|
|
|
|
            |
 |
|
|
|
03/10/2007 09:08 AM
|
MJaz
Posts: 93
Joined: 05/07/2006
|
There was a Letter to the Editor of FNP yesterday, and since it, and all of the comments will be lost, I thought I would post this list for posterity. The letter writer was upset that Global Warming theory dissenters are being systematically "stifled" (I believe the word used was "demonized") for daring to disagree with the popular idea of global warming. I posted a list of many Scientists and Experts in the field (ie: NOT politicians or people with an environmental agenda) who are on record as disagreeing with the popular concepts, for a variety of reasons.
I don't necessarily agree with ANY of them, but I think that we MUST allow them to speak as freely as we allow the "agree-ers", and we need to examine the reasons that the media and government officials want to shut them up.
Claude Allègre, French geophysicist, Institute of Geophysics (Paris)
Robert C. Balling, Jr., director of the Office of Climatology and an associate professor of geography at Arizona State University
Chris de Freitas, Associate Professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland
David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma
Richard Lindzen, MIT meteorology professor and member of the National Academy of Sciences:
Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville
Khabibullo Ismailovich Abdusamatov, at Pulkovskaya Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the supervisor of the Astrometria project of the Russian section of the International Space Station
Sallie Baliunas, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Robert M. Carter, researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia
George V. Chilingar, professor of civil and petroleum engineering at the University of Southern California
William M. Gray, professor of atmospheric science and meteorologist, Colorado State University
Zbigniew Jaworowski, chair of the Scientific Council at the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw
David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware
Marcel Leroux, former Professor of Climatology, Université Jean Moulin
Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada
Frederick Seitz, retired, former solid-state physicist, former president of the National Academy of Sciences
Nir Shaviv, astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia
Willie Soon, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center
Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, Professor Emeritus from University of Ottawa
William Kininmonth, former head of Australia's National Climate Centre and former delegate for Australia to the WMO Commission for Climatology
Orrin Pilkey, coastal geologist and emeritus professor at Duke University
Hendrik Tennekes, retired Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute
Edited: 03/10/2007 at 09:09 AM by MJaz
|
|
03/10/2007 10:05 AM
|
Deech56
Posts: 12249
Joined: 07/28/2005
|
quote:
Originally posted by: MJaz
There was a Letter to the Editor of FNP yesterday, and since it, and all of the comments will be lost, I thought I would post this list for posterity. The letter writer was upset that Global Warming theory dissenters are being systematically "stifled" (I believe the word used was "demonized") for daring to disagree with the popular idea of global warming. I posted a list of many Scientists and Experts in the field (ie: NOT politicians or people with an environmental agenda) who are on record as disagreeing with the popular concepts, for a variety of reasons.
I don't necessarily agree with ANY of them, but I think that we MUST allow them to speak as freely as we allow the "agree-ers", and we need to examine the reasons that the media and government officials want to shut them up.
How are they not allowed to speak? Lindzen is a regular on the WSJ editorial page, Gray comes out with his hurricane predictions each year, many of those listed above appeared on a recent British show, The Great Global Warming Swindle, Michaels, Lonborg, Christy and Spencer appeared on the FoxNews program Global Warming: The Debate Continues, etc.
BTW, about that TV program in Britain, Swindled!
-------------------------
The climate system is an angry beast and we are poking it with sticks. - Wallace S. Broecker Nature isn't just the final authority, Nature is the Only authority. - Charles B. Paul Elitist windbag since 2004.
Edited: 03/10/2007 at 10:06 AM by Deech56
|
|
03/10/2007 10:57 AM
|
keough
Posts: 8767
Joined: 02/01/2007
|
I've got to go somewhere this afternoon, but I saw this post and could not resist.
