or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Global warming becomes even harder to deny...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Global warming becomes even harder to deny... - Page 5

post #161 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by MaxParrish
Apparently you believe that if a man has no material gain in his advocay, he is morally pure. The motivations of those who build, or farm, or transform nature are obvious: material security, monetary gain, producing wealth.

Politicians and Intellectuals primary desire is not in creating wealth. They strive for power and respect from their fellow men. Like preachers they are moralists - being listened to, being respected, being leaders, being honored, being RIGHT feeds a bottemless pit of need. Their edifice of self-respect is in manipulating men, not things.

Gore has nothing material to gain: his family already made money off of Tobacco and Occidental Petroleum (nothing to lose here) - and his recent new wealth is from Google (a virtual and environmentally free product).

No Gore needs to lead a cause, a cause that expunges his guilt (as he confessed) over Tobacco, etc. He needs to be "a good man" who is believed. He needs to show others (where his money is not affected) their sins. His gain is simple: the satisfaction of being right on policy, and respected by his peers.

He can't afford to be wrong, he's an idealogue.

And what's the harm? How about the cost to peoples well-being? The cost of taking money from paychecks, savings, and investment for their children for a global warming that is not a threat?

Burning money, to save a few MPG, to lower CO2 (which is not dirty), costs money...money is the productivity of men who may want to spend it on something else. Gore does not see that, because he has no problem in enslaving men to his cause - to steal their labor for his "ethics".

I am so happy that you rather save a few bucks than kids from getting Asthma (which costs money) lung cancer (which costs money) heart disease (which costs money) and no there is no doubt that CO2 pollution causes all these. Why don't you sit in your idling Hummer with the garage door closed and enjoy that clean CO2. I'll try tha same with my Prius. CO2 makes for a nice death. You'll just fall asleep and don't wake up. Why don't you take a straw and suck the oil and gas slick off the lakes? Why is it that "green" companies seem to save millions per month by lowering their energy use? Is that bad for the economy.

If you are so into money why would you bring up Gore's sources. You should celebrate him for making money..?
post #162 of 278
fuck it
post #163 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I think you just demonstrated your ignorance for all of us.

Better ignorant than dead
post #164 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by MaxParrish
Nonsense. While you may not care to read junkscience.com, its quite irrelvant to the statements of these scientists...not unless your claiming the website lied

.

Yes, they said that. The problem being that a site like junkscience is in the business of cherry picking selective quotes to give an impression of "controversy" where precious little exists.

Quote:
And if that is your retreat, then look them up in Wikipedia. Ball, Lindzen, Spenser, etc. are all critics of Global Warming hysterics.

The problem here being that innocent little "etc" tagged on to your very short list, which in fact pretty much exhausts the supply of warming denialists. This is a case in point of the technique used to foster the idea that the science community is "divided" on the mechanisms and implications of global warming, and precisely that used to pretend that "the jury is still out" regarding the mechanisms for evolution.

Quote:
You should also note (in my prior links) that "the couple of guys" were invited to make a Presentation to the NAS panel, are peer reviewed in Nature and GSL, and whose methodilogical criticisms were accepted as valid by the panel.

Valid but not particularly devastating to the conclusions of the challenged research, which, again, is supported by dozens of separate, independent studies, and again a typically disingenuous characterization of the record.

Quote:
That two fellows outside of a cloistered 'science' had to point out egregiious mathematical and statistical flaws says more about climate science than it does them - but then again, it was a non-geologist that first proposed Continental Drift and he was ridiculed by their orthodoxy.

More of the usual misdirection-- vague insinuations that "science" is a rigged game and it takes "outsiders" (i.e. people who agree with you) to demonstrate that the emperor has no clothes. In other words, if you can't refute the science very well it's time to question the validity of the entire enterprise-- the part of the cynical right wing attack on objective truth that pisses me off the most, since deprecating the actual mechanisms of science and conflating its techniques with industry driven smear jobs genuinely cripples our ability to plan for and adapt to a changing world.

Here's the deal: all of science has it's debates, axes to grind, internecine squabbles, back and forth and outliers. That's the noise of scientific research, and it's a good thing. It speaks to the process by which science can police itself through peer review, reproducibility, widely accepted standards of methodology, documentation, etc.

But beyond the noise there is such a thing as consensus and broadly accepted working theories. "Broadly accepted" because the theory serves as a framework which does the best job of making sense of the extent data and experimentation. One theory wins out over another because it does a better job of doing this, with what "better" means being very precisely defined.

In most areas of investigation, it's easy to distinguish between the noise and the larger consensus, because the collective nature of scientific research tends to put energy into the successful models.

But in the case of climate research, or evolutionary theory, or the effects of smoking on the human body, something different happens: affected parties pour money into forgrounding the outliers.

Suddenly, a handful of people whose theories didn't pass muster within the normal channels of "doing science" are given access to editorial pages, cable news shows, magazine articles, "contrarian" journals, the halls of Congress, etc. PR firms, media consultants and wholly funded "think tanks" are deployed to make sure that cross linked references create a seeming synergy of "controversy", apparently expanding the original narrow base of sourcing by the simple expedient of citing the article that noted the citation that discussed the discussion that cited the article that interviewed, say, Ball.

At the same time, the inevitable response of "mainstream science" to this skewed publicity (and it frequently is quite cranky-- scientists have this funny thing about seeing poorly substantiated research conducted by people not necessarily within their field of expertise being celebrated by writers who clearly don't have a clue how science works at all, much less what the particular issues at hand are) is immediately characterized as arising from the "fact" that science, itself, is arrogant, "cloistered", terrified of being shown up by straight shooting "outsiders", and willing to bring the full weight of its group-think wrath down on anyone who dares challenge "orthodoxy"-- in other words, a simple projection of how right wing ideology in general, and the Bush administration in particular, actually does work.

The third leg of the tripod is to make much of, in the lay press, the fact that science does not deal in absolutes, that predictive models deal in statistics, mathematical analysis and percentages. This is usually an opportunity for some paleo-conservative member of Congress to look around in disbelief as he sputters "You mean to tell me that you can't even say for sure that any of this is really going to happen? Well, I don't know about any of you, ladies and gentlemen, but before I regulate industry/change policy/write textbooks I'd like to have a little more evidence than that!"

Put it all together and you get, as MaxParrish has been peddling, the same old narrative of heavily quoted contrarians who can't get a fair hearing because high falutin' old "science" is so riddled with speculative jive that it would simply collapse under the weight of its own pretension, if folks like you and me were allowed to assail its heavily fortified ramparts. At the very least, the thing is so confusing and convoluted and wracked by "he said/she said" that there's no way to really know anything and we'd best stick with the status quo.

