Paris Climate Conference

[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]Drew1411 wrote:

[quote]jasmincar wrote:
No they don’t, their mandate is to evaluate methodically the information based on scientific publications. [/quote]

Are you really arguing that political bias doesn’t exist in regards to how some scientists view climate change? If that is true, why would a scientist leave top organizations with statements specifically stating that they were not allowed to view things in a scientific way as there were preconceived conclusions based on political agendas?

[quote]Saying fossil fuel is the primary determinant of economic development and the elimination of it is detrimental to the second is a bold statement.
[/quote]

I didn’t say primary determinant of economic development. I said, “Eliminating carbon as a fuel source conflicts with the economic development of many countries”. If you don’t agree, how many countries would not have a negative economic impact if they didn’t utilize fossil fuels in any way?

[/quote]

Drew we may disagree on a number of other subjects, but you have made very well balanced and thought out posts in this thread that are much more substantial than many want to give credit for.

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]Drew1411 wrote:

[quote]jasmincar wrote:
No they don’t, their mandate is to evaluate methodically the information based on scientific publications. [/quote]

Are you really arguing that political bias doesn’t exist in regards to how some scientists view climate change? If that is true, why would a scientist leave top organizations with statements specifically stating that they were not allowed to view things in a scientific way as there were preconceived conclusions based on political agendas?

[quote]Saying fossil fuel is the primary determinant of economic development and the elimination of it is detrimental to the second is a bold statement.
[/quote]

I didn’t say primary determinant of economic development. I said, “Eliminating carbon as a fuel source conflicts with the economic development of many countries”. If you don’t agree, how many countries would not have a negative economic impact if they didn’t utilize fossil fuels in any way?

[/quote]

Drew we may disagree on a number of other subjects, but you have made very well balanced and thought out posts in this thread that are much more substantial than many want to give credit for.[/quote]

Thanks, I appreciate that from someone like you (not sure what we disagree on, although that doesn’t change anything). I’m still relatively new around here but I read the vaccination thread and thought the same of your posts.

[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]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]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]

I also want to know the data from the steps that have already been taken to curb “global warming”, has any of it helped? Based on the current hysteria, I’d say no, but I do wonder if anybody does know. We have been at this for 2 decades now and we should know a little something if the steps already taken have worked at all. If what has been done has had no effect, then doing more of the same on a larger scale won’t help either. Where is that data? Why doesn’t anybody ask that question?

[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]

I don’t know where you are coming from since I have never claimed I was informed. Are you trying to isolate what I say out of its context? I was saying that I would never claim something that I knew was wrong, so that there is no way the 36 nobel laureates (versus 1), in the position that they are and being who they are, who signed the proposition wouldn’t believe the declaration they are putting forward. Do you think that they aren’t aware at least as much as you of the problems ravaging the field?

The fact that you do some specific things in chemistry doesn’t put you in position to question what a bunch of experts in another field do for their living, even if it’s another branch of chemistry. The fact that you read some books on the subject with some opinion of some guy who thinks he is informed but in fact has only a hidden belief that everything will always be what is is and be just fine, and write a book that is really also just a way of putting forward his desire to live as he wants and not be bothered by anyone (like everyone else), doesn’t make you informed.

If you want to cherry pick the things to be skeptic about that suit your system of beliefs, claiming that the human cause isn’t clear and that it’s really politic instead, while all those things come from the same credible source and all those people with no money and funding issues then that’s your problem. You can also try to come up with some alternate scientific mumbo jumbo about some radiation correlation (and you don’t even understand that too).

Personally I will not spend years of my life trying to correctly understand an issue while I am not even sure I have what it takes to correctly understand it, even if I had all the right literature sorted and available. I am busy understanding and doing other stuff for a living just as everyone else and people who claim otherwise are lying to themselves and other people. People don’t even have the time to understand the things other people do in their own field. I will not claim on an internet forum I am peer reviewed whatever in real life while there is so much junk professionals and students in university.