Since RealClimate.org seems to be the site of choice, I thought I'd do a quick search and see just how "objective" this site truly is... Not so good. Here are a few quick examples:
RealClimate Deleted Post
Spin
Blast the Debunkers
Rebuttal Blog
-------------------------
I wasn't born stupid, I had to study. Expelled - No Intelligence Allowed The United States has 5% of the world’s population and 66% of the world’s lawyers.
|
|
03/10/2007 12:23 PM
|
Deech56
Posts: 12249
Joined: 07/28/2005
|
quote:
Originally posted by: keough
I've got to go somewhere this afternoon, but I saw this post and could not resist.
Since RealClimate.org seems to be the site of choice, I thought I'd do a quick search and see just how "objective" this site truly is... Not so good. Here are a few quick examples:
RealClimate Deleted Post
Spin
Blast the Debunkers
Rebuttal Blog
Nice ad hominem (ad bloginum?). RealClimate.org represents the current thinking in climate science; what's wrong with that - they are, after all, active researchers. Would you expect a Biology site to give credence to creationism or an infectious diseases site to accept the argument that the cause of AIDS is lifestyle? RealClimate examines other arguments (and unlike the deniers, will show the data that disproves these arguments) and presents more than one side in controversial topics, such as the study of the effects of global warming on hurricanes. They do moderate their comments, but mostly to keep things civil. Unlike the WSJ Op-Ed page, RealClimate.org actually reflects the published literature (which should be good enough unless you prefer science by think tank and self-published articles).
-------------------------
The climate system is an angry beast and we are poking it with sticks. - Wallace S. Broecker Nature isn't just the final authority, Nature is the Only authority. - Charles B. Paul Elitist windbag since 2004.
Edited: 03/10/2007 at 12:25 PM by Deech56
|
|
03/10/2007 02:42 PM
|
lazarus
Posts: 9296
Joined: 08/12/2005
|
you mustve forgot the rules, keough.
Ad hominem attacks are only ok if they are against Republicans (ala Ann Coulter), not against the good people of RealClimate.
quote:
RealClimate.org represents the current thinking in climate science; what's wrong with that - they are, after all, active researchers.
There is a difference between "correct" and "current thinking". By this logic, tomorrow it could be "Global Cooling". The way it works is anyone who is a "dissenter" is ridiculed for not accepting the science. Of course there is a difference between ridicule and "not allowed to speak".......
-------------------------
"My good friends, for the second time in our history a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time." - Neville Chamberlain...September 30, 1938 Spectemur Agendo - "Let us be judged by our acts." No more rules. We now defer decision making because its too hard and too risky.
|
|
03/10/2007 05:53 PM
|
Deech56
Posts: 12249
Joined: 07/28/2005
|
quote:
Originally posted by: lazarus
you mustve forgot the rules, keough.
Ad hominem attacks are only ok if they are against Republicans (ala Ann Coulter), not against the good people of RealClimate.
quote:
RealClimate.org represents the current thinking in climate science; what's wrong with that - they are, after all, active researchers.
There is a difference between "correct" and "current thinking". By this logic, tomorrow it could be "Global Cooling". The way it works is anyone who is a "dissenter" is ridiculed for not accepting the science. Of course there is a difference between ridicule and "not allowed to speak".......
How does RealClimate.org* ridicule dissenters? BTW, "current thinking" is just another word for state-of-the-art. All sciences are evolving, and more is discovered every year. We can talk about current thinking about evolution, but that doesn't mean that suddenly scientists will accept creationism.
* enviro wackos?
-------------------------
The climate system is an angry beast and we are poking it with sticks. - Wallace S. Broecker Nature isn't just the final authority, Nature is the Only authority. - Charles B. Paul Elitist windbag since 2004.
|
|
03/10/2007 11:17 PM
|
lazarus
Posts: 9296
Joined: 08/12/2005
|
quote:
Originally posted by: Deech56
How does RealClimate.org* ridicule dissenters?
When did i say RealClimate ridiculed dissenters? Isnt this thread about Global Warming Dissenters? I was speaking in general. And yes they are ridiculed.
quote:
BTW, "current thinking" is just another word for state-of-the-art.
