Funny how the pro-Global Warming people do not address scientific issues but straightaway turn to a form of ad hominem attack to try and neutralize what Joe D’Aleo is saying.
From Netscape.com
Global warming dissenters few at U.S. weather meeting
Thu Jan 18, 2007 2:30pm ET
By Ed Stoddard
SAN ANTONIO (Reuters) – Joe D’Aleo was a rare voice of dissent this week at the American Meteorological Society’s annual meeting in San Antonio.D’Aleo, executive director of the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project, a group of scientists, doesn’t think greenhouse gas emissions are the major cause of global warming and climate change.
Researchers who hold such contrary views do not appreciate being lumped together with flat-Earthers. They are legitimate scientists who question the mainstream, but they are a distinct minority.
“Greenhouse warming is real, but I think it is a relatively minor player,” D’Aleo said.He claims other factors like solar activity and other natural causes are probably playing a greater role in rising temperatures — a position that gets a mostly chilly reception from this crowd.
continued…
Several scientists and writers interviewed at the society’s conference, which ends on Thursday, stressed that most researchers believe there is little scientific debate about the causes of global warming.
That does not mean there is a consensus.
“There’s not a consensus on anything. There are people who say the Earth is not round, there are people who say that the Earth is 6,000 years old,” said Richard Anthes of the Colorado- based University Corporation for Atmospheric Research.
“The vast majority of credible scientists from thousands of peer-reviewed papers agree that the strong balance of evidence is that the Earth is warming and the major cause of that is anthropogenic (human-caused) emissions.”
MINORITY VIEWS
Mainstream scientific opinion holds that emissions from fossil fuels are trapping heat in the atmosphere — the so-called “greenhouse effect.” Such emissions come from cars, factories and power plants.
U.S. President George W. Bush’s annual State of the Union speech to Congress next week is likely to tweak climate change policy, but stop short of the mandatory emissions caps that many greens would like to see, sources have said.
“I think there is largely agreement on the fact that over the last 30 years, that much of that warming has been attributed to human activities, in other words, greenhouse gas emissions,” said Tony Socci, a American Meteorological Society senior science fellow.
He said those who denied the connection were either “badly informed as to the scientific center or consensus, or in some cases perhaps (they are) just not wanting to be informed.”
Greenhouse gas skeptics would retort that the meteorological mainstream has not gotten a handle on the science behind solar activity and other natural cyclical causes and fed it into the models.
D’Aleo said there was an element of peer pressure to toe the party line.
“A lot of them are not willing to speak up because it might endanger grants and jobs,” he said.
For others, the evidence is overwhelming.
Temperatures rose by about 1.1 Fahrenheit (0.6 Celsius) during the 20th century and may rise another 1.4 to 5.8 Celsius from 1990 to 2100, a rate unprecedented in at least 10,000 years, according to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
“I think there’s virtually no doubt that humans are a major player in warming the globe,” said Robert Henson, author of the recently published “The Rough Guide to Climate Change.”
“There are still people out there who will contradict that, but they are not part of the scientific mainstream,” he said.
The dissenters would say that is the point: portraying them as the wild-eyed fringe or lackeys of oil companies makes even legitimate questioning seem less credible.
Climate science is essentially pseudoscience because the fundamental axiom, that of climate sensitivity defined as a specific rise in atmosphere temperature from a doubling of CO2 has never been experimentally verified. It is “guessed” to be 1.5 to 4 Kelvin.
Science is about framing hypotheses, testing them by experiment, and if the experiment does not verify the hypothesis, then it is the hypothesis that has to be re-examined.
In terms of AGW the measurement of gobal temperature vs increase in atmospheric CO2 is such that the hypothesis is falsified.
Rather than admitting this, global warmers have sidetracked the issue by changing the concept to “climate change”, a tautology if there ever was one. Further more it is a concept that cannot be falsified which thus makes it unequivocally pseudoscience.
Climate change or AGW is actually a rather technologically sophisticated religion in which the unprovable axiom of climate sensitivity is assumed correct and a legion of subsidiary prognostications derived from the initial axiom.
But one thing is certain, it is certainly not science.
D’Aleo is a meteorologist, not a climate scientist. He has no PhD and, according to Google Scholar, no peer-reviewed publications. A Google search for the ICECAP organization turns up nothing. Draw your own conclusions.
Steve, can I remind you that this blog is primarily about issues that go to science, it is not for casting aspersions at people. There is no shortage of people holding forth and indeed holding positions of authority on “greenhouse/climate change” issues, that were trained in sciences other than “climate science”.
