Statistical models demonstrate that recent severe weather is caused by climate change

[piasabird]

Who designed the Models?

 

[berzerker60]

Ahh, esteemed scientific journal "wattsupwiththat.com"

Any given viewpoint on science - heck, on ANY issue - is going to have detractors. You shouldn't listen to just one 'expert' on any subject. I can find you 10 PhDs who say vaccines cause autism, and 10,000 who say there's no data to support that claim and plenty to suggest it's untrue. You have to look for the consensus viewpoint. You're not really qualified to say whether cigarettes cause cancer or don't, and neither am I. If one doctor says they don't, and posts a complicated study, it's still stupid to pretend the conclusion is now seriously in doubt and you're fully justified puffing away three packs a day. "After all," I'm sure you'd argue, "all the other studies saying cigarettes cause cancer are just bought-and-paid-for stooges wanting government grants and to advance their careers! Damned liberals!"

The bitching about "Oh he's just trying to get government grants, let's wait for unbiased science" is absurd and shows complete ignorance of how science works. There is no such thing as a purely unbiased scientist working outside of the funding system, certainly not in fields that require significant amounts of money for serious studies. This, again, is why we don't take one study as a good reason to take action, but we DO put weight in meta-studies that compile and analyze many studies operating over a long time, such as the one from the OP. Science is the best way of learning about the world around us that exists, but it's not perfect or flawless and no scientist is an inhuman reason-robot giving perfect conclusions, so it's stupid to think that you've disproven a study by showing that a lead scientist is a human being with human motivations too. That's why we have extensive training for PhDs, peer review to analyze their methodology, and meta-studies so that no one study gets too much weight.

 

[cybrsage]

As one final note, here is even easier data to read.

NASA’s James Hansen is just wrong: Proof that there is no increased drought in the USA tied to temperature
Contiguous U.S. precipitation – annual average – source NCDC

Bringing real data into a religious thread about the Church of the Man Made Warming is silly.

 

[shira]

The science speaks for itself.

Editorial: ‘Hansen is simply wrong’ and ‘his hypothesis is a complete and abject failure’

This is not a published, peer reviewed criticism. Furthermore, as usual, you're focusing on criticisms by one of the handful of contrarian climatologists, in this case the well known skeptic Pat Michaels:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Michaels#Criticism_and_support

On January 25, 2011, Rep. Henry Waxman sent a letter to Rep. Fred Upton seeking to call in Michaels for questioning about his science and funding. In the letter, Waxman wrote that Pat Michaels testified before the Energy and Commerce Committee in February 2009 "that widely accepted scientific data had 'overestimated' global warming and that regulation enacted in response to that data could have 'a very counterproductive effect.' Among the scientists who testified before this Committee on the issue of climate change in the last Congress, Pat Michaels was the only one to dismiss the need to act on climate change ... Dr. Michaels may have provided misleading information about the sources of his funding and his ties to industries opposed to regulation of emissions responsible for climate change."

On July 27, 2006 ABC News reported that a Colorado energy cooperative, the Intermountain Rural Electric Association, had given Michaels $100,000. An Associated Press report said that the donations had been made after Michaels had "told Western business leaders ... that he was running out of money for his analyses of other scientists' global warming research" and noted that the cooperative had a vested interest in opposing mandatory carbon dioxide caps, a situation that raised conflict of interest concerns.

According to Fred Pearce, fossil fuel companies have helped fund Michaels' projects, including his World Climate Report, published every year since 1994, and his "advocacy science consulting firm", New Hope Environmental Services.

Yeah, Pat Michaels is clearly the last unbiased word on climate change.

 

[Munky]

Let me guess... more reasons why we should fork over our money to a lefty political agenda. I'll pass.

 

[cybrsage]

This is not a published, peer reviewed criticism. .

That is not a requirement to be considered true, at least not if you believe the people who put the IPCC report together. They used a significant number of non-peer reviewed studies and reports, which included an article in a layman's hiking magazine and student created papers.

 

[berzerker60]

There's no reason that this SHOULD be a "lefty political agenda." It should be a problem both sides accept and just have different solutions for, like with the budget, poverty levels, and other issues.