Funny, in my business that means its out of date yesterday and gets worse with every new release.
quote:
All sciences are evolving, and more is discovered every year.
If thats the case, why trust the scientists?
quote:
We can talk about current thinking about evolution, but that doesn't mean that suddenly scientists will accept creationism.
No, but the lack of proof for creationism doesnt prove evolution which IMO is the gist of global warming and the science behind it. "Since global warming isnt disproven, we must trust those who believe in it." BS.
-------------------------
"My good friends, for the second time in our history a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time." - Neville Chamberlain...September 30, 1938 Spectemur Agendo - "Let us be judged by our acts." No more rules. We now defer decision making because its too hard and too risky.
|
|
03/11/2007 07:01 AM
|
Deech56
Posts: 12249
Joined: 07/28/2005
|
quote:
Originally posted by: lazarusquote:
Originally posted by: Deech56
All sciences are evolving, and more is discovered every year.
If thats the case, why trust the scientists?
Who else would you trust in scientific matters? Why would you believe the doubters and not the consensus position? Is it all fields of science that you distrust or do you pick and choose?
quote:
No, but the lack of proof for creationism doesnt prove evolution which IMO is the gist of global warming and the science behind it. "Since global warming isnt disproven, we must trust those who believe in it." BS.
There is a great deal of positive evidence for the concept of AGW - much less so for the positions of the doubters. So you don't think that the earth is getting warmer? Actually, global warming has been shown to be occurring. Even the doubters have been forced to admit it. And again, in its strictest sense, "proof" is a mathematical term.
-------------------------
The climate system is an angry beast and we are poking it with sticks. - Wallace S. Broecker Nature isn't just the final authority, Nature is the Only authority. - Charles B. Paul Elitist windbag since 2004.
Edited: 03/11/2007 at 07:11 AM by Deech56
|
|
03/11/2007 09:05 AM
|
keough
Posts: 8767
Joined: 02/01/2007
|
"ad bloginum". Excellent! ROFLOL I thought this might cause a bit of trouble..., but I honestly think it is a valid argument. I did a very simply search, just on "RealClimate", no more words than that, and still found these...
If a site will not allow dissention, even in their blogs, [ not their printed articles ] than I would posit there is problem. If you cannot withstand dissent, then maybe the premise is not strong enough.
quote:
Originally posted by: Deech56
Who else would you trust in scientific matters? Why would you believe the doubters and not the consensus position? Is it all fields of science that you distrust or do you pick and choose?
Because there is an agenda. This has moved well past science. Good ol' Al said it is a "moral issue" now. We are well trained in guilt and this plays right into our "feelings" that we, [ as Americans ] are the cause of all bad in the world. The Soviet Union is gone, so now the environment is our next global enemy - or victim...
quote:
Originally posted by: Deech56
There is a great deal of positive evidence for the concept of AGW - much less so for the positions of the doubters. So you don't think that the earth is getting warmer? Actually, global warming has been shown to be occurring. Even the doubters have been forced to admit it. And again, in its strictest sense, "proof" is a mathematical term.
You know that is not the issue. The issue is who pays? Who is the cause, who must pay, who must totally change their lifestyle, who must accept the guilt, ad infinitum...
-------------------------
I wasn't born stupid, I had to study. Expelled - No Intelligence Allowed The United States has 5% of the world’s population and 66% of the world’s lawyers.
|
|
03/11/2007 01:00 PM
|
keough
Posts: 8767
Joined: 02/01/2007
|
Also, as I have stated in the past, it is to the scientist who depend upon government funding advantage to silence the dissenters, just as it is to the dissenters to put up arguments.
Both sides have a vested interest. Just because someone is a scientist does not mean they have no agenda. They are people as well.
