Global Warming?

[tcreeley]

Don't you know that "science" is the belief in the ignorance of experts ?

My take on that is that knowledge is generated at such a rate, that knowledgeable today is ignorant tomorrow. As such you have to believe in the ignorance of the experts, because to stop with what they "know" is to share their ignorance. However, as Feynman did, scientists are always in the business of learning through discovery and experiment. It helps them keep current and up to date.

I find that having a good dose of healthy skepticism is a good counterbalance to the pompous when dealing with an expert. However it is easy to tell when they begin to talk if they know their stuff.

 

[/pine]

...scientists are always in the business of learning through discovery and experiment. It helps them keep current and up to date....

Funny you mention the word "business" in this analogy...all business's (and universities) have an agenda...those scientists employed by or funded by businesses or universities etc. follow the same agenda...it has nothing to do with any conspiracy theories..it's called "job security"...

I find that having a good dose of healthy skepticism is a good counterbalance to the pompous when dealing with an expert.

In the same breath you should also cite the "pompous" attitude of so many that believe a majority of "scientists" that are paid and or funded by "business" interests (and their agendas)...again...there is no conspiracy theories...it's basic common sense...unseen by the highly gullible and naive...

And BTW...most (if not all) universities (And their funding deciding panels) have business interests and agendas...

 

[houstonscott]

Is it funny how everyone thinks the weather should be as it was while you were a child growing up. What's that a 15 year period or so, from age 4-18 is what is remembered and is automatically considered normal. Doesn't matter if you were there during a long drought or a cold period or a warm period that's the way it's supposed to be forever.

HS

 

[madmax12]

Religion has terrible record in seeking truth. Not only the church was not seeking truth it used to burn people for saying the obvious truth such as the Earth is round and rotates. If church has the power it had in "dark ages" (it was called dark ages exactly for that for that reason) we would still be made believe that earth is flat and is a center of universe.

There are so many ways to respond to that.

Let me try an unconventional approach.

The Literary work that supports your view well... is the Bible.

The Cross. He was crucified. For Blasphemy.

He was killed. By religion. His OWN religion.

He did not come because humanity was fine. He came because humanity is dead.

It is not the healthy who need a doctor. But the sick.

......................................................

Another thought, less profound.

Some police are corrupt.

But I bet you will pull over when one is behind you with the lights flashing...at you. And you will pay the fine. Even though there are some who are corrupt. The Law stands and the enforcer is over you... even though some are corrupt.

.....................................................

All of religions flaws, are not evidence that the Creator is not real.

Humanity's flaws are evidence that He is very real.

 

[houstonscott]

Easy to see why people think atheists have turned to the green movement for a sense of fulfillment in their lives. Wow these last few pages prove that observation to be true.

HS

 

[Baby Grand]

If human activity can change the weather (and my personal opinion is that it can),
then it is a knob that can be turned by altering human activity.
Seems like a valuable thing to know.
All these years and nobody knew there was a thermostat in the room.
The fact that it may exist bothers some people and they will deny it,
regardless of what the facts are.
Others will see the utility of the thing and use it to their own gain.
Those who use it to their own gain do so at the (potential) detriment of the denier.
Better to understand what is and how to use it than to call it a witch and burn it.

 

[tcreeley]

Easy to see why people think atheists have turned to the green movement for a sense of fulfillment in their lives. Wow these last few pages prove that observation to be true.

HS

I don't know. Maybe I'm just mixed up ...that noah story sure looks interesting, and I hear there is a good Jonah story too, and a Moby Dick story. Which one should I read first....oh the shortest....trouble is I've read them already. Laying back in a field on a windy day is a whole lot more entertaining! Talk about turning to green! -Whole lot better than crucifixion talk!

 

[IslandTractor]

Funny you mention the word "business" in this analogy...all business's (and universities) have an agenda...those scientists employed by or funded by businesses or universities etc. follow the same agenda...it has nothing to do with any conspiracy theories..it's called "job security"...

In the same breath you should also cite the "pompous" attitude of so many that believe a majority of "scientists" that are paid and or funded by "business" interests (and their agendas)...again...there is no conspiracy theories...it's basic common sense...unseen by the highly gullible and naive...

And BTW...most (if not all) universities (And their funding deciding panels) have business interests and agendas...