As a framing strategy to deprecate science that "gores" the wrong ox this narrative has proven very effective.

I have to say, though, that the people who are smart enough to know better but want to run with this stuff for ideological reasons should be ashamed of themselves, because they're playing fast and loose with a blunt weapon that does the kind of collateral damage we can ill afford if we are to solve the problems that face us in the 21st century.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #165 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by MaxParrish
I've seen better manipulated Soviet Pravda work,

The website you provided kinda reminds me of them. Next up Clintonbodycount?

That guy Lindzen...he's been a consultant for oil and coal interests in the past (to the tune of $2500/day).

He's testified in the Senate courtesy of Western Fuel. He's written speeches in the past...underwritten by OPEC.

A-If the tools and funny websites you keep quoting are wrong and nothing gets done....we're f-ed.

B-If they're right, we'll have a shitload of new cleaner technologies/products that will only benefit us in the long run.

A or B....Hmmm...tough choice.
post #166 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by MaxParrish
Professor Bob Carter, of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia, on Gores film:
Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT:
Roy Spencer, principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville, wrote an open letter to Gore criticizing his presentation of climate science in the film:
Former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball reacted to Gores claim:

It seems that anyone who is a global warming skeptic is immune somehow from all the charges leveled against scientists of using their positions as a gravy train.

The facts say otherwise.

I've already debunked the article you cited in the Canada Free Press as having been written by a paid lobbyist, and Bob Carter as a notorious GW-apologist whose field of study is marine geology, not climatology as the article claimed.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...291#post926291
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...559#post926559

Dr. Tim Ball:
Quote:
In 1996, Dr. Ball left his job at the University of Winnipeg for the more lucrative pursuit of scientific gun-for-hire ("environmental consultant"). It looks like he found a home at the American National Center for Public Policy Research, a Conservative front group supporting whatever initiatives their financial backers want them to endorse. Since 1997, one of their principal mandates has been to fight the environment movement in general and in particular, shoot down any regulation to decrease the emission of greenhouse gasses.

The good doctor is now earning his pay by giving conferences saying all those researchers and heads of state who believe human activity has an impact on climate are dangerous idiots. One can also see his handiwork on the Centre's Envirotruth.org website. And he writes letters to newspapers.

Tim Ball seems to have traded his professional pride - not to mention ethics! - for easy money and an invitation to play with the big boys.

Richard S. Lindzen:
Quote:
Lindzen, for his part, charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled "Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus," was underwritten by OPEC. Singer, who last winter proposed a $95,000 publicity project to "stem the tide towards ever more onerous controls on energy use," has received consulting fees from Exxon, Shell, Unocal, ARCO, and Sun Oil, and has warned them that they face the same threat as the chemical firms that produced chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), a class of chemicals found to be depleting atmospheric ozone. "It took only five years to go from... a simple freeze of production [of CFCs]," Singer has written, ". . . to the 1992 decision of a complete production phase-outall on the basis of quite insubstantial science."

Quote:
Throughout his testimony, Lindzen refers to the global warming 'alarmists'. In my dictionary an 'alarmist' is defined as 'a person who alarms others needlessly'. However, Lindzen appears to define as 'alarmism' anything that links human activities to climate change. For instance, when discussing the statement from the NRC (2001) report (which he co-authored): The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability., he states that "To be sure, this statement is leaning over backwards to encourage the alarmists". To my mind, this statement is actually a fair assessment of both the NRC report, and IPCC report to which it was referring. To claim that this is 'alarmist' is such a gross overuse of the term as to make it useless except as a rhetorical device.

Roy Spencer, in his own words:
Quote:
Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years. And finally, despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as "fact," I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism.

Quote:
In one of a trio of new global warming papers in Science, Mears & Wentz (2005) address what they consider to be a large source of uncertainty in our (University of Alabama in Huntsville, "UAH") satellite estimate for global lower tropospheric ("LT") temperature trends since 1979. The satellite measurements come from the Microwave Sounding Units (MSUs) and Advanced Microwave Sounding Units (AMSUs) flying on NOAA's polar orbiting weather satellites. The UAH estimate of the globally averaged trend since 1979 to the present has been +0.09 deg. C/decade, considerably below the surface thermometer estimate that has been hovering around +0.20 deg. C/decade for the same period of record.

While their criticism of the UAH diurnal cycle adjustment method is somewhat speculative, Mears & Wentz were additionally able to demonstrate to us, privately, that there is an error that arises from our implementation of the UAH technique. This very convincing demonstration, which is based upon simple algebra and was discovered too late to make it into their published report, made it obvious to us that the UAH diurnal correction method had a bias that needed to be corrected.

What you've got here, Max, is a small group of people willing to trade their scientific credibility for the gold offered by rich and powerful industry interests. They're not getting paid to do research - they're getting paid to poke holes in research that troubles their masters.
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #167 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by jamac
I am so happy that you rather save a few bucks than kids from getting Asthma (which costs money) lung cancer (which costs money) heart disease (which costs money) and no there is no doubt that CO2 pollution causes all these. Why don't you sit in your idling Hummer with the garage door closed and enjoy that clean CO2. I'll try tha same with my Prius. CO2 makes for a nice death. You'll just fall asleep and don't wake up. Why don't you take a straw and suck the oil and gas slick off the lakes? Why is it that "green" companies seem to save millions per month by lowering their energy use? Is that bad for the economy.

If you are so into money why would you bring up Gore's sources. You should celebrate him for making money..?

I'm so happy I did not attend the same high school you did. CO2 does not cause Asthma, lung cancer, or heart disease. It is an inert by product of combustion - hell, its the bubbles in your soft drink and beer. LOL...

If you sit in your hummer in a closed garage and die from emissions, it will be from carbon Monoxide NOT carbon DIoxide - shhessh everybody knows that. Somebody here needs to take you aside and give you a primer on common knowledge...

As for "green companies" saving millions, then I am sure any company would adopt the same policy IF it made economic sense. If they don't, its cause they can't save enough to make the investment worthwhile.
post #168 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...ming_evidence/

[This article says that BOTH satallite and weather ballon, which agreed with one another, had to be "fixed" to agree with the models...someone see a red flag here?]

http://www.ucsusa.org/

[This is from the far left "unilaterial disarmerment" fellow traveling group of the 60's. Nice to see there still around carping about Bush]

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...NGE1BECPI1.DTL

[A generalist group with a handiful of oceanographers panicing over warming in ocean waters. One even talked to an Eskimo to prove it.]

http://www4.nationalacademies.org/on...sf/web/climate

Gasp, you linked to a group I half respect; the mainstream, half credible group of the NAS. And what do they say:

"Possible Consequences

The U.S. National Assessment of Climate Change Impacts (NACCI) summarizes the potential consequences of climate change. The NACCI concludes that the United States is likely to be able to adapt to most of the climate change impacts on human systems, but these adaptations may come with significant cost for some regions"

What? No 20 foot walls of water sweeping over North America? I thought you were going to find hysterics to back up the/your lurid claims of doom?