-------------------------
I wasn't born stupid, I had to study. Expelled - No Intelligence Allowed The United States has 5% of the world’s population and 66% of the world’s lawyers.
|
|
03/11/2007 01:36 PM
|
Deech56
Posts: 12249
Joined: 07/28/2005
|
quote:
Originally posted by: keough
"ad bloginum". Excellent! ROFLOL I thought this might cause a bit of trouble..., but I honestly think it is a valid argument. I did a very simply search, just on "RealClimate", no more words than that, and still found these...
If a site will not allow dissention, even in their blogs, [ not their printed articles ] than I would posit there is problem. If you cannot withstand dissent, then maybe the premise is not strong enough.
Glad you liked the little play on words. I just enjoy the stimulating discussion. Fkeough, just because RealClimate.org is moderated does not mean it does not allow dissension. From the comment section from their latest post: # 39
It was a documentary expressing an opinion about the weather, not a speech denying the holocaust. It's worth keeping that in perspective. As a member of the great unwashed, I found it quite interesting. The graph of solar activity certainly seemed a better fit to the temperature graph than the co2 graph was. And people ARE making a lot of money out of the current media "crisis". The documentary contained a much more rational argument than any I've seen in the UK media, or heard from the UK government. People here in Scotland are getting rich by selling the "carbon rights" to trees which are currently 2 inches tall.These are bought by oil companies to justify air travel.
Humanity needs to clean up it's environmental act. But that should be done for it's own sake, not because we're being terrorized into it. It seems very convenient that the west gets to cripple the developing world in the process.
I don't know, I've got an open mind. Can anyone else here say that?
Comment by Dave Pert - 10 Mar 2007 @ 3:03 pm
[...]
# 55
The arrogance of thinking that puny man is changing global climate is only exceeded by the stupidity of believing we can - and must - urgently do something to stop it. Colin is right (comment #47). We need impartial reports by scientists not scare stories. Unfortunately impartial reports don't sell as well as scare stories, and don't produce funding for more research (and more scare stories). It's really all about money, and that's what makes the world go around.
Comment by Max Anacker - 10 Mar 2007 @ 9:38 pm
There are more throughout the comments sections of the various posts, including this one, which is too long to post here.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by: Deech56
Who else would you trust in scientific matters? Why would you believe the doubters and not the consensus position? Is it all fields of science that you distrust or do you pick and choose?
Because there is an agenda. This has moved well past science. Good ol' Al said it is a "moral issue" now. We are well trained in guilt and this plays right into our "feelings" that we, [ as Americans ] are the cause of all bad in the world. The Soviet Union is gone, so now the environment is our next global enemy - or victim...
Huh? I don't get this objection. Are you implying that the scientists who are of the majority opinion have an agenda but the scientists who hold the minority position do not, and are therefore pure and innocent?
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by: Deech56
There is a great deal of positive evidence for the concept of AGW - much less so for the positions of the doubters. So you don't think that the earth is getting warmer? Actually, global warming has been shown to be occurring. Even the doubters have been forced to admit it. And again, in its strictest sense, "proof" is a mathematical term.
You know that is not the issue. The issue is who pays? Who is the cause, who must pay, who must totally change their lifestyle, who must accept the guilt, ad infinitum...
No, the issue in all my arguments is whether anthropogenic global warming is occurring and will get worse. If the answer to the question, "Who pays" is inconvenient, does that mean that the science behind the reality of AGW is not the truth?
-------------------------
The climate system is an angry beast and we are poking it with sticks. - Wallace S. Broecker Nature isn't just the final authority, Nature is the Only authority. - Charles B. Paul Elitist windbag since 2004.
Edited: 03/11/2007 at 01:42 PM by Deech56
|
|
03/11/2007 01:42 PM
|
Deech56
Posts: 12249
Joined: 07/28/2005
|
quote:
Originally posted by: keough
Also, as I have stated in the past, it is to the scientist who depend upon government funding advantage to silence the dissenters, just as it is to the dissenters to put up arguments.
