, geophysics, climatology, meteorology, oceanography, or environmental science) while 25% were trained in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, or other life sciences, but never provided evidence to support this claim.
In any event, even though the list of signers is now over 5 years old, there is evidence of sloppiness. In less than 10 minutes of casual scanning, I found duplicate names (Did two Joe R. Eaglemans and two David Tompkins sign the petition, or were some individuals counted twice?), single names without even an initial (Biolchini), corporate names (Graybeal & Sayre, Inc. How does a business sign a petition?), and an apparently phony single name (Redwine, Ph.D.). These examples underscore a major weakness of the list: there is no way to check the authenticity of the names. Names are given, but no identifying information (e.g., institutional affiliation) is provided. Why the lack of transparency? Robinson claimed that about 2,100 signers had scientific background relevant to climate science, but there is no information given backing this statement.
Also, of interest, Scientific American recently contacted a small number of petition signers, who claimed to have a PhD in a climate-related science. About 25 percent (6/26) said they would not sign the petition today. If nothing else, this finding suggests that the petition (circulated in 1998) is outdated, made obsolete by new research and new data. Interestingly, three of the 26 individuals contacted did not even remember the petition! Assuming senility was not involved, this result suggests that a large number of original signers were not even aware of what it was they were signing.
Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition—one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers--a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.
There's yet another article
discussing the Oregon Petition (discussion of it begins on page 16 of the PDF.) Want to see highlights?
Assuming that all the signatories reported their credentials accurately, credentialed climate experts on the list are very few. [...] The list even included fictional persons. Careful study of the list revealed the names of fictional characters from the “StarWars” movies as well as the name of pop singer Geri Halliwell from the “Spice Girls” band. Critics of the petition had added bogus names to illustrate the lack of accountability the petition involved, including the difficulty—the practical impossibility—of verifying even the actual existence of each of the signatories, not to mention their expertise. To make the latter point, someone had added the title of "Dr." to Halliwell’s name (Washington Post 1998). [...] The letter asking people to sign the petition was accompanied by a copy of the Wall Street Journal editorial article by Arthur and Zachary Robinson, the two "chemists" quoted above. "Science Has Spoken," read the title (Robinson and Robinson, 1997).The prestigious sounding institution with which they were affiliated—the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine—was elsewhere revealed to be a one-room operation located on a farm on a rural road in the forested foothills of the Siskiyou Mountains. It consisted only of Arthur B. Robinson, a chemist with a Ph.D. in chemistry from the California Institute of Technology, and his 21-year-old son, who has no advanced degree (Hill 1998). [...] The "scientific summary" was another instance of deceptive manipulation of recognized symbols of science: it was formatted such that it looked like an article that had appeared in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a renowned and peer-reviewed scientific journal issued by the prestigious U.S. National Academy of Sciences. Yet the summary was not peer reviewed and, according to recognized climate experts, contained numerous inaccuracies and one-sided presentation of the scientific evidence—what one climate expert referred to as the "cherry-picking of facts." [...] According to the National Academy, many lay persons and scientists were indeed misled, as indicated by the many calls it received from persons wanting to know whether the Academy had indeed taken a stance against the global warming theory (Science 1998).
When questioned in 1998, OISM's Arthur Robinson admitted that only 2,100 signers of the Oregon Petition had identified themselves as physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, or meteorologists, "and of those the greatest number are physicists." This grouping of fields concealed the fact that only a few dozen, at most, of the signatories were drawn from the core disciplines of climate science - such as meteorology, oceanography, and glaciology - and almost none were climate specialists. The names of the signers are available on the OISM's website, but without listing any institutional affiliations or even city of residence, making it very difficult to determine their credentials or even whether they exist at all.
Now take a close look at the names on that petition. Are those MD's, DDS's, and DVM's (veterinarians!) that you see? Why yes, they are!
Now ask yourself, "what the heck would a dentist or veterinarian know about climatology?". I mean, if you needed root-canal work, would you trust a climatologist to take on the job? Do you think that a climatologist would be qualified to lop off Fido's gonads?
You know, for someone who keeps telling me to "dig deeper", it sure as hell looks like you didn't. Your petition, I'm sorry to say, is rubbish.
As for the hockey stick graph, there are two rather large and inconvenient truths that debunk it. The medieval warm period from ~850 to 1250 CE, during which the climate was so temperate that Greenland supported much greater vegetation than it does now, the Vikings settled from (what would become) eastern Canada down to the northeastern US and warm weather crops were grown in northern Europe that can now only grow there in greenhouses.
Sorry, man, there's no evidence that the Medieval Warm Period
was anything but regional.
The idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was warmer than today however, has turned out to be incorrect. [...] There are not enough records available to reconstruct global or even hemispheric mean temperature prior to about 600 years ago with a high degree of confidence. What records that do exist show is that there was no multi-century periods when global or hemispheric temperatures were the same or warmer than in the 20th century.
