or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › "Expert" Calls for GW Skeptics to be Punished.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

"Expert" Calls for GW Skeptics to be Punished.

post #1 of 248
Thread Starter 
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/...ming011807.htm

This article discusses the recent call to decertify TV Weatherpersons who are skeptical about global warming.

Quote:
The Weather Channel's (TWC) Heidi Cullen, who hosts the weekly global warming program "The Climate Code," is advocating that the American Meteorological Society (AMS) revoke their "Seal of Approval" for any television weatherman who expresses skepticism that human activity is creating a climate catastrophe.

"If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval. Clearly, the AMS doesn't agree that global warming can be blamed on cyclical weather patterns," Cullen wrote in her December 21 weblog on the Weather Channel Website.

Ms. Cullen then followed up with this in her blog:

Quote:
I've read all your comments saying I want to silence meteorologists who are skeptical of the science of global warming. That is not true. The point of my post was never to stifle discussion. It was to raise it to a level that doesn't confuse science and politics. Freedom of scientific expression is essential.

Sorry hon, you can't have it both ways. You called for decertification, which certainly amounts to punishment.

Global Warming may very well be real. It may also not be real. It is an unproven phenomena. That doesn't mean we should ignore it...quite the opposite. We should study it carefully and begin breaking our fossil fuel addiction now, both for reasons of the environment and national security.

However, what we have here is more Liberal Fascism, some of which I have referenced before. It's a clear example of a real threat to freedom of speech, not from the right, but from the left.

Imagine if you will that the NEA calls for the decertification of teachers who do not believe, for example, that spending more money on education raises student achievement. Or, imagine the ABA disbarring any attorney who supports a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

Whether or not you feel global warming is a serious concern, please post your thoughts on Ms. Cullen's call, and on her backpedaling (IMHO) follow-up.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #2 of 248
Global warming is real. Anyone who casually dismisses it should have to take science examinations before they can buy medicine since they casually dismiss what scientists say when it goes against them but will happily take the benefits of science.

But I do have to agree about the freedom of opinion issue. You just can't outlaw opinions no matter how "obvious" it is that they are stupid. Because what happens when one of those "obvious" opinions everyone believes turns out to be wrong? Then no one can argue against that "obvious" opinion without punishment and fight on level ground.
post #3 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

However, what we have here is more Liberal Fascism, some of which I have referenced before. It's a clear example of a real threat to freedom of speech, not from the right, but from the left.

I think you are giving her much too much credit.
post #4 of 248
I personally don't think there shouldn't be any "belief" tests for membership in an organization - but let's face it, organizations can have whatever tests they want, and it's not a threat to free speech.

Let me give an analogy from my field: There's a famous case (Barefoot v. Estelle) of a psychiatrist who testified in court that a defendant was going to be violent in the future, and the defendant got the death penalty. But the research on prediction of violence is very clear: Psychologists cannot accurately predict future violence, it's just too hard to predict. So he was kicked out of the APA.

Was it fair to kick him out? I think so. It was considered an ethical/professional breach to testify in court to something so clearly wrong or unprovable.

So what about this case? Would it be unethical or unprofessional for a meteorologist to publicly proclaim something not supported by the evidence?
post #5 of 248
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindler View Post

Global warming is real. Anyone who casually dismisses it should have to take science examinations before they can buy medicine since they casually dismiss what scientists say when it goes against them but will happily take the benefits of science.

But I do have to agree about the freedom of opinion issue. You just can't outlaw opinions no matter how "obvious" it is that they are stupid. Because what happens when one of those "obvious" opinions everyone believes turns out to be wrong? Then no one can argue against that "obvious" opinion without punishment and fight on level ground.


Global warming may be real. It is not proven conclusively. Remember, we're not talking about the general public here. We're talking about professional meterologists and even other scientists that disagree with other scientists. What she advocated was silencing those folks, many of whom are qualified professionals. And why? Because they disagree!
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #6 of 248
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

I personally don't think there shouldn't be any "belief" tests for membership in an organization - but let's face it, organizations can have whatever tests they want, and it's not a threat to free speech.