Both sides have a vested interest. Just because someone is a scientist does not mean they have no agenda. They are people as well.
Funny, but the "we need to study it some more" argument is one I usually hear from people who don't believe the science. By saying that a matter is important but not settled, one can more easily lobby for more money. BTW, scientists generally are driven by much more that money - why else go through the 5 or so years of grad school and 3-6 years of post-doc training? That's why I keep telling my kids to go into engineering. Too late for one; still working on the other.
-------------------------
The climate system is an angry beast and we are poking it with sticks. - Wallace S. Broecker Nature isn't just the final authority, Nature is the Only authority. - Charles B. Paul Elitist windbag since 2004.
|
|
03/11/2007 02:03 PM
|
keough
Posts: 8767
Joined: 02/01/2007
|
quote:
Originally posted by: Deech56
Huh? I don't get this objection. Are you implying that the scientists who are of the majority opinion have an agenda but the scientists who hold the minority position do not, and are therefore pure and innocent?
Nope. My point is that both sides have vested interest. What is bothersome to me is, the press "generally" sides with one group and then either states or implies that an opposing group is funded by this or that organization, hence they are not presenting a good case.
quote:
Originally posted by: Deech56
No, the issue in all my arguments is whether anthropogenic global warming is occurring and will get worse. If the answer to the question, "Who pays" is inconvenient, does that mean that the science behind the reality of AGW is not the truth?
LOL. No, I haven't stopped beating my wife - when we play cards I always do my best to beat her... I am not convinced we have proof of cause and effect.
At one point, it was determined that ammonia was a major concern for wastewater disposal into our waterways. To solve it, we required oxygen be introduced to break down the ammonia. This resulted in nitrates and nitrites. Now, we are paying vast amounts to upgrade treatment plants to handle these "pollutants". The result will be nitrogen, an algae producing by-product - even if this is air borne, it will inevitably settle somewhere unless we foot the cost to capture it.
My point in this round about example is, the science showed a problem. The solution showed another problem. We paid for both. Had the science yielded the second problem, the cost may well have been less and the solution better.
Correlative science is difficult at best - people with blue eyes are more likely to commit crime, for example. Hence, determining we are the cause of such a huge event is something I want to be sure of, not just accept a consensus. The cost, ( taking money away from AIDS in Africa, building schools, etc. ) will be burdensome regardless.
quote:
Originally posted by: Deech56
Funny, but the "we need to study it some more" argument is one I usually hear from people who don't believe the science. By saying that a matter is important but not settled, one can more easily lobby for more money. BTW, scientists generally are driven by much more that money - why else go through the 5 or so years of grad school and 3-6 years of post-doc training? That's why I keep telling my kids to go into engineering. Too late for one; still working on the other.
You are stating two generalizations - those who want more study don't believe the science and scientists are generally driven by more than money. I've had my own difficulties with generalizations [ keep tuned, you may see something on that soon... unabashed promotion of my own writing, alert!  ]
In general, that profession does not pay well as civil service doesn't either. But, funding is dependent upon need and hence, government and science "can" have a vested interest in showing a need - regardless if the facts are all in...
[ Edited to fix indentions ]
-------------------------
I wasn't born stupid, I had to study. Expelled - No Intelligence Allowed The United States has 5% of the world’s population and 66% of the world’s lawyers.
Edited: 03/11/2007 at 02:05 PM by keough
|
|
03/11/2007 08:10 PM
|
Deech56
Posts: 12249
Joined: 07/28/2005
|
quote:
Originally posted by: keough
quote:
Originally posted by: Deech56
Huh? I don't get this objection. Are you implying that the scientists who are of the majority opinion have an agenda but the scientists who hold the minority position do not, and are therefore pure and innocent?
Nope. My point is that both sides have vested interest. What is bothersome to me is, the press "generally" sides with one group and then either states or implies that an opposing group is funded by this or that organization, hence they are not presenting a good case.