[A] quick reality check shows that Greenland's ice cap is hundreds of thousands of years old and covers over 80% of the island. The vast majority of land not under the ice sheet is rock and permafrost in the far north. How different could it have been just 1,000 years ago?
(You can find more on the ice cap here
The existence of the Medieval Warm Period isn't any sort of problem for the hockey stick.
I'm pretty sure I linked that article (the one I just linked now) in my last post. Come on, man, I read your
links. You could show me the same courtesy. (Considering your earlier gaffes with the "created a monster" and "solar output" articles, I'm kind of doubting you even ever read your own links.) Seriously, go back and read the Myth vs. Fact Regarding the "Hockey Stick"
The other is the 'little ice age' that occured over three intervals beginning about 1650, about 1770, and 1850, with slight warming periods between.
What about the Little Ice Age
? It was a cooling, and I'm not sure what that has to do with global warming. But let's learn some more:
Mann et al. (1998) and Jones et al. (1998) support the idea that the 15th to 19th centuries were the coldest of the millennium over the Northern Hemisphere overall. However, viewed hemispherically, the “Little Ice Age” can only be considered as a modest cooling of the Northern Hemisphere during this period of less than 1°C relative to late 20th century levels (Bradley and Jones, 1993; Jones et al., 1998; Mann et al., 1998; 1999; Crowley and Lowery, 2000). [... from the summary on the next page, 071.htm... ] It is likely that temperatures were relatively warm in the Northern Hemisphere as a whole during the earlier centuries of the millennium, but it is much less likely that a globally-synchronous, well defined interval of "Medieval warmth" existed, comparable to the near global warmth of the late 20th century. Marked warmth seems to have been confined to Europe and regions neighbouring the North Atlantic. Relatively colder hemispheric or global-scale conditions did appear to set in after about AD 1400 and persist through the 19th century, but peak coldness is observed during substantially different epochs in different regions. By contrast, the warming of the 20th century has had a much more convincing global signature (see Figure 2.9). [...] Independent estimates of hemispheric and global ground temperature trends over the past five centuries from sub-surface information contained in borehole data confirm the conclusion that late 20th century warmth is anomalous in a long-term context.
And, as pointed out here
, "This argument relies on an implicit assumption that there is a particular climatic baseline to which the earth inexorably returns -- and thus that a period of globally lower temperatures will inevitably be followed by a rise in temperatures. What is the scientific basis for that assumption? There is no evidence of such a baseline. [...] Another problem with appealing to a natural recovery from the LIA is that temperature has now risen to levels higher than the assumed baseline climate. So even if some recovery were to be expected, why have we now exceeded it?"
The biggest retreat came when those determined to blame humans for climate change realized their computer models were flawed due to their failure to model the effects of clouds. When they included cloud effects, the outcome of the simulations was reduced up to 50%.
Yes, clouds are still considered to be difficult to model.
Coupled climate models simulate mean atmospheric fields with reasonable accuracy, with the exception of clouds and some related hydrological processes (in particular those involving upper tropospheric humidity). Since publication of the SAR, the models have continued to simulate most fields reasonably well while relying less on arbitrary flux adjustments. Problems in the simulation of clouds and upper tropospheric humidity, however, remain worrisome because the associated processes account for most of the uncertainty in climate model simulations of anthropogenic change. Incremental improvements in these aspects of model simulation are being made.
But that doesn't ruin things totally.
Coupled models can provide credible simulations of both the annual mean climate and the climatological seasonal cycle over broad continental scales for most variables of interest for climate change. Clouds and humidity remain sources of significant uncertainty but there have been incremental improvements in simulations of these quantities.
Even though there are still uncertainties in modeling, that hardly implies that models are totally useless. You could read Chapter 8 of the IPCC
, which evaluates various climate models and sees how they stand up with certain phenomena. I managed to read most of it during my lunch break. I'm sure you could find time to take a look at it. I'd hate to have to claim you don't know what you're talking about.
What the argument for human activity as the prime (or even exclusive) mover in climate change boils down to is...
Hm, good question, but it looks like you dropped the ball on the answer. I'll help you out, though, because I'm so nice.
"Atmospheric CO2 has the same radioisotope signature
as burning fossil fuels and forests!"
"By measuring the amount of CO2 released by burning forests and fuels, we can deduce that we produce CO2 faster than natural sinks can absorb it
"The oxygen concentration in the atmosphere rules out ocean warming as a source of CO2!
"If atmospheric CO2 increases were emitted from the oceans and land, we'd be able to see a decrease there: but we don't!
They can't be a carbon source because we know they are a carbon sink."
"CO2 levels have skyrocketed far higher than they have in the past 20,000 years
, just when humans start burning lots of stuff and dumping CO2 into the air. Do you believe in coincidence, much?
