.jpg)
Please Log in to Vote.
3 out of 4 members found this useful.
Zimmerman's ExxonMobil Scientists
Posted March 20th, 2010 by barbi hammond in generational stuff
In Reference to:
World Leadership Crisis. Exhibit A: Climate ChangeZimmerman needs to retire. I'm not joking. He doesn't know a thing about climate science and is poorly qualified to speak as an authority on climate change. I don't know how he could be relevant to his field of environmental philosophy any more; maybe he should go into energy since he seems to know a lot (more) about that. Deep ecology and Eco-feminism will do you little good if that is all you have but no scientific background.
Is it possible for one to be so scientifically-illiterate, and also integral?
"The climate science itself became increasingly shaky as it became more and more scrutinized."
We suspect that this comment was made entirely based on events occurring at the time of taping, namely, the CRU email hacking incident which he refers to as "Climategate." Zimmerman feels the science is becoming increasingly shaky because like most Americans, he falls prey to the mob mentality and appears to get most of his climate information not from mainstream science--but from dissenting scientists funded by Exxon-Mobil and from the mainstream media.
His claim that climate science is based on computer climate models gives the impression that climate science is entirely speculative and based on computer prediction models. This is untrue. Climate study is based just as much, if not more--on direct observation and physical data. When all of the available data is entered into a computer, today's scientists are capable of reproducing past and present climates with very good accuracy. The accuracy of past projections of future climate by computer climate models (now the present) confirm at present that climate models work very well to predict present, past, and future climate except possibly erring on the side of the conservative of late (due possibly to unknown positive feedback mechanisms being triggered but not being accounted for in the climate model). This does not invalidate these models; but merely indicate that these computer models are likely to underestimate future climate change until they have a more precise knowledge of the effects of positive feedback mechanisms now being triggered and amplifying the sun's heat.
Zimmerman believes that carbon dioxide can be "good" for you and that a CO2 level of 1,000 ppm would result in a "greening" of the planet and that it might be "good for you" perhaps if the temperature were a little bit warmer.
1,000 ppm is actually being predicted as a "worst case scenario" for 2100 and would result in at least a 5-7 C temperature rise and would be the end of human civilization as we know it.
His repeated claims that "CO2 is only a sliver of the warming" (or something to that effect) and "it is SO MUCH MORE complicated than scientists think..." (when he himself lacks a basic understanding of climate) is not the position of mainstream science but of skeptical/denier talking points that are so commonplace in public discourse nowadays.
Whereas weather is unpredictable and chaotic, climate is based on long-term averaging and is not.
While there are numerous different drivers in climate, the predominant radiative forcing is CO2. There are both positive and negative radiative forcings and feedback mechanisms. One such example being the melting of sea ice, which results in a loss of albedo and triggers a positive feedback effect far outstripping any perceived "negative feedbacks" he claims to be occurring meanwhile. Actually, his reference to "negative feedback" would merely be "negative forcing" (not "negative feedback") since negative feedback effects only occur when the planet is cooling to escalate and amplify the cooling; which does not occur when the planet is warming although a major negative forcing, such as the irruption of a supervolcano, can hypothetically trigger a negative feedback effect if forceful enough (citation needed).
Numerous independent studies have confirmed that since 1975, temperatures rose while solar activity showed little to no long-term trend. The current forcing of the sun itself on climate is estimated to be at 0.1% and therefore negligible.
Mt. Kilimanjaro's decline is not due entirely to human emissions of CO2 as he correctly pointed out; but this does not mean that human-caused global warming is not the main cause of glacial land ice melts occurring worldwide.
Much ado was made in the interview about polar bears and how they are increasing in number due to man no longer hunting them down. We anticipate a major problem for polar bears if there are lots of polar bears while Arctic sea ice is decreasing at an increasingly accelerated rate. He then downplayed the significance of Arctice sea ice loss by appealing to "scientific uncertainty" of whether the Arctic would be ice-free by 2050 or 2080.. Thereby admitting that Arctic will likely be ice-free within the century; yet 'not a problem' or concern of his; we gather..
I believe that a more accurate analysis of Arctic sea ice projected decline would place an ice-free Arctic at between 2025-2050, rather than between 2050-2080. However: Zimmerman's appeal to scientific uncertainty was far overstated in that he failed to point out that the one thing that is very very obvious (even to the interviewer) in that at current rate of decline, it will most certainly be ice-free by the end of the century.
The biggest concern with Arctic sea ice is that the older, thicker ice that have remained year-round for years and years (such as the kind displayed very prominently on the front of both his videos) are melting quite fast and are being replaced with thin, seasonal ice.
Global dimming from aerosols reversed in trend in the mid 1990s. Yes, black aerosols and CFCs are additional particulates added by human activity--but their influence on climate is far outweighed by CO2.
He speaks fondly of the Medieval Warm Period, when "there were farmers in Greenland...":
"...A time when was hotter than today." See?
Figure 1: Reconstructed surface temperature anomaly for Medieval Warm Period (950 to 1250 A.D.). Temperature anomalies are defined relative to the 1961– 1990 reference period mean. Gray areas indicates regions where adequate temperature data are unavailable. Courtesy SkepticalScience
(As long as you are in Greenland..)
"Medieval Warm Period" was not a global warming but only a regional warming in some parts of North America, Greenland, and Arctic regions. If you were living in those regions during Medieval times, it was warmer. Some parts of Eurasia were also slightly warmer but only very slightly. All other parts of Earth--it was substantially cooler than today. Some regions were even colder than the Little Ice Age. For this reason, many scientists of today no longer refer to this period as the "Medieval Warm Period" but rather, as "the Medieval Climate Anomaly."
Let's compare the "Medieval Warm Period" to today:
Figure 3: Surface temperature anomaly for period 1999 to 2008. Temperature anomalies are defined relative to the 1961– 1990 reference period mean. Gray areas indicates regions where adequate temperature data are unavailable (NASA GISS)
UPDATE 1 Dec 2009: gp2 has also created a temperature pattern for the last decade using NOAA data. This time, the colour scale matches exactly the colour scale used in the Medieval Warm Period figure.
Figure 4: Surface temperature anomaly for period 1999 to 2008. Temperature anomalies are defined relative to the 1961– 1990 reference period mean. Gray areas indicates regions where adequate temperature data are unavailable (NOAA)
No, today is much warmer than Medieval Warm Period.
He claims that the "Hockey Stick Graph" was "debunked." This is false. We gather that he is basing his idea on a single study from 2003 that claimed to "debunk it" or maybe from Senator Inhofe in the Senate committee hearings (or whatevuh) when they attempted to investigate the shape of the "Hockey Stick" to argue that it was not "hockey-shaped," as argued by Al Gore.
