Slashdot Mirror
Is Climate Change the New Evolution?
sciencehabit writes "Is climate change education the new evolution, threatened in U.S. school districts and state education standards by well-organized interest groups? A growing number of education advocates believe so, and yesterday, the National Center for Science Education in Oakland, California, which fights the teaching of creationism, announced that it's going to take on climate change denial as well."
I thought one of the fundamental aspects of modern empirical science is that, unlike a religion, it is ALWAYS open to revision and dispute. That's the whole point of the scientific method. Whether there is a significant modern consensus or not, I think it goes against the core spirit of scientific inquiry to EVER say "This matter is settled and no future scientist may ever question it." That's the very kind of anti-empirical position the Creationists themselves take in presenting their religious take on science.
And I'm certainly glad for Einstein's sake that no one ever thought this way about Newtonian physics. "Sorry little German, the matter is settled. Stop being a Newton denier."
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Humanity is not going to give up modern convenience for something that will effect future generations.
No.
If the science for climate change continues to pan out for another fifty or hundred years, then maybe those people denying it can be classified as cranks. Right now, though, it's ridiculous to claim that climate change is as well established as evolution. That's insulting to the theory of evolution.
It's an ice age! It's warming! It's change! It's not quite the new ethereal soup, that's dark matter.
I am still fairly skeptical about climate change. Make no mistake, though - moderate skeptics like myself are NOT the ones arguing against the teaching of climate change in schools at the national, non-internet-commentator level. Oil companies (and related industries) have a LOT to lose if the next generation sees climate change as a real thing. Moves like this are not based on science as much as they are on the cash flow that follows peoples' opinions.
Isnt denying that the huge-scale human intervention/activity on the planet - which goes from releasing boundless amount of heat to atmosphere to releasing radioactive substances to sea - can NOT have an effect that is considerable, as stupid as denying that the earth is older than 6000 years ?
one has the motive to control the masses by some private interests behind, the other has the motive to control the masses to protect profits.
Read radical news here
So, 97% of the world's scientists are religious zealots?
Check your premises.
A massive MAJORITY of world governments, corporations, scientists, leaders, and intellectuals in the world recognize that man made climate change is the number one challenge the human species faces this century. Climate change affects TWO of the top Human requirements on this Earth, Food production, and access to drinking water. Without a constant supply of either of these, misery will prevail.
You may continue to call yourself a 'moderate skeptic', but don't fool your self into thinking it is by any measure an intelligent choice.
So is anthropomorphic climate change when you blame it on Mother Earth or Old Man Winter?
What bothers me most about the controversy over climate change, is even if it turns out human actions don't actually have a significant impact on climate, we damn well know we affect the environment. We also know fossil fuels won't last us forever and acquiring them is becoming increasingly volatile due to who does and does not have access to their source. So sure, we should be cautious and treat climate science as we would any other science where we need a critical eye, but we need to be taking the same actions regardless of the conclusions (due to our knowledge of other affects). How is reducing pollution and non-renewable resource consumption a bad thing? Who the hell honestly thinks unregulated energy consumption and dumping of various emissions is okay?
No
We have plenty of proof and independently gathered data. The deniers are the ones having faith that they aren't doing anything wrong. And are just lazy and like the cheap oil status quo.
I mean basic science is teaching that a gas layer can form a greenhouse by absorbing heat. Look at Venus compared to Mercury. Earth compared to Venus.
Now, what will happen if the Earth warms up and the weather gets more energetic is for debating and further research. But the basic Earth sciences are facts until they are disproved.
The climate science debate has two important components to it. This issue focuses on one component, and that is the anti-science attack on climate science. This has the same source of ignorance and zealotry that has challenged teaching evolution in the classroom. This is a stand of religious based ignorance against science. I have not met anyone who understands the scientific process who challenges the theory of evolution. I am using the scientific definition of theory, which is an operating model, and not the "theory is not a fact" arguement that my religious friends pick up.
The second component to climate science is that there are some great issues of modern science and society that can be taught here. To not teach this in the classroom is missing out on a real opportunity to teach critical thinking that children can get passionate about.
You can teach about data collection, and how this can be a source for controversy.
You can teach about computer modeling and statistical analysis. What these tools are great for, and where they fall short.
Plenty to teach about weather vs. climate, and what the climate means for other systems on the planet.
Lab experiements on basic components of the atmosphere, and why they don't always translate to the actual model of the world.
You can teach the ethics of how to prioritze science against society and economic concerns.
Lots more stuff that I am not getting in to.
My point being, this is another area where zealotry is screwing up a great opportunity to train the next generation of scientists.
quote:
however there remains divisions between climatologists and scientists from other areas of earth sciences as to the extent of human responsibility.
The reason climate science is open to this kind of attack is that climate scientists have done a reasonable job of getting the public to understand at least the basic points of the argument. Other fields, like say relativity, would be under more attack if the general population understood them better. Perhaps scientists won't say how a magnet works because they want to preserve some areas of science for future generations.
Nullius in verba
You're arguing for ignorance. It's like denying that gravity doesn't exist just because some people can't understand how it operates. No sane person denies evolution in the world today, except for fundamentalist, semi-literate, buffoons. You are again speaking from a position of ignorance, I would pity you if it weren't so pathetic.
Do you understand the Peer Review process, or are you obfuscating from a position of faith or economic interest?
Check your premises.
Of course, if you understand even the very basics of computing, you realize that "software simulations" are just a relatively quick way of making very difficult calculations. If you have a problem with a model, attack the model (of course, that would require researching the subject a bit before being able to make bold accusations) but complaining about computers being used to take care of complex is incredibly stupid. I hope you also oppose all modern astronomy as most of the data is crunched by "computer simulations".
The problem is that people seem to conflate the science, facts, and the politics of climate change. They think if you disagree with any part, you are a "denialist". So what do I mean?
Well first take the fact of climate change: That the average global temperature is changing outside of known cycles. Provided the data on which this is being based, this is true. It is a fact, a simple observation about the world.
Then there's the theory of climate change: That this change is being cause either primarily or exclusively by carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, as a result of human emissions. This is a theory, it provides a logical proposal to explain the facts. Like any theory it could be subject to revision or dismissal later should more information come to light. Doesn't mean it will be, but it can (if it isn't falsifiable, it isn't a scientific theory).
Now after that you get some additional theories like the theory that this will be a net bad thing for humanity. Remember that this is not a fact, it is a theory, and that the overall theory of CO2 causing climate change could be right, and this could be wrong. As such one could reasonably examine the evidence and accept the first theory and reject the second.
Then you get in to politics or policies: That the only thing to do about it is to massively reduce CO2 output, institute carbon taxes, etc, etc. That isn't a scientific theory there, it is politics. There are other solutions that would work. One example would simply be to prepare for the chance and deal with it. You could argue that even if this particular change is human caused, in the future a change will happen that isn't, so better to spend resources on becoming resilient to change than trying to avoid this one. Geoengineering would be another approach to dealing with it. Different policies can be debated, the costs, the benefits, and so on, there is no one right answer here, there are options.
However if you disagree with any part, you get labeled a denalist. So you can say "I think the Earth is getting warmer, and I think manmade CO2 is the cause. However my examination of the evidence leads me to believe it is not a bad thing, in fact it'll be just fine so we shouldn't do anything," and you get shouted down as "denying climate change." Or you can say "I think it is happening, manmade, and a bad thing. However I think reducing CO2 production is the wrong approach. I think we should do geoengineering because it is cheaper/more effective/etc," and you get shouted down as a "denialist."
That's my real problem, is people confuse the levels of it. There are facts (all scientific theories have to start with facts, observations), theories, and then policy suggestions as a result. Calling it all bullshit can be accurately called denying it. However being skeptical or disagreeing with parts cannot.
Also there's way too much stock put in computer models. Not that they are used, but that people think they "prove" something. No, a computer model proves nothing, it is a model. It makes predictions. If the predictions are repeatedly accurate, it is probably a good model of reality and can be counted on to produce accurate predictions in the future. If they are inaccurate, it needs to be revised. However it doesn't "prove" shit. It models.
So while models should (and must) be used in climate research, people need to stop saying things like "This model proves that X will happen in Y years!" No, it predicts it. Well and good, that's very different from proving it.
So, let me get this straight.
Climate change shouldn't be accepted because "there's no scientific proof". But even though 97% of the world's scientists feel that such proof does exist, we shouldn't believe them, because they aren't qualified... to... talk... about...... science.....?
Check your premises.
For certain values of "real issue".
http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-we-know-were-causing-global-warming-in-single-graphic.html
Parent AC here.
>When you've got experimental proof
You need a consensus of experts to agree as to what constitutes valid experimental proof. Consider Pons and Fleischmann: they had been highly regarded in their field and thought they had experimental proof. Other people evaluated and found their work seriously lacking. For AGCC: lots of scientific eyes have looked at the problem and said "yes, this looks like pretty good evidence." That's science. Remember that science doesn't produce "TRUTH", it produces "truth." AGCC might well prove incorrect, but again, at this point the burden is on the critics.
Is climate change education the new evolution, threatened in U.S. school districts and state education standards by well-organized interest groups?
Joke (a bitter one, though): during a presentation of a list of all the benefits to the earth and society of moving to renewable energy, at a 'Climate Summit' conference a person in the audience stands up and asks "What if it's a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?"
Follow the money?
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
As a society, we have come across a phenomenon that we're not sure about. Is the world temperature rising, and the problem man made; or, is this just another cycle of the world as is? We don't definitively know the answer to that question, but I lean towards the side of caution. Rational thought leads me to believe that we are causing the Earth to have a significantly higher percentage of CO2 in the air than there was previously: we are cutting down trees and polluting water that has in the past filtered out the CO2, while at the same time putting an increasing amount of CO2 in the air with our increasing industrialization worldwide. Even if this turns out to not be the case, and we're not causing any problems, what is the harm in slowing down our pollution and thinking rationally about our future as a race? The whole fight between the people who believe in Climate Change and the people who don't is childish. Take a few years, and figure out what's going on. This is something that the whole world is discussing, yet it seems that America is the only country making a big stink about it. Think about people first, and money later, then we can finally solve real problems.
I think I'll side with the climatologists when it comes to talking about climatology. Maybe I'm crazy.
-1 overrated isn't the same thing as "I disagree".
Thank you nutcases, for under undermining America science education! Since after enjoying the 200 years of prosperity, economic and military might that science has provided to the USA, it is very generous they now start undermining it, by insuring that future generations don't properly learn that pesky science, so that many other countries can advance and overtake the USA.
If I was a Chinese official, I would be actively funding the National Center for Science Education, since they are the ones that benefit most from American stupidity.
Hopefully the National Center for Science Education can now start attacking math, since transfinite numbers and arithmetic can be use to justify that there are infinities bigger than god:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfinite_number
Is it so much easy to teach kids that 1+1 = whatever god tells them. Welcome to the new American Taliban.
I love your enthusiasm, but I think you misunderstood - the National Center for Science Education is actually appropriately named, and supports the teaching of science. A forgivable error, since so many lobbying groups take deceptive names these days.
Although the moon is smaller than the earth, it is farther away.
As someone working in this field, I would just like to make some clarifications. The term 'Climate Change' is better viewed as two separate questions: is climate change occurring, and if so, is it due to human influence? The first question is effectively settled; temperatures are increasing and extreme weather events are occurring more frequently. The second question is more complex, although the vast scientific consensus is that it is indeed due to human influence. In particular, the greenhouse effect has been conclusively proven. The slightly-informed seem to misinterpret scientific uncertainty (a very specific term referring to statistical probabilities) with a much more general 'scientists aren't sure if this is true or not'.
It is true that there is a long way to go in climate science. However, this is no reason not to teach it in schools. There are many unknowns in the science (as with any field of science); these should not be understated, but neither should they be overstated - it would not be helpful for teachers to spread yet more excessive doubt. Finally, it is of particular importance that climate science is taught in school - the consequences of climate change are likely to be extremely grave for mankind and will impact the next generation much more than this one.
I take it you never realized that "Bullshit" is carefully crafted libertarian propaganda rather than independent investigative reporting for entertainment. I don't say 'libertarian' figuratively, either; they cite the Cato Institute constantly, of which Penn and Teller are both research fellows. I'm not saying the libertarian viewpoint is inherently incorrect, but it's hardly the place to go for unbiased reporting.
What is inherently incorrect are their interview tactics and editing techniques; they're even more misleading than Michael Moore's. Ever notice how rarely you hear the question that was actually asked? Penn's voice-over introduces a topic on their own terms, the video cuts to the interviewee answering an unknown question that was asked by a different interviewer off-camera, and he mocks their response - often while they're still talking. It's all trick editing and impatient over-simplification; it's reality TV disguised as an interview.
Believe what you want, but don't go around thinking "Bullshit" segments provide a good justification for any of your beliefs.
Unlike the evolution argument, the AGW crowd is generally seen as doing it not out of any sort of religious conviction, but out of economic greed and maybe a little bit of delusion, most of the anti-global warming activists use global warming as a springboard to attack conservation in general.
However, the delusions that come from rejecting them seem largely to be the same. Most of the AGW seem to think that as long as global warming isn't real then resources are infinite, so we can burn as much oil as we want and hey, since the planet isn't warming up there are absolutely no other problems associated with doing so....save for of course we are running out of oil, regardless of the temperature of the atmosphere.
