Question: When you’re a liberal, how do you know if you’re on thin ice, especially the kind that you’re claiming is melting all over the planet due to global warming?
Answer: When even papers like the New York Times are publishing articles skeptical of the junk science you’ve been peddling across the questionably warming globe.
Sure, soon-to-be-Dr. Gore has kind of won an Oscar for his schlockumentary “An Inconvenient Truth,” even though all he got to take home that evening was Tipper and all the food she was able to stuff into her pocketbook at the buffets thrown in his honor.
However, it must have been a quite shock to find out that the leftists working for Punch Sulzberger were going to publish a not so adoring article after all that oohing and aahing Gore received from the Hollywood elites just days prior (h/t Drudge, emphasis mine throughout):
But part of his scientific audience is uneasy. In talks, articles and blog entries that have appeared since his film and accompanying book came out last year, these scientists argue that some of Mr. Gore’s central points are exaggerated and erroneous. They are alarmed, some say, at what they call his alarmism.
“I don’t want to pick on Al Gore,” Don J. Easterbrook, an emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, told hundreds of experts at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America. “But there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data.”
Real data? We don’t need no stinkin’ real data. We don’t need to show you our data. The article deliciously continued:
Criticisms of Mr. Gore have come not only from conservative groups and prominent skeptics of catastrophic warming, but also from rank-and-file scientists like Dr. Easterbook, who told his peers that he had no political ax to grind. A few see natural variation as more central to global warming than heat-trapping gases. Many appear to occupy a middle ground in the climate debate, seeing human activity as a serious threat but challenging what they call the extremism of both skeptics and zealots.
Kevin Vranes, a climatologist at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado, said he sensed a growing backlash against exaggeration. While praising Mr. Gore for “getting the message out,” Dr. Vranes questioned whether his presentations were “overselling our certainty about knowing the future.”
Typically, the concern is not over the existence of climate change, or the idea that the human production of heat-trapping gases is partly or largely to blame for the globe’s recent warming. The question is whether Mr. Gore has gone beyond the scientific evidence.
Amazing. The New York Times is suggesting that Dr. Gore might have exaggerated his claims and gone beyond scientific evidence? Somebody other than Punch should pinch me.
Yet, maybe even better were Gore’s absurd explanations for the disparities between his slide presentation and actual science:
In his e-mail message, Mr. Gore defended his work as fundamentally accurate. “Of course,” he said, “there will always be questions around the edges of the science, and we have to rely upon the scientific community to continue to ask and to challenge and to answer those questions.”
We have to rely upon the scientific community to continue to ask and to challenge and to answer those questions? Excuse me, doctor, but didn’t you claim that the questions are over, and that a consensus now agrees with your views? Furthermore, isn’t anyone that questions man’s role in this akin to a Holocaust denier much as your friend Ellen Goodman stated? As such, who do you suggest should be asking these questions given answers you've already presented as being unassailable?
Regardless of the answers, conceivably the most shocking element concerning this article was not only how many skeptics were quoted, but also how much space was given to their views. Here is a sampling of the fifteen consecutive paragraphs of uninterrupted contrary opinions presented by the Times:
While reviewers tended to praise the book and movie, vocal skeptics of global warming protested almost immediately. Richard S. Lindzen, a climatologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a member of the National Academy of Sciences, who has long expressed skepticism about dire climate predictions, accused Mr. Gore in The Wall Street Journal of “shrill alarmism.”
[...]
Bjorn Lomborg, a statistician and political scientist in Denmark long skeptical of catastrophic global warming, said in a syndicated article that the panel, unlike Mr. Gore, had refrained from scaremongering. “Climate change is a real and serious problem” that calls for careful analysis and sound policy, Dr. Lomborg said. “The cacophony of screaming,” he added, “does not help.”
So too, a report last June by the National Academies seemed to contradict Mr. Gore’s portrayal of recent temperatures as the highest in the past millennium. Instead, the report said, current highs appeared unrivaled since only 1600, the tail end of a temperature rise known as the medieval warm period.
[...]
Other critics have zeroed in on Mr. Gore’s claim that the energy industry ran a “disinformation campaign” that produced false discord on global warming. The truth, he said, was that virtually all unbiased scientists agreed that humans were the main culprits. But Benny J. Peiser, a social anthropologist in Britain who runs the Cambridge-Conference Network, or CCNet, an Internet newsletter on climate change and natural disasters, challenged the claim of scientific consensus with examples of pointed disagreement.
“Hardly a week goes by,” Dr. Peiser said, “without a new research paper that questions part or even some basics of climate change theory,” including some reports that offer alternatives to human activity for global warming.
Geologists have documented age upon age of climate swings, and some charge Mr. Gore with ignoring such rhythms.
“Nowhere does Mr. Gore tell his audience that all of the phenomena that he describes fall within the natural range of environmental change on our planet,” Robert M. Carter, a marine geologist at James Cook University in Australia, said in a September blog. “Nor does he present any evidence that climate during the 20th century departed discernibly from its historical pattern of constant change.”
In October, Dr. Easterbrook made similar points at the geological society meeting in Philadelphia. He hotly disputed Mr. Gore’s claim that “our civilization has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar to this” threatened change.
Nonsense, Dr. Easterbrook told the crowded session. He flashed a slide that showed temperature trends for the past 15,000 years. It highlighted 10 large swings, including the medieval warm period. These shifts, he said, were up to “20 times greater than the warming in the past century.”
Getting personal, he mocked Mr. Gore’s assertion that scientists agreed on global warming except those industry had corrupted. “I’ve never been paid a nickel by an oil company,” Dr. Easterbrook told the group. “And I’m not a Republican.”
Biologists, too, have gotten into the act. In January, Paul Reiter, an active skeptic of global warming’s effects and director of the insects and infectious diseases unit of the Pasteur Institute in Paris, faulted Mr. Gore for his portrayal of global warming as spreading malaria.
“For 12 years, my colleagues and I have protested against the unsubstantiated claims,” Dr. Reiter wrote in The International Herald Tribune. “We have done the studies and challenged the alarmists, but they continue to ignore the facts.”
Wow. That’s a lot of skeptics quoted by one of the most liberal newspapers in America, wouldn’t you agree?
I wonder what this means for the so-called consensus. Regardless, Dr. Gore must be wondering if he's back in Florida counting chads.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
THINGS WE SEND IN SPACE
March 12, 2007 - 22:09 ET by PawpawNI was always told all the change in weather, all the storms, everything was caused by all the things we send into the sky! Then it's nuclear fallout. Now I'm told it's because of the emissions from livestock. What's a person to believe? Oh, I forgot, it's the KARL ROVE Weather Machine!
Al Gore:- "There will a
March 12, 2007 - 22:09 ET by BlazerAl Gore:- "There will always be questions around the edges of science"
WTF?
Translation:- "We will always use an edge to get around the scientific questions"
Not good when the NYT thinks a fellow lib is FOS.
You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
Be still, my heart. Good jo
March 12, 2007 - 22:12 ET by dahliatraversBe still, my heart. Good job, NYTimes.
Wait for the other shoe to dr
March 13, 2007 - 07:48 ET by dscottWait for the other shoe to drop, wait for it..., wait for it...
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
Yeah, sure the NYT did a good job...not ...
March 13, 2007 - 08:13 ET by SportPoliticsLook,I understand it's shocking, but after 1000 hit pieces lauding the democrats wild assertations of imminent destruction of the earth, I don't give them one single bit of credit for "having scientists that believe it is man's fault but won't be as bad as alarmists say it will " quoted a few times while they pretend that for a year they hadn't worshipped at Al Gore's inconvenient feet.
Perhaps they are jealous of his award. That's about it.
Read the quotes, they even included that man did the warming - the big consensus, but that it won'tbe so bad, because the UN panel reduced it's predictions....( they didn't even say what the former cleotic lies were before they were reduced.)
Look, they're playing the reverse engineer opinion game. If they admit that Al Gore's dire scenarios are unlikely a year after his babbling propaganda was supported by one and the same - they can pretend to have been fair,or at least to have "an objectiveview" - because they got it from their own team...
As soon as I see a FULL YEAR of raging anti-man-made global warming articles - I'll give them the credit for having done a good job and having been fair. Until then, this is a weak, YEAR LATE , not satisfying " man did it " piece.
It'spathetic that they are so far left we have to cheer their left wing globalwarming is real and man did it " revelations of dissent".
Really,we conservatives better watch it, or we'll be praising them for admitting GWB didn't have the Iraq invasion planned for his oil buddies when he was governor of Texas.
Noel...Shocklumentary!Good on
March 12, 2007 - 22:17 ET by bigtimerNoel...
Shocklumentary!
Good one!
LOL funny! Original!
As far as the NYT's and this article....beats me!
Maybe they have heard from a little fly on the wall Gore is thinking about entering the ring seriously when he is seeing what is happening to Hillary and her numbers, after-all they are supporting her from what I have seen, so now it is time to jump on the band-wagon to beat him down...can't think of any sane reason why the NYTimes would do this...after-all everything is political with the leftist NYT's, they do not print news fit to print unless they have an agenda as they see it.
Aaaaaa....hold on...I'm sti
March 12, 2007 - 22:17 ET by radiofitz34Aaaaaa....hold on...I'm still picking my jaw up from the floor! You mean The New York Times published this article? Come on Noel, I know after a few beers...your serious!
Well you know, I think it possible that this documentary shown in Britain may have had some effect here in the USA.
RF
March 12, 2007 - 22:23 ET by Noel SheppardRF,
No beers today, bud. As part of my new fitness program, I only have beer on Tuesdays and Fridays. As such, this one is completely serious.
However, I wouldn't believe ANYTHING I write tomorrow after 6PM PDT! :-) ns
P.S. Liberal trolls should now feel free to respond, "That's okay, Noel. We don't believe anything you write regardless of the day or time!" Beatcha! :-) ns
Please Please - No more Lock Boxes. I beg you Al. No more.
March 13, 2007 - 07:31 ET by acaiguanaPlease Please - No more Lock Boxes. I beg you Al. No more.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
I truly hope that the only
March 13, 2007 - 23:38 ET by DirkCSI truly hope that the only "effect this documentary shown in Britian" had in the USA was to show that both sides can be guilty of going off the deep end.
I agree that Gore is just as big of a blowhard as Moore (ok maybe not quite as "big"), but Martin Durkin is hardly any better.
An absurd comparison. Gore,
March 13, 2007 - 23:53 ET by NL207An absurd comparison. Gore, on the one hand, continues to present potential effects of global warming in the most extreme and catastrophic scenarios. He makes predictions that are far outside the maximums that any scientific body endorses and when he does quote science, he uses the most extreme scenarios they identify.
Martin Durkin, on the other hand, did little more than parade an assortment of the scientific opponents of AGW before the camera. These are representatives of the scientists that Al Gore claims do not exist or dismisses as "deniers" like this is some kind of sin.
That you are unable to distiguish these two approaches is a personal tragedy.
That you are unable to distig
March 14, 2007 - 14:36 ET by DirkCSThat you are unable to distiguish between these two approaces is a personal tragedy.
You open your mouth (so to speak) and remove all doubt...
I really shouldn't even address it because it is painfully obvious that you are either: (a) an unaplogetic hypocrite or (b) plain stupid. Durkin's show is no less outrageous and certainly no more objective than is Al Gore's. While I agree wholeheartedly with Durkin's presentation of the facts regarding the fact that the pro-AGW side is 95% politically motivated, he makes himself a large part of the joke by using questionable sources and unproven science.
The real tragedy is that you disparage me without doing YOUR homework first.
Here's to help you get started: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2031455,00.html"
Durkin does his own misrepresentation of facts in his video and has a nifty track record of Michael Moore (read outrageous) type shows.
I find Al Gore and his video just as distasteful as most of the people on this site, but Durkin's is hardly any better, especially if you actually take the time to investigate the science on your own. Something that you apparently have not.
I'll give you another hint to get you started:
The main theory of the Durkin's show (cosmic rays + water molecules = clouds large enough to effect global temps) is, as yet, unproven scientifically. In fact the cold, hard science is leaning towards disproving this theory for now.
I am not, in any shape or form, advocating AGW (I'm waiting for the science to prove/disprove this). I'm simply hoping that this site isn't full of hypocrites that are willing to believe everything Durkin says simply because it fits their "agenda".
Dirk
EDIT: For clarification.
The main theory of Durkin's s
March 14, 2007 - 22:27 ET by NL207The main theory of Durkin's show is quite promising theoretically. The only real question in my mind is if the effect is sizeable enough to actually be relevant? Can cosmic radiation be a significant climate term as solar radiation is. Or is it just noise?
This is also the point of all the criticisms leveled against the theory of AGW. It is not at all clear that CO2 in the historical range of concentrations it has appeared in the Earth's atmosphere has sufficient "greenhouse" effect to be a forcing term in the climatic equation. Yet there are a whole range of politicians ready to impose fascist economic controls based on this claim.
The scientists that Durkin used are "controversial" because of the MSM smear war that has been conducted aganst them by the leftists and the Pro AGW crowd. I will show you a case in point. Consider these two men: Dr. James E. Hansen [pro AGW] and Dr. Richard S. Lindzen [AGW skeptic]. I've linked their cv's on Wikipedia. These men actually have very similar credentials, yet look at the vastly different way they are treated there. Notice that Lindzen's cv is even being disputed for 'neutrality' and as 'unencyclopedic' despite being an obvious leftist hatchet job.
I will offer this insight here: Of these two men, I suspect Lindzen is the more capable as an individual. I don't know either of them personally and professionally only peripherally . Were I a betting man, I'd say that Lindzen had a slightly bettter and more rigorous academic background than Hansen over the interval between high school and the attainment of Phd. Otherwise, some might say the difference between them from the perspective of credentials is close to naught, yet look at the disrespect Lindzen receives from Wikipedia. Why is this, do you suppose?
And don't you think YOU should be more careful about who you attempt to assign homework to?
As a meteorologist, I could
March 12, 2007 - 22:23 ET by Jake GonteskyAs a meteorologist, I couldn't help but to comment on the strange nature of this NYT article myself.
My favorite line must be "Although Al Gore is not a scientist..." I nearly expected them to follow up with "...but he did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night..."
You can read the rest of my thoughts on this NYT article as well as my other thoughts on the global warming alarmist hype here.
http://www.notesinth...
Mammatus
March 12, 2007 - 22:24 ET by Noel SheppardM,
Couldn't you have PMed or EMed me that Holiday Inn Express line so that I could have added it without anybody knowing who I got it from? Sheesh. How 'bout doing a fellow GW warrior a solid. :-) ns
Noel - You're not going to
March 12, 2007 - 22:37 ET by Jake GonteskyNoel -
You're not going to believe this, but I did try to PM you about this article a couple of hours before you posted (I did get a message through to Matthew) about the post I made about it earlier in the evening on my page and on the forums here, but apparently it must not have gone through to you?!? I thought it did at the time, but now it doesn't show up in my sent items folder.
But as long as the word is getting out on what a scam these alarmist tactics are, I don't care who's doing the talking. Thanks for all you do around here - you do a great service by getting the word out on these issues.
http://www.notesinthemargin.com
Well hit me over the head w
March 12, 2007 - 22:29 ET by radiofitz34Well hit me over the head with a 2x4, I just read the article. It's true. That schocklementary line was funny altough I thought you may have mean't schlockumentary.
I thought the line was &quo
March 13, 2007 - 12:13 ET by Tim the EnchanterI thought the line was "I'm not a scientist, but I play one on TV." Well, playing something something on TV does give you "expert witness" status in front of Congressional Committees, doesn' it?
I'm elated
March 12, 2007 - 22:27 ET by pbthinkerI've been having a duel with the editor of the Editorial Page, of the Palm Beach Post, on this subject, for over a year. In fact, this all started when one of the editorial writers, at the Post, saw Gore's movie and started repeating the fear mongering schlock Gore was putting out.
Since then, there has been no balance to the articles in the Post. All Gloom All The Time, when it comes to global warming. I'm looking forward to seeing what they print with this, from the Times, and the AP Article on the expedition that had to turn back because it was too cold in the Arctic.
I'm sure there will be some of the fruitcakes come to Gore's defense, which will be front page news at the Times.
While you're dueling, be sure
March 13, 2007 - 07:59 ET by dscottWhile you're dueling, be sure to drop this bomb on them: Al Gore and the other 5% of the population (15 million) who own 70% of the personal wealth of the US use at least as much electricity and fuel as the rest of the entire US population combined (285 million) as a conservative estimate. If Al Gore uses 20 times the electricity in just one house, (not counting what he uses in the other two) what do you think all the rest of the wealthy are comsuming? Wrap your mind around that concept!!!! Unimaginable, isn't it? It's so outrageously out there that very few people even consider it, let alone grasp the implications of it. So who should be reducing their energy consumption and who do you think is consuming the planet... Brad Pitt?
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
realclimate.org would beg to
March 12, 2007 - 22:31 ET by M J Brealclimate.org would beg to differ.
Sure they do.But then? Realcl
March 12, 2007 - 23:22 ET by danboSure they do.
But then? Realclimate has a vested interest.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken
Drive-by post....
March 12, 2007 - 23:57 ET by Six String SpiffSo M J B I just gt back from your website, and it seems they already know everything ther is to know about GW... Thats pretty arrogant. DOn't you think? Scientist of all people need an open mind. I though I was visiting the website of one opinion only... don't be a lazy ass either. Put a link on that silly thing so people can laugh at it with more ease. You liberals really need to stop tryig to save us from ourselves. You can't just look at the weather pattern of 100 years and claim to know jack shit. The globe has been around for billions of years, and will continue to be long after we are gone. So take your human loathing keister and play in the AGW kiddy sandbox.
Sure, I watch the MSM... Through a pair of crosshairs.
Spiff. Realclimate is basical
March 13, 2007 - 00:32 ET by danboSpiff. Realclimate is basically Michael Mann's website. He's protecting his reputation as he was the one who came up with the climate chart. Lots of flaws in in.
I always found them preachy. And really don't give you a lot of data.
The site they don't like is climateaudit.org.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken
~ realclimate.org would beg
March 13, 2007 - 03:36 ET by liberal_bug_zapper~ realclimate.org would beg to differ. ~
What happened to quality trolling??? I mean come on... is that the best you can do????
____________________________________________________
"These are the times that try men's souls." ~ Thomas Paine
For Sparta and Newsbusters!!
March 13, 2007 - 05:19 ET by Jack BauerLBZ -- dead on buddy.
The standard of trolling trolls and their trolling dimwittery isn't what it used to be. And that's saying something.
I think we are exhausting them by the 300 we deploy on Newsbusters.
We're the Newspartans of the conservative movement!
Newspartans! What is your p
March 13, 2007 - 09:10 ET by fosstenNewspartans! What is your profession?
AAAH-OOO! AAAH-OOO! AAAH-OOO!
Newspartans! I like that!!!
March 13, 2007 - 09:46 ET by steviep831Newspartans! I like that!!!
My favorite sentence from the article
March 12, 2007 - 23:52 ET by ApacheIPThis sentence jumped out at me.
He said that after 30 years of trying to communicate the dangers of
global warming, “I think that I’m finally getting a little better at
it.”
If we assume, and I readily admit that is not always wise, that the reporter heard Mr. Gore correctly and that this isn't a typo, then Mr. Gore is proving himself someone who can't be trusted to tell the truth. 30 years ago the chicken littles of the world were preaching GLOBAL COOLING.
Why anyone would want to lie about such an unimportant and trivial detail is beyond me. But if I have learned anything during my years it is that if someone will lie about trivial stuff, they will lie about anything and everything.
I am a new member. I am not the user Apache. I would like to apologize in advance for any ensuing confusion caused by the similarity in nicknames.
this whole global warming thi
March 13, 2007 - 00:10 ET by pmohbuckthis whole global warming thing is about to implode ... at least it appears that way
"At some point, the 'public' has to contribute more to society than just exercising its rights" - [PMOH]Buck
hey MJB. There's one thing
March 13, 2007 - 00:28 ET by radiofitz34hey MJB. There's one thing about sucking a sore thumb is that it doesn't make it heal. Think about that one.
Please see and pass the follo
March 13, 2007 - 00:31 ET by jdhawkPlease see and pass the following link to all you know - especially your liberal friends. It is an hour and fifteen minute video called, "The Great Global Warming Swindle." This is the video that should have won the Academy Award!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9005566792811497638&q=The+Great+Global+Warming+Swindle&hl=en
NYT epiphany...?
March 13, 2007 - 01:30 ET by gayconsvNYT epiphany? I think not. I'm sure I'm not the only one who sees the stong arm of billary in this. I can't imagine the 'grey lady' publishing such an anti-gore piece without a 'great clinton-wing conspiracy's being behind it.
political hype
March 13, 2007 - 07:00 ET by AgnosticWith another Dem out of the potential presidential/political picture, or soon to be, we are now back on track for the "East Coast" Vs. "West Coast" (Hillary vs Obama, if you follow the money) presidential race that the media can really hype.
NYT to Algore: Your end of th
March 13, 2007 - 07:22 ET by muh-oonNYT to Algore: Your end of the world predictions can't get anymore extreme and they have not generated the numbers to get you into the white house, so sit down, and shut up so that you don't ruin it for Hillary.
Noel, Great work as usual. I
March 13, 2007 - 07:41 ET by old croNoel,
Great work as usual. I especially liked your reference to "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre. Or was it "Blazing Saddles" Or "WKRP". So I researched the quote and much to my chagrin I was not "quoting" the original movie line at all. "Badges, to god-damned hell with badges! We have no badges. In fact, we don't need badges. I don't have to show you any stinking badges, you god-damned cabrón and ching' tu madre! Come out from that shit-hole of yours. I have to speak to you."
I like the "We don't need no stinking badges" line and use it often.
I think the tide is turning on the GW crowd. Rational people around the country are popping up like strippers out of cakes. Ahh...maybe I should use another alliteration , but you get what I mean. I doubt we will ever be rid of this alarmist tripe, but at least we can "cut it off at the pass" before they do irrepairable harm to our country and way of life.
"Do you realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous communist plot we have ever had to face?"
- Gen. Jack D. Ripper
Every day I wake up proud to
March 13, 2007 - 07:51 ET by daveinbocaEvery day I wake up proud to be in the state that prevented this fraud and imposter from completely effing up the USA. No matter how much the MSM wails about GWB, just think of how much worse it would be if the "inventor of the information superhighway" had bungled his way into the Oval Office!
If even the NYT has begun to penetrate Lyin' Al's smoke and mirrors, can its pilot fish be far behind?
“I’ve never been paid a
March 13, 2007 - 07:58 ET by Dave R“I’ve never been paid a nickel by an oil company,” Dr. Easterbrook told the group. “And I’m not a Republican.”
Ouch! I felt that one all the way over here.
Global Warming?
March 13, 2007 - 08:12 ET by belagThis is my first post on this blog. My apologies for making it such a long one.
I am from what you may call the "other" end of the political spectrum. I read newsbusters for the perspective it gives. I think it's quite proper to treat everything skeptically, exposing any bias.
One of the issues very important to me is climate change. It also seems to be a hot topic here. Here is my take on the subject. Since my views are at odds with many people here, I expect a vigorous and (I hope) healthy debate.
Remember, the way science is, it's always (or should be) skeptical. New theories continue to challenge the old, there's debate on the nuances. After, considering all these theories, is there a scientific consensus?
What is a scientific consensus? It's not unanimity. There will always be dissenters. You look at the balance of evidence in major, peer-reviewed, respectable scientific journals and position statements from major scientific organizations. A few scientists may disagree on this and that, but what's the balance of the evidence?
I am more interested (for now) in whether there is a scientific consensus on the issue, therefore I will put aside, statements by politicians, things you read in newpaper, movies like Al Gore's and so on.
I will try to keep to respectable, verifiable sources. When responding to my post, please keep to this guideline. I will not be using any print / film media for my argument.
Now, the first thing I want to make clear is: the climate is not simple. It's a very complex thing to understand. I am not an expert on the subject. Therefore, what I should do is what reasonable non-experts do on the subject. Read what the experts on the subject have to say about it. I reckon Al Gore doesn't know much about this either. So let's examine the evidence.
Is there global warming caused by humans?
The IPCC has been treated as a pretty shoddy institution in the documentary even though it is the leading organization on this issue. Moreover, it's findings have been supported by almost every other major organization in every country. So let's see what the American Geophysical Union has to say about that.
http://www.agu.org/s...
The first para:
"Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth's climate. These effects add to natural influences that have been present over Earth's history. Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century."
Moreover, later in the document:
"The unprecedented increases in greenhouse gas concentrations, together with other human influences on climate over the past century and those anticipated for the future, constitute a real basis for concern."
This statement supports the IPCC position on the issue and is further supported by almost every major scientific organization on Earth. You can check these, very respectable, mainstream scientific organizations.
A few days back, I learnt from this blog about a movie exposing the global warming swindle. I thought it was interesting. Let's deconstruct the movie. It says that greenhouse gases are not the main source of global warming, but the sun is.