Let me give an analogy from my field: There's a famous case (Barefoot v. Estelle) of a psychiatrist who testified in court that a defendant was going to be violent in the future, and the defendant got the death penalty. But the research on prediction of violence is very clear: Psychologists cannot accurately predict future violence, it's just too hard to predict. So he was kicked out of the APA.

Was it fair to kick him out? I think so. It was considered an ethical/professional breach to testify in court to something so clearly wrong or unprovable.

So what about this case? Would it be unethical or unprofessional for a meteorologist to publicly proclaim something not supported by the evidence?


We're not exactly talking about someone who gets on TV and says "global warming is a crock of shit" or "anyone who believes in it is a moron." We're talking about someone who is skeptical, with reasons behind that skepticism.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #7 of 248
No, he never said anything at all about being skeptical. Here's the blog post in question: "If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval. Clearly, the AMS doesn't agree that global warming can be blamed on cyclical weather patterns. It's like allowing a meteorologist to go on-air and say that hurricanes rotate clockwise and tsunamis are caused by the weather. It's not a political statement...it's just an incorrect statement."

And again, in every profession, there are standards. A lawyer can be disbarred for unethical/unprofessional conduct, and a physician's license can be revoked for the same reasons. If a meteorologist makes a scientifically unsupported claim, I'd say that's unprofessional conduct.

Furthermore, there's a context here. There is a disconnect between public media portrayals of climate change and the science behind it: There is a scientific consensus that the earth is warming and that this is caused by human activity. You, SDW, may not agree with that, but it's a fact that there is a clear consensus among scientists on it. And yet if you look at news coverage of the issue, it's divided. News people present it as if there was a scientific debate on those two points, as if it's a matter of debate and opinion, when that isn't the case.

Under those conditions, I think it is reasonable for a scientific organization to withdraw certification from a public meteorologist who makes a false claim. For example, claiming that there is no scientific consensus that global warming is occurring or that it is not caused by human activity would be a false claim.
post #8 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

However, what we have here is more Liberal Fascism, some of which I have referenced before. It's a clear example of a real threat to freedom of speech, not from the right, but from the left.

I think your insinuation that this is "liberal" fascism is misplaced. It's definitely fascist, and I think the concept is unconscionably absurd.

I don't know the political persuasion of the scientist that put this idea forth, but I'd think you'd be hard pressed to find a significant number of peopleliberal or conservativewho'd agree with her.

Basically, what you're doing here is:

- finding a crazy person
- assuming they're liberal
- saying that all liberals are crazy, because this crazy person could possibly be liberal
post #9 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

There is a scientific consensus that the earth is warming and that this is caused by human activity.

Sort of. There is scientific consensus that the Earth is warming. There is consensus that this is influenced by human activity. But to what degree that is, is being debated, and most scientists are believing it to be minimal.

The UN itself just downgraded it's estimate of human impact in a report that will be released sometime soon this year.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...nclimate10.xml
post #10 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregmightdothat View Post

Sort of. There is scientific consensus that the Earth is warming. There is consensus that this is influenced by human activity.

Right.

But still I think you're wrong in your previous post to claim this is an outrageous position or a "crazy person." It would be crazy to do what SDW suggested is being advocated - to sanction or decertify members of this organization for "expressing skepticism" about climate change. But that's clearly not what this person said. She said (to paraphrase) that if a member of this organization doesn't accurately portray the science that the organization exists to promote, that person shouldn't be certified by the organization. That, to me, seems eminently reasonable, and I honestly can't imagine why they wouldn't hold that position.
post #11 of 248
Well SDW here's a little something for your pipe to smoke.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16708004/

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 #12 of 248
I often spend a lot of time in my classes talking about how smoking doesn't cause cancer. It MAY cause cancer, but we're just not sure. So SMOKE UP! I tell my students!
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 #13 of 248
[QUOTE=midwinter;1029591]Global warming may be real. It is not proven conclusively. Remember, we're not talking about the general public here. We're talking about professional meterologists and even other scientists that disagree with other scientists./QUOTE]

"Professional"? Err..yeah. Professional Exxon-Mobil employees maybe.

