Trying to Balance 1 - Climate change real but not an emergency

[Bob In PA]

I intend to try when possible to highlight people who deal with "hot button" issues not to advocate, but to make a balanced presentation.  See link below.

Yeah, the story is from the NY Post, so step 1: ignore the headline; step 2: read the whole thing; like EVERY other newspaper, they might put stuff they like first and bury the rest at the bottom; step 3: cogitate.

I think a fair synopsis of the substances is as follows: Dr. Steven E. Koonin, who served as undersecretary for science in the Department of Energy during the Obama administration, says "Yes, it's true that the globe is warming, and that humans are exerting a warming influence upon it. But beyond that

[MightyGiants]

Bob,

I am curious, what exactly qualifies Steven E. Koonin as an expert on climate change?   I mean if you wanted to honestly enlighten us and not simply push the right-wing propaganda that tries and deny the science of climate change this man must have a strong background that qualifies him as an expert on climate science.  So what makes in an expert on climate change, especially compared to others?  Does he have a degree in climate science or meteorology?   Has he worked in the weather or climate change fields?   Has he done significant research on climate changes and if so has it resulted in peer-reviewed papers?


Edi to add-  The NY Post is part of the right-wing propaganda network I frequently refer to.  So now is your chance to show the Post does more than push right-wing propaganda, but rather gives thoughtful well balanced and fair commentary by proven experts

[philo43]

Rich,

Trying to be friendly here - do you realize how much you use "right wing propaganda" in your replies. The minute you impose that term, readers eyes glaze over and really don't read the rest of your post.  At that point you have already stated you are not willing to listen or read.

The best example I can give you is if your wife, girlfriend or significant other asks you "does this outfit make me look fat?" The reply is "no, but" as soon as the but comes out of the mouth everything else is ignored.

Do yourself a favor and lose the term.

[Bob In PA]

Bob, I am curious, what exactly qualifies Steven E. Koonin as an expert on climate change?  Does he have a degree in climate science or meteorology?   Has he worked in the weather or climate change fields?   Has he done significant research on climate changes and if so has it resulted in peer-reviewed papers?

Rich: As stated in my post, Dr. Koonin served as undersecretary for science in the Department of Energy during the Obama administration. 

I really don't mind you being skeptical, but it's easy enough to look up.... Born in Brooklyn, New York City, Koonin received his Bachelor of Science from the California Institute of Technology and his Ph.D. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology under the supervision of Arthur Kerman in the MIT Center for Theoretical Physics. In 1975, Koonin joined the faculty of the California Institute of Technology as an assistant professor of theoretical physics, and served as the institute's provost from 1995 to 2004. In 2004, Koonin joined BP as their chief scientist where he was responsible for guiding the company's long-range technology strategy, particularly in alternative and renewable energy sources.  In 2009, he was appointed the U.S. Department of Energy's second Senate-confirmed Under Secretary for Science serving from May 19, 2009, to November 18, 2011. He left that post in November 2011 for a position at the Institute for Defense Analyses. On April 23, 2012, Koonin was named director of NYU's Center for Urban Science and Progress (CUSP).  He has served on numerous advisory bodies for the National Science Foundation, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Energy and its various national laboratories, such as the JASON defense advisory group, which he has chaired. Koonin's research interests have included theoretical nuclear, many-body, and computational physics, nuclear astrophysics, and global environmental science.

The book is "significant research on climate changes" which you seek... and the "peer-review" will be the response of other scientists to the book... or you could buy a copy, read it, and let us know what you think.

Bob

[MightyGiants]

Rich,

Trying to be friendly here - do you realize how much you use "right wing propaganda" in your replies. The minute you impose that term, readers eyes glaze over and really don't read the rest of your post.  At that point you have already stated you are not willing to listen or read.

The best example I can give you is if your wife, girlfriend or significant other asks you "does this outfit make me look fat?" The reply is "no, but" as soon as the but comes out of the mouth everything else is ignored.

Do yourself a favor and lose the term.

Bob,

I am having a hard time wrapping my head around your claim of "trying to balance" while posting from a well-known right-wing propaganda site and to answer the question you refused to the claims are made by a man who is not a qualified expert on climate change.   I know you are a smart man with a keen mind.  So I have a hard time believing that you are not aware that agreeing with conservative views does not make one a qualified expert.   Before you say it, the old "both sides do it" claim, please show me the liberal counterpart to Covid experts like the My Pillow guy or that crazy doctor who believed in demons and aliens.   

As I have said before and I will say again it's not the opinion, but the quality of the opinion.   I am beyond sure that one will not get a solid and well-balanced understanding of climate change from the NY Post.