Quote:
http://egov.oregon.gov/ENERGY/GBLWRM...al_Intro.shtml
[A useless government agency touting a political initiative to show the voters the Governor of Oregon is on top of this "crisis" - this is the grist of most politics, create a hobegoblin, keep the populic alarmed, and rush into save them from their imaginary up fears]

http://washingtontimes.com/national/...5517-5464r.htm

[Yep Hansen, an old axe grinder that convenes his kitchen cabnet to make a political pronouncement - no wonder his boss is unhappy]

What can I say? No massive disasters forecast? Seems pretty thin Jimbo, nothing here backs up your lurid claims. In fact, the NAS just echos the moderate stance of the IPCC.

Well, I gotta move on to more of your buds stables, lots more manure to shovel out.






]
post #169 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
Yes, they said that. The problem being that a site like junkscience is in the business of cherry picking selective quotes to give an impression of "controversy" where precious little exists.

They did not cherry pick the statements of those scientists, that is what they believe.
Quote:
The problem here being that innocent little "etc" tagged on to your very short list, which in fact pretty much exhausts the supply of warming denialists.

I am not sure how many more you would like, but I readily concede that most (but not all) climatologists and those involved in Atmospheric research believe global warming is at least 50% human forced. On the other hand, a substantial number in related fields, and non-researchers are skeptics AND there are only a score (or so) that are deeply enough involved to make a comprehensive assessment.

You might note that I have never disagreed with global warming theory - however, I do disagree that (given the current politics) it is trustworthy. Until I investigated the M&M controversy I assumed that the science was above the axe-grinders. Its now clear they ARE deeply involved as axe grinders and are very effective in obstructing review. Therefore, they have lost their credability and none should trust them. Perhaps they are right/perhaps not, but as long as they refuse disclosure they are little more than witch-doctors with numbers.
Quote:
Valid but not particularly devastating to the conclusions of the challenged research, which, again, is supported by dozens of separate, independent studies, and again a typically disingenuous characterization of the record.

I don't know of "dozens of studies" - I know of 9 or 10 major studies (4/5 coauthored by Mann)that reconstruct historic tempitures.

That the NAS confirmed M&M's methodilogical criticims and then used "independent" studies that were niether independent nor free of the same errors is a testimony to NAS's unwillingess to name names, it would be too embarrasing - at the same time, they could not let Mann's blunders go on as a routine approach to such construction.

Until those studies are also forced to provide full disclosure, and are open to replication, any appeal to them as supporting Mann's Piltdown study conclusions is just an excercise in using other suspected hoaxs to back up one that has already been discredited.
Quote:
More of the usual misdirection-- vague insinuations that "science" is a rigged game and it takes "outsiders" (i.e. people who agree with you) to demonstrate that the emperor has no clothes. In other words, if you can't refute the science very well it's time to question the validity of the entire enterprise-- the part of the cynical right wing attack on objective truth that pisses me off the most, since deprecating the actual mechanisms of science and conflating its techniques with industry driven smear jobs genuinely cripples our ability to plan for and adapt to a changing world.

Rubbish. The foundational study was already discredited as using biased and flaw methods and data - the jury is in on that. If the emperor wishs to prove he has cloths, he need only drop the obstruction and publish (as they do in economics) ALL DATA, ALL CALCULATIONS, ALL METHODS, AND SOURCE CODE. You know, like the NAS did when they confirmed M&M's statitical study that showed Mann used a PC approached that produced hockey sticks out of white noise. The NAS panel ran its own computations, and confirmed M&M were right (after years of them being savaged by the holy climate science community as wrong) AND the NAS pulished their source code - something the climate modelers won't do.

If these "experts" would scream less, and stop hiding, they could be trusted - till then, they cannot.
Quote:
Here's the deal: all of science has it's debates, axes to grind, internecine squabbles, back and forth and outliers. That's the noise of scientific research, and it's a good thing. It speaks to the process by which science can police itself through peer review, reproducibility, widely accepted standards of methodology, documentation, etc.

EXACTLY my point - when they have a process of real peer review, reproducibility, transparent methodology, candid and clear documentation, and the sharing of data then it is a science. "Trust me" and "I won't share cause you might find a f'up"is not science - it is inexcusable politics that makes it impossible to replicate these model's and its data.

Just what are they afraid of, being wrong?
Quote:
But beyond the noise there is such a thing as consensus and broadly accepted working theories. "Broadly accepted" because the theory serves as a framework which does the best job of making sense of the extent data and experimentation. One theory wins out over another because it does a better job of doing this, with what "better" means being very precisely defined.

A broad consensus that serves to buttress an orthodoxy by dening review to the hetrodox does not deserve to be taken seriously. Now that it has been shown that Mann manipulated the results, what other assurances do we have about his strident associates - why should we believe them?

Openess would be of benefit to all parties. Contrarians are only fueled by secretivness, it is no wonder they get attention. And when they accuse the orthodox with group-think, just what do the orthodox do but say

"Shut up, your not one of us".
"Shut up, you don't know anything"
"Shut up, no we won't share our methods for you to examine. Its only for "us"".

I'm sorry, no wonder Joe six pack doubts this class..the streets teach you to look for grifters.
post #170 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by MaxParrish
http://www4.nationalacademies.org/on...sf/web/climate

Gasp, you linked to a group I half respect; the mainstream, half credible group of the NAS. And what do they say:

"Possible Consequences

The U.S. National Assessment of Climate Change Impacts (NACCI) summarizes the potential consequences of climate change. The NACCI concludes that the United States is likely to be able to adapt to most of the climate change impacts on human systems, but these adaptations may come with significant cost for some regions"

What? No 20 foot walls of water sweeping over North America? I thought you were going to find hysterics to back up the/your lurid claims of doom?



What can I say? No massive disasters forecast? Seems pretty thin Jimbo, nothing here backs up your lurid claims. In fact, the NAS just echos the moderate stance of the IPCC.

Well, I gotta move on to more of your buds stables, lots more manure to shovel out.






]


Selective reading retention :

" but these adaptations may come with significant cost for some regions"

Many guys like you seem to have this problem.

Basically you've said much of nothing here ( other than letting a few insults fly ). For all your feined superiority ( which is another problem that seems to follow hand in hand with only seeing what you want to see ) you seem pretty thin yourself.

We all know what this could lead to in the worst case scenerio. Starvation on a massive scale as lands that were once suitable for growing food become unsuitable and so on.

