Global Warming?

[IslandTractor]

I love the talk about how you have to be in the field to talk about someone's work/research/option. The whole public money thing aside, this really isn't a road to be on. When you box in your "group" you get drift from the main stream. I really like that mentality, only people on my field can judge me. Somehow I doubt they default to their medical doctor under the same pretense. Or matters of economics or military. Goes right back to the elitism. I know better than you, how dare you challenge me.
I know your not clinging to this idea that scientist are above agendas because that's just ridiculous.
There is always a motivate, always a reason. And by some act of god, you find this pure of heart scientist who's self funded, I would be excited to read his studies. But I'm also waiting to win the lotto, my chickens to lay golden eggs, and the fields to plant themselves.
I guess all the agenda behind promoting AGW fell on deaf ears. Your own leaders of the movement words weren't enough. At some point, people will figure out this out. You can't insulate these studies enough. I just hope the blowback doesn't take all the good in an attempt to right the bad.

Yeah, experts really suck. I think truck drivers would be just as good at critiquing bridge engineering as civil engineers. I think cooks should be able to critique air traffic control protocols. I think radiologists should determine where to dig oil wells. I think your argument is pretty obviously nuts too. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and you can believe whatever you like including that the earth is flat. However, I for one will not listen to a self appointed "agendist" as an authority on a scientific issue. Global climate change is a scientific problem/question not a vote comparable to who likes chocolate better than vanilla. Yes, experts are sometimes elite. Glad we have them. Would you like to rely on elite special forces to plan special operations or just anyone who finished basic training and volunteered themselves for the job? We go through anti intellectual phases in this country periodically. We seem to be in one now and it looks like you subscribe to the Rick Perry, Michelle Bachman, James Inhofe school of science who think they know better and like to disparage any climate scientist who disagrees with them. To my knowledge none of them has ever prepared themselves as scientists before inflicting their own scientific opinions on us. I prefer listening to experts who actually do the science and discuss their findings in peer reviewed journals.

I never stated that scientists were above having agendas. Quite to the contrary I believe they often have pet theories and in some cases have political agendas. My point is that the best way to "out" these biased scientists is to simply let science do it's job unfettered by politicians, alarmists and reactionaries. Other scientists will catch the errors and generate data to correct mistakes. Science, done without interference, virtually always self corrects. It's the nature of the beast. The example I gave earlier of how Stalin distorted and destroyed biology in Russia is an extreme and pretty rare example of how bad it can get. Even that example shows that a very powerful man and organization can distort science only locally (Russia, USSR) and that other scientists outside his reach rapidly correct those mistakes. There are other many other examples too but altogether these distorted examples account for a very very small part of the scientific output. Science is not exactly immune to politics but it is really really hard for politicians to severely distort the scientific process for long. Stamp out stem cell research in the USA and it will pop up in Singapore etc etc.

 

[Rainbody]

Yeah, experts really suck. I think truck drivers would be just as good at critiquing bridge engineering as civil engineers. I think cooks should be able to critique air traffic control protocols. I think radiologists should determine where to dig oil wells. I think your argument is pretty obviously nuts too. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and you can believe whatever you like including that the earth is flat. However, I for one will not listen to a self appointed "agendist" as an authority on a scientific issue. Global climate change is a scientific problem/question not a vote comparable to who likes chocolate better than vanilla. Yes, experts are sometimes elite. Glad we have them. Would you like to rely on elite special forces to plan special operations or just anyone who finished basic training and volunteered themselves for the job? We go through anti intellectual phases in this country periodically. We seem to be in one now and it looks like you subscribe to the Rick Perry, Michelle Bachman, James Inhofe school of science who think they know better and like to disparage any climate scientist who disagrees with them. To my knowledge none of them has ever prepared themselves as scientists before inflicting their own scientific opinions on us. I prefer listening to experts who actually do the science and discuss their findings in peer reviewed journals.