Numerous studies based on a variety of different proxy data well beyond 2003 continue to confirm the validity of the "Hockey Stick" graph.
This argument bores me to tears and deniers are forever trying to "debunk it"; so I will simply leave a link so as to not make people nod off:
Zimmerman's argument on cloud cover is yet to be confirmed. However, there has been no observed correlation between cloud formation and temperature in the past 30 years. Nor with cosmic rays. He did not cite the sources of any of his scientific claims.
The two "climate experts" that he cited, Richard Lindzen and Willie Soon, are climate change skeptics but are actually meteorologists and physicists; not climate scientists. Zimmerman claims that Richard Lindzen is perhaps the "most highly-ranked climate scientist in the world."
Lindzen is not only a climate change skeptic--He is said to expound on how weakly lung cancer is linked to cigarette smoking and is tied to Cato and Heartland Institutes. Both scientists are funded by Exxon-Mobil.
rofessor of Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Member, Annapolis Center Science and Economic Advisory Council. Contributing Expert, Cato Institute. Contributing Expert, George C. Marshall Institute. Member, National Academy of Sciences.
Dr. Lindzen is one of the highest prolife climate skeptic scientists, arguably because he has been a member of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and contributed to the Second Assessment Report. He regularly takes issue with the general conclusions drawn from the IPCC's reports and has been at the forefront of the consistent attacks on the IPCC since the early 1990's. His prolific writings assert that climate change science is inconclusive. His opinions are cited throughout the ExxonMobil funded groups and he regularly appears at events organised by them.
Ross Gelbspan reported in 1995 that Lindzen "charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC." ("The Heat is On: The warming of the world's climate sparks a blaze of denial," Harper's magazine, December 1995.) Lindzen signed the 1995 Leipzig Declaration.
Research Physicist, Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.
Senior Scientist, George Marshall Institute. Science Director, Tech Central Station. Chief scientific researcher at the frontiers of Freedom's Center for Science and Public Policy which was set up after $100,000 ExxonMobil grant in 2002.
Dr. Soon is a leading climate change skeptic and has published multiple climate-related studies with fellow George Marshall and Harvard-Smithsonian scientist Sallie Baliunas.
Willie Soon is a physicist at the Solar, Stellar, and Planetary Sciences Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and an astronomer at the Mount Wilson Observatory.
KEY DEEDS
16 May, 2003
Published, with fellow sceptic
Sallie Baliunas
, an article in the Climate Research journal which reviewed the work of a number of climate scientists who concluded that the last century is the hottest in the last 1000 years. The article, partly funded by the American Petroleum Institute, caused the resignation of three of the journal's editors, in protest at the peer review process. The peer review process was conducted by
New Zealand
sceptic scientist Chris de Freitas. The Soon/Baliunas article was widely picked up by Exxon-funded groups and led to a Senate hearing chaired by James Inhofe (R-OK)
Source:
Why is this important?
This is where he is getting his scientific information.
Just thought everyone should know where he is getting his scientific information on climate change.
- Please Login to Add Comments
- hide all sub-comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
Chaos
Posted March 20th, 2010 by barbi hammond in response to complexity theory--
Ambo,
You raise some very interesting questions that are worth looking into. This is actually how I learn so I appreciate responses which stimulate or challenge me to learn something new. I will have to do some research and get back with you on complexity, chaos, and "non-linear dynamic systems" as they pertain to climate science. What I can say for now is to reiterate what I've learned thus far: that unpredictability and chaos are generally aspects of weather and not climate. That is to say, whereas weather is chaotic and unpredictable, climate is based on averages of these single weather events over long-term (30+ years is typically the minimum time-frame to differentiate the signal from noise) to permit us to recognize overall trends and patterns which do emerge over time and become fairly stable, distinctive, repetitious, and predictable over time (whether linear, cyclical, logarithmic, etc.) to form an overall perception of the dynamic whole or system at various scales (i.e., local, regional, planetary, galactic, and/or timescales such as yearly, millenial, etc.) and to make fairly accurate predictions as to future trends or behavior; although perhaps not ever with the degree of accuracy, certainty, or precision we3 would like, given we are working with averages and trends within a mechanical system(s) based on linear time and on probabilities and hence, a certain element of "uncertainty" involved when predicting future events (which can never be eliminated in the three-dimensional spatial realm of temporal time)--which is where I think the skeptic may invoke the complexity or chaos theory to "explain" the lack of "scientific certainty" in climate models in his/her attempt to "debunk" it in a way which think may be invalid. Pattern-recognition and predictions are not possible in a chaotic or unpredictable system or in short-term weather events or trends although they can be made in climate--although never perhaps with the degree of certainty or precision or accuracy that we would like although making skeptical arguments that resort to such arguments somewhat irrelevant given overall predictability of climate; but will double-check and get back with you.
But to summarize for now, the science is irrefutable and solid. There is absolutely no logical basis for anyone at this point to question the scientific certainty of human-caused climate change. The only ones who argue "lack of certainty" or "the science is not settled!" are the 3% of dissenting scientists who scream their case through denier websites, right-wing media outlets, and mainstream media but publish absolutely nothing to refute the scientific consensus. The mainstream media cannot differentiate between legitimate science and the bogus arguments of dissenting scientists and give equal weight to the bogus arguments as well. Leaving the public confused yet thoroughly convinced that there is a "scientific debate" when there is not. All arguments by dissenting scientists have been sufficiently eliminated by due scientific process years ago yet still keep being raised and argued by those dissenting scientists in denier websites and parrotted by climate change skeptics/deniers. Their last stand is to argue for "scientific uncertainty" simply because there is always an element of uncertainty in science. In the face of such overwhelming evidence, however, it is no longer reasonable to do so. Zimmerman is being highly irresponsible for arguing that repeatedly. But ultimately, that is all he has to go on and still seem credible to so-called integralists even after I have gone through and totally demolished every single argument he presented with the exception of one, which I left out by mistake but will demolish on my next post. But I do still plan to get back to your original question on chaos and complexity theory.
I did not mean to come across as dismissive or suggesting that Zimmerman is corrupt or a total nut case. Quite the contrary: he strikes me as a highly ethical, learned, and decent person who is attempting to become acquainted with all aspects of environmentalism but is getting his scientific information from the scientific fringe. Unless he is well-acquainted with the science, it is better for one to stick with mainstream science and become acquainted with that first and then depart to the lunatic fringe if one so desires or would to strike a bold new direction on one's own as Brian likes to do.