So yeah the only thing that I know is that you don’t know what you are talking about.

[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]usmccds423 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]

You say integrity is one of your core values, but you wanted to hire someone to hack your school’s network to falsify your records…[/quote]

This is not a kind of falsifying that harm or injustly favor anyone, so this has nothing to do with my inner sense of good and wrong and its coherency (integrity). I don’t mind if you want to make it sound as if I cheated my grades and diploma while my goal was to join a class I didn’t have access to for bad reasons, which turned out to affect my life in a very bad way.

But yeah I don’t respect abusive rules with no use from faceless institutions who don’t care and respect their students in so many ways. You would be happy to learn that it all turned out for the best.

[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.

Thousands of scientists believe in man made global warming. I am one of them.

You just don’t like my post directed at you, and that’s not my fault or my problem.

Further, my reading on the subject stays updated, and not from news digests, but from actual studies in the actual literature, and actual discussions between peer reviewed climate scientists as well as physicists.

I put my time in, and continue to do so. You have not, and do not.

[quote]jasmincar wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 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]

You say integrity is one of your core values, but you wanted to hire someone to hack your school’s network to falsify your records…[/quote]

This is not a kind of falsifying that harm or injustly favor anyone, so this has nothing to do with my inner sense of good and wrong and its coherency (integrity). I don’t mind if you want to make it sound as if I cheated my grades and diploma while my goal was to join a class I didn’t have access to for bad reasons, which turned out to affect my life in a very bad way.

But yeah I don’t respect abusive rules with no use from faceless institutions who don’t care and respect their students in so many ways. You would be happy to learn that it all turned out for the best.[/quote]

I’m glad it worked out.

You would have been unjustly favoring yourself and you weren’t just trying to join a class, come on…

You don’t get to just decide what integrity means.

I continue to find the climate debate fascinating at how passionate the debate is. Saw an interesting article at Bloomberg that linked to one of the better approaches I’ve seen, while highlighting some of the hysteria on both sides.

There’s a long version here: http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2016/03/denying-the-climate-catastrophe-1-introduction.html

or a short (and older) version here: Understanding the Global Warming Debate

I don’t necessarily agree with the action Meyer’s recommends but the analysis is tough to argue with. With his type of analysis I’m surprised people still use the hockey stick graph and other dis-proved stances (more or less everything Al Gore used in his movie). I liked the insight about how during the argument one side argues for what can cause global warming, while the other is arguing against the extreme positive feedback loops.

Drew,

Meyer’s piece was actually a very good layperson overview of the general fracas. He gets some of the details wrong and there is much more to the story (naturally, as complex issues are almost always that way) but overall very good.

Very few–actually none–of the educated skeptics are “science deniers”. That is a strawman beaten to death, restuffed, then beaten to death again by media and political activists, as well as activist scientists (much like activist judges). And the occasional conspiracy theory loon who is an actual denier. You simply do not become the head of School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences (Judith Curry, formerly), or the MIT School of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences while being a crackpot or subpar scientist (Richard Lindzen, formerly). These scientists are some of the best in the world–although in my opinion Lindzen is a bit too crotchety in his statements these days, which allows his enemies to make total hay out of his public statements. He’s a scientist not a politician, and the people playing political activist are much better at it because they have been doing it so much longer.

As an aside here, think about the term “denier” or “science denier”. Meyer mentions it at the opening of his article. That is not a scientific term. That is a naked appeal to emotion and a tactic right out of “Rules for Radicals”.

Scientists don’t demonize their opponents. Politicians and demogogues do that. Scientists respond on the SCIENCE. The material at hand, and they do it with reason and supported arguments. And the adoption of these political terms by certain of the scientific community in this matter shows us what is happening: the politicization of science into “science activism”, an insidious perversion of scientific inquiry. It’s not just something “big oil” or “big pharma” or “big [insert conspiracy theory here]” does. In fact, most of these companies are far LESS guilty of this than the Greenpeace, save-the-world crowd.

