The Taboo Of Not Subscribing To Anthropological Global Warming

[BornFromTheVoid]

I'd say that knowing about the atmosphere even in the not so distant past is one of the most contentious elements in the AGW debate. It seems to me Jaworowski originally made a very strong case back in 1991 that the ice core data is not valid, since when hardly anyone has challenged his views published by the Norwegian Polar Institute. He maintains the whole AGW agenda is the biggest scientific scandal of our times, while mainstream science simply ignores Jaworowski without refuting his very well presented arguments. If ever there was a taboo about AGW, it is Jaworowski.

Just out of interest - it really belongs in the climate science thread - do you hold that the IPCC's method of estimating past CO2 concentrations is valid? And how is it known that past CO2 concentrations have been as high as the supposed dangerous scenario forecast by AGW activists?

I don't think anyone takes Jaworowski's arguments seriously. The problems he mentions with ice-core data either don't make sense or have been dealt with well before he got his article published. http://www.ferdinand...jaworowski.html

http://forum.netweat...ce/page__st__20

It is with great hesitation that I write in reply to the paper by JAWOROWSKI, this paper deserves little attention. But unfortunately, he has succeded in publishing similar articles in journaIs and thus has induced considerable confusion regarding the reconstruction of ancient atmospheric compositions by the analysis of air occluded in polar ice of known age. We hope that this reply will help to clarify the issue....

I find the publications of JAWOROWSKI not only to be incorrect, but irresponsible.

Hans Oeschger, Ph. D. Professor of Physics

Physical Institute

University of Bern

Has Jaworowski done 1 climate or atmospheric science paper that doesn't mention CO2 and the words "fraud", "scam", "folly" or generally be about questioning the AGW theory?

I honestly believe this is less about taboo and more about the entire scientific community not feeling the need to answer questions that have already been dealt with or make no sense.

What I do find interesting is how the opinions of someone who is not an expert in ice core drilling, seems to hold more sway for you than the hundreds or thousands of actual experts.

[Gray-Wolf]

i have a 9 year old who , at times, tells us the whole world is against him ( and are wrong to be so).....at times the anti-AGW 'lobby' appear this way.

[jethro]

Wouldn't the easiest way to beat any taboo's and conflict be to forget all about the two sides, ignore the traditional concept of pro or anti AGW and adopt an attitude of knowledge seeking, regardless of what it reveals? Strikes me that both in the general public and the science community, too much time and effort is spent trying to prove one side of the debate over the other - science, real science doesn't have views, it has facts.

[Alan Robinson]

I don't think anyone takes Jaworowski's arguments seriously. The problems he mentions with ice-core data either don't make sense or have been dealt with well before he got his article published. http://www.ferdinand...jaworowski.html

http://forum.netweat...ce/page__st__20

Has Jaworowski done 1 climate or atmospheric science paper that doesn't mention CO2 and the words "fraud", "scam", "folly" or generally be about questioning the AGW theory?

I honestly believe this is less about taboo and more about the entire scientific community not feeling the need to answer questions that have already been dealt with or make no sense.

What I do find interesting is how the opinions of someone who is not an expert in ice core drilling, seems to hold more sway for you than the hundreds or thousands of actual experts.

Yes, I read that, and I found Prof Oeschger's letter very personal, emotive, and not what i would expect of a scientist. Jaworowski's work - done with two highly regarded Norwegians - was published in 1991 by the Norwegian Polar Institute. I'd say if anyone rubbishes Jaworowski, then they also rubbish the institute that was behind Amundsen's voyages. The Norwegian Polar Institute was certainly in 1991 one of the world's leading authorities on ice.

Anyway, in the meantime I found this by Segalstad, Jaworowski's co-author.

http://www.co2web.info/

This is pretty powerful stuff, so perhaps you can present us with a paper that refutes Segalstad and Jaworowski and their long list of accomplished scientists in reference. By refutation I mean criticism of the underlying theory, and / or the mathematics and chemical calculations employed, and not Swiss huffing and puffing.

Edited October 23, 2011 by Alan Robinson

[BornFromTheVoid]

Wouldn't the easiest way to beat any taboo's and conflict be to forget all about the two sides, ignore the traditional concept of pro or anti AGW and adopt an attitude of knowledge seeking, regardless of what it reveals? Strikes me that both in the general public and the science community, too much time and effort is spent trying to prove one side of the debate over the other - science, real science doesn't have views, it has facts.

Completely agree. Research should be about improving our collective knowledge and understanding, not to prove a point or further an agenda.