Other than coal vs. nuclear(if you are AGW then it makes sense to burn coal as a power source, esp. in the US where we have tons of the stuff, and those worried about global warming should be relatively pro-nuke as it emits almost 0 CO2) there really shouldn't be a lot of practical differences between the groups, and yet there are.
Monstar L
Confusing facts and theories.
So with gravity there's the fact of gravity and the theory of gravity. The fact of gravity is that objects attract, or on a more human scale that things fall down. This is an observed fact. It's not up for debate, it just is. Only thing you could claim is that the observations were incorrect, but of course in the case of gravity there's way too much of that.
Then there's the theory of how gravity works. How fast do things attract, based on what, etc. This is a logical explanation to try and explain the facts observed and how they relate. So you get things like Newton's Laws of Universal Gravitation. An explanation of how it functions. However like any theory, it is possible it could be wrong, that the explanations could be incorrect.
Well, in the case of gravity, it is likely the case. There are things Newton's theory cannot adequately explain, and some inconsistencies with further observations. It is correct on the scale we deal with on Earth, but not in terms of large cosmic scale things. Einstein gave us a new theory, general relativity, which explains it differently. Newton's theory is still a very useful simplification for the every day world (much like the Ideal Gas Law is a useful simplification) but it isn't correct.
Now as that relates to climate change someone can very well look at the facts and say "Yes, the average temperature is increasing," but then say "However I do not believe the theory put forth to explain it is correct."
Do not conflate facts and theories. They are related, not the same.
It is open to revision in response to, and dispute in the form of, results that contradict the existing explanations and more parsimonious explanations for the results which have been produced.
Defending against pressure to teach, as science, "controversy" which does not actually exist within the scope of the scientific work in a field is not anti-science.
Yes, it would be, but that's not what the National Center for Science Education is saying, so that's what's known as a strawman.
And its the anti-empirical ideological-based approach, and the pressure to present the results of that approach as science, that the NCSE is opposing in the two areas in which it is taking stands.
Unlike the non-scientific work at issue, Einstein's work was scientific, and there wasn't an enormous amount of pressure to teach "the controversy" between Einstein's models and Newtonian physics in primary and secondary education when no such controversy actually existed in the scientific community, so the issue is in no way parallel.
Yes, it is possible that the few vocal critics are correct; if so, please pony up the extraordinary evidence to support your extraordinary claim so we may be convinced.
AGW believers first, since you're the ones that want massive wealth redistribution, crippling of industries and economies, and massive lowering of modern Western lifestyle quality.
So far, there hasn't been enough credible evidence to convince enough people. Until you can provide enough credible evidence (no, a software model won't do it) to convince most people, the AGW agenda ain't happening no matter how condescending and elitist you act or how many shrill diatribes you scream or how loud you scream them.
Consensus doesn't prove or disprove a scientific theory. Consensus has as much to do with scientific theory as do fluffy bunnies or unicorns. Only hard data and repeatable empiric experimental results do that. Consensus is a political state, not a scientific method. Consensus is how religions settle on their particular dogmas. Please stop pretending otherwise. You're destroying all public credibility in science and scientific research by persisting in spreading such misinformation.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
I hope they continue to invest in more economicly-friendly power generation, because over the last decade China's production and consumption of coal, and their share of the world's total CO2 output, has skyrocketed.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
This is now my favourite Slashdot post ever. All of my imaginary mod points. All of them.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
“Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.” -- Michael Crichton
Right. So they agree that climate change is actually occurring, and there is not complete agreement over the cause, or more specifically how much humans are responsible. It may be obvious to many that the single largest threat to the habitability of the planet is people, but those pesky scientists always insist on evidence.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
It's not really "Is the climate changing." The climate changes all the time, from short to long term.
The question is - are WE causing the climate change?
mov ah, 4ch
int 21h
And I'll side with the phlogistonites when it comes to talking about phlogiston. And priests when talking about religion. And Scientologists about anything related to science.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Feynman make a good point about the problem of consensus in his biography that just because you have a lot of people agreeing on something, doesn't mean those people know what they are. Maybe the really knowledgeable/smart people are the ones who disagree. He was talking about it in relation to textbooks and how a bad textbook was getting approved because X number of engineers at Y company said it was good.
Also the thing that strikes me about running to consensus is that is what marketers do, not scientists. I never see consensus appealed when discussing evolution. People don't say "Well X% of scientists agree with evolution so it must be true!" Rather they point to the evidence.
Why do you think China is investing so much in battery technology?
To make money maybe?
What about massive investment in wind and solar power?
see above.
I suppose an ignoramus such as yourself would write off such long term efforts as conspiracies
Actually it's a communist government (China) handing a capitalist government (USA) it's head on a platter when competing at actual capitalism. The US, and I'm an American, has become a bastion of conservative religious politicians who won't allow any actual facts to cloud their world view. Even when shown a market poised to grow by 1000's of percent for decades, they wouldn't allow any money at all into it's birthing.
China, having no such imaginary ideals to protect, has gleefully plowed lots of the money the US is sending them into the Next Big Thing (tm) so that we'll yet again under their thumb financially.
If the GOP was so damned 'business' oriented, don't you think they would have run headlong to provide this service and product to a world literally BEGGING for it? Whether it's a real or made up controversy, there is vast amounts of money to be made. And the GOP wants none of it. Except now to complain about the Chinese undercutting our non-government funded solar/renewable energy industry.
Absolute fucking morons.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
Here's the original study.
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
I think that if you take the time to read it, you'll find that yeah, most climatologist (and the scientific community in general) do think that not only is it happening, but that it's man made.
Check your premises.
My personal view is that we should expend more effort into advanced nuclear technologies. LFTR http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor looks particularly promising. This can be augmented with wind/solar/hydro etc where it makes sense to build them. If we need 100% proof that GW will destroy us before acting, we have to wait to be destroyed first. This is a stupid position, hence models and predictions, as imperfect as they are.
No, AGCC is not as well established as evolution.
(Or for that matter, plate tectonics which has only been nearly universally accepted for a surprisingly short time. Mid 1960s.)
It's got a lot of evidence behind it, though.
Where the problem comes up is what should be done to combat it.
It's not "just a few lifestyle changes" as a previous post put it, that some propose. It's a massive reworking of energy infrastructure and how worldwide economies work.
Or it's geo-engineering on an unprecedented scale with no certainty of what all the effects are.
Further, there's no guarantee that those measures will do enough to slow it substantially, let alone stop it.
One of the common themes we hear is that it's a nonlinear process with feedback systems we don't understand well. (North Atlantic ocean circulation? Freeing of methane from tundra or from clathrates? What are the trigger points where it goes into self sustaining increase? Even the effect of cloud cover and how it's modified during warming is only understood somewhat.)
Those points alone should point that it's not nearly so well settled as evolution or plate tectonics.
One of the questions is do we do this massive change and then watch as either the changes aren't as large as expected, or that doing them made no difference.
Look at the responses in this thread. Bitter vitrol thrown by both sides of it (and even some of those in the middle).
If that's not a religious debate by all involved, I hardly know what one is.
We might as well be arguing emacs vs vi.
There are significant exceptions. There are enough deniers in number to make the presumption that most have an economic interest silly. It's not religion, but it's still mostly an issue of ideological predisposition. Also, the points of difference are more varied than implied by the usual discussion. For example, I'm not a denier, but the rational conclusions reached by published studies is that my northern country of Canada will _significantly benefit_ from global warming, as I discussed in this thread http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2625686&cid=38731928 and thus I am hoping for warming of around 3*C over the next few decades.
"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
If I had been taught the nonsensical “science” that is creationism in college I would have had the teacher removed and the program changed It is just that damn simple. It is one thing to teach evolution and then teach creationism as a secondary that student chose to believe or disbelieve but if they were to only teach creationism and then say that no organism on the planet ever evolves or changes given their environment it would be simply retarded. Please see this chart http://youtu.be/7R6aFsxalM8 and then watch this http://youtu.be/Tngy3nI4Gac I think those two videos explain my point quite well
They are. China has 14 nuclear reactors operating, are constructing another 25. More are planned. Here's hoping their safety systems are sufficient.
D
Climate is a changing, however the only proposed solution is to give already rich people my money through taxes and fines. It should be obvious to anyone who has looked at how the government is able to tackle big problems (Push them to next election +1) will not be the solution. If you talk to many of the Climate Change Deniers you will find a lot of them accept the idea that the climate may be changing, but do not accept the idea that giving the people who brought you SOPA to combat "piracy" and Solera as the solution. Currently there are two camps 1. I believe in AGW - Solution: Taxes and Fines. Deniers - I'll keep my money thank you because things are going to change anyway and the government will likely make it worse. You will find that when the solution is not "Give Al Gore More MONIES" but a technology or solution that doesn't seriously impact a persons way of life you will have a lot less deniers.
1 - History. I'm a student of history. I became a skeptic when they tried to erase the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age.
\
And I give a shit just how a student of history misunderstands atmospheric physics because WHY again?
2 - Statistics/Data Analysis. M&M made Michael Mann's Hockey Stick look like a total fraud.
And I give a shit just how a student of history misunderstands atmospheric physics AND statistics because WHY again?
3 - Physics. Most serious skeptics will grant that CO2 absorbs energy at one important wavelength. They will grant as much as 1.4 degrees warming for a doubling of CO2. The thing they won't grant is the feedback necessary to get dangerous warming.
And I give a shit just how a student of history misunderstands the relative importance of isolated "facts" in physics he scrapped off some denier's site online because WHY again?
4 - Instrumentation. Anthony Watts has demonstrated the pathetic state of some of our temperature records.
Anthony Watts is a non-scientist, college drop out full blown, outed fraud: http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2009/07/29/204427/the-video-that-anthony-watts-does-not-want-you-to-see-the-sinclair-climate-denial-crock-of-the-week/
It goes on. There are other mechanisms that can explain the late 20th century warming. If you want to seriously talk about skeptics, you really should study them a bit more.
Yes. We should not accept Climate Change based on a POLL!!!
We should believe scientists because they have DATA to back up their assertions. Science is not a popularity contest or a political race. Polls of what scientists think is not science.
This is my main complaint about the way this issue is framed. We appeal to the high priests (of either side) to tell us what is right, rather than look at the data and what it tells us. It's become just one more shout-fest.
It goes on. There are other mechanisms that can explain the late 20th century warming. If you want to seriously talk about skeptics, you really should study them a bit more.
Yeah I don't want to talk to skeptics. I want my government to neutralize them through any means necessary.
Yes, I hear people talk about "the climate" and I think, "what sort of witchcraft is this?"
Really. This whole spectacle, this so-called debate, is painful to watch. The rest of us have moved on. And I say that as a friend and a resolute pro-American.
Ah, yes, the days of pre-evidence based medicine where they clung dogmatically to Galen's writings; a proper analogy for modern science if I ever heard one.
Do I detect a theme here? Deniers are non-scientists who don't know how science is even conducted but nevertheless believe they have a god given (literally) right to barge into a field they know ZERO about and declare what is and is not valid and how that field should consider its own work products.
The level of arrogance here borders on insanity.
Indeed Evolution and Climate change have a few things in common:
a) Both are inconvenient for people who feel a certain kind of entitlement.
b) Both are non-trivial to understand and difficult to predict in practice
c) Both have been grossly exaggerated in the strength and speed of the effects in popular science. (climate change *will not cause a big tidal wave washing away harbour towns*, most likely climate change will *not* be observable definitely within a single human life and evolution will *not* change a species under natural conditions within the lifetime of a single person)
so do these three point make them anyhow weaker theories? Not really.
Lets compare the alternatives: creationism (no falsifiable, therefore no scientific theories) and climate change denial (falsified on every level). so should we teach them in science classes? no, we should not.
What should we teach: be sceptical, especially if somebody tries to scare you with some *seemingly* scientific fact. When people talk about a glacier melting, try to put in the number and *see* if the change in the melting rate is really so bad. But then also estimate for the next hundred years. Be sceptical if explanations are too pleasant (like, don't change you convenient, wasteful lifestyle, you are the image of god).
And that's the real irony. Skeptics, whether evolution deniers or AGW deniers, will go to almost insane levels of skepticism about the theories they reject, and yet will show almost stunning gullibility when it comes to sources they agree with. In my years frequenting evolution debate forums, it was amazing to watch guys saying things in one breath about how we don't have video tape evidence of evolution of humans happening and then with the next breath proclaiming that Noah's Ark and Paluxy footprints were real.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
This is an absurd distortion of science. Numerous fields of research use modeling to both test and refine theories. If you've decided models are now invalid theoretical tools, then everything from quantum mechanics to biology just got thrown out the window.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Most people aren't qualified to understand the data on their own, or to model it, or do do much of anything besides let scientists filter it and understand it for us.
The libertarian fantasy that the common man has the time, ability, and motivation to understand any subject is just that, a fantasy, and has no place at the adult table.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
When you first talk about "massive wealth redistribution", "crippling industries and economies" and "massive lowering of lifestyle" it's a pretty sure bet that your objections are more ideological than scientific.
Consensus in science is what happens when the scientists quit arguing about a subject and move on to other things. It's not something that anyone campaigns for.
I don't think the United States denies climate change (whatever that means). However, there are a lot of people who don't support the idea that climate change should be used as an excuse to tax wealthy countries and transfer the money to developing countries. It should be obvious that the one change which would be the most cost effective and have highest probability of successful outcome is population control. Reduce the world's population by about 50% over the next hundred years and many, many other problems (energy, food, pollution, fresh water, etc) just go away.
