Lindzen, probably. One of the few luminaries in the field to take a strong contrarian view. I don't dismiss his views at all, but I'd point out that even he doesn't doubt that the greenhouse effect is real. He's saying that apart from it, that even though we SHOULD be warming, we may not be, or the warming may be less than predicted, because of feedbacks that we don't completely understand yet. I agree that we probably don't understand the feedbacks well enough to make accurate predictions 20, 50, 100 years down the line. My gut feeling is that we are the main cause of the warming trend we've seen since the '70s - which the data do show, if you trust they haven't been faked or manipulated to produce a phony result - and I don't know enough yet to quantify that feeling with a probability. The consensus view is that it's very high, something like 95% or better. If that's true, don't you think that's cause for ala rm? Following the thought that we can't see far enough ahead to predict what the end result will be, isn't it even scarier that we are perturbing a possibly chaotic system in ways that we DON'T understand?
(Who was it who said "climate is a rough beast, and we are poking it with sticks"?)
If you don't have a scientific background - meaning at least an undergraduate degree in engineering or a related field - then I can understand your attitude. The climate community didn't handle the climategate scandal very well - they were and continue to be too arrogant to restore public faith in the process, given that the public has generally no understanding of how science works. If I were in their shoes I'd suspect the CRU people were a bunch of conniving frauds too. From my POV, I doubt that they could get away with corrupting the process even if they were.
There are certainly a lot of political activists feeding on what climate science is saying, and some of the scientists themselves are part of that scene too. It's not taboo, or at least it shouldn't be IMO, for scientists to be politically active, but in this case it aggravates the perception that they're fudging the data. I very much doubt that is what is happening - IF the conclusions are wrong it is likelier due to subtle errors in applying statistical methodologies with a bit of added blinding thanks to confirmation bias. Because I'm acquainted with how research in science is done I would place odds that the consensus view at this point is closer to the truth than the skeptics'. We still need the skeptics though - even when they're wrong, they help keep everyone honest.
Do you know if Woods published anything detailed about his experimental setup? The only account I could find was a letter sketching out the experiment and his misgivings about the GHE based on his results. Nothing to indicate how well designed or controlled it was, and as I said, other people who've tried the same sort of thing have gotten the opposite result.
Yes, Lindzen. What he and others like him say, is that yes there is a Greenhouse Effect, but it is so small as to be inconsequential. Since everyone has been taught the Greenhouse Effect in school and it has been reinforced throughout our life, what would happened if he said it didn't exist? The media would write him off as part of the lunatic fringe and no one would listen to anything else he had to say. Once things calm down, I believe people like him will say the Greenhouse Effect is fictitious. I mean if it is real, why aren't we experiencing the effect from increased CO2.
Defections are beginning to take place from the MMGW camp, the most prominent so far being Judith Curry. The scientist that are being honest say, we don't hardly understand anything about the climate, no evidence to support the theory, but do you really want to take that chance. They don't approve of burning fossil fuels, so what the heck.
No, I have no faith in the process as regards climate science. You really have to read the climategate Emails to see how the peer review process completely broke down in climate research and the conspiracy to fudge the data and suppress dissent. I hate using the word conspiracy because that word has a negative connotation, but without a doubt, that is what happened.
It took a non scientist to expose the hockey stick fraud, and why not, all the other scientist were secure with the knowledge it went through the normal process.
As for Wood, he is referenced in that paper I told you about. They talk about subsequent recreations that validated the original experiment. Google the two Germans names and you can find the paper for no charge.
There is no scientific consensus on this issue. People will say this IPCC report has the names of 2500 scientist on it. Some of those names are contributors to the report and some were asked to sign the report. What they don't tell you is that some of the contributors don't agree with the conclusions of the report, nor do they tell you how many people declined to sign the report. There is another petition, started by a group of scientists saying they don't agree with the conclusions of the IPCC reports, and that has over 30,000 signatures.
All that being said, if you have a theory in which so much action is being demanded, then the burden is on the MMGW people to prove it. We've really got nothing here.
Yes, there was a rise in temp from 1975-1998. Since then, and we have really have good Satalite data, no warming, despite increased CO2 levels. The authors of the hockey stick had several problems to overcome. First, was the decline in temp from 1940-1975. In accordance with CO2 as a greenhouse gas theory, this time frame should have been where the effect was most apparent, because everyone agrees that 1945 is when CO2 emissions began in earnest. So they hide to "hide the decline". Next, since they claimed the 90's was the hottest decade on record, they had to adjust down temps from the 30's that were higher. Then they hide to do something about the Little Ice Age because that would give the appearance of unstable temps. Then they had to make the Medieval warm period disappear. They did all of that, and almost everyone bought it, until a non scientist had the gall to begin pestering them with FOIA requests.
Doesn't it bother you, that since the Wood experiment, the current version of the Greenhouse theory,which doesn't seem to be settled yet, so utterly complicated.
I have concluded that there is no Greenhouse Effect mainly because what the Gerlich and Tscheuschner paper says makes more sense than the theory you have described. And what is supposed to happen according the theory hasn't happened. I mean really, they say this this and this is suppose to happen and then doesn't, sometimes the opposite.
The warmer water is what is pushing up from the bottom melting the ice into slush lubricating the rock interface, plus it is getting higher in level, and gravity has accelerated them down slope and into the sea, creating a. Wave force which forces a wave further up the rock lifting the glacier some more and adding more heat. That is a lot of the planets fresh water turned saline and useless to us we need to replace.
...
..