Ok, let's look at who they quote, one by one.
Till about 8:00 it's mostly about soundbites from different scientists. The title of the movie is shown at about this time. So I'll start from here.
At this point they talk about Lord Lawson of Blaby. Since (as I write above) I will concentrate on the scientific consensus in the post, not on the politicians, I'll skip this part. I will return to this point in a future post if anybody is interested.
Upto, around 12:00 they say that there has been lots of variation in the Earth's climate in the past. Nobody denies this. The issue is whether the current change is caused by humans or whether it's natural.
The movie next goes on to this very point. It makes the point that CO2 and temperature don't go together. At 15:00 Professor Tim Ball claims that the "facts don't fit the theory". Let's analyze this.
I have already said that it's not a simple matter as the movie (and indeed Al Gore in HIS movie) claims. Since I'm not considering movies/media etc. I will not comment about Al Gore.
Since the movie levels criticism against IPCC, I'll quote the relevant portion of the IPCC's TAR (Third Assessment Report).
http://www.grida.no/...
It says, in the summary of climate of the 20th century:
"Several coupled models are able to reproduce the major trend in 20th century surface air temperature, when driven by historical radiative forcing scenarios corresponding to the 20th century."
In other words, the TAR and Prof. Ball contradict each other. So who do you believe?
Apart from the fact that the reports of almost every other major scientific organizations agree with that, I'll show more evidence in the following.
The movie now continues with the influence of CO2 (around 17:00) on troposphere.
In 2001, John Cristy (who is also majorly quoted in the film) co-authored, with a number of other prominent scientists this report:
http://www.climatesc...
"Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming
near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to
challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human induced
global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial
global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde
data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant
discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and
radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets
have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies."
Again, I could go on, this conclusion has been reached by nearly every major scientific organization in the world.
In fact, John Cristy as the co-author of the IPCC report, has supported its conclusions. What he DOESN'T support is that it's the catastrophic change the media is making it out to be. Again, he's one scientist who basically agrees with the IPCC report (he also signed the AGU report quoted above) but is skeptical about exactly how serious it is. There are others who believe that the IPCC report is toned down, it's actually much more serious than it's reported to be.
This post is quite long for now. I'll continue the post at a future date after people respond to it. Thanks for your patience if you've made it this far.
I'll take a shot a changing y
March 13, 2007 - 09:00 ET by old croI'll take a shot a changing your outlook.
Remember Global Cooling
Remember Global Warming or Global Cooling
Remember Global Cooling?
When the "Global Cooling" scare was going on in the 70's, wasn't that also consensus? Wasn't that supported by the MSM? What makes you think they are right this time around? Do you honestly believe man can change this world’s climate when the climate has been changing on its own for eons? Give me a break! It's OK to be skeptical, but its downright imbecility to add your eggs to the global warming crowd’s basket of nut jobs. Not that I'm saying you are one, but think man, think!
“The radical right is so homophobic that they're blaming global warming on the AIDS quilt.”
- Dennis Miller
Belag, you have posted a reas
March 13, 2007 - 09:18 ET by MikeBBelag, you have posted a reasonable pro-AGW post, not filled with the usual stupidity of most of the pro-AGW posts we see here. I appreciate that.
Now, for the sake of argument, let us assume that global warming is really happening. Are you aware that there is concurrent global warming on Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Titan, Triton, and Pluto? Now, what do all these celestial bodies have in common? Is it angry North American white males maliciously driving SUVs? Have they all undergone Industrial Revolutions in the last 300 years? Or, is the one thing they all have in common is that huge fusion bomb that is only 93 million miles away from us?
Speaking of the Sun, are you aware that solar output has been increasing? So, between an increase in the amount of energy arriving from the sun which could warm things up, the increase in sunspot activity would increase the solar wind, which would tend to deflect cosmic rays away from the earth resulting in fewer clouds, and an increase in temperatures. This idea was presented in the documentary, as well as here, here, and here. The last link is to a somewhat lengthy pdf document that is well worth the read.
For other articles on the planets and moons in the solar system heating up, run a search on "Mars global warming", "Jupiter global warming", etc. I would also recommend you search for articles on Solar output increase and Cosmic rays and climate change. You could also check out articles on global warming at junkscience.com.
For a well researched novel concerning global warming and its doomsaying advocates, I highly recommend Michael Crichton's State of Fear. He has an extensive bibliography at the back of the book of the articles and books he read and referenced in the novel.
Merry reading, belag.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
I'm glad you said "ene
March 13, 2007 - 09:25 ET by sarcasmoI'm glad you said "energy" instead of just the obvious & more-specific infrared radiation, because apparently a variety of wavelengths of radiation interact with Earth's atmosphere, in ways we might not fully understand. Anyone who has seen the "northern lights" knows this. And maybe I've missed it, but have any of our lefty friends addressed the other-planets-getting-warmer-too issue honestly? If so, please point out where, as I have yet to see it...
JMR
The lefties have an excuse fo
March 13, 2007 - 11:30 ET by moabgoesboomThe lefties have an excuse for everything. It's not the sun's fault that Mar's polar caps are melting... it's this. Notice, though, in this article it attributes climate change to earth for the very same reason and says nothing of CO2 emissions.
I guess the alarmists didn't read far enough into the article to realize that their defense had been breached.
You can't support the troops if you don't support the mission.
Ok, you're right, I've seen
March 13, 2007 - 12:25 ET by sarcasmoOk, you're right, I've seen the "Mars wobbles" theory, but for that one to really hold I think it would have to be expanded to something less-likely-sounding like "Mars wobbles, and it wobbles at the exact rate & in the exact way as the various other planets with inconvenient warming numbers wobble," right? Now, maybe they all DO wobble-together, but it would seem to me that things like asteroid impacts and other random events such as non-earthquakes and volcanic eruptions make this scenario unlikely, IMO.
JMR
You convinced me! "I perso
March 13, 2007 - 09:38 ET by old croYou convinced me!
"I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound."
- Chris Landsea, on resigning from the IPCC
If you don't believe in God, you will believe ANYTHING!
March 13, 2007 - 11:04 ET by onceadadResistance to tyranny is obedience to God.
Liberals are always telling me how stupid I am. It's kind of funny for people to be so smug. In the 60s and 70s, Love was what we were being bombed with.
Now, I am supposed to TOLERATE people. But, they won't reciprocate. We do have a state religion. It's Global Warning. The highest sacrament of the godless church, is to choose to kill your unborn baby.
I have a wonderful quote from a P.D. James novel. (Yes, I can reed, cuz I got huked on funics!)
"I can understand the poor and stupid voting for Marxism or one of it's fashionable variants. If you have no hope of being other than a slave, you may as well opt for the most efficient form of slavery."
Belag,First of all thanks for
March 13, 2007 - 14:32 ET by steviep831Belag,
First of all thanks for your calm, cool headedness. I
have found it thoroughly lacking on both sides of the issue... it's a
very hot topic and one very near and dear to my heart as I
whole-heartedly believe that what we are facing is not global warming,
but a push, by many people in the world, of socialist agendas disguised
as environmental activism. Something I think is much more dangerous
than a half degree increase in global temperatures.
Secondly, I'd like to point out that while you did remain level headed in your
response, you did in fact not really defend your point of view. You
mentioned several times that scientific consensus is notunanimity, yet you continued to push that "almost every major
scientific organization on Earth" believes what you believe. How does
that resolve itself knowing that scientific consensus in the past has
shown intself to be wrong about major scientific issues in the past?
Now I'm not saying that just because consensus is wrong in the past,
that it means it's wrong in this issue, but as you've stated in your
response, a scientist should always keep an open mind.
Thirdly, your response was long yet you failed to cover the topic at all
concerning what is the central and key foundation of global warming
alarmist. It was raised in the video... no mention in your response.
That there is proof that CO2 levels do not lead global temperatures.
But just the opposite. Now if this is true, how can it be that in the
last century CO2 emissions have increased 30% yet global temperatures
have only risen less than a degree? Somethings not right here. The
theory that temperature leads CO2 makes sense even to a high school
students. Why not to leading scientists around the world? I'm also not
saying here that this is the only mechanism, but it certainly looks
like one pausible avenue.
Reply
March 13, 2007 - 19:51 ET by belagResponse to steviep831:
Thanks for your response. I'm sorry for the delay, I missed your post.
On Scientific Consensus
.You are right that scientific consensus has been proved wrong in the past. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't believe in the scientific consensus. Let me elaborate. The way scientific method is, it formulates theories, and if the the observations fit the theory, our confidence is increased. If the observations don't fit the theories, we modify or discard the theory.
A scientific theory is the best we have at the moment. Who knows in the future, observations may invalidate that theory. But we can't say that the theory is wrong, we won't act upon it. Every progress in science is like that. This is basic.
Science does not claim to know the universe. It gives theories. Some are relatively more accepted, some are not. That's the way it is. It's useless to search for the "truth". At all times, you assume you know the truth and look for inconsistencies. That's the scientific method.
When I say that scientific consensus is not unanimity, it doesn't mean that we shouldn't aim for such a vigorous theory that it becomes unanimous. What I wanted to say is that there will always be dissidents. You look at the balance of evidence. And in this case, the evidence is overwhelming.
On CO2 emissions
First, let me ask you a question. Why do you believe the movie's explanation of how CO2 influences greenhouse effect? You just saw it? Did you confirm it from any other source? Isn't independent verification what we should do?
Next, why do you believe that the CO2 levels and temperature change are inconsistent with the models? Because the movie says so? I have quoted the relevant section of the IPCC report in the above post. The models adequately explain the temperature change in the 20th century and indeed the time before that.
I wish to emphasise, who do you believe? The IPCC report, which, in addition has been supported by every major organization in the world? Or a global warming movie? Whichever you believe, the minimum you should do is an independent verification.
Man, did the New York Times
March 13, 2007 - 09:39 ET by Dave in TexasMan, did the New York Times get hacked or something? The thing that amazed me most were the references to the medieval warm period... and no immediate followup quote from some alarmist trying to claim that the medieval warm period never existed.
Reply
March 13, 2007 - 10:25 ET by belagThank you for your responses. I will go by your points one by one.
First, let me make this clear. I am looking for expert, scientific evidence. Media reports do NOT constitute scientific evidence. If you have an original source for the claims, do tell me. However, let me try to address the points which you make.
On global cooling
Let's examine the evidence of global cooling. You quoted Times of India, Newsweek and Healthgoods.com (I'm not sure what exactly that is). It does mention the "global cooling scare" that was briefly popular in the 1970s. Let's see how it holds up.
Let's look at the Newsweek article you quoted: if you read through the whole article, it says that:
"The point to remember, says Connolley, is that predictions of global cooling NEVER approached the kind of widespread scientific consensus that supports the greenhouse effect today. And for good reason: the tools scientists have at their disposal now vastly more data, incomparably faster computers and infinitely more sophisticated mathematical models render any forecasts from 1975 as inoperative as the predictions being made around the same time about the inevitable triumph of communism."
The three articles were pretty vague as to their sources, I couldn't really tell.
So let's look at what was the consensus in the 1970s?
(I've cribbed a few of these sources from wikipedia, but they have the merit of being verifiable and respectable)
First I want to quote the 2001 IPCC report which addresses this very issue (which in no way contradicts the observations).
http://www.grida.no/...
(I'm not an expert, but my understanding is negative forcing is basically cooling)
Next, the expert, Connolley, who was quoted in Newsweek, has given on his site:
http://www.wmconnoll...
The World Climate Conference
"Conclusion. No simple conclusion emerges from this review... A first impression that one gains is of underlying stability... Overwhelmingly, however, the main climatic stress of the past decade has been due to short-term climatic anomalies of precipitation... (c) the recent trend of atmospheric and sea surface temperatures has been downward, at a rate of 0.1 to 0.2 oC per decade, at least in the NH. It may be offset by heating due to atmospheric contaminants such as added CO2, or chemical synthetics. The general trend of planetary temperatures has been downward for 50 million years [this statement is weakly supported by p 57]. The present decline, however, is probably part of a shorter-term fluctuation typical of records of the more recent past [p 79-81]"
In brief, what it says is that the cooling is a short term trend which may be offset by CO2 increases. The point to be noted is that it was very uncertain. More research was needed. And indeed more research was undertaken.
Now, there's a very good reason I don't admit newspaper/media in this discussion. It's very hard to check their sources and there's quite a lot of misrepresentation. In fact, the article by Newsweek you mentioned is a kind of retraction of their "scare" 30 yrs ago.
If you can find me anything which remotely indicated a consensus existing in 1970s I would be thankful.
The impact of the sun
I was only able to check a few of the links of the planet Mars, Jupiter and so on since some of the links required subscriptions.
First, none of the articles mention that all the warming on Mars, Jupiter etc. are related in some way. In fact, in every article it's mentioned that further study is needed.
http://www.space.com...
Second, one article mentions the sun's role. I quote:
"This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change," Willson said.
...
"Further satellite observations may eventually show the trend to be short-term."
...
"That does not mean industrial pollution has not been a significant factor, Willson cautioned"
Basically, my reading of the report is, people are not certain it's long term, and even if it's long term it does not rule out the man-made contributions.
The last pdf document you list, which indeed is worth reading, notes in its abstract:
It mentions the correlation between solar activity and temperature:
"My analyses show that the apparent strong correlations displayed on these graphs have been obtained by an incorrect handling of the physical data.
Since the graphs are still widely referred to in the literature and their misleading character has not yet been generally recognized, I have found it appropriate to deliver the present overview."
In fact, it says that the correlation is misleading and based on false data.
belag, you play with words and definitions
March 13, 2007 - 10:49 ET by RJbelag, scanning your long, long posts, I see that you play with words, definitions and sources, causing me to suspect everything you say. For example:
No matter how you try to cloak it, "consensus" is "opinion", not fact.
Even so, you later claim scientific "consensus" has become scientific "conclusion".
Using Wikipedia as a source and proclaiming it "respectable" identifies your piece not likely to be honestly pursuing truth.
Adding to the above is your habit of talking down and your providing much opinion with little actual argument. I love a good debate as much as the next poster, but, all in all, I think you've done nothing more than attempt to overwhelm the discussion with a long, long laundry list of Anthropogenic Global Warming propaganda.
Let's not also mention that t
March 13, 2007 - 11:11 ET by dscottLet's not also mention that the IPCC's sole reason for existence is "man made" climate change. Any deviation from such dogma by acknowledging the cyclical nature of climate or any alternative explanation means an immediate end of this organization's existence. Hence, anything the IPCC puts out there is immediately suspect as self serving propaganda. As we all know or should know, propaganda is slickly packaged info. or rather disinfo. to mislead those whom it is aimed at. Citing the IPCC is no different that claiming the skeptics are on the oil companies payroll.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
belag - I've read all your posts. What is your point?
March 13, 2007 - 11:10 ET by acaiguanabelag - I've read all your posts. What is your point?
That the climate changes? Duh.
That man is 'inducing' this current warming trend (for the last century?) maybe?
I'll be the first to admit that man has an impact on the atmosphere in terms of regional areas subject to inversion (Mexico City, etc) and the 'Urban Heat Effect'. OK.
But have you looked at the planet itself lately?
There are a number of sources that discuss the planet itself without even starting in on the man made effects.
And your interest in the so-called data discrepancies between 1970 and 2007.
Do you really believe the data is that much better? I've got some hard core news for ya, it ain't.
Now, just for grins. Have you ever studied a 'model'? I doubt it. Because if you knew anything about computerized models you would understand immediately that the models are dependent upon three things.
1. The quality of data available for each data pile. Pile in this case would correspond to the item being chosen for measurement. Which somehow or other takes us to ...
2. The model attributes chosen to represent the condition being modeled. Huh? Yeah, that is right. Humans choose the items (attributes) of the model. And when you choose the attributes you have to define whether you are modeling a closed or an open 'system'. That hasn't even been determined. So, the models are subject to suspicion even before we start running around looking at or collecting data.
3. The assumptions made about the attributes being modeled. These assumptions are of such a nature that by definition they have to 'make all other things being equal' as their base. That is cheap talk for saying, we can't predict human behavior into the future.
So, what we have here is a buncha BS models that have little if any meaning to the real world; cannot be used as predictive tools; are fallacious by default; and do not consider chaos or quantum mechanics. And if you want me to get really plain - they suck.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
One of the links, the one to
March 13, 2007 - 11:14 ET by MikeBOne of the links, the one to newscientist required a subscription to continue after the 4th paragraph. I don't recall the subscription requirement when I first searched for that information. However, the other five planetary/moon global warming links do not require subscriptions. And, the argument still stands: if global warming is occuring on the various planets and moons in the solar system, what makes you think that global warming here is caused by man, when it would be impossible for man to cause the global warming experienced by other solar bodies? On the other planets/moons it is caused by the sun, but on Earth it is caused by Man? Is that a reasonable assumption or conclusion?
The mean temperature may have increased on this planet by one degree farenheit in the last century. One degree in 100 years is not outside the limits of natural variability, nor is it anything to be worried about.
As for Kyoto, if it were honestly implemented by all countries on earth (including China, India, and Brazil, who are exempt from it), Kyoto would only lower the mean temp world-wide by only an estimated 1 tenth of 1 degree Celsius in the next 100 years. And for this you would destroy the economies of the industrialized world? No, thank you.
The European countries who have signed on to Kyoto, have not been able to meet their carbon emissions reduction goals. In fact, if I recall correctly, those countries have not reduced carbon emissions at all, but their emissions have increased. I don't think they need to lecture the U.S. about emissions, until they have walked the walk and seen the impact on their economies and standards of living.
By the way, belag, what exactly would your solution to AGW, if it exists be? We (the US) aren't allowed to build new nuke plants to generate electricity. Solar cells are too expensive, and the materials used to make them are extremely toxic. Wind turbines are anathema to the animal rights people, as birds get chopped up by the blades of the windmills, and people like Ted Kennedy have a NIMBY attitude toward wind farms. Tidal generators would disrupt ocean current flow, with unknown consequences for weather patterns. So, what solutions would you recommend?
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
A few more comments
March 13, 2007 - 11:38 ET by belagIn the beginning, a plea. As I mentioned, I'm looking to argue whether there exists a scientific consensus on global warming caused by humans. It is within this narrow scope the discussion is taking place. I gave point by point evidence. If you have any problems with the specific points, do tell me. It's the most reasonable way to have a rational debate.
Play on words?
I'm sorry if I wasn't clear about what the defintions are. Here it is:
"Scientific
consensus is the balance of evidence established by major scientists
through publishing in the peer-reviewed literature and position statements of major
scientific organizations. It does not mean there should be unanimity."
As
for the wikipedia comment, I just said that the I got the source from a
wikipedia page. The source itself a) an IPCC report b) the World
Climate Conference
As respectable and verifiable as you can get.
ACA's post:
First, my point was the following:
My belief is global warming/climate change is real and most likely caused by humans.
Just my belief, and I gave point by point evidence for that.
Next, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by bullshit models? See, I'm not an expert on the issue. May I ask, are you an expert on climatology? Are your statements about bullshit models supported by any other major scientific organizations? If not, why should I believe you?
MikeB
As I said, none of the articles mentioned that the warmings of the other planets were in any way related. Is the warming on all the planets uniform? The same amount? The same time period as the warming on Earth? To say that it's all due to the sun warming is unsupported by any evidence. If you have any evidence, do tell me.
Second, as I mentioned, I'm first trying to argue whether global warming is real and caused by humans. If we are decided about that, we can argue about Kyoto or nuclear power or anything else. I'll be happy to respong with more posts on the subject.
Next, you say:
"The mean temperature may have increased on this planet by one degree
farenheit in the last century. One degree in 100 years is not outside
the limits of natural variability, nor is it anything to be worried
about."
Do you know of any major source which says that it's nothing to be worried about? I presented many sources which say it is of real concern.
belag - why should I care? And what is your point, again?
March 13, 2007 - 11:48 ET by acaiguanabelag - why should I care? And what is your point, again?
Just my belief, and I gave point by point evidence for that.
Next, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by bullshit models? See, I'm not an expert on the issue. May I ask, are you an expert on climatology? Are your statements about bullshit models supported by any other major scientific organizations? If not, why should I believe you?
It is not my place here to 'convince' you that man is causing or not causing global warming. Does man have some impact? Possibly. What is that impact? No one, not one person, scientist, politician, committee or genius out there can tell you.
Let me explain clearly to you in small words.
The climate models being used by all bodies as 'evidence' of man induced global warming are bullshit.
Get it?
ACA
<edit> you know what? I'm tired of you. Check this out.
"Calculated changes in climate variables will obviously depend upon the assumptions made regarding the future concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which are a function of projected population growth and associated economic expansion."
And in this paper some of the argument defends the models.
ACA
<end edit>
<second edit> And if you are really interested, read this. <end second edit>
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
You presented many sources in
March 13, 2007 - 12:03 ET by moabgoesboomYou presented many sources in support of your beliefs... except one. What is the motive behind this "concensus"?
(Hint) There's only one correct answer.
You can't support the troops if you don't support the mission.
belag...With your post, your
March 13, 2007 - 12:04 ET by bassndudebelag...With your post, your refering to a scientific concensus. Consensus is not science. In sicence, it either is, or it isint and must be backed by undeniable and non refuteable proof. And consensus is not it. IF man made golbal warming was really man made, there would be ample evidence. There is not. CO2 increases in the atmosphere would not be it. CO2 increases to not precede a tempertature increase, they follow it. There for rendering the theroy of increasing CO2 as the cause of said temp increase, false. The IPPC you speak so fondly of, are not sicentists. They are politicians and part of the UN body politic. They took a report endorced by a minority of $ minded scientists.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
scientific consensus is an oxymoron
March 13, 2007 - 12:11 ET by RJLike I said, belag, you play with words, definitions and sources. (Pssst: that's a nice way of calling you the "L" word.)
1) The primary purpose of your posting is flawed, because "Scientific Consensus" is an oxymoron. "Consensus" means opinion, not fact, and it cannot become "conclusion", as you stated.
2) You give no cite to your "definition" of "Scientific Concensus". But, as you well know, it comes from Wikipedia, which you have denied using as a source.
3) The IPCC is a political organization, as is the WCC. The IPCC's recent report was created by politically (not peer) selected members.
4) If you like the IPCC so much, I'd suggest you read about Claude Allegre, the prominent French scientist who has recently removed himself from association with that organization. He had been an early, first-rank supporter. You won't find much about his change of mind in the MSM, though.
Prominent French scientist reverses belief in anthropogenic Global Warming...now a skeptic.
"Climate models and studies have failed dismally in establishing a man-made cause of catastrophic global warming....increasing evidence indicates that most of the warming comes of natural phenomena...Global warming is over-hyped and an environmental concern of second rank...the arguments of those who see catastrophe in climate change are simplistic...the world would be better off if these denouncers became less political and more practical...not an artificial obstacle that creates fear."http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=2f4cc62e-5b0d-4b59-8705-fc28f14da388
Ok, belag, let's cut to the c
March 13, 2007 - 12:12 ET by dscottOk, belag, let's cut to the chase on the issue. Say for the sake of argument that it was Mankinds fault. (Which I don't, but I'll humor you)
Who is going to do the cutting back? Let's be honest now, shouldn't those who consume the most, cut back the most? Shouldn't those who have the most financial ability, reward and incentive do the most? Should the poor of the world be made to do without so those who have the most continue their lifestyle? If you agree with that sentiment, then you need to have a conversation with Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Streisand and Brad Pitt about their wanton consumption of energy. We already documented Al Gore uses 20 times the energy of the Average American household on just one of his 3 houses. Tell me belag, how can you justify such wanton consumption even with buying carbon credits????? Al Gore belongs to the wealthy class of this country, the 5% (15 million) who own 70% of the personal wealth of the US. How can you justify laying on the backs of the American people (285 million), let alone on the backs of the world's poor, the burden of reducing energy consumption when Al Gore and his rich friends literally account for at least half of all residential energy consumption in the US? You do the math here belag, if Al Gore uses 20 times the electricity of the average American (and that's only one house of 3), do any of the rich 5% use any less than he does? So who therefore should be showing the leadership in cutting back?
The ugly truth here is if Al and his buddies were to live at our (285 million) level of energy consumption, we would meet your kyoto targets without even breaking a sweat.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
Belag, you have posted source
March 13, 2007 - 15:52 ET by MikeBBelag, you have posted sources who have a political axe to grind, and who have presented catastrophic scenarios as inevitable; scenarios which even climatologists who believe in global warming find to be unrealistic. Let me qualify that statement: AlGore has presented such catastrophic scenarios as inevitable. A one degree increase in mean temperature is nothing to be worried about...my opinion. A twenty to thirty degree variation between night and day is not unusual here, yet we do not have daily catastrophes or crises. One degree fahrenheit (about 1/2 degree celsius) in one hundred years is not a crisis, nor a catastrophe. A one to two millimeter rise in sea level per year is also not a crisis or catastrophe. The sudden rise in sea level as depicted in the movie The Day After Tomorrow, flies in the face of physics. Any heat source which could melt that much ice to increase sea levels that much in that short of time would fry this planet.