Rich: As stated in my post, Dr. Koonin served as undersecretary for science in the Department of Energy during the Obama administration. 

I really don't mind you being skeptical, but it's easy enough to look up.... Born in Brooklyn, New York City, Koonin received his Bachelor of Science from the California Institute of Technology and his Ph.D. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology under the supervision of Arthur Kerman in the MIT Center for Theoretical Physics. In 1975, Koonin joined the faculty of the California Institute of Technology as an assistant professor of theoretical physics, and served as the institute's provost from 1995 to 2004. In 2004, Koonin joined BP as their chief scientist where he was responsible for guiding the company's long-range technology strategy, particularly in alternative and renewable energy sources.  In 2009, he was appointed the U.S. Department of Energy's second Senate-confirmed Under Secretary for Science serving from May 19, 2009, to November 18, 2011. He left that post in November 2011 for a position at the Institute for Defense Analyses. On April 23, 2012, Koonin was named director of NYU's Center for Urban Science and Progress (CUSP).  He has served on numerous advisory bodies for the National Science Foundation, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Energy and its various national laboratories, such as the JASON defense advisory group, which he has chaired. Koonin's research interests have included theoretical nuclear, many-body, and computational physics, nuclear astrophysics, and global environmental science.

The book is "significant research on climate changes" which you seek... and the "peer-review" will be the response of other scientists to the book... or you could buy a copy, read it, and let us know what you think.

Bob

So in short, he is an expert on physics and energy but not an expert on climate change.   Bob, maybe I am being unfair because I have such a strong science background, but science and fields are not interchangeable.   This man is not a qualified expert in the field of climate science, not by a long shot.

[Bob In PA]

Rich: The first sentence of my original post says it all.  I think Dr. Koonin is making a balanced presentation of the issue.  Clearly, you disagree.

In writing his book, he studied all of the research with which you agree, and all of it with which you disagree, and he reached scientific conclusions which sound very "middle-of-the-road" to me.

He acknowledges the main premise of "climate change" clearly and without equivocation.  The fact that his views sound like propaganda to you says more about your lack of scientific qualifications that his, IMO.

Further, to me, the fact that you assume he is "bad" and his views are "wrong" just because the article about his book was in the NY Post sounds like you're suffering from a severe attack of prejudice.

I suggest you review your primer on the scientific method. 

Bob

PS. In your prior post, you erroneously addressed your first remark to me, which it was philo43 who made the post to which you were replying.

[MightyGiants]

Rich: The first sentence of my original post says it all.  I think Dr. Koonin is making a balanced presentation of the issue.  Clearly, you disagree.

In writing his book, he studied all of the research with which you agree, and all of it with which you disagree, and he reached scientific conclusions which sound very "middle-of-the-road" to me.

He acknowledges the main premise of "climate change" clearly and without equivocation.  The fact that his views sound like propaganda to you says more about your lack of scientific qualifications that his, IMO.

Further, to me, the fact that you assume he is "bad" and his views are "wrong" just because the article about his book was in the NY Post sounds like you're suffering from a severe attack of prejudice.

I suggest you review your primer on the scientific method. 

Bob

PS. In your prior post, you erroneously addressed your first remark to me, which it was philo43 who made the post to which you were replying.

I am going to give an example of how being an expert in a similar field doesn't make one an expert in adjoining fields.   My father spent his whole life as a pump engineer.  He has patents his name, wrote books, has taught classes, had a regular column in a pump magazine and in some aspects of pumps I would venture to say he is one of the world's foremost experts.    Yet, just because he is an experienced licensed mechanical engineer you wouldn't want him designing the wings of a plane you intended to fly in.   Science and engineering are very specialized.   You need to appreciate that fact.   

If you want to learn about a scientific or medical topic you go to the QUALIFIED EXPERTS.  You don't go to the NY Post and listen to someone practicing outside his fields of expertise.     

[Bob In PA]

I am going to give an example of how being an expert in a similar field doesn't make one an expert in adjoining fields.   My father spent his whole life as a pump engineer.  He has patents his name, wrote books, has taught classes, had a regular column in a pump magazine and in some aspects of pumps I would venture to say he is one of the world's foremost experts.    Yet, just because he is an experienced licensed mechanical engineer you wouldn't want him designing the wings of a plane you intended to fly in.   Science and engineering are very specialized.   You need to appreciate that fact.   

If you want to learn about a scientific or medical topic you go to the QUALIFIED EXPERTS.  You don't go to the NY Post and listen to someone practicing outside his fields of expertise.   

Rich: I totally agree that there may be better experts (more focused for a longer period of time on the issue) but that alone does not disqualify his opinion. 