[Alan Robinson]

Wouldn't the easiest way to beat any taboo's and conflict be to forget all about the two sides, ignore the traditional concept of pro or anti AGW and adopt an attitude of knowledge seeking, regardless of what it reveals? Strikes me that both in the general public and the science community, too much time and effort is spent trying to prove one side of the debate over the other - science, real science doesn't have views, it has facts.

I also agree with this, and it seems to me that is also the approach taken by Segalstad; link above.

[BornFromTheVoid]

I also agree with this, and it seems to me that is also the approach taken by Segalstad; link above.

But when on the second line of the page you linked to it says

"Greenhouse Effect" Doom

I think the angle of most of the work is going to be quite obvious!

[knocker]

If I could expand a little on my previous post. If a taboo exists then certain skeptics contribute hugely towards it. These climate sceptics do not carefully assess the claims of climate science in order to establish those that are credible and those that are not. They reject all claims of climate science and search for reasons to justify their rejection. In 2009 the Australian 'sceptic' and geologist Ian Plimer published a book, Heaven and Earth, which he claimed would 'knock out every single argument we hear about climate change'. It would not cast doubt on some aspects of global warming science, or focus attention on the uncertainties, it would disprove every piece of evidence generated by hundreds of scientists over the last twenty or more years in support of human-induced climate change. This is not so much the agnosticism of the skeptic but the zealotry of the fanatic who believes himself to possess the truth.

It does no service whatsoever to those who have serious doubts about some aspects of the global warming science and present logical and scientific arguments to support their claims. You can find a critique of Heaven and Earth here.

http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/23/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/

[laserguy]

Suscribe to CO2-inspired AGW? I'd be more likely to suscribe to 'Toad-Sexing Weekly'.

[jethro]

Do people here have a few favourite sites they go to to learn about climate change, or do folk trawl the internet looking for info on a topic which interests them?

[knocker]

Do people here have a few favourite sites they go to to learn about climate change, or do folk trawl the internet looking for info on a topic which interests them?

Oh favourite site definately. The NW forum.

[jethro]

Extra Brownie points for you then.

[Alan Robinson]

But when on the second line of the page you linked to it says

I think the angle of most of the work is going to be quite obvious!

And the refutation? Did you happen to read Segalstad's work or glance at the reference list? I am personally neither warmist or nay-sayer, and I am not promoting either camp. You on the other hand seem to me partisan.

[BornFromTheVoid]

Alan Robinson, on 24 October 2011 - 04:46 , said:

And the refutation? Did you happen to read Segalstad's work or glance at the reference list? I am personally neither warmist or nay-sayer, and I am not promoting either camp. You on the other hand seem to me partisan.

Throw your insults about as you like and claim to be whatever you want, I don't want to drag this thread down with a mud slinging match.

The discussion was on non-biased work. Segalstad clearly has an agenda that even the blind could probably see, disproving CO2 as the cause of recent warming. For whatever reason, before you even read his research he wants you to know what camp he's set his tent up in.

Research on the link with UV light and recent cold winters didn't get its result and then proclaim the Arctic Amplification or global warming was now a scam, it just showed what it found in a matter of fact way, the way things should be done, the scientific way.

Even when I find the time to read through it and if I produced evidence that refuted it, you would probably take the same stance as you did with Jarawoski and claim that you don't understand it and there are different views, so therefore it's controversial.

[Alan Robinson]

Throw your insults about as you like and claim to be whatever you want, I don't want to drag this thread down with a mud slinging match.

The discussion was on non-biased work. Segalstad clearly has an agenda that even the blind could probably see, disproving CO2 as the cause of recent warming. For whatever reason, before you even read his research he wants you to know what camp he's set his tent up in.

Research on the link with UV light and recent cold winters didn't get its result and then proclaim the Arctic Amplification or global warming was now a scam, it just showed what it found in a matter of fact way, the way things should be done, the scientific way.

Even when I find the time to read through it and if I produced evidence that refuted it, you would probably take the same stance as you did with Jarawoski and claim that you don't understand it and there are different views, so therefore it's controversial.

Nay, calm yourself sir, in what way did I throw insults about? All you need do is produce evidence that Segalstad and Jaworowski are all at sea with their work. I still haven't seen that.

[BornFromTheVoid]

Nay, calm yourself sir, in what way did I throw insults about? All you need do is produce evidence that Segalstad and Jaworowski are all at sea with their work. I still haven't seen that.

I'm perfectly calm, 'tis a nice morning out after the howling wind and rain of yesterday!

You called me partisan. Something I consider an insult, which I'm sure you were well aware of when posting. Eerily reminiscent of the old " you question any part of the war effort and you're a un-patriotic terrorist".

How about you get back to discussing the point, un-biased research that isn't coming from one side or the other, i.e., not Segalstad.

