A Few Things Ill Considered

A layman's take on the science of Global Warming featuring a guide on How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic.

Saturday, March 11, 2006

send this to... Digg it! | Technorati | Del.icio.us | Reddit | Furl | Spurl

What About Peiser?

(Part of the How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic guide)

This article has moved to ScienceBlogs

It has also been updated and this page is still here only to preserve the original comment thread. Please visit A Few Things Ill Considered there. You may also like to view Painting With Water, Coby Beck's original fine art photography.

Labels:

9 Comments:

  • At March 30, 2006 5:23 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    This site's a great resource and a good read thanks Coby,
    frankis

     
  • At March 30, 2006 1:44 PM, Blogger coby said…

    I appreciate the positive feedback, thanks frankis!

     
  • At July 03, 2006 2:22 PM, Anonymous Seth Russell said…

    I'm trying to get to the bottom of this and have created a reading list Oreskes vs Peiser. Your article has been instrumental in building that list, thank you. There is, however, one article that i cannot access ... the correction in science to Oreskes findings (see my page above). Do you have access to that article? Is there some way that we can find and publish what the correction was? Thanks again for your help in this matter.

     
  • At July 03, 2006 4:46 PM, Blogger coby said…

    Hi Seth,

    Glad you find it useful! I don't know if this is it, I doubt it, but may still be of interest:
    http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-1761-2005.32.pdf
    I got that from this thread:
    http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/2005/09/14/wind-changes-over-time-and-space-as-a-climate-metric-to-diagnose-temperature-trends/

    I have had very good luck (100% success rate) asking authors directly for reprints of papers etc. I am sure Naomi Oreskes would be happy to send you a .pdf if you emailed a polite request.

     
  • At August 02, 2006 5:28 PM, Blogger Mark said…

    As they always do Peiser is grasping at straws. He gets the short ones every time. The only way to find denieresque papers would be by including the social sciences. Also it's where Bjorn Lomborg resides. That's no accident.

     
  • At November 14, 2006 8:24 PM, Blogger jo_bobtwc said…

    I don't know about you, but it seems to me that most of those abstracts mention global climate change but not global warming or human influence upon the climate change. Global climate is in a constant state of flux so, having read nothing but the portions of abstracts above I would say that discernment of the writers views on global warming is impossible. Most could go either way depending on the actual text of the papers.

     
  • At November 14, 2006 9:30 PM, Blogger coby said…

    Global climate is in a constant state of flux

    On some timescales that statement would hold.

    But I think these days when someone speaks of global climate change they are speaking of the current anthropogenic warming unless specified otherwise explicitly or by context.

     
  • At August 01, 2007 9:44 PM, Blogger ken.johnson said…

    There seems to be so many contentious and contrary 'opinions' about Global Warming due to CO2, how about injecting a little science, math, and logic into the argument. It has been some time since my Meteorology education, but I dug out my textbook which tells me that CO2 constitutes about 5% of Greenhouse Gases, with H2O being over 90%. It also says that man's fossil fuel combustion contributes about 5% of the CO2 in the atmosphere, with the oceans contributing about 60% and animal respiration along with organic material decay making up about 30%. Assuming that info is somewhat dated, we could maybe raise our 5% by 20% and make it 6% as man's 'controllable' CO2 pollution. Now, it would appear that if only 5% of Greenhouse Gases is CO2 and man can only control 6% of that, then it means we only have control over 0.3% (6% of 5%) of the CO2 Greenhouse Gas thought to be causing Global Warming. Is eliminating that tiny fraction (1/3000) of any possible temperature rise worth virtually destroying the world economy?

    I know Climatology is not that simple but it does give a ballpark science based number that can be either substansiated or disproven. I would also appreciate knowing about any newer references anyone knows of that would alter those numbers significantly.

    Ken Johnson
    Registered Professional Engineer

     
  • At August 01, 2007 10:39 PM, Blogger coby said…

    Hi Ken,

    I suggest you have a look through the other articles in the HowTo guide, you will find plenty of science in them.

    As a start I would recomend:
    Natural CO2 dwarfs human's
    Water vapour is almost all of the GHE
    Climate science ignores H2O
    CO2 rise is natural

    Thanks for the comments!

     

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home