I think it's a great idea.

Why? Because anyone that doesn't "believe" in global warming is a selfish asshole. It's one of those things where you have to ACT on it even if there is a CHANCE (which kind of looks like a 99.999% chance we are causing it.) I mean, gee, should we let the world fall apart, or not? Seems like a no-brainer. Do you care about other people and the future, or not? I mean you have a right not to. You have a right to be an ass. And meteorologists have a right to say whatever. But as far as being certified in a professional scientific organization, you should meet minimum technical criteria. I would say as of now with our current understanding of global warming, to disagree would be to display a fundamental lack of knowledge about meteorology. Would you want a certified DOCTOR who was, say, a Scientologist? And attempted to treat you with whacko folks "alternative" bullshit therapies instead of tried-and-true drugs?
"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 #14 of 248
As the late Carl Sagan used to point out. There are a couple of planets in our solar sytem that should have turned out very similar to earth except for some small differences. Mars ( smaller than earth ) needs something like global warming to beef up it's atmosphere and temperature ( but hints suggest it might have been closer to earth in the distant past ). Venus (about the same size as the earth but with no moon ) is natural global warming out of control.

With a very few changes it's easy to make a planet unsuitable for human life. Looking at these worlds is very convincing.
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 #15 of 248
It's interesting how scientists and non-scientists view global warming. I remember reading at this GOP slanted article at townhall.com (org?) and the author claimed global warming must be mute because of the cold winter in 2005!

We need to teach the population to look at trends and not make snap judgements based on such short events. While GW is not absolutely conclusive, I would tread with caution. If you're driving along and there are some symptoms of overheating, it is best to address them. Engines and planets are expensive to fix.

I truly dont understand how GW has turned into a left vs right debate. The left has no advantage in having global warming to be true. It would be easy and cheap if we could pollute in an infinite bio-sphere, but we have a finite world.
post #16 of 248
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

Right.

But still I think you're wrong in your previous post to claim this is an outrageous position or a "crazy person." It would be crazy to do what SDW suggested is being advocated - to sanction or decertify members of this organization for "expressing skepticism" about climate change. But that's clearly not what this person said. She said (to paraphrase) that if a member of this organization doesn't accurately portray the science that the organization exists to promote, that person shouldn't be certified by the organization. That, to me, seems eminently reasonable, and I honestly can't imagine why they wouldn't hold that position.

I think your mincing words here to a great extent. You're also taking her statement out of context. On its own, the statement would seem reaosnable. But when it's in context, it's clear she's talking about those who are skeptical of global warming....those who refuse to openly proclaim it's proven science.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #17 of 248
Thread Starter 
majormatt:

Quote:
The left has no advantage in having global warming to be true.

Disagree. The Environmental Lobby is big business. It's a power structure...GW crusaders, consultants, lobbyists et al. The Left also tend to oppose globalization and of course, US economic dominance in the world, both of which can be combatted by limiting economic development through stanglehold emissions/pollution policies.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #18 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

The Left also tend to oppose globalization and of course, US economic dominance in the world, both of which can be combatted by limiting economic development through stanglehold emissions/pollution policies.

Again, going from my previous post, the left at large doesn't oppose either globalization or US economic dominance (although certainly some individuals left, right, or other do).

Your view of the left is entirely populated with strawmen.
post #19 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

I personally don't think there shouldn't be any "belief" tests for membership in an organization - but let's face it, organizations can have whatever tests they want, and it's not a threat to free speech.