Which is not the same thing as a controversy over AGW. This is no different than scientists who debate whether the most potent evolutionary force is mutations or neutral drift. Just because two biologists may differ on which is responsible for more variation in populations doesn't mean that one or the other rejections evolution.
Among those who have debated Creationists, this is what is known as overstating the debate; conflating a debate about details of a theory with a debate about the theory itself.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
It's easy to poke fun of astrologers and the like, that's not what people take issue with. It's when they decide to go on a Libertarian rant about something that isn't painfully obvious pseudoscience and start quoting the Cato Institute as though it's an authority on anything that people cry foul.
"I became a skeptic when they tried to erase the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age."
Which climatologists did this exactly?
The fallacy of your argument is this: you equate the leaders of the argument of both sides, and give them equal footing.
Leading those who accept the scientific evidence are... the scientists. Yes, the people who train for their lives, who thrive on evidence, logic and the scientific method. To be sure, some are corrupt, but if you argue the majority of them are, then you are effectively arguing against the entire profession. You sure you want to go there?
Leading the other side are those who profit from denial, and those who just don't want to change their way of life, or have religious beliefs about the matter.
These groups are not equally qualified to talk about the matter. And to paint the entire climatologist community as high priests is to equate their science with religion, which is in and of itself a fallacy. An effective one, but a fallacy nevertheless.
Check your premises.
Actually, eugenics was largely a rejection of Darwinian selection, and it had no lack of advocates on the Right and Left. It certainly was not a view promoted by most of those who understood natural selection, which as a key concept said that the more variation the better, whereas eugenicists seemed to believe that monocultures were better. As well, many of the targets of the eugenics crowd were people low on the socio-economic ladder, and the arguments usually stemmed either from a view that poverty and/or cretinism were inherited traits. If anything, I'd say most of the eugenics crowd, even if they went around talking in pseudo-Darwinian language, were largely Lamarckian. At any rate, eugenics was never a widely accepted theory in scientific circles, and even at the time there were many who recognized the profoundly unethical nature of its proponents' aims.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
All science is modelling. Do you really think that is voltage your multimeter is measuring? Somewhere in your hardware (either explicitly in the software, or implicitly in the circuit design) is a model of how your multimeter is supposed to respond in the presence of a potential difference, something which is again derived from another model, electromagnetism, which is itself dependent on ideas about space and time from contained in special relativity.
All science is done by embedding empirical facts into paradigms which are thought to lend a coherent description of reality. This idea that you can have empirical proof wholly divorced from the framework in which you are doing the investigation is laughable.
Science does not work based solely on empirical facts. Science is embedding and explanation of empirical facts through theory, that is, through models.
Both evolution denial and climate change denial arise, not because some people believe evolution or climate change are not real, but because they know they are.
Oh yes, this is definitely what they need to be concerned about and not their huge budget deficit and the flight of businesses out of their state.
take it you never realized that "Bullshit" is carefully crafted libertarian propaganda rather than independent investigative reporting for entertainment.
Wow. You must really be surrounded by a cluster fuck of people who think any conservative label (like "libertarian") automatically dismisses trumps every argument. The method that you accuse Penn and Teller of using would amount to slander. And they would have been sued for it numerous times (since they have deep pockets). This kind of method can only be used in a fiction setting (like "Borat") or in a setting where you don't intend to mock the person. But it can't be used in an interview setting. Once you start publicly mocking people for what they say, you better not slander, or you are might as well be writing them a check.
Oh, and comparing skepticism of highly-dubious, highly-politicized research to creationism may seem like you are attacking the same targets, but you are not. Libertarianism is neutral on the god debate. There is a cross-section between libertarians and creationists, but that cross-section is as large as the number of pro-choice libertarians. So it's a useless data point.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
The United States is hardly a place to go looking for consensus on science. The US has the lowest beliefs in evolution in the western world. Less people believe in evolution in the US than in Bulgaria or Croatia, and only slightly more than in Turkey or Iran.
In western world, more people believe in evolution than anthropomorphic climate change, but only by a TINY factor.
In the US, only 30% of conservatives believe in evolution.
That's lower than any country who's population makes more than $3 per day (like Ghana) or that isn't subject to strict religious law (like Iran).
Pretty poor argument you chose to take there. Conservatives in the US have clearly decided to try to make it acceptable to deny things which most educated people regard as pretty well decided. This is one reason why just about any argument they take will be ridiculed by much of the world, as fortunate or unfortunate as you regard that.
While I don't believe the argument on climate change is 100% decided, I find it more likely than not given the evidence I have seen.
Correct. Of course, in science, as in just about any technically sophisticated field, it typically takes 5-10 years to acquire the background knowledge and expertise required to evaluate the evidence, not to mention reading through the literature and inspecting it.
So what do you do if you lack the time or the inclination to become an expert? The next best thing is to look at the consensus of the experts--they guys who have formed their opinions based upon personal study of the evidence. Consensus is not science--but when science is properly done, a consensus emerges, because intelligent, knowledgeable people studying the same evidence tend to reach similar conclusions.
But of course, there are always some people who are of a paranoid frame of mind, and who are pathologically suspicious of people who have knowledge that they lack, constantly suspecting that the experts are colluding to gull them, particularly when the experts are telling them something that they don't want to hear. So instead of accepting the consensus, they latch on to some guy who looks a little bit like an expert but who rejects the expert consensus--often a retired expert, or some guy with expertise in a peripherally related field (a weatherman or engineer instead of a climate scientist, for example)--and acclaiming that guy as their guru.
In science, we have a technical term for people like this.
We call them cranks.
This is why the 'skeptic community' at large prefers to refer to these guys as 'climate denialists' rather than 'climate skeptics', and you sure as hell won't hear them using the term 'evolution skeptic'. You have to approach everything skeptically, including your skepticism. If you're not willing to evaluate new contrary evidence and instead dismiss it out-of-hand (or in Watts' case, abuse DMCA takedowns and ban anyone disagreeing with you in your blog's comments), you're no longer a skeptic.
Talk to real scientists: consensus among those most familiar with the field is all that is available to science.
My neighbor IS a scientist. He's a published physicist. I showed him your original post I first replied to. He laughed. That's where I got that about bunnies and unicorns, and consensus being a political state, not proof or disproof of a scientific theory. Those were his words, not mine.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
but it's hardly the place to go for unbiased reporting.
I find it extremely difficult to have confidence in ANY reporting that claims to be unbiased nowadays. I am extremely scorn when it comes to trusting anything to do with the mainstream media, and have grown increasingly wary of some of the sources I once trusted. This is why I was excited when stuff like Wikileaks started happening, because at least it was devoid of bullshit and just official documents that you could draw your own conclusions from. Granted that is still possible, but with a much larger amount of effort required now as opposed to the the searchable database of cables and closed-door documents that were available for a while.
"I hope you know how very lucky you are to know me, because I am so incredibly incredible."
As a scientist, I can tell you that climate science is one of the most open fields of science in making raw data available to the public. There is more than enough data available so that anybody willing to spend a few years developing the appropriate expertise can verify the major conclusions of climate science. Here's a starting point
Wow. You must really be surrounded by a cluster fuck of people who think any conservative label (like "libertarian") automatically dismisses trumps every argument.
I guess you couldn't be bothered to read far enough to get to the point where GP said that the viewpoints presented in a positive light on Bullshit aren't necessarily incorrect, but clearly biased.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2012/2011GL050226.shtml Obviously the authors are paid shills of the tar sands industry. "Our analysis also leads to a relatively low and tightly-constrained estimate of Transient Climate Response of 1.3–1.8C, and relatively low projections of 21st-century warming under the Representative Concentration Pathways. Repeating our attribution analysis with a second model (CNRM-CM5) gives consistent results, albeit with somewhat larger uncertainties. "
When you first talk about "massive wealth redistribution", "crippling industries and economies" and "massive lowering of lifestyle" it's a pretty sure bet that your objections are more ideological than scientific.
I'm simply stating the things that would necessarily have to happen as a consequence of enacting the measures that have been proposed to combat AGW. Just as Obama stated that electric power rates would "necessarily skyrocket" in order to implement a carbon cap and trade system.
"Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket." -- Barack Obama, January 17, 2008
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlTxGHn4sH4
Is Obama being "more ideological than scientific"?
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
At school level I think there are two things that science should cover:
1) The scientific method.
2) A solid grounding in science's current understanding of the world.
Pragmatically I think we have to accept that at school level a lot of (2) will be taught as generally accepted without much time devoted to "alternate" views as there is so much basic science to cover. Certainly it should be backed up with experimentation where possible. Climate change probably isn't a good candidate for that due to the complexity involved but lack of school level experimental support alone isn't enough to disqualify it (nuclear fission also doesn't offer much opportunity for class time experimentation!).
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
Conservatives often believe in the power of "common sense" and dismiss subject experts as biased by the "liberal education system".
True, science is supposed to be empirically verifiable, but the common man cannot perform most of the tests and verifications on their own. Thus, they rely on alleged conservative subject experts to judge the topic.
If you point out that most of those with "proper credentials" don't support the conservative view (that X is false), they'll just say that the education system bias weeds out most conservative experts such that conservative experts won't have such degrees.
Until their own house bakes to a crisp, they won't believe climate experts with formal degrees because they believe the whole education system is corrupt and biased due to the "liberal commies" running the universities.
(And if their house does burn to a crisp, they'll probably think, "Damn! I'm baking in hell because I talked to liberals.")
Table-ized A.I.
Have you actually ever tried to click on those links? The most important one is broken. I've been to that site many times. That first link is always broken. The raw data isn't there. I'm not saying it isn't somewhere else. Maybe I'm wrong. But your link leads no where. Try it yourself.
There wouldn't be FOIA requests over this issue going back years if the data were open. These requests are ignored, rejected, and in one case I know the scientist said they had destroyed the raw data.
Furthermore, were it available then the Berkley Earth program wouldn't have happened. It did happen because the previous studies were not releasing their data. One of the primary things the Berkeley earth program promised was that they would release their data. So far the raw BEST data has not been released and there is already controversy over the early releases.
I'm not saying AGW is right or wrong. I am not a scientist. I am not saying that any of these scientists have committed ethical violations. I really am in no position to form such an opinion. However, they have not done a good job of releasing data. Again, if they had there would not have be the FOIA issues or the Berkeley project. As those in fact happened there are issues with scientists in this field releasing data. I'm flexible on anything else on this issue. But that much I know. I am not so much a fool that I can't tell at least that much.
Out of curiosity, which field of science do you study?
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Those were physicians. Big difference.
But even though 97% of the world's scientists feel that such proof does exist,
In science, it is more important to understand why the 3% is wrong that to know that 97% agrees with you. If you don't understand the counter-argument, then your opinion doesn't have much weight.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
I exist, that's all I know for sure, *everything* else is a belief.
I think I'll go with solipsism personally.
Seriously, we have a number of them that have transplanted to Colorado. And at this time, I think that they have a serious neuro virus that has destroyed their ability to think. They believe that cutting taxes, waging multiple wars, raising spending, and denying science will solve everything.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Contrawise, a lot of people who believe in global warming think that by stopping trees from being chopped down and replanted, they are helping reduce our CO2 footprint.
1) In the 70s time (sic) magazine had this big story they had on the magazine cover talking about how we were heading into a new ice age.
Wait! Time magazine is a peer reviewed scientific journal? Thanks for the update.
Yeah too bad the world's scientists disagree with you.
The world's scientists: "we know KNOW FOR A FACT that computer modeling of complex systems is valid science.
me: The world's scientists think that computer models are a valid way top conduct science
you:t's pretty funny to see somebody spout on about "arrogance" in the same breath as declaring that computer models portending to model anything anywhere near as complex as planetary climate as "how science is done."
The thing is, society is not constrained to convince it's least gifted members of the veracity of the last details of the most complicated science before they utilize that science to direct policy.
Go ahead Mr. President. Do whatever you need to do to maintain the national security of the United States of America.
Most raw data and source code is available and has been for several years. To claim otherwise is to show your ignorance. You can start here.
As for methodologies, read the scientific papers.
If you can't name prominent skeptics of AGW position (or think that none exist), then you don't even know what the either side's counter argument is.
99% of scientists? The vast, VAST majority of the scientific community accept global warming as scientifically valid.
Monstar L
Would you agree or disagree that "there is no climate change" is a valid talking point?
It is a valid point for introducing the concept - it would be a good way to introduce the evidence in a thought provoking way and get the students to think about whether there is a better explanation for the data than climate change. Of course to do this you need teachers capable of really understanding the observations so they can point out flaws in arguments.
However I've noted that the climate change proponents are just as guilty of anti-science rhetoric as their opponents. For example an A-level physics question in the UK once showed a plot of remaining fossil energy reserves (decreasing) and energy demand (increasing) and asked how this plot showed that the UK must develop renewable energy sources. Of course the graph did not show that - it just showed that eventually fossil energy sources would not be enough given current demand predictions. This is also solvable by developing other non-renewable sources (e.g. nuclear) or simply by being more energy efficient and reducing demand.
So opponents of climate change may be anti-science by denying evidence but the proponents are often just as anti-science by ignoring other solutions and just pushing the "green" political agenda they want to see enacted. Neither side seems to be actually interested in what science really has to say when it is not what they want to hear... which is precisely when you should listen to science because that is when you learn the most!
All the links I checked work fine. There is no "single most important link." In climate science, as in any field of science, no important conclusion is critically dependent upon any single data set.