And, you completely ignored my question in the last paragraph: assuming AGW is real, what would you have done about it? Ignore whether or not it is real, assume it is. What is your solution, given the constraints imposed by the enviros?
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
Reply
March 13, 2007 - 21:52 ET by belagYou claim that all the sources I gave have a political axe to grind. Almos every major scientific organization has a political axe to grind? Most of the literature on global warming has a political axe to grind?
Let me pose a simple question. Suppose you wanted to demonstrate a scientific consensus on a theory, any theory, say Einstein's theory of relativity. How would you go about it? I leave it open-ended. Try to come up with how you'll go about showing it to a skeptic. Maybe that will give me an idea on how to approach my point.
Regarding solutions to this problem, if we cannot agree to whether a problem exists and how serious it is, we cannot talk about solutions.
I accept your offer of providing solutions, assuming, the problem is real. I will do so soon. I'm trying to demonstrate that there's a real problem first.
How about this problem: You
March 13, 2007 - 21:55 ET by NL207How about this problem: You appear to be completely taken in by this global warming alarmism without actually understanding any of the science, which is muh less certain than the alarmism.
A brief reply
March 13, 2007 - 22:24 ET by belagA brief reply to a brief comment.
I already mentioned I'm not an expert. Do you not believe in anything in which you're not an expert? How do you decide whether a certain thing is true or not? You examine the evidence from respectable, mainstream qualified organizations? If you suspect bias, do you check it against other respectable organizations?
I do not know what you mean by science is less certain than the alarmism. I'm guessing you mean alarmism in the media. I've already disassociated myself from the media. I focus the on the science which I claim to be quite certain giving evidence where appropriate.
Try common sense.The theory o
March 13, 2007 - 22:30 ET by NL207Try common sense.
The theory of human caused global warming does not stand the test of common sense for a whole host of reasons.
Al Gore's presentation of the subject does not even stand the test of truthfulness.
A brief reply
March 14, 2007 - 08:06 ET by belagAgain, a brief reply.
Please note, I have already said I have no interest in Al Gore. He doesn't represent my views. I don't defend him or his policies. I have no interest in his movie.
All right, I'll try common sense.
"The theory of human caused global warming does not stand the test of common sense for a whole host of reasons."
Let's hear your reasons.
I take it that the disappeari
March 13, 2007 - 12:11 ET by bassndudeI take it that the disappearing polar caps on mars are due to industrial pollution, also?
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
A brief reply
March 14, 2007 - 08:08 ET by belagA brief comment.
Do you know why Mars's ice caps are melting? Can you show me any evidence that it and global warming on Earth are related?
I reject your assertion tha
March 13, 2007 - 13:36 ET by ApacheIPI reject your assertion that there is a consensus. I suspect that a large group of scientists have simply declared that there is a consensus. Simply saying so does not make it so. And repeating the lie does not make it true.
Using your own rules, please provide solid proof that there is a consensus. Don't use the media as a source. And when I say "proof of a consensus", I mean
proof of a consensus among ALL scientists regarding global warming.
I am using the following as the definition of consensus -
"agreement in the judgment or opinion reached by a group as a whole"
The popular "consensus" claim that is thrown around implies that there is a consensus among ALL scientists. It is pure unadulterated horse pucky. I have yet to meet anyone who can prove that there is a consensus among ALL scientists regarding the causes of global warming.
Reply
March 13, 2007 - 21:56 ET by belagI simply cannot show that ALL scientists agree on global warming, since that's plainly not true.
I am not defending the popular view. I made it very clear in the beginning that I'm not going for unanimity but for overwhelming majority.
I think overwhelming majority is good enough. We are never going to have unanimity on something like this.
If you revise your requirement to overwhelming majority I may proceed to show it to you.
Why can't you show---
March 13, 2007 - 22:22 ET by misterbillWhy can't you show---that all scientists agree---if it is true????
Reply
March 13, 2007 - 22:41 ET by belagMisterbill, this is just the way it is. There's no way everybody can agree on a topic as new as this.
Again, on the other hand, my claim is that there's overwhelming consensus.
Yeah, belag,Overwhelming cons
March 13, 2007 - 22:45 ET by BlondeYeah, belag,
Overwhelming consensus.
I am tired.
Of you.
Vote the board.
You're going to get voted off the island here, momentarily.
Reply - part deux
March 13, 2007 - 22:45 ET by Free StinkerReply.
Reply.
Reply. (any of that ring a bell folks?)
Two ply.
Two-ply is better. Your fin
March 13, 2007 - 22:49 ET by NL207Two-ply is better. Your fingers don't stink as much afterwards.
belag -update on me
March 13, 2007 - 23:01 ET by misterbillbelag -update on me--I was a hand wringing, scared, GW believer. I cursed under my breath every time I saw an SUV. I started reading up on it. Tried to read only technical info. Some of it was over my head, but what I did understand led me to believe it was another great American scare. I won't name any other because probably 60-70% of us still believe them. (Even though it was the World Health Org that shot them (one in particular) down as a total scare tactic.
So, that is why I changed my mind--independent research--seeking out the most qualified experts,not statisticians, not politicians but geophysicists, climatologists, vulcanologists, etc.
In closing, I feel bad for Algore and the gorites because every week another climate or earth scientist decries Gloabl Warming. On a personal basis, I trust no one who says the world is going to be too hot and then when unusually cold temperatures happen say, "well GW makes things cold too!" God , do I wish I had a backup story like that for all my opinions.
Reply
March 14, 2007 - 08:16 ET by belagMisterbill, thanks for your response.
First, I wish to again make it clear. I have no interest in Al Gore, his views, his movie or his policies. He does not stand for my views. I don't defend him. I will, therefore, ignore all comments and questions about him.
You're quite correct. One should independently verify all claims. All right. Let's hear how you independently verified global warming theory's claims. Which claims specifically you verified? Which sources did you use? What did they say? Where did those sources come from?
"Even though it was the World Health Org that shot them (one in particular) down as a total scare tactic."
Which claim exactly do you mean?
I'll respond to any specific answer to the above questions.
You cannot even show a majori
March 14, 2007 - 22:46 ET by NL207You cannot even show a majority, principally because you cannot enumerate the total number of individuals who have sufficient qualifications to speak on some portion of the matter. If you do not know how many of them there are, you cannot show that any number of them constitue a majority.
You and most other AGW posters who come here reject the notion that any scientist who is not a "climatologist" is qualified, yet there are no Universities that I know of who offer an advanced degree in "Climatology". There ARE many programs in "Earth and Planetary Sciences". Indeed, virtualy EVERY meteorologist with a Phd. graduated from such a program, yet the AGW crowd always rejects the criticisms of these people as "unqualified" despite the fact they are the closest thing to actual climatologists on this planet.
Notice also that the Meteorology community has only very recently [IIRC, 2003 or 4] and grudgingly endorsed the idea that humans may be contributing to global climate. Most of its membership are actually opposed to the idea.
Some more replies
March 13, 2007 - 12:09 ET by belagA few posts/points which I missed:
1) I was aware of the criticism of the IPCC. Therefore I have stated that almost every scientific organization in the world agrees with IPCC's position. In fact, I gave the position statement of the AGU - American Geophysical Union. I have tried to include many American national sources.
2) ACA's comment. It seems we have a basic point of disagreement. My point, as I stated in my first post was to show that my views are at odds with many of the people here and I hope it leads to a debate. If you don't want a debate and just want to say, it's bullshit 'cos I say so, well, you're entitled to it.
Dont forget the Weather Chann
March 13, 2007 - 12:17 ET by bassndudeDont forget the Weather Channel and Al Gore. Oh! And the Scarecrow to...Glenda the good witch doubts it tho.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
belog - you are disingenous and obtuse - a rare combination.
March 13, 2007 - 12:37 ET by acaiguanabelog - you are disingenous and obtuse - a rare combination.
We don't have a point of disagreement. You have a point of ignorance and I have a point of knowledge. I have demonstrated my knowledge with two cites and you have admitted you don't know what you are talking about with the models.
I do. I build models. I've been building models for 40 years. I know systems and I know the theory and I know the application. So, unless you can come up with some credential to disprove what I am saying, stop telling me that I don't know what I am talking about.
When I say the models are BS, it is a professional opinion backed up by analysis and many other professional opinions.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
Reply
March 13, 2007 - 13:59 ET by belagHere are some more replies:
ACA's post:
The reason I didn't reply about your sites is that I didn't read them the first time around, since they were edits. Here's my reply
The first site informs me that the study was taken in 1994. A bit out of date, but ok. Let's see what it concludes. Remember, this is your source.
"All of the GCM experiments designed to assess the impact of
increases of greenhouse gases point to global warming through the
coming century, with accompanying changes in rainfall and other
meteorological quantities."
It goes on to suggest the uncertainty and says that more research is needed and suggests that the IPCC framework is workable.
Furthermore, I quote, about the confusion regarding it:
"It has
also affixed the stamp of "controversial" on almost any reference to
impending global warming in the press and news media, implying,
erroneously, that the general concept, and not just the details, is in
serious doubt."
So your source says, global warming is real, caused by greenhouse gases. It says it needs further research, suggests IPCC's framework is reasonable and says that the general issue is not even controversial.
Your second source is sort of confusing. It gives details of the climate models. Fine. I don't know about it. It says nothing about whether IPCC's model is correct/consistent with it or not. In fact, if we look at the above, it says the IPCC's models are a workable framework. So I'm not quite sure about your point.
The point about not knowing what I'm talking about. I don't claim to understand the models. I quote respectable scientific organizations that do claim to understand them. And it's not just the IPCC. If you can cite anybody other than yourself in saying that the models are bullshit, I'll be happy to hear about it.
Bassndude's posts:
I'm not sure where you get the idea that everything in science is cut and dried. Science is always built upon debate. Theories are challenged, evidence re-examined. I'm not certain what else I can say.
As far as evidence is concerned, I already gave detailed evidence. I wish to emphasise, it's not just IPCC, but virtually every other major scientific organization in the world.
RJ's posts:
You're quite right. Consensus is not fact. Nothing is science is fact. Theories are made. If the observations agree with theories, our confidence in the theory is improved. That's the way science works.
About your link about Claude Allegre:
First, I wish to object that the link is a senate committee, a political organization. Fine, even accepting that. Let's look at the English translation of the original french source. Let's look at the relevant paragraph:
Translation
"Then, is there or not climatic reheating? The argument of Kilimandjaro
appears imparable. It is seen, one touches it. Admittedly, but the
things are not so simple. The progressive disappearance of snows of
Kilimandjaro is often allotted to local phenomena, and to the first
chief with the turning into a desert of the East Africa. Recently, in
the Natural review, of the French researchers showed that
this turning into a desert was largely due to tectonic movements
responsible for the progressive increase of the African continent,
modifying circulation weather. The effect of greenhouse does not have
any major role in it."
So what Allegre says is that the disappearance of snows in Kilimanjaro, in his view, may not be caused by global warming, but local processes. That's it. Nothing is said about whether global warming is real or not.
To get Allegre's position on the subject, I looked at another article on the same site:
Translation
Which says,
"In answer to my detractors, I must put the points on I: I deny the
climatic change by no means, but I consider that the total reheating is
not the essential phenomenon"
So he agrees with the fact of global warming, he says it's not the major issue. There are other more serious ones, he says.
He is uncertain about the causes. That's fine. I already mentioned that consensus is not unanimity. Allegre agrees with some details of the consensus and disagrees about some details.
Allegre's main point is: one shouldn't sensationalize everything by calling it global warming. I agree.
belag...I did not say that de
March 13, 2007 - 14:39 ET by bassndudebelag...I did not say that debate is not a part of science. Theory, by defination is not fact. Science fact is based on unrefuteable evidnece. Theory is a thought process. The fact of the matter is, that CO2 follows warming. This is noted in the ice core samples covering the last 140,000 years. That renders your CO2 theroy mute. Null and void as a cause for global warming. It is simply untrue. A lie told enough times that some simple minded folks belive it to be true.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
A quick reply to bassndude
March 13, 2007 - 14:52 ET by belagA quick reply to bassndude:
Can you show me any evidence about the fact that CO2 follows temperature rise
and that it contradicts global warming theories? I don't mean the movie. That's not scientific evidence.
belag...check www.ncdc.noaa.g
March 13, 2007 - 15:15 ET by bassndudebelag...check www.ncdc.noaa.gov. You can download the ice core data and see for yourself.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Reply
March 13, 2007 - 21:58 ET by belagThat's simply too vast and I don't know where to search. If you claim that some data refutes a conclusion then the burden of proof is yours.
belag...are you telling me th
March 14, 2007 - 10:38 ET by bassndudebelag...are you telling me that you cant read? Or is it that perhaps the information is to complicated for you to understand? You asked for proof, I provided it. If you cant read it or search for CO2 here, then Im sorry. You have got to be smart enough to read the data, or you never will understand. Perhaps you are young and still in school. If that is the case I will help you with it, otherwise, you just need to do some reading. You can search the data on the site by timeline and CO2 and correlate the temps, all on the site.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Reply
March 14, 2007 - 11:20 ET by belagI find the comments - "oh you can't read?" - really uncalled for.
I can read diagrams as well as the next guy. If you claim that data refutes a theory you have to give me evidence. I cannot go on a wild goose chase about something. It is for you to show that the data refutes the theory.
Give me data and an explanation of how it refutes the theory. I'll get back to you.
Did I give you something like, look here's the world wide web, go find evidence for global warming?
Instead of being a dick, why
March 19, 2007 - 18:01 ET byInstead of being a dick, why don't you look up the reason why T leads CO2 coming out of a glaciation? (Hint: you're looking for Milankocvitch cycles and CO2 feedbacks.)
more twisting by belag
March 13, 2007 - 15:01 ET by RJAmazing. You will twist any words to "prove" your agenda.
Allegre was very clear that he does not agree with the models that claim Anthropogenic Global Warming and that he has disassociated himself from the IPCC progrom. But you disingeuously cherry pick a few of his quotes and pretend that he is still in the camp of the AGW crowd. Even in the quoted you selected, you disregard his relevant statements. He says, for example, "the effects of greenhouse does not have any major role", but you ignore that to make your disingenuous point. So it went with the rest of your "interpretaton" of Allegre's remarks.
As for your "definition" of "Scientific Concensus", turns out there's a heated argument about the definition, especially as it relates to "Global Warming." The climate change issue should be removed from the examples of "scientifc consensus" and replaced by a non-debatable example....Although there is a mainstream opinion about climate change, it is far from being neutral for an encyclopedia to call consensus the actual mainstream opinion on climate change. There are plenty of contradictory opinions by scientifcs of various backgrounds and nationalities."
A reply to RJ
March 13, 2007 - 15:32 ET by belagI stand by what I said about Allegre. I said that he didn't deny global warming. I said he's uncertain about the causes. Both are correct. You are correct that "global warming" should mean "anthropogenic global warming", meaning man-made. Fine, I accept that.
Allegre does not accept anthropogenic cause of global warming.
Now, my point, which I made in the previous post is, consensus does not equal unanimity. Allegre is just one person who disputes the role of man in global warming. There are a number of other scientists who dispute details of global warming. The issue is, what's the balance of evidence? Do the overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree on anthropogenic global warming? I gave the evidence. You decide.
This leads to the definition of scientific consensus. I agree that I posted it without a citation. That's because I thought it was sufficiently non-controversial. Ok, let's see the definition of consensus (dictionary definition):
"a: general agreement : unanimity <the consensus of their opinion, based on reports…from the border — John Hersey> b: the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned <the consensus was to go ahead>2: group solidarity in sentiment and belief"
This is straight from Merriam Webster dictionary. Since it's useless to have complete unanimity on anything, we look at definition b) the judgement arrived at by most of those concerned.So, we look at the balance of the evidence of those concerned. Now, who are the persons qualified to comment on this? The climate scientists. The major scientific organizations. How do they comment on it. By peer-reviewed journals, publications, position statements.If you don't agree with my definition of consensus, what would you propose?"overwhelming majority" is meaningless belag
March 13, 2007 - 15:58 ET by RJProgress. And why does Allegre not agree with AGW? Because he, a prominent scientist and an early major figure in the AGW movement, has come to believe that the models are flawed and have "failed dismally."
As for "Scientific Consensus", you ignored my point that there is apparently an ongoing argument regarding the definition and whether it should be used at all in this case. Since the meaning of "consensus" is "opinion", I go with those who say the term is an oxymoron. "Mainstream" and it's populist connotatons would probably more accurately describe what is currently happening on the subject. What IS happening is a version of Mob Rule...
As for your "overwhelming majority", that means absolutely nothing. The primary organization driving that idea is the IPCC, which is hopelessly political. They are backed and worshipped by an advocacy media which is hopelessly ill informed.
belag
March 13, 2007 - 16:07 ET by Noel Sheppardbelag,
Isn't the concept of consensus in science an oxymoron unless we are talking about the soft or liberal sciences? In the hard sciences, isn't a fact a fact, and anything less still decidedly up for debate until 100 percent proven?
After all, you would agree that the earth does revolve around the sun, yes? This isn't a consensus view. This is a fact.
Carrying that forward, that some group of scientists at this point in time feels that there is a consensus of opinions about an issue, be it global warming or any other unresolved matter still up for debate, is irrelevant until their opinion is 100 percent proven.
Do you dispute this?
Furthermore, wouldn't you agree that the declaration of a consensus in this matter is also made moot by the fact that many scientists are afraid of the political or financial backlash involved with expressing an unpopular view? Wasn't this likely responsible for the "consensus" centuries ago that the sun revolved around the earth, and other such fallacies which were universally accepted? Or, more recently, the consensus viewpoint being espoused just 30 years ago that we were moving into a mini ice age?
Forgive me, but everything in science is up for debate until 100 percent proven, and there is nothing 100 percent in the theory of anthropogenic global warming. Furthermore, if people's careers and livelihoods weren't on the line, I suggest quite fervently there would be far more skeptics than believers. ns
Noel
March 13, 2007 - 16:16 ET by RJScientific Consensus = Oxymoron
I've said that several times on this thread, Noel...and it clearly is.... ;^>
RJ
March 13, 2007 - 16:27 ET by Noel SheppardRJ,
Well, this seems somewhat obvious unless we're talking about a soft science like psychology or sociology where much of it is based in opinions and percentages. However, when we are looking at hard sciences like chemistry, biology, astronomy, physics, etc., we are dealing with facts, not consensuses.
As such, the fixation of the left and the alarmists on this "consensus" either suggests that the study of climate change is not a hard science -- or, at least not yet -- or that the believers themselves aren't convinced enough by their observations to declare it as 100 percent fact.
Either way, the debate on this issue still appears wide open regardless of the protestations of the alarmists and all their sycophant followers. ns
I love how the geniuses here
March 19, 2007 - 18:10 ET byI love how the geniuses here at NB use general scientific agreement as a reason NOT to believe in AGW. Scientists are careful people--unlike say, NB bloggers who asssert a fact, call people liars and cowards and then run into the distance when their arguments are refuted. Scientists deal with uncertainty and partial information. They don't proclaim something a fact until it is a stone cold fact.
Unlike the true deniers here who are certain that AGW is a scam. Paranoia runs deep.
Noel, Man I hope I don't ge
March 13, 2007 - 21:44 ET by hydrodynDMNoel,
Man I hope I don't get my head ripped off for this but ... there are some points in your post I disagree with.
Not in defense of belag, but his "consensus" argument is actually a reference (deliberate or otherwise) to ideas presented by philosophers like Kuhn (the paradigm guy) which are meant to explain the historical development of scientific theories. Some have interpreted Kuhn to say that, historically, consensus has been used, not only to decide what theories are worth working on and which are accepted at any given moment in time, but also to decide what theories were accepted as scientific and which were not.
However, you could say this is separate from what theories are ultimately viewed as accurate. Problem is, there is a kind of muckyness about the whole business. First, it is obviously true that empirical evidence is what is used to help prove a theory. Problem is, that a lot of empirical evidence isn't "pure" in the way that your "Earth revolves around the Sun" evidence is - it is usually theory dependent. As an example, if I have some theory about how a particular particle decays, the only way I can test it is by building a collider, the construction of which depends on other theories. The empirical evidence in this case will be a bunch of data about what detector did what when, all connected electronically and again, the interpretation of all that depends on other theories. For those who haven't fallen asleep at this point, this theory dependence of empirical evidence is used to undermine Popper's falsification theory by some.
Second, theories that are sufficiently complex probably can't ever be "proven" 100%. The more evidence that supports a theory, the better accepted it becomes - especially if your work involves using the theory in relation to phenomena that's already been tested. But what if you try to apply the theory to areas where it hasn't? That's the problem. There's always that possibility that that next experiment will give results that don't match up with the theory. It happened with Newton's theory of gravity and with classical mechanics. And it could happen with Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. So theories can't ever really be proven 100% as far as I can tell.
It sounds to me that belag is taking some of these ideas and putting them out there in his own way - truth is, it's kind of late and I haven't read through all his stuff which is why I'm not really commenting on it. But my point in responding to you, Noel, is that some of the counter points to him aren't exactly (in my opinion) accurate either.
Let the beating begin...
Hydro
March 14, 2007 - 08:52 ET by Noel SheppardH,
Well, first, you'll notice that belag never responded to any of my questions, which I felt were germane to the debate. Second, I, too, have not taken the time to read through all the give and take here as it typically rehashes old ground that has been discussed at this board for months. Third, please notice that no beating occurred. :-)
That said, your points are valid, but also must not operate in a vacuum that ignores the political and financial stakes involved in this matter. For instance, if you are trying to prove how a particle decays, it likely won't be headline news with Democrats, the media, and a former vice president all with a vested political and financial interest on one side, with Republicans on the other, correct? Instead, it would be you, your university or benefactor, and your collider. Correct?
This cannot be ignored. Neither can the fact that as the existence of a consensus is being touted, nowhere are the numbers of qualified scientists with expressed opinions on both sides, as well as those that haven't voiced one, available to determine the accuracy of this claim. Folks talk about 1,500 scientists that are supposedly on board this "consensus." Well, exactly how many aren't either because they are known skeptics or haven't voiced an opinion?
As this information is being cleverly hidden inasmuch as we both certainly agree that there are more than 1,500 qualified scientists around the world whose field of expertise might give them a pony in this race, one has to conclude that this "consensus" is likely much more manmade than global warming itself! :-) ns
Reply
March 14, 2007 - 09:07 ET by belagNoel, indeed I responded to your post. I'm not very comfortable with posting here so I posted it not as a direct "reply" to your post (using the link) but as "Add new comment". You may check it if you wish.
This is a copy paste of that post.
----------------------------------------------------------
Is consensus in hard science an oxymoron?
You claim
that the Earth revolving around the Sun is "fact" not "consensus". Ok,
let's see. Firstly, I want to emphasise that my claim is that global
warming is scientific consensus. Let's go on.
How did the
Earth revolving around the Sun become "fact"? Who says so? Ok, you read
it in your science textbook. You heard it on TV. A million other ways.
In fact, it became "fact" because it was a "consensus" for so long and had survived the test of time. Nothing in science, hard or otherwise is certain. There's nothing which prevents the "fact" from being challenged in the future.
Now,
why should we accept the "global warming consensus" (assuming there is
a consensus for the time being)? The way science works is to have a
theory and if the observations match the theory, our confidence in the
theory is improved.
So, what's the confidence in the "global warming theory"? Well, I gave ample evidence. I repeat, it's not just the IPCC.
Almost every major scientific organization in the world accepts the
IPCC report. I'll give more examples later when I respond to ApacheIP.
Next, regarding global cooling. As I mentioned in one of the above posts, (pardon me, I don't know how to link it here), there was no consensus. The
World Climate Conference (which I cite) and numerous other scientific
organizations concluded that the evidence is not conclusive and we have
to get more data. It was mostly a media frenzy.
Notice, I've not used a single media source. They're too unreliable, as everybody knows here.
One
more issue, you mention that why didn't we act upon the "consensus" in
older times that the Sun revolved around the Earth. I already mentioned
part of the answer, it was not a scientific consensus. The
church said that this was so, and everyone had to agree or be called a
heretic. This was before the Age of Enlightenment as it's called.
There's simply no valid comparison.
Belag
March 14, 2007 - 09:27 ET by Noel SheppardBelag,
Are you suggesting that it is not a fact that the earth revolves around the sun, but only a consensus that this is the case? Can you please cite, with links, some scientists that contest this, and what the evidence is?
Forgive me, but the earth revolving around the sun is indeed an immutable fact, not a consensus opinion.