In any case, on a material level this is what it basically breaks down to:

Agreement:

  1. Surface temperatures have increased since 1880
  2. Humans are adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere
  3. Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases have a warming effect on the planet

Disagreement:

  1. Whether the warming since 1950 has been dominated by human causes

  2. How much the planet will warm in the 21st century

  3. Whether warming is ‘dangerous’
    a) How to globally define ‘dangerous’, which Meyer touched on: northern countries may well like longer growing seasons, have positive changes, etc.

  4. Whether we can afford to radically reduce CO2 emissions, and whether reduction will improve well-being

And scientists disagree because:

  1. Insufficient & inadequate observational evidence
  2. Disagreement about the value of different classes of evidence (e.g. global climate models)
  3. Disagreement about the appropriate logical framework for linking and assessing the evidence
  4. Assessments of areas of ambiguity & ignorance
  5. Belief polarization as a result of politicization of the science

It is worth noting that the last point is the most destructive force there is when trying to move towards a more perfect understanding of the problems and potential problems we face with climate science, measurement, and our changing climate. This polarization started in small nuclei and infected–on a widespread scale–first the laypeople and media, and then looped back to the scientists and academic crowd to complete the epidemic. We are now in a spot where it has metastasized.

It is also worth noting that even if the threat of catastrophic climate change is as bad as the most alarmist state, and the evidence is mounting that it is not, there are HUGE shortfalls in the proposed solutions from not only technological, but also economical, health and ethical standpoints. These shortfalls do not receive the attention they NEED because the debate has become a shouting match over a strawman and the political activists are screaming to “Do something!” without considering if it is even possible or beneficial (sound like any other debate you’ve heard of?).

NOTE: the bulleted lists here are Dr. Judith Curry’s, used in presentation, and used to describe the debate. Although I agree with them I did not come up with the phraseology. If I had done it it would have been more verbose lol.

NOTE 2: one thing Meyer overlooks is the wobbly and questionable nature of much of what is happening in the climate science sphere as a result of the politicization. That is beyond the ken of this post and his article, but you can look back at it (ClimateGate email scandal, FOIA blockages, manipulation of peer review process to stifle dissenting views, shitty statistics, non-compliance with journal regulations to make data freely available for criticism, delay of dataset release by 10 years, shoddy bookkeeping that can easily hide overt manipulation of data, etc etc). These are direct results of the political atmosphere that permeates the subject–they did not exist 25 years ago. None of them.

2 Likes

Thanks for looking into it, I appreciate the science-based perspective that you bring and definitely need the layperson view, but usually articles try to make it WAY too simplistic with something like “greenhouse gases have warming effect, end of story”. I’m trying to be as objective as possible but its hard to find non-biased climate change analysis.

I agree, the politicization point you mention is a critical one that makes objective science, debate, or solutions almost impossible. Even the comments below Meyer’s article bring up the same biases that he scientifically debunks, but the polarization seems to put blinders on people and not allow them to consider other points of view.

1 Like

Thanks. Glad to help. This is something I make it a point to try to keep up with and involved with, given the political and economic ramifications and past scandals. And I just find the subject (sans politics) interesting.

It is extremely hard to find non-biased climate change information. However, it can be done. I think extremely highly of Dr. Judith Curry, who runs a blog called “Climate, etc”. She is an honest scientist and has gotten grief from both sides because of it. In general, that is the criterion I find most valuable. As a past Dave Tate article said: “Are you pissing off the right people?” Dr.'s Pielke sr. and Jr. are both excellent scientists as well as very good sources of information, and they run blogs but I can’t remember their names right now. Steve McIntyre is more of a skeptic (though not a science denier by any means), but his statistical chops and analysis are generally extremely good. He is a statistician by trade, and in a data driven field such as climate science statisticians come into their own. Although to be fair I have yet to see him really state his entire opinion on the matter; he sticks mostly to specific issues with specific papers and that is what a good scientist should do in my opinion. He runs a blog called Climate Audit.