Actually, until recently the press had a habit of presenting "false balance" that is not seen in articles such as....ah...AIDS. Boykoff and Boykoff "...used statistical tools in a formal content analysis of four 'prestige' newspapers coverage of climate change. They conclude that giving equal attention to opinions of the two disproportionately-sized scientific camps has distorted news accounts about the issue." Source Members of the press are not experts; therefore, in a controversial subject shouldn't they give greater weight to the view that is consistent with professional organizations in that field and such organizations as the National Academy of Sciences?
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by: Deech56
No, the issue in all my arguments is whether anthropogenic global warming is occurring and will get worse. If the answer to the question, "Who pays" is inconvenient, does that mean that the science behind the reality of AGW is not the truth?
LOL. No, I haven't stopped beating my wife - when we play cards I always do my best to beat her... I am not convinced we have proof of cause and effect.
Bada-bing.
quote:
At one point, it was determined that ammonia was a major concern for wastewater disposal into our waterways. To solve it, we required oxygen be introduced to break down the ammonia. This resulted in nitrates and nitrites. Now, we are paying vast amounts to upgrade treatment plants to handle these "pollutants". The result will be nitrogen, an algae producing by-product - even if this is air borne, it will inevitably settle somewhere unless we foot the cost to capture it.
My point in this round about example is, the science showed a problem. The solution showed another problem. We paid for both. Had the science yielded the second problem, the cost may well have been less and the solution better.
So was the science behind the identification of the ammonia problem wrong? Again, I am just pointing out that AGW is a problem; if we were to pump the atmosphere with sulfate aerosols to trigger "global dimming" and ended up with a big-time acid rain problem, that would not mean that the science behind the identification of the problem was faulty. It's just that in trying to solve the problem the Law of Unintended Consequences (man, am I tempted to insert a Saddam reference here) kicked in.
quote:
Correlative science is difficult at best - people with blue eyes are more likely to commit crime, for example. Hence, determining we are the cause of such a huge event is something I want to be sure of, not just accept a consensus.
Except that there is a physical basis behind the science - CO2 absorbs infrared light (traps heat). We have an ongoing experiment that is testing the hypothesis that increasing atmospheric CO2, which is now above what has ever been observed for the last 600,000 years, will cause temperatures to increase. We're just starting to see the beginnings of the increase, but that's still not good enough for some. quote:
The cost, ( taking money away from AIDS in Africa, building schools, etc. ) will be burdensome regardless.
That's the Lonborg theory - but it's not as if we are maxing out on spending money to combat AIDS in Africa, building schools, etc. The problem is that when the effects of global warming kick in (changes in climate causing droughts in some areas, floods in others) the poorest will be affected the most. The problem is that remediation (fighting Mother Nature) is generally more expensive that prevention. And by that time I guess the skeptics will be convinced and we can finally do something about CO2 - we're going to have to pay the piper, but the longer we wait, the more "interest" we will owe.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by: Deech56
Funny, but the "we need to study it some more" argument is one I usually hear from people who don't believe the science. By saying that a matter is important but not settled, one can more easily lobby for more money. BTW, scientists generally are driven by much more that money - why else go through the 5 or so years of grad school and 3-6 years of post-doc training? That's why I keep telling my kids to go into engineering. Too late for one; still working on the other.
You are stating two generalizations - those who want more study don't believe the science and scientists are generally driven by more than money. I've had my own difficulties with generalizations [ keep tuned, you may see something on that soon... unabashed promotion of my own writing, alert! ]
In general, that profession does not pay well as civil service doesn't either. But, funding is dependent upon need and hence, government and science "can" have a vested interest in showing a need - regardless if the facts are all in...
[ Edited to fix indentions ]
Sorry, but as a scientist the cynicism is a bit much for me. I guess it stems from my time in the cancer field hearing people claim that scientists and physicians really don't want to cure cancer because they are getting rich off of other people's suffering. As far as vested interest is concerned, I deal with a lot of science that is industry-funded (I published a bunch of industry-funded papers as well). The view among the journals and organizations is that such funding sources (including government) need to be disclosed so that the "interests" are transparent. Since the skeptics rarely publish in real journals (sorry, OpinionJournal doesn't count) we don't see that same level of transparency.