IMO, this guy has enough of the "right stuff" to have his views seriously considered, examined, dissected, and peer-reviewed. 

Somewhere else, you correctly mentioned expert-witness qualifications & I forgot to reply. This guy passes the test; his testimony is admissible, IMO (the weight to be given to it would be for the jury to decide).

Bob

[Jolly Blue Giant]

I will probably regret dragging myself into this discussion, but what the hey. Maybe it will help time pass faster until the Giants are on the clock Thursday night!

Let me start by discussing something we use in engineering called DOE "design of experiments", a method used to determine which combination of variables can create an ultimate predicted outcome. There are a couple types of DOE, the most common and the one I always used: a "traditional" (full factorial experiment) and a quicker, but less accurate method known as the Taguchi method.

To keep it as simple as I can, imagine trying to come up with the ultimate combination of variables for producing tomatoes on a grand scale: Some of the variables include soil composition, soil wetness/dryness, external factors like sun light, wind, humidity, fertilizers, natural chemical elements in the ground, geographic location, etc. A person who doesn't use a designed experiment tries different things (hit and miss method) and might conclude that "this particular fertilizer, in this particular soil, with this particular humidity, etc., produces the ultimate combination for optimum growth, taste, and texture even though it is not the optimal tomato and it cannot be proven that they have found "the best", it's just the best they've found so far. However, using designed experiments can help an engineer come up with an EXACT optimal combination of factors in record time by creating a grid with all the factors (variables) listed and then does what is known as "confounding" the variables. This means changing one or two of the variables and run the test, then do it again while confounding other variables. Using an algorithm and matrix algebra, the ultimate combination can be deciphered in record time after about 5 or 6 confounding attempts and if your math is correct, it will be optimal. All OEM companies producing extremely high tech products use DOE all the time - their future depends on it. As a long time user of DOE, it is always surprising to discover the optimal combination because just using common sense makes one think that one variable controls most of the outcome when just the opposite is true.

Herein lies the rub with climate change (which I do not deny, I just think it's highly politicized to give advantage to certain political groups who are only concerned with cementing power and control over the masses) is that politicians have determined that "carbon dioxide is the monster that must be slain", even though, CO2 is the lifeblood of trees, plants, and most life forms.

Now let's look at some of the variables (factors) that effect climate:

* solar wind which varies from a low of 1400 - 2300+ mph
* constantly changing gamma ray bombardment from the universe
* recurrent and unexpected geomagnetic storms on Earth due to coronal holes in the Sun
* sun bursts (solar flares) which are unpredictable and cause extreme bombardment of x-rays on earth at varying and unpredictable times each year
* varying UV (ultra-violet) rays from the sun
* Earth's irregular orbiting of the sun (we are not on a string and each orbit is different depending on positions of other planets, especially Jupiter and Saturn) Jupiter's size and gravitational pull effects Earth's orbit. Jupiter takes hundreds of years to orbit the sun and is currently the closest it's been since a thousand years before Christ
* the moon's gravity which controls the oceanic tidal movements is constantly changing and the moon is slowly drifting away from Earth

Other factors to consider:

* unbalanced gravitational drag due to geomagnetic field lines in plasmasphere
* fluctuating earth's magnetism (this is a biggie that confounds a lot of scientists)
* constantly shifting and changing ocean currents
* shifting trade winds
* volcano activity
* forest fires
* desertification (expanding deserts) from the removal of the natural vegetation cover and expanding agricultural activities in vulnerable ecosystems which negatively effects the hydrologic cycles (rain and moisture cycles)
* earthquakes (especially those under the waters of the ocean)
* carbon emissions ?
* chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), HCFCs, Freon, halons) causing an expanding hole in the ozone (i.e., man-made aerosol spray cans and Freon based refrigerants..., but also certain solvents, propellants, and foam-blowing agents such as Styrofoam)

In short, you would need a PhD in Heliospheric Physics to know and understand all the variables that effect the climate and there would still be variables not taken into consideration.

Going back to DOE (design of experiments), it would be futile to try to arrange a grid and confound variables to determine which factor combination is causing the most harm because of the sheer number of factors. And the true dilemma is, is that 99% of the variables are out of the reach of human control so they can't confound them anyway and subsequently doing the math.

Keep in mind that the Sun is 1.3 million times larger than earth. It does not have a thermostat and it is constantly changing and has gotten more moody in the last couple of decades. And we have no control over the many types of radiation and foreign elements bathed on earth from the universe and we cannot control the fluctuating magnetism and fluctuating gravity or virtually anything to do with controlling the sun.