That's probably what they mean by " Significant cost ".

No Maxo. Just nice quiet deaths over time.

But not to worry. You and I will probably be long gone by the time this happens. Only our decendants will. Probably cursing our names.

But it's a long time off and we'll not be around. So don't worry. I mean after all that's the Bush way isn't?



Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #171 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by MaxParrish
They did not cherry pick the statements of those scientists, that is what they believe.

I am not sure how many more you would like, but I readily concede that most (but not all) climatologists and those involved in Atmospheric research believe global warming is at least 50% human forced. On the other hand, a substantial number in related fields, and non-researchers are skeptics AND there are only a score (or so) that are deeply enough involved to make a comprehensive assessment.

You might note that I have never disagreed with global warming theory - however, I do disagree that (given the current politics) it is trustworthy. Until I investigated the M&M controversy I assumed that the science was above the axe-grinders. Its now clear they ARE deeply involved as axe grinders who are very effective in obstructing review. Therefore, they have lost their credability and none should trust them. Perhaps they are right/perhaps not, but as long as they refuse disclosure they are little more than witch-doctors with numbers.

I don't know of "dozens of studies" - I know of 9 or 10 major studies (4/5 coauthored by Mann)that reconstruct historic tempitures.

That the NAS confirmed M&M's methodilogical criticims and then used "independent" studies that were niether independent nor free of the same errors is a testimony to NAS's unwillingess to name names, it would be too embarrasing - at the same time, they could not let Mann's blunders go on as a routine approach to such construction.

Until those studies are also forced to provide full disclosure, and become open to replication, any appeal to them as confirmation of Mann's Piltdown man's conclusions is just using other suspected hoaxs to back up one already discredited.

Rubbish. The foundational study was already discredited as using biased and flaw methods and data - the jury is in on that. If the emperor wishs to prove he has cloths, he need only drop the obstruction and publish (as they do in economics) ALL DATA, ALL CALCULATIONS, ALL METHODS, AND SOURCE CODE. You know, like the NAS did when they confirmed M&M's statitical study that showed man used a PC approached that produced hockey sticks out of white noise. The NAS panel ran its own computations, confirmed M&M were right (after years of them being savaged by the holy climate science community as wrong) AND the NAS pulished their source code.

If these "experts" would scream less, and stop hiding, they can be trusted - till then, they cannot.


EXACTLY my point - when they have a process of real peer review, reproducibility, transparent methodology, candid and clear documentation, and sharing of data then it is a science. "Trust me" and "I won't share cause you might find a f'up"is not science - it is inexcusable politics that makes it impossible to test each model and its data.

Just what are they afraid of, being wrong?





A broad consensus that serves to buttress an orthodoxy by dening review to the hetrodox does not deserve to be taken seriously. Now that it has been shown that Mann manipulated the results, what other assurances do we have about his strident associates - why should we believe them?

Openess would be of benefit to all parties. Contrarians are only fueled by secretivness, it is no wonder they get attention. And when they accuse the orthodox with group-think, just what do the orthodox do but say

"Shut up, your not one of us".
"Shut up, you don't know anything"
"Shut up, no we won't share our methods for you to examine. Its only for "us"".

I'm sorry, no wonder Joe six pack doubts this class..the streets teach you to look for grifters.


OOOOOOOO!!!!!!!

You sound so tuff!

Let me guess " School of hard knocks "?

Well if Joe six pack could see what happens to his kids as a result he'd probably be after you with a broken beer bottle!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #172 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
[B]Selective reading retention :

" but these adaptations may come with significant cost for some regions"

Many guys like you seem to have this problem.

Selective reading? I'll make it very simple:

"the United States is likely to be able to adapt to most of the climate change impacts on human systems,"

"but these adaptations may come with significant cost for some regions"

Which one is the overarching good news? Which one is the secondary exception of "SOME MAY" have a cost?

Let me demonstrate a reversal:

"All regions of the United States will come with significant costs of adaptation, even so, some regions will not be able to adapt".

I know you wish they had stated my reconstruction, but it does not. Sorry for the good news.
post #173 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by FormerLurker
It seems that anyone who is a global warming skeptic is immune somehow from all the charges leveled against scientists of using their positions as a gravy train.

The facts say otherwise.

Contrary to your perception that climate change skeptics "seem" to be immune from being impugned as dishonest, it is quite the opposite. In fact, expert skeptics were long ago greeted with accusations of selling out to the sinister forces (in this case) the oil industry.

There is nothing new in using this form of smear - I have on my shelf lots of examples dating from the 1930's of Stalinist and Communist techniques of discrediting dissenters and 'turn coats' against the left. The very first accusation from their ranks is not that an excommunicated former communist/socialist intellectual was a fool, or wrong headed, or dim witted BUT that he was being paid by sinister capitalist forces to turn against his comrades and peers.

Today it's not any different, accusations of sinister funding is a staple of left-wing disinformation (e.g. Gore's movie). That someone (like me) is willing to use a similiar counter-tactic (these UCAR funded climate scientists are being paid off) may sting - but it depends on whose ox is gored, no?
Quote:
I've already debunked the article you cited in the Canada Free Press as having been written by a paid lobbyist, and Bob Carter as a notorious GW-apologist whose field of study is marine geology, not climatology as the article claimed.

Well you see, this is an example. Rather than meet an argument head on, you "code-speak" to the choir, not realizing that the dispassionate are not impressed by hobegoblinization of an issue. Who cares that the author is a paid lobbist, what matters is if he quotes a knowledgeable expert.
Quote:
What you've got here, Max, is a small group of people willing to trade their scientific credibility for the gold offered by rich and powerful industry interests. They're not getting paid to do research - they're getting paid to poke holes in research that troubles their masters. [/B]

No kidding, you have proof that they really don't believe what they say and that they are lieing for money?

Can you not accept their are people who disagree with the green shock troops, even to the extent they are willing to undergo the kind of smearing and ridicule your "side" promotes?

Oh well, guess we can't get past the boogyman, can we?
post #174 of 278
Maxy Baby,
This is what we are talking about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide
post #175 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by MaxParrish
They did not cherry pick the statements of those scientists, that is what they believe.

Yes, but they did cherry pick who they cited, which is my point.


Quote:
I am not sure how many more you would like, but I readily concede that most (but not all) climatologists and those involved in Atmospheric research believe global warming is at least 50% human forced. On the other hand, a substantial number in related fields, and non-researchers are skeptics AND there are only a score (or so) that are deeply enough involved to make a comprehensive assessment.

I'm not sure what you're saying-- you agree that most climatologists accept anthropomorphic forcing but that there are more skeptics amongst non-specialists and "non-researchers"(?) and of these only a few are qualified to draw conclusions? That doesn't seem to buttress you position.