-------------------------
The climate system is an angry beast and we are poking it with sticks. - Wallace S. Broecker Nature isn't just the final authority, Nature is the Only authority. - Charles B. Paul Elitist windbag since 2004.
|
|
03/11/2007 08:23 PM
|
lazarus
Posts: 9296
Joined: 08/12/2005
|
quote:
Originally posted by: Deech56
Why would you believe the doubters and not the consensus position?
Because I am a natural skeptic. Matter of factly, the doubters agree with me, not the other way around.
quote:
Is it all fields of science that you distrust or do you pick and choose?
I pick and choose. For example, Science that isnt involved in political matters is one (kinda broad, isnt it?). The Science of Global Warming and Climate Change & Politics are wrapped into one, hence the natural distrust. I also dont trust the Science of Stem Cell Research pushed by those who wish government sponsor the research (non-adult stem cells, to be specific) because of the politics (another "well, you never know until you find out" kinda things).
quote:
So you don't think that the earth is getting warmer? Actually, global warming has been shown to be occurring.
IMO, the theory of global warming relies on the idea that the Earth was a static environment for millions of years until humans came along. If it is warming, it is because the Earth is a dynamic place in spite of our efforts.
-------------------------
"My good friends, for the second time in our history a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time." - Neville Chamberlain...September 30, 1938 Spectemur Agendo - "Let us be judged by our acts." No more rules. We now defer decision making because its too hard and too risky.
Edited: 03/11/2007 at 08:29 PM by lazarus
|
|
03/11/2007 08:24 PM
|
lazarus
Posts: 9296
Joined: 08/12/2005
|
quote:
Originally posted by: Deech56
Since the skeptics rarely publish in real journals (sorry, OpinionJournal doesn't count) we don't see that same level of transparency.
Hence proving my point of ridicule. You have to publish in a "real" journal (IE, one of the few chosen ones) for you to be taken seriously. And yes, OpinionJournal is a real journal.
-------------------------
"My good friends, for the second time in our history a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time." - Neville Chamberlain...September 30, 1938 Spectemur Agendo - "Let us be judged by our acts." No more rules. We now defer decision making because its too hard and too risky.
Edited: 03/11/2007 at 08:24 PM by lazarus
|
|
03/11/2007 08:39 PM
|
Deech56
Posts: 12249
Joined: 07/28/2005
|
quote:
Originally posted by: lazarus
quote:
Originally posted by: Deech56
Since the skeptics rarely publish in real journals (sorry, OpinionJournal doesn't count) we don't see that same level of transparency.
Hence proving my point of ridicule. You have to publish in a "real" journal (IE, one of the few chosen ones) for you to be taken seriously. And yes, OpinionJournal is a real journal.
That's ridicule? Someone's got awfully thin skin. OpinionJournal isn't a "real" journal, it's an editorial page; a "real" journal has peer review. Maybe I should have used Reader's Digest* as a source when writing my manuscripts.
* Favorite article from about 1970: "I Am Joe's Man Gland" ('cuz you couldn't use the word "prostate" back then).
-------------------------
The climate system is an angry beast and we are poking it with sticks. - Wallace S. Broecker Nature isn't just the final authority, Nature is the Only authority. - Charles B. Paul Elitist windbag since 2004.
|
|
03/11/2007 08:53 PM
|
lazarus
Posts: 9296
Joined: 08/12/2005
|
quote:
Originally posted by: Deech56
That's ridicule?
yes
quote:
Someone's got awfully thin skin.
since you trust the source,
Ridicule
" derision; mocking or humiliating words or behaviour"
Derision
Its not thick skin. Again, IMO, Global Warming "proponents" do not welcome other opinions. You said so yourself the cynicism is too much for you. If we are to spend trillions of dollars and change our way of life on a theory, I would want to be sure instead of tire of the alternatives.