Ed Hawkins is a generally more AGW warming minded scientist (I detest the pejorative terms but I can’t really find a good term for him), but he is also honest and willing to interact with people he doesn’t agree with in a civil way. He runs a blog called “climate lab book”. Gavin Schmidt is a complete prick and total partisan–and in my estimation that completely blows his judgment and credibility–but he is a very influential scientist as well as curator of NASA datasets. He is extraordinarily arrogant and his statistical chops are not fantastic enough to prop up his ego in my opinion, but it pays to watch what he publishes and comments on. He also runs a blog called “Real Climate”. Roy Spencer is mostly a skeptic and works with the satellite datasets. John Cristy curates the satellite datasets at Alabama.

In general I put it on the spectrum:

Skeptic…Neutral/Lukewarm…Warmer…Raging Alarmist…
Spencer/McIntyre…Curry…Pielkes…Hawkins…Schmidt…Mann

I find it best to get a balance of data from all sides. As Judy Curry is fond of saying, “you find what you shine a light on”, meaning what you look for you tend to find. Therefore I try to find as many different sources of info as I can to get the full perspective. All of these scientists are peer reviewed. Curry, the Pielkes, Spencer, I think Hawkins, Schmidt and Mann have all given Congressional testimony and all hold or have held very highly regarded positions/chairs in the academic world. Schmidt and Mann are the only ones I have a problem with, and it has more to do with their behavior than anything. Start into the blogs. I would recommend Curry’s as the first and most well balanced across the spectrum. She also aggregates weekly science articles. Outside of that you would have to be in some of the professional organizations I’m in to get most of them.

Welcome to my world lol. Drives me batty.

1 Like

I don’t often post on the actual subject of climate science, because it is so polarized and so damned politicized. However, I really urge anybody who reads this post of mine to read this blog post and synopsis of science as an industry interlinked to policy, by Dr. Judith Curry. Science on the verge | Climate Etc.

Also, click and read or listen to the links she gives. This is not about “climate change”, it is about science as a whole, and it is something I have grappled with–and posted about in various spots on PWI–for years. I view this as vitally important to grasp in ANY discussion of science studies/findings/policy/economics.

There are a lot of very good, very concerned scientists who have been saying similar things to that which Dr. Curry does here, so she is not the only “voice in the wilderness”, but she really covers it well. It doesn’t reach the media except in occasional fits and starts. It’s worth your time.

“Many modern institutions and practices have been designed in the expectation that science was a truth-telling machine that could help overcome fundamental conditions of uncertainty and disagreement. The painful lesson of recent decades, however, is that real science will never construct a single, coherent, shared picture of the complex challenges of our world—and that the quest to do so instead promotes corruption of the scientific enterprise, and uncertainty and suspicion…”

Just saying thanks, @Drew1411. I just breezed through looking at Aragorn’s comments. Yeah. He pulls out a lot of the problems. Regarding the 97% number also including the “deniers,” I think many people think that by “denier” they are talking about the “it’s a hoax” peeps. That’s so often not the case. The Dr. Judith Curry info was really very good as another view.

It’s a problem when politicians and journalists take numbers and pair them with statements that are not part of the statistic. It invokes the authority of “science” to whatever follows. John Kerry has said all kinds of things about the climate while invoking the 97%. Of course, we could also find examples of Reps talking hoax so… Based on the media, it’s understandable that my lefty neighbor was under the impression that the “deniers” don’t believe that man is making an impact on the climate at all. In other words, those “deniers” are the “it’s a hoax” people.

These are done for lay people, so they’re limited. And it’s Prager U so it’s leaning right, but they did a pretty decent job of showing the areas of agreement.

Edited to add this one on fossil fuels. I like it less, but it does show one of the Kerry quotes. As well as the problems with the review of papers that I believe was the first time we started seeing the 97% number.

1 Like