On Friday, over at MoJo, Julia Whitty published a blog report about a study showing how people can detect by clothes and appearances who Democrats are and who Republicans are.

I then went and read the study she linked to, and found it was a study of undergraduate students ability to detect the characteristics of undergraduates students.

So what we had was:

A) The authors of the study grossly overgeneralizing their results, and
B) Julia Whitty, like you reporting blindly, and not questioning anything,

I pointed that out, and Julia Whitty deleted all my comments.

So as a layman with about 10 years of post high-school education in the sciences and three degrees, I’d say, good for the public to look at the man behind the curtain. And shame on you and Julia for waving the curtain like a red flag to scare us.

I believe in global warming, what I don’t believe in is you or your methods.

As usual, Kirk said it best:

Nilz Baris (played by Chris Mooney): Captain Kirk, I consider your security measures a disgrace. In my opinion, you have taken this entire very important project far too lightly.

Capt. Kirk (played by the American Public): On the contrary, sir. I think of this project as very important. It is you I take lightly.

“The survey also found lower public trust in a variety of institutions and leaders, including scientists.”

HOWEVER, it is quite possible that the bigger picture here is not just about the latest hot science topic. Has anyone noticed a worldwide recession?? When the economy goes down, distrust goes up. I’m pretty sure it’s basic social psychology that as people feel more insecure they become less trusting of institutions, leaders, and basically everyone different and unknown and not within their ken. The current insecurity could include economically, physically (due to threat of terrorism and pandemics), and personally (due to increased divorce rates and the “threat” of gay marriage) and concern for one’s children due to lower funding for education and higher costs for college.

I’m just suggesting that the “distrust of scientists” could actually mean that science is another victim of economic difficulties.

Meanwhile, real problems like desertification and pH changes in the oceans are ignored by both parties. Enjoy your smug ignorance.

Milton C.

A stunningly superficial question with an easy answer: when you have decades of research, all from thousands of independent authors and hundreds of datasets (from actual temperatures to proxy data to evolutionary trends to species ranges to phenology to ice cover, etc. etc. etc.) that ALL say similar things ove the long term, a scientist coming out and saying “hey, this one model dealing with one dataset from this one dimension of the body of theory needs to be readjusted” simply doesn’t disprove (or even call into question) it all.

“Stunningly superficial” or “extremely basic,” you still didn’t my question. So I’ll ask it again: Since carbon sensitivity has not been determined, how can detailed temperature forecasts be made decades into the future? Simply saying the answer is there is not the same as providing one.

Second, whether or not climate scientists can forecast global temperatures decades into the future has little to do with whether or not glaciers are already melting and causing huge impacts on human populations (which they are), if ocean acidification due to CO2 is already causing coral bleaching (which it is), and whether or not a whole host of other impacts that were predicted years ago by climate scientists under the assumption of AGW are coming true. They already have, and already are – and as they do, skeptics have begun to hinge on more and more trivial parts of the theory (like the single feedback paper in this thread)..

Glaciers aren’t the best example, since that howler of an error in the IPCC report was just about that. Instead of trying to scare people, maybe you’d be better off re-examining your scare scenarios to see if they don’t also have flaws.

Calling carbon sensitivity “trivial” is just unbelievable. It’s the whole underpinning of the dire forecasts. If carbon sensitivity is very high, the more radical predictions of the AGW believers become credible. If sensitivity is low, those predictions are exaggerated. Do you really understand the theory you’re defending?

A stunningly superficial question with an easy answer: when you have decades of research, all from thousands of independent authors and hundreds of datasets (from actual temperatures to proxy data to evolutionary trends to species ranges to phenology to ice cover, etc. etc. etc.) that ALL say similar things ove the long term, a scientist coming out and saying “hey, this one model dealing with one dataset from this one dimension of the body of theory needs to be readjusted” simply doesn’t disprove (or even call into question) it all.</I.

Second, whether or not climate scientists can forecast global temperatures decades into the future has little to do with whether or not glaciers are already melting and causing huge impacts on human populations (which they are), if ocean acidification due to CO2 is already causing coral bleaching (which it is), and whether or not a whole host of other impacts that were predicted years ago by climate scientists under the assumption of AGW are coming true. They already have, and already are – and as they do, skeptics have begun to hinge on more and more trivial parts of the theory (like the single feedback paper in this thread)..

Glaciers aren’t the best example, since that howler of an error in the IPCC report was just about that. Instead of trying to scare people, maybe you’d be better off re-examining your scare scenarios to see if they don’t also have flaws.

Calling carbon sensitivity “trivial” is just unbelievable. It’s the whole underpinning of the dire forecasts. If carbon sensitivity is very high, the more radical predictions of the AGW believers become credible. If sensitivity is low, those predictions are exaggerated. Do you really understand the theory you’re defending?

Multiple threads is a good idea, but the main cause of the shouting is that many in the AGW crowd has framed this issue as good vs. evil (with themselves as the good guys, of course). So if one disagrees with the more radical AGW believers, you’re not only wrong, and a “denialist,” but evil.

The best thing for the undecided to do is read a variety of Web sites on the subject. Real Climate is probably the best to learn about AGW theory. Watts Up With That? is probably the best for the skeptical view. These will often discuss papers and provide excerpts.

I wish I could find a solution to your wish to see the full papers without paying an arm and a leg. One option is to become a science writer …

Arguments about climate change always deteriorate into people shouting at each other, partly because they jump all over the place. It seems multiple threads– like a bulletin board — would work better. One thread could be whether global warming is occurring, another about increases in CO2. Why waste the time of people talking about possible correlation, causation and possible effects if you can’t even start with the same premises?