Friday, June 22, 2012

Bob Dutko and I Talk Global Warming

Download here or listen below. Another fun one.

We had some disagreement over sources. I sent the following email after the discussion to Bob.

Sources as promised. Your claim from Science Digest is apparently from George Will. I was thinking Science Digest was a peer reviewed source but apparently not. It looks like Science Digest quoted the Christian Science Monitor, who was quoting someone else, and ultimately we end up with this claim. So OK, glaciation was claimed in a magazine. I will grant your point. The challenge though is to find the claim in the scientific literature, which can't be done. This link addresses the Science Digest quote and gives an overview of what was contained in the scientific literature at the time.

Will in another article based a glaciation claim on another source and failed to point out that the ice age wasn't expected for 20K years. See this link. I was conflating you quote with the one addressed below.

My claim regarding 98% of climate scientists comes from here.

Regarding my claim that the hockey stick has been repeatedly confirmed, see here. The full article is worth the time if you are interested in understanding the issues.

I do appreciate how you gave me a good amount of time and enjoyed the discussion, so thanks for that.


Update: Interestingly regarding glaciation Bob initially referred to a 1976 document.  Check the link from Real Climate.  That's the very article that said an ice age was coming in 20K years, which is exactly what I said.


Examinator said...

While all opinions have the right to be held It is demonstrably an utter nonsense to claim they are all equal in credibility, gravatos or real value.
The problem I have with the likes of Bob is that he is NOT A SCIENTIST and does NOT use Scientific methods i.e. look at the facts and goes where THEY lead.
Rather he uses what is know as Motivated Reasoning ( i.e. starts with a conclusion and picks/seeks evidence that supports his predetermined opinion) and techniques to discount the truth

One thing the general public, arm chair experts,non practising scientific researchers (his back room gnomes) and the media generally is that they all are there for other purposes than COMPLETE and ACCURATE INFORMATION.

As someone who was involved (peripherally ) with complex research ( involving multiple disciplines) then, seeing what journalists and personalities said /wrote, I was constantly dismayed how distorted their utterances were. By stripping the context and conditions/caveats out for simplicity and allowing their sensationalising or bias to permeate the resultant opinions were distorted at best, misleading at best if not inconsistent with the factual observed results. Likewise both the real extrapolated conclusions and those of the commentator were rarely consistent.

Put it simply I've read extensively on brain science, neuro- psychology and surgery, but for me to then to preform surgery or challenge an expert in the field would be ludicrous. 10+ years of intense training, years of hands on experience, tops any of the above commentariate hands down.

Lets get real the days of the polymath the alleged genius of old are LONG gone. The science knowledge involved in some areas today is so involved, complex sophisticated and specialised that it is impossible for a general science qualification like mine (some 26years old) to be even half way sufficient to second guess with areas of research etc of today. Simply put most of these specialisations and researched knowledge, even information techniques/ tools didn't exist when I gained my qualifications. One simply can't be up to the mark in all fields/specialisations. (Moores Law turbo-ed and on speed)

One recent Science Nobel laureate ( tongue firmly in his cheek) stated in a speech that because of his award he was qualified to talk on any scientific topic (paused for and got laughter).
The relevance here is that the specialist knowledge is so fine and nuanced that it's true import can't be accurately dumbed down for the inexperienced to dispute intelligently/meaningfully.

I have no problem with opinions HOWEVR, I do object strenuously when that OPINION is proselyted as an Absolute truth.
P.S. I never claim Authority on anything but myself. I simply add information. The emotion(belief) is up to the reader.

Unknown said...

Hey, Jon. I just found your site a few days ago and listened to all of your debates with Dutko. Ill be honest, I like bob. Ive listened for about ten years and Im also an atheist. Just wanted to say I like the way you handle him. Ive heard others that are just abrasive and rude, which just gives him more ammo against us! Gotta give him credit though, hes not afraid of a debate and still takes your calls. keep on bugging him! I can almost hear his eyes roll when he says "Jon from Commerce...."