Publications like Science & Nature are awash in bias

[Flipper]

Flipper and Fool, I know this is crazy, but... I'm on record claiming that global warming comes from the sun. In addition to steady temps for the last 8 years, aren't we in for a 12-year period of calm on the sun? Man-made or not, scientists are moving away from fear over melting ice caps, warming-induced hurricanes (MIA last couple of years, man-made or not), rising oceans, etc.

I am more concerned about the consequences than I am the causes. Personally, I hope the man-made skeptics are right, but they're not in the majority yet.

What bugs me about the 22-year solar cycle theory is that we have been getting satellite observations from the arctic for nearly 30 years now (not to mention generations-worth of data on European and South American glaciers), and they all appear to show record melt-rates the trends of which indicate that they are melting faster than they are being replaced.

Also, it is my understanding that there is even less evidence linking solar cycle activity with weather changes than there is for man-made global warming.

What bugs me about the current ice pack melt rates is that, as I understand it, the change in planetary albedo caused by ice melts is likely to accelerate the process as more solar energy gets absorbed rather than reflected. So the process appears likely to accelerate as it continues.

Ignoring it seems like a dangerous gamble.

 

[Flipper]

Weather or Whether? If Nature and Science can't even be intellectually fair to 54 noted physicists about the weather, of all things, what makes our evolutionist friends here at TOL doubt the intense opportunity for bias among professional Darwinist journalists about something as far-reaching as whether there is evidence that we were recently created?

I think a big problem is that at least Darwinism is consistent with observations from a wide variety of other disciplines, and that there is an overarching 'big picture' that is largely consistent.

YEC does not appear to to have been able to effectively put together the little pieces of the puzzle, let alone been able to build a compelling bigger picture, which seems strange if the evidence is so apparently obvious. One obvious example, are the disagreements regarding which geological layers were laid down by the flood. That, one would think, should be obvious if the flood were to be an actual event.

If you think there is a big picture description that gives a scientific basis to the events of Genesis that is generally acknowledged by a majority of YEC scientists, then I'd like to see it.

I know you have advocated Walt Brown's Hydroplate Theory, so I expect you know what your friends at AIG think about it. Walt Brown has had a few things to say about his perceptions.

 

[Gerald]

Gerald, of course, you made a great point, and I agreed with it. I was only punning with the misspelling

:: checks earlier post, discovers missing r ::

:doh:

So you agree with Plantinga? You do consider the mainstream scientific community's automatic ruling out of supernatural causes of events to be unjustified?

I'm wanting to determine your position on this because it ties in with another question I have, which should probably be meat for another thread, given the focus on global climate issues in this one.

 

[fool]

Flipper and Fool, I know this is crazy, but... I'm on record claiming that global warming comes from the sun. In addition to steady temps for the last 8 years, aren't we in for a 12-year period of calm on the sun? Man-made or not, scientists are moving away from fear over melting ice caps, warming-induced hurricanes (MIA last couple of years, man-made or not), rising oceans, etc.
-Bob Enyart
KGOV.com

From here;http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/seaice_status09.html

WASHINGTON -- The latest Arctic sea ice data from NASA and the National Snow and Ice Data Center show that the decade-long trend of shrinking sea ice cover is continuing. New evidence from satellite observations also shows that the ice cap is thinning as well. Scientists who track Arctic sea ice cover from space announced that this winter had the fifth-lowest maximum ice extent on record. The six lowest maximum events since satellite monitoring began in 1979 have all occurred in the past six years (2004-2009).

 

[Johnny]

Feh. Nature and Science frequently refuse editorial letters. The fact that the letter is from your side doesn't mean they're biased.

 

[Stripe]

I am more concerned about the consequences than I am the causes. Personally, I hope the man-made skeptics are right, but they're not in the majority yet.

You're not interested in science. You're only interested in who is shouting the loudest.

 

[Flipper]

Stripe: Not really. I am more interested in the evidence but, as with most technical things, I rely upon experts to figure out the most likely interpretations of that evidence. That's why we have experts.

 

[The Barbarian]

Flipper and Fool, I know this is crazy, but... I'm on record claiming that global warming comes from the sun.

Technically, almost all the energy for global warming comes from the sun. But the warming is just the net balance of thermal energy. We get a certain amount from the sun, and a certain amount is given off by the Earth. When we get more than we give off, the temperatures rise. That's where we are now.

In addition to steady temps for the last 8 years,

The trend is slightly up for the past eight years, for the reason you mention below. The slope of the regression line is 0.40476, using GISS data. I can do the Hadley data for you, if you like.

aren't we in for a 12-year period of calm on the sun?

A sunspot minimum, yes, and we are also experiencing a strong La Nina, both of which should cause marked cooling. And 2008 was relatively cool, although hotter than any year but one for the previous decade. But this year will be hotter than last at the present rate. The natural cycles don't go away, they just got swamped by the anthropogenic warming.

Man-made or not, scientists are moving away from fear over melting ice caps, warming-induced hurricanes (MIA last couple of years, man-made or not),

If only it were so. The theory predicts an increase in the number of severe hurricanes, and that is what the data show. The theory also predicts that ice caps should thicken as warming causes more precipitation at the poles, even as they melt at the margins. And that is what we are seeing also.

 

[Stripe]

Stripe: Not really. I am more interested in the evidence but, as with most technical things, I rely upon experts to figure out the most likely interpretations of that evidence. That's why we have experts.

Don't be dense, Flipper. Evidence is available to all. Experts are made from a reasoned analysis of the evidence. Relying on "experts" is selling your soul to the loudest voice.

Every "expert" worth his salt will tell you exactly the same thing.

 

[The Barbarian]

Don't be dense, Flipper. Evidence is available to all. Experts are made from a reasoned analysis of the evidence. Relying on "experts" is selling your soul to the loudest voice.

So, if your doctor thinks you need a hip replacement, be sure to get a second opinion from your barber. :rotfl:

Every "expert" worth his salt will tell you exactly the same thing.

I don't think so, Stipe.

 

[Stripe]

So, if your doctor thinks you need a hip replacement, be sure to get a second opinion from your barber. :rotfl:

We're not talking about hip replacements, now are we? And you've strayed far from the point I made with your analogy. A correct analogy would be that my own evidence (pain in the hip, inability to walk...) should be brought to the doctor. His analysis should match your evidence. No barber required.

I don't think so, Stipe.

Really? You prefer your experts of the type to refuse evidence in favour of a "believe me"?