"CO2 is estimated to be the biggest factor in climate change
"CO2 is 30% higher than it was in the pre-industrial period
"We've known that CO2 could have an effect on climate for over a century
You can read Chapter 3 of the IPCC
for more on CO2, with the summary reading:
In conclusion, anthropogenic CO2 emissions are virtually certain to be the dominant factor determining CO2 concentrations throughout the 21st century. The importance of anthropogenic emissions is underlined by the expectation that the proportion of emissions taken up by both ocean and land will decline at high atmospheric CO2 concentrations (even if absolute uptake by the ocean continues to rise). There is considerable uncertainty in projections of future CO2 concentration, because of uncertainty about the effects of climate change on the processes determining ocean and land uptake of CO2. These uncertainties do not negate the main finding that anthropogenic emissions will be the main control.
If you doubt the conclusion, you can always just read the whole chapter and see why it says that. So, yeah, climatologists actually do have a pretty good reason to claim that anthropogenic C02 emissions are contributing to global warming by a large degree, and not just "nah nah we're right".
Here's an even more inconvenient fact: the very end of the article!
"What we have here is a great laboratory for seeing how climate changes naturally," he said. "But this is a 100,000-year cycle, whereas global warming is happening a thousand times faster.”
What the article is talking about is the Milankovich cycles, which are known to correlate with ice ages. If you read the article, it also says "The last major glacial thaw was 10,000 years ago, which means that the Earth is scheduled to head into another ice age." Assuming a 40,000 year cycle, that means the next glaciation will occur in about 30,000 years. Global warming, on the other hand, is expected to take place over around 100-200 years.
Nothing about the climate is ever 100% global.
I don't know what this is supposed to mean, although it does contradict your assertions about the Medieval Warm Period, that regional changes necessarily indicate global changes.
Ohhh. This one's good. An economist
VS a certified meteorologist (y'know, a scientist).
It is good, because your man Cosgrove (the meteorologist) never once gave a scientific reason to doubt global warming. All he does is whine that the debate is being stifled -- not once does he mention even a tidbit of a reason to believe that humans have nothing to do with global warming. He provides no argument whatsoever.
Meanwhile, the guy from Greenpeace, Passcantando the economist says pretty much nothing wrong.
He points out that the proper venue for debate is the peer-reviewed journals: "I'm not saying to shut them out. I'm saying the public should know that this debate has to be grounded in peer reviewed science."
He points out that no debate is being stifled: "I don't think your debate is being stifled, you're actually quite vocal right now.
(Of course, this is another instance of the media bringing up skepticism, when you claim it doesn't. Goddamn, boy, you contradicted yourself already!)
He points out frequently that people should not misrepresent science on TV: "And Larry we know there is a human contribution that is huge to this and if you don't understand this and the science that's coming out this is the whole reason Ms. Cullen says - Dr. Cullen - says you shouldn't be talking about global warming on a news program."
, and then "I'm just saying that you're wrong and nobody should have you on a news program misrepresenting science."
and later at the end "Then be accurate Larry, be accurate or get off the program."
And he mentions (briefly) the work of actual scientists: "We're talking about the scientists of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and not if you should carry an umbrella..."
This brings up a point I made earlier and will continue to make. Having a degree in meteorology is not a guarantee that you are an expert on climate change. Having no degree in climatology is not a guarantee that you aren't knowledgeable about climate change. Just reading the transcript and examining each speakers arguments and points (such as they are), it's apparent that the economist has educated himself in his spare time about the facts of global warming. Whereas the meteorologist, apparently, feels the proper venue for science is TV and provides no science to speak of. This transcript is just the whining of meteorologists who are mad that their boss wants some competence. We did discuss competence earlier, right? I wonder if Cavuto and Cosgrove would get mad if Scientific American said it didn't want to hire creationists as editors or writers.
(Also, I replaced your link with a permanent one, for when that entry falls off the main page at Musing Minds.)
James Spann got away with just having a degree in Broadcast Meteorology. And, of course, having a BA in meteorology doesn't mean you're an expert on the complexities of climatology. Sure, they might learn about the jet stream and thermohaline circulations and the intertropical convergence zone, but that's no indication you'd end up learning more than enough to get the degree. I took a course in cryptology in college, does that make me expert enough to argue with the folks at the NSA? Having a degree is not always enough: you need to have the arguments to back yourself up.
There's plenty to debate, but when one side (the side you support) doesn't want to...
The climatology community is more than willing to debate. They debate amongst themselves all the time. But the place for debate is not in the Wall Street Journal or Fox News or The Weather Channel. It's in the peer-reviewed journals, where people actually do research. Do the work, examine the evidence, and if your work is legit, it gets published and you get taken seriously. Look through the IPCC references. Let's count how many times "Interview on Fox News" gets cited as a reference. Let's count how many times "My Boss Said To Accept Anthropogenic Global Warming" gets counted as a piece of evidence for global warming.
Truly, this has been a fascinating debate. I'm learning so much. (Incidentally, I wrote this post in Notepad. The file size is 42923 bytes. I think that's a new personal record.)