Let me give an analogy from my field: There's a famous case (Barefoot v. Estelle) of a psychiatrist who testified in court that a defendant was going to be violent in the future, and the defendant got the death penalty. But the research on prediction of violence is very clear: Psychologists cannot accurately predict future violence, it's just too hard to predict. So he was kicked out of the APA.

Was it fair to kick him out? I think so. It was considered an ethical/professional breach to testify in court to something so clearly wrong or unprovable.

So what about this case? Would it be unethical or unprofessional for a meteorologist to publicly proclaim something not supported by the evidence?

I think your example shows exactly why many think psychology is a pseudo-science.

As for whether a meteorologist is publicly proclaiming something not supported by the evidence, the best science relies more on refutation instead of mere confirmation. I would call the various global warming theories protoscience at best. To toss people out of an association and discourage discussion when theories are at the protoscience stage would absolutely be politicizing the science, which of course is what this woman, ironically enough, claims to be discouraging.

I suspect in the future that our human-centric and and earth-centric views will once again be exposed. Much like Aristotelian Astronomy, we will look back on this and wonder why were ever stupid enough to believe that we, the proverbial ants on a universal scale, were ever thought to be the prime anything with regard to global warming.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #20 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Disagree. The Environmental Lobby is big business. It's a power structure...

Oh, it's HUGE. That's why the Democrats never trail the Republicans in fundraising during elections. Incredibly massive and powerful. I think, actually, that the Environmental Lobby may control the Priory of Scion.

Quote:
The Left also tend to oppose globalization and of course, US economic dominance in the world

Well if that's true, they sure as hell suck at opposing it.
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 #21 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

Right.

But still I think you're wrong in your previous post to claim this is an outrageous position or a "crazy person." It would be crazy to do what SDW suggested is being advocated - to sanction or decertify members of this organization for "expressing skepticism" about climate change. But that's clearly not what this person said. She said (to paraphrase) that if a member of this organization doesn't accurately portray the science that the organization exists to promote, that person shouldn't be certified by the organization. That, to me, seems eminently reasonable, and I honestly can't imagine why they wouldn't hold that position.

Except you've let her fall into a logical fallacy and allowed her views to become the organizations views and also allowed her to completely redefine the mission of the organization.

The website of the AMS states the following.

\t
About the AMS

The American Meteorological Society promotes the development and dissemination of information and education on the atmospheric and related oceanic and hydrologic sciences and the advancement of their professional applications.


Taking all that and boiling it down to "my one true vision of global warming" is what she has done.

This organization has criteria for certification. If it wanted, for example to say that you must have an exam where you fully explain and show understanding of the current theories of global warming, that is totally within their right. However to say you must swear some allegiance to them or be unwilling to question them is not acceptable. One is assessing expertise, the other is thought-control.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #22 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

the other is thought-control.



Zee Mind!!!!
post #23 of 248
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregmightdothat View Post

Again, going from my previous post, the left at large doesn't oppose either globalization or US economic dominance (although certainly some individuals left, right, or other do).

Your view of the left is entirely populated with strawmen.


You have to be kidding. There are people who make big money from being on the GW bandwagon. And, you don't feel the left opposes globalization and our economic position? That's surprising to read.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #24 of 248
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

Oh, it's HUGE. That's why the Democrats never trail the Republicans in fundraising during elections. Incredibly massive and powerful. I think, actually, that the Environmental Lobby may control the Priory of Scion.



Well if that's true, they sure as hell suck at opposing it.

Actually, I'm not even talking about the major political parties.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #25 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

You have to be kidding. There are people who make big money from being on the GW bandwagon. And, you don't feel the left opposes globalization and our economic position? That's surprising to read.

It's surprising because you live in SDW-bizarro world.
post #26 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Actually, I'm not even talking about the major political parties.