Anybody can file a FOIA request over anything, so the existence of a FOIA demand proves nothing. Many of the FOIA demands were for data that labs in question did not even own (for example, CRU does not own any primary data. Some were over agreements with data providers rather than data.
The BEST results are not even published yet. But they are only the latest group to examine the data and conclude that global warming is real. All of the data are available from the National Weather Services that acquired and own it (although some of them charge a fee for access). The Muir Russell review even went so far as to request the original data from the actual owners and reproduce CRU's conclusions.
It is as well established as evolution. The basic science is over 100 years old and today's developments have been predicted 30+ years ago.
That doesn't stop people from denying it.
thegodmovie.com - watch it
Let's consider another "scientific discipline" that was once popular among progressives: eugenics. That's right, science says we should kill or sterilize anyone that we experts think are defective. (Pick your favorite victim group.)
Where's the scientific evidence of this?
I've never seen any evidence of Eugenics programs working. If anything, the scientific argument is against it. We know what happens when genetic diversity is eliminated from a society, it becomes inbred and countless experiments have proven that genetically isolation does not produce a superior species. This is why you cant keep breeding that prize racehorse or bullock with the same stock.
Eugenics was never a scientific discipline. It was a social one, the idea that one class of people are inherently superior is not an idea supported by science, in fact it's refuted by it.
Think about what you're saying rather then making poorly veiled anti-establishment rants.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Maybe I was not clear what I meant by "consensus:" it means that a prevailing opinion must arise in the community of scholars who are most familiar with the field.
Opinions are meaningless in science. Consensus is meaningless in science. Only hard, provable data and repeatable results from empiric experiments have any meaning in science. Opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one, and most stink. All that consensus is, is agreement on the repulsiveness of the stench.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
And I give a shit just how a student of history misunderstands atmospheric physics because WHY again?
You don't give a shit because you have a very small, provincial, narrow mind.
The problem is that the NCSE doesn't just want to teach about the science of climate change. They want to push specific policy proposals as "The Solution" to the problem:
http://ncse.com/climate/teaching/humans-can-reduce-climate-change
The media, at least in the US, has a habit of presenting equal sides when that isn't the case.
a weak, disingenuous neutrality
it can't be helping this situation.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
the very first link under raw data that supposedly shows all the weather stations and most of the ground data doesn't work. I've never been able to get that link to work... let me try on a different computer... okay, seems to work there. So it's just this computer that has an issue. My fault. I'll give it a look, verify some of the data by checking it against it's supposed source, and then import the whole thing into excel... I'm not totally helpless.
As to the FOIA, you're not pretending that was all smoke and no fire. If that's your argument then we're going to have to agree to disagree. Several scientists have been admonished by judges for failing to disclose data and cited for sloppy record keeping. This is not just some band of quacks making things up.
As to the BEST data, I'm still patiently waiting for them to release data. I thought it was supposed to be out last year? Again, I do not accuse anyone of anything that hasn't been proven yet. So in fairness I won't say there has been any corruption or unethical behavior. I will say there has been some sloppy behavior but that again is a matter of court record... and not merely my opinion.
I eagerly await full disclosure. I think you're aware of the problem to some extent though you seem loath to admit it. For example you cited the issue iwth not owning the data or it belonging to various suppliers. That's fair. But then the pressure needs to be put on them to release it. If it's a matter of money, then just pay the idiots. They have every right to demand compensation for their data. But its important that it become public domain. So if we need to cut some checks to some weather stations to make this happen the price is cheap.
Anything that doesn't result in that data being available in it's complete and unedited form is a waste of time. That is non-negotiable. Full disclosure. All the data prior to any modification and the full methodology used to turn the data into the conclusions. If that means computer code, then upload the full source code. If it means long descriptions of their process then that's fine too. Its like being asked to show your work in math class. You can't just cite the answer and say "done." Even if you're right it doesn't matter. It's very important that we see the process in full. And one thing that will of course happen is we'll see what happens if we enter random data into the methodology. "IF" we get a hockey stick curve out of random data then that will make us very uncomfortable with the methodology because it will suggest a bias to given results.
This is not unreasonable. The amount of money being asked to fund GW research is at least hundreds of millions and if we include the propaganda spend on it then we're talking about billions. And as to the proposed solutions we're talking about spending TRILLIONS of dollars. No one is signing off on year over year trillion dollar spending packages without a LOT of backing. And so far it just isn't even close to enough to get anything through.
If you want action on climate change... you need to have enough information out there to make stupid novices like me happy because it's my money in part that you're talking about spending. This is less an ideological or a republican vs democrat problem. This is a very simple money problem. It's a LOT of money and these numbers can't be justified unless we're made very certain. We're also quiet paranoid because we've been lied to by many con artists and charlatans over the years. Look at all the people in wall street that just got away with ripping the whole country off. So we assume someone MIGHT be lying to us and we're not going to just take any of this on faith. We need the data made public... and the full methodology. If you say "trust me, I'm a scientist" we're going to check our wallets to make sure our pockets haven't been picked. Call that cynical but you have to see it from our perspective... people stick their hands in our pockets all the time. And very often they're able to run away with our wallet despite our
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Yeah buddy the world needs to listen to your ideas about a technical subject you never studied in any way especially when those ideas contravene the deeply considered opinions of duly qualified experts, an expertise you have exactly none of.
From the DSM IV, number one in list of characteristics of Narcissistic Personality Disorder:
Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)
Oh, no, I agree with you ABSOLUTELY there--I noticed the same thing, AND I found it pretty inappropriate that they didn't disclose their own personal ties to the Cato Institute when they did so.
However, I was not talking about that--I was talking about what the previous poster said in regards to malicious editing. I honestly don't think they do that--they don't need to, either because the people they are talking to are stupid enough, or because they aren't going to the best sources on the subject.
It really is great television, though.
50 million climate refugees by 2010.
UN Proramme on Climate Change.
I'll also point out that Newtonian Physics and Relativity are in Harmony within the speed range hypothesized and studied by Newton. Einstein's special relativity can be seen as a correction to the original theory that at low speeds the correction factor is essentially zero. In fact there is a way to present the Newtonian equations of motion and gravity with the Relativistic correction attached that shows that Newton's theory's were never invalidated, just didn't cover speeds that are whole digit percentages of C where the % of C correction that Einstein discovered come into play.
So in Summary, Einstein didn't prove Newton wrong, he in fact added to the Newtonian equations a correction that hadn't been discovered because Newton was limited very low speed study.
Whether or not humans are effecting climate change does not matter. As long as an oil based economy gives one country a better standard of living than the other it will continue. This is the tragedy of the commons. The only way to stop this trend is to invent another form of energy that comes cheaper than extracting and refining fossil fuels. THAT is the inconvenient truth.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Okay, I'm probably just suffering from too much comment skimming.
It really is great TV, I agree. Some people don't understand that it's totally OK if you have to be a little skeptical of a skeptical TV show. I mean, you ought to be skeptical about everything, so whatever :)
Why not actually read something on the subject, before you make yourself look like a moron:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Don't you feel the least bit foolish? I mean, it's pretty clear you have no idea what science is, what the evidence for evolution is, and worst of all, you're so fucking pathetic you don't even have the intellectual curiousity to go out and look it up. You're a prime example of the kind of proudly ignorant pseudo-skeptic who makes the most ludicrous, moronic pronouncements without the least sense of irony.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
When did Libertarian become Conservative? It's a completely different quadrant.
This is fairly typical of the kind of clutching at straws that one hears from people who are desperate to reject global warming. They reject the consensus of 97% of climate scientists and seize upon the creationist scientist Spencer, who has rather weak credentials in the climate science field, and who is best known for making basic errors in mathematics and for over fitting overly simplistic models.
Spencer, while not particularly accomplished, seems to be a real scientist. As scientists go, he falls into the category of "lonely guy with a pet theory." There are always one or two guys like this on the periphery of a field--guys who have some oddball theory that they haven't been able to convince much of anybody else of. While they almost always turn out to be wrong, they can occasionally serve a useful role as gadflies.
... or the new Intelligent Design.
So, 97% of the world's scientists are religious zealots?
No, but not all of them feel free to speak their actual opinion in the face of "consensus" that can cost you a job. And pretty much all of them need funding which tends to be funneled towards climate change research that already assumes anthropogenic global warming exists.
U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
The reason you are able to make your snide remark is because of the scientific method. And yet you try to avoid the scientific method with dumb rhetoric. Hypocritical much?
-1 overrated isn't the same thing as "I disagree".
So then, where is this guy that screams "denalist" at any divergence from the party line? What's his name?
In In case you haven''t paid attention to the Republican Party over the last dozen years, they've got a lot of tightly organized talking points that the party leaders push out through all the different media and craziness groups - Anti-tax, pro-war, anti-gay, Obama's-a-socialist, anti-deficit if the Democrats are in office, don't-worry-about-deficits-we-have-higher-priorities if Republicans are in office, etc. Some of these are core values that the party leaders really care about, and others are tactical positions that are useful for getting different groups of voters involved. The finance folks don't really care about gay marriage, but they'll go along on that because it brings in religious conservative voters who show up at polls and rallies and donate money.
Anti-science is a tactical position; anti-climate change is a core message from their corporate sponsors. Bashing evolution makes it easier to bash climate change science, as well as bringing in religious conservative voters, and gets the rabble in the habit of believing talking points their leaders hand them, but the party leadership doesn't really care about evolution - they care very very much about not having Congress make laws about climate change that would affect Big Oil and Big Coal and Big Agribusiness. And they don't care if it means destroying science education in schools for a generation as long as their bottom line is protected for a while; the kids who are going to be scientists can learn evolution in college.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
You're making a political argument, not a scientific one. The fact is that solar PV power is on its way to being less expensive that coal power before 2020 so I'm not sure that Obama's statement in accurate any more. But in 2008 the reduction in cost of solar PV wasn't as evident at it is now. Of course fossil fuel power has all sorts of external costs that are not accounted for in the price of the energy it produces. If they were electricity rates would skyrocket even without switching to renewable energy.
Isn't the real problem that schools feel the need to teach global warming at all? I think that's the heart of what's rubbing all the skeptics the wrong way. They see the disproportionate attention that is paid to a phenomenon that is weakly proven and thus far totally inconsequential in terms of a miniscule sea level and temperature rise, plus pretty much the same climate everywhere that existed 100 years ago. The obvious conclusion is that a bunch of people are trying to work some propaganda into impressionable schoolkids' school experiences--and that's really annoying.
Here's my concern:
Evolution is observed, confirmed in the lab, confirmed by validated predictions, experiments, logic and simulations. There's tons of absolutely irrefutable evidence and we've been confirming it for 200 years.
Climate science is nascent. There's also plenty of evidence for global warming, but not completely deterministic. The science behind it is good but not rock-solid. We can't make perfect predictions and we are still fine tuning our understanding. So while anyone that doubts evolution is either a fool or voluntarily suspending reasoning in favor of faith, someone doubting global warming might be just someone that has a higher bar for proof. Global warming is most likely true, but far from 100% proven. So by putting it in the same boat of evolution we are doing a disservice to science.
GP didn't say that their argument is invalid, only that it's biased. Biased arguments are often valid; the bias is usually in selectively picking the points where facts support your viewpoint, and ignoring those points where they do not.
That's right - that so-called "climate" is just liberal scam invented to bleed American taxpayers dry. Everyone knows that it's hot in Texas and cold in Alaska because God created the world that way, not because of some "climate" bullshit!
Q: When did Libertarian become Conservative?
A: When Ron Paul became an influential Republican. I think mainstream conservatism has finally freaked out enough about the economy to look beyond abortion and marriage in their selections, and many of them have picked a candidate who is actually libertarian rather than conservative. So those two camps are merging.
It's easy to poke fun of astrologers and the like
Say what you like about astrology, but no one can deny that an opposition between Mercury and the Sun is something to worry about, for example.
Because everyone knows that NO media outlet will EVER quote someone out of context.
Nope, but a lot of the world IS, because people like reducing a complex issue to a "yes/no" question; and certainty and verbosity are inversely related to knowledge and understanding.
Why can't the sun AND greenhouse gases BOTH be warming the climate. And if you look beyond these two, you'll find other contributors.
Even if one cause is shown to be more significant than the others, is that a reason to ignore the others? If so, pour petrol on your house if it catches fire: after all, it's on fire anyway :-/
He was a man who didn't know the meaning of the word "fear"; or the meaning of many other words longer than 3 letters
4 - Instrumentation. Anthony Watts has demonstrated the pathetic state of some of our temperature records.
Sadly, no.
Watts is co-author of a paper - Fall, et al, 2011 that shows that there is no major problem with the siting of weather stations in the US:
overall mean temperature trends are nearly identical across site classifications
Watch this Heartland Institute video
"I became a skeptic when they tried to erase the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age." Which climatologists did this exactly?
Michale Mann
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
You're making a political argument, not a scientific one.
I'm not "arguing" anything. Again, I'm simply stating cause & effect. In order for there to theoretically be enough change in Co2 levels to take a significant-enough bite out of the projected rate of global temperature rise to matter, the things I mentioned would probably be at the lower range of the changes that would necessarily have to occur as a consequence of the drastic reductions in Co2 output that would have to occur.
he fact is that solar PV power is on its way to being less expensive that coal power before 2020 so I'm not sure that Obama's statement in accurate any more. But in 2008 the reduction in cost of solar PV wasn't as evident at it is now.