The only reason it isn't is because some companies threw lots of money at making it seem like a contested issue when it's not, then Team Blue vs. Team Red tribalism stepped in and suddenly if Al Gore says the sky is blue is must actually be green and THOSE DAMNED LIBERALS using the liberal media to spread lies.

 

[cybrsage]

The problem is the massive amounts of bad science being touted as the truth...lies we are not allowed to challenge and, if we do, people will instantly attack saying we are bought by oil companies or are conspiracy theorists.

When the IPCC report itself is chock full of horribly bad science, mistakes, and outright lies, can you blame people for being skeptical that there is not a political agenda at work?

 

[monovillage]

Ahh, esteemed scientific journal "wattsupwiththat.com"

Any given viewpoint on science - heck, on ANY issue - is going to have detractors. You shouldn't listen to just one 'expert' on any subject. I can find you 10 PhDs who say vaccines cause autism, and 10,000 who say there's no data to support that claim and plenty to suggest it's untrue. You have to look for the consensus viewpoint. You're not really qualified to say whether cigarettes cause cancer or don't, and neither am I. If one doctor says they don't, and posts a complicated study, it's still stupid to pretend the conclusion is now seriously in doubt and you're fully justified puffing away three packs a day. "After all," I'm sure you'd argue, "all the other studies saying cigarettes cause cancer are just bought-and-paid-for stooges wanting government grants and to advance their careers! Damned liberals!"

The bitching about "Oh he's just trying to get government grants, let's wait for unbiased science" is absurd and shows complete ignorance of how science works. There is no such thing as a purely unbiased scientist working outside of the funding system, certainly not in fields that require significant amounts of money for serious studies. This, again, is why we don't take one study as a good reason to take action, but we DO put weight in meta-studies that compile and analyze many studies operating over a long time, such as the one from the OP. Science is the best way of learning about the world around us that exists, but it's not perfect or flawless and no scientist is an inhuman reason-robot giving perfect conclusions, so it's stupid to think that you've disproven a study by showing that a lead scientist is a human being with human motivations too. That's why we have extensive training for PhDs, peer review to analyze their methodology, and meta-studies so that no one study gets too much weight.

In that case here's 1100 + peer reviewed (not pal reviewed like the PNAS Hansen paper) scientific papers supporting skepticism for you then.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

Unless of course you were lying about what your viewpoint science is all about?

 

[Darwin333]

There more than likely is something to the global warming but I will wait till we start have some real un-biased studies by people not out for government grants or book deals and by people who are not going to change their opinion a few years later or exaggerate the numbers for effect.

Just about everyone in the field of research must get outside funding. How else do you propose they pay for the research they are doing, especially in fields like this that very likely will not lead to a marketable "product".

I guess you could personally spend your own money to get a phd in the subject and them spend a fuckton more of your own money to duplicate his study and get back to us. Yeah, doesn't sound all that appealing to me either.

 

[Darwin333]

IMO, we should not impliment potentially economy damaging rules when the economy is so fragile AND when our understanding of climate is so limited. We should study HOW the climate works until we actually understand it, THEN make recommendation on what do to about it.

Right now, politically controlled science is making recommendations without actually understanding how climate works. That is stupid, and potentially dangerous.

Let me preface this by saying I am not a "denier" nor am I a "believer" because frankly I don't have a phd in the subject so I just don't know. I will say that I tend to side with the scientific community and it sure as hell looks like we are having some sort of climate change.

In reply to your point about implementing a fix via rules (regulation): Even worse is the "common sense" question that I have always had concerning laws and/or regulations that we might pass to combat global warming........ what about the vast majority of the world that does not and will not conform to our rules/regulations? There are billions of poor people on this planet that would kill to have an insanely bigger carbon footprint. How do you convince those people living in a hut with no electricity or running water to wait even longer for those things so that they can afford to do it the green way? How do you convince other countries to not take advantage of us making XYZ business more expensive here? As I bolded above, its global warming so simply moving the emissions to another country does exactly dickall towards solving or slowing the problem down. We can't even pass tariffs on slave labor to keep our own workers competitive so somehow I doubt the developed world is willing to enforce a "climate tariff".