I never stated that scientists were above having agendas. Quite to the contrary I believe they often have pet theories and in some cases have political agendas. My point is that the best way to "out" these biased scientists is to simply let science do it's job unfettered by politicians, alarmists and reactionaries. Other scientists will catch the errors and generate data to correct mistakes. Science, done without interference, virtually always self corrects. It's the nature of the beast. The example I gave earlier of how Stalin distorted and destroyed biology in Russia is an extreme and pretty rare example of how bad it can get. Even that example shows that a very powerful man and organization can distort science only locally (Russia, USSR) and that other scientists outside his reach rapidly correct those mistakes. There are other many other examples too but altogether these distorted examples account for a very very small part of the scientific output. Science is not exactly immune to politics but it is really really hard for politicians to severely distort the scientific process for long. Stamp out stem cell research in the USA and it will pop up in Singapore etc etc.

So when you see your doctor, you just go with whatever he says? Your 401k is managed by your economist with no input from you? All these average types should set down and know whats good for them. This idea that only certain people are able to make an input is crazy. I hope to god your not someone's boss. Your doing a great job painting yourself as an elite.
The big man at the front says one and one is three and we are all suppose to agree.
There's a saying in my job field, " don't be a will percipient in your own death". The idea being that you never take someone's status, experience, or credentials for granted.
The cherry picking and adjustment of the mainstream studies is reality. It puts all climate studies in a bad light and their peers unwillingness to do anything about it, brings all climatology groups out of the definition of a professional organization. If you won't hold your peers to a standard, well then it falls to the old "birds of a feather flock together".
I guess is what proof do you need? I gave quotes of scientists, enviro groups, EPA members, and champions of the cause. I've posted several counter studies poking holes in models and selective data mining. New studies and models linking climate to solar output, stellar distance, and even gravity. None of it being associated with air particles/content/density.
In the end it is a political question. You can not change the lives of millions by ending private property, starting population controls, and management of human consumption, and hide behind this idea it isn't political. It's socialism, my friend. In a different color.

 

[/pine]

I prefer listening to experts who actually do the science

Need I remind you that:


"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts"

:dance1:

 

[IslandTractor]

So when you see your doctor, you just go with whatever he says? Your 401k is managed by your economist with no input from you? All these average types should set down and know whats good for them. This idea that only certain people are able to make an input is crazy. I hope to god your not someone's boss. Your doing a great job painting yourself as an elite.
The big man at the front says one and one is three and we are all suppose to agree.
There's a saying in my job field, " don't be a will percipient in your own death". The idea being that you never take someone's status, experience, or credentials for granted.
The cherry picking and adjustment of the mainstream studies is reality. It puts all climate studies in a bad light and their peers unwillingness to do anything about it, brings all climatology groups out of the definition of a professional organization. If you won't hold your peers to a standard, well then it falls to the old "birds of a feather flock together".
I guess is what proof do you need? I gave quotes of scientists, enviro groups, EPA members, and champions of the cause. I've posted several counter studies poking holes in models and selective data mining. New studies and models linking climate to solar output, stellar distance, and even gravity. None of it being associated with air particles/content/density.
In the end it is a political question. You can not change the lives of millions by ending private property, starting population controls, and management of human consumption, and hide behind this idea it isn't political. It's socialism, my friend. In a different color.

Your last paragraph makes my point. You think the issue of global climate change is "in the end a political question". I don't. I think it is a scientific question which needs to be solved and short of a clear cut solution (i.e. earth is round and all scientists agree the evidence is overwhelming so it is time to move on that information), we need to act responsibly based on what the preponderance of evidence does support.

Your agenda is clearly reflected in what you write next. Ending private property. Starting population controls. Management of human consumption. Socialism. Note that not one of your final questions is related to scientific evidence. You have a purely political agenda which drives your science criticism. You state that you've posted counter studies. Perhaps you have (I don't recall and have not read this whole thread) but are those valid and if so why have the vast majority of climate scientists continued to believe that man's activities are a significant driver of the climate changes? Does the fact that a particular counter study of yours appeals to you (? because you like the outcome implications) but is not highly regarded by the professionals not bother you and cause you to rethink your position? Are you just cherry picking data like Crichton to formulate an alternative explanation and ignoring the vast body of information that seems to disagree with your position. This really isn't about choosing chocolate versus vanilla. This is about science. Your opinion (or mine or Crichton's) really is not worth as much as that of a climate scientist. Similarly, your opinion on why you have a belly ache really isn't the same as the opinion of a surgeon who has experience in evaluating stomach pain, has examined you, has lab tests, an ultrasound and MRI in front of him. I understand that you get to ask him questions and may not accept his proposed therapy. That is your right and the equivalent of holding any opinion you want on climate change. However, I think most people would recognize that the surgeon is in a much better position than you to make the correct diagnosis and has the experience to recommend the most appropriate therapy. Being an informed consumer and asking questions is a lot different than being an expert.