Quote:
You might note that I have never disagreed with global warming theory - however, I do disagree that (given the current politics) it is trustworthy. Until I investigated the M&M controversy I assumed that the science was above the axe-grinders. Its now clear they ARE deeply involved as axe grinders and are very effective in obstructing review. Therefore, they have lost their credability and none should trust them. Perhaps they are right/perhaps not, but as long as they refuse disclosure they are little more than witch-doctors with numbers.
I don't know of "dozens of studies" - I know of 9 or 10 major studies (4/5 coauthored by Mann)that reconstruct historic tempitures.

But by focusing on the the Hockey Puck back and forth you fall prey to the artificially created "controversy" that is clearly being fueled by industry backed dissemination (if you doubt it take some time to see who, exactly, is promulgating the notion that this episode represents a refutation of the whole idea of global warming).

By forgrounding difficult to follow discussion about methodology, and paring that with consistent editorial commentary designed to paint Mann as a typically arrogant glass house dweller, there is a deliberate effort to portray the conclusions that Mann's research represents as being highly suspect or even somehow unethical, and his efforts to defend same as heavy handed and evocative of "something to hide". In fact, there is nothing particularly unusual or spurious or underhanded about how this is being played out, save for the fact that his detractors are being given a rather large bullhorn.

I would suggest that there is not a single extant scientific theory or practitioner that could not be made to appear exactly as defensive or "controversial", should some entity elect to fund and disseminate the the caveats of nay-sayers-- and there are always nay-sayers.

Quote:
That the NAS confirmed M&M's methodilogical criticims and then used "independent" studies that were niether independent nor free of the same errors is a testimony to NAS's unwillingess to name names, it would be too embarrasing - at the same time, they could not let Mann's blunders go on as a routine approach to such construction.

Your ascribing nefarious motivations to the NAS without any evidence whatsoever. That's foolish.

Quote:
Until those studies are also forced to provide full disclosure, and are open to replication, any appeal to them as supporting Mann's Piltdown study conclusions is just an excercise in using other suspected hoaxs to back up one that has already been discredited.

And this bit is ridiculous. Using terms like "Piltdown", "hoax" and "discredited" to characterize Mann's research is pure ignorant name calling that has no bearing on the state of climate theory. You do your argument no favors by resorting this kind of cheap theatrics.


Quote:
Rubbish. The foundational study was already discredited as using biased and flaw methods and data - the jury is in on that. If the emperor wishs to prove he has cloths, he need only drop the obstruction and publish (as they do in economics) ALL DATA, ALL CALCULATIONS, ALL METHODS, AND SOURCE CODE. You know, like the NAS did when they confirmed M&M's statitical study that showed Mann used a PC approached that produced hockey sticks out of white noise. The NAS panel ran its own computations, and confirmed M&M were right (after years of them being savaged by the holy climate science community as wrong) AND the NAS pulished their source code - something the climate modelers won't do.

Again, you're simply mischaracterizing how the science gets done to suggest that there is a "conspiracy" where there is none. And, again, this particular "controversy" has little bearing on the larger state of climate research. This, too, is highly reminiscent of how the evolution "debate" is conducted, wherein technical disagreements and off-the-wall accusations are conflated into "crippling blows to the evolution orthodoxy". Such tempests in a tea pot are generally a source of amusement for people working in the field, who are often bemused to find that some tangential cat-fight is being paraded around as "proof" of a "crisis".

Quote:
If these "experts" would scream less, and stop hiding, they could be trusted - till then, they cannot.

Quote:
And if internet posters didn't arbitrarily assign pejorative attributes to scientific back and forth it would be easier to have a real discussion.

EXACTLY my point - when they have a process of real peer review, reproducibility, transparent methodology, candid and clear documentation, and the sharing of data then it is a science. "Trust me" and "I won't share cause you might find a f'up"is not science - it is inexcusable politics that makes it impossible to replicate these model's and its data.

Just what are they afraid of, being wrong?


A broad consensus that serves to buttress an orthodoxy by dening review to the hetrodox does not deserve to be taken seriously. Now that it has been shown that Mann manipulated the results, what other assurances do we have about his strident associates - why should we believe them?

Openess would be of benefit to all parties. Contrarians are only fueled by secretivness, it is no wonder they get attention. And when they accuse the orthodox with group-think, just what do the orthodox do but say

"Shut up, your not one of us".
"Shut up, you don't know anything"
"Shut up, no we won't share our methods for you to examine. Its only for "us"".

I'm sorry, no wonder Joe six pack doubts this class..the streets teach you to look for grifters.

I'm just going to skip ahead here because this last is all of a piece.

The above is simply slander of the sort that is the stock-in-trade of the "swift-boat" mind set-- find some people who will say bad things, assume all of their characterizations are the God's truth, brand any efforts at defense as a guilty party's desperate effort to conceal the awful truth.

Hopefully, you can keep people focused on some engineered "controversy" by weaving such an elaborate, dense with detail narrative of deception and subterfuge that the average person will completely loose the thread of the larger picture and just throw up their hands, figuring the whole deal complex beyond all understanding and the entire topic poisoned by greed and power grabbing.

It also helps to imply that the entire credibility of the majority view hinges on the "controversy", which makes the whole skull and dagger scenario even more fraught.

Which is precisely what you are doing here. Clear away all the dark speculating about the motives and techniques of a few players and the endless, eye-glazing insider baseball and the absurd implication that all of mainstream global warming theory hangs in the balance and you still have the vast majority of the people on this planet most qualified to make informed observations about climate change agreeing that human activity has played and is playing an increasing role in global warming.

It really is that simple.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #176 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
By forgrounding difficult to follow discussion about methodology, and paring that with consistent editorial commentary designed to paint Mann as a typically arrogant glass house dweller, there is a deliberate effort to portray the conclusions that Mann's research represents as being highly suspect or even somehow unethical, and his efforts to defend same as heavy handed and evocative of "something to hide". In fact, there is nothing particularly unusual or spurious or underhanded about how this is being played out, save for the fact that his detractors are being given a rather large bullhorn.

You write beautifully.

Seriously.
post #177 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by MaxParrish
Nonsense...

What you are ineffectively arguing is that because there is doubt we shouldn't do anything. I have to honestly ask how you manage to operate on a day to day basis.

The warm up post ice age turned the fertile lands of north africa (with human assistance) into the world's largest desert.

Higher temperatures + human activity = desert.

When we fail to account for our effect on climate we get things like the great dust bowl (which as most people will recall is at least a major reason for the failure of the US economy during the great depression -- which precipitated events leading to mass murders of a good 100 million + people).