Solar PV power cannot supply baseline loads and so will have only minimal effects on average electricity rates because of the intermittent and unpredictable nature of PV (day/night, weather, etc), not because of unit cost.
Of course fossil fuel power has all sorts of external costs that are not accounted for in the price of the energy it produces. If they were electricity rates would skyrocket even without switching to renewable energy.
Which is exactly why government interference in the energy industry is a bad thing. Government subsidies are what allow prices to not reflect actual costs. That and "targeted" tax policies I would argue actually do more harm to, and delay the implementation of, truly cost efficient alternative energy sources.
Technologies cannot be made mature by government subsidy or changes to certain tax rates or environmental regulations. Those things can only delay paying the piper for attempting to force the use of energy sources/technologies that are not yet mature and efficient enough to be cost effective and practical.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
The problem with the modelling is that it cannot actually tell us what will happen in the future. It's just a guess based on certain parameters at a given time. And basing government policies(that will affect how and where tax money gets spent) on said models is ridiculous. And it doesn't help to have some scientists running around telling everyone the sky is falling and we're all doomed unless we do X, Y and Z RIGHT NOW. I know that gets the most attention, but that does not help anyone. It certainly does lend credibility to their position.
*does not lend
AGW believers first, since you're the ones that want massive wealth redistribution, crippling of industries and economies, and massive lowering of modern Western lifestyle quality.
The science must be wrong because you don't want it to be true.
Interesting.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Except that libertarianism is for the most part economically incompetent randoid nonsense that tends to live in the same brain as people who think climate change isn't real and jesus lived at the same time as dinosaurs.
VOTE RON PAUL: BECAUSE SOME ME JUST WANT TO SEE THE WORLD BURN
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
Furthermore, were it available then the Berkley Earth program wouldn't have happened.
Errr, no. If it were not available then the Berkley Earth program wouldn't have happened. How could they have analyzed data that wasn't available??? Clearly the data is available - even if the CRU team isn't willing to host it.
But even though 97% of the world's scientists feel that such proof does exist,
In science, it is more important to understand why the 3% is wrong that to know that 97% agrees with you. If you don't understand the counter-argument, then your opinion doesn't have much weight.
But there is no counter argument.
There are N counter arguments, which are contradictory.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Mocking someone is not the same as slandering them.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Skeptic indicates a certain level of rational thought, which includes scientific rebuttal of the body of evidence supporting the climate change theory.
That is not the case with the deniers. They have a few well rebutted talking points that they continually repeat.
But nice try on trying to somehow paint the rational thinkers in the debate as anti-semetic. Thanks for playing, and a happy fuck you for that slimeball attempt.
Check your premises.
Why yes, Mr. President, put the giant sunshade satellites into orbit with some poor encryption. Don't worry about the long-term implications of someone...borrowing your system...Muhahahahahaha!
Maybe America doesn't get its sunlight this week, unless, of course, *puts pinky in mouth* I receive one trillion dollars?
So, what is the damage to the American economy, if America doesn't seen the Sun for a week or two?
I am John Hurt.
see*
I am John Hurt.
I think you have missed my point. All inferential science is just models with parameters.
What you have just said amounts to the statement 'No science should ever inform policy'. I would suggest this is truly ridiculous.
Can you point to a single inferential experimental science which is not just models with parameters?
The science must be wrong because you don't want it to be true.
Actually, I'm still waiting for some science. Actual science. With verifiable hard data and repeatable empiric experimental results.
Not some lame-ass "9 out of 10 dentists...err...'climate scientists' agree..." marketing-speak. This is our only planet's climate and our continued survival as a species, not a freakin' toothpaste advertisement. "We think" and "chances are good" isn't good enough. Not when an "oopsie!" can mean extinction, or at the least, widespread suffering, death, and destruction.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
You're not speaking very precisely. "Erase" implies that it exists and they are trying to pretend it doesn't. Offering evidence to refute the hypothesis that there was a medieval warming period isn't "erasing." This is why AGW deniers lack credibility; they are all about subjecting the science to rigorous challenge, part of the scientific method, blah blah blah, unless it's something that they want to believe, in which case the scientific method is bad.
Berkley Earth claims to have reacquired the data from scratch. That is, they claim to have taken it from the initial weather stations. If they're just taking data from Michael Mann then it won't be admissible.
I'm not saying the data doesn't exist anywhere. I'm saying it's been very hard to get the scientists to actually release all their raw data. If someone else goes around and collects it all over again then that's different. I am not referring to ice cores or anything else that would difficult to redo. I'm just talking about querying weather station records.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
and by mostly the same groups of people who want to shove their religion down your throat.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
It was the only possible interpretation. But, hey, bonus points as logging out to comment instead of trying to have a discussion, looser.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Everything in your post has been shown to be wrong, over and over again. So I will only address one thing:
"Stick to *facts* and leave the activism for college."
Facts are useless if you aren't trained to interpret them, and you are clearly not trained.
OK, one more thing ecasue it bugs the fuck out of me. Here is an example of a scientific theory:
Example: It is known that on June 30, 1908 in Tunguska, Siberia, there was an explosion equivalent to the detonation of about 15 million tons of TNT. Many hypotheses have been proposed for what caused the explosion. It is theorized that the explosion was caused by a natural extraterrestrial phenomenon, and was not caused by man. Is this theory a fact? No. The event is a recorded fact. Is this this theory generally accepted to be true, based on evidence to-date? Yes. Can this theory be shown to be false and be discarded? Yes.
Note: its a theory even though we don't reporoduce the event becasue new data can CHANGE WHAT WE KNOW.
That is exacttly the same with AGW. the DATA and actual FACTS are for to overwhelming to the a hypothesis.
Talk to epope who ahve worked at the poles for years.
"As a simulations expert I've had the chance to examine much of the code that was released from the Hadley Institute a few years back....it was *horrifically* poorly put together. If these had been my student, they'd have failed the course. "
While doubtfull that you actually do that, it's irrelevant to the point.
Much badly written software is still accurate in its results. Something people actually in the industry see pretty much every day.
"Lastly, in order for AGW to rise to the level of a theory it must be able to postulate experiments that would prove it to be true. "
FALSE, not true you dumb fuck. You FALSIFY.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Yeah, mountains of data show it otherwise, but hey, lets go with you spoon fed dumb asses that couldn't think your way out a linear slope problem.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Too bad you weren't a participant. Probably has something to do with your utter lack of qualifications.
There's the science that tells us what reality is,. That has reached and re-reached a consensus now. Further discussion is welcome however, one the the particulars of this specific scientific discussion is it points up the fact that we're going to destroy the habitability of the earth for everyone if we don't act NOW.
At some point, your desire to block action on global warming becomes a threat to national security. That point would be now, actually, yesterday.
You have exactly zero right to threaten the existence of everyone else on this planet, through any means no matter what they are or what form they take.
The government has an absolute right to put the national security of the people of this nation above your "right" to kill them.
And they will do just that. The only question is- how much damage will you ave inflicted before that right gets exercised?
4 - Instrumentation. Anthony Watts has demonstrated the pathetic state of some of our temperature records.
Anthony Watts is a non-scientist, college drop out full blown, outed fraud:
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2009/07/29/204427/the-video-that-anthony-watts-does-not-want-you-to-see-the-sinclair-climate-denial-crock-of-the-week/
I do not think that video says what you think it says.
It basically says 'this is Anthony Watts. This is the study of the temperature sensors that he's organising. This is his book about it. His book was published by these people who have also been involved with smoker's rights issues. Therefore they are funded by tobacco companies and inherently evil. Anthony Watts must therefore be evil. This is the response from NOAA to Anthony Watts' claims: "yes there are some problems with the siting of some of the sensors". This is a graph (with no error bars) of temperatures from all the sensors. This is another graph (with no error bars) of the 70 sensors Anthony Watts recommended as being correct. Look they're the same. Therefore Anthony Watts is wrong as well as evil. Some people who looked at animal behaviour have said that it's changing, and mostly in a way that we think it would change if the climate was warming. The End'.
What I got from that is:
- NOAA confirmed that yes there are some problems with the sensor sites (and they adjust the temperatures from those sensors to allow for the warming from the changed surroundings), so the sensor survey was valid, good science that should have been applauded.
- Graphs without error bars are pretty much worthless. They cut the sample size from >1000 to ~70 and nothing changed? really?
At no point in that video does anyone disprove or even find any serious flaws with anything Anthony Watts has said...so why is this being held up as the video that shows Watts to be an anti-scientific 'denier'?
Business/App ideas are like arseholes: everyone's got one, they're mostly shit, but very rarely they contain a diamond
WRONG.
Science begins with an observation.
Your understanding of science is....weak. Clearly you are just spouting off things you have read others say without any thought or actual knowledge on the subject. Quite frankly I am tired of you poor excuses for a limp wristed cum stains talking like you understands something when you clearly don't.
"a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true."
So, new data that doesn't support the current hypothesis will falsify a hypotheses. Since every other data that looks at temperature increase above normal cycles has been ruled out, what we have left is AGW.
One test that was done was when all the air traffic was grounded. That data was startling.
Another test would be 'does the temperature go down with the appropriate cycle'. It does not.
Another test is evaporation pounds.
in fact, there are many, many tests.
Please, what other conclusion can you come to with the data?
the Sun has been rued out, as have volcanoes, cosmic rays, and 'bad karma'.
Increased CO2 has cause a trapping of more energy.
When all other factors are in a known state, does the temperature return to that state? No? well their you go.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
In fact, Watts' claims that the surface temperature measurements were distorting the theory of AGW is specifically mentioned in this video and uncategorically proven wrong.
Here is one of the links on the page I provided that out Watts not just as a non-climatologist but as a non-scientist:
http://desmogblog.com/anthony-watts
Pfft. he didn't even do a 15 seconds Google search. Do you thin he will read, let alone understand, scientific papers?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Have been for many years. I kind of got interested in at a young age, then I went on to study it at college. Don't know about yourself though, you seem a little more than unaware of the scientific process. Here's a hint: not everyone is going to agree with you in science. Even today, not every scientist agrees with the theory of Gravity, and that doesn't make them less of a scientist. If we wanted idiots to blindly nod their heads and never point out our mistakes (which both the individual and majority make, if you ever study the history of science), we'd be located next to the seminary school.
"You have exactly zero right to threaten the existence of everyone else on this planet, through any means no matter what they are or what form they take." -> And you have ZERO right to threaten my existence by engaging in various actions I consider deleterious to my or anyone else's existence. Now get the f*ck off your moral high horse, and fight me like a scientist in the ring.
"The government has an absolute right to put the national security of the people of this nation above your "right" to kill them. " -> And yes, we heard similar propaganda when boots were being dropped in Germany. For the GOOD of the PEOPLE! We MUST take this ACTION! Exterminate! Annihilate! Eradicate! What more, the number of people who disagree with you is on the order of millions. You in the mood to commit some genocide today?
"And they will do just that. The only question is- how much damage will you ave inflicted before that right gets exercised?" What, how much damage might we inflict by questioning your data and conclusions? As opposed to the guaranteed damage many of your changes will result in? We press forward with your "reforms," and later data shows that your conclusions were incorrect, we will never get back what we've lost. If we hold off a little longer, as we patiently wait for the raw data to be released, we lose very little, even if the data and subsequent experiments prove you correct. In effect, your "reforms," taken today, will through this and the next several generations of humanity under a bus. And before we agree to this sh*t, I will make damn sure that I read the fine print, and that the people involved are not pulling one over on us.
tldr; r/politics must be down today, responding to the troll of the day.
I am John Hurt.
>"Opinions are meaningless in science"
In principle this is true but vastly oversimplified. The problem is that if you do an experiment you may have done it correctly; or you may have done it incorrectly, or you may have done it partially correctly. When other people repeat your methods and produce results, they may have done it correctly, they may have done it incorrectly, or they may have done it partially correctly.
What you describe is insufficient documentation of the experiments. Documentation is there precisely to remove fallible human opinion and "consensus" from spoiling the data and results.
It's sloppy pseudo-science, and has no place in helping to determine our chances for survival as a species.
The easiest example is Newtonian physics: all the motion experiments conducted before 1900 repeatedly, empirically and conclusively "proved" that Newtonian physics was correct. Then some other guys came along and showed that it didn't work at high relative velocities or very small sizes. The opinions of pre-1900 experts turned out to be wrong, or at least incomplete.
Thanks, you made my point for me.
The human species is nowhere near advanced enough yet in our understanding of medium to long term global climate system prediction to be engaging in policies and actions that will significantly negatively affect entire populations, and may well even end up making our situation MUCH worse.
The fact that you and others advocate accepting and acting on data and theories that aren't anywhere even *near* as solid as Newtonian physics was, frightens me.
I see a "B" sci-fi climate-disaster movie plot in real-life development.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
While they have been releasing data for years, and they should. There is a downside to that. People who don't understand it misinterpret it, and people like to cherry pick some data, then get onto a talk show and be presented as an expert.
I have seen data being released only to end up bogging every thing down and costing a lot of money because some small group doesn't understand what tye are looking at, or assume it is wrong and demand retesting even though they have no rational reason to believe the data is bad.
I have, literally, seen people scream at Representative, get lawyers and force retesting(at a cost of 10 million) because it didn't show that stored water will kill people.
An politician won't slap the imbeciles down and ignore them.
Oh, and please take 5 minutes to research your statements, you look like an idiot.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I don't know if it's a matter of change itself being denied, as much as it's being denied that change is a problem in the first place.