That being said, while we have no doubt that Zimmerman's intentions are good and his honesty impeccable, and that he is a good person at heart and believes what he says, he is still in a position of authority and power to influence a great many readers or listeners out there on issues which affect us all and future generations. If he is going to teach climate science, he has a moral obligation to learn and teach what is scientifically true and will be held to that high standard. We cannot in good conscience permit such discredited scientific arguments to go unchallenged and feel a moral responsibility to call it out whenever we see it.
- Please Login to Add Comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
1 out of 1 members found this useful.
Zimmerman misread, attempted to manipulate, or "fiddle" East Anglia...
Posted March 20th, 2010 by barbi hammond-Zimmerman misread, attempted to manipulate, or "fiddle" East Anglia email. He should apologies.-
Zimmerman claims that an email exchange between CRU scientists at East Anglia revealed that one of them admitted,
"Medieval Warm Period? We may never be warmer than that."
After googling exact words and finding no match, it appears that Zimmerman's claim that East Anglia scientists claimed that MWP was warmer than today was based on the following email:
Envelope-to: eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 15:13:28 -0400
From: Tom Crowley <tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
To: J Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>,
"Jansen, Eystein " <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: updated MWP figure
X-checked-clean: by exiscan on alf
X-UiB-SpamFlag: NO UIB: 0 hits, 8.0 required
X-UiB-SpamReport: spamassassin found;
Hello,
I have been fiddling with the best way to illustrate the stable nature of the medieval
warm period - the attached plot has eight sites that go from 946-1960 in decadal std.
dev. units - although small in number there is a good geographic spread -- four are from
the w. hemisphere, four from the east. I also plot the raw composite of the eight sites
and scale it to the 30-90N decadal temp. record.this record illustrates how the individual sites are related to the composite and also
why the composite has no dramatically warm MWP -- there is no dramatically warm
clustering of the individual sites.
use or lose as you wish, tom
My best guess based on all of the above is that Zimmerman's claim that one of these East Anglia scientist emails said,
"Medieval Warm Period? We may never be warmer than that."
refers to the segment in bold:
I have been fiddling with the best way to illustrate the stable nature of the medieval
warm period -
Zimmerman's claim was most likely based on the email segment above. It is the only email with the words "Medieval" and "warm" included in the same sentence or email. Maybe he took two words out of context:
. medieval
warm
"Medieval warm" was in reference to the "Medieval Warm Period." The email does not say that the Medieval period was ever "warmer" [than today].
Nothing in the entire sentence claims that the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today.
Nothing in the entire email claims that the Medieval Warm Period was ever warmer than today.
Nothing in any email from the CRU hacking incident claims that the MWP was ever "warmer" than today.
medieval
warm
I am not aware of any other email exchanges under dispute by skeptics/deniers that could be in reference to Zimmerman's claim regarding someone saying,
"Medieval Warm Period? We may never be warmer than that."
We conclude that Zimmerman misinterpreted the email by taking the email entirely out of context to say that the Medieval Warm Period was ever warmer than the present.
The following is the closest way that I can "fiddle" or "manipulate" the scientist's email message in order to fit with Zimmerman's claim. Which sounded to him like the person said that he was fiddling with something to illustrate that the MWP had a nature that was warmer and more stable than the current period.
What the standard skeptic/deniers alleges:
That the "fiddling" meant that Crowley was attempting to manipulate numbers in the MWP (to falsify them).
What Crowley claims that it meant:
Crowley claims that he was referring to the best way to translate the data into a graphic format.
Based on the three different interpretations and own reading of sentence by itself and taken out of context, how do we think Crowley's message,
I have been fiddling with the best way to illustrate the stable nature of the medieval
warm period -
was intended to be understood?
- That he was attempting various ways to "illustrate something" pertaining to the "stable nature" of the MWP.
- That he was engaging in masturbation (e.g., "fiddling") and was trying to illustrate or possibly convey this period of "feeling of medieval warmth and stability."
LOL. J/K about 2. But is sounds like masturbation if you ask me.
Not to say that there's anything "wrong" with masturbation. I think that everyone masturbates.
I do not think that that is what he "meant" even though it sounded to me like he was talking about masturbating.
We do not understand what "stable nature" means in this context--whether "stable" is in reference to non-fluctuations in temperatures or to the stability of the divergence of temperatures found throughout the globe; yet do not think it is a matter of concern from the context of full email message, which clearly indicates that the emailer, Crowley, was having some difficulties representing data pictorially or graphically and that "fiddling" refers neither to the manipulation of data nor to masturbation but rather, to "trying a variety of different ways" to represent the MWP in graphic format, which we presume from the email was difficult for him to represent graphically; and how a composite of all these different individual temperature sites revealed no dramatically warm MWP nor dramatically warm clustering of MWP.
Therefore,
Zimmerman's claim that an email exchange between CRU scientists at East Anglia revealed that one of them admitted,
"Medieval Warm Period? We may never be warmer than that.",
is mistaken and erroneous based on the misreading of an email out of context.
Or,
Zimmerman misread, attempted to manipulate, "fiddle" East Anglia email.
Either way, an apology is in order.
It therefore cannot be accepted as evidence that a CRU scientist admitted or claimed that the MWP was warmer than the current period of time.
Nor can we accept Zimmerman's argument that the MWP was warmer than today (please refer to global temperature map comparisons between MWP and 1998-2008).
Nor can we accept Zimmerman's argument that,
"The climate science itself became increasingly shaky as it became more and more scrutinized" (based perhaps almost entirely on the CRU hacking incident, aka, "Climategate,"; which to date has uncovered nothing that can prove any of the variety of allegations currently being charged against these CRU scientists or science in general by deniers/skeptics; and also perhaps his argument is also based on the various "audits" and "fact-checks" and requests for "FOI" performed by climate change deniers/skeptics, and last but not least on the successful disinformation campaigns waged by various right-wing or anti-science or Exxon think-tank organizations to deliberately confuse the public into thinking that "things were becoming shaky" or "falling apart" in science when they are not.
Although we will grant that in recent years, the disinformation campaign waged against climate policy and climate science has been hugely successful in PR campaigns in convincing a significant percentage of the public that a "scientific debate still exists" and that "climate science itself became increasingly shaky and more and more scrutinized by dissenting scientists in the name of truth and justice and transparency against a corrupt system called the IPCC and for tolerance and diversity in "all sides" of scientific viewpoints (even tolerance for and acceptance of the scientifically-discredited arguments, too; in the name of "open access"); although Zimmerman himself is not a part of this disinformation or PR campaign but is merely a victim of it as are the public, who are generally not interested scientific matters but do enjoy intrigue, conspiracy, political things, of course; as long as they are kept simple;
Nor can we accept the argument that Zimmerman implies from his hyperlink to a "Climategate" article that the peer-review process is flawed or could it benefit from open--access audit by the public; who do not typically know what to audit for and do not have the scientific expertise to evaluate the data.