What I prefer to argue is that we do best when we can predict what is going to happen. If we continue to aggravate the climate on earth, our ability to predict the future will be lessened costing us significantly more than it would for us to figure out how to operate on this planet without extremely negative climatological impact.

By allowing human effects on the environment to go unchecked, our foresight will continue to get blurry.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #178 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
[B]Yes, but they did cherry pick who they cited, which is my point.

Nothing wrong with selecting one sides scientists (as AP did) to support or chastise Gore, as long as it is not presented as a consensus on Gores movie.

It is important to make a distinction, by the way. Gore's entire presentation of the fact, degree, impact, and costs of global warming is NOT the consensus as represented by the IPCC.

Yes, Gore's hockey stick was the reconstruction consensus (that's now being updated) BUT his other statements were way over the top. Most ecologists don't ascribe invasive species to global warming, most medical researchers don't blame global warming for new viruses, most climate researchers don't think there will be 20 ft rises in sea level, and many are divided on the kind of weather impact from warming, moreover most don't see the impact anywhere as dire as Gore does.

Repeatedly I see partisanship distill the debate down to either you buy a disaster OR you are a denier. This is not the honest range of the opinion on the total issue (e.g. many of us who think there is warming don't believe in Kyoto).

Quote:
I'm not sure what you're saying-- you agree that most climatologists accept anthropomorphic forcing [as a major factor] but that there are more skeptics amongst non-specialists and "non-researchers"

Yes, perhaps I can clarify. There are 10s of thousands of "experts": meteorologists, atmospheric scientists, climatologists, planetary physicists. In that group you will find many skeptics (especially among meteorologists) - they are clearly smallish minority but there numbers are significant. Call them Tier I if you like.

HOWEVER, the core group of climatological researchers (perhaps a few hundred specialists who research narrow areas of concern)have a strong consensus, the only dissenters being (perhaps) a few dozen. None the less, this group is NOT familiar with the details of computer models - they are specialists who feed into the model builders work. Call them Tier II.

All the core group of computer model builders (Tier III), of course, do believe in warming. I doubt they are more than two or three dozen people and they convey the overall findings to the few hundred specialized researchers. In that way, they have built a consensus. And I hasten to add, this is fine.

And I agree that the critics of global warming computer model builders (we are NOT speaking of Paleo Climate Reconstructionists, this is a different subject area), as far as I know, have not immersed themselves far enough into models to effectively prove their predicted effects wrong.

That is why I did not dismiss global warming as human caused. In fact, I would readily "accept it" again IF it were not for the politics that I discovered. At this point, after reading a lot of the Paleoclimate controversy, I don't have much faith in the honesty of the folks involved. And as the burden of proof is on these fellows to show their models robust, until I know that they are allowing testing and replication - well, I cannot accept untested claims.
Quote:
But by focusing on the the Hockey Puck back and forth you fall prey to the artificially created "controversy" that is clearly being fueled by industry backed dissemination (if you doubt it take some time to see who, exactly, is promulgating the notion that this episode represents a refutation of the whole idea of global warming).

I'm sorry, I don't buy the "man behind the curtain" blame game. There is no doubt that some industry has a direct interest in down playing global warming. Any science study that suggests that global warming is overblown will get their support, and any scientists (they trust) that approaches them for a grant will get it.

None of this bothers me. Of course the Wall Street Journal represents one ideological viewpoint regarding business and capitalism; and green non-profits, Soros types, and academic cultures represent other interests - including group culture bias and the need for acceptance.

I did not approach this particular issue because of the Wall Street Journal, I came in the back door - I enjoy history and climate change and was annoyed by Gore's crude propaganda. I took the hockey stick as a given though, but stumbled on McIntyre's site. I did not use WSJ, or Junkscience, etc. I just started reading links to RealClimate, journal articles, and reviewing correspondence between the parties. A lot of things stood out: real climate guys were insulting, arrogant, dismissive, and political - quite the opposite of Climate Audit. By the time I was through, it was clear to me that paleoclimate scientists are a-holes that are driven by personal politics.
Quote:
there is nothing particularly unusual or spurious or underhanded about how this is being played out, save for the fact that his detractors are being given a rather large bullhorn.

I would suggest that there is not a single extant scientific theory or practitioner that could not be made to appear exactly as defensive or "controversial", should some entity elect to fund and disseminate the the caveats of nay-sayers-- and there are always nay-sayers.

That paleo climate reconstructions have become political is, in part, due to the IPCC marketing "to policymakers". In 2001 they made claims bound to draw fire (1998 being warmest ever, etc.). Ironically, even as McIntyre said, this has nothing to do with global warming (and he has NO stance on this issue, BTW). The history of climate is NOT really relevant to current models; i.e., if computers say X amount of CO2 will raise temperature Y THEN what does in matter if there was a Medieval Warming Period? What does it matter it 1998 was the warmest ever? Whatever caused cycles of heating and cooling 500 years ago is irrelevant to what is happening today (or so it would seem).
Quote:
Your ascribing nefarious motivations to the NAS without any evidence whatsoever. That's foolish.

There are two perspectives from critics of the NAS: one is that they did what they could in light of the political fallout (i.e. "bad methods but good studies") and the other is that they chickened out. Naturally, I think they chickened out, and did not answer the committees questions. They refused to address issues of dissembling, they appointed statisticians that had already advised the hockey team, they issued a skitzo document. Still, it did face up to the dubious methods and data.
Quote:
And this bit is ridiculous. Using terms like "Piltdown", "hoax" and "discredited" to characterize Mann's research is pure ignorant name calling that has no bearing on the state of climate theory. You do your argument no favors by resorting this kind of cheap theatrics.

First, I am not a climate researcher, I have no reason to hold back my considered moral judgment. Second, I believe a fair reading of the record (in detail) shows that Mann is dishonest. He erased public files, made contradictory statements never resolved, hid a crucial aspect of the PC methods, refused to provide source code (although some slipped out in a directory labeled "censored" on his website), and participated in vicious ridicule of McIntyre - falsely accusing him of many things...all disproved in correspondence.

McIntyre has kept his cool (most times) and, one by one, knocked over Mann's pins (and Mann even wrote a journal telling them NOT to publish anything submitted by M&M).

I realize you are not in a position to judge, but I do not call Mann a hoaxer lightly. While it was not the level of Piltdown (I confess), nor as bad as the stem cell fakery in Korea, its as close as you can get without disgrace.
Quote:
Again, you're simply mischaracterizing how the science gets done to suggest that there is a "conspiracy" where there is none

I am not suggesting conspiracy as much as habitual collusion and group-think.
Quote:
...This, too, is highly reminiscent of how the evolution "debate" is conducted, wherein technical disagreements and off-the-wall accusations are conflated into "crippling blows to the evolution orthodoxy". Such tempests in a tea pot are generally a source of amusement for people working in the field, who are often bemused to find that some tangential cat-fight is being paraded around as "proof" of a "crisis".