I will draw my conclusions from what Joe says and writes.
Paraphrasing Steve Bloom:
D’Aleo is a meteorologist, not a climate priest. He has not taken holy orders and, according to the Index, has written many disaproved publications. A Google search for the ICECAP organization turns up nothing since Google is not perfect. Draw your own conclusions.
Fine, Warwick, but all that article contained was some very briefly stated opinions about the science. If you happen to come across any actual science done by D’Aleo or his board, I’d love to see it. BTW, I did not cast aspersions. I simply stated facts (all verifiable via Google or Google Scholar) and urged others to draw their own conclusions.
Steve,
Please tell me why you stated those particular facts about D’Aleo if not to cast aspersions?
Here’s a fact, Steve B.: No one who claims AGW is a problem seems to acknowledge the fact that the errors in cloud prediction by GCMs are alone enough to obviate the possibility of detecting the 2.7 W/m^2 effect of post-1900 added CO2. It’s also a fact that no one has propagated the parameter uncertainties through a GCM calculation to determine a climate-prediction confidence limit.
Those things being true, and they are, then D’Aleo immediately has the best of any argument with any Ph.D. who claims human-produced CO2 has warmed Earth climate. There is no scientifically valid argument for the latter case.
Apart from that, and following from the context of your comments, where is *your* Ph.D. and publication record that allows *you* to properly assess the accuracy of D’Aleo’s observations? Your own logic requires your silence concerning the science of AGW. That hasn’t seemed to stop you, though. There’s a word that describes a personally-located disparity between stated ethics and evident behavior.
Pat, the problem with “D’Aleo’s observations” is that (as I noted above) a web search turns up nothing. All the article made reference to on his part were a couple of unsourced conclusions. Do you have any link to relevant material relating to him, the alleged ICECAP organization and its alleged scientist members? If not, then all you’re doing is saying that you prefer the second-hand conclusory statements of a meteorologist of uncertain qualifications to those of the IPCC and pretty much every major scientific organization of relevance. I think I already knew that, though.
The ‘mysterious’ ICECAP can be found at (surprise) icecap.us/
Steve Bloom and others like him (Connelley, Kim Petersen) are rogues with no qualifications to speak of in climate change. Their role is to run disruptive interference. If Hume, Kant, Russell, Popper argued for logic and clarity in scientific determination, they would scream for Hegelelian or Marxian moralalistic spirit phenomenology. If Einstein or W. Thompson (Kelvin) or Max Planck or Max Born or Cornell-Ketterle-Wiemann or Lederman-Schwartz-Steinberg made opinions on this web site they would cry “but they don’t have any peer reviewed publications in climate research. Guess what, that doesn’t matter. I am perhaps the worlds expert in systems modeling and from what I have learned we are wading through a real pile of … that is permitted by freedom of speech – expression. My position is lets get down to the facts. Bloom asked (elsewhere) what is the significance of most enthalpy… wow. Are you a climate scientist. Any chemistry, physics or engineering student will answer that question. What is heat capacity? Why does it feel hotter in Houston at 80oF than Phoenix at 110oF. Blaaah. Craap. Bloom et al. are the ones with ZERO credibiliy. Nice try but you fail.
Steve Bloom and others like him (Connelley, Kim Petersen) are rogues with no qualifications to speak of in climate change. Their role is to run disruptive interference. If Hume, Kant, Russell, Popper argued for logic and clarity in scientific determination, they would scream for Hegelelian or Marxian moralalistic spirit phenomenology. If Einstein or W. Thompson (Kelvin) or Max Planck or Max Born or Cornell-Ketterle-Wiemann or Lederman-Schwartz-Steinberg made opinions on this web site they would cry “but they don’t have any peer reviewed publications in climate research. Guess what, that doesn’t matter. I am perhaps the worlds expert in systems modeling and from what I have learned we are wading through a real pile of … that is permitted by freedom of speech – expression. My position is lets get down to the facts. Bloom asked (elsewhere) what is the significance of moist enthalpy… wow. Are you a climate scientist. Any chemistry, physics or engineering student will answer that question. What is heat capacity? Why does it feel hotter in Houston at 80oF than Phoenix at 110oF. Blaaah. Craap. Bloom et al. are the ones with ZERO credibiliy. Nice try but you fail.
Evidence that wind generation equipment development continues apace emerges from a swath of new designs that are intended to extend the operational range of existing machines into previously untapped wind regimes testkings. The moves indicate a key trend that is being adopted by the industry’s leading original equipment manufacturers as they bid to maximize their engineering capital.