[quote]jasmincar wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]jasmincar wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote] jasmincar wrote:
I would never lie for any money reason in any scientific field, because integrity is a core value for me and I am proud of it, and I am just a lowly dumbass. I would rather quit to be a janitor at a gym. Integrity is the first thing that makes a man. I am done with this point. [/quote]
lol, just lol…
[/quote]
??
[/quote]
The posts you have made in this thread point to exactly how ignorant you are of the way science is “working” with regards to research and especially with regard to climate change. Almost all of the posts you’ve made in this thread.
That does not mean that you are unintelligent, but it does mean you haven’t bothered to actually do a lot of serious reading and THINKING about how scientific funding is given out, how politics is currently affecting numerous fields of research, the history of politics in climate science, or for that matter the history of policis in science period. The posts you have made are arrogant and self-absorbed on the subject, built up by the presupposition that you are more informed than ALL of the people you are speaking to about the subject at hand who might disagree with you.
It is possible to be a scientist, to believe in climate change, and to see and oppose serious problems currently ravaging this field. It is also possible to have sound reasons for disagreeing with the extent of human induced environmental forcing propounded by certain environmental agencies and action groups. These things do not make one a “denier” automatically.
One of the two of us is a peer-reviewed scientist and chemist. And it’s not you. You would do well to check your ego like you want others to do, and go back and do some serious digging into these things.
The vast majority of scientists holding “skeptical” positions are not like NorCal in believing climate change is a scam.[/quote]
Yep.
And it’s not even a matter of people lying to make money or pursue some agenda, most people we call ‘scientists’ are employees working and eeking out a living just like the rest of us. They do what they are told and they work on what they are told to work on because they want their families to eat. So if you are one of these guys and you are told to compile CO2 numbers over the last decade and gather temperature data over the same period, you do it.
I think the point many of us are trying to make is simply this, that climate science has become so polluted with politics, that it’s truly impossible to know the actual truth as the data alone explains it. Everything on a planet affects its climate. There’s a lot to consider, from farts to factories. And nobody wants to give us the whole unvarnished truth, because information is only ever released with an agenda.
My point earlier was simply this, we can all agree we don’t want to drink dirty water and breath dirty air, and their are many practical solutions we can put forth that don’t murder economies or affect the way people live. [/quote]
To be fair, while the first part of the first paragraph is pretty much true, the last sentence displays some (not all) of the underlying misunderstandings that jasmincar displayed in all his posts.
In fact, a number of people in this thread and others have posted things that really aren’t accurate if you knew what was happening from a researchers perspective.
The trick is though, only one unqualified layman was calling everybody else “dumbasses” for not agreeing with his uninformed position, and thats where I draw the line on returning fire. The arrogance and ego is astonishing, and worse is that it comes in unbidden in a manner where the poster doesn’t know it is there, or recognize it as such.
It is the very definition on not knowing how much you don’t know. Worse, it implicitly also calls thousands (not an exaggeration) of well educated and PROFESSIONAL scientists “dumbasses” by extension, for not agreeing with an opinion for which the unqualified layperson espousing said opinion doesn’t even fully understand the foundations or history. Or complications, or critiques, or ongoing difficulties.
Your second paragraph is pretty much where I and many other scientists stand, although only the lunatic fringe gets any media from the “denier” side.
Your 3rd paragraph is 100% true as well.
[/quote]
It’s funny that you make it appear like most scientist don’t believe in the human cause of global warming while it’s the opposite. It doesn’t even matter what those people say, agree or not, if they aren’t directly linked with climate science. But yeah if you take a sample of untalented people with nothing going for them in unrelated scientific field from regional mid-west universities and ask them their opinions you get what you get. Dr.John Routine doesn’t believe in anthropogenic global warming too. I am beating a dead horse now.[/quote]
I never claimed that most scientists disbelieved global warming, nor did I try to make it appear that way.
I have said in other threads I believe in climate change. I have said that I believe humans are affecting it as well.
You specifically called people “dumbasses” for disagreeing with your position, based on a fallacious “appeal to authority” argument, not based upon your personal command of the topic, or even academic research as a whole. This was on the first page.
You are ignorant of even the most basic issues surrounding politics and science/academia, not only in this field but in other fields. No, I am not a climate scientist, but neither are you and I am in a better position–both academically, and professionally–than you are to evaluate evidence, the quality and use of said evidence, and the statistical methods applied to process said evidence. My point was very simply that you are talking out of your ass by in one post calling people dumbasses for not agreeing with you while simultaneously appealing to Authority fallaciously, and in subsequent posts show a serious lack of understanding the realities of a life spent in research.
You are wrong in your characterization of my position on global warming, you are wrong about the status of my “reading” and ability on the topic, you have made a false characterization of the issue into very (nonscientific) black and white terms and ignore a whole host of various positions and you don’t even know it. You have not done your homework. That is not my fault, that’s yours.
You just don’t like the fact I picked on you and illustrated that fact. Too bad.
It is an incontrovertible fact that there are thousands of professional scientists who do not share the alarmist position. It is also an incontrovertible fact that many of them work in areas with significant crossover to climate science (which is an umbrella term in any case), and that some of them work IN climate science, publishing peer reviewed work, and are not oil company shills.