Furthermore, as it pertains to consensus, can you give me the number of scientists who support the theory of anthropogenic global warming, the number who don't, and the total number of scientists and meteorologists on the planet that haven't expressed an opinion one way or another? ns
Reply
March 14, 2007 - 09:55 ET by belagPlease bear with me and read my whole post, this is basic and extremely important.
Indeed I'm saying that the Earth revolving around the sun is not an "immutable fact".
This is basic. Let me ask you, how do you know it's a fact? Did you read it in your science texbook? Did you see it on TV?
Perhaps the above questions will give me an idea on how to prosecute my case. Try to convince me that the Earth revolving around the Sun is "fact". My claim is, I can give similar kinds of arguments regarding global warming.
Except, not everyone agrees on global warming. Being 100% sure of anything in science is very very hard. The reason almost nobody disputes that the Earth revolves around the sun is that it's been investigated for 400 years and found to be correct.
"Can you please cite, with links, some scientists that contest this, and what the evidence is?"
I am not saying that a "consensus" doesn't mean everybody agrees on it. The aim of consensus is unanimity. We may not always get there.
My point is: Nothing in science is "fact". There's nothing which prevents this "fact" from being challenged in the future. Being 100% certain is an ideal, not attainable.
We seem to have a basic point of disagreement. You mean to say, we shouldn't believe anything in science which is not 100% certain, nobody opposes it?
In fact, very few theories are 100% accepted. Einstein never accepted quantum mechanics, even though he was one of the main contributors. Yet it's widely regarded as correct. You may know Einstein's famous statement: "God does not play dice with the universe."
Ditto with the Big Bang, evolution, theory of gravity.
In fact, quantum mechanics, relativity and theory of gravity are inconsistent with each other.
If you'll excuse me, I'll cite wikipedia since my above statement is not even controversial. I can give you hard scientific sources if you wish.
http://en.wikipedia....
Quantum mechanics gives you lasers, drugs, computers. Relativity and gravity give you most of the understanding of the universe. You mean to say that we should reject all of them since they're not 100% correct?
belag...the fact that the ear
March 14, 2007 - 11:42 ET by bassndudebelag...the fact that the earth orbits around the sun is an observed fact. That is how it was proven. Quantum physics is not inconsistant with the gravitational observations. Relativity is just that. It is a theory that quantum mechanics break down once subjected to the gravitional forces exerted by a black hole. The fact of the matter is, noone can prove or disprove it. In science, proof is in observation. Or some other form of indisputable evidence. Wikipedia is not a good reference source. Anyone, even you, God forbid, can edit wikipedia subjects. That said, none of this has any thing to do with GW. The fact that CO2 increases follow temperature increases has been established. The correlation between temps and CO2 are clearly shown in the ice core data, (that you found to difficult to read), during the mid evil warming period. A period that your GW scientists want to get rid of. Even the IPCC has backed off the "warming" word. They now call it "climate change". I find this interesting because the climate has been in a constant state of change sence the days of Noah.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Facts and consensus
March 14, 2007 - 13:46 ET by belag1. "Quantum physics is not inconsistant with the gravitational observations. Relativity is just that."
It's not inconsistent? Find me one scientist who says so. You complain about Wikipedia. Fine. Here's a non-technical source:
A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking.
Relativity is just that? You mean relativity is the explanation of the inconsistancy? I've no idea what you mean. Find me one source.
2. "The fact that CO2 increases follow temperature increases has been established." - find me a source.
I already mentioned, giving a website. That's not a proper way to give a source. There's a huge amount of data there. How do I know which one refutes the theory? You make the claim that it refutes the theory, then you cite the evidence. It's not my headache.
How could you possibly be thi
March 14, 2007 - 21:52 ET by NL207How could you possibly be this interested in this topic and still be so dan ignorant?
This paper, which is, by the way, PRO global warming tract, says the following about past warmings:
"The lessons from the Vostok ice core can be summarized as follows. Past changes in greenhouse gases have been initially triggered by climatically induced changes in the oceanic and terrestrial pools or reservoirs of carbon"
Emphasis is mine. And what was the "climatically induced" trigger? It got warmer for some reason other than increased greenhouse gases!!!!
Satisfied?
And don't worry about your other petty challenges. When I'm feeling better I intend to take up your challenges.
Satisfied?
March 14, 2007 - 22:57 ET by belagI'm very satisfied indeed.
Let's look at your source.
"The lessons from the Vostok ice core can be summarized as follows. Past changes in greenhouse gases have been initially triggered by climatically induced changes in the oceanic and terrestrial pools or reservoirs of carbon"
Might I continue this? This is your source.
"Changes in these
pools of carbon resulted in the amplification of the original weak,
orbitally-driven changes in the amount of solar radiation reaching the
Earth's surface. Once in the atmosphere, greenhouse gases then played
an important role as amplifiers of climate change, accounting for about
half of the global warming observed in the Vostok ice core"
I leave it to anybody to judge. May I remind you, this is your source.
Another comment, from the same source:
"...in particular, confirm that the
periods of CO2 build-up have most likely contributed to the
major global warming transitions at the Earth's surface"
<edit>
In case my point wasn't clear, the report makes it very clear. It says CO2 buildup acts as a feedback agent. Except in the past it was due to climatic changes, today it's humans - (see first and last para).
"The
main difference between the Vostok record of climate change and the
present climate situation is that today the sharp increase in greenhouse
gases (i.e., approaching unique levels of greenhouse gas concentrations
relative to the last 420,000 years of climate change) is being triggered
by human activities at an unprecedented rate."
Again, your source.
Of course it says that.These
March 14, 2007 - 23:31 ET by NL207Of course it says that.
These authors believe that CO2 has a strong enough effect on the system to cause positive feedbeck.
Since you don't understand anything else about basic science, I have to assume to don't understand what damping is in a differental system. Usually this is referred to as the Q of a system. Systems are categorized into three classes on this property, Overdamped, Underdamped and Critically damped.
When an underdamped system is forced into oscillation, the oscillation GROWS due to a positive feedback component. Perhaps you have seen the famous film of the 1930's Tacoma Narrows bridge collapse? This was an underdamped system.
When an overdamped system is forced into oscillation, the damping applies strong negative feedback rapidly quieting the oscillation. This is what a bowstring does when released after being drawn. The string rapidly returns to a stationary state.
When a critically damped system is driven into oscillation, the feedback is near zero, allowing the oscillation to contine for a long time. A Bell is a criticaly damped oscillator. When struck [forced into oscilation], it continues to ring for quite some time.
Now .... lets apply this idea to this stupid paper. the climatologists who wrote this claim that CO2 injected into the atmosphere by some climatic trigger event forms a positive feedback loop which will inject yet MORE CO2 into the atmosphere, and presumably KEEP doing so until all the available carbon in its source has been exhausted by atmospheric injection. What is the end state of such a system? Is it not an overheated world in which all avaliable carbon has been injected into the atmosphere? Is that what you see in the Vostok Ice core data? No it is not. Therefore, these guys got it at least partially, if not completely, wrong.
Q.E.D.
Confused
March 15, 2007 - 01:08 ET by belagFirst of all, I want to say I'm confused.
Do you, or do you not accept the theory in the paper?
From your last post, it appears that you don't. Ok. You might've mentioned this damping stuff and called the paper a stupid theory in the first post. Would've been easier for me to respond.
I read about the damping. All right. In passing, I may mention that I knew about at least that much.
Ok, let's apply this damping stuff to the paper.
Do you see anywhere in the paper a mention of an underdamped system? A critically damped one? Why do you suppose then it's a runaway effect?
In fact, why do you suppose the "initial climate changes" refer to CO2 or heating at all? There's no mention in the paper that heating cause more CO2. I think you're assuming that CO2 rise follows heating.
Again, I may mention that there's no source which supports your "runaway" global warming as you've described. This is the result of (faultily) applying a valid phenomenon to the paper.
Of course I disagree with muc
March 15, 2007 - 08:39 ET by NL207Of course I disagree with much of what these authors say. I agree with the statement they make that temperature has historically preceeded atmospheric CO2 concentration increase because that is what the data show. I linked this article because it was the first one I turned up that showed that fact, which you claimed to be in ignorance of.
I suppose it is a runaway system because these authors claim that CO2 in the is a positive feedback loop which will inject MORE CO2 into the atmosphere. Effectively, what they calim is the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is a positive function of the earth's mean temperature which is itself, a positive function of the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. If fact, as the authors describe this system in their paper, not only is it at least underdamped, it appears to be UNDAMPED. The logic should be obvious here even if the math isn't.
All systems which can be described as positive feedback loops are by definition astable and, without other negative terms in the equation will oscillate out of control. This is a consequence of differential mathematics. Generally, if CO2 concentration is C, Temperature is T and time is t, we have something of this general sort: dC/dt = f(T) and dT/dt = g(C) where f and g are some positive functions according to the claims of the authors. See the positive feedback loop here? A <simple> system of diferential equations. [as if there ever was a SIMPLE system of differential equations!]
That the authors do not describe any negative terms that will cause the system to give CO2 back to the "carbon source" tells me they have an incomplete theory that should be rejected in its current form. It fails step two of the scientific method: the proposed hypothesis, by itself, fails to account for the observed behavior of the system. There are clearly other factors in play which will cause the system to return to its earlier state as the Vostok data clearly indicates it does. The theory as formulated does not explain those parts of the process.
Do you understand now?
Runaway CO2?
March 15, 2007 - 10:00 ET by belagAll right, let me discuss this.
1. "I agree with the statement they make that temperature has historically
preceeded atmospheric CO2 concentration increase because that is what
the data show."
Can you show me where it says this?
I'll give my quote:
"...in particular, confirm that the
periods of CO2 build-up have most likely contributed to the
major global warming transitions at the Earth's surface."
2. "I suppose it is a runaway system because these authors claim that CO2
in the is a positive feedback loop which will inject MORE CO2 into the
atmosphere"
Again, can you show me where they say that rising temperature will inject more CO2 into the atmosphere? And that the effect will be "runaway"?
Forget about the movie. Read the report. It says "climatic changes
triggered CO2 rise in the past" This CO2 increased the warming.
That's what it says. It says CO2 causes a feedback effect which causes warming. It says nothing about whether more temperature means more CO2 and whether the effect is a runaway one.
3. "That the authors do not describe any negative terms that will cause the
system to give CO2 back to the "carbon source" tells me they have an
incomplete theory that should be rejected in its current form. It
fails step two of the scientific method: the proposed hypothesis, by
itself, fails to account for the observed behavior of the system.
There are clearly other factors in play which will cause the system to
return to its earlier state as the Vostok data clearly indicates it
does. The theory as formulated does not explain those parts of the
process."
You seem to understand this theory very well. I wonder how you can understand a complicated scientific theory from a half-page report.
I see some "clearly"'s in the above paragraphs. In my view, it's all your assumption without any data whatsoever.
The term "positive feedback" refers to the extra CO2 released by the climatic changes in the past reinforcing the already present CO2 in the atmosphere. It says nothing about whether it will lead to the rise of more CO2.
Runaway CO2?
March 15, 2007 - 10:01 ET by belagAll right, let me discuss this.
1. "I agree with the statement they make that temperature has historically
preceeded atmospheric CO2 concentration increase because that is what
the data show."
Can you show me where it says this?
I'll give my quote:
"...in particular, confirm that the
periods of CO2 build-up have most likely contributed to the
major global warming transitions at the Earth's surface."
2. "I suppose it is a runaway system because these authors claim that CO2
in the is a positive feedback loop which will inject MORE CO2 into the
atmosphere"
Again, can you show me where they say that rising temperature will inject more CO2 into the atmosphere? And that the effect will be "runaway"?
Forget about the movie. Read the report. It says "climatic changes
triggered CO2 rise in the past" This CO2 increased the warming.
That's what it says. It says CO2 causes a feedback effect which causes warming. It says nothing about whether more temperature means more CO2 and whether the effect is a runaway one.
3. "That the authors do not describe any negative terms that will cause the
system to give CO2 back to the "carbon source" tells me they have an
incomplete theory that should be rejected in its current form. It
fails step two of the scientific method: the proposed hypothesis, by
itself, fails to account for the observed behavior of the system.
There are clearly other factors in play which will cause the system to
return to its earlier state as the Vostok data clearly indicates it
does. The theory as formulated does not explain those parts of the
process."
You seem to understand this theory very well. I wonder how you can understand a complicated scientific theory from a half-page report.
I see some "clearly"'s in the above paragraphs. In my view, it's all your assumption without any data whatsoever.
The term "positive feedback" refers to the extra CO2 released by the climatic changes in the past reinforcing the already present CO2 in the atmosphere. It says nothing about whether it will lead to the rise of more CO2.
I think you missed this in th
March 16, 2007 - 23:29 ET by NL207I think you missed this in the paper:
" changes in solar insolation (as a result of changes in the Earth's orbit) is typically followed by two strong amplifiers of climate warming, with greenhouse gases acting first, followed by deglaciation (melting)"
Again, emphasis mine. The authors say increased effective solar radiation led to temperature increase. [precisely what many scientists say about the conditions of the present warming].
Two strong amplifiers implies positive feedback in the system. They don't really come out and say what the second is beyond CO2. They refer to this as melting ice. We have another name for melting ice: water. Water vapor is the 500 pound gorilla of greenhouse gases. This is something the pro-antropogenic gloabl warmingists don't really like to talk about.
These authors don't say directly anywhere in their paper the temperatures will be runaway. Their faulty hypothetical system says that. They imply that the sun will decrease in intensity and bring about a cooling, but how can that cooling occur without some mechanism to reduce the atmospheric CO2 concentration, which they do not describe. The authors also offer no proof that the sun will cool enough in this 100,000 year cycle to dominate the CO2 warming term they describe.
>> They cannot have it both ways. Either variations in solar output dominate greenhouse gases in the climate equation, or the greenhouse gases dominate solar effects. If it is the former, then the warming we see today is likely solar driven, not human driven. If the latter, then the last 4 ice ages could not have ended according to their arguments and as observed in the geological record. Since the ice ages ended, their assertions that human generated greenhouse gases dominates solar variance in the climate equation is likely false. <<
My assumptions? Look at some of the other data available. Not assumptions at all.
Your last claim is made ourt of sheer ignorance and I suppose you must be excused for that. If CO2 in the atmosphere cause temperatures to ris and rising temperatures cause more CO2 to be injected into the atmosphere, this cycle will continue until this occurs: the rate of CO2 injection with temperature produces insufficient new temperature increase to inject more CO2. There are several factors that can lead to this condition: CO2 injection might be a non-constant function of T, falling with increasing T. The Carbon source runs out of carbon. Temperature sensitivity to increasing CO2 might not be constant with CO2 [indeed, it is not] producing less effect with increasing CO2. BUt, even tif the system fails to runaway completely, the authors still failed to show how the CO2 got back out of the atmosphere after it was injected to facilitate cooling to previous ice age levels.
belag, Your comments about
March 14, 2007 - 21:45 ET by hydrodynDMbelag,
Your comments about what constitutes "fact" seem to reflect what is basically a skeptic's view (let me know if I'm wrong).
Technically, yes, empirical evidence can't be accepted as fact since we can be brains in vats being fed impulses (Matrix) or be dreaming or whatever (all those old arguments). But science accepts direct empirical evidence as fact - it's a leap of faith, philosophically.
If you reject that, than you can't even talk about science since you are rejecting one of its basic assumptions.
If that is what you are doing - aside from just being nit-picky from a philosophical stand point - then your argument seems to be basically that all science is founded on crap and so anthropomorphic GW is no more or less crapy than Quantum Mechanics or Relativity from a "fact" point of view and so it's mostly just about what the general scientific community accepts (consensus).
You argue that the Earth going around the Sun is an open question. If we sent an astronaut into space to directly view the Earth moving around the Sun (by using distant stars as a reference) for a year - would you still consider it open to debate or would you accept it as fact? If it's the former, then you are being way to philosophical for this topic.
Fact or theory
March 14, 2007 - 22:45 ET by belagI already mentioned, I'm not saying anything radical. This is mainstream. This is basic. This is not a skeptic's view.
Let me be very clear what I'm talking about. I'm not talking philosophy. I'm responding to the very specific claim of Noel that science is 100% certain and till we get 100% certaintly we shouldn't accept it.
Let's examine that claim.
The Earth going round the Sun is an observation. Fine. How do you explain that? The most accepted theory is the theory of gravity.
There are other equally valid and equally important observations. They are explained by the theory of quantum mechanics.
Others are explained by the theory of relativity.
Now, what I'm saying is, it's completely uncontroversial. The above three theories are inconsistent with each other. Something or the other is wrong.
Do we reject any of the three theories? It has been proved 100% that at least one of the theory is wrong (by the very simple argument above). If you want sources, I cited them - and I don't mean Wikipedia.
My point is that each of those theories can be disproved in the future. The issue is, current evidence is in favour or not? And the current evidence is overwhelmingly in favour.
Hope this helped.
belag, I know you have been
March 14, 2007 - 22:56 ET by hydrodynDMbelag,
I know you have been juggling a lot of posts so I'll give you my take.
Yes, theories that are of sufficient complexity can't be proven 100% true. Science doesn't deal with "truth", it deals with models. So I think we are on the same page as that. And by the way, I know about relativity (both theories) and QM, so I don't need any refs. Just sayin.
But you didn't address my point - that by suggesting that basic empirical observations are open to debate - which is what it seemed like you were saying - then you are basically denying a fundamental assumption of science. That we can take direct empircial observation as fact.
Isn't that a problem for your argument if you then turn around and go into details about a particular scientific theory in an attempt to defend it?
I think you are trying to jump back and forth between skepticism and a particular realist view of how science develops historically.
Reply
March 14, 2007 - 23:15 ET by belagI'm not really sure I understand your point, so don't think I'm being evasive. If you want to reiterate your point, I'll try to address it.
I'm not sure why you think the question of whether "basic empirical observations are open to debate" is relevant to my point.
As you say, if I'm trying to debate it, in your view, it's a philosophical argument. I'm not talking about philosophy.
I'm talking about the theories that explain "facts". Global warming is a theory. So is quantum mechanics. How do you judge whether a theory is acceptable or not.
I'm not disputing the ice core data we get. I'm not disputing the temperature record from weather balloons. (Though we should dispute them, and indeed people do dispute them and compare it with satellite data and so on).
What I'm doing is asking how do we accept a theory explaining that data? We look at the evidence. It doesn't have to be 100% certain before we accept the theory. And global warming qualifies that requirement. In fact, it qualifies it extremely well (overwhelming evidence etc.).
belag, Ok. First off, I don
March 14, 2007 - 23:33 ET by hydrodynDMbelag,
Ok. First off, I don't really care about the GW stuff. I'm just addressing your views on science. That's where the empirical observation stuff comes in. If I'm not mistaken, you have posted statements like "Earth orbits Sun" is true only because it's accepted by the majority or it's consensus. Now, I'm not sure if you are making a statement about how individuals (think) they know this - reading it in a book or seeing it on TV - or how the scientific community knows this - by direct empirical observation. That's why I asked if you reject direct empirical observation - to see if you were a skeptic or if you were just commenting on how people know the things they think they know. If it's the former, your out of bounds since you are rejecting a basic assumption of science and if it is the latter, your argument is irrelevent.
How is QM different from GW. Well, I would say the time scale. A scientist can test a prediction from QM in a lab within his lifetime. GW guys can't. Also, the kind of predictions made by these two theories are of a different kind of precision. If QM predicts that such and such a decay rate is some number out to 10 decimal places, that can be tested in a precise way. What kind of predictions do GW models make?
Replies
March 15, 2007 - 00:38 ET by belagWell, ok, you're not interested in the GW stuff. All right, I'll give you my general views on science. I must however warn you that this is much farther afield than anyone needs to go on this topic.
1. "If I'm not mistaken, you have posted statements like "Earth orbits Sun"
is true only because it's accepted by the majority or it's consensus."
The "fact" of the Earth revolving around the sun is not "empirical observation". This is not a philosophical point. I am not rejecting a basic assumption of science.
Let me illustrate.
Suppose there were only the Earth and the Sun in the universe. Then it would be meaningless to argue whether the Earth is revolving around the Sun, or the Sun is revolving around the Earth.
The main thing is the observed orbits in the background of the fixed stars.
The "empirical observation" is the movement of the planets etc. in the background of "relatively fixed" stars - like those far away. That's the observation. We can argue more about that too, but for now, let's consider that a "fact".
There was a theory of Copernicus, Galileo, etc. that the Earth revolves around the sun. They said this was the best theory that explained the observed movements of all the planets, sun, etc.
In olden times, there were many other theories regarding the orbits of the planets, based on the assumption that the Earth is the centre of the universe. In fact, that how "planets" - which means "wanderers" got their name. They seemed to be wandering, no rhyme or reason.
Therefore, my thesis is that the Earth revolves around the Sun is not "fact". It's theory which has been verified for 400 years.
2. Global Warming vs Quantum Mechanics. You're quite right. Time scale is an issue. How do we believe something which makes predictions 50 or 100 years in the future. Well, it's hard. I might first make the comment that many many particles have been postulated in quantum mechanics but have not yet been discovered, nor is there a lot of hope of discovering them in our lifetime.
However, global warming models do make predictions which can be tested in the short term. One of them is the warming rate as we go up into the atmosphere. Like the models expect that the upper stratosphere actually cools and the lower troposphere heats up. The exact relationship is quite complicated, but it does predict how much it heats or cools etc. There is a section of the IPCC report which deals with this issue. Also an AGU report. I have mentioned it in one of my previous posts.
Hope this helps.
belag, Thanks for the
March 15, 2007 - 15:57 ET by hydrodynDMbelag,
Thanks for the response. Back to the empirical observation thing. Maybe I’m
not being clear about what it is I’m asking you. Do you believe that there are
direct empirical observations which can be accepted as “fact”?
Regarding your comments about the Earth going around the Sun. My first
instinct would be to say that if the Earth revolved around a fixed Sun, the
Earth would be in a non-inertial reference frame and simple experiments could
be done to test this. But I’m sure you would say that isn’t a direct
observation. You might also bring up the kinds of arguments made by Ernst Mach
regarding whether there is such a thing as centripetal force in the absents of
the fixed stars (if I’m remembering what that argument was about). And just to
top it off, that there is no way to determine if the Sun is really “fixed”
since all inertial reference frames are equivalent.
None of this is relevant to my question to you – it’s just nit-picking this
particular example.
Fine, let’s try another example. I drop a pen and it falls to the ground. Do
you accept that as an observation which can serve as the basis for an empirical
fact?
If not, then you seem to be rejecting a basic (or maybe the basic)
assumption of science which is that direct empirical observation can be taken
as “fact”. And if so, then why bother trying to defend some scientific theory.
In fact, why bother commenting on any scientific theory since you’ve pointed
out that, technically, you can’t defend one of the basic assumptions that
science works off of.
As for you QM comment – QM is verified every day in labs all over the world
in countless settings – particle physics, condensed matter physics, solid state
physics, etc… The speculative particles you are talking about involve cases
where a theorist considers a possible modification to Quantum Field Theory
(probably by introducing some terms into a Lagrangian or something) and sees
what particles his theory predicts might exist –if his modifications do in fact
mimic reality (assuming you even believe there is a “reality”). Ok. So? If
those particle are never discovered it just means that modification might be
false. It doesn’t undermine the basic theory. That in no way brings QM down to
the same level as GW models.
Hope that helps.
Reply
March 15, 2007 - 18:27 ET by belagI won't comment about the centripetal force etc., since as you mentioned, it's not really relevant. But yes, I could nit-pick it with you if you want.
Do I believe that there are direct empirical observations which are "fact"?
Well, again, I don't want to sound evasive. I'll try my best.
In principle every observation can be challenged. But whenever you want to construct a theory, you accept some observations as facts. You have to have some basis for any theory. You have to assume something. They are the basic postulates for the theory. Ditto with the computer models. There are assumptions that go into every model.
However, somebody needed to lay the theory for assuming that "something". Indeed, we stand on the shoulders of giants. For them, this "something" was not fact.
So, yes, nothing is a fact - in principle.
Again, this is not radical. This is not rejecting a basic assumption of science. This is not philosophy.
Let's take your example. You observe a pen dropping to the ground. How do you know it's real?
Well, someone needed to lay the theory of how light works. There's a light source, presumably in the room. It shines light. The light is reflected from the pen and reaches your eyes.
Now, when people didn't understand how light works - they just accepted it as a fact - since they didn't know any better.
When, now, people do understand how light works - they still accept it as a fact - since they know it's verified, respectable theory and go on to other details.
QM vs GW - I did not mean to imply they were the same level. QM is much more accepted than GW, for good reason. It's more fundamental, it's older, it's much more verified, it's a more complete theory.
My point was the following. You said that QM could, in theory be verified in our lifetimes. I said that, indeed, the predictions of GW can be verified in our lifetime. They being verified right now. Refer to my troposphere and stratosphere comment.
My point was, don't expect GW to be a 100% complete theory explaining
all climate change phenomena. Not even QM can do that in its domain.
