A question for all GW debaters...?

Question

And a challenge..

The question is how many of you are scientists?

The challenge is to not turn this into yet another debate and just answer the question.

I've asked the same question to the skeptics, but this one is for everyone...

There are so many people on Y!A who are adamant in their opinions about GW who appear to have little or no knowledge of the sciences.

I'm curious how many GW debaters out there are scientists (either by career, long-standing hobby, or are scientists-in-training). I'm not talking about climate experts, just anyone who may have a little more experience in analyzing scientific data, and more knowledge of how things in the environment fit together, than the average person. I'm also not suggesting that non-scientists shouldn't have an opinion, I'm JUST WONDERING how many on here are invovled in the sciences.

If you are a practicing scientist, could you briefly describe your scientific background (your focus, years of experience, etc)?

Answer 1

My BS was a joint degree in Math/Computer Science with a minor in Physics.  I stopped my MS program in Computer Science after family and career commitments became too much. My current job classification is Computer Scientist with 24 years of professional experience.  Much of my professional work has involved numerical analysis (working with large data sets) and modeling complex physical systems (though nothing quite as complex as the climate).

My initial skeptical interest in Global Warming started about 6 years ago when my Physicist boss expressed a level of legitimacy to the theory I'd not previously considered.  After spending a few years reading the professional literature (as much as I could) I came to the tentative position that humans are responsible for a significant portion of the warming measured during the latter part of the 20th century and we need to address the issue before negative feedback systems kick in.

Historically, I've voted Republican most of the time and consider myself a fiscal conservative, foreign policy conservative, and social moderate. I've never hugged a tree (except to keep from falling down a steep incline), been a member of Greenpeace (or any other environmental group), or participated in any other environmental issues.

Edit:

gcnp58 - you noticed a few inconsistencies too I see. It's not often I hear any of my Ph.D associates use the term "zillion" ;-)

Answer 2

My uncle is a scientist.

Answer 3

I received my PhD (Physics) in 1989 and have been a practising scientist ever since.  My areas of expertise are molecular spectroscopy, bio spectroscopy and chemical physics.  I am currently the chief scientist at a private company developing spectroscopic instrumentation for public health applications.  I hold enough research grants to support 7 lab assistants in 2008 and I have research collaborators at 4 major universities.  

As a practising scientist, I form my opinions on the basis of the experimental evidence and known laws of physics. I don't think that most YA participants understand how science works so here are typical anecdotes from my experience.  I gave an invited talk at a scientific conference in November. One of the participants questioned my data so I took the samples to his laboratory in December for analysis. We agreed that the third party that provided my samples had used a different classification scheme. (Scientists are open to criticism and seek the truth.)  Last summer one of my students offered frequent criticisms of experimental methods and apparatus. Consequence: the experiments were improved and I recently offered to re-hire that student with a raise. (Scientists value constructive criticism.) I can also note that scientists regard groundless criticism as a waste of time and resources. Before posting alternative theories about GW, please ensure that the theory is (a) consistent with established laws of physics, (b) consistent with the experimental data to date and (c) can be verified or falsified by experiment. The standard model as published by the IPCC has passed these tests. Some of the posts on YA don't get past item a.

Answer 4

I'm not a scientist, but I stayed at a Holiday Inn once.

Answer 5

I have a degree in Psychology and minor in Psychiatry and masters degree in Human Resources, I've been practicing my college education for 7 years now and though, I am not dealing with natural sciences, I do practice a lot of medical science.  I just browse this question by accident and it perk my interest.

First I would like to address something to gncp58, then to Aris_james24, and the Asker, Tuesday:

to gncp58, you are hitting on a person, this means you have nothing more to debate?  Your attitude is simply put, very immature does this means your knowledged on the topic is limited the reason you have to resort to personal assault? Resorting to this kind of tactic is an admission that you are losing. This attitude shows immaturity something like a bully.  Well admit it, you are out of your league kid.  Being given a top contributor mark means you have a lot of time on your hands, which means this is all like a game to you? Get a life Kid. If you want a debate get in touch with me on my email we can discuss your issues one on one.

To Aris_james24, well, I hand it to you, you were able to make all posters know how to handle a bully! Oh, I did check around and opened your link, yes, it is an irrefutable fact, the correct title is Meteorological Scientist.  I also check the credentials, Meteorology degree does indeed need Majors in Physics and Chemistry or Hydrology in lieu of Physics.

To the asker, Tuesday, I am just curious, what prompt you to ask this kind of senseless and insulting question?  I apologize for being blunt, but that's how I read it.  were you bullied or you lost in a debate? reason why you have to ask for credentials?  Well remember, everyone on YA has a right to voice out their opinion be it wrong or correct, that is their stance on certain issues unless you can sway them on your side, by showing clear and damaging evidence.

