ocean conditions are changing due to Rapid Global Climate Shift

I never would have guessed it.

My ecology professor was a New York liberal. We had our differing opinions. I still passed his class; with a C.

 

Yobarnacle is correct. AGW is politics.

 

When I did my first degree, there were 2 strains of ecologists. The population ecologists, highly numerate and with a very good understanding of statistics.

The other school were the community ecologists. Basically, they made observations, generated lists of stuff and liked to claim how the world worked in microcosm. When challenged, however, there was no math there so what they were expressing was opinion.

I was a population ecologist.

My skepticism on AGW is based on the, to date, total failure of all the predictive models to actually predict what is going to happen. This devolves to the well known GIGO principle of software development.

Might be happening. Proof lacking. Lots of funny things going on but all (?) have analogs in planetary history.

I still think that burning fossil fuels to generate power is idiotic, however. We have better technology, we should use it. Even PV panels are at or past the point of positive energy generation and certainly verging on cost-effectiveness, thanks to the Chinese who seem to be better at mass producing them at a good price. Must buy some more.....

PDW

 

Most scientific research is presented as text, graphs, charts, etc. as most of us don't have the photographic memory needed to analyze in depth the material presented in a lecture, nor is a lecture format conducive to presenting all the footnotes and references needed for scholarly study.

If you're serious about a meaningful discussion, even on this non-scientific forum, I'd recommend that you present your understandings by text, not by reference to a video.

I noticed you haven't commented on the material I presented regarding your earlier post:

Sorry Global Warming Alarmists, The Earth Is Cooling

 

Yes yes- that lecture format has me crying for text.

I could have read and assessed the whole bit while the guy was still clearing his throat..

 

Hard to know specifically what they are talking about, since the lecture is not available in text, but it could have something to do with Lon Hocker's argument.

Is the long-term trend in CO2 caused by warming of the oceans?

The skeptic argument...

What the science says...

 

USA Today | Obama seeks oil-funded research to tackle climate change

 

The power point presentations are available for download from the same website, which has most of the issues discussed in text form, and all of the charts and graphs. Also, many of the lectures are based on published papers, but likely you have to go to the lecturer's university to find it unfortunately.

 

I suspect few, if any, of those lectures were based on published papers in the sense the scientific community uses the term: i.e., published in a reputable, peer-reviewed scientific journal.

That doesn't automatically mean their findings are wrong, of course, any more than being published would automatically make them right. But it does raise the bar a little -- because either they didn't submit their findings for peer review, or they did but were rejected for publication. The peer review system isn't perfect, but it's a pretty good first line of defense against poorly conceived and executed scientific research.

 

troy
peer review can also fall (fail) into the class of preaching to the choir, if you only accept accolades from those who agree with you, and dismiss all contrary criticsms as coming from industry shills or heretical opinion.

 

Again, peer review isn't perfect. But it tends to err on the side of conservative skepticism, so it's pretty good at filtering out mumbo jumbo and bs.... most peer reviewers aren't in a big hurry to jump onto the latest scientific fad and take a joy ride. They're taking AGW seriously because they believe it's serious, not because it's fashionable or profitable.

Unfortunately the Heartland Institute is an industry shill, for whichever industries happen to be paying the bills this year. It's unfortunate that so many people take them seriously, as though they're genuine players in the scientific community, instead of accepting them for what they are: a glorified ad agency that gets paid to peddle corporate agendas.

 

Riiight.

 

IRIN, a UN office | Climate change influence on typhoons uncertain

 

Skeptical Science | What is the link between hurricanes and global warming?

 

That's a favorite tactic of climate change deniers: they set up a straw man by accusing the IPCC and mainstream scientists of jumping to some unwarranted or unestablished conclusion, then demolish said straw man.

But as Imaginary Number points out, no scientists claim to have established a definitive link between AGW and hurricane frequency; it's all speculation (mostly by the media). So there was really nothing to demolish on the subject....