EnviroLink Forum

Too bad the difference was between "significant" and "major" then, wasn't it.

No, as too many of the "skeptical" researchers seem to have more difficulty in publication in the better quality publications.

If I were using him as a reference to someone unfamiliar with his reputation I would concentrate on the experience and publications.

Too bad the difference was between "significant" and "major" then, wasn't it.

No, the difference was between a major cause and significant contributing factor. There is a big difference between the two phrases.

So you wouldn't consider someone who has a Ph.D in the relevant fields of Climate Change an expert if they only published 10 papers? That is what the Anderegg et. al paper is trying to do.

And skeptics have had experience and have published many peer reviewed papers.

..

Probably not, unless the papers were exceptional.

Not evidenced for those listed in your post.

A contributing factor is much different than a 'major cause.'

Significant can also be subject to the scientist's interpretation of what significant actually means.

The author of this post interviewed skeptical climate scientists on this issue, and some would pick human activity as being a significant contributing factor, because significant is subject to one's interpretation of what significant actually means, since how much of a contribution for human activity to be a significant factor was not specified in the paper.

1. The phrase "human activity"

Human activity comprises numerous actions which can affect the climate other than greenhouse gases. Agricultural changes and deforestation are two influences that come to mind. Now, any respondent who believes that ANY human activity can change the climate must answer yes to this question.

A better phrasing would be:

Do you think anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

2. The phrase "significant contributing factor"

The problem with this is obvious. What makes something significant? If 5% of recent temperature change is caused by mankind, is that significant? How about 10%? There is no context for answering the question. There is no way of knowing whether or not the respondents consider human activity the primary factor in temperature change.

A better phrasing would be:

Do you think that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are the primary factor (50% or more) in changing mean global temperatures?

Okay,

Would you consider your denist to be an expert if he didn't publish any papers?

"A geologist is by definition an Earth Scientist"-Wayne Stollings.

Source:

http://envirolink.org/forum/viewtopic.p ... 73#p175073

Interesting that geologists who support the AGW theory are considered to be earth scientists, (which sounds more credible in the field of climate change) and yet geologists skeptical of AGW are not?

Probably not. One can be an expert without publication, but not very likely.

An Earth scientist is not always an expert on climate change, but an expert on climate change would be an Earth scientist.

The best option would br for them to perform their own poll, would it not? It is easy to be critical of the work if one never does any themselves.

This is comical.

Geologists study Earth's history and climatic history, and Physicists are experts in the physics involved with climate science.

This is from Wiki:

Currently, geologists are also engaged in the discussion of climate change, as they study the history and evidence for this Earth process.

I think this poll should be re-done, with this question (provided by the blogger) as the question to assess the consensus.

Do you think that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are the primary factor (50% or more) in changing mean global temperatures?

Actually, I was thinkg more sad.

Neither of which makes them experts in the field of climate change.

You are engaged in such a discussion and you are not an expert on the subject.

Then you should convince someone to redo the poll and get it published.

Agreed.



So what degrees should you have to be considered to be an expert? Climatology involves all of these fields put together.

I think that you misinterpreted the Wiki quote, the quote said that this is because they study earth's history, and these processes with Earth's history.

Essentially, some geologists are very similar to paleoclimatologists.