Jade

*********

Tuesday, I read it fully and understand it fully well, the reason why I found it senseless, you ask this question out of curiosity? what made you curious? because they are giving out opinion contrary to yours? Lol, you better read your own questions and its nuances, then ask yourself again, place yourself in our shoes! then tell me what you feel.

Answer 6

I am not a scientist.

I am, however, quite conversant with physics (electrical engineering is essentially the second half of the AP Physics course on steroids, and with applications).  Climate modelling is essentially a physics problem, so while I don't have anything close to the answers myself I at least have an idea when someone is asking a legitimate or bogus question.  I also find it fairly easy to do a quick search of the various sites run by climate scientists and find what they've had to say on a given subject.  (Strangely, the "skeptics" seldom do this; I use the scare quotes because their skepticism is reserved for the science, while they have general credulity toward the denials).

I have read published scientific papers and understood them.  This doesn't make me a scientist either, but if you are trying to refute a claim based on inference from evidence you at least have to be able to understand what's being claimed and the facts behind it.

Answer 7

It would take several lifetimes to pour over all of the GW data.  In the time it would take to get two degrees in science, we could have done something to halt the GW.  My sister is a Geochemist PhD from a prestigious school and a NASA scientist.  I saw actual photos of Greenland in a two week span of time and let me tell you that wasn't seasonal run off.  If this was a natural occurence, she would readily admit it, ethically, she would have to say that it's nature doing its work.  I believe that the mountains of data and the professional observations of thousands of scientists in many fields

support GW.  It's not just cow phartz and volcanic emmissions!  Even economists are warning of the gigantic growth of China and it's industrialization and the effect on the planet.  If everyone was required to have a degree in a field to advocate for change than the wheels would grind to a halt.  We should require that everyone have a PhD in English to make sure that they can read and interpret the data.  I have enough degrees to know that a degree does not make you an expert in anything!  Even in medical school, half the doctors graduate in the top half of the class and half of the doctors graduate in the bottom half of the class.  They don't go door to door and tell you when you are sick; you sense illness yourself and report it to the physician.  Have some faith in the intelligence of humans to educate themselves!  My focas is public health.

Answer 8

I am a Meteorological Scientist with a Doctorate Degree in Meteorology.  I have majors in Physics, Chemistry and Geology, I have a minor in Volcanology and Hydrology.  I've been working at NASA for 10 years now.  

Again Global Warming is still under scientific study and scrutiny.  Current data shows that emission on the scale being projected in some scientific "papers" does not appear to be coherent with the current climatic phenomena.  Though, Super Volcanic Eruption's model due to zillion of tons of emission which in effect created a "green house effect" had a different outcome, it created an ice age.  Me and some my colleague had gather data on the climatic change after Mount Pinatubo's eruption in the Philippines and initial findings shows that world temperature dropped by at least 0.5 degrees celcius after the eruption for at least  3 years.  

I've seen a lot of scientific works and papers on this subject and found that studies made all bear the following phrase "needs further studies or investigation, or verification".  When you see this phrase it means results of their studies is not conclusive.  I've been very interested on the links provided by some of the poster here, but none have shown conclusive facts.  I've been following a lot of links, but to my dismay, some links are of disrefutable sources.

So Tuesday Smith, just hold your horses, do not remove the fun in YA.  Debates provides a different insight to a problem and sometimes it gives you a sudden jolt of inspirations, like a light bulb.  Doctorate degrees does not mean you are correct, but on the contrary I always feel I am not sure, unless scientific evidence is found.

alvin

*********

Oh, I forgot to tell you that I am not saying that GW is not true nor it is false I am keeping an open mind which a true scientist should do.  We are currently duplicating some of the scientific studies to verify their finding's veracity.

*******

gcnp58

For your information other common volcanic gases are carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, hydrogen, and fluorine. Sulfur dioxide gas can react with water droplets in the atmosphere to create acid rain, which causes corrosion and harms vegetation. Carbon dioxide is heavier than air and can be trapped in low areas in concentrations that are deadly to people and animals. Fluorine, which in high concentrations is toxic, can be adsorbed onto volcanic ash particles that later fall to the ground. The fluorine on the particles can poison livestock grazing on ash-coated grass and also contaminate domestic water supplies.  I have not discuss, any type of gas emission on my post, so there you have it, I gave it as an example nothing more, because the findings is now on publication, Duh!!!.  please check the position title you are debating with me carefully, research it if you must, this will be an additional information for you to remember.   Sources of information regarding the gases? see below, this is from USGS, a refutable outfit!

****

Tuesday so what's the point of your question, just how many scientist?   your question's inflection is sarcastic.