I hope you don't mind me butt
March 14, 2007 - 23:28 ET by danboI hope you don't mind me butting in Hydro
Though I've seen this. I've never taken a close look. My orientation and training has always been to start with the emperical. Observations etc. Be it the number of layers of salt under the gulf. Civilizations that went through crises because of climate change. The pollen makeup of strata.Stalagtites in underwater caves... Then moving backwards trying to figure out what caused this. Definately not model driven.
From your perspective. Where would this fall in?
I can see a definate conflict between those who are model driven verses those emperically trained and driven.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken
Hey danbo, Well, there is
March 14, 2007 - 23:41 ET by hydrodynDMHey danbo,
Well, there is the ideal and there is what happens in practice. Of course, all science is driven by empirical evidence - you make you models with the hope that not only do they capture what is scientific fact - the empirical - but maybe it will give some insight into what is going on or maybe predict things (depending on the type of model).
In practice, I know that groups get into the habit of working with models that become very divorced from empirical evidence - I've fallen into that. I recall my advisor long ago saying that it would probably be a good idea to make sure my results have some correspondence to actual experiments. It was said a kinda a joke but it's an easy thing to fall into. And even if they theory you have doesn't correspond to real life, it still might have some worth to someone, in terms of how you modeled something or how you got around some computational problem that might be used by others later on.
But ultimately, models have worth only if they can be tied to empiricals. The problem with GW stuff - or other models like how galaxies or stars form or whatever - is that it's next to impossible to verify them directly given the long time scales.
Science is very mucky, aint it?
LOL That's why I'm a sceptic.
March 15, 2007 - 00:24 ET by danboLOL That's why I'm a sceptic. The part of my background (training/education) that relates to climate is archaeology and geology. So my time frame reference is very long. When they say sea level is rising, or temps have risen .6 in a hundred years. My natural instinct is to say. Yep the seas have been rising since the plistocene. Yep temps have been alternately rising and falling since the the earth began.
It seems when you make a model, one needs to understand that they're likely doing so with only a fraction of the data. And not all the variables. (There are a whole lot of variables in climate.) Therefore we should consider a model an educated guess. Not the bible.
I understand the ideals and the reality. Though in a different field, (Applied.) I did have to occasionaly deal with grant auditors. Some of the auditors seemed so distant from reality and so into theory you had to scratch your head in wonder. Have they ever done anything other than read about this.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken
danbo, It's funny how many
March 15, 2007 - 00:38 ET by hydrodynDMdanbo,
It's funny how many outside of science view science - like it's some kind of logical, flawless march towards the truth and how those "truths" are indisputable.
If they only knew.
It's constantly being rewritt
March 15, 2007 - 01:08 ET by danboIt's constantly being rewritten. I've got an audio book on Krakatoa. I listen to when I get the change. Basically a history not just of the volcano and the eruption. But also biology and geology and plate techtonics. All the different discoveries all over the world that caused the science books to be rewritten over and over again. Much of it purely by accident. Someone was in the right place at the right time and went. That's strange. What caused that? You know the science books in 20 years won't be the same. Of course, when someone says I have the unrefuteable answer...
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken
the current evidence is overw
March 14, 2007 - 23:08 ET by NL207the current evidence is overwhelmingly in favor? NOT!.
All of these predictions being made by he IPCC and so forth are based on climate models. Not one of these models is correct. Not one of them can correctly regress all intervals for which we have data. Therefore there is no reason to assume the models will predict future climate conditions any more accurately than they have regressed past data.
Incorrect models are also indicative of another fact: The modelers did not have a correct understanding of how the climate system works when they constructed their models. If they had, the models should have been correct results over all intervals with known data. This is akin to a defective trajectory computation by an artillerist. If the artillerist computes incorrectly, the shell falls a some location OTHER than the target.
This brings me back to the scientific method and the fundamental proposition that teh theory of AGW has not met the conditions of the third step: experimental test and confirmation.
Hot air?
March 14, 2007 - 23:22 ET by belag1. "Not one of these models is correct."
Care to give a source?
2. "This brings me back to the scientific method and the fundamental
proposition that teh theory of AGW has not met the conditions of the
third step: experimental test and confirmation."
Experimental test and confirmation? Indeed, there have been tons of experiments. Just the last link you gave, about the Vostok ice core data. Experiment. And confirmation that CO2 influenced climate in a major way.
1. No. This time you put up
March 14, 2007 - 23:50 ET by NL2071. No. This time you put up or shut up. Show me a model that has been validated over the entire range of known data. Even 1. I said there weren't any.
2. Please show me the control experiments that were constructed to validate the results of the variable tests.
Replies
March 15, 2007 - 08:45 ET by belag1. Ok, you refuse to give any source for your claim that they are wrong. Fine, I'll give you a source for mine. I mentioned in my previous posts about the temperature variations in the 20th century. I said the models adequately explain all the temperature variations in the 20th centure. I gave a link to the IPCC report.
Don't like the IPCC report? Look at the AGU report, which I also gave.
The reports also contain details on the time history and how the models behave.
As I said, they need not be 100% correct. Climate is a complex thing. There still are things we don't know about it. However, according to the reports, there's sufficient evidence to justify confidence about the models.
2. Controlled experiments? I'm not sure exactly what you mean. You cannot have laboratory experiments in climate.
As I mentioned, weather balloon data, satellite data they all are verification of the theory and the models. Refer to the AGU report I mentioned earlier.
Oh, but you can have controll
March 15, 2007 - 09:50 ET by danboOh, but you can have controlled experiments that can give you snapshots of climate. Especially in a few key issues here.
You control the variables. Alter just one. Determine if that 1 does or does not effect the system. How much.
NL maybe you're found lab/controlled experiments. Maybe, it's where I've looked. But I've turned up empty handed in searching for controlled experiments. I've been quite disappointed in this.
I have a gas analyzer. But only have an O2 sensor. If the analyzer still works and I can find a CO2 sensor that matches it. There are a few experiments I'd like to run myself.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken
Hydro
March 14, 2007 - 09:15 ET by Noel SheppardH,
I wanted to add to my previous reply to you. If you go to your university or benefactor asking for funding to use a collider to prove how a particle decays, are they concerned about the political and financial ramifications, or just the value of what you are trying to prove? As it seems safe to assume the latter, do you believe this is the case for scientists around the country who want to examine an issue surrounding climate change, or is it quite likely the former in this case?
Furthermore, what is a consensus? Does it just consider those with an expressed view and ignore all abstentions? If you had ten scientists in your group, and one supported giving you the funding, while nine abstained, would that be a consensus?
The point here is that nobody is sharing the numbers behind this supposed consensus. How many scientists do you believe exist around the world whose fields of expertise give them a valid opinion on this issue? Could it be ten times the 1,500 the alarmists claim to have in their pockets? Are we including all the meteorologists in this number? Could it therefore be 100 times? Who knows, right?
Beyond this, we know that several folks included in the IPCC panel have distanced themselves from the views expressed in the report, and have claimed that only those whose opinions fit the desired results were asked to participate. Moreover, only the supporting views expressed in writing were included, while those skeptical were deleted.
Is this how you would attain a consensus in determing either funding or the results of your particle decay question? ns
Reply
March 14, 2007 - 10:04 ET by belagI'll reply to your consensus post soon. First we have to have a basic point of agreement. My claim is that nothing in science is 100% certain. That's just the way science works.
Waiting for your reply.
belag
March 14, 2007 - 10:18 ET by Noel Sheppardbelag,
So the existence of gravity isn't a fact? The sun rising in the east and setting in the west isn't a fact? The moon impacting the tides isn't a fact?
Frankly, belag, if this is your contention, and you believe there are no scientific facts, it is worthless to continue this discussion. Adios ns
Reply
March 14, 2007 - 10:28 ET by belagSigh.
Again, I plead you to read my whole post I posted earlier. Give me a chance.
I claimed that theory of gravity, quantum mechanics and relativity are inconsistent with each other.
That's not even controversial. Anybody will tell you that. I can give you hard scientific sources if you wish.
That means that the theories are completely, irrefutably wrong. There's 100% agreement on that.
Why do people continue to believe in an obviously wrong theory? Because it's the best we have. It's a step to understanding the universe. And the theories still make predictions which are useful, important, correct. They helped us build the computers. They put a satellite in space.
100% certainty is an ideal. It can never be attained.
Noel. Last time I looked. No
March 14, 2007 - 11:06 ET by danboNoel. Last time I looked. No one can definately say why gravity exists or works. There is talk of a graviton. But as far as I know it's never been seen or proven.
Climate changes. Been doing so since earth formed.
Your friend has decided what makes it change. The heck with all the other theories and causes.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken
Gravity etc.
March 14, 2007 - 11:29 ET by belag1. I respectfully ask if you've read my post.
I say the quantum mechanics, relativity and gravity are inconsistent. That's not controversial. There's 100% agreement on that.
This means something somewhere is wrong. Yet people continue to use it. Why? I gave the reasons.
2.
"Climate changes. Been doing so since earth formed.
Your friend has decided what makes it change. The heck with all the other theories and causes."
I have never denied that climate has changed in the past. My first post says so. The issue is: is the recent change in climate attributable to humans? And how serious is it?
I'll be happy to hear about the "other" theories about it. Give me evidence.
Yawn."The urge to save h
March 14, 2007 - 11:39 ET by danboYawn.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken
belag...your changing the sub
March 14, 2007 - 11:51 ET by bassndudebelag...your changing the subject with all the quantum mechanics and physics talk. If you wish to discuss the discrepancies in the theories, and they are just that, theories, start a new thread. Personaly, I dont think you have any idea what your talking about. You looked up a few tid bits of information on wiki and tossed them out here. You couldent even decipher the ice core data, evidently. As simple as it is. And now you want us to think you understand anything about the quantum physics field? Good luck.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Changing the subject?
March 14, 2007 - 14:43 ET by belagI am not changing the subject. I was responding to a specific claim by Noel that science is 100% certain.
I gave evidence that in fact the major scientific theories, quantum mechanics, relativity and gravity are in fact inconsistent with each other. They're simply not 100% correct.
I cited a source. Evidently you don't like wikipedia. I only cited it because my statement is utterly uncontroversial. 100% of scientists agree on it.
Another respectable source (a non-technical, easy to read one):
A Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking.
I don't claim to know anything about quantum mechanics. I cite those who do.
belagYou are delving into the
March 14, 2007 - 15:04 ET by bassndudebelag
You are delving into theroies. Scientific theories that are still under investigation to quantify observed results. Theories! The subject here is global warming theory. That theory being that man caused it. The question of CO2 being a greenhouse gas preceding global warming has been put to rest. CO2 increases follow warming. Another point is that the Polar caps on Mars are also "melting" because Mars is undergoing some warming of its own. Cant be man made there, and CO2 abounds on Mars. Always has. Science fact is not fact because of concensus. It is fact because thats the way it is. Undeniable, unrefuteable proof has been observed. That water converts to vapor at 212 degrees F at sea level, is a fact. It has been observed. What is it that makes you so dense you cant understand the diffrence between fact and theroy? That the earth orbits the sun has been observed. That the moon orbits the earth is observed. That black holes distort space and time is a theroy. It has not been, and will not be observed in the near future. That black holes evaporate, is a theory.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Theories and facts
March 14, 2007 - 15:33 ET by belagI will again put forward my thesis. It's not radical. It's mainstream. It's accepted by everybody. It's just the way science is.
Hear me out. Read the whole post.
There are no facts. There are theories. When enough observations agree with a theory, it's commonly accepted as fact. That's basic. That's the scientific method.
I am not a philosopher. I'm not saying anything radical.
To illustrate. How do you know that water boils at 212F? You insert a thermometer in it. The heat causes the element in the thermometer to expand. It shows 212F.
Now, who calibrated the thermometer? Somebody needed to have a theory, make measurements as to how much the element expands per degree rise in temperature.
Elaboration. Water does not always boil at 212F. At low pressures, it boils earlier. At higher pressures, it boils later. That's principle of a pressure cooker.
What are these? These are theories. Why do we believe in them? They explain phenomena and make predictions which we can check.
Changing the subject?
March 14, 2007 - 14:43 ET by belag----------Duplicate--------------
I am not changing the subject. I was responding to a specific claim by Noel that science is 100% certain.
I gave evidence that in fact the major scientific theories, quantum mechanics, relativity and gravity are in fact inconsistent with each other. They're simply not 100% correct.
I cited a source. Evidently you don't like wikipedia. I only cited it because my statement is utterly uncontroversial. 100% of scientists agree on it.
Another respectable source (a non-technical, easy to read one):
A Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking.
I don't claim to know anything about quantum mechanics. I cite those who do.
Noel. Last time I looked. No
March 14, 2007 - 11:06 ET by danboduplicate.
Noel, Not sure if this
March 14, 2007 - 21:24 ET by hydrodynDMNoel,
Not sure if this thread has already died, but I'll respond since you took
the time to.
You will notice that I didn't touch on the whole GW debate in my post to you
- that was on purpose. I really don't have much of an interest in the details
of the topic. I use computer models as part of my research and I know GW guys
do too. That's pretty much all I need to know in terms of how much weight (or
how little weight) to put into their results. Models or models, not reality.
And if you are talking about the behavior of a system (Earth's Atmosphere) over
time scales that can't be checked directly against your models - well, I'm not
gonna go out and start living off the land in a log cabin any time soon.
Double my lack of interest for all the political and financial stuff that
has now rotted its way into what should just be science. Given that, I don't disagree with your comments about those aspects of this debate.
As for the consensus thing - I don't know. Historically, it plays a role in
how scientific theories develop - kinda like growing pains - but in the end, if
the theory is sound, it gets accepted. My angle is more from the science side
than the political. Einstein won his Nobel Price in 1921 for the photoelectric
effect - not relativity. Why? Despite that fact that (special) relativity had
been around for 16 years and had proven itself to a number of big wig
physicists, there still wasn't enough of a scientific consensus to award him a
Nobel for it.
That said, my initial post was just to point out that some of the comments
made by you and others to dismiss belag's views on science - comments presented
as fact - are open to debate. I saw in a later post that you tagged belag as a
philosopher (or philosophy major). I'm not sure if you were guessing or if
belag stated that in one of his posts, but I pretty much pegged him as one (or
at least someone who's read up on that stuff). Given that, his points aren't
obviously false from a philosophical stand point. It's easy to dismiss
philosophers but the fact is, they make arguments that are hard to get around
and they tend to spend more time thinking about what makes science science than
scientists do.
Hydro
March 14, 2007 - 21:46 ET by Noel SheppardH,
Actually, I posted an article here about a month ago concerning a book recently published by a couple of scientists completely debunking the use of computer models to predict future events dealing with nature. As such, I quite appreciate your input.
As for belag and philosophy, it seemed fairly obvious that much of his argument was almost Socratic. :-) Unfortunately, it reminded me too much of the type of you discussion we all used to have in college sitting on bean bags in semi-sober condition. Remember?
With that in mind, I only have those kinds of discussions today in a bar with a martini in my hand. With one kid in college, and another only a few years away, it does seem a tad preposterous to debate the existence of facts in the middle of the day while all your brain cells are running at full speed. :-) ns
Noel, Could you give me tha
March 14, 2007 - 21:57 ET by hydrodynDMNoel,
Could you give me that link or the names of the authors? I'd be interested to know what that argument is about considering that models are just extensions of using formulas for predicting future events - you know, the bread and butter of science. I'd be curious to see where they draw the line between formula and model.
Either way, yes, belag is being the philosophical skeptic, here to challenge our view of the fundamentals. That's cool with me. I don't understand the folks on here who keep calling him a "troll". He's put more effort into his posts than most of the regulars on here do and I think he is sincere - but that's just me. I have a soft spot for philosophical arguments.
And yes, your take on him - the college guys trying to impress each other with their deep thoughts - and they did seem that way at the time - is pretty much dead on.
No offense, belag.
Hydro
March 14, 2007 - 22:02 ET by Noel SheppardHydro,
http://newsbusters.org/node/10940 ns
Noel, Thanks for the link.B
March 14, 2007 - 22:16 ET by hydrodynDMNoel,
Thanks for the link.
By the way, I just caught your other post about how you don't think belag is a troll. I posted my comment on that (above) before I read yours. If the regulars on here think his behavior is trollish - given what seemed to me like some pretty hypocritical criteria - I really have to wonder about how truly open this forum has become to other's views - something I've always liked about this place and something I know others have commented on as a counter to places like DU and Kos.
Hydro
March 14, 2007 - 22:27 ET by Noel SheppardH,
Well, I don't think we've become any less open than we were before. However, because of our continually growing popularity, and the press we've been receiving, troll visits have increased in frequency and duration.
Still, most of them are hit-and-runners. By contrast, belag has been very willing to answer questions and engage. Also, as you stated, he certainly posts well thought out and detailed messages without cutting and pasting. As such, he's putting a lot of effort into this.
With that in mind, there hasn't been a declination in content or format here that should keep you away. I just think some here might be a little sensitive to trolling due to the reasons already stated. So, don't be such a stranger! :-) ns
Noel, I'm pretty much addic
March 14, 2007 - 22:38 ET by hydrodynDMNoel,
I'm pretty much addicted to this place. I don't post very often - generally about science stuff since that's what I know (or at least pretend to) - but I've certainly become used to following the trials and tribulations of the folks here.
Oh, and the posts are good too - keep up the good work :{)
Butting in?
March 15, 2007 - 01:37 ET by belagI'm not sure if I'm butting in, but if you want, just ignore the following. It's just a little explanation.
1. I do know a bit about the philosophy of science and theories. However, I'm not a philosophy major. In fact, my main interests lie in science.
And I again wish to stress the fact, that none of my arguments constitute philosophy or are impractical or anything. They're the basic scientific method.
Philosophy has it's own importance. However, everything I've discussed on this post is science, not philosophy.
2. About computer models. Many of you express skepticism about the use of computer models in theory. Seems some of you have experience.
I guess I want to purse that further, since I want to "convert" you :P. I'm not sure why you think computer models are bogus. I read the newsbuster article you mentioned at that time. As far as I'm concerned I came to very different conclusions about them. If you'd like, I can post my views there.
Also, I may mention, I had a very different reading of this link
To see what I make of it, just look at the last 2 lines of the report, the quotes of the researcher.
By the way, with the "inverted pyramid" style of reporting, I often find it better to read newspapers reports from bottom to top. Amazing what a different perspective you get.
I guess I'm having such different views on plainly the same facts - I don't know anything about the book or the study - points to a deeper cause. We don't have a shared set of common beliefs on which we can agree on. I wonder how meaningful a debate between us can be. However, I'm willing to try.
Belag. Thank you for being ho
March 15, 2007 - 08:36 ET by danboBelag. Thank you for being honest with us. "since I want to "convert" you:P"
Please. Enjoy your religion. Worship and offer sacrifices at its altar.
Spare us the facade of being here to debate. It's not very honest.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken
belag, If you talk ab
March 15, 2007 - 16:14 ET by hydrodynDMbelag,
If you talk about what constitutes proof in science, what constitutes
empirical “fact” and what exactly the so called “scientific method” is, then
yes, you are talking philosophy whether you want to call it that or not.
On my bookshelf, I’m looking at a mammoth book entitled “The Structure of
Scientific Theories”. It deals with the types of topics I mentioned above (plus
a ton of other topics). Guess who the contributors to this book are – people within
the field of the “philosophy of science”.
As for models. I use them in my research so I see their worth and their shortcomings.
First, they are only as good as the theories they are based on and the
decisions made by the guys who create the model. Chances are that for a
sufficiently complicated system, you will have to make simplifications and some
assumptions about how to use the equations associated with those theories –
otherwise your computer runs might take 20 years to go through. Also, there’s
the whole issue of exactly how you solve those equations – there’s never just
one way and all of them involve some level of error since you are generally
taking functions of continuous variables and making them discrete.
And in the end, it ultimately comes down to whether the model fits the
empirical facts – not the other way around - which a lot of people outside of
science don’t get. The clocks of observers moving relative to one another slow
down not because of Relativity – Relativity is a theory that explains the fact
that this happens.
Facts and theories
March 17, 2007 - 23:39 ET by belagAs I mentioned earlier, I cannot see the relevance in debating whether there's a thing as "empirical fact". This is philosophy indeed, I realize now.
"And in the end, it ultimately comes down to whether the model fits the
empirical facts – not the other way around - which a lot of people outside of
science don’t get"
I agree. The only judge of a model is how it correlates with data and how useful its predictions are. The rest of the debate is sort of irrelevant. There's no "truth" apart from the models we have.
Indeed, that's why I insist on giving official sources which document the models and show how they perform.
Please provide proof that t
March 13, 2007 - 15:54 ET by ApacheIPPlease provide proof that there is a consensus among scientists regarding global warming and the significance of man's impact on global warming.
For example, if there are 5,000 scientists on our little blue marble whose field of expetise qualifies them to render an opinion on this issue, and 2,000 of them believe -
a. there is global warming
b. man plays a significant role in global warming
would that be a consensus?
The only way you can say that there is a consensus would be to poll EVERYONE qualified to render an opinion. Has that been done? Is there a site where I can find a list of all the qualified scientists and their opinion?
Simply saying "there is a consensus" does not make it so. Prove it or stop asserting it.
Come on belag, address Al Gor
March 13, 2007 - 16:04 ET by dscottCome on belag, address Al Gore's huge energy consumption. Explain it to me. I'm waiting...
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
Belag, I'll go first. Here
March 13, 2007 - 17:26 ET by ApacheIPBelag, I'll go first.
Here is a list of 2,660 scientists who disagree with the IPCC and Al Gore. They believe, "the effect on the environment is likely to be benign".
http://www.oism.org/...
The 2,660 scientists on that list are Physicists, Geophysicists, Climatologists, Meteorologists, Oceanographers, and Evironmental Scientists.
Here is a list of 5,017 Chemistry, Biochemistry, Biology, and other Life Sciencesscientists that have signed the same petition.
http://www.oism.org/...
There are over 17,000 scientists in total that have signed that petition. The full petition is here - http://www.oism.org/...
I am sure you have a ready list of scientists that you can provide to support your "consensus" assertion.
If not, then I will start asserting that the consensus among scientists is that the science on global warming is far from solved and that the IPCC report is a crock. At least if I make that assertion, (not that I plan to) I will have a long list of names to back it up. I would be more justified in claiming a "consensus" than you are.
But I have no intention of making such a claim because it is pointless. A consensus on a theory proves nothing. I prefer facts and truth to consensus. I still remember when the consensus among scientists was that Albert Einstein's theory of relativity was garbage. The only thing that a consensus proves is that a lot of people hold the same opinion. That's not science.
And you have yet to prove that there is a consensus among scientists, and that said consensus agrees with the IPCC. You can't even meet that low bar.
If you can't provide proof of this consensus, you should stop saying that it exists.
More replies
March 13, 2007 - 17:57 ET by belagThank you for your comments.
First, I have no interest whatsoever in Al Gore. I do not defend him or his policies. I will, therefore ignore all questions about him.
Returning to serious matters.
Noel's Post:
Is consensus in hard science an oxymoron?
You claim that the Earth revolving around the Sun is "fact" not "consensus". Ok, let's see. Firstly, I want to emphasise that my claim is that global warming is scientific consensus. Let's go on.
How did the Earth revolving around the Sun become "fact"? Who says so? Ok, you read it in your science textbook. You heard it on TV. A million other ways.
In fact, it became "fact" because it was a "consensus" for so long and had survived the test of time. Nothing in science, hard or otherwise is certain. There's nothing which prevents the "fact" from being challenged in the future.
Now, why should we accept the "global warming consensus" (assuming there is a consensus for the time being)? The way science works is to have a theory and if the observations match the theory, our confidence in the theory is improved.
So, what's the confidence in the "global warming theory"? Well, I gave ample evidence. I repeat, it's not just the IPCC. Almost every major scientific organization in the world accepts the IPCC report. I'll give more examples later when I respond to ApacheIP.
Next, regarding global cooling. As I mentioned in one of the above posts, (pardon me, I don't know how to link it here), there was no consensus. The World Climate Conference (which I cite) and numerous other scientific organizations concluded that the evidence is not conclusive and we have to get more data. It was mostly a media frenzy.
Notice, I've not used a single media source. They're too unreliable, as everybody knows here.
One more issue, you mention that why didn't we act upon the "consensus" in older times that the Sun revolved around the Earth. I already mentioned part of the answer, it was not a scientific consensus. The church said that this was so, and everyone had to agree or be called a heretic. This was before the Age of Enlightenment as it's called. There's simply no valid comparison.
RJ's post:
Regarding your overlap with Noel, see above.
You're saying "consensus" is "populist" and it isn't valid. Note, I'm not polling the general public and asking them about whether global warming is true. I'm talking about respectable, mainstream, established, whatever adjective you want to put - scientific organizations. I repeat, at the cost of being boring, it's not just the IPCC.
ApacheIP's post:
Interesting scenario. Unfortunately I have no idea how many climatologists there are in the world. If you do know, tell me.