-------------------------
"My good friends, for the second time in our history a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time." - Neville Chamberlain...September 30, 1938 Spectemur Agendo - "Let us be judged by our acts." No more rules. We now defer decision making because its too hard and too risky.
|
|
03/11/2007 09:41 PM
|
Deech56
Posts: 12249
Joined: 07/28/2005
|
quote:
Originally posted by: lazarus
quote:
Originally posted by: Deech56
Why would you believe the doubters and not the consensus position?
Because I am a natural skeptic.
I hate to tell you, but we scientists are by nature skeptical, but when the evidence is overwhelming we become convinced. quote:
Originally posted by: lazarus
quote:
Is it all fields of science that you distrust or do you pick and choose?
I pick and choose. For example, Science that isnt involved in political matters is one (kinda broad, isnt it?). The Science of Global Warming and Climate Change & Politics are wrapped into one, hence the natural distrust. I also dont trust the Science of Stem Cell Research pushed by those who wish government sponsor the research (non-adult stem cells, to be specific) because of the politics (another "well, you never know until you find out" kinda things).
So evolution? Viral origin of AIDS? Medical research? Ecology? Vaccine research? Politics touches a number of scientific fields.
quote:
quote:
So you don't think that the earth is getting warmer? Actually, global warming has been shown to be occurring.
IMO, the theory of global warming relies on the idea that the Earth was a static environment for millions of years until humans came along. If it is warming, it is because the Earth is a dynamic place in spite of our efforts.
No, the original purpose of climate research was to discover what caused changes in climate before humans came along (or when there were relatively few of us). What caused the ice ages, Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, K/T, P/T events, etc. The science arose when trying to find the causes of various mass extinctions in the past. Find me a climate scientist who does not believe that climate has always been dynamic and that there are natural causes. That's exactly what climatologists have been studying. Besides, you didn't answer the question; you stated, "If it is warming..."
-------------------------
The climate system is an angry beast and we are poking it with sticks. - Wallace S. Broecker Nature isn't just the final authority, Nature is the Only authority. - Charles B. Paul Elitist windbag since 2004.
Edited: 03/11/2007 at 09:44 PM by Deech56
|
|
03/11/2007 09:52 PM
|
Deech56
Posts: 12249
Joined: 07/28/2005
|
quote:
Originally posted by: lazarus
Its not thick skin. Again, IMO, Global Warming "proponents" do not welcome other opinions.
Sure they welcome other opinions; they're skeptical of them; I thought that was a good thing. Those who espouse alternative opinions had better have a good set of data, though. Data trump opinion any time. quote:
You said so yourself the cynicism is too much for you.
I was speaking of the cynicism that we're just in it for the $$, and that in general scientists would sacrifice integrity for more money. quote:
If we are to spend trillions of dollars and change our way of life on a theory, I would want to be sure instead of tire of the alternatives.
Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.
In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.
In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity's effects. But from the law, we derived Einstein's General Theory of Relativity in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time.
The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena.
Source
-------------------------
The climate system is an angry beast and we are poking it with sticks. - Wallace S. Broecker Nature isn't just the final authority, Nature is the Only authority. - Charles B. Paul Elitist windbag since 2004.
Edited: 03/11/2007 at 09:53 PM by Deech56
|
|
FuseTalk Basic Edition - © 1999-2010 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.
|
|
|
Advertisements
|
|
Home | Sitemap | Customer Service | Electronic Edition | Subscribe
Please send comments to webmaster or contact us at 301-662-1177.
Copyright 1997-10 Randall Family, LLC. All rights reserved. Do not duplicate or redistribute in any form.
The Frederick News-Post Privacy Policy. Use of this site indicates your agreement to our Terms of Service.
|
|
new topic
search
help
home
login