So, the fact that scientists are gainfully employed and have jobs is evidence that their work is biased? The fact that universities have endowments or business interests is evidence that their work is all biased too. Do you think unemployed scientists are more likely to tell the truth? Where do you come up with these ideas? Are you guys all commies? Nah, just dittoheads. I thought private enterprise was the solution to all our problems. Your understanding of the scientific process is remarkably naive.

Is Rush Limbaugh University your only trusted reference? Your paranoid and remarkably naive view off how science is done makes it rather hard to have any rational discussion. Do you not understand how shooting down an existing theory is about the most exciting and career enhancing move any scientist can make short of coming up with a break through new theory? Do you understand how many hundreds of young climate scientists would give their left nuts to have solid data that undercut an existing theory? Are you so gullible that you imagine some dark force that keeps such contradictory theories out of the real scientific literature? Don't you think such data would make it to some respectable website or blog? I'm not counting the dittohead blogosphere here just any of the respected scientific blogs.

How many commissioned studies have investigated charges of weather science fraud? How many of those bodies came back with a positive finding? I'm not counting the self appointed right wingnut articles but rather those reported in reputable science journals. Oh, you don't think their are any reputable science journals....hey, in that case you are by definition a paranoid wingnut. Chatter away with each other but be aware that even Romney accepts that global warming is real and he is open to the idea that man plays a role. So, you deniers are WAY out if touch with both scientific consensus and your own (or closest acceptable) presidential candidate. Great. Just keep up the looney behavior and please don't vote for anyone who disagrees with you on global warming, especially if you live in Ohio, Florida or Virginia.

As far as I can tell, Cat Driver and Houston Scott are just dittohead blowhards but Slash, I think you understand this scientific process and should know perfectly well that mega conspiracies are virtually impossible to hide and that scientific misconduct is routinely outed when it is real. Why do you throw your hat into their corner? I can understand a rightist political stance but have trouble with the denigration of science purely for political purposes.

 

[Rainbody]

So, the fact that scientists are gainfully employed and have jobs is evidence that their work is biased? The fact that universities have endowments or business interests is evidence that their work is all biased too. Do you think unemployed scientists are more likely to tell the truth? Where do you come up with these ideas? Are you guys all commies? Nah, just dittoheads. I thought private enterprise was the solution to all our problems. Your understanding of the scientific process is remarkably naive.

Is Rush Limbaugh University your only trusted reference? Your paranoid and remarkably naive view off how science is done makes it rather hard to have any rational discussion. Do you not understand how shooting down an existing theory is about the most exciting and career enhancing move any scientist can make short of coming up with a break through new theory? Do you understand how many hundreds of young climate scientists would give their left nuts to have solid data that undercut an existing theory? Are you so gullible that you imagine some dark force that keeps such contradictory theories out of the real scientific literature? Don't you think such data would make it to some respectable website or blog? I'm not counting the dittohead blogosphere here just any of the respected scientific blogs.

How many commissioned studies have investigated charges of weather science fraud? How many of those bodies came back with a positive finding? I'm not counting the self appointed right wingnut articles but rather those reported in reputable science journals. Oh, you don't think their are any reputable science journals....hey, in that case you are by definition a paranoid wingnut. Chatter away with each other but be aware that even Romney accepts that global warming is real and he is open to the idea that man plays a role. So, you deniers are WAY out if touch with both scientific consensus and your own (or closest acceptable) presidential candidate. Great. Just keep up the looney behavior and please don't vote for anyone who disagrees with you on global warming, especially if you live in Ohio, Florida or Virginia.

As far as I can tell, Cat Driver and Houston Scott are just dittohead blowhards but Slash, I think you understand this scientific process and should know perfectly well that mega conspiracies are virtually impossible to hide and that scientific misconduct is routinely outed when it is real. Why do you throw your hat into their corner? I can understand a rightist political stance but have trouble with the denigration of science purely for political purposes.

So, the fact that scientists are gainfully employed and have jobs is evidence that their work is biased? The fact that universities have endowments or business interests is evidence that their work is all biased too. Do you think unemployed scientists are more likely to tell the truth? Where do you come up with these ideas? Are you guys all commies? Nah, just dittoheads. I thought private enterprise was the solution to all our problems. Your understanding of the scientific process is remarkably naive.