- Please Login to Add Comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 2 members found this useful.
Can you check the methology
Posted March 20th, 2010 by Brian OConnellHi Barbi, All I can see you doing is BELIEVING in a authority outside your competency. So as you say Zimmerman is not qualified, ARE YOU? What a vicious circle you are showing. So I give you some resources on the method of the science you Believe in so dearly. Will you learn and adapt, is what I wonder? Cause your in the same place you were in the state of the world forum. Which, on the forum I, was trying to get you to look at the fundamentals that conventional science uses and how they make some major elemental mistakes on issues like gravity, electricity and entropy. But thats another story. With the winding down of the universe into materialism can you keep it light so as to see we are just understanding its winding up as Integral shows clearly.
“If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment.” – Lord Ernest Rutherford
Science News article " Odds are, it's Wrong, Science fails to face the shortcomings of statistics"
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Mediarology/MediarologyFrameset.html Fundamentally, the frequentist paradigm assumes that the underlying probability distribution is known and asks whether our observations are consistent with the known distribution. In reality, the underlying distribution is unknown (or only partially known), yet we want to know whether our hypothesis is likely to be true based on our observations — which are often incomplete. Thus, determining the likelihood of our hypothesis is easier said than done. An alternative is to use Bayesian, or subjective, probabilities that compile all the information we can possibly bring to bear on the problem, including, but not limited to, direct measurements and statistics on various components of the problem. Use of these methods can be extremely controversial. Some frequentist die-hards believe that if we can’t measure it directly, it isn’t science, what I playfully call “the tyranny of the null hypothesis.” However, the belief that the frequentist paradigm is superior to the subjective paradigm is epistemological advocacy; in short, a bias. In fact, dogmatic adherence to a frequentist paradigm limits the dissemination of valuable expert judgment that doesn’t fit into conventional evaluation of scientific knowledge, yet is crucial information for both scientific understanding and social processes like-decision making. – Dr. Stephen H. Schneider, February 2005The Roles of Citizens, Journalists, and Scientists in Debunking Climate Change Myths– Dr. Stephen H. Schneider,
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
Your opinion of what you think about "me" does not concern me.
Posted March 22nd, 2010 by barbi hammond in response to Can you check the methology--
Brian,
Your opinion of what you think about "me" does not concern me. The links/articles up there are more opinion pieces with no specific scientific data or study to refute; so nothing to respond to.
I will be happy to discuss any concerns or questions that you have concerning scientific data that you can point me to specifically that is a matter of your concern.
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
Behavior
Posted March 22nd, 2010 by Brian OConnell in response to Your opinion of what you think about "me" does not...Barbi, I am looking at your behavior and giving you my opinion of it. I do not know you, other than posts on this forum. And that does tell much but is very incomplete. Anyway how can your true self come down to an image. We are involved with our self image development but our ground being can not be reduced to it. All I am doing is noticing your expression on your posts.
Your have from your posts on climate change since the state of the world forum been absolutizing the it domain. " Look at the data". As you just said in your last post. Well the data is a bunch of numbers taken from sensors and then complied to make some understanding of reality (UR/LR) You have already stated you do not no much about economics and geo-politics. And now I am asking what your scientific background is. Since you seem to point out Zimmermans non scientific background as a reason to think his opinions have no value in this climate change debate, showing how unIntegral your orientation has been so far. So you do not have a scientific education and have your opinion of the issue and your expression is clearly absolutizing the UR domain. Scientist our in a quadrivia situation with science always. So there opinions and cultural values do taint their perception as Integral shows. So whats missing in your understanding of integral. EMBODYMENT. Talk is cheap as you are showing. But the real work is in understanding the issue in Body, Mind and Spirit in Nature, Culture and SELF. I think you miss the SELF and MIND and SPIRIT part big time. And that is my real opinion of you. And maybe in Body as you are telling us lately ( the last way spirit can get our attention). So whats really bugging you, your back? Thats were I am competent. That connection between sex and spirit. But " NO one tells me what to do". Boomeritis is a terrible disease. Listen to your pain, you need all your resources to get through this, and stop wasting it on this compartmentalized externalized issue.
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
This Sunday's sermon: "Warm, fuzzy, hard, science feelings."
Posted April 19th, 2010 by barbi hammond in response to Behavior--
Brian,
What exactly do your notions of 'SELF and MIND and SPIRIT' have to do with scientific data and facts concerning climate change?
Appealing to KW (himself woefully out-of-touch with any of the hard sciences by at least 30 years to be of any assistance to you) and your "mixing up" scientific facts with other domains of truth or rather, "knowledge" such as religion, philosophy, politics, psychological issues, and "warm, fuzzy, hard, science feelings" concerning your personal SELF-development is a tell-tale sign that you have no real objections to anything I have stated scientifically and cannot refute the science. You are not even capable of differentiating the various domains of truth or knowledge. Your post suggests that you are in an undifferentiated state of embryonic fusion. This hardly qualifies you to discuss "quadrant absolutism."
I would suggest that prior to attempting "integration," that you focus on differentiation. Simply resorting to "warm, fuzzy, hard, science feelings" to bolster your self-sense with regard to other "quadrants" or to hide your lack of a valid scientific argument or objection is a dumb idea: not integral--but New Age instead.
- Please Login to Add Comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
This Sunday's sermon: "Warm, fuzzy, hard, science feelings."
Posted April 19th, 2010 by barbi hammond in response to Behavior--
Brian,
What exactly do your notions of 'SELF and MIND and SPIRIT' have to do with scientific data and facts concerning climate change?
Appealing to KW (himself woefully out-of-touch with any of the hard sciences by at least 30 years to be of any assistance to you) and your "mixing up" scientific facts with other domains of truth or rather, "knowledge" such as religion, philosophy, politics, psychological issues, and "warm, fuzzy, hard, science feelings" concerning your personal SELF-development is a tell-tale sign that you have no real objections to anything I have stated scientifically and cannot refute the science. You are not even capable of differentiating the various domains of truth or knowledge. Your post suggests that you are in an undifferentiated state of embryonic fusion. This hardly qualifies you to discuss "quadrant absolutism."