For a scientist to conclude that "climate change is due to mankind's carbon footprint" is really, really shortsighted and ignores the reality that green earth thrives with CO2. That is not the same as "pollution" for which I am a warrior against pollution of any sort. CO2 is good - very good! Is too much CO2 bad? We don't know (unless you are a politician or a Hollywood icon speaking from the deck of a yacht or on a private jet) then of course you know....duhhh.

Plants, trees, and vegetation require a lot of carbon dioxide to flourish. A study reported by BBC in 2016 concluded that the increase in carbon dioxide emissions due to the industrial age has made Earth greener. The oceans contain 37,400 billion tons (GT) of suspended carbon, land biomass has 2000-3000 GT. The atmosphere contains 720 billion tons of CO2 and humans contribute only 6 GT additional load on this balance. In essence, 92.5% of the carbon dioxide that contributes to the growth of vegetation comes from the ocean and most of man's contribution to CO2 is infinitesimal in the grand scheme of things.

A couple of points to end my long dragged out point(s):

1) The earth is greener than it has been in centuries as semi-arid areas are turning green and plant growth is at an all time high as well as crop production
2) Statistics show that for each degree of warmer temperature, most countries show a correlation of a healthier and longer life span of a couple years

With all that said, it rubs me the wrong way when a millionaire politician smugly lectures me from his huge mansion or his private jet and wants me to ride a bicycle to work or jam myself into a train like sardines in a can while he lives a life of luxury, eating at 5-stars on the taxpayer dime, being shuttled in limos, and playing grab ass with the pretty people and far, far away from the inconvenience imposed on us as they go laughing all the way to the bank happy to have found a con that works to keep him/her or their party in power and able to lord themselves over us with restrictions that effect none of them.

As far as clean energy, clean water, clean environment - I say let's go all out. Clean is good. Pollution is horrid.

I'm not going to proof this because I have other things to do. I apologize in advance for grammatical and spelling errors.

[Bob In PA]

I will probably regret dragging myself into this discussion, but what the hey. Maybe it will help time pass faster until the Giants are on the clock Thursday night!

Jolly: It's a very complicated subject and there are so many variables that it makes it difficult to discuss without reference to experts, but I see your point; and by the way your post is impressive. Thanks.  Bob

[MightyGiants]

Rich: I totally agree that there may be better experts (more focused for a longer period of time on the issue) but that alone does not disqualify his opinion. 

IMO, this guy has enough of the "right stuff" to have his views seriously considered, examined, dissected, and peer-reviewed. 

Somewhere else, you correctly mentioned expert-witness qualifications & I forgot to reply. This guy passes the test; his testimony is admissible, IMO (the weight to be given to it would be for the jury to decide).

Bob

If you want to honestly present a balanced approach on a scientific subject you DON'T post from a propaganda journal, rather you DO post from a science journal or at least a journal dedicated to science

If you want to honestly present a balanced approach on a scientific subject you post a QUALIFIED subject matter expert  you DON'T post some unqualified person's opinion merely because you agree with them

[MightyGiants]

Herein lies the rub with climate change (which I do not deny, I just think it's highly politicized to give advantage to certain political groups who are only concerned with cementing power and control over the masses) is that politicians have determined that "carbon dioxide is the monster that must be slain", even though, CO2 is the lifeblood of trees, plants, and most life forms.

As I mentioned in this thread, I was raised by a father who was a mechanical engineer.  I was taught about science before I was even in kindergarten.   As such, I know that science is about fact, hypothesis, experimentation, and proof.   It's about observation and open-mindedness (a willingness to adjust views based on new observation) and methodical methods to reach sound conclusions. Can someone explain to me the science behind what appears to me to be just an unsupported conspiracy theory?  Then I really wonder what the point about CO2 is.   To my scientific mind that is like saying you can't drown because your body is 60% water.

[Bob In PA]

The book will be released for sale on May 4.  I now see it on Amazon (that's the only place I looked so far) and it will also be available on in a Kindle (i.e., e-book) version on that date, too.  Bob

https://www.amazon.com/Unsettled-Climate-Science-Doesnt-Matters-ebook/dp/B08JQKQGD5

Description (from Amazon's site): When it comes to climate change, the media, politicians, and other prominent voices have declared that

[Jolly Blue Giant]

Sounds like a really good book Bob. The part ("society

[MightyGiants]

The book will be released for sale on May 4.  I now see it on Amazon (that's the only place I looked so far) and it will also be available on in a Kindle (i.e., e-book) version on that date, too.  Bob

https://www.amazon.com/Unsettled-Climate-Science-Doesnt-Matters-ebook/dp/B08JQKQGD5

Description (from Amazon's site): When it comes to climate change, the media, politicians, and other prominent voices have declared that