So let me get this straight: you're suggesting that there is some sort of ENORMOUS and POWERFUL fringe (secret?) cabal of environmentalists that raises money, but not enough to displace the GOP and apparently not enough to really affect the Dems, but it doesn't matter because they're not a part of the major political parties, and YET they're still very powerful and scary?
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 #27 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I think your example shows exactly why many think psychology is a pseudo-science.

You'll have to give me a little more to go on there.


Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Except you've let her fall into a logical fallacy and allowed her views to become the organizations views and also allowed her to completely redefine the mission of the organization.

What? She's making a recommendation about what the policy of this organization should be for certifying meteorologists. I think she can do that, and I think others can discuss it. Right?

The purpose of the certification is to make sure "broadcast meteorologists" (i.e., weathermen) do a good job in conveying information to the public. If they judge that a meteorologist isn't doing that, I can't imagine why they wouldn't kick that person out.

SDW has claimed that she wants to "punish skeptics," but that is simply false. Given that accurately conveying their field is the whole point of this organization and this certification, they absolutely should kick people out if they don't accurately convey their field. That basic position shouldn't be controversial at all, and is probably true of any professional organization.

Certainly where it gets sticky is how it is implemented on a case-by-case basis. Is one stupid comment enough to get someone kicked out? No it shouldn't be. Is "expressing skepticism?" No it shouldn't be, and I repeat - [b]this woman never claimed it should[b], and it would be stupid to do so (which is why SDW framed it that way). But a consistent pattern of severely misrepresenting their field to the public? I'd think so. What's the purpose of the certification otherwise?
post #28 of 248
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

So let me get this straight: you're suggesting that there is some sort of ENORMOUS and POWERFUL fringe (secret?) cabal of environmentalists that raises money, but not enough to displace the GOP and apparently not enough to really affect the Dems, but it doesn't matter because they're not a part of the major political parties, and YET they're still very powerful and scary?

Dude...slow down and think about what you're arguing. You're saying there is no "big business" in the environmentalist movement. You're saying it doesn't provide certain folks with their livelihood?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #29 of 248
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

You'll have to give me a little more to go on there.


What? She's making a recommendation about what the policy of this organization should be for certifying meteorologists. I think she can do that, and I think others can discuss it. Right?

The purpose of the certification is to make sure "broadcast meteorologists" (i.e., weathermen) do a good job in conveying information to the public. If they judge that a meteorologist isn't doing that, I can't imagine why they wouldn't kick that person out.

SDW has claimed that she wants to "punish skeptics," but that is simply false. Given that accurately conveying their field is the whole point of this organization and this certification, they absolutely should kick people out if they don't accurately convey their field. That basic position shouldn't be controversial at all, and is probably true of any professional organization.

Certainly where it gets sticky is how it is implemented on a case-by-case basis. Is one stupid comment enough to get someone kicked out? No it shouldn't be. Is "expressing skepticism?" No it shouldn't be, and I repeat - [b]this woman never claimed it should[b], and it would be stupid to do so (which is why SDW framed it that way). But a consistent pattern of severely misrepresenting their field to the public? I'd think so. What's the purpose of the certification otherwise?

In context it's clear that she did mean current AMS certified members should be punished for their views. That's where we disagree.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #30 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Dude...slow down and think about what you're arguing. You're saying there is no "big business" in the environmentalist movement. You're saying it doesn't provide certain folks with their livelihood?

OMG, I totally didn't notice that in my characterization of your Crichtonian levels of paranoia I was actually arguing that the environmental movement doesn't employ anyone! Thanks for setting me straight, SDW!
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 #31 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

You'll have to give me a little more to go on there.

Perhaps for another thread. Needless to say, psychology and meteorology are not analogous in my view.

Quote:
What? She's making a recommendation about what the policy of this organization should be for certifying meteorologists. I think she can do that, and I think others can discuss it. Right?

Except for the recommendations have nothing to do with displaying competency and instead have to do with some sort of loyalty oath.