What I do know however, is that serious climatologists publish. Let's look at the published literature.
I cite the magazine, Science.- btw this is also in Wikipedia. However, I'm not asking you to look at Wikipedia. I'm asking you to look at Science.
Science Survey
It surveyed 928 papers in scientific literature on climate change.
"The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement
of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals,
methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus
position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories,
either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt
with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current
anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed
with the consensus position.
Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying
paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is
natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."
This is the definition of c
March 13, 2007 - 18:18 ET by ApacheIPThis is the definition of consensus that you provided -
"a: general agreement : unanimity <the consensus of their opinion, based on reports…from the border — John Hersey> b: the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned <the consensus was to go ahead>2: group solidarity in sentiment and belief"
And in your last post, you wrote -
"Unfortunately I have no idea how many climatologists there are in the world. If you do know, tell me."
You didn't even bother trying to tally or identify the scientists that agree with the position that you are arguing. And you stated that you don't know how many climatologists there are in the world.
Given your own definition of consensus and your previous comment, you admit that you can not prove a consensus. Since you can not prove that there is a consensus of scientists that agree with your position, you should stop claiming/pretending that there is.
Just for the record, I have
March 13, 2007 - 18:27 ET by ApacheIPJust for the record, I have yet to meet the person who can prove that the consensus of scientists support the IPCC's conclusion. And yet that claim is used constantly. Absolutely fascinating. The modern media propaganda machine at its finest. Joseph Goebbels would be proud/jealous. I wonder how the war would have turned out if Goebbels would have had the media of today at his disposal.
you're dense, belag
March 13, 2007 - 18:32 ET by RJGod, you're dense, belag. But, then, most who push ideologies are.
My "populist" comment was obviously pointed at the populist behavior of the scientists, not the general public.
The earth moving around the sun became fact because it was a consensus for so long? What? How silly. How childish.
You're a shallow waste of time. Your responses to the others were just as stupid, but I'll let them respond if they want.
I'm done here. You keep saying you've demonstrated this or that, but you've demonstrated nothing and proven nothing. You ignore salient points, twist meanings, play with definitions, and mouth AGW theory, demanding that it be accepted as fact. When challenged, you duck and weave. You're only pretending to have a logical conversation in order to push your propaganda.
Ellen Goodman, a lib columnist for the Boston Globe created a furor when she equated AGW skeptics with holocaust deniers. She was describing you. You're an idiological "denier", and you have nothing valuable to say.
RJ,I can't for the life of me
March 13, 2007 - 18:48 ET by BlondeRJ,
I can't for the life of me figure out why you all responded to this obvious troll all day. I am getting soooooo over the trolls here.
Perhaps we need to come up with a new form of "troll alert".
On a day like today...there are so many more interesting things to discuss, and I see this one, as well as cjkinsey, tied up alot of thoughtful posters with trollish claptrap and misdirection.
There are only one or two "liberals" here who are worth anyone's time. And we know who they are. And I'm always happy to debate with them. But the rest of these dKos children are becoming seriously annoying.
You're right, Blonde
March 13, 2007 - 18:59 ET by RJYou're right, Blonde. I guess he led us along the garden path. I called him out in my first post, and then proceeded to get sucked in. Ah, well, it's why we debate better than the lefty's.....we get to practice on a variety of Troll styles.
And I did see comrade cj going at it all day....
Speaking of Trolls, ferretman has already dropped in for his daily one-and-done post....he was a little early....probably has a date with a weasel... ;^>
Good one, RJ.A ferret and a w
March 13, 2007 - 19:02 ET by BlondeGood one, RJ.
A ferret and a weasel rolled into one....Frank Burns?
Bonde. I agree. I've checked
March 13, 2007 - 19:40 ET by danboBonde. I agree. I've checked in and scratched my head. Why? He's a troll. Claiming objectivity, he sets up paramaters where everything is no good except where it agrees with him. He's a waste of time.
He's a clone of throatpecker. If not throatpecker himself under an new alter ego. Either way. He's a waste of time.
He wouldn't know science if he tripped on it.
Let's hope he joins his friends on their next trek to the Arctic in winter.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken
Sorry, danbo,A little slow to
March 13, 2007 - 22:57 ET by BlondeSorry, danbo,
A little slow tonite, and a little late....
But I caught your drift.
I hope this little troll freezes off three of his toes, too.
As an object lesson.
"Global Warming"....oops, hobbling, for the rest of one's life...for being STUPID!
That is sooooo funny.
And the perfect punishment for not knowing science, if one tripped over it.
Wishing....
Time for a wake up call, Bela
March 13, 2007 - 20:34 ET by NL207Time for a wake up call, Belag.
Lets chat for a moment about consensus and the Oreskes paper you quote from Science's online version.
There is no such thing as "consensus" in terms of a scientific discussions, there is only correctness. the science is either corect or incorrect. Consensus is a term denoting the presence of politics. It is a political term. All scientific theories ae subject to proof/disproof and conform to the scientific method: Obeserve a Phenomena, Formulate a hypothesis, and construct experiments which are capable of both proving and disproving the hypothesis. he theory of athropogenic global warming has not yet passed stage two of the scientific method, therefore it can hadly be called settled science.
The Oreskes paper is a study in the politicization of Science. The author is herself not a scientist, her paper is not science science, nor would it survive a peer review. Let me explain why: All Scientific papers need to include these two things. The first is some real science. They must demonstrate the researcher adhered to the scientific method: observe, hypothesize, and test. Second, the experimental means must be sufficiently well documented that other researchers in the same field can, following these directions, repeat the experiments and reproduce the results. Which brings us to the Oreskes paper. This critique exists. Effectively, it says the Oreskes methods cannot be used to produce the same results. It means the Oreskes paper is nought but an essay. I have seen numerous libs try to debuk this critique. To my mind they have all failed because they have not been able to disprove its fundamental demonstration that Oreskes' essay cannot be reproduced.
That Science would actually publish such garbage is dissappointing, but then, Science has been mightily taken in by politically correct charlatanism lately. It and its reputation were grealy soiled by its enthusiatic publication of the work of Hu Suk Hwang [embryonic stem cell research] which later proved to be fraudulent and which Science since retracted. They will never have to retract the Oreskes' essay, because it is an essay and not a peer reviewed paper.
Reply
March 14, 2007 - 08:34 ET by belagA quick reply. I'll follow it with a detailed examination of the Benny Peiser critique soon.
You say Oreskes's paper is not science. It's an essay. Sure, I agree. Yes, it's a survey.
You say it's not reproduceable. Why? She cites how she went about doing it. Go to the database. Search the database with the keywords. Include only scientific publications. Divide the paper in the categories she mentioned. Make your own conclusion. That's what Benny Peiser tried to do, although he failed. I'll address it in another post.
Finally I wish to register a protest. It's symbolic. I'm very much unhappy about the links to newspapers, some random pdf files on the web, petitions, unpublished letters to Science on some guy's website.
I ask you, is this a reasonable reply to my citing of major scientific organizations and respectable publications?
In spite of that, I've responded in each and every case. However, the more this sort of thing continues, the harder my job becomes of responding. It's very hard to get official responses to an unpublished letter to Science. I will try my best.
Peiser failed to reproduce Or
March 14, 2007 - 22:04 ET by NL207Peiser failed to reproduce Oreskes search reslts because the ISI Thomson Web of Science database contained a population of papers different from what Oreskes reported.
Nobody who has used Oreskes three word search with the date constraints she specifies in her essay got the same results population that she reports. And this does not even begin to address here subjective evaluation of the returned results. Simply put, there is something wrong with her method. Other researchers following here procedure get a different set of results. period..
You can deliver all the rhetoric you want, but the above fact alone reduces Oreskes paper to worthless.
NL give up. He's running back
March 14, 2007 - 22:59 ET by danboNL give up. He's running back to the same canards. He says he's open to debate or discussion. then tells you everything you have is no good. Has to be peer reviewed. Even if it is. It has to be by someone he accepts. Even though he really doesn't understand peer review.
A while back. You mentioned problems over funding in medicine and the funding for HIV. Well I retired late last year. So my memory goes back farther than the year 2000. Being I'm retired. I can be less careful with my tongue. If you're interested. Remind me to tell you about my experience with raw HIV data and CDC.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken
NL give up. He's running back
March 14, 2007 - 22:59 ET by danboNL give up. He's running back to the same canards. He says he's open to debate or discussion. then tells you everything you have is no good. Has to be peer reviewed. Even if it is. It has to be by someone he accepts. Even though he really doesn't understand peer review.
A while back. You mentioned problems over funding in medicine and the funding for HIV. Well I retired late last year. So my memory goes back farther than the year 2000. Being I'm retired. I can be less careful with my tongue. If you're interested. Remind me to tell you about my experience with raw HIV data and CDC.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken
Same old stuff?
March 14, 2007 - 23:39 ET by belagIndeed I'm stubborn in this matter. Give me a reputable source.
Is this so hard? I mean a source verifiable, respected, transparent.
Oregon petition is not verifiable, not transparent. It's certainly not respected. I already told you my problems with it.
Neither is Peiser's critique. Just read my response to that. I tried to analyse it even though it was not peer-reviewed.
"Even though he really doesn't understand peer review"
Maybe. How do you know I don't? Again, how can I believe you? I mean we have an impasse. Maybe you have an opinion about peer-review. Fine. You have to convince me about it.
More replies
March 13, 2007 - 19:08 ET by belagMore replies to ApacheIP's posts:
First, regarding your last post. I have already stated that I have not used a single media source.
Next, I do indeed say that I don't know how many climatologists there are in the world. However, I have continued in my post. You may read it again if you wish. Climatologists publish. That's their job. Won't you agree that we can get a pretty good idea of the consensus from the published scientific literature? How would you want to "count" the climatologists? When you publish it's reviewed by others in the field, you're criticised, examined.
In short, that's how science is practiced. I don't know how else to say that.
Let me ask you a few questions. How would you define consensus? Do you think that consensus has any meaning? Why? Why not?
I guess the next remark threatens to become acrimonious. What do I think of the Oregon Petition?
Well, let's see. Firstly, I have no way of checking any of the names on the petition. They don't have email addresses, any contacts, anything.
Scientific American did a check:
It tried to find people from a random sample of 30 people. They searched in various databases.
"...Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about
200 climate researchers--a respectable number, though rather a small
fraction of the climatological community."
Next, the site claims: read the peer-reviewed paper on which the petition is based. Ok, was it peer-reviewed? Which journal published it? That's basically the first criterion to judge a paper. If you say a paper is published, you include where it's published. That's basic.
I could go on about it, but it's not really a serious source.
Let me ask you another question. Why do you believe the Oregon petition and not the IPCC and Scientific American? I've given numerous examples of evidence for the IPCC report. I've also shown how weak and misleading the Oregon petition is. Suppose our roles were switched. Would you believe something as weak as the Oregon petition?
You said - "I have alr
March 13, 2007 - 19:42 ET by ApacheIPYou said - "I have already stated that I have not used a single media source."
And? Is there a point to this statement? You laid out the initial ground rules, not me. I was simply following your rules and asking that you do the same.
Next you said - "Won't you agree that we can get a pretty good idea of the consensus from the published scientific literature?"
No, I do not agree with that statement. You are taking the absence of argument and giving it greater significance than it deserves. There are many reasons that some might not bother to disagree, not the least of which would be that they never read the article. You can't assign a value to silence. That's insanity.
I can prove how logically flawed (not to mention full of assumptions) that theory is with two simple questions to you -
What happens if you don't reply to this post? Should I assume that you are in complete agreement with everything in it?
Do you see the flaw in that logic, or should I provide more examples?
And just for the record, if I fail to respond to any of your posts in the future, don't read anything in to it. Maybe I am just busy. Or maybe I have decided that replying to you is pointless. My money is on the latter.
I choose not to argue about the Oregon Petition, and not because I agree with you - I do not agree with you. I just don't feel like it and I don't see the point in it. I am not the one claiming a scientific consensus that agrees with my position. You are the person making that claim. Not me.
Face it, you can't prove a scientific consensus that supports your argument. Stop digging yourself a hole. You can't prove it. Accept it. Move on.
And oh yeah, stop claiming that there is a consensus supporting your position, when there obviously is not.
Apache. I'm not sure if you e
March 13, 2007 - 20:07 ET by danboApache. I'm not sure if you ever read the research done by Oreskes. I have. (She failed my peer revew. I thought it was a fishing expedition.)
Anyway. She kind of brushed aside paleoclimatology. Interestingly, IMHO, these are among the most vocal people arguing against AGW and the idea of a consensus.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken
I am assuming you mean this
March 14, 2007 - 00:27 ET by ApacheIPI am assuming you mean this Naomi Oreskes
I may have heard of her. ;)
Do you think she is the one responsible for originating the whole "consensus" horse pucky?
That's her. The warmers speak
March 14, 2007 - 07:55 ET by danboThat's her.
The warmers speak so much like scientific experts. However, an important aspect of research is the ability to replicate research. If the research is correct someone should basically find the same results. If you don't, then the research is either flawed or just a fluke.
As your link pointed out Benny attempted to replicate her research. Found a different answer. My understanding is that Science was also sitting on a submission by von Storc that they did not print. Studing the same thing as Oreskes but found a conclusion different from her. Then there are all the scientist who have come forward to call it a scam.
Everyone agrees that there's global warming. All those people who don't, don't count. Everyone agrees with us. They took lessons from the Bill Clinton school of definitions. "I did not have sex with that woman." It depends on your definition of the word "is".
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken
I can't understand why she
March 14, 2007 - 00:33 ET by ApacheIPI can't understand why she would fail your peer review. ;)
She didn't pass this guy's peer review either. Allow me to quote -
"... Oreskes entire argument is flawed as the whole ISI data set
includes just 13 abstracts (less than 2%) that explicitly endorse what she has called the 'consensus view.'"
She flunked my peer review. F
March 14, 2007 - 08:11 ET by danboShe flunked my peer review. For at least 2 reasons. Her design, in my opinion was set up to pull specific responses.
Secondly her use of "by implication" as a determinate. In short she decided if a paper agreed with AGW or not. And people who said nothing either way were ruled to agree.
Researchers tend to prove themselves correct. A good researcher sets up a design to minimize researcher bias. Oreskes IMHO violated that rule. Unless an abstract held a statement that "Anthropgenic global warming is horse doo doo". That paper was ruled as part of the consensus.
It's kind of like the IPCC definitions. In one place climate change is ruled as either natural or man made. In another location it's human induced. A study on natural variability caused by the oceans or the sun is admitted in one location. And through the magic of the people who gave us food for oil. These papers are now proof of man made climate change.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken
Oops! Here's another guy w
March 14, 2007 - 00:40 ET by ApacheIPOops! Here's another guy who thinks Naomi is full of crap.
Two basic points
March 14, 2007 - 18:59 ET by belagAs I see it, there are two points
on which many of the last posts have been. I'll try to clarify them
here. I've included an examination of the Benny Peiser critique on
Oreskes. Please, read through the whole post. Tell me exactly what you disagree with.
1. Scientific consensus, theories, facts, scientific method.
My
thesis: There are no facts. There are theories. Every serious theory is
held up to evidence and examined as to how it matches up. If it does
not, it's modified or discarded. If it does, our confidence is
increased. If it does over a long time, it's called a fact. That's the
scientific method.
My thesis is not radical. It's not crazy. I'm no philosopher. This is basic.
Conclusion: There's overwhelming evidence for man-made global warming, as given in many of the above posts.
2. Benny Peiser's critique.
First, let me mention the following. You cite an letter which was not published in Science. It's only present as a sequence of emails on the guy's website. Very credible.
Unfortunately, I cannot get official reactions to unpublished letters in Science. So this is the only place where I don't use official sources. I will try to make my case nonetheless.
Next, let me get the comments from the posters.
Danbo:
"Apache. I'm not sure if you ever read the research done by Oreskes. I
have. (She failed my peer revew. I thought it was a fishing expedition.)"
She failed your peer review? Does it matter? Who are you? And why should I believe you?
Cite me a source other than yourself, I'll consider it.
Regarding paleoclimatology:
"Interestingly, IMHO, these are among the most vocal people arguing against AGW and the idea of a consensus."
"IMHO"
- In your opinion, sure. Do any of the paleoclimate abstracts reject
the consensus position? I'll be glad to hear about it..
Apache's posts:
You give 3 links to show guys that don't agree with Oreskes. Let's examine them.
The first one is a verbatim repeating of Peiser's letter. I can do that too. Did the site examine Peiser's critique?
The second one is Peiser's website. I assume he supports himself.
The third one is a blog. It says nothing
at all about the validity of the study. If I may recall, the study was
for the period 1993-2003. It gives some data from 2005 onwards which
says something about global warming (I haven't checked).
There's one paper there dated 2001, but it says nothing at all about the consensus position.
Next, on to the critique itself.
Unfortunately, as I mentioned. Now comes the time for unofficial source. My source is a pro-AGW blog. Why should you believe my source?
Well, firstly, my sources don't repeat verbatim Peiser's critique, they examine it.
Second,
you can check it yourself. Peiser himself has participated in the
debate. He provides the abstracts which he claims rejects the position.
You can look at them yourself.
On to the letter itself.
Peiser
quite correctly notes that the keywords were not "climate change" but
"global climate change". That was indeed corected in Science later,
although the original article still mentions "climate change".
Next
Peiser claims that the figure 928 provided by Oreskes is wrong and says
the actual figure is 1247. Did he check back with Oreskes? No. He assumes it's wrong.
In
fact, Peiser uses a different data set
in his calculations which
included social sciences, humanities papers. Do you, when looking for
scientific data, look at humanities journals? Oreskes also restricted
her search to "articles" while Peiser used "all document types" which
includes other stuff which is not even peer-reviewed. Here's the link.
Let's continue.
There's
a bit more in the letter, but the next fact I mention casts a serious
doubt over the basic honesty of Peiser. And this is verifiable. You can check it for yourself.
Peiser
participated himself in the discussion at this website and makes
available 34 abstracts he claims reject the consensus. Just look at
them.
Note that this takes into account humanities journals, opinion pieces. Even so.
You
can count differently depending on your interpretation. Some of the
counts of the people on the website (clearly pro-AGW) give maybe 2
abstracts rejecting the consensus. That was an opinion piece by AAPG -
American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which by the way is one
of the very very few organizations which rejects IPCC's report. Do it yourself. Post the relevant abstracts here.
You have to go pretty far out in claiming even a few of the 34 abstracts reject the consensus.
As far as I'm concerned, as ACA puts it - Peiser's critique is bullshit.
Let me get this straight. I h
March 14, 2007 - 19:52 ET by danboLet me get this straight. I have an advanced degree. In grad school though not a research major, because of the demonstrated quality of my research, I was asked by the research society to be a member. I've done research. I've seen good and bad research. And prior to my retirement last year I was a regional representative to one of the states epedemiology work groups. I've seen what happens at the federal level. And what happens when there's federal money around.
But I'm not entitled to an opinion unless I satisfy your inability to assess research without a peer reviewed assessment that you will accept.
Do you know what you can do with that?
Peer review is what the unscientific and charlatans hide behind.
Believe whatever you wish. But don't tell me I don't have a right to a scientific opinion.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken
Hurt feelings
March 14, 2007 - 19:59 ET by belagBelieve me, nothing was further than my intention to offend you personally in any way. You have youre right to your opinion, scientific or otherwise.
However, I'm trying to have a debate. Sure you can voice your opinion. But, my point is, why should I, who holds a diametrically opposite position to you, believe you? You need something other than your frank statement that it's your opinion.
I gave the 2 main reasons she
March 14, 2007 - 20:20 ET by danboI gave the 2 main reasons she flunked my personnal peer review. If you're incapable of looking at her research and assessing these factors that's your issue.
Peer review. A professor at Stanford has research that people born in a certain month are more prone to schizophrenia, bi-polar and depression. It passed peer review. (I believe 6 times.) Then there's that lovely research on cloning in Korea that your "Science" published. Peer reviewed. Though Science tries to pretend they were the one that found it was a fraud. Science did nothing untill they were forced. It was science bloggers who realized something didn't make sense. And kept with it till the truth came out.
Needless to say. I have little respect for peer review.
BTW If you followed the NERC debates last month, you may have realized that one of the paleoclimatologist forced the NERC rep. (a lead IPCC author) to admit that peer review does not prove something is correct. They tried to hide behind peer review when speaking with other scientist.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken
Peer review etc.
March 14, 2007 - 20:37 ET by belag1. Let me discuss your 2 reasons.
a) Her design, in my opinion was set up to pull specific responses.
In your opinion. Hmmm. Need something more concrete.
"Specific responses"? Like what?
b) Secondly her use of "by implication" as a determinate. In short she
decided if a paper agreed with AGW or not. And people who said nothing
either way were ruled to agree.
What would you call "mitigation proposals" - one of the categories? Not endorsing consensus opinion implicitly? Why would anyone specify steps to mitigate a problem if they don't believe the problem exists?
If you notice, she makes no statement on paleoclimate proposals. Since they don't rely on global warming theory and make no comment on that.
2. Your claims of mistakes in peer-reviewed literature.
The Stanford one, I've no source. I cannot check it. The cloning one, I don't know much about it, but I'll accept it for the moment.
I never claimed the peer-review process was perfect. How many of the 928 abstracts that Oreskes analysed do you think were bogus? Should we lose faith in all of peer-review because of one isolated incident?
If you have evidence of widespread mistakes in much of peer-reviewed literature, do tell me.
belag
March 14, 2007 - 20:51 ET by Noel Sheppardbelag,
Just to inject a little levity into the discussion, all of the currently peer-reviewed papers advancing anthropogenic global warming will be determined errant 20 to 30 years from now when the "consensus" view is that we're moving into a mini ice age. :-) ns
I'm laughing
March 14, 2007 - 20:56 ET by belagI hope that was just a little levity and nothing else, since I've already demonstrated that there was no consensus for the "global cooling" of the 70s.
I will agree with you on that
March 14, 2007 - 21:24 ET by danboI will agree with you on that one. I believe you citedScientific American. One of the cooling articles I read back in the 70's was in Scientific American. Telling us glaciation would soon begin again on Mt Washingtion.
Of course there is no consensus on global warming. Except in bad science.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken
Admittedly, authors evaluatin
March 14, 2007 - 21:17 ET by danboSource
She herself admitted she didn't know.
Remember she only read the abstract.
Where is her definition of implicit? How many were explicit? How many Implicit? According yo Peiser: "In fact, the vast majority of abstracts do not mention anthropogenic climate change."
Though the magic of bad research we have all paper magically becoming a consensus.
Oreskes words...
And like it or not. Peer reviewed or not. And it has been peer reviewed by a whole lot of scientist, you have Benny Peiser. Where only 2% explicitly endorse the consesus.
Benny's words here: "Make sure you differentiate between implicit and explicit endorsement." Benny goes farther to provide the abstracts to decide for yourself. Somethin Oreskes does not do.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken
Oreskes
March 14, 2007 - 21:41 ET by belag1. I'd like a source for the Science magazine article that said global cooling was imminent in the 70s. <edit> I actually quoted the World Climate Conference.
2. Yes, she makes no comment on the 25% falling within "methodology" and "paleoclimate". She makes it quite clear. She mentions that they could disagree. However, they did not make it their disagreement in print. You cannot read something if it's not there.
3. Peiser: First, if you've not read my response to Benny Peiser please do it. I give a short summary here. Details in my previous post.
I summarize:
a) Benny Peiser's letter is unpublished anywhere. It was rejected by Science (not on the ground of it being of bad merit). It exists solely on his website.
b) It's very hard for me to get official responses to an unpublished letter in Science. I gave a link to a pro-AGW blog which examines it. Hold your nose for a second and just examine the evidence. Peiser himself participated in the discussion.
c) Peiser's data set is different (as he himself admits) from Oreskes. He claims Oreskes is wrong. In fact, his data set included humanities and social journals together with opinion pieces. That's not the criterion which Oreskes used, with good reason. You don't look at humanities journals if you want scientific opinion.
d) Peiser gives 34 abstracts which he claims disagree with the consensus. Apart from the fact that some of them are opinions, humanities, high school surveys, a very cursory inspection of the abstracts shows his claim to be completely false. Check it for yourself.
4. Implicit or Explicit? I mentioned this to you in the previous post. Let's look at the categories. What do you call "mitigation proposals"? Does someone give steps to mitigate a problem if he doesn't believe the problem exists?
Reply
March 13, 2007 - 20:22 ET by belagReply, if you choose to read it.
My remark about the media was regarding the last post where you claimed that I was influenced by the media frenzy.
Next, I'm really not sure how exactly you judge the opinion of scientists in a field. You look at the published literature. It's basic. If somebody doesn't publish, his views don't matter. It's simple. Publishing is the basic criterion for acceptance of a theory.