As a long time defender of science against the creationist yahoos, I understand your viewpoint. And if I were unfamiliar with the details, I might also write this off as "mining" for quotes to show a science in crisis.

So to recap: I do not believe climate science is in crisis. I believe that as far as global warming is concerned, the overwhelming majority of specialist climate researchers and all computer climate modelers are convinced of human caused forcing.

I also believe that almost all paleo climate 'reconstructionist' multi-proxy researchers also believe in global warming (although not necessarily all paleo climatologists or data specialists).

That being said, I also believe that paleoclimate reconstruction is saturated with the concerns of contemporary politics, and with practices so destructive to the science that it can no longer be trusted. Unlike evolution, it is (or has become) a stalking horse for ideological and political viewpoints.

Perhaps this is an exception - perhaps not. But my exposure has sobered my view (and also is very disappointing to someone who once idealized scientists).

Can we trust the entire model building discipline?

Well, not until I can find out if the practices of computer modelers are different than paleo modelers. If they share data, if they are not overwhelmed by axe-grinders, and replicate each other's work...

I will trust them.


BTW Science is not based on the "vast majority" of those taking their lead from the informed few(er). It is by open and public testing of proposed models...

Till then, appeals to the numbers of the orthodox many does not sway.
post #179 of 278
Models are models are models.

Because data and models are open (should you request them) from any published report, ANYONE can pick through the code to see if a researcher is improperly weighing the hot air coming out of max parrish's mouth.

The point is that politics in science does exist, but it isn't liberal versus conservative, it is far too fundamental to fit into such broad categories. Modeling is never trusted as much as the data collected to make the models, and this is true regardless of the field. Models are predictive, and thus testable. Having a civil discussion about the predictions of many independently designed models isn't something we should shy away from just because we feel that their conclusions happen to disagree with our sense of truthiness (thank you Colbert).
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #180 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Models are models are models.

Because data and models are open (should you request them) from any published report, ANYONE can pick through the code to see if a researcher is improperly weighing the hot air coming out of max parrish's mouth.



If you had read anything of the controversy on Paleoclimate reconstruction you would know the above statement is utterly wrong - you have NOT a clue and ought to read a few of my prior links to catch up.


Quote:
...Having a civil discussion about the predictions of many independently designed models isn't something we should shy away from just because we feel that their conclusions happen to disagree with our sense of truthiness (thank you Colbert).

Once again, read of the very UNCIVIL discussions in the disputed science.
post #181 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by MaxParrish
If you had read anything of the controversy on Paleoclimate reconstruction you would know the above statement is utterly wrong - you have NOT a clue and ought to read a few of my prior links to catch up.




Once again, read of the very UNCIVIL discussions in the disputed science.

I am a scientist, I know how science operates. Don't deign to tell me how it works.

You cannot possibly interpret the goings on of a professional community without being active in that community.

I don't go around commenting on the fact that the Anglican Church can't seem to have civil discourse on homosexuality, because I 1) don't know what civil discourse is in that setting, and 2) have no basis on which to compare.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #182 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Don't deign to tell me how it works.

Master class points for use of the word "deign"!

Quote:
You cannot possibly interpret the goings on of a professional community without being active in that community.

I would only add "with any authority" to this. Reminds me of when non-literature specialists start bitching about the state of literary scholarship.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #183 of 278
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #184 of 278
There is no glue. The pipes just suck.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #185 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
There is no glue. The pipes just suck.

Clearly, you're on the payroll of the anti-glue industry!
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #186 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Clearly, you're on the payroll of the anti-glue industry!

I'm just willing to confront the glue mafia with some sticking points.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #187 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
I'm just willing to confront the glue mafia with some sticking points.

Indeed. You are, no doubt, also in the employ of the "we didn't land on the moon" cartel. Since, in the end, that's what we're talking about.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #188 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
I am a scientist, I know how science operates. Don't deign to tell me how it works.

Well bully for you! I guess all the climate reconstruction scientists and researchers that I've read are wrong about what they do (or don't do) - I mean I've got a fellow right here speaking for ALL of science - WOW.
Quote:
You cannot possibly interpret the goings on of a professional community without being active in that community.

Lets see, first you confirm my first observation from a prior post (the "I am the authority ploy"), and underscore your foolery with my second one (the "You are incapable of knowing").

Gee, when are you going to use the third ploy "Your being paid by Exxon?".
Quote:
I don't go around commenting on the fact that the Anglican Church can't seem to have civil discourse on homosexuality, because I 1) don't know what civil discourse is in that setting, and 2) have no basis on which to compare. [/B]

Interesting, let's compare:

"I'm a homosexual, don't tell me how homosexuals operate, don't tell me how they work. You cannot possibly interpret the goings on of the homosexual community without operating in that community".

And here I go and say things like scientists being cloisted. ADDA, better come over here and box this guy up before he ruins your defense of science.
post #189 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by MaxParrish
Well bully for you! I guess all the climate reconstruction scientists and researchers that I've read are wrong about what they do (or don't do) - I mean I've got a fellow right here speaking for ALL of science - WOW.

Man. I have to say: that was smooth. You made a comment about how science works, then a scientist smacks you, and then you deftly shift the conversation away from a debate about how science works to whether or not this scientist who told you that you didn't know what you were talking about when you talked about how science worked is "speaking" for all scientists.

Damn. I'm writing that one down.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #190 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I think you just demonstrated your ignorance for all of us.

Less of the ad hom attacks, mmkay?
post #191 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by MaxParrish
Selective reading? I'll make it very simple:

"the United States is likely to be able to adapt to most of the climate change impacts on human systems,"

"but these adaptations may come with significant cost for some regions"

Which one is the overarching good news? Which one is the secondary exception of "SOME MAY" have a cost?

Let me demonstrate a reversal:

"All regions of the United States will come with significant costs of adaptation, even so, some regions will not be able to adapt".

I know you wish they had stated my reconstruction, but it does not. Sorry for the good news.



You do realize by saying this you're admitting that it's real.


" Cost " will be in lives and a crippled economy. You just don't seem to get it or care. And of course this adaptation won't happen over night. It will take a long time.

No it won't kill every one of us but in the transition you might wish you were dead. That's if you are one of the one's that live.

But as I said it won't happen in your lifetime. But if you have children they might experience it.

Oh! Did I mention how many species of animals that will parrish also because their normal habitat will be gone. And please don't try to tell me that won't happen. It's happening right now.


Max do get the feeling you're not getting anywhere? Chris tried this awhile ago in this same thread and didn't.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #192 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by MaxParrish
If you had read anything of the controversy on Paleoclimate reconstruction you would know the above statement is utterly wrong - you have NOT a clue and ought to read a few of my prior links to catch up.