SO million of displaced and starving people is fine?
The world is bigger then Canada
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Odd, I'm not sure why those last 2 comments posted AC. Feel free to continue the discussion. For the record, I believe that ACC is happening, but I wish the rhetoric dominating the discussion wasn't so visceral.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
fight me like a scientist in the ring.
You're not a scientist so that's actually not going to be possible.
If we hold off a little longer, as we patiently wait for the raw data to be released
What the fuck are you talking about? What "raw data to be released" are you talking about?
This is some fucking fantasy you're involved in, like all denier arguments. What raw data has not been released? Please tell me. Please tell us all. We're waiting.
Denier just throw this shit around as though it had some basis in fact to see how much of it will stick, i.e. go unchallenged.
We couldn't convince the South that it was wrong either. We couldn't convince Hitler to stop either. They both had talk talk which attempted to assume the shape of "a reasonable argument" also. They both engaged in stalling and diversionary tactics in an attempt to head off the inevitable. If we had acted sooner in both cases, a lot more people would have been spared. .
You think you can just talk and talk the time away and demand more proof with shit phrases like "release of raw data " (which you're going to elaborate on presently ) .
Read history . At some point, the talking is over. At some point, talks break down and action is taken and anyone who doesn't like it can either shut up and go along with it or be processed like the criminal they are by society.
Maybe the earth is flat. maybe evolution is a conspiracy. Maybe we didn't land on the moon. Maybe a lot of thing. So the fuck what?
As to reading the fine priont- you're incapable of understanding the fine print. It's a personal limitation you have. You have to face that fact like a man
? What's happening that you can't stand is the sciencification of politics. Science will have an outsized voice in public policy.
What you WANT is the politicization of science , where, Stalin-like, politics determines what "truth" and "conclusions" science shall come to.
Sorry. The science says we need to act, we can't wait any longer. The science doesn't say we need to convince every last member of society of the need to act. If you want to line up on the wrong side of history, so be it.
Berkley Earth claims to have reacquired the data from scratch. That is, they claim to have taken it from the initial weather stations.
So it was available all along? Go figure. I guess all those rent seekers like Steve McIntyre were just blowing smoke when they whinged about being refused access. Meanwhile, the results have been replicated dozens of times by hobbyists and other scientists - most recently the Berkley team. In fact, the investigators into the hacked climate gate emails were able to replicate the results in just two days with the freely available data and the published literature.
I will make damn sure that I read the fine print, and that the people involved are not pulling one over on us.
Who the FUCK is "they" ? Who? Who is using science to "pull one over on you"??
You at least know what the word paranoid means, right?
From WebMD
Delusional disorder, previously called paranoid disorder, is a type of serious mental illness called a "psychosis" in which a person cannot tell what is real from what is imagined.
The main feature of this disorder is the presence of delusions, which are unshakable beliefs in something untrue.
People with delusional disorder experience non-bizarre delusions, which involve situations that could occur in real life, such as being followed, poisoned, deceived, conspired against....
These delusions usually involve the misinterpretation of perceptions or experiences. In reality, however, the situations are either not true at all or highly exaggerated.
People with delusional disorder often can continue to socialize and function normally, apart from the subject of their delusion, and generally do not behave in an obviously odd or bizarre manner.
Your characterization of it is highly deceptive .
They explicitly refute Watt's claims. Reading your post, I would think otherwise.
They do not praise Watt's "work" at all. The "errors" he "found" were actually well within the range that the models allowed for and Watt's "errors" had no impact on the theory of AGW whatsoever.
So Watt's - non-scientist's that he is- had his hypothesis - that the uncertainty in temp data undermined AGW -proven exactly wrong.
Which is pretty much what you'd expect from the theorizing of a non-scientist.
When I think about the USA being a science leader it was about the same time that Cave Johnson got his first Pipboy 3000.
In other words, circa the 1960's. Maybe it was 3 mile island that scared the collective public off, who knows. Heck look at all the heroes in comic books (or even villains), they were all scientists of some sort, or involved science in some way. It was thought of as an esteemed career. Kids got electronic kits and chemistry sets. Model Rocketry and Plane Kits.
What the hell happened to all the romanticism around science and the possibilities for the future?
World3.
New Scientist.
Luntz.
Yeah buddy the world needs to listen to your ideas about a technical subject you never studied in any way especially when those ideas contravene the deeply considered opinions of duly qualified experts, an expertise you have exactly none of.
From the DSM IV, number one in list of characteristics of Narcissistic Personality Disorder:
Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)
I suppose we'll just have to accept your commensurate achievements as an article of faith
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
There are serious statistical problems with that paper, basically, because the surface station project is volunteer driven, the easiest to locate and closest to urban centers was sampled first which caused a very non-random early sampling, the first sentence of the paper is "The recently concluded Surface Stations Project surveyed 82.5% of the U.S. Historical
Climatology Network (USHCN) stations and provided a classification based on exposure
conditions of each surveyed station, using a rating system employed by the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to develop the U.S. Climate Reference Network." is wrong the project still isn't completed. Watts objected to the publication of the paper and was disregarded. Whether the paper is correct or incorrect is undetermined because it is statistically invalid.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
What we're being asked to accept is the obvious implication regarding someone who explicit rejects the consensus opinion of duly qualified scientists on a technical subject matter they know nothing about in favor of their own , home-brewed scientific theory.
When you get to college you'll learn more about how the real world works. Right now, you're in your "know-it-all" phase.
I suggest you try to latch on to an research project as an undergrad assistant. You'll learn a few things. In the mean time, stop insulting people.
I'll take it under advisement, Mr. "When You Get To College" Condescending AsW^W^Anonymous Coward.
Rest assured, your recommendations will receive all the attention they deserve.
Your post does tell me, however, that you've run out of excuses as to why flawed pseudo-science should be believed based on opinion and "consensus".
Hell, if the AGW proponents could show me enough solid science to make a solid enough case, I'd be the first in line to advocate for their positions and policies. The AGW opponents haven't made a solid case either. All there is, is political partisan fighting by both sides. The actual science has been left far behind in the face of the prioritizing of political power games by both sides, rather than on actually improving the science.
There simply isn't enough knowledge of the intimate workings of the global climate system, nor enough valid data, to make any calls either way at this point in time. At least not with enough certainty to justify the enormous costs in national wealth, lives, and suffering necessary to make any meaningful changes in the global climate trend in a short enough time frame to be relevant, especially given that huge nations like China, India, etc won't participate and thus require even more drastic and severe measures by those that do.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
It's actually pretty funny to people who know something about how computers really do and don't work, that you expect that thousands of different equations can be fed hundreds of thousands data points and be iterated over millions of times and not get an answer that hasn't veered off into random noise due to round-off error alone! The simple truth is we are just not smart enough to model the climate, and even if we were, we aren't smart enough to build a computer to accurately run the model.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
And you're the expert who knows all that? Wow, you must be some kind of super-duper genius way beyond Einstein.
Think about it little boy: thousands of scientists have spent decades of their lives studying this stuff and YOU know more than they do? I tried to explain things to you kindly, but apparently you're just a troll, whom I really shouldn't feed. Nonetheless, here's my parting advice:
* study math
* study biology
* make a few friends
* get your meds adjusted
* try to enjoy life without being a troll
OK, let's see what we have here in your reply.
>Condescension - Check
>Ad hominem attacks - Check
>More condescension - Check
>Yet another ad hominem attack - Check
But, according to you, the Anonymous Coward, I'm the "troll".
I do not think that word means what you think it does.
Which actually doesn't surprise me, coming from someone who demonstrably doesn't understand how real science works.
"I'm laughing at the 'superior intellect'." - James T. Kirk | Star Trek II - The Wrath of Khan
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
AGW believers first, since you're the ones that want massive wealth redistribution, crippling of industries and economies, and massive lowering of modern Western lifestyle quality.
DUDE! You forgot to mention abortion, gun control, abortion, and prayer in public schools.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
If you're not arguing in good faith then we're done.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
The concept of falsifiability is oversold. Science is about finding the best model(s) that match observations of the real world. The "best" model is the one that best fits observations. Falsifiability is a nice bonus, but not necessary to have way to judge which of multiple theories (models) are the best fit to observations.
Table-ized A.I.
Yes we do: idiots blowing their giblets off (while winning Darwin Awards).
Table-ized A.I.
If this is the standard of debate and dialog to which you've been trained then that might be your problem.
Childish insults do not gain you the high ground.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
No, of course not. I answer things like that for the benefit of people who might read it with more open minds.
Since I began to observe this theory in the 80s, I've seen increasing evidence that it is true, including, like you said, a 2500 year study of tree rings. Thus, as I observed the increasing emotion over the theories that (a) global warning is primarily caused by people (anthropogenic) and (b) that it will have dire consequences that we can prevent, I've been looking for evidence that the science behind these theories contradicts the theories that our climate has its own cycles, including long-term cycles, that can account for the long-term trends.
Here is what I've observed the most:
1> Many people look at temperature trends and ASSUME they are caused by people, using these trends to "prove" that people are causing global warning. This discrediting position has become predominant, and can even be found in posts in this thread above. This has made it difficult to have and objective scientific discussion of climate change, and created an atmosphere of distrust towards the concept of "consensus". Yes, there are people, and there are scientists. But, I am amazed at how many people claimed to be scientists, yet still could demonstrated a belief in an obvious assumption.
2> There is a lot of emotion in the discussion by those who BELIEVE that global warming will lead to great disaster if to do not do something dramatic right away.
3> Many can in one sentence claim to be very scientific, then in another sentence bash anyone who questions whether or not (a) disaster is coming, (b) people are the cause of the coming disasters, and (c) people can, at great cost, prevent the disasters.
4> Most of the evidence that people are the cause of climate change is attributed to computational models we are supposed to blindly trust without understanding or viewing, despite the fact that these models disagree with each other, and most of the scientists working on these models admit that the unknown variables are still very large, including many things about physics, chemistry and climate we are only beginning to understand.
5> The vast majority of people who claim that the models are the reason to conclude that the climate theories are beyond skepticism know virtually nothing about the calculations and the data fed into them, or have taken the time to look for weaknesses in the models, such as needed improvements in understanding natural cycles, feedback loops and how the climate responds to change.
Looking that this evidence, I'm forced to conclude that:
1> while global warming could be the trend for the next century and there may be anthropogenic causes behind at least part of it, a religion has formed around global warming, creating a culture the demonizes those who hold skepticism, assuming they are just ignoring the facts, and cannot possibly understand "the science".
2> if I am to find solid evidence that falsifies the theory that our climate change is due to natural long-term cycles, I'm going to have to work really hard to sift through the noise created by #1-5 above.
To be sure, while the scientific evidence supporting theories of anthropogenic global warming does not falsify my theories about natural climate cycles, it does cause me to put it in balance with the possibity that people are impacting climate:
1> there are gases that have a greenhouse effect.
2> models have a partial consensus on climate trends.
Open Standards Portal
It's funny you mention quantum, because that's a fantastic example of exactly why skeptics take such a hard line on climate models. Even quantum experts barely understand their field -- many times they have some hypothesis (like a Higgs Boson) that they have no idea if its going to happen or not, so they run tests and then adjust based on observations. That whole field is one of speculation and uncertainty. I would believe "definitely modeling the climate behavior of an entire planet -- past, present, and future" belongs in the same level of credulity. Instead, "climate scientists" somehow get a pass, where their testing and definitiveness of their conclusions is more on par with mostly proven and well understood concepts like "simple newtonian physics" and "chemistry". The fervor and decisiveness that I hear from people on the AGW train, scientist or not, is mind-boggling. It's as if the models they invented are the hand-passed testament of some divine entity, rather than the guesses of a bunch of people who have a vague idea of the total picture. So that's my question: why does climate science get treated like a "Scientific Law" rather than the "Theory" or most likely "Hypothesis" that it really is?
How is that a scientific stance? By simple logic, if we had 1 trillion in "expendable dollars" lying around in 2008, we would have been far better off investing that money, letting it grow and then buying twice or three times as much solar infrastructure today with the same money. But in 2008, anyone with that kind of mindset would be labeled a denier and a planet hater. Bang for buck is a perfectly valid _and_ scientific argument -- it's the broken window fallacy. When we have a finite sum of money, there's some ideal way to spend it, and THAT is what climate skeptics focus on. AGW believers would have us spend an infinite amount of money attempting to solve something we may not even be a significant cause of, whether its an effective solution or not, simply because "its good for the planet!" (big smile, eyes closed, thumbs up). And the reality of it is that if we want _substantial short-term_ emissions change with the technology we have at our disposal, it WILL be costly -- and we want proof that this cost is justified.
OK, I'll feed the troll...
What claim, exactly, did they refute?
As far as I can see the only 'claim' that Watts made in that video is that some of the sensor sites are poor. The video then goes on to agree with that claim.
Business/App ideas are like arseholes: everyone's got one, they're mostly shit, but very rarely they contain a diamond
99% of scientists?
What methodology did you use to come with this figure?
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Calling it a "libertarian propaganda" gave enough of indication of the post's bias. I clearly stated a reason that "Bull Shit" could not be as fake as the post claimed. And if it's not fake, then it is not biased -- at least not in the way in which the post claimed. Reality has no bias -- only opinions do.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
No, mocking someone is not the same as slandering them. But the fact that someone was mocking an individual does not, in itself, constitute a defense against slander. Some mocking is slanderous. I actually gave examples of which types of mocking would not be slanderous. The type of mocking that the post accused "Bull Shit" of would have been slanderous if "Bull Shit" were as fake as the post claimed.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Elsewhere Watts has claimed that this faulty sensor data undermines the entire credibility of AGW theories.
