Monday, December 17, 2007 ... Français/Deutsch/Español/Česky/Japanese/Related posts from blogosphere

Climate debate: Tim Ball vs Andrew Dessler

Eric Berger, the Houston Sciguy who has been sufficiently balanced and correct (but politically incorrect) to trade links with TRF :-), is hosting and moderating

The Great Climate Debate (basic info)
Timothy BallAndrew Dessler

Essential information:
When: Today, Monday 12/17, 3 pm EST (9 pm Central European Time)
Alarmist: Andrew Dessler, Texas A&M
Realist: Tim Ball, University of Winnipeg (retired)
Internet audio provider: Blogtalkradio (ask questions here and listen here)
Hat tip: Papertiger
After the debate: Tim Ball had technical problems and couldn't participate. Dessler was speaking pretty well but he was confined by many of those religious notions that scientists are shamans who are just experts and must be trusted because of their "consensus".

So he failed to answer most of the technical questions - maybe he didn't answer a single one. He just said "It is the holy word that the experts believe so you must also believe it just like you must believe your physician when you have cancer" many times. Several pretty good skeptical non-scientist participants (and scientists from other fields) called and explained him that his words are no arguments and no answers but he really didn't get it.




He is certainly not the only person who doesn't understand the difference between science and propaganda. It turned out that Dessler doesn't really trust computer models, satellite measurements, balloon measurements, and many other things. But he just happens to believe that it is nevertheless very likely that the orthodoxy is right. He couldn't justify this surprising belief. But he probably thinks that because he is paid as a scientist, he is guaranteed by God to be infallible even without any rational arguments.

Bonus: a study from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology has shown that the stronger ecological footprint (and more intense consumption of resources) a society has, the less likely it is to participate in an armed conflict. Al Gore and the IPCC have thus received a Nobel prize for promotion of war, not peace. With a little bit of exaggeration, they are the new Adolf Hitler and NSDAP.

Peer-reviewed skeptic literature: Petr Chýlek and five more co-authors argue in Journal of Geophysical Research that the climate sensitivity is about 50% of the IPCC values when aerosols are taken into account. That translates to something between 1.1 and 1.8 °C of warming from doubling of CO2 i.e. between 0.5 and 1.2 °C of warming between 2000 and 2090 when the doubled value is expected to be reached.

Add to del.icio.us Digg this Add to reddit

snail feedback (0) :