Re: climate change times are a changin'
I'm pretty sure they aren't
your videos.
Yes, and allow me my "Kepler" factor: This "science reporter" is reporting someone else's data.
Correct. There is a difference between his videos and much of what is posted here, however. If you watch Hadfield's series, he is reporting on the conclusions that are in the primary, peer review literature. He is not making his own, non-expert, non-peer reviewed conclusions. Additionally, his main focus is on finding the original source of a claim and finding out what they actually say. He does a great job nailing down Monckton on many of his exaggerated or just made up claims.
He's proving that the claims are wrong using the data that is in question.
He is more saying claims on the internet and popular press are wrong because they are not the actual claims of the climate scientists in their respective manuscripts. I think the videos also illustrate how people outside of the field have tremendous trouble evaluating the data because they just do not have the education or expertise to understand how things are actually done.
What I found more interesting is that the data (second video, second half) admits that the polar data is extrapolated from the nearest stations. Extrapolated data is an oxymoron. If you extrapolated it you got it from a model; data is collected.
This statement makes me feel like you either have little idea how scientific data is interpreted across many fields or have absolutely impossible standards when it comes to data collection. I re-watched the video and at no point did he use the term "extrapolated data." That is your term. Additionally, I think you completely missed the context of that part of the video. He saying that one method uses satellite data while the other relies on the nearest stations for an Antarctic temperature estimate, thus explaining the variation between the two measuring bodies (both showing warming, mind you.)
Do you really have that big of an issue of using data from certain points around the Antarctic to make conclusions about the overall temperature? What is your alternative? Put a measuring station every 5 feet to make sure the data is accurate? There are reasons we use averages. Additionally, there is a scientific property called convergence, where data from two separate lines of inquiry draw the similar conclusion. This happens with the fossil record and genetics with evolution and this also happens with multiple techniques for estimating global temperature. I use 1-2 different blood pressures to estimate a patient's overall blood pressure. In most cases, am I making a dangerous conclusion from "extrapolating data?"
You either need to 1. Tell us why this way of collecting data is so flawed the conclusions are invalid or 2. Propose a better way to estimate global temperatures. I clearly would prefer either in an appropriate, peer-reviewed format, not some blogger or journalist.
Here's what watching those videos made me realize (hang with me a second) ...
Imagine a knock at your door. There's an expert telling you that Jesus Christ is risen, He is truly risen, and this slick seller has the proof. He has the book and the data, the testimonials, right there, in hand, in print. He can show you. You have your doubts about the book. Some of it seems reasonable: family tree stuff, some tenants of life to try to live by. However, a 9'9" tall man named Goliath? A giant flood survived only by a big boat captained by a guy named Noah? A guy who is publicly flogged and executed and then rises from the dead and he walks out of a tomb guarded by Roman centurians? C'mon man.
But to your protestations the slick seller says, "No, it's true. I can prove it." So they return to ... the same book.
I feel you are baiting me with this
Using the bible as a comparison to the scientific method?
Let me say this. If I could be shown that the bible gave me information on how to land on the moon, give me the ability and technology to type all the bs I type on a regular basis to other idiots around the word, cure many forms of cancer, understand a glimpse of our own origins, vaccinate, build robots, and have a GPS system so advanced I can figure out what ****ing starbucks I want to walk to within the exact meter....I will take a better listen.
The more I think about this, the more I'm in
John Stossel's mindset.
Here's a stat for everyone:
http://www.wri.org/resources/data-visualizations/proposed-coal-fired-plants-installed-capacity-mw
China and India are building nearly 3/4 of that 1.4 million MW. Put another way, they are
each proposing installing
new coal fired plants with more capacity than the current total US coal fired output. They are each going to add what we do now ... plus. Biking to work is a BB against that battleship.
They are doing it because electricity generation capacity is the easiest thing to correlate to a country's economic status. I really can't begrudge them that. They want to raise themselves up in the world.
There is a reason I stay away from these arguments (online at least). I think it is hard enough for people to understand the science, to understand the method, to understand the data, to understand the conclusions and to understand the legitimate criticisms (in context and in an appropriate media). I try to focus on that. The way we go about fixing this mess and the politics surrounding it is such a different animal.
***Also please forgive my tone at times. I am a poor judge on how it sounds via internet. I am not trying to be a dick. You are actively engaging and I appreciate it.