Answer 9

I have a degree in Aeronautical Engineering, but I am not a practicing engineer.  I agree with Alvin and d/dx+d/dy+d/dzI  I also found links that the sources are not refutable in YA but then again this is a free exchange of ideas. Besides its fun.

gcpn58 I have checked what you are claiming to be false on the title of Alvin99 and found that he is right.  There is indeed Meteorological Scientist check this link, in this report it was mentioned on page 22 read the entire page and you will come across the title, claims that are not backed by proper evidence is nothing! Oh, did I say  you owe him an apology?

http://www.drachen.org/journals/a05/Stud...

Sometimes, to those of you who thought you know everything are annoying to those who really do.  Like what Alvin and d/dx+d/dy+d/dz  scientific findings should be abe to be duplicated or falsified.

aris_james24

Answer 10

I'm an Environmental Scientist with a BA in astrophysics (minor in physics) and a MS in physics.  In graduate school I was a research assistant, and my job was doing data analysis.  In fact, I've done data analysis for about 6 years now (some of my current job is data analysis as well).

My opinion on global warming is that the scientific evidence overwhelmingly points to humans as the primary cause of the current warming, and that we're running out of time to avoid causing catastrophic climate change.

Answer 11

Computer science degree, including a couple of years each physics, math, etc.  Mensa member.

Historically, I've voted Republican most of the time and it pisses me off that this issue has made Republicans look so uneducated and stupid, in denial of reality and science.  If it has become the party of brain-dead morons, then I can't trust any of the party's policies and it can count me out.

I completely ignored global warming for the past 20 years, until the reports of Arctic and Greenland ice melt acceleration started a few months ago.  My initial skeptical views changed after reviewing the peer-reviewed professional literature, and discovering that there seemed to be very little science of a skeptical nature (and nearly all of that was from people with easily identifiable ties to the oil industry).  I came to the logical conclusion that humans are responsible for a significant portion of the warming measured during the 20th century and we need to address the issue before negative feedback systems kick in.

Answer 12

I'm a geologist in the oil industry. My recent phd was on a past period of relatively rapid, large scale global warming (ironically, it's where we get a lot of our oil from) - possible causes, changes in biogeochemical cycles, effects on life and environments etc. I'd say I have some understanding of the systems and the science but I'm not by any means a leading climatologist. The last couple of years I've just worked as a consultant stratigrapher.

I don't 'debate' enough in here - it's just so depressing (I'm not a AGW denier). But I'd also point out that real scientific debate takes place in  the scientific literature, not here.

Answer 13

No, not a scientist.  Try Historian.  and by what I have seen, what we are in, has happened about 12,000 times in the past 4 billion years.   And you know what Else,  Fred' Flintstone's car did not burn gas, but it still happened.

Answer 14

Alvin:  You're laying it on a little thick, don't you think?  I mean real scientists in a post like that wouldn't use "zillions" nor would they claim so many different degrees nor would they make nearly incomprehensible claims about Super Volcanic Eruptions and ice ages and then not back it up with any citations (anyway, with all your background I would think your failure to recognize the ice age from the SVE would not be due to CO2 and instead the tons of SO2 injected into the stratosphere is another dead giveaway).  There are lots of other inconsistencies (e.g., meteorological scientist?  next time, try "atmospheric scientist" or "meteorologist") in your phrasing that someone with your claimed background wouldn't use.  The alvin88 on myspace seems like a better match for your background.  

I have a little formal training in science.  So Alvin, if you want to create a more credible psuedo science background, let me know, I can help.

Alvin:  None of what you wrote in response is convincing me you know what you are talking about.  It's like your Ph.D. was memorizing isolated factoids that are vaguely related to atmospheric science (e.g., the hazard associated with rapid outgassing of CO2-supersaturated lakes is really geochemistry, not atmospheric science).  You just don't sound very "expert" to me, I find it hard to take you seriously.

Aris:  Google "meteorological sciences degree" and you get this:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=...

Golly me, but I don't see a single program offering a degree in "meteorological sciences."  It's all "Meteorology" or "Atmospheric Sciences."  Spewing isolated facts or claiming pompously "science is all about evidence" is just intellectual puffery as far as climate is concerned.  If you and the derivative guy and Alvin think there is still cause for doubt CO2 is affecting climate because of the "evidence," where is the mistake in the primary chain of the causal physics of the issue?  Do you believe it is still uncertain that CO2 provides a radiative forcing, that the magnitude of that forcing is uncertain, or that a forcing of that magnitude is significant in terms of the radiative balance of the planet?  Be specific, demonstrate you know something more than just the  "evidence is critical" line.  Show me where you think the physics is wrong.