Sticking only with the first claim, the video explicitly says that Watts was shown to be wrong. The temp data was not so corrupted and inaccurate that it materially effected the conclusions based on that data.
It would be a scientific footnote , and certainly nothing non-scientist Watts would go on a crusade over, if the inaccuracies he was pursuing were known to have no material effect on the models apriori. He went at this making broad claims about the ramifications of the inaccuracies, all of which claims were shown to be false.
If all you know about Anthony Watts is from this video, google Anthony Watts denier to get at the substance of the critical arguments with his activities and the positions he's taken.
There might be soem slog inthe results so here are a couple of informative ones to get you started:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Anthony_Watts
http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Anthony_Watts
Ok, so it's only 90% with shills for the oil industry being the biggest doubters.
Monstar L
OK the claim Watts made was that the sensor data was so poor that it negated the temperature data as a valid source of data for use in AGW modeling.
Can you please point me to the exact time on the video where he makes this claim? I can't find it...
around 1:50 it says: "...some of these stations, according to Mr Watts, may be unreliable." a claim which is actually confirmed later in the video at 4:20 "... NOAA scientists acknowledged that some weather station siting does not conform to published standards and that some temperature readings may be affected by those variations..."
around 2:30 it says "...if temperature data is incorrect, according to this reasoning, then perhaps climate models and predictions are tainted and unreliable as well". Which seems to me to be an eminently sensible line of reasoning (you can't base an accurate model on inaccurate data), and anyway isn't attributed to Anthony Watts.
Elsewhere Watts has claimed that this faulty sensor data undermines the entire credibility of AGW theories.
Okay...but that's not in the video is it? If he's actually said that, why isn't it in the video?
Sticking only with the first claim, the video explicitly says that Watts was shown to be wrong. The temp data was not so corrupted and inaccurate that it materially effected the conclusions based on that data.
Again, can you tell me where in the video this is explicitly said?
If you're referring to the NOAA response as presented in the video, then I should point out that the error column on the pie chart presented has a *minimum* error of 1 degree celsius. The line graph presented as 'proof of no material effect' has a complete range of 4 degrees fahrenheit (i.e. approx 2 degrees celsius). In other words, without error bars those lines are meaningless, and with error bars they occupy the entire page of the chart presented.
Obviously, I'm not claiming that NOAA can't draw accurate graphs or that they don't know how to utilise error bars. The point I'm making is that the video doesn't prove or disprove anything.
Business/App ideas are like arseholes: everyone's got one, they're mostly shit, but very rarely they contain a diamond
I referenced an analysis on the impact of carbon pricing in my other reply to you. Perhaps you care to critique that.
Watts objected to the publication of the paper and was disregarded.
Watts objected to the publication of a paper he is co-author of?
Citation fucking needed.
Watts own site, http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/11/the-long-awaited-surfacestations-paper/ contains no objections that I can see.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
The science must be wrong because you don't want it to be true.
Actually, I'm still waiting for some science. Actual science. With verifiable hard data and repeatable empiric experimental results.
You're never going to find it. Your definition of "verifiable hard data" is "things that agree with the way I want things to be".
Watch this Heartland Institute video
I said: OK the claim Watts made was that the sensor data was so poor that it negated the temperature data as a valid source of data for use in AGW modeling.
You said: You said: If he's actually said that, why isn't it in the video?
OK are you claiming that Watts did not make this claim? Is that your point?
Nothing I said was untrue. The whole "They're hiding the data!" meme is pure bunk. The CRU refused to negotiate licenses on behalf of the rent seekers, but that didn't stop scientists and hobbyists from accessing the data themselves. It seems like McIntyre and the other rent seekers are either extremely incompetent or are more interested in weaving narratives than in science. After all, it took only two days for the climategate investigators to replicate the CRU temperature reconstruction with freely available data.
well, CO2 does absorb infrared light, but in very,very short time it emits another IR photon :) in some random direction ... very little energy is kept, and even what is kept is radiated away, that's why the nights are very cold where there is no water to store the heat and release it to the air.
not sure why I bother ... talking to a warmista is like trying to reason with a Jehovah's Witness ...
I have clearly stated the point making (last paragraph). In fact, in each of my posts I have clearly stated the point I'm making.
The point I'm making, in case you missed it last time, is that video that you've linked to several times claiming that it proves Watts is making false claims actually doesn't show Watts making false claims. The only claim that the video shows Watts making (that some of the land-based weather stations in the USA are poorly sited and this may affect the temperature data recorded by them) is, in fact, confirmed by the video rather than disproven.
I understand that you think Watts is a charlatan, and that he makes all sorts of wild claims elsewhere, but my point was (and still is) that the video you linked doesn't show this. Since you still haven't been able to point to anywhere in the video where Watts makes any claim that is subsequently disproven by anything in the video, then I must conclude that my point stands confirmed and the video you linked does not, actually, prove Watts has made any inaccurate statements at all.
Now, you've labelled my characterisation of the video as deceptive, without actually showing any inaccuracy or deception, and without being able to point to anything in my characterisation or our subsequent discussion that is deceptive.
I think you owe me an apology.
Business/App ideas are like arseholes: everyone's got one, they're mostly shit, but very rarely they contain a diamond
This video exists in the context of Watt's public claim that the "flaw" he found in the temp data readings would bear substantially on the theories of AGW and invalidate them.
This is the exact assertion we're discussing.
Specifically he said From wikipedia:)
"the errors in the [U.S. temperature] record exceed by a wide margin the purported rise in temperature [...] during the twentieth century."[17]
As the video clearly states, Watts' hypothesis was disproven. From Wikipedia:
By 2009, the project had documented over 860 stations using over 650 volunteers. In a report entitled Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable?, published by the Heartland Institute, Watts concludes that "the errors in the [U.S. temperature] record exceed by a wide margin the purported rise in temperature [...] during the twentieth century."[17]
Prompted by his work, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration issued a preliminary report that charted data from 70 stations that SurfaceStations.org identified as 'good' or 'best' against the rest of the dataset surveyed at that time, and concluded, "there is no indication from this analysis that poor station exposure has imparted a bias in the U.S. temperature trends."[18] Watts issued a rebuttal in which he asserted that the preliminary analysis excluded new data on quality of surface stations, and criticized the use of homogenized data from the stations, which in his view accounts for the creation of two nearly identical graphs.[19][20]
The Journal of Geophysical Research - Atmospheres subsequently published a study by Menne et al. which examined the record of stations picked out by Watts' Surfacestations.org, and concluded that "In summary, we find no evidence that the CONUS average temperature trends are inflated due to poor station siting." [21][22] In fact, the analysis of unadjusted data from poorly sited stations did reveal a bias, however, it was not the expected bias. The poorly sited stations measured maximum temperatures on average lower than the well sited stations.
The authors note: Results indicate that there is a mean bias associated with poor exposure sites relative to good exposure sites; however, this bias is consistent with previously documented changes associated with the widespread conversion to electronic sensors in the USHCN during the last 25 years. Moreover, the sign of the bias is counterintuitive to photographic documentation of poor exposure because associated instrument changes have led to an artificial negative (âoecoolâ) bias in maximum temperatures and only a slight positive (âoewarmâ) bias in minimum temperatures.[21]
So Watts is a crank and his "investigation " actually proved the opposite of what he intended it to prove
The video clearly states this at the end. If you can't find it, or if you can't grasp that Watt's is wrong and you are also wrong to defend him, it's not a surprise.
Are we having a Charlie Sheen moment here? Are you WINNING?
Sorry you are correct, I was confusing that paper with Menne et al's On the reliability of the U.S. surface temperature record, submitted Aug 2009, which credits Watts not co-authors him. I do believe that Judith Curry was in the position of having objections to one or more of the BEST papers that she was listed as a co-author on.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
OK I get it I get it.
Well at the end of the video they do explicitly say that Watt's hypothesis was disproven and since that hypothesis was a statement from Watts and no one else, then well, it does say he made false claims.
Weather is the day to day expression of climate conditions in a certain geographical area. .
Climate is the study of the atmospheric and other forces which give rise to the conditions which create weather each day.
By analogy, we can predict what the population will be 20 years hence (although something may happen that changes our prediction) but we can't predict for any given individual whether or how many children they will have when
Just an analogy to get the point across. ON a large time scale, if you understand the driviing forces , you can predict what the future average . will be.
If you try to zero in on a daily or hourly basis, your prediction for that time frame is more likely to be wrong.
But you already accept this idea, right? You know because of the changes which cause the seasons to change that the temperature in July will be greater than the temperature in January. But for any given day, you can't predict the weather or even the temperature.
The reason it's this way is because you know the large forcing factors involved in the change of seasons and what those forcing factors will do to the temp generally.
But on an hourly or daily basis, you don't know. You have to express the temp for any given future moment as a PROBABILITY within a given RANGE
And not surprisingly, this is exactly how climate change projections are expressed. As probabilities within temperature ranges
Really? They were able to get access to the CRU's raw data and find a 1:1 match with data that it was drawn from?
What what we have here is an audit. That is in large part why the data is important.
It needs to be understood where every bit of data came from. Every bit of it needs to be verified. Then every process, filter, then calculation from that point to the final conclusion has to be documented in order.
If you want TRILLIONS of dollars a year in AGW spending then why is it unreasonable to ask for that? It isn't unreasonable. If you were asking for a few billion and then you'd go away. Then we might just throw that at you and be done with it. But you want trillions every year.
For that, you need more. We need to know. We can't just trust you. If you don't appreciate that, then you don't know what a trillion dollars is in the first place. That is strategic money. That is the sort of money that wins wars, feeds continents, and builds empires. You don't ask for that without a lot more.
So... you can either reduce what you're asking for by a factor of a thousand or you can start providing all the documentation that is being asked for without the attitude. Because the attitude isn't helping.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.
If your reading comprehension is that poor that you cannot even understand what that means, it's not even worth talking to you, much like other anti global warmers, you lack the necessary cognitive functions to understand basic science.
Monstar L
You don't actually know anyone with a phyiscs PhD do you.
Calling quantum physics uncertain and barely understood is absurd. Some of the philosophy of quantum mechanics is a bit tricky to understand, but the equivalent of quantum engineering is so refined that your average joe PhD in physics could calculate physical quantities like the g-minus 2 of the electron to precision that would make your eyes bleed.
Your inability to comprehend relative levels of uncertainty here is staggering. Yes, the existence of the Higgs boson is unclear, there are other mechanisms which could be at play. The empirical evidence is not yet in. But the computer you used to type this message is dependent on the staggering accuracy of quantum mechanics outside of the very uncommon (terrestrially speaking) high energy regime where things like the Higgs are a concern.
Putting climate science in the same league as quantum mechanics is absurd precisely because the engineering associated with quantum mechanics is just that darn good. The engineering associated with climate science is no where near as good as that associated with that of quantum mechanics, this is precisely why so few climate scientists are gung ho about geoengineering. At the same time suggesting it is in some way poorly understood or unclear is about 30 years out of date, and even then there were things we knew with as close to cast iron certainty as you can get in science.
You seem to be confused as to what a scientific law, a theory and a hypothesis are. A law not a certain statement in science (in fact almost all laws break down under suitable conditions). A law is generally non-mechanistic relationship between variables which holds over a wide variety of conditions, for example Newtons Law of Universal Gravitation. As laws don't posit mechanisms they are in fact generally viewed in the scientific community to be subordinate to theories, since unlike a theory which seeks to explain a wide collection of observed phenomena a law simply acts as a record of observed phenomena.
Theories represent the pinnacle of scientific inference. They posit mechanisms for observed phenomena, make predictions about how relevant parts of the material world will behave and explain a large set of empirical facts, none of which contradict the theory in its domain of applicability. An example would be the theory of quantum electrodynamics. Like all scientific statements, theories can, and usually are wrong. One of the jobs of science is establishing the domain of applicability of theories. However, suggesting that something be treated like a 'theory' when we are operating in the known domain of applicability of that theory is tantamount to suggesting that it should be treated as gospel.
All models are guesses, but calling the basis for climate models vague is absurd. There are facts here, these can be tied together into theories, those theories suggest models which can make predictions.
It is a fact that mean global surface temperature has gone up in the last 50 years. It is a fact that the ocean is absorbing more heat. It is a fact that the polar ice caps are shrinking. It is a fact that birds and plants are migrating and flowering earlier in the year. It is a fact that extreme weather events are becoming more common.
The theory, at present the only theory, which explains all these facts and is consistent with existing theories in physics is the theory of anthropogenic climate change. If you have an alternative hypothesis I'm all ears, but it has to explain everything that the theory of anthropogenic climate change explains and cannot violate known principle of physics because by explaining these facts and predicting the current warming trend the theory of anthropogenic climate change has attained precisely that status, the status of a theory. It is this achievement that your pretender hypothesis now has to aspire to. There is a Nobel prize and tenure waiting for you if you can do it.
Once you have that hypothesis your next job is to build a model
Well I don't know much about the NOAA studies, but surely an error bar of up to 5 degrees C (as is shown on the video we're discussing) *is* greater than the rise in temperature in the 20th century?