I would suggest that prior to attempting "integration," that you focus on differentiation. Simply resorting to "warm, fuzzy, hard, science feelings" to bolster your self-sense with regard to other "quadrants" or to hide your lack of a valid scientific argument or objection is a dumb idea: not integral--but New Age instead.
- Please Login to Add Comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
2 out of 2 members found this useful.
"Chaotic systems are not predictable; Many leading scientists question...
Posted March 20th, 2010 by barbi hammond--The following links should be of interest to Ambo and also address issues repeatedly encountered in the Zimmerman audio:
Can we trust the science?
Chaotic systems are not predictable
We can't trust computer models of climate
Many leading scientists question climate change
New: The leaked emails prove it's a conspiracy
Zimmerman's argument that "there are so many different factors involved besides CO2 in affecting climate" (paraphrased) has been known by science for many decades and is already either accounted for or dismissed by the peer-review process but ultimately does not change the fact that it is predominantly greenhouse gases (which includes CO2) and predominantly CO2 from human activity that is the main driver of the current climate change, and that immediate action is necessary to lessen or slow the impact of anthropogenic climate change. The action called for is very straightforward: via reduction of human greenhouse gases and more specifically, CO2 to prevent a catastrophic and irreversible tipping point.
Zimmerman has failed to identify any "factors" not already accounted for by science that could potentially "change" the climate that is not already included in climate models and hence, already known and accounted for; although most "factors" he had mentioned and every single argument he has made has already been considered and studied by science and eliminated by due scientific process many decades ago. I believe I have listed all factors and arguments presented by Zimmerman in video 1 and have demolished every argument he has presented. As it turns out, they were all recycled denier arguments that have been discredited decades ago by science and compiled to Skeptical Science in Q&A form yet continue to be questions asked or arguments made over and over by the scientifically uninformed or by the climate change skeptics/deniers as if they were "new" (i.e., "the Hockey Stick Graph," "Medieval Warm Period," or "CO2 is good for you!," etc.).
As for "land use," that could refer to deforestation, farming, desertification by farming or grazing, industrialization, or anything concerning use of "land" that could potentially "change" the climate; but unless these "changes in climate" from land use refer specifically to increase of human emission of greenhouse gases (such as deforestation, industrial emissions, or methane release by cows--all of which are accounted for in climate models), their contributions to changing the climate is likely to be negligible.
Should there be anything at all that I have overlooked in Video 1, please feel free to post them to this thread and I will attend to them immediately. Otherwise, I will assume that everything that was presented as an objection or argument by Zimmerman has been sufficiently addressed and discredited on this thread or via links to other sources. Given this, we see no reason for Zimmerman or others to continue making these arguments any more. A rational person would simply accept the science and discontinue arguing things that have been refuted many decades ago.
Everything I have used as a response is from the peer-reviewed scientific literature and can be backed up by solid science. However, if one is in denial, the only reasonable course of action to take at this point after having all arguments demolished by me is to appeal to scientific uncertainty.. Which is basically the strategy of most skeptical/deniers nowadays: "we don't know enough about the climate..." "There are so many different factors besides CO2 in climate.." "Climate is such a chaotic unpredictable system that it is impossible to account for all the factors." All of which are appeals to scientific uncertainty which is the denier's last stand after running out of arguments or objections but the only possible one that one can argue for the mere fact that an element of uncertainty always exists in science. However, in the face of all the overwhelming scientific evidence that is irrefutable and robust, it is unreasonable at this point to resort to this line of reasoning.
Should they do so any way, it means that all other arguments they have used have been exhausted and can no longer be argued any more without looking ridiculous. They are essentially in denial.
Of course, this will not prevent some folk to argue "Plasma cosmology!" or other wild theories but we are only concerned with settling the public debate on the science of climate change with rational folk: not the ones beyond hope.
Please Log in to Vote.
1 out of 1 members found this useful.
Climate Science is Indeed Overwhelming - Zimmerman "Logic" Aside
Posted April 11th, 2010 by Peter Panopoulos in response to "Chaotic systems are not predictable; Many leading...Barbi,
It is refreshing to read your comments and insights.
I was actually stunned watching the video.
I am a lawyer in Canada trained in litigation. Put another way, I focus on argument - evaluation of positions - the links in the chain of argument. If Zimmerman was a lawyer presenting his argument, he would be laughed out of the courtroom.
He did exactly what he effectively accused the leading climate scientists of: he mischaracterized, took things way out of context, made baseless conclusions and projections, and was absolutistic in his own position. (I was confused by the interviewer and disappointed ultimately. This was not a useful or challenging interview. If someone is claiming that the sun sets in the East, contrary to science, the interviewer must challenge the presenter and actually be well read on the topic and the controversial positions. It would have been better to have someone interview Zimmerman who disagreed with his views to challenge his "evidence" and some of his conclusions.)
I actually had to force myself to watch both interview parts - only because it was posted on Integral Life. (On that note, I am fairly disappointed in Integral Life not because it is a dissenting opinion to my own but because it is stunningly biased and unsupported and much of what he has said has proven to be dead wrong and misleading. It was almost like listening to a dinosaur thinker or that relative at the holiday dinners who says things that have been debunked a long time ago - it's embarrassing to listen to. For example, Climate Gate in many respects was a complete "bust". Of course there should be more transparency - although I do understand the motives of the scientists. Also, to suggest that "journalists" have been somehow too cozy with the scientists is ridiculous. The reality is that journalism left the building (or was it ever in the building?) decades ago. They have done a pitiful job and network newscasts have done nothing but fed into the "bamboozle machine". Moreover, his use of the quote from Lovelock was insulting - it was misused and mischaracterized. Seriously, wow.
From what I have read and seen, assessing the arguments and positions from a variety of sources, actually finding rebuttals, and responses to rebuttals, thus far, the climate science is indeed very strong and overwhelming that C02 and other gases - primarily created by man - directly or indirectly - are creating a very dangerous condition for human survival. We are at the 11th hour and we must work together. It is indeed a planetary emergency. Currently, this is where logic and science take us. Having said that, we should always be vigilant in our continuing assessments of not only the actual evidence presented by the potential weaknesses of the systems that produced the evidence. A group can indeed come to erroneous conclusions and we should monitor, evaluate, test and re-test in other ways - constantly assessing. But so far, unfortunately, there is only weak evidence that suggests most climate scientists somehow have it wrong - and if anything, we are underestimating the real impact and the emergency nature of the crisis.