Next, I do indeed see a flaw in your logic. I never claimed that all the scientists who don't say anything about global warming agree with global warming. What I say is, out of people who publish on the subject, the majority of the papers agree implicity or explicitly with the global warming theory and the rest don't comment upon it.
Let me finish with a few questions: How do you define scientific consensus? Does it mean anything? How is it formed?
In my opinion, I have tried to demonstrate how there indeed is a scientific consensus (according to my definition). If you don't like my definition, tell me what's wrong with it. Ditto if you don't like my evidence.
In short, that's how science
March 13, 2007 - 20:37 ET by Jack BauerIn short, that's how science is practiced. I don't know how else to say that.
That's garbage. You clearly have no idea about the scientific method. Science has nothing to do with "consensus."
Where do you get these wacky ideas? Only an ignorant buffoon could make such a false statement.
Science can only progress by falsification and refutation. That is by testing hypothesis with the intention of DISPROVING it.
But please, do elucidate on all the laboratory experiments that have taken place in regard to "manmade" so--called global warming.
Reply
March 13, 2007 - 21:06 ET by belagIf you'll allow me to respond.
First a comment: "That's garbage...." "Ignorant buffoon..." - nice way to have a civilized debate. I have refrained from name-calling and I request the same from you.
Let's step back, look at what I say. I say:
"In short, that's how science is practiced. I don't know how else to say that."
Ok, what am I talking about? To see this, let's look at the previous paragraph.
"Next, I do indeed say that I don't know how many climatologists there
are in the world. However, I have continued in my post. You may read it
again if you wish. Climatologists publish. That's their job. Won't you
agree that we can get a pretty good idea of the consensus from the
published scientific literature? How would you want to "count" the
climatologists? When you publish it's reviewed by others in the field,
you're criticised, examined."
I'm saying, the way science is practiced is you come up with a theory, you publish it. People criticize it. And that's the way science works.
You have some other point of view about how science works? How else would you falsify, prove, disprove a theorem without publishing it?
What's I'm saying, is, you can get a pretty good idea of the consensus on a topic by reading the literature. If almost everybody agrees and nobody disagrees, you can safely assume there's a consensus.
Clearly, not 'almost everyone
March 13, 2007 - 22:21 ET by NL207Clearly, not 'almost everyone' agrees.
Scientists disagree about nearly everything to do with AGW. About the only thing they do agree on is that the Earth has warmed about 0.6 degrees C in the last 100 years and that it has been getting generally warmer since 1700.
I will pose this question: The geologic record clearly shows that Earth's climate has varied continuously since the Precambrian. Is the the argument that man is 100% responsible fo the warming observed in he 20th century reasonable?
Reply
March 14, 2007 - 09:26 ET by belagA quick reply to that.
"Clearly, not 'almost everyone' agrees.
Scientists
disagree about nearly everything to do with AGW. About the only thing
they do agree on is that the Earth has warmed about 0.6 degrees C in
the last 100 years and that it has been getting generally warmer since
1700."
May I ask what your source is on claiming that it's the only details on which the scientists agree?
I already quoted what I claim most scientific organizations in the world agree on. It was in my first post. I'll copy paste. This is the position statement of the American Geophysical Union."Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth's climate. These
effects add to natural influences that have been present over Earth's
history. Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences
cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures
observed during the second half of the 20th century.""The unprecedented increases in greenhouse gas concentrations, together
with other human influences on climate over the past century and those
anticipated for the future, constitute a real basis for concern."These are respectable mainstream scientific organizations. These are not given to hyperbole."I will pose this question: The geologic record clearly
shows that Earth's climate has varied continuously since the
Precambrian. Is the the argument that man is 100% responsible fo the
warming observed in he 20th century reasonable?"I don't deny the fact that the Earth's climate has changed in the past. It's in my first post. The issue is: Is the recent climate change attributable to man, and how serious is it?Refer to the above statement by the AGU. I think it's reasonable.
Incoherant gobbledegook.Pleas
March 14, 2007 - 10:14 ET by Jack BauerIncoherant gobbledegook.
Please refer to my explanation above which explains in great detail what constitutes the scientific method.
This would be opposed to your witterings about what YOU mistakenly believe to be "science."
"Incoherant gobbledego
March 14, 2007 - 10:49 ET by belag"Incoherant gobbledegook." - again, I ask you to refrain from name-calling.
"Science can only progress by falsification and refutation. That is by testing hypothesis with the intention of DISPROVING it."
I'm not quite sure how that's at odds with that I say. I say, people publish, other people criticize it. That's how it works.
What's I'm saying about scientific consensus is totally different. I'm saying, there's one indication of how to judge scientific consensus. There are many ways. One of them is, look at the published literature. If almost everybody agrees and very few people disagree in published literature, you can assume there's a consensus.
Jack, First let me say, I'm
March 13, 2007 - 22:55 ET by hydrodynDMJack,
First let me say, I'm not defending belag. However, I wanted to just toss some things out there regarding some of your comments.
First, there have been arguments put forth about what makes a scientific theory a scientific theory that do incorporate ideas of "consensus" - at least as a way of describing the historical development of some theories. So on it's face, the idea of incorporating the idea of consensus in science isn't garbage. Guys like Kuhn have used it.
Second, it's been pointed out that the idea of "falsification" with regard to scientific theories also has its problems. As I mentioned in a post above to Noel, the problem is that empirical evidence usually has a theoretical component to it. So using falsification as a criteria for judging what counts as a scientific theory has a kind of circular problem to it.
Third, if you require lab experiments as a necessary requirement for a sound scientific theory, you'll have to chuck out a lot of astronomy. What experiment can you do that would test a theory about galactic evolution? Their based mostly on models.
I'm not trying to be a jerk in posting this, it's just that ideas of what makes a theory scientific have been debated for a while and, as far as I know, there still isn't an easy answer to it.
Why do you insist on believin
March 13, 2007 - 21:12 ET by NL207Why do you insist on believing the Oregon Petition is "false". Can't you accept there is a huge contingent within the scientific community that believe the science of "global warming" is not a settled matter? Nobody has ever done the poll necessary to debunk the Oregon petition. Scientific American backed away from that for two reasons. (1) Its hard to do because the numbers are so large. (2) the preliminary results found in your link weren't looking promising at all. Far too many of the signers were turning out to be real people with scientific credentials.
The IPCC is a government sponsored body. So is the CIA. Do you believe what the CIA said about WMD in Iraq? I doubt it. So why do you trust this other governmental body when there is all this evidence of undue political influence tainting the results of their work, in partuicular, titling the Policymaker's Sumary of he actual report.
Reply
March 13, 2007 - 22:19 ET by belagIf I may respond.
I insist on believing the Oregon petition is false precisely because of the reasons I qouted. Namely:
1) There's no way I can check it's authenticity. There's no contact information available anywhere.
2) There have been checks, of which scientific american is one, which found that many of the petitioners were not at all climatologists and had nothing to do with the field. Also, they couldn't trace many of them down. Many of them refused seeing or signing the petition. And the site refuses to reveal details on how many it mailed the petition, what critera it used. That's not a transparent, clear petition.
3) The site mentions a "peer-reviewed paper" on which the petition is based. I clearly don't believe it. If it's a peer-reviewed paper, you mention the journal in which it's published. It's basic. They don't mention it. Now, it's hard to find official reaction to something like a petition. National Academy of Sciences responded that the paper is not peer reviewed in any of it's journals nor in any of the other journals it knows of.
Why I believe the IPCC
I mentioned earlier, it's not just the IPCC. Almost every major scientific organization, you name it, Royal society, AGU, NAS, Australian counterpart, the organizations in the Third World, Japan, Europe. They all have supported the report. You can say, everybody have a political axe to grind, then I cannot argue. I also mentioned the findings of the scientific literature. I'll respond the the Benny Peiser critique soon.
Again, I ask you the same question. Suppose you wanted to demonstrate some theory, let's say the Einstein's theory of relativity is supported by a scientific consensus. How would you go about doing it?
belag,I am responding here, t
March 13, 2007 - 22:29 ET by Blondebelag,
I am responding here, to nothing more than your annoying presence.
First, and foremost....you shouldn't title your answers here, to anyone, as "reply". That is simply trollish, and stupid. If you care to aim your response at someone in particular...name them in the subject line of your post.
Secondly....if you wish to respond to one particular poster in particular....click the button under that person's post...click "reply". That way, you don't need to enumerate in your responses to whom you are trying to respond. It is perfectly possible to reply to someone here....without looking like a fool.
Finally, why don't you read some of the very fine links that have been spoon-fed ( yes...I said that...spoon fed) to you here.
Do you not think we've had a zillion warmer idiots troll through these boards before? You've been accorded all kinds of civility....just because you've acted with a bit more civilty than most trolls we encounter.
From what I've read on the board today...you won't have one answer tomorrow. So govern yourself accordingly.
Quit asking trollish questions. Read the links you've been provided. Then come back, if you have any questions.
1. I apologise for not usin
March 14, 2007 - 11:11 ET by belag1. I apologise for not using the "reply" link on the post. I made quite a number of goofs before I discovered it.
2. You claim I've not read the links people have "spoon-fed" me. In fact, if you read any of my posts, that's all I've been doing. I have tried to respond to each and every one of the "links" which people have sent me.
As I noted in the one of my other posts, I'm not happy with this "spoon-feeding" of links. What are these links? Newspaper articles, some random pdf files, a petition on a website, an unpublished letter somewhere. Do they even begin to compare with the sources I give to you?
In spite of this, I've read and responded to each of the links. I don't know what more I can do. If you can show me a few links which I have not responded to, I'll be happy to do so. I haven't yet responded to the Benny Peiser critique. That's the only one I know of.
3. "Do you not think we've had a zillion warmer idiots troll through these boards before?" - Do I have the responsibility of a zillion other idiots? Why do I care about them? If you have no patience with my arguments, stop reading them. The basic condition for debate is listening to the other guy.
What is a climatologist and w
March 13, 2007 - 22:34 ET by NL207What is a climatologist and why do you suppose the scientists who signed the Oregon petition are not climatologists?
Do you know that the vast majority of scientists who claim to be climatologists actually have degrees in other fields?
A reply to RJ
March 13, 2007 - 19:23 ET by belagRJ, I find your comments really perplexing. If you have already decided from the first post that I'm a troll, propagandist, whatever, there's nothing to say. A basic condition of debate is listening to what the other guy is saying. I have faithfully responded to each and every of your points. I can't say the same about you.
However, let's continue about "consensus". You say that the notion that the "consensus" became the "fact" is childish, shallow. All right, you tell me how it is a "fact"? How do you know that the Earth revolves around the sun? Wasn't it a theory in the beginning? Did everyone believe in it a 1000 years ago? How did it change from a "theory" into a "fact"?
Notice that you just say you're childish, troll, whatever. If we can stick to issues this debate might be more relevant.
Regarding your "populist" comment. Sorry, I'm obtuse. Ok, what exactly is "populism" among scientists? Define it please. Is it bad to have a majority of scientists agreeing upon something?
I didn't call you a Troll, belag
March 13, 2007 - 19:49 ET by RJI didn't call you a Troll, belag.
You may think you're clever, but I think you're obvious. To me you come across as a polite, but disingenuous, poster with an ideology to push. Even your last paragraph comes across as slyly disingenuous. If that makes you a Troll, well....
I was up front from the beginning about my opinion of you, but I gave you a try anyway (because you were polite). Unfortunately, you proved me right. As for "responding", even if you respond to some points, it doesn't mean your intent is getting to the truth.
Reply
March 13, 2007 - 20:02 ET by belagReply to RJ:
I'm not quite sure what you expect me to do. If I believe in something, I'll try to push it as much as I can. If we are having a debate, you expect me to push my position don't you? My comment was just, to have a debate, the minimum is listening to the other guy.
The possibility of debate is a change of views. I try to convince others, others try to convince me.
If you want to have a debate, fine I'll continue.
You haven't explained why my idea of a "theory" changing into a "fact" is so outlandish. You also haven't explained your version of how the "Earth revolves around the sun" is a "fact" and how it became so.
Again, I reiterate my last paragraph. What exactly do you mean by populism in science?
Now you're Trolling
March 13, 2007 - 20:14 ET by RJNow you're Trolling.
I told you I'm through.
Reply
March 13, 2007 - 20:26 ET by belagYou're entitled to your opinion I suppose.
I'm not sure what exactly I did to be labelled a troll. I have documented in copious detail the evidence and responded to everyone's points without a single personal attack.
belag - you are one of a kind.
March 13, 2007 - 20:54 ET by acaiguanabelag - you are one of a kind.
After you posted that 'consensus' was the only reason the science community took faith that the earth revolved around the sun, I knew you were a troll.
First, you cannot come here and continue to not engage people as individuals. We are not a group and one post discussing various other people's posts doesn't work. Sorry.
Second, anyone who thinks it was a 'consensus' that Galileo's determination of the nature of the solar system is more than nuts, they are deranged.
Third, science is not astrology. Apparently you would believe it was if there was a 'consensus'.
You are cute. You are clever in a very odd way. But you are silly, inane and irrelevant to any scientific discussion;
I suggest you try to go back to school. Take some math. Take a basic hard science course - say chemistry or physics.
You remind me of arson investigators who are really hacks. Making very serious decisions involving math and chemistry and physics but never having taken a course in any of the subjects.
When you learn from that which you blindly and blunderingly question in the manner you waste other's time here, then we might bother to answer you.
You never addressed one single point I made to you. You blathered on superficially that you sorta kinda didn't understand but you 'believe...'
That my friend is not 'copious detail'.
That my friend is bullshit. Forget the models.
Before you try to answer me again, I strongly suggest you read the entire contents of the link above I have thoughtfully provided to you. It is not from a MSM source. Second, be aware that I won't answer any more of the BS you are spewing.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
Consensus etc.
March 14, 2007 - 12:03 ET by belag1. First, as I mentioned elsewhere, I apologise for not using "reply" link when answering the posts. I'll only say in my defence that they were my first few posts and I was uncomfortable with the system. I'll copy paste my responses to you if you want.
2. You claim that I've not replied to a single comment of yours. In fact, if you see any of my replies to you, that's all I've done. If you can show me a point which I've not addressed, I'll be happy to respond to you.
To illustrate, I've responded to your GCM link, the models link. In fact, I've shown from your own source that your links support my position explicitly (in one case) and in no way disagree with it (in another one).
3. That link about Galileo. It gives Galileo's history, theories, etc. Fine. I'm not sure what to make of it.
I'll attempt to respond. You say Galileo's theory wasn't accepted because it was consensus, but because it was fact? Am I right?
I'll again refer to my earlier post. Galileo's theory was not consensus when it was proposed. That's true. The church held sway and declared him a heretic. I mention this in my post very clearly.
That period was before the Age of Enlightenment, as it's called. The other theory, which was that the Earth was the centre of the universe, was not scientific consensus. The church declared it was true.
So, Galileo's theories came to be accepted only after his death. People made measurements, other events like sailing over the large seas etc. made people realize that the Earth was not the centre of the universe.
Fine.
What makes it a fact? Galileo proposed a theory and it was verified, examined, whatever. When it was shown to be true, people accepted it as a fact.
If you see my post, that's the exact point I make. I say that the acceptance of a theory due to verification with observed data is the thing which makes it a fact. And there's nothing which prevents this "fact" from being challenged in the future.
If I failed to address any point or you wish to debate it, I'll be happy to hear it.
Oh boo-hoo. Who cares what yo
March 13, 2007 - 20:42 ET by Jack BauerOh boo-hoo. Who cares what you believe.
Your belief system is predicated on ignorance about the scientific method. Therefore it is invalid as you have no idea what you are talking about.
Reading your witterings is like taking life lessons from a monkey.
witteringsLove that!
March 13, 2007 - 20:48 ET by dahliatraverswitterings
Love that!
belag
March 13, 2007 - 22:39 ET by misterbillBelag - my uncle sailed eastward out of Maine--he never came back--the consensus of friends, neighbors, etc. was the earth is indeed flat.
Before he left, my uncle told me that most of the family would try to tell me that it took the earth 365 days to revolve around the sun. He said it was hogwash- it only took a day--as witness--he saw the sun every day not once every 365. I think you and I are on the same page here.
PS God bless consensus.
With respect, Belag, I'm go
March 13, 2007 - 20:58 ET by dahliatraversWith respect, Belag, I'm going to need some hard numbers before I go along with "consensus". I went looking for them myself just now - spending a fruitless 45 minutes looking unsuccessfully for the total number of climatologists in either the world or the United States. Can't understand why this information is not readily available.
I would also ask that you respond to the issue of the solution ... or how it is that the proposed solution could possibly work, in that major CO2 contributors (China, India) are exempted from Kyoto. Stipulating for a moment that global warming is manmade, even if the United States bankrupts itself implementing the Kyoto protocols and we revert to caveman days, won't we be sitting in our caves with global warming happening anyway, because China and other countries will have pumped all that CO2 into the atmosphere?
Most of the scientists that b
March 13, 2007 - 21:38 ET by NL207Most of the scientists that belag would call climatologists do not have degrees that say "climatology". That is not a major. They have degrees in Physics, Biology, Geology, Meteorology, etc. etc. For example, the notorious Michael Mann is a Botanist. Ed Wegman is a Statistician. Richard S. Lindzen, the well know contrarian, is a Physicist, Harvard no less. Dr. James E. Hansen, the grandaddy of all climatologists is actually a Physicist.
OH! Thank you.
March 13, 2007 - 22:36 ET by dahliatraversOH! Thank you.
Well it took me awhile for
March 13, 2007 - 22:53 ET by radiofitz34Well it took me awhile for find the last blog. My hat's off to all for some good reading. Yes even Belag.
Something I keep forgetting to mention in this global warming debate is how the earth has the ability to clean itself. We've all experienced a good thunderstorm. Have you noticed how dirty the air seems to be before the storm and how clean the air smells and feels afterwards?
I suppose this can be said for tornadoes too, but it's harder to see the upside in that. It's also true that thunderstorms are rare in some parts of the planet.
My point is that weather patterns are rarely stagnant. The earth within and without is in perpetual motion. We probably only understand about 2/3's of what really happening. Even experts don't know. When is the next huge volcano eruption? When is the next giant earthquake? And what is happening way deep in the oceans? More volcanic activity. I'd say given all that this global warming routine is just a spit in the wind.
Hard numbers
March 14, 2007 - 15:59 ET by belag<edit> This is to dahliatravers
1. First, let's agree on what's consensus. Do you agree with my statement that a statement which is supported by virtually every major scientific organization in the world constitutes a consensus?
If we cannot agree on that, tell me your definition of consensus and I'll respond.
Now, regarding the number of climatologists in the world. Do you know how many teachers are there in the world? How many firemen? How are they any different? Maybe you could find out. But it's not easy as a simple google search.
The way scientists comment on anything is through publication. I've already mentioned the Oreskes result (by the way I'll respond to the Benny Peiser critique soon).
You want hard numbers? How about almost every major scientific organization in the world? How about three-quarters of the published literature in 1993-2003, with the rest not commenting about it?
2. Kyoto. I've been resisting talking about Kyoto for many reasons. First, as I mentioned in the first post, if we cannot even agree about whether there exists a problem and how serious it is, it's useless to talk about solutions.
Next, the sources I quote, make NO mention of policy. They just say, it's a real problem, it's man-made and how serious it is. To talk about whether Kyoto is good or bad would require me to step outside the bounds of the discourse here.
I will address Kyoto in a future post if I can. I can assure you of this, though. There's no intention of converting you into a caveman.
<edit> Btw, unrelated to this, I enjoy PG Wodehouse very much.
You will notice that the very
March 14, 2007 - 07:49 ET by dscottYou will notice that the very talkative belag, who loves to argue every point, has now twice refused to answer my question on Al Gore's huge energy consumption. So at this point I am going to make an assertion: Al Gore does not believe in Man Made Global Warming, his actions are the proof of this.
If Al Gore actually believed his own rhetoric, then he wouldn't be consuming 20 times the electricity of the average American Household (that's on just one of 3 houses), nor would he be hiding behind the fig leaf of carbon credits.
So why should we make any attempt to reduce energy consumption if Al Gore doesn't even make an attempt to do so? Just to put a nice ribbon on this package, let's say you made the effort to save 10% on your electric consumption, so what did it do for the environment? The answer is nothing. Because, it would take 200 average American households just to offset Al Gore's lavish lifestyle (for just one of his houses). Then let's not forget Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Streisand, Brad Pitt and the rest of the rich and famous who tout AGW, all of them have Al's lifestyle as well. For the 15 million wealthy people in this country alone, it would take 3 billion households saving 10% to offset their consumption. The entire concept of saving energy is totally absurd in face of their ravenous energy consumption. You have heard of the expression: stepping over dollars to save pennies?
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
Reply
March 14, 2007 - 09:01 ET by belagA quick reply.
There's a very good reason why I refuse to answer any questions about Al Gore. I have made it very clear in my first post and in numerous posts after that. I'm not interested in Al Gore. He doesn't represent me, my views. I don't defend him. I have no interest in his movie. Whether he consumes more energy than 20 times the national average is of very little concern to me.
What I am interested in, is the very specific question. Is there a scientific consensus regarding the reality of man-made global warming?
I am not talking about solutions. Once we agree on the basic things and how serious they are, we can talk about solutions.
I intended to post this whole discussion on the global warming movie post, but since by the time I wrote the post two more posts had come up regarding global warming and I thought it best to post my discussion on the most recent one at that time.
Reply
March 14, 2007 - 09:07 ET by Jack BauerYou're an idiot.
PROOF: What I am interested in, is the very specific question. Is there a scientific consensus regarding the reality of man-made global warming?
Well, there you have a proble
March 14, 2007 - 11:18 ET by dscottWell, there you have a problem, all problems must come with their solutions or adaptations (if they can't be solved). No problem is independent of it's solution. Why raise the issue of Global Warming and Mankind causing it if you have no intent on solving the problem???? Al Gore is universally acknowledged as representing the AGW movement whether you like it or not.
If you claim it's manmade, then the central issue for you who believe is that man must curb his CO2 output. The fact that Al Gore and the wealthy 15 million people who consume at least 50% of residential energy use in the US isn't a concern to you???? The fact that Al Gore is the problem doesn't phase you???? Hello!!!! Then why have any concern about Global Warming???? What's the point???
Claiming your not going to discuss a solution unless we agree on basic things is a cop out. You already clearly believe in AGW, so what's your solution? And will you sit there while Al Gore and Brad Pitt consume the planet?
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
I'll just publish this to hel
March 14, 2007 - 09:20 ET by Jack BauerI'll just publish this to help all those who know in their guts the Logic Deniers are nuts (belrag, gore, etc)
The most alarming aspect of the so-called “debate” about the inevitable and unremarkable shifts in the earth’s climate in the past few billion years is the Logic Deniers cynical abandonment of the scientific method.
People who claim to be “scientists,” and who you might assume would know better, are actually leading the cartoon mob screaming about consensus, end of debate.
They sound like the mob at ye olde Witch Trials in England. The mob would gather for the traditional pastime of drinking, cavorting and burning a few women at the stake.
No matter what the poor females accused of “witchcraft” did or said proved that they were, in fact, witches. The mob found signs in everything to prove their idiotic ravings. Does that sound familiar?
I’m referencing Sir Karl Popper: the English/Austrian big brain widely recognized as one of the greatest scientific philosophers of the 20th Century.
Now, while I have many problems with his Open Society thesis, so beloved by George Soros and other one world globalizing lefties, his critique of the scientific method seems eminently reasonable, and is accepted everywhere.
You get that point of brilliant clarity?
Science can only be “science” if it is open to refutation or falsification – according to one of the top minds of the twentieth century.
Yet the Logic Deniers and the Global Dumbers have perverted that to say any scientists seeking to refute them should banished to outer darkness.
Yet it is they, the Logic Deniers, who have perverted the progress of science and infused “research” with DOGMA.
It is their minds which are CLOSED to refutation and falsification. It is they who should be attacking their own hypotheses with vigor so as to strengthen their case.
Yet they are not. This is truly a Stalinist level of scary for those who assumed we had left the Dark Ages behind.
All this and so, so much more is out there. They should all cause a reasonable man to pause and say, hang on...
“How does all this support MY theory that it is man who is having the major effect on our apparently small rise in the average global temperature recently. “
But then, we aren’t really dealing with science here. or reasonable people.
No, it’s that old time religion. Plus a grafted on dose of the same old neo-communist/neo-socialist/watermelon politics.
“Green” on the outside. Red through and through.
Thanks for the post Jack, ACA
March 14, 2007 - 10:16 ET by acaiguanaThanks for the post Jack, ACA
This guy is dismissive of scientific method. It was Galileo's 'observations' that certified Copernicus' theories of a heliocentric Universe.
"Galileo's originality as a scientist lay in his method of inquiry. First he reduced problems to a simple set of terms on the basis of everyday experience and common-sense logic. Then he analyzed and resolved them according to simple mathematical descriptions. The success with which he applied this technique to the analysis of motion opened the way for modern mathematical and experimental physics. Issac Newton used one of Galileo's mathematical descriptions, "The Law of Inertia," as the foundation for his "First Law of Motion."