Is Rush Limbaugh University your only trusted reference? Your paranoid and remarkably naive view off how science is done makes it rather hard to have any rational discussion. Do you not understand how shooting down an existing theory is about the most exciting and career enhancing move any scientist can make short of coming up with a break through new theory? Do you understand how many hundreds of young climate scientists would give their left nuts to have solid data that undercut an existing theory? Are you so gullible that you imagine some dark force that keeps such contradictory theories out of the real scientific literature? Don't you think such data would make it to some respectable website or blog? I'm not counting the dittohead blogosphere here just any of the respected scientific blogs.

How many commissioned studies have investigated charges of weather science fraud? How many of those bodies came back with a positive finding? I'm not counting the self appointed right wingnut articles but rather those reported in reputable science journals. Oh, you don't think their are any reputable science journals....hey, in that case you are by definition a paranoid wingnut. Chatter away with each other but be aware that even Romney accepts that global warming is real and he is open to the idea that man plays a role. So, you deniers are WAY out if touch with both scientific consensus and your own (or closest acceptable) presidential candidate. Great. Just keep up the looney behavior and please don't vote for anyone who disagrees with you on global warming, especially if you live in Ohio, Florida or Virginia.

As far as I can tell, Cat Driver and Houston Scott are just dittohead blowhards but Slash, I think you understand this scientific process and should know perfectly well that mega conspiracies are virtually impossible to hide and that scientific misconduct is routinely outed when it is real. Why do you throw your hat into their corner? I can understand a rightist political stance but have trouble with the denigration of science purely for political purposes.

If you don't think that a scientist or whomever has a vested interest in getting a paycheck, your not ground in reality. And the jab at free enterprise will only paint you as a commie. But that is the thing isn't it. We've covered that chapter already. Hard to dispute their own words. You carry the card or just donate to the cause?

How do you get a Phd you ask. Like say in climatology. Why you have a large study that adds to the field of climatology. A peer reviewed study with hard data kept on file for either 5 or 10 years. Do you think your peers would support your study proving them a fraud? You think you even get a BS or masters in climatology when your thesis is about ice at the south pole increasing? I wouldnt see a lot of As in your future trying to prove the estblishment is wrong. And lets be honest, few will try. I'm sorry to say it's that way in most fields. Theres little room for out of the box ideas. It's not hard to understand when you know how these communities work.

Oh and there's no consensus. Not by a long shot.

Great job on the name calling.

Btw What did you find out about Mr. Hansen?

 

[IslandTractor]

If you don't think that a scientist or whomever has a vested interest in getting a paycheck, your not ground in reality. And the jab at free enterprise will only paint you as a commie. But that is the thing isn't it. We've covered that chapter already. Hard to dispute their own words. You carry the card or just donate to the cause?

How do you get a Phd you ask. Like say in climatology. Why you have a large study that adds to the field of climatology. A peer reviewed study with hard data kept on file for either 5 or 10 years. Do you think your peers would support your study proving them a fraud? You think you even get a BS or masters in climatology when your thesis is about ice at the south pole increasing? I wouldnt see a lot of As in your future trying to prove the estblishment is wrong. And lets be honest, few will try. I'm sorry to say it's that way in most fields. Theres little room for out of the box ideas. It's not hard to understand when you know how these communities work.

Oh and there's no consensus. Not by a long shot.

Great job on the name calling.

Btw What did you find out about Mr. Hansen?

You clearly have no idea how science works. Presenting data that contradicts accepted wisdom is exactly what gets you attention and promotion in an academic setting. The naive view that non commercial science is all about kissing butt is simply rediculous and flat out wrong. Where do you come up with this stuff?

In commercial science such as pharmaceutical research, results not pleasing to the employer are often suppressed though even that is much more difficult now than in the past due to new NIH and FDA regulations and policies. I'm sure there are other commercial examples and perhaps some government lab examples (Congress does like to meddle via the budget process) but it is REALLY hard to suppress academic research. Your example of climate scientists suppressing a doctoral candidates work because it contradicted earlier work is not believable as multiple individual scientists would review any such work and they love cutting each other down a peg or two. If Prof A tried to suppress work. Profs B,C and D would have a field day. We would all hear about it in near real time.

The Internet allows anyone whose work is suppressed to "publish" on line without further peer review or control. Where are the data that are being suppressed? This notion that contradictory data is being suppressed is just another variation on black helicopter boogie man conspiracy theory.