How we solve this crisis - and we must for our children's sake - there are a lot of ideas - it appears to me that it will be an integration of many ideas and the use of clean, alternative sources, which I believe may come from new breakthroughs - actually cheap forms of energy that will revolutionize our relationship to energy. (Ironically, I actually agree with a majority of Zimmerman's conclusions in the last 10 minutes.) By the way, the idea that we don't have enough energy capacity to deal with the current and future requirements is an example of weak (dinosaur) thinking. This crisis requires bold, courageous, challenging, visionary ideas rooted in logic and science. It is not for the faint-hearted. We must - and - we will - develop better energy systems and (clean, renewable) sources. Yes, perhaps some stop-gap sources are required to be part of the mix, but there are several energy breakthrough's on hand.
We must never give up on the truth and what needs to be done. I am hopeful that we will figure this out but it will take many of us to do it.
Peter
PS. Zimmerman unfortunately at this time is stunningly way off in his thinking. It seems to be the result of some kind of emotional or shadow?? I am not sure. But I know when I am speculating...
- Please Login to Add Comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
Climate Science is Indeed Overwhelming - Zimmerman "Logic" Aside
Posted April 11th, 2010 by Peter Panopoulos in response to "Chaotic systems are not predictable; Many leading...Barbi,
It is refreshing to read your comments and insights.
I was actually stunned watching the video.
I am a lawyer in Canada trained in litigation. Put another way, I focus on argument - evaluation of positions - the links in the chain of argument. If Zimmerman was a lawyer presenting his argument, he would be laughed out of the courtroom.
He did exactly what he effectively accused the leading climate scientists of: he mischaracterized, took things way out of context, made baseless conclusions and projections, and was absolutistic in his own position. (I was confused by the interviewer and disappointed ultimately. This was not a useful or challenging interview. If someone is claiming that the sun sets in the East, contrary to science, the interviewer must challenge the presenter and actually be well read on the topic and the controversial positions. It would have been better to have someone interview Zimmerman who disagreed with his views to challenge his "evidence" and some of his conclusions.)
I actually had to force myself to watch both interview parts - only because it was posted on Integral Life. (On that note, I am fairly disappointed in Integral Life not because it is a dissenting opinion to my own but because it is stunningly biased and unsupported and much of what he has said has proven to be dead wrong and misleading. It was almost like listening to a dinosaur thinker or that relative at the holiday dinners who says things that have been debunked a long time ago - it's embarrassing to listen to. For example, Climate Gate in many respects was a complete "bust". Of course there should be more transparency - although I do understand the motives of the scientists. Also, to suggest that "journalists" have been somehow too cozy with the scientists is ridiculous. The reality is that journalism left the building (or was it ever in the building?) decades ago. They have done a pitiful job and network newscasts have done nothing but fed into the "bamboozle machine". Moreover, his use of the quote from Lovelock was insulting - it was misused and mischaracterized. Seriously, wow.
From what I have read and seen, assessing the arguments and positions from a variety of sources, actually finding rebuttals, and responses to rebuttals, thus far, the climate science is indeed very strong and overwhelming that C02 and other gases - primarily created by man - directly or indirectly - are creating a very dangerous condition for human survival. We are at the 11th hour and we must work together. It is indeed a planetary emergency. Currently, this is where logic and science take us. Having said that, we should always be vigilant in our continuing assessments of not only the actual evidence presented by the potential weaknesses of the systems that produced the evidence. A group can indeed come to erroneous conclusions and we should monitor, evaluate, test and re-test in other ways - constantly assessing. But so far, unfortunately, there is only weak evidence that suggests most climate scientists somehow have it wrong - and if anything, we are underestimating the real impact and the emergency nature of the crisis.
How we solve this crisis - and we must for our children's sake - there are a lot of ideas - it appears to me that it will be an integration of many ideas and the use of clean, alternative sources, which I believe may come from new breakthroughs - actually cheap forms of energy that will revolutionize our relationship to energy. (Ironically, I actually agree with a majority of Zimmerman's conclusions in the last 10 minutes.) By the way, the idea that we don't have enough energy capacity to deal with the current and future requirements is an example of weak (dinosaur) thinking. This crisis requires bold, courageous, challenging, visionary ideas rooted in logic and science. It is not for the faint-hearted. We must - and - we will - develop better energy systems and (clean, renewable) sources. Yes, perhaps some stop-gap sources are required to be part of the mix, but there are several energy breakthrough's on hand.
We must never give up on the truth and what needs to be done. I am hopeful that we will figure this out but it will take many of us to do it.
Peter
PS. Zimmerman unfortunately at this time is stunningly way off in his thinking. It seems to be the result of some kind of emotional or shadow?? I am not sure. But I know when I am speculating...
- Please Login to Add Comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
Climate Science Clear - In Spite of Zimmerman "Logic"
Posted April 11th, 2010 by Peter Panopoulos in response to "Chaotic systems are not predictable; Many leading...Barbi,
It is refreshing to read your comments and insights.
I was actually stunned watching the video.
I am a lawyer in Canada trained in litigation. Put another way, I focus on argument - evaluation of positions - the links in the chain of argument. If Zimmerman was a lawyer presenting his argument, he would be laughed out of the courtroom.
He did exactly what he effectively accused the leading climate scientists of: he mischaracterized, took things way out of context, made baseless conclusions and projections, and was absolutistic in his own position. (I was confused by the interviewer and disappointed ultimately. This was not a useful or challenging interview. If someone is claiming that the sun sets in the East, contrary to science, the interviewer must challenge the presenter and actually be well read on the topic and the controversial positions. It would have been better to have someone interview Zimmerman who disagreed with his views to challenge his "evidence" and some of his conclusions.)
I actually had to force myself to watch both interview parts - only because it was posted on Integral Life. (On that note, I am fairly disappointed in Integral Life not because it is a dissenting opinion to my own but because it is stunningly biased and unsupported and much of what he has said has proven to be dead wrong and misleading. It was almost like listening to a dinosaur thinker or that relative at the holiday dinners who says things that have been debunked a long time ago - it's embarrassing to listen to. For example, Climate Gate in many respects was a complete "bust". Of course there should be more transparency - although I do understand the motives of the scientists. Also, to suggest that "journalists" have been somehow too cozy with the scientists is ridiculous. The reality is that journalism left the building (or was it ever in the building?) decades ago. They have done a pitiful job and network newscasts have done nothing but fed into the "bamboozle machine". Moreover, his use of the quote from Lovelock was insulting - it was misused and mischaracterized. Seriously, wow.