Quote:
The purpose of the certification is to make sure "broadcast meteorologists" (i.e., weathermen) do a good job in conveying information to the public. If they judge that a meteorologist isn't doing that, I can't imagine why they wouldn't kick that person out.

If it were just about that, then there would be no debate. You can't take a trait that is part of the scientific method and declare it to be political. This is why I noted that the best science deals with refutation. There has not been refutation of global climate change as a norm. There has not been refutation of global climate change being caused by changes in the output of the sun. There has not been refutation of carbon dioxide build up as being a by-product of warmer climates instead of merely being the cause. (How many cars have we driven on Venus?)

Other meteorologists noting that these have not occurred is not grounds for professional incompetence. Point blank you have scientists who have some confirmation of a result but they don't care to wait for the refutation of other causes. They want their theories moved along. They want the skeptics silenced.

Quote:
SDW has claimed that she wants to "punish skeptics," but that is simply false. Given that accurately conveying their field is the whole point of this organization and this certification, they absolutely should kick people out if they don't accurately convey their field. That basic position shouldn't be controversial at all, and is probably true of any professional organization.

I've never encountered an organization where group-think was enforced in membership in this manner. This is akin to an association of cardiologists being forced to subscribe to the one "best" method of heart operation excluding all prior and future developments. This is akin to a state bar telling lawyers that they must support a certain law and never advocate or lobby for any change against it.

Quote:
Certainly where it gets sticky is how it is implemented on a case-by-case basis. Is one stupid comment enough to get someone kicked out? No it shouldn't be. Is "expressing skepticism?" No it shouldn't be, and I repeat - [b]this woman never claimed it should[b], and it would be stupid to do so (which is why SDW framed it that way). But a consistent pattern of severely misrepresenting their field to the public? I'd think so. What's the purpose of the certification otherwise?

The purpose of the certification is to show competency, not control thought. It is entirely possible to be a competent meteorologist and still have and discuss disagreements on new developments within the field.

What if 30 years ago they had decided to declare incompetent and remove anyone who did not subscribe to the coming global cooling and new pollution induced ice age? Where would the current theories on global warming be coming from? What if they said that based on the then understood evidence, you couldn't possibly be a competent meteorologist if you don't come to the same group-think conclusion?

The thing that is so dangerous about this in a scientific field is that group consensus can often change radically with some new piece of information. Dinosaurs go from cold blooded lizards to ancestors of birds for example.

I'd say that working against previously established norms and group consensus is often a norm within science. The older models are often taught to provide historical background. However the breaks between the models are often sharp and quick when they occur.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #32 of 248
The powers at be dont want their pocket books shocked by new technologies taking away the oil stranglehold on us. Our friends at the white house are deeply entrenched in oil. Condi has an oil tanker named after her infact!

SDW2001, explain to me how the average scientist can benefit from global warming being true.
post #33 of 248
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MajorMatt View Post

The powers at be dont want their pocket books shocked by new technologies taking away the oil stranglehold on us. Our friends at the white house are deeply entrenched in oil. Condi has an oil tanker named after her infact!

SDW2001, explain to me how the average scientist can benefit from global warming being true.


Certainly, though I'm talking about more than just scientists.

There is a scientific "consensus" that GW is real. Money is made in publishing (as in scientific publishing) as that is often a criteria for being employed ay major universities and elsewhere. Secondly, these scientists often are featured speakers and presenters, bringing them income and recongnition. Moreover, it's clear that scientists who do not embrace the GW movement are shunned...not just by people like Ms. Cullen...but by the community itself. Their financial and professional security is threatened by their view.

As I said though, we're not just talking about scientists. We're talking about lobbyists, lawyers, think tanks, even GW crusaders like Al Gore.
Their speeches and GW-related income provide them with private planes and fame and as you can see, even movie deals.