As Jethro said

science, real science doesn't have views, it has facts.

[Alan Robinson]

I'm perfectly calm, 'tis a nice morning out after the howling wind and rain of yesterday!

You called me partisan. Something I consider an insult, which I'm sure you were well aware of when posting. Eerily reminiscent of the old " you question any part of the war effort and you're a un-patriotic terrorist".

How about you get back to discussing the point, un-biased research that isn't coming from one side or the other, i.e., not Segalstad.

As Jethro said

Nice to see you are calm, and we can continue the debate.

I used partisan as it is defined in my Pocket Oxford dictionary, namely adherent of a party or side or cause, esp. one who prefers its interests to truth and justice. I did so because you wrongly quoted Segalstad. He nowhere writes "doom", it is the people that have taken Segalstad's paper and put it on their partisan website who expressed themselves so. Segalstad's work seems to me very sober and proper.

Perhaps you will be kind enough to take another look and realise your mistake; you will not read another word from me on the matter.

[BornFromTheVoid]

Nice to see you are calm, and we can continue the debate.

I used partisan as it is defined in my Pocket Oxford dictionary, namely adherent of a party or side or cause, esp. one who prefers its interests to truth and justice. I did so because you wrongly quoted Segalstad. He nowhere writes "doom", it is the people that have taken Segalstad's paper and put it on their partisan website who expressed themselves so. Segalstad's work seems to me very sober and proper.

Perhaps you will be kind enough to take another look and realise your mistake; you will not read another word from me on the matter.

If he didn't write it then why does it say

Tom V. Segalstad

Associate Professor of Resource- and Environmental Geology; and

Former Head, Geological Museum of

Natural History Museum, University of Oslo, Norway

And when you link onto his own page the "homepage" it says.

Tom V. Segalstad's Web Site

When most canaries and felinecats have a web page, it occurred to me that I also should have one ...

Contents (click on the items below):

CO₂ and the "Greenhouse Effect" Doom also found at www.CO2web.info

My Professional Background...

E-mail: "t.v.segalstad" followed by "@" and "nhm.uio.no"

Could I really be mistaken for believing he at least created most of these pages?

How about we look at his biography? The last bullet point should be of interest.

Biography of Tom Victor Segalstad

• Born in Norway in 1949.
  
• University degrees (natural sciences with geology) from the University of Oslo.
  
• Has conducted university research, publishing, and teaching in geochemistry, mineralogy, petrology, volcanology, structural geology, ore geology, and geophysics at the University of Oslo, Norway, and the Pennsylvania State University, USA.
  
• At present keeping a professional position as Associate Professor of Resource- and Environmental Geology at the University of Oslo.
  
• Past Head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo (for a total of 12 years).
  
• Past Head of the Natural History Museums and Botanical Garden of the University of Oslo.
  
• Member of different international and national professional working groups and committees, including Expert Reviewer to the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC).
  

Current research interests:

• General geochemistry (the chemistry of the Earth).
  
• Metallogenesis (how mineral deposits and ore deposits form).
  
• Igneous petrogenesis (how magmatic rocks form).
  
• CO₂ and the "Greenhouse Effect" (how CO₂ simply cannot cause "global warming").
  

Return to Homepage Last Updated Oct. 25, 2010 by Tom V. Segalstad

Perhaps we should leave it up to others to decide whether he's biased and even if he has the relevant background to be so critical of the actual climate experts.

But I suppose I shouldn't criticise, for fear of being labelled a staunch warmist

[Methuselah]

Do people here have a few favourite sites they go to to learn about climate change, or do folk trawl the internet looking for info on a topic which interests them?

Mostly, I read books, J: some sceptical and some not. I really don't have too much time for a lot of what's contained in Internet blogs. A kind of rhetorical put-off?

[jethro]

Mostly, I read books, J: some sceptical and some not. I really don't have too much time for a lot of what's contained in Internet blogs. A kind of rhetorical put-off?

I recommend this site Pete: http://climatedebatedaily.com/

It has most of what you'll ever need to know, some of what you really don't need to bother with, and links to all the official climate monitoring bodies.

It's a one stop, climate shop.

Anyone else amused at the irony of the conversations above?

[Alan Robinson]

And when you link onto his own page the "homepage" it says.......

Could I really be mistaken for believing he at least created most of these pages?

Perhaps we should leave it up to others to decide whether he's biased and even if he has the relevant background to be so critical of the actual climate experts.

People will make up their own minds, but I will simply say of Segalstad - as he is not participating here to defend his own corner - his own website re-directs to the CO2 activist's website, and it is they, not Segalstad that uses emotive language. Regarding his CV I notice he has acted as Expert Reviewer to the IPCC (the environmental lot, not the coppers).

