Which is why I switched to his arguments in the second paragraph.

His third claim is simply not true, unless 1998 is taken as the baseline of the comparison, and 1998 was anomalously hot for a number of reasons, so it is scientifically dishonest to take it as the baseline. The data actually show global temperatures still increasing over the past decade, but at a slower rate than in the preceding decade. This is not an opinion, this is what the data show.

The ice core data do show increases in CO2 that occur after warming in the climate record. This is not disputed. That is not a reason to worry less, it is a reason to worry more, because it means that when temperatures rise, nature releases more CO2. If we raise temperatures artificially with our pollution - an event that has never before occurred in earth's history - there is very likely to be a 'positive feedback' that exacerbates the effects even further.

The ice core data are well discussed, by climate scientists, here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/

(Of course, that site is also easy to dismiss if you so choose.)

But I can't answer his arguments or conclusions since I do not have access to his data or the expertise to argue about it. I am merely pointing out that he does not seem to be a credible source. I would point that out no matter the side of the issue. Lack of credibility hurts either side of the issue and does little to arrive at the truth. The issue becomes side tracked!!

By the way, I am still reading and listening to both sides of the argument....a bit undecided!

That is an assumption, and one at the center of the controversy. A recent study (2008) indicates that precipitation acts as a sort of thermostat which prevents that positive feedback.

And I point out again, Evans is in fact a computer modeler. Since computer models are also the very heart of the issue, he might be more knowledgeable than the typical climatologist, who is not a computer modeler.

Now I am even more confused. It seems like both sides have problems in showing anything by the data that exists. I have now seen both sides destroy the other by attacking credentials and attacking the data. It seems that you can make the data say what you want in this field.

I am no longer so sure about global warming . . . does it really exist. AND I am no longer so sure that we as people have anything much to do with global warming. It seems that the earth is a larger place than what we can totally destroy.

On the other hand, it seems that both sides of the issue have their problems in making the data work for or against the issue.

The earth *is* a huge place. But we have put so much CO2 in the atmosphere that we have increased the concentration from 290 parts per million to 380 parts per million: a more than 30% increase. That's an incredible scale of change from one species, and completely unprecedented in earth's history. CO2 concentrations have been much higher in the far past (assuming you believe there is one), but that was due to natural processes and happened on a scale of tens of thousands of years, not a hundred years.

On credentials: would you take medical advice from me? I'm a doctor, after all (and so are you, if your nick is serious). But I'm a doctor of philosophy in science education, not a medical doctor. I wouldn't take medical advice from me.

Despite Ed's protestations, I think I'll listen to a climate scientist when the issue is climate, not a computer modeler (who incidentally doesn't have a PhD).

doctorj


You've got it just about right. The data can be interpreted different ways. In fact, as Roy Spencer (a Ph.D. and a climatologist whom Bravus will no doubt discount) has written:



And Bravus argument about Ph.D. vs. M.D. misses the mark.

Despite Bravus' obfuscations, if there's a problem with my x-rays, I'd be interested in the input of both an M.D. and the x-ray machine repair man. If the spot on the x-ray is due to machine malfunction, the repair man-- who may not have a college degree--might have knowledge more pertinent than the M.D., who assumes the image is correct.

And that's the point about the computer modeler. If the model is faulty--and, just as most M.D.'s are not x-ray machine experts, neither are most climatologists computer modelers--a computer modeler might be able to point out problems the climatologist couldn't see.

The whole 'global warming'--oops, now it's 'climate crisis'-- is so disingenuous. We are shown alarming video and statistics about ice melting on the antarctic peninsula--all the while failing to mention the fact that overall the ice in antarctica is increasing.

And everything supposedly indicates global warming--er, climate crisis. If the winters are cold-- it's because global warming causes greater extremes (even though, so far, most of the actual warming has been at night, making for less, not more variation). If we have more storms, ditto. If we have fewer storms, that's weather, and not an indication of anything to do with climate--unless the weather is hot.

Quite right Ich.

That whole "Global warming" deal is so transparent.

As a RT working in the hospital, some decisions regarding health care are made dependant upon the outcome of the X-ray...Since I work with the Xray Techs, and are friendly with them, I get to decide who among the tech can read the Xrays as well as the docs....But I also know the doctors and what they have to go thru to be able to read those xrays. Sloppy Xray docs are known pretty quick in the hospital, and they are few and far between...very few....As for techs, they know they have not the expertise of the docs, but they can say, "Yup, there something there, alright."...and as I have said, you have to be VERY choosy as to which of the techs can say that or not.

As for your xray repairman, sorry, he only knows electronics, not pictures...

But I get what you are getting at, Ichy. But your illustration is on shaky legs. If given a choice between a tech and a doc, I choose the doc. And even the good techs will only say "Yup, there is SOMETHING there" and will even have the audacity to say "I don't know.", to confirm the RT suspicion that something is going on in the chest...

[and yes, RTs have been trained to read Xrays of the chest. But we also know, we are not proficient at it and don't need to be ]