So, the first thing someone who wants to argue science from a basis of ignorance and obtuse disingenuity would be to discard the above in favor of ...
Ta Ta
'Consensus'.
And what argument can be made of consensus without numbers? Since one cannot figure out the rather miniscule number of real 'climate' scientists in the world (or whether they have any value to the discussion at all); then one can always argue the hot air argument that 'I have consensus. You do not."
What the hell?
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
Great post, Jack
March 14, 2007 - 10:32 ET by RJGreat post, Jack (and followed well by aca). You nailed him in every respect.
I called this guy a "denier", too...and that's exactly what he is. Logic has no place when you are preaching DOGMA (as you accurately described his posts).
Of course, he will just keep rolling because he has an AGENDA, not an interest in science or truth.
I'm not going to let this idiot get by with this BS. ACA
March 14, 2007 - 10:44 ET by acaiguanaI'm not going to let this idiot get by with this BS. ACA
"How did the Earth revolving around the Sun become "fact"? Who says so? Ok, you read it in your science textbook. You heard it on TV. A million other ways.
"In fact, it became "fact" because it was a "consensus" for so long and had survived the test of time. Nothing in science, hard or otherwise is certain. There's nothing which prevents the "fact" from being challenged in the future."
Galileo, the philosopher of course, survived 'the test of time.' Nothing in science is certain... 1 + 1 = 3. Of course, why didn't I think of that?
Geez, everyone else must be wrong. Why, I have consensus. The vast majority of well intentioned idiots who have IQs below the number of 60 believe it. So, there.
This is a case of this logic.
1. Everything did not exist before it existed.
2. Everything exists before it does not exist.
3. Everything does not exist before it existed so therefore it does not exist.
QED
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
ACA and JB
March 14, 2007 - 11:14 ET by Noel SheppardACA, Jack, et al,
The reality is that belag is a philosopher, not a scientist. And, like many philosophers, he believes there are no constants, no facts, just consensus views that are always up for debate. That's okay. I've met many in my travels like that. To a certain extent, it's an easier way to live if you believe that there are no constants, and everything can be challenged for its truthfulness and validity.
I on the other hand do believe in facts. I believe that 1 plus 1 does equal 2, and that this is indeed a fact despite a new mathematical premise debating it. I believe gravity is a fact, and that anyone who doesn't is an idiot.
And, I don't need a consensus to base this on. :-) ns
Philosophy, ns, Love of knowledge, right?
March 14, 2007 - 11:20 ET by acaiguanaPhilosophy, ns, Love of knowledge, right?
And where philosophy today goes bad is when it discards knowledge for mental masturbation.
Just my humble opinion.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
If gravity, quantum and relat
March 14, 2007 - 11:30 ET by danboIf gravity, quantum and relativity are in conflict. It can't be that there are problems in the theories. It must be in the reality.
Theories aren't an attempt, often flawed, to help explain the reality. Rather theories are fact based on consensus. Reality must be changed to allign with theory. Kind of like what may be going on in AGW.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken
noel..The reality is that bel
March 14, 2007 - 11:31 ET by Jack Bauernoel..
The reality is that belag is a philosopher, not a scientist.
And yet is is spectacularly unaware of one of the 20th Century's greatest philosophers, Sir Karl Popper.
In 1934 Popper published what many regard as his Magnum Opus The Logic of Scientific Discovery. The famous chemist Wachtershauser said that this is a "gem" and that it liberated him from a sterile accounting view of science. Wachtershauser subsequently went on to develop one of the main theories of the origin of life. Frank Tipler, the famous cosmologist, regards this as the most important book of the 20th century. In one majestic and systematic attack, psychologism, naturalism, inductionism, and logical positivism are swept away and replaced by a set of methodological rules called Falsificationism. Falsificationism is the idea that science advances by unjustified, exaggerated guesses followed by unstinting criticism. Only hypotheses capable of clashing with observation reports are allowed to count as scientific. "Gold is soluble in hydrochloric acid" is scientific (though false); "Some homeopathic medicine does work" is, taken on its own, unscientific (though possibly true). The first is scientific because we can eliminate it if it is false; the second is unscientific because even if it were false we could not get rid of it by confronting it with an observation report that contradicted it. Unfalsifiable theories are like the computer programs with no uninstall option that just clog up the computer's precious storage space. Falsifiable theories, on the other hand, enhance our control over error while expanding the richness of what we can say about the world.
So you are saying that AGW is
March 14, 2007 - 12:11 ET by dscottSo you are saying that AGW is scientific because it can be proven to be false? I'm not sure if I can agree with that perverse logic. That's kind of like saying, we should lie in order to find the truth. Dog gone Austrians are a convoluted bunch. I understand his point though, as soon as someone makes an assertion, it's human nature to either accept it like sheep or rail against it like heresy.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
...
March 14, 2007 - 12:44 ET by Jack Bauer...
So you are saying that AGW is
March 14, 2007 - 12:45 ET by Jack BauerSo you are saying that AGW is scientific because it can be proven to be false?
No scott, that's what Sir Karl Popper proposed in 1934.
I agree with the general logic (not that my agreement makes any difference either way). Bigger brains than me concur that this is the true scientific method by which science progresses.
If you think about it, Popper's logic is dazzling in its brilliance, and is faultless. It is not perverse.
Applying Popper's scientific method to the hypothosis that...
#1. There is an observable rise in the average global temperature of the planet.
#2. There is an observable rise in carbon dioxide produced by industrial methods.
#3. The claimed rise in average global temperature is the product of industrial methods.
Now that is essentially what those who postulate the 'man-made' hypothesis of global warming are claiming with their theory.
Clearly this is a scientific argument because it is open to scientific falsification. Someone who claims global warming is caused by God, would not be a scientific theory.
So I am not denying that there is a genuine scientific basis behind the "GORE" theory.
What I am attacking is the unscientific position of those who have proposed a hypothesis that has already had persuasive fasifications offered, bases on scientific observation.
Instead of welcoming effrots to refute their hypothesis, they are seeking to close down any contrary theories.
It is those actions which are unscientific.
"So I am not denying t
March 14, 2007 - 17:11 ET by belag"So I am not denying that there is a genuine scientific basis behind the "GORE" theory. What I am attacking is the unscientific position of those who have
proposed a hypothesis that has already had persuasive fasifications
offered, bases on scientific observation."
I agree, if there are persuasive falsifications observed, one should doubt the theory.
Let's hear these. Referring to any of the above posts you feel is "persuasive" is ok.
You sound like a used car sal
March 14, 2007 - 18:10 ET by danboYou sound like a used car saleman. The people here have looked at the evidence. Most folks here are not buying your used Pinto.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken
Even without the explosives o
March 14, 2007 - 18:33 ET by danboEven without the explosives on the gas tank.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken
Used car salesman?
March 15, 2007 - 09:40 ET by belagI do indeed sound like a used car salesman. Because people have not respected my basic request. I'm very stubborn about it.
Give me respectable, verifiable, transparent sources. I don't mean newspaper reports. I don't mean some random pdf file. I don't mean some petition on some guy's website.
I have counted the number of such sources in the above posts. I recount here the first page. It goes downhill after that. I will count, by a stretch of standards, the newspaper report about Allegre.
I will summarize the posts to date. Tell me if I'm saying anything wrong.
1. Old cro's post - 3 links, all to newspapers, magazines. Fine. His own source, Newsweek denies his position. I already replied about the non-consensus on the global cooling issue.
2. MikeB's post: 10 links, 9 to newspapers/media outlets, 1 pdf file somewhere. None of the newspaper reports agree with his statement. The 1 pdf file completely agrees with mine.
3. Next 11 posts - 0 sources.
4. ACA's post. 2 links. Reputable sources. Completely supporting my position.
5. Next 2 posts - 0 sources.
6. RJ's post - 1 source. A newspaper. Allegre's position.
Allegre's position is the only anti-AGW report. And he's just one person. The major scientific organizations in France have supported the IPCC report.
7. Next 16 posts - 0 sources.
8. Bassndude post - national climatic data centre website. Good source. Nothing there supporting/opposing anything. He claims, "you can't read"? I can't do his research.
9. Next few comments, I argue with RJ over Allegre. Refer to my comments above.
Count? 3 reputable sources. 2 explicitly agreeing with me. 1 saying nothing at all about anything. If we consider the pdf file (it looks as if it's published somewhere - I haven't checked), that's another in support. 1 report about Allegre. Fine, anti-AGW. Again, refer to my above point.
Decide for yourself.
belag - I asked for your position three times - what is it?
March 15, 2007 - 10:09 ET by acaiguanabelag - I asked for your position three times - what is it?
As far as I can tell your position is as follows:
1. 'Consensus' in science is a valid actionable position from which to make public policy except science is never 100% right and therefore any discussion of 'science' by the public should be totally philosophical in nature and don't confuse me with points of 'fact'.
2. You refuse to accept any sources other than the sources you accept. Except you won't accept any sources so you want to define everything your way and not allow any other ideas or valid sources to be cited that in fact (that nasty nasty word again) might destroy your ignoring 'fact'. Like the Galileo source I cited which sets forth his contribution of modern scientific method, his life as a dissenter, and his incredible belief in mathematics.
As a consequence of this rather useless exercise in avoidance behavior, you refuse to actually address the points of logic or issue statements made by a number of posters.
Except you say, "Completely supported my position." A position you have never once defined to any level of certainty or discussion.
3. You keep saying pdf file (redundent by the way), newspaper, or petitiion - like these mean something to be shunned as a skunk in the kitchen. What is that all about? I think it means you are only going to argue on a shallow college sophomoric philosophical level here.
So, while you seem to want to keep this conversation going with your polite manner; I think you are just full of BS.
Since you can't argue the 'facts' at any level; let me make this philosophical point to you. I do not see enough evidence in the 'herd mentality' approach to Global Warming that would distract me from pursuing my 'life of quiet desparation' enough to want to change my lifestyle, my economic basis for existence, my rudimentary dependence on Oil as an energy source or my reluctance to give a centralized planning body in the guise of GW control over the US economy.
Get it? I don't expect any sort of answer that addresses my post. Let me save you the trouble.
"Well, I defined in my original statment the terms of this debate and no one here has answer my point. And by the way I don't understand models and since I don't I don't take anything you say about them to be valid."
Which means you have nothing to say, I repeat it for your benefit since you have so much trouble figuring out words, meanings and context, nothing to say.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
Sources, consensus and more
March 15, 2007 - 11:38 ET by belagLet me respond.
First my position. Position about exactly what? My position about global warming is that it's real and caused by humans and it's consequences are very serious.
1. Consensus etc. - I mentioned this numerous times. I am not a philosopher. I am not radical. Let me make a statement. Tell me specifically if you disagree with it.
Many of the major theories of science in the 20th century, gravity, quantum mechanics, relativity are not 100% certain. Yet people - I mean the scientists in the field - continue to believe in them.
Do you agree with that or not? Why do you hold global warming theory to a standard higher than the theory of gravity and state that you'll not accept it till it's 100% proved?
2. You say that I don't accept your sources. I respectfully ask you to read my posts. I have responded to each and every one of your sources - even though I don't consider them to be valid ones.
Regarding your Galileo source. I responded to that. Yes, it documents his life, his love for mathematics, dissent. I am still not sure what exactly your point is. Did I say dissent is bad? How exactly does the site refute any of my arguments?
Regarding "logic". Again, I wish to repeat. I responded to each and every point. If you find I missed anything do let me know.
In short, my claim is: I responded to each and every one of your sources. You just don't like the responses.
3. As I mentioned earlier, I'm not happy with pdf files. In spite of this, I've responded to it. Read the pdf. It says the correlations based on solar activity graphs you see are misleading and based on false handling of data. This is what it says.
When your sources don't agree with me and there are very few - I give arguments to refute them. Refer to my arguments against Peiser and the Oregon petition. I don't reject them out of hand. I give solid arguments. Let's hear the response to my arguments.
4. Regarding policy, herd mentality - If you can quote one place where I say accept the govt.'s interpretation and policy on Kyoto or global warming, I'll end this discussion right here. I have made no mention of policy in any of my posts.
5. I don't understand models. Sure I don't. Do you? Why do you believe they're wrong or right? Why does anybody listen to experts or gurus? I don't mean blind faith. Listen to what they're saying. If it's bullshit, then give me a solid reason other than, oh I know they're bullshit.
Jack, As I pointed ou
March 14, 2007 - 23:12 ET by hydrodynDMJack,
As I pointed out in a previous post to you, Popper's views of falsification are undermined by the fact that most empirical evidence has a theoretical component to it. There are other reasons as well, but that's the basic one.
His views are not universally accepted as what defines a good scientific theory. A lot more thought has been put into it by a ton of people since 1934.
Falsifiability
March 14, 2007 - 15:06 ET by belagA short reply to dscott.
"So you are saying that AGW is scientific because it can be proven to be false?"
It can be proved to be false if there's enough evidence for it. Falsifiability is the main criterion of any scientific theory. Every theory, without exception, can be proved false in the future if there's enough evidence for it. That doesn't mean we should act upon the theory today if there's overwhelming evidence for it.
That doesn't mean we should a
March 14, 2007 - 15:53 ET by dscottThat doesn't mean we should act upon the theory today if there's overwhelming evidence for it.
Which brings us to the point raised by conservatives: So what if the temperature is 0.6 C higher than a 100 years ago? There is no justification to do anything other than to enjoy some more warmth. The Medieval Warming was time of prosperity, abundant harvests, population increased and the oceans were 18 inches higher to boot. And BTW-the polar bears did just fine then too. So why should things be any worse in the future than during the Medieval Warming Period?
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
Action?
March 14, 2007 - 16:20 ET by belagFirst, I wish to protest that you gave no sources to any of your "facts". Is your source the movie "Global Warming Swindle"? Do you believe Al Gore's movie?
Even assuming them to be true. Nobody denies there were many changes in the climate in the past. The issue is, is the current change man-made? And how serious is it?
The answer to the firs question (if you believe my evidence) is yes. And how serious is it?
As mentioned in the AGU report which I mentioned in the first post. "this climate change effects constitute a real cause of concern". There is more, stronger language elsewhere.
It may not be alarming for you to experience a 0.6C higher temperature. But the future consequences will be. That's clear from the overwhelming consensus.
Thanks. It is painful having
March 14, 2007 - 11:08 ET by Jack BauerThanks. It is painful having to even respond to a guy hasn't the minimum foundation to support his assertions, mouthing crap about "peer reviewed articles." So frackin' what.
The difference between science and religion is "certitude."
Religion has certitude because it relies on faith.
Science lacks certitude because progress relies on the greatest minds in human history being proved wrong by those who stand on their shoulders to follow them.
And because one cannot predict the future.
The way Einstein eventually displaced Newton. It was ever thus.
Until today it seems, when apparently you have a vote on what is scientifically correct, and the majority wins.
Hands up all those who think Newton was absolutley correct with his Law of Universal Gravitation; and there's no need for that silly clerk Einstein to bother his head trying to formulate a pointless Geometrical Theory of Gravitation.
Okay -- the Newtons have it. Cease and desist Al baby.
Facts?
March 14, 2007 - 13:36 ET by belagI don't mean to talk down to you. I don't mean to troll.
Here are the basic conditions.
1. Read my full post. Do you deny that relativity, quantum mechanics and theory of gravity are inconsistent? This is completely uncontroversial. 100% of the scientists agree. I won't quote Wikipedia.
Refer to a non-technical introduction to this:
A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking. As respectable as you can get.
I can give you technical sources if you want.
2. You must listen to what I say before ridiculing me.
3. Respond point by point, as I've done whole throughout the debate.
4.
Allow for the possibility of changing your mind. If you've decided from
the beginning that I'm a troll, denier, whatever, stop reading my posts.
I'll continue.
I
responded to Noel's claim that everything in "accepted" science is 100%
correct. I gave evidence, completely uncontroversial, to show that the
major scientific theories are in fact inconsistent with each other.
Does anybody dispute my point?
Fine, I'll continue.
Regarding claims: I have given a verifiable, respectable source for each and every one of my claims.
Let me discuss Jack's post. Count the number of times he's cited a source for his "facts".
Let me continue.
He gives a description for what "scientific method" would be. Fine. Show me where I say disallow refutation, critique, falsification.
Let me continue with his 5 "facts". No source for any of them.
1. Nobody denies that the Earth's climate has changed in the past. The issue is whether the current climate is influenced by humans. And how serious is it? I've written this numerous times in most of my posts.
2. I would like you to cite a source. And what does that have to do with global warming which is taking place today?
3. Again, no source. In fact, there are very good estimates. Mentioned in my posts. Ignored.
4. The sun has massive influence on the climate. No doubt. However, I'd like you to find me a respectable source which claims that the global warming is caused by the sun. I don't mean newspaper reports.
5. Umm. Ok. I won't even comment. You have no faith in any scientist. Nothing I can do. No source for this "fact" either.
belag, I admire your patience and persistence...
March 14, 2007 - 18:06 ET by Joe Bob... and I hope you've gotten through to someone. But I rather doubt it. The vast majority of the commentary here is from the same sort of people who deny the validity of, say, evolution as opposed to crationism.
Having a degree in anthropolo
March 14, 2007 - 18:28 ET by danboHaving a degree in anthropology. I will point out that Darwin was a whee bit off on his mechanics.
But the evolutionist/creationist BS is as cheap a shot as the denial name. As though we can't see the millions who were killed by Hitler in the ovens. We see them. But, we also see the millions who were killed by malaria after the virtual ban on DDT. Something the environmentalist refuse to see.
If the denials name fits anyone, it's the warmers. You deny all the other evidence. And you wish to deny those who disagree with ability to speak about their interpretations. You try to deny then the right to share their observations.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken
Denier?
March 14, 2007 - 22:26 ET by belagTo danbo:
I didn't invoke the creationist/evolutionist bullshit.
I don't deny all other evidence. I've already mentioned, you're entitled to your opinion. However if you want to convince others of something, you have to have something more concrete than just saying "it's my opinion".
That wasn't aimed at you.What
March 14, 2007 - 22:39 ET by danboThat wasn't aimed at you.
What you have is your opinion. You believe the posts you wish to believe. I have a bit of knoweledge on scientific method. I assess and believe the ones that mke sense to me.
I hope you have as nice a day tomorrow as I will.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken
That wasn't aimed at you.What
March 14, 2007 - 22:39 ET by danboThat wasn't aimed at you.
What you have is your opinion. You believe the posts you wish to believe. I have a bit of knoweledge on scientific method. I assess and believe the ones that mke sense to me.
I hope you have as nice a day tomorrow as I will.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken
Listen up dumbo. You may like
March 14, 2007 - 20:06 ET by Jack BauerListen up dumbo.
You may like to play the trick of changing subjects here, but I'm interested in the scientific method.
The vast majority... oh blah blah blah, evolution blah blah, Karl Rove blah blah. Anymore sophomoric comments and cliches you'd like to share wiith us? Grow up why don't you.
Any insight to bring on Karl Popper and how science actually progresses as opposed to what you seem to erroneously think happens.
Anything at all there Bubba? I thought not.
You're an idiot. And thanks f
March 14, 2007 - 19:59 ET by Jack BauerYou're an idiot. And thanks for proving it with every post.
I'd like you to find me a respectable source which claims that the global warming is caused by the sun
Ho ho ho. Hey clearly you're on to something here. The sun obviously causes the earth to cool, you can check that every day. Thanks for that insight.
Holy cow, Jack, is the belag Troll still here?
March 14, 2007 - 20:09 ET by RJHoly cow, Jack, is this Troll still here? He must get paid by the hour, by the word....or he's tag-teaming. ;^>
RJ -- well he is such a mine
March 14, 2007 - 20:15 ET by Jack BauerRJ -- well he is such a mine of useful scientific information!
Such as the Sun doesn't cause the globe to warm!
Amazing observation that, is it not. Who knew?
You'll note that since I demolished him on the actual scientific method of falsification, he has now started parotting some of basic background on Karl Popper. Like he knew about that all along.
The guy is an infantile drone.
Sun causes global warming?
March 14, 2007 - 22:07 ET by belagSuch as the Sun doesn't cause the globe to warm!
You know perfectly well what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about day and night. I'm talking about global warming. I see you've not given a source which supports your statement.
Who's the troll now?
You call me idiot, buffoon, garbage. Then this trollish statement. I haven't responded with anything of the kind.
RJ et al
March 14, 2007 - 20:36 ET by Noel SheppardRJ et al,
For what it's worth, I don't believe belag is a troll. He hasn't used any vulgarity, and hasn't offended anyone. Though I don't agree with his positions, I don't feel that he has been at all abusive in the way he's presented them. Actually, he's gone out of his way to be courteous in order to advance the discussion.
JMHO of course. ns
Disagree, Noel
March 14, 2007 - 20:58 ET by RJSorry Noel, I disagree. Sure he's generally "polite" (I told him that myself), but I think he clearly has an agenda, and it's NOT getting to the truth. It's Trollish to steadfastedly refuse to acknowledge the clear points made by others.....sometimes deliberately misreading them, sometimes pretending to not understand them, etc. He's not as dense as he pretends to be when responding to what we say. It's a game to him.
He's also become elitist and condescending toward various posters on a number of occasions. In one amusing example, when I told him clearly (but not insultingly) that I would no longer converse with him due to his blatantly disingenuous arguments, he became fairly snotty about it, sarcastically pursuing me in several posts, asking the same questions several times.
I could go on with more about his Trollish behavior, but talking to him or about him is truly a waste....ya know?
Gotta go. G'night.
I gotta agree with RJ. To me
March 14, 2007 - 21:41 ET by danboI gotta agree with RJ. To me trollishness is not the language or politeness. There are many people with bad language on manners that are not trolls, I'm sometimes one of them. LOL And when I went over to NERC I was even a little bit of a troll myself. Especially when they tried to silence the sceptics.
IMHO trollisness is agend driven. Done to hack people off. To cause them to be quiet. The attitude of you don't have a right to that opinion. Which has been used to quiet discent by the green agenda. And they want to tell us how to live.
Though I'm not a climate specialist, I do feel I have some knowledge of climate science. And my own scientific credentials. Yet in essence we're being told be quiet. Politely.
Heck Noel he looked like he was getting under your skin.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken
danbo
March 14, 2007 - 21:53 ET by Noel SheppardDB,
No, he wasn't getting under my skin. As I just mentioned to hydro, I just lost interest once it turned into a philosophical discussion about the existence of facts. I think I've grown out of that.
As for him being a troll, I don't know. If we categorize everyone here with an opposing view as a troll, how do we develop a "stable" of non-conservative members? ns
Fact or theory?
March 14, 2007 - 22:15 ET by belagYou say you've lost interest in arguing whether it's fact or theory. Well that's unfortunate.
From my side, I've tried to respond to your very specific claim that till something is 100% fact it's not science. I think I've responded by giving the example of gravity and quantum mechanics. These are two of 20th century's most important theories and they're not 100% certain.
If you want to continue the discussion, let me know.
Regarding, RJ. I don't know what he means by "following" him and provoking him. Examples?
Regarding "pushing an agenda". I mentioned in my first post. My aim in coming here was to have a debate. I am pushing my agenda.
belag, I replied to you abo
March 14, 2007 - 22:27 ET by hydrodynDMbelag,
I replied to you about this topic about 45 min ago. You might have missed it.
Just letting you know.
I understand. But you realize
March 14, 2007 - 22:32 ET by danboI understand. But you realize it is tough to be nice when they throw out the same canards. Over and over again. Rehashing the same talking points from the "How to Talk to a Conservative/Republican/Sceptic" Website. Adnausium. Over and over again. Like a broken record. Which is what's going on here.
I think you saw the emotion in sceptic scientists messages the other day. They've gone through hell. It's getting tough to be nice.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken
A game
March 15, 2007 - 13:45 ET by belagThis is aside from all my other posts, not really relevant, just an interesting experiment.
In one of the posts, RJ said, I'm polite, but I'm still a troll, this is all a game to me.
I think that's an interesting statement, not entirely wrong. I don't mean the troll part. But maybe it is a game to me.
I propose a game or experiment whatever you want to call it. Entirely voluntary, of course.
Here are the conditions.
1. You must allow the possibility of changing your mind. I will accept the same.
2. PM me at least 3 and at most 5 reasons (don't need to be scientific sources - it could be Al Gore, it could be Kyoto, it could be politics) in support or opposition for man-made global warming.
3. I will PM you 3 to 5 reasons myself.
4. I will respond to each of your reasons point by point. You'll respond to mine.
5. If you want, we can have one rebuttal exchange. Of course, if you wish to continue the discussion, sure.
That's it.
I don't want to know whether you've changed your mind or not. I will tell you if I've changed my mind if you want.
I won't publicise your posts.