From what I have read and seen, assessing the arguments and positions from a variety of sources, actually finding rebuttals, and responses to rebuttals, thus far, the climate science is indeed very strong and overwhelming that C02 and other gases - primarily created by man - directly or indirectly - are creating a very dangerous condition for human survival. We are at the 11th hour and we must work together. It is indeed a planetary emergency. Currently, this is where logic and science take us. Having said that, we should always be vigilant in our continuing assessments of not only the actual evidence presented by the potential weaknesses of the systems that produced the evidence. A group can indeed come to erroneous conclusions and we should monitor, evaluate, test and re-test in other ways - constantly assessing. But so far, unfortunately, there is only weak evidence that suggests most climate scientists somehow have it wrong - and if anything, we are underestimating the real impact and the emergency nature of the crisis.
How we solve this crisis - and we must for our children's sake - there are a lot of ideas - it appears to me that it will be an integration of many ideas and the use of clean, alternative sources, which I believe may come from new breakthroughs - actually cheap forms of energy that will revolutionize our relationship to energy. (Ironically, I actually agree with a majority of Zimmerman's conclusions in the last 10 minutes.) By the way, the idea that we don't have enough energy capacity to deal with the current and future requirements is an example of weak (dinosaur) thinking. This crisis requires bold, courageous, challenging, visionary ideas rooted in logic and science. It is not for the faint-hearted. We must - and - we will - develop better energy systems and (clean, renewable) sources. Yes, perhaps some stop-gap sources are required to be part of the mix, but there are several energy breakthrough's on hand.
We must never give up on the truth and what needs to be done. I am hopeful that we will figure this out but it will take many of us to do it.
Peter
PS. Zimmerman unfortunately at this time is stunningly way off in his thinking. It seems to be the result of some kind of emotional or shadow?? I am not sure. But I know when I am speculating...
- Please Login to Add Comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
1 out of 1 members found this useful.
Climate Science Clear - In Spite of Zimmerman "Logic"
Posted April 11th, 2010 by Peter Panopoulos in response to "Chaotic systems are not predictable; Many leading...Barbi,
It is refreshing to read your comments and insights.
I was actually stunned watching the video.
I am a lawyer in Canada trained in litigation. Put another way, I focus on argument - evaluation of positions - the links in the chain of argument. If Zimmerman was a lawyer presenting his argument, he would be laughed out of the courtroom.
He did exactly what he effectively accused the leading climate scientists of: he mischaracterized, took things way out of context, made baseless conclusions and projections, and was absolutistic in his own position. (I was confused by the interviewer and disappointed ultimately. This was not a useful or challenging interview. If someone is claiming that the sun sets in the East, contrary to science, the interviewer must challenge the presenter and actually be well read on the topic and the controversial positions. It would have been better to have someone interview Zimmerman who disagreed with his views to challenge his "evidence" and some of his conclusions.)
I actually had to force myself to watch both interview parts - only because it was posted on Integral Life. (On that note, I am fairly disappointed in Integral Life not because it is a dissenting opinion to my own but because it is stunningly biased and unsupported and much of what he has said has proven to be dead wrong and misleading. It was almost like listening to a dinosaur thinker or that relative at the holiday dinners who says things that have been debunked a long time ago - it's embarrassing to listen to. For example, Climate Gate in many respects was a complete "bust". Of course there should be more transparency - although I do understand the motives of the scientists. Also, to suggest that "journalists" have been somehow too cozy with the scientists is ridiculous. The reality is that journalism left the building (or was it ever in the building?) decades ago. They have done a pitiful job and network newscasts have done nothing but fed into the "bamboozle machine". Moreover, his use of the quote from Lovelock was insulting - it was misused and mischaracterized. Seriously, wow.
From what I have read and seen, assessing the arguments and positions from a variety of sources, actually finding rebuttals, and responses to rebuttals, thus far, the climate science is indeed very strong and overwhelming that C02 and other gases - primarily created by man - directly or indirectly - are creating a very dangerous condition for human survival. We are at the 11th hour and we must work together. It is indeed a planetary emergency. Currently, this is where logic and science take us. Having said that, we should always be vigilant in our continuing assessments of not only the actual evidence presented by the potential weaknesses of the systems that produced the evidence. A group can indeed come to erroneous conclusions and we should monitor, evaluate, test and re-test in other ways - constantly assessing. But so far, unfortunately, there is only weak evidence that suggests most climate scientists somehow have it wrong - and if anything, we are underestimating the real impact and the emergency nature of the crisis.
How we solve this crisis - and we must for our children's sake - there are a lot of ideas - it appears to me that it will be an integration of many ideas and the use of clean, alternative sources, which I believe may come from new breakthroughs - actually cheap forms of energy that will revolutionize our relationship to energy. (Ironically, I actually agree with a majority of Zimmerman's conclusions in the last 10 minutes.) By the way, the idea that we don't have enough energy capacity to deal with the current and future requirements is an example of weak (dinosaur) thinking. This crisis requires bold, courageous, challenging, visionary ideas rooted in logic and science. It is not for the faint-hearted. We must - and - we will - develop better energy systems and (clean, renewable) sources. Yes, perhaps some stop-gap sources are required to be part of the mix, but there are several energy breakthrough's on hand.
We must never give up on the truth and what needs to be done. I am hopeful that we will figure this out but it will take many of us to do it.
Peter
PS. Zimmerman unfortunately at this time is stunningly way off in his thinking. It seems to be the result of some kind of emotional or shadow?? I am not sure. But I know when I am speculating...
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
The Unvierse says, "Thumbs down with Zimmerman"
Posted April 12th, 2010 by barbi hammond in response to Climate Science Clear - In Spite of Zimmerman "Logic"--
Peter,
It is refreshing to find an integral life member who is not only scientifically well-informed, but is capable of thinking independently, most critically, and most comprehensively on a topic of utmost concern. Conversely, I find it disturbing to find so many integral life members who are so breathtakingly ignorant on matters of a scientific kind. What I am beginning to suspect is that the center-of-gravity for the majority of members here is orange, and that the staff members and KW himself and themselves are perhaps no better than green for their inability to differentiate legitimate science from the hype of fringe scientific arguments by presenting both viewpoints as legitimate scientific viewpoints. Making them no better than the popular media's portrayal of the climate change issue.
I attempted to download the second half of the discussion but kept getting the first half instead. This indicates to me that the Unvierse says, 'not to bother' with the second half
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
The Universe Says, "Science denial is an IQ problem"
Posted April 14th, 2010 by Richard Layman in response to The Unvierse says, "Thumbs down with Zimmerman"Barbi,
After a long absence I am stunned to find you still debating in good faith with the "integral" science deniers on this forum. How do you keep on patiently "turning the other cheek" and trying to educate these barking dogs? You are not only "suffering" fools (and that is my kindest characterization of them) but longsuffering them.
