Thomas Kuhn revisited; for Matt especially (Introduction)

by David Turell , Thursday, December 01, 2011, 00:51 (4720 days ago) @ xeno6696

No ignorance, but as a lay person in the world of climate science, there is simply too much confusion for me to make up my mind firmly:

Fair enough. now we are having a valid discussion.

1. I definitely accept that a warming trend is happening. (Denying this... borders malfeasance.)

No question. There are a hugh number of factors, only some of which are well understood. For example most Co2 is volcano produced.

2. I am less confident that humans are the cause.

I am confident that humans are somewhat a part of the cause. How large is that somewhat, i don't know.

2a. Ice core data was the piece that really cinched it for me... I have heard of no accusations of forging of this data.

Correct

3. I am completely for doing something about it, as long as the solutions are of a market-based nature. (ie, no carbon tax, but I fully support new technologies.)

Of course, but listen to Bjorn Lomborg and use new money-requiring processes sparingly until we are sure what the best technologies will be for the future. I think ocean wave production of electricity may be an excellent one.

I feel that, having reviewed pieces (by far not all) literature, that the only argument that holds any weight against climate change is the idea of stations recording near heat islands. However, with the 70 stations that Watts and his followers have found that were acceptable--the data from those stations still tracks to the same trend as the aggregate.

Agreed. But using UHI's has exaggerated the trend.

As for the money and the allegations of third-world moneybegging...

I don't buy it. I'm expected to believe, that a consensus of first-world scientists are working in conjunction with third-world countries to funnel them money? Really?

Then why has the IPCC produced such phony stuff like the disappearing glaciers by 2030?

http://www.drroyspencer.com/

Did you see Spencers credentials?

Climate science isn't my area. I've paid attention to Watts since you posted his link some years ago, but you do know that his books are published by the same PR company that backs big tobacco?

PR companies make money. Not all their clients have the same politics and philosophies.

Sun spots have been debunked. The only thing left standing is us... in terms of real explanations.

My reading says the sun cycles and sun spots are not debunked.

Have you heard of the theory of infinite dispersal? You might have... you were in high school when the theory would have been common. It was debunked by acid rain, and the demonstration that sulfuric compounds released by factories caused it.

I know the acid rain story, not of infinite dispersal.

And if we look at the weight of money, oil companies stand to lose far more by alternate energy sources than third world countries stand to gain. (Which third world countries... no one has ever bothered to answer me that question.)

Mainly African. And carbon-based fuel is still making 80% of our energy and will have to for some time into the future or we will use up all our capital.