I'm not defending him, I'm just not seeing the whacky anti-science crank you're seeing. I've visited his site and he comes across as a pretty reasonable guy *shrug*
If anything, the video producers come across as the whacky anti-science cranks. Bringing in the publisher's other work with the tobacco industry as a blatant ad-hominem? Why? How does that have anything to do with what Watts has said? If, as you say (and I don't disbelieve you) Watts has made other statements that have been disproven by climate science, then why not devote the time to discussing that instead of his publisher's vague connections with the tobacco lobby?
Winning? no...there's no winning here. Arguing on the internet is pointless. It's like putting your tongue in a missing tooth: you know you shouldn't, it's annoying and it sometimes hurts, but you can't stop yourself.
Business/App ideas are like arseholes: everyone's got one, they're mostly shit, but very rarely they contain a diamond
OK this video is what it is made by who it's made for the purpose it was made for the audience it was intended for. Not my video; I can't answer these questions.
The basic fact is, Watts made an unfounded and erroneous accusation from his position as a completely unqualified and untrained outsider to the field . In most people's books, that's shameful. Literally, if I did that, if I wasted everyone's time and then refused to acknowledge my folly, I'd certainly be ashamed of myself.
Yet he shows no remorse and feels no shame.
Instead, he's still parading around presenting himself as an expert to gullible people, via Glenn Beck et. al., while being funded by the Heartland Institute- a Koch Brothers creation -and yes, that is extremely extremely relevant as is the connection to the tobacco-cancer denier machine which is laid out brilliantly and distressingly here:
http://www.amazon.com/Merchants-Doubt-Handful-Scientists-Obscured/dp/1596916109
. So what we have is a guy who's massively wrong, who makes false statements about science and against climate scientists and their work, and feels no shame.
Who nevertheless reacts with rage and accusations against anyone who points out his utter lack of qualifications and piss poor track record with the truth, and feels no shame.
Who permits himself to be presented as an duly qualified expert and given the favorable treatment, attention and presumption of authority deserved only by those who actually put in the work needed to earn that, when he knows full well he is not, and is in fact, just a college drop out. And feels no shame.
Who's self promotion and constant attention seeking from the media, talk radio, FoxNews and various speaking engagements from denier think tanks stands in stark contrast to the abashed and reluctant "fame" that has thrust scientists who , with few exceptions, have lived quiet lives dedicated not to fame seeking but to science and who are genuinely horrified at the amount of media spotlight they're forced to endure. And feels no shame.
Who makes pronouncements regarding the greatest threat we have faced as a species, one which has the power, if it's not addressed, to literally make earth uninhabitable for everyone. And feels no shame.
Given that C.V., the diagnoses is pretty clear: narcissistic personality disorder
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001930/
with sociopathic tendencies
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0015230/#ch2.s2
The diagnostic system DSM-IV, the preferred diagnostic system for this guideline (see Section 2.2.2), characterises antisocial personality disorder as a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others that has been occurring in the person since the age of 15 years, as indicated by three (or more) of seven criteria, namely:
a failure to conform to social norms;
irresponsibility;
deceitfulness;
indifference to the welfare of others;
recklessness;
a failure to plan ahead
irritability and aggressiveness
Obviously another US education product. duhhhhh. Mountains of selected, shaped bullchit data, crunched through petaflop GIGO models that aren't even fundamentally sound physics models. But most Americans don't finish their teen years doing graduate work with mathematical models of physcio-chemical systems in the real world.
I don't know where you are quoting from. This was not in the link you provided.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
I have a PhD in math, btw. So the rudeness of your comment is more than uncalled for.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Ok, it could be a browser thing. The last time I clicked on that link, it didn't take me to the article. It took me to the front page of that site. I see what you are referring to now. The question about methodology and the conclusion stands. Here's some of the figures:
"3,146 earth scientists surveyed"... how many physicists? Heat flow is a phenomenon studied in physics. How many evolutionary biologists? Changes in uptake and release of carbon are effected by evolutionary trends.
"climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role. Great" and yet "47 percent of petroleum geologists believing in human involvement." Seems to me like grant motivation plays larger role than direct connection to an oil industry in this case.
I still have to take issue with your tone, btw. You are acting like a bona fide religious fanatic. And you are trying to exercise this fanaticism in a setting of a discussion about a scientific issue. This is quite bizarre.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Sorry you are correct, I was confusing that paper with Menne et al's On the reliability of the U.S. surface temperature record, submitted Aug 2009, which credits Watts not co-authors him.
Yup, Watts bitched about Menne et al.
Then co-authored a paper that shows the same result.
Odd.
I do believe that Judith Curry was in the position of having objections to one or more of the BEST papers that she was listed as a co-author on.
Come on, you've fucked up once, don't do it again. I've shown that your "beliefs" don't always correspond to reality. (You may be right - Curry is such a hack it's possible she does object to one of her own papers, but lets have a link).
Watch this Heartland Institute video
well, CO2 does absorb infrared light, but in very,very short time it emits another IR photon :) in some random direction
And if that direction happens to be down?
Watch this Heartland Institute video
only in less than 50% of the times, because from up there the Earth is a smaller target than the open sky ... so it should be cooling the Earth ... but I am not saying it is so, even if it kind of make sense, but that IPCC will _discover_ this fundamental truth about AGW when the climate will start cooling :)
First, since when did the CRU ask for trillions of dollars? Or even billions? Or even millions? Where do you come up with this?
Second, Why would you want to run the same process on the same data? Of course you would get the same results. This is science, not accounting. What you want to do is replicate the results. This means using the same method on different data and getting results that are equivalent. Better yet, use more data with a better process and get equivalent results. Simply running the same process on the same data is a waste of time, but does allow you to weave an interesting narrative on your blog.
Every team who has created a temperature reconstruction has found results with slightly more warming than the CRU. That includes teams that are using satellite data. It also includes teams like NASA and BEST who have released all of their data. Should we disregard the CRU data? Sure, if you want to. They don't include arctic stations. Since much of the warming is occurring in the Arctic the CRU data is of limited value.
That's the really funny thing about people who accuse the CRU of cooking their data. As owners of the reconstruction that shows the least warming, If anything, the CRU are hiding the incline.
My mistake, none of the scientists or politicians or the overarching political movement that supports AGW has ever asked for billions or trillions of dollars.
I must have hallucinated the Kyoto treaty which will of course mean nothing to you because it's apparently all in my head.
Seriously, if you're not going to argue in good faith then there's no point having this discussion. Try again later if and when you're prepared to be honest. I have no patience for this double talk.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
So, without CO2 100% of spacebound photons go to space.
And with CO2 some percentage of them get sent back down again.
What part of this don't you understand?
Watch this Heartland Institute video
well, the same happens with the photons arriving from the sun ... in the CO2 absorbtion band, of course
what's so hard to get about this ?
Yes, but the point is that most of the light from the sun is visible and UV.
While pretty much all the photons coming off the earth are IR.
Surely you know this? It's called the greenhouse effect.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Again, if there are any problems with my English: I have no idea if CO2 cools or warms the Earth. I object to the AGW histeria because it's histerical, and in the areas where I have some knowledge the AGW activists are mistaken. I am only saying this: IPCC will suddenly discover that CO2 cools the Earth as soon as the Earth will start cooling and not a second after or sooner
These good people disagree that most of the photons come above the infrared band http://www.ips.gov.au/Educational/2/1/7
Even in the wikipedia graph, which is about how much energy in in the solar radiation, there are dips where the H2O and CO2 are "absorbed" in the atmosphere ... so, if the CO2 can send those "infrared" photons back to Earth, the same applies to the infrared photons send to the Earth by the sun. Which is greater ? I'll let the IPCC decide that when the time comes :)
Greenhouse effect is when you isolate a volume of gas near a source of heat instead of letting it convect naturaly and bring colder gas close to the source of heat. Greenhouses get cold during the night and the air in the greenhouse cools faster than the soil.
Who? Can you give an example? What are you even talking about? The Kyoto treaty is not scientists asking for trillions of dollars. Scientists do not stand to gain from carbon caps any more than you or I do. How does Kyoto possibly equate to scientists asking for trillions each year therefore they should provide access to data that they don't own?
You have also neatly avoided the point that the CRU results are highly replicated, often with freely available data. This point makes your argument somewhat moot.
So... Michael Mann, who is a scientist... didn't campaign in favor of these bills and in favor of various programs that would cost hundreds of billions?
I don't know how to have a discussion with you on this if you going to start by telling me that it's 1802 and we all live in a blue pineapple.
Who do you think is paying for this campaign? And if the scientists aren't endorsing this then why do all the politicians and international groups claim they are doing this not only with the endorsement of scientists but at their recommendation?
Come now... They are asking for this money.
And if you ask for that kind of funding then you can damned well expect some very stiff auditing before we hand over a check for trillions EVERY YEAR.
And worse, we're told that if we do EVERYTHING they ask and pass over trillions a year... then the best we have to look forward to is a slightly less crappy problem.
So... maybe we're skeptical in part because we don't like that answer. Maybe that's inconvenient. Maybe we're being silly. But in the end, right or wrong... we'd rather keep our trillions and face the rising seas then piss it all away basically for nothing.
Give us affordable solutions that you think will actually fix the situation.
The science doesn't really matter if we can't afford your solution.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
So... Michael Mann, who is a scientist... didn't campaign in favor of these bills and in favor of various programs that would cost hundreds of billions?
Not that I'm aware of. Do you have any proof of that? Where do you get this stuff from? Where do you get the idea that scientists are asking for trillions in funding every year? This is all just pure bunk. Do you have any sources to back this up?
Give us affordable solutions that you think will actually fix the situation.
Why would you expect climate scientists to be responsible for providing the solution? All scientists can do is give you the facts. As for solutions, you and your half of the US political spectrum need to step up and start providing some if you don't like the ones already on the table. Instead you are sticking your heads in the sand and hand waiving about FOIA for data that is already freely available so that you can audit results that are already highly replicated and uncontested. It baffles the mind.
As to michael mann, the programs he supported, and the obvious cost... I'm going to just pass.I've learned not to argue against people that deny the sun in the sky.
As to scientists providing solutions... they always do to scientific problems. Just as doctors or medical scientists provide solutions to medical problems. Or Engineers providing solutions to engineering problems.
Do not lawyers provide solutions to legal problems? If not the scientists then who? Politicians might propose a solution but it won't be worth anything unless a scientist was at least consulted to form it.
In any case, I'm not going to play coy games with you if you're going to deny the sun. Type in Mann's name into google... he's on record.
And as to the cost... play devil's advocate for just ONE second. Just for a moment for the sake of argument... make a good faith effort to calculate the costs of any of these programs... not specifically.. just to the nearest order of magnitude. It's trillions. Annually.
That's a lot of money. That's empire money. That's enough money to not only build a moon base but a moon city. Every year.
So are you shocked we want more information? Be shocked. That isn't going away until the price tag comes WAY down.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
As to michael mann, the programs he supported, and the obvious cost... I'm going to just pass.
Gotcha. You can't find any evidence of that either, but you know it to be true regardless of the evidence.
Type in Mann's name into google... he's on record.
Yes, he is a very public figure. He has given TED talks, he has written op ed's in various papers. You would think you could find at least one example where he has advocated a specific solution to this issue.
Regarding lawyers and doctors and engineers, none of these people are scientists, but all of these will need to be part of the solution to the impacts of global warming. Scientists on the other hand can only tell us about the universe. It is up to other professionals to put that knowledge to use.
Regarding cost, most people are advocating that we do as much as is reasonable without unduly impacting our economy. Some go so far as to advocate that we internalize the external costs of fuel. That is, pay the real cost of gas. I'm not sure what program you think will cost us trillions, or where you get that number, but you seem to know a lot about this issue without having any real facts to back it up. Your gut tells you what you need to know. Science be damned.
So are you shocked we want more information? Be shocked. That isn't going away until the price tag comes WAY down.
I'm shocked that you guys are still whinging about not having access to data that has been available for years. Would have thought you would have figured that out by now.
As is well known from evolutionary psychology, or even common sense, we're biologically predisposed to care more for those we have personal relations with (because for millions of years those close to us correspond to members of one's tribe, which are more likely to share some of the same genetic heritage--while this is no longer true in a globalized world, brain biology takes a lot longer to evolve corresponding changes than the current age of human civilization). This is not going to change unless we genetically or cybernetically engineer ourselves, regardless of any amount of left-wing cultural programming. So in the end, Canadians will care more about Canadians, and that is NOT aberrant behavior.
"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
can't find anything?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=michael+mann+climatology
Please.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Wow. Not a single one of those sites references the programs that Mann has supposedly been pushing. Good job! It looks like Google must be part of the conspiracy!
#1 is an assertion. You don't specify an observation that you would consider falsification.
#2 doesn't follow your hypothesis - H2O absorbs infrared photons and can retain heat. Would this fact make a hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming caused by water emissions true?
#3 doesn't follow your hypothesis either - the earth has gotten warmer in the past before there were humans - why would that observation indicate that human CO2 is the cause *this* time.
As for the precautionary principle, it's *especially* wrong to engage in it when you're talking about a poorly understood chaotic system. The chances of your predictions being correct are infinitesimally small :)
Tell me, exactly how have you ruled out all natural factors?
And exactly how did you determine that an increase in average global temperature is going to be catastrophic?
Please, be specific.
Cooling much more likely than warming http://www.personalliberty.com/conservative-politics/the-global-warning-on-global-warming/?eiid=
Synchronizing stop lights across the US = one less nuclear power plant