The only response that "climategate" deserves is that science can always benefit from better quality control (QC). Shit happens in science. But nice people with real science jobs are constantly trying to improve information quality and lower barriers to data access. Anybody that has constructive QC ideas for science or improvements on the scientific method or the science infrastructure please speak up or at some point shut the fuck up.
It seems to me that climate science denial is only a special case of science denial, which is only a special case of information pollution , which in turn is a subset of the information quality (IQ) problem.
Forgive me for stating the obvious: science deniers have an underlying IQ problem (nudge, nudge, wink, wink).
Barbi, thanks for your climate change research and posts, a hidden treasure on this website.
Deniers, Bob Dylan says, "don't criticize what you can't understand"
Regards,
Richard
--
There is no answer. There is no solution. There is only practice. (Anon.)
- Please Login to Add Comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
1 out of 1 members found this useful.
Zimmerman's Argument Built on Sand
Posted April 15th, 2010 by Peter PanopoulosBarbi,
It is quite refreshing to read your comments and insights.
I was actually stunned watching the video. I am a lawyer in Canada trained in litigation. I focus on argument - evaluation of positions - the links in the chain of argument. If Zimmerman was a lawyer presenting his argument, he would be laughed out of the courtroom. (Speaking of Canada, it is shameful what our government says about Climate Change but that is another story.) Zimmerman did exactly what he effectively accused the leading climate scientists of: he mischaracterized, took things way out of context, made baseless conclusions and projections, and was absolutistic in his own position. I was confused by the interviewer and disappointed ultimately. This was not a useful or challenging interview. If someone is claiming that the sun sets in the East, contrary to science, the interviewer must challenge the presenter and actually be well read on the topic and the controversial positions. It would have been better to have someone interview Zimmerman who disagreed with his views to challenge his "evidence" and some of his conclusions. I actually had to force myself to watch both interview parts - only because it was posted on Integral Life. On that note, I am fairly disappointed in Integral Life not because it is a dissenting opinion to my own but because it is stunningly biased and unsupported and much of what he has said has proven to be dead wrong and misleading. It was almost like listening to a dinosaur thinker or that relative at the holiday dinners who says things that have been debunked a long time ago - it's embarrassing to listen to. For example, Climate Gate in many respects was a complete "bust". Of course there should be more transparency - although I do understand the motives of the scientists. Also, to suggest that "journalists" have been somehow too cozy with the scientists is ridiculous. The reality is that journalism left the building (or was it ever in the building?) decades ago. They have done a pitiful job and network newscasts have done nothing but feed into the "bamboozle machine". Moreover, his use of the quote from Lovelock was insulting - it was misused and mischaracterized. Seriously, wow. From what I have read and seen, assessing the arguments and positions from a variety of sources, actually finding rebuttals, and responses to rebuttals, thus far, the climate science is indeed very strong and overwhelming that C02 - and yes other gases - primarily created by man - directly or indirectly - are creating a very dangerous condition for human survival. We are at the 11th hour and we must work together. It is indeed a planetary emergency. Currently, this is where logic and science take us. Having said that, we should always be vigilant in our continuing assessments of not only the actual evidence presented but the potential weaknesses of the systems that produced the evidence. A group can indeed come to erroneous conclusions and we should monitor, evaluate, test and re-test in other ways - constantly assessing. But so far, unfortunately, there is only weak evidence that suggests most climate scientists somehow have it wrong - and if anything, we are underestimating the real impact and the emergency nature of the crisis. How we solve this crisis - and we must for our children's sake - there are a lot of ideas - it appears to me that it will be an integration of many ideas and the use of clean, alternative sources, some of which which I believe may come from new breakthroughs - actually cheap forms of energy that will revolutionize our relationship to energy. (Ironically, I actually agree with a majority of Zimmerman's conclusions in the last 10 minutes.) By the way, the idea that we don't have enough energy capacity to deal with the current and future requirements is an example of weak (dinosaur) thinking. This crisis requires bold, courageous, challenging, visionary ideas rooted in logic and science and courageous passion. It is not for the faint-hearted. It is for the inspired, courageous visionaries - particularly those who can think large scale. We must - and - we will - develop better energy systems and (clean, renewable) sources. Yes, perhaps some stop-gap measures or sources are required to be part of the mix, but there are several energy breakthrough's already on hand or coming soon. We must never give up on the truth and what needs to be done. I am hopeful that we will figure this out but it will take many of us to do it. Peter PS. Zimmerman unfortunately at this time is stunningly way off in his thinking. It seems to be the result of some kind of emotional issue or shadow?? I am not sure. But, you see, I know when I am speculating...
- Please Login to Add Comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
complexity theory
Posted March 20th, 2010 by Ambo SunoHi Barbi. You make a strong presentation.
I haven't independently thought through all of the material in your post to the point where I have a clear conclusion on this on-going exploration and controversy around climate change. When I read your paragraph that I post below, some questions arise.
"His claim that climate science is based on computer climate models gives the impression that climate science is entirely speculative and based on computer prediction models. This is untrue. [emboldening, mine] Climate study is based just as much, if not more--on direct observation and physical data. When all of the available data is entered into a computer, today's scientists are capable of reproducing past and present climates with very good accuracy. The accuracy of past projections of future climate by computer climate models (now the present) confirm at present that climate models work very well to predict present, past, and future climate except possibly erring on the side of the conservative of late (due possibly to unknown positive feedback mechanisms being triggered but not being accounted for in the climate model). This does not invalidate these models; but merely indicate that these computer models are likely to underestimate future climate change until they have a more precise knowledge of the effects of positive feedback mechanisms now being triggered and amplifying the sun's heat."
You sound to be quite scientific in your understanding and conclusions. Your assertions express more certainty than I feel. As a scientist, I am guessing that you are quite familiar with "complexity theory", the phrase "non-linear dynamic systems", and the unknowns of chaos's seemingly quirky expression in action. As I think do you, I think a lot of our data and beginning understanding of this huge topic needs to be interpreted properly. It seems that since we don't have direct god-vision into all of the universes' workings, computer modeling is one of our best ways to try to get a handle on the complexity of past, present, and future enaction. I don't think that Zimmerman is as ignorant or dismissive of scientific 'facts' and data as you portray. I like how scientifically modestly he wants to acknowledge incomplete knowledge, ever-present uncertainty, the vagueries of non-linear dynamic action, of complexity. I like how he questions, still, and doesn't try to force early certainty and conclusion.
It might be that I could go back and listen to him again to see if I misunderstood him, and I could read your presentation more carefully. As of now, I like keeping the discussion a little more spacious. Can you go with anything that I have said?
ambo