GW is definitely a man-made phenomenon. It's just that it may not have anything to do with, eh, Global Warming.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #34 of 248
Funny that SDW posts a thread with this title, when he's so many times called for GW Bush skeptics to be punished! LOL
post #35 of 248
In scientific peer-reviewed journals, not even one scientist expressed the belief that global warming either didn't exist or was not caused by humans. In the popular media however, 50% had doubt as to whether it exists or not.

This is a large discrepancy and it exists in part from some stupid meteorologists who don't know anything about the environment, just what they are told about the weather, which isn't much to be sure, and then go spouting off bullshit because they are in a position of authority. And because they are in a position of authority, people believe them.

Also, the AMS believes that global warming exists and is human caused. No other organizations certify people that have different beliefs about such key issues to the existence of the organization.
post #36 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Certainly, though I'm talking about more than just scientists.

There is a scientific "consensus" that GW is real. Money is made in publishing (as in scientific publishing) as that is often a criteria for being employed ay major universities and elsewhere. Secondly, these scientists often are featured speakers and presenters, bringing them income and recongnition. Moreover, it's clear that scientists who do not embrace the GW movement are shunned...not just by people like Ms. Cullen...but by the community itself. Their financial and professional security is threatened by their view.

Scientists who want to make big money don't work in academia. Other than a very select few, the idea is an oxymoron.
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #37 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by icfireball View Post

In scientific peer-reviewed journals, not even one scientist expressed the belief that global warming either didn't exist or was not caused by humans. In the popular media however, 50% had doubt as to whether it exists or not.

That's not true.

The original "hockey puck" study that showed global temperatures sharply rising at the start of the industrial age was famously disputed by a number of scientists. Not only did it ignore historical temperature spikes (which were more serious than our current situation), but it turned out their statistical was flawed: ANY data put into it would result in a hockey puck.

Recently there's been lots of work on the effects of man on climate change. It seems while we're not helping things, we're only a fraction of what's really causing global warming.

Also, there's zero consensus on the effects of global warming. Some predict desertification, others predict rainforests taking over the world, others predict another ice age. Some predict that oceans are going to swallow the earth, others predict all ocean life going extinct. Obviously the vast majority of these scientists are full of shit.

But here's the real problem I have: global warming of course is real. It's likely that the effects are real, and could be harmful. But the general populus doesn't seem to understand that: global warming could be a problem without being our fault.

Global warming has become an ideology. If you dismiss any part of the theory, people become furious and start screaming. Or try to ban meteorologists.

On the research side of things, global warming has no longer become a topic of real science. It's so easy to make doomsday predictions (a la nuclear winters), and any serious research general gets dismissed as "blasphemy." This is quite a serious problem: science has developed religious tendencies, and right now we have a cult in charge.
post #38 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

There is a scientific "consensus" that GW is real. Money is made in publishing (as in scientific publishing) as that is often a criteria for being employed ay major universities and elsewhere. Secondly, these scientists often are featured speakers and presenters, bringing them income and recongnition.

This is possibly the single most ludicrous statement I've heard in a long time.

Most over the top conspiracy theories are WAY over the top insane, like 9-11 being faked, or HIV being created by pharmaceuticals, or us not landing on the moon.

But that global warming was specifically created so that scientists could earn their practically non-existant salaries?

You're a teacher. You know you get paid shit.
post #39 of 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregmightdothat View Post

That's not true.

icfireball is referring to this study, and his portrayal of its findings are accurate: No peer-reviewed scientific papers came to a conclusion other than the scientific consensus: that global warming is occurring and that most of the recent warming is due to human activity.
post #40 of 248
Whoa. The scientists made up GW so they could publish about it and get paid AND get tenure?

Holy shit. I want me some of that if only so that then, when I went home for Xmas and my family asked me what I'd published that year and I told them, I wouldn't have to hang my head in shame when they asked me how much I got paid for the articles.
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
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › "Expert" Calls for GW Skeptics to be Punished.