When people say the science is settled, I'd just like to know why scientific academics like Segalstad say it isn't; this is why I am skeptical.

[VillagePlank]

Science does take a view.

It's view is that this is the best we know at this current time. It does not represent fact, since that implies certainty, and time after time again, an accepted 'fact' or notion, such as Newtonian mechanics, is overturned and shown to be wrong; in Newton's case, it was shown to be wrong twice - once by relativity, and the other by quantum mechanics. We know that these are pretty much unlikely to be anywhere near the truth in their current form, since they incompatible with each other.

Science is a progressive activity: indeed, the only branch of science that seems to pretty much like to say that such and such is settled is climate-science (although I don't actually recall any of the main players actually saying that - so apologies if I've picked up something from the blogosphere and misappropriated it)

Essentially, science is wrong. We know that that is the case - even if some theory or other is very close to the truth - it is never fact. That's why scientists are sceptical. Scientists ultimately accept that - indeed, that is why they exist; not necessarily to drive over new boundaries or frontiers, but to investigate and improve our understanding of the natural world and to question ideas that are dogmatic, entrenched or simply accepted as is.

Edited October 24, 2011 by Sparticle

[BornFromTheVoid]

Anyone else amused at the irony of the conversations above?

I am at least!

People will make up their own minds, but I will simply say of Segalstad - as he is not participating here to defend his own corner - his own website re-directs to the CO2 activist's website, and it is they, not Segalstad that uses emotive language. Regarding his CV I notice he has acted as Expert Reviewer to the IPCC (the environmental lot, not the coppers).

When people say the science is settled, I'd just like to know why scientific academics like Segalstad say it isn't; this is why I am skeptical.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on Segalstad. As I mentioned, I haven't read through his papers, they may be perfectly ok, I just haven't had the time yet. But he does himself no favours in those websites, just my opinion.

I don't agree that the science is settled myself, and wonder if it ever will be. But as it is, we have to make do with the knowledge we have and try to improve upon it all the time as we have always done . I think that would work best if the bias, from both ends of the spectrum, was removed. Like yourself, at least I would think, I'm tired of hearing at the end of most nature show of how it could all end because of AGW, or people that think they know it all spouting ridiculous "facts" about global warming while understanding none of the science behind it. It is frustrating at times!

Re: Sparticle, good post.

[jethro]

Science does take a view.

It's view is that this is the best we know at this current time. It does not represent fact, since that implies certainty, and time after time again, an accepted 'fact' or notion, such as Newtonian mechanics, is overturned and shown to be wrong; in Newton's case, it was shown to be wrong twice - once by relativity, and the other by quantum mechanics. We know that these are pretty much unlikely to be anywhere near the truth in their current form, since they incompatible with each other.

Science is a progressive activity: indeed, the only branch of science that seems to pretty much like to say that such and such is settled is climate-science (although I don't actually recall any of the main players actually saying that - so apologies if I've picked up something from the blogosphere and misappropriated it)

Essentially, science is wrong. We know that that is the case - even if some theory or other is very close to the truth - it is never fact. That's why scientists are sceptical. Scientists ultimately accept that - indeed, that is why they exist; not necessarily to drive over new boundaries or frontiers, but to investigate and improve our understanding of the natural world and to question ideas that are dogmatic, entrenched or simply accepted as is.

Lol.

Are you trying to wrest the Pedant's crown from my head? I think it's only fair to warn you that it's more of a Tiara, very sparkly and definitely too girly for you.

Apologies for not including the caveat of time - it marches on with monotonous regularity and the facts we know today may be super-ceded tomorrow. I kind of assumed that everyone would already accept that facts change when it comes to science, if they didn't then we'd all still think the world was flat.

I am at least!

I'm glad it wasn't just me smiling.

[VillagePlank]

Lol.

Are you trying to wrest the Pedant's crown from my head? I think it's only fair to warn you that it's more of a Tiara, very sparkly and definitely too girly for you.

Apologies for not including the caveat of time - it marches on with monotonous regularity and the facts we know today may be super-ceded tomorrow. I kind of assumed that everyone would already accept that facts change when it comes to science, if they didn't then we'd all still think the world was flat.

Well, OK.

but the minute you use that word (or a derivative of it) 'assume' you are on a hiding to nothing. That you might have endless experience in dealing with the subtleties of the debate is commendable, but, ultimately, futile, unless it is framed in such a manner to either make those assumptions clear, or completely eradicates them.

Both are impossible.

Edited October 24, 2011 by Sparticle