Once again, read of the very UNCIVIL discussions in the disputed science.

I'd watch that stuff you're shoveling. You must be eating it to because you seem to be full of it.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #193 of 278
Anyone that disagrees with climate change...is a complete explicative. As a poignant person stated somewhere else: "The science is virtually indisputable. Though there will certainly be a full court press from armies of PR flacks paid to professionally distort reality and slyly cast doubt on the truth.

Don't forget that there STILL are scientific whores who will tell us that there is no proved link between cigarettes and any given case of lung cancer. The hydrocarbon industry has billions of bucks with which to buy PhDs. Yet, the number of "experts" who've sold their souls is fairly small...that's encouraging."

Oh wait, don't forget about the world-reknown Canadian Free Press and Dr. "Paid for by Exxon" Bob Carter. The other 3,000 scientists at the IPCC can't be right.

In my book Critical Thinking I am reading, it has a nice section on "scientific debates". Make sure you know your source isn't biased. And if that is not assessable go with the majority. Gee, makes sense. Gee, kind of applies here.

MaxParrish I'm sorry what did you say you have a degree in? Geophysics? Atmospheric Chemistry? Oh wait that was Chris.

Yes, it has a section on reviewing qualifications of the person making the claim too. Chris you and these threads are a case study in critical thinking. Thanks, it's been entertaining. When I'm done with the book I'll perhaps if I have a job and some time, up in the VT National Forest while I'm doing a stint as a forestry technician, debate you point-for-point. As apparently you have a Ph.D. in Philosophy and Logic. I mean this is just a case study. Radicals vs. the mainstream, on a particular topic. I'll have to get back to the book tonight and read a few chapters.

Also to note, I'm seeing an inconvenient truth tonight. THEN: a panel of scientists, such as my professor Fred Meyerson, Michael Oppenheimer (well known, did a great study on NJ and sea level rise with GIS), people from RI DEM, and other researchers, are holding a discussion panel afterwards, on Block Island, RI. I'll post what happens. Fred is presenting a part of my paper on sea level rise in RI.
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
post #194 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by Aquatic
Anyone that disagrees with climate change...is a complete explicative. As a poignant person stated somewhere else: \\"The science is virtually indisputable.

How do you explain sea water levels down from where they were 2000 years ago?
post #195 of 278
fuck it
post #196 of 278
fuck it
post #197 of 278
Thread Starter 
Now, here's how the scientific process works:
Quote:
From Archaeologists: We Found Noah's Ark (emphasis mine):

Exploring more than 13,000 feet high in the rugged Elburz mountain range northwest of Tehran, a team of archaeologists from Texas believe they have found the remains of Noah's Ark. "I can't imagine what it could be if it is not the Ark," Arch Bonnema of the Christian-based Bible Archaeology Search and Exploration (Base) Institute, told ABC News.

Look! It's a blackened pile of stuff that might have been wood at one time found exactly right with a few hundreds miles of one of a couple of areas some people say the Bible says the ark would have been! It MUST BE the ark!!!

Ah, the wonderful contextually sliding scale of scrutiny and demands for PROOF. Why do I get the funny feeling that these "archaeologists" would dismissively refer to evolution and global warming both as "junk science"?
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #198 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Man. I have to say: that was smooth. You made a comment about how science works, then a scientist smacks you, and then you deftly shift the conversation away from a debate about how science works to whether or not this scientist who told you that you didn't know what you were talking about when you talked about how science worked is "speaking" for all scientists.

Damn. I'm writing that one down.

Yes, I also thought it was unusually smooth, but it was not unfair. I made comments on how paleo-climate science works, he "smacks" me by claiming he is a scientist of some sort(presumably not working in paleo-climate or a related areas) and he informs me that a) he knows how (all) science works, so I cannot be correct and b) in any event, the knowledge of its real workings by outsiders is impossible.

Smack? I thought it closer to elitist bad manners.

Moreover, unless he "works in the community" under discussion (climate science) why should I believe this fellow when I have REAL climate scientists telling me (the public) how climate science works (and they would not be telling us unless they assume we can be meaningfully informed).

He stuck his nose into an area (paleo-climate politics) he obviously knows nothing about, including its very public disputes over the lack of full disclosure and due diligence. Waving his badge as "the authority" does not sway.
post #199 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by MaxParrish
Yes, I also thought it was unusually smooth, but it was not unfair. I made comments on how paleo-climate science works, he "smacks" me by claiming he is a scientist of some sort(presumably not working in paleo-climate or a related area) and informs me that a) he knows how (all) science works, so I cannot be correct and b) in any event, knowledge of its workings by outsiders is impossible.

Smack? I thought it closer to elitist bad manners.

Moreover, unless he "works in the community" under discussion (climate science) why should I believe this fellow when I have REAL climate scientists telling me (the public) how climate science works (and they would not be telling us unless they assume we can be meaningfully informed).

He stuck his nose into an area he obviously knows nothing about, including its very public disputes over full disclosure and due diligence. Waving his badge as "the authority" does not sway.



Max are you sure you're only a year younger than me?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #200 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by MaxParrish
Yes, I also thought it was unusually smooth, but it was not unfair. I made comments on how paleo-climate science works, he "smacks" me by claiming he is a scientist of some sort(presumably not working in paleo-climate or a related areas) and he informs me that a) he knows how (all) science works, so I cannot be correct and b) in any event, the knowledge of its real workings by outsiders is impossible.

Smack? I thought it closer to elitist bad manners.

Moreover, unless he "works in the community" under discussion (climate science) why should I believe this fellow when I have REAL climate scientists telling me (the public) how climate science works (and they would not be telling us unless they assume we can be meaningfully informed).

He stuck his nose into an area (paleo-climate politics) he obviously knows nothing about, including its very public disputes over the lack of full disclosure and due diligence. Waving his badge as "the authority" does not sway.

Actually Max, you can be informed, unfortunately you aren't. Most federally funded research projects are in the public domain after publication, and publications and professional societies often have rules enforcing their own unfettered access agreements. Period.

Average Joe can push for the data/models that have been published, and he will get the information if he pushes hard enough. Should it be difficult for average Joe to get the information? No, but sometimes it is because researchers are sometimes assholes, but nonetheless average joe has every right to demand unfettered access to all non-classified g-ment funded research projects (including grants that scientists have written).

Researchers who hide their data/models lose the ability to convince other scientists that their work is valid, which results in low impact publications, which results in lower funding for grants. You cannot hide your data forever and continue to be a scientist.

That is how science works, Max. I am sorry if you were led to believe something else by your sources...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Global warming becomes even harder to deny...