You claim that scientists are cherry picking data. I would hold that politicians and novelists are the ones cherry picking data. And, given the complexity of the various models to explain climate change, I seriously doubt you or anyone else on TBN is in any position to support or criticize any of them. You throw around terms like solar output, stellar distance etc but do you really consider yourself in a position to judge these papers? Isn't that just like second guessing the surgeon? Have you have actually studied these fields enough to understand the methodology and analytic techniques used? We're not talking shade tree mechanics here that you can pick up in an afternoon or even a decade of self directed study. Would you submit yourself to surgery by someone who had read a few papers and had his own theory (contrary to what the government sponsored surgeons recommended) of how to proceed?

All these arguments about how the modeling is imprecise or that we just don't know what will happen in the next decade etc are functionally exactly the same as those who disputed Columbus. What was his proof that he earth was round? We won't know until you fall off the edge (or don't) so you cannot be sure the earth is round. Do you think he should have stayed in port until the data was incontrovertible?

Again, I think you have outed yourself as being primarily politically motivated in your criticism and are therefore exactly the biased sort of person you claim others to be.

 

[/pine]

All these arguments about how the modeling is imprecise or that we just don't know what will happen in the next decade etc are functionally exactly the same as those who disputed Columbus. What was his proof that he earth was round? We won't know until you fall off the edge (or don't) so you cannot be sure the earth is round. Do you think he should have stayed in port until the data was incontrovertible?

FYI..The Earth was proven to be round hundreds (if not thousands) of years (if you believed in the experts of the day) before Columbus...(back to school (wikipedia) for you) :laughing:

 

[IslandTractor]

FYI..The Earth was proven to be round hundreds (if not thousands) of years (if you believed in the experts of the day) before Columbus...(back to school (wikipedia) for you) :laughing:

Ah, he's back, it must be recess at troll school.

 

[Cat_Driver]

The day anyone can explain to me how 'SCIENTIST" can use the same no strike the THE EXACT SAME data/information and come up with two POLAR OPPOSITE conclusions, then and only then will I buy gullible warming.

While all you young uns that believe in garbage science that was parroted to you by your God Al Gore, see I actually lived it in the 70's

Sit down, get comfy, and let me tell you a story:

WAY back in the 70's Time Magazine on it's cover told the world how "scientist' Great scholars, the brightest of the brightest, that the world was going to have GLOBAL COOLING , and the entire world would freeze another Ice age.


Heres the cover if you don't believe me
http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf


You will notice they took climate date from waaaaaaay back in time and drew this conclusion. NOW- TODAY we have "scientist' Great scholars, the brightest of the brightest, that the world is going to have GLOBAL WARMING , and the entire world would DRY UP AND BLOW AWAY.

No one on this planet much less all the scholars here can take the exact same info and get TWO ANSWERS, NO ONE. Once you understand that then you know Global warming AND cooling is BOVINE EXCREMENT.

Who know if I live Long enough they may declare GLOBAL NORMAL

 

[MikeFarm]

Hi all

IslandTractor puts forward sensible arguments. Nice that we have some rational thinkers still hanging onto this thread

What will be amazing is that we will know the outcome of this TBN tread within several years - not several decades. It now appears that the Artic will be ice fee during the summers within a decade. The average global surface sea temp rise has been following the uppermost predictions of previous climate models. This should really worry the US as most models predict a lot less rainfall for the northern US regions producing much of the wheat and other grain crops that the UN relies on for famine relief. Africa will come out worse again - it's a basket case now and with less food it will be a destabilising influence politically.

Mike

 

[toppop52]

Actually your actions are determined at birth and it's very unlikely logic or rational thought will persuade.

You believe in predestination? I always found that fascinating, my uncle was a Holiness preacher and had that belief.

 

[toppop52]

Ah, he's back, it must be recess at troll school.

He's correct, the earth was considered round by all but a few educated people of the world for many centuries before Chris sailed the ocean blue.:thumbsup: