Agreed. It also shows a lot of goalposts moving rapidly in the ascientific communities. They have new ‘tired old saws’, more and more everyday.
In our favor:
2 Likes
I believe @cowicide.
5 Likes
AGW is not “true because a lot of people (scientists) believe it.” A lot of people (scientists) believe it because it is true. See the difference?
4 Likes
Ha, you know that’s only because I believe 97% of climate scientists otherwise you’d throw me right to the trash heap.
But, I have to admit, Pat Sajak is pretty convincing. I mean, I really don’t want to be an unpatriotic racist who listens to science when I could be a Pat Sajak who’s a patriotic uniter that overcomes science with his mind.
Wait a second… is that… Billy QuizBoy? From the Venture Bros?
5 Likes
The world is fill with simple, easy-to-understand wrong answers. Science is filled with consensus that were wrong. Whenever the science is settled, you can be assured it is wrong. Does man contribute to climate changes? Sure. Most notably from land use changes. Is CO2 correlated to temperature change.? Somewhat, however geologically there is a relatively poor correlation.
The hyperbole surrounding AGW is astounding considering most of it is based on computer models that have consistently overstated temperature increases. It would be better to understand the dynamics of climate variation, including all natural and man-induced changes before running amok like Chicken Little. That is not a conservative or liberal position; that is a scientific position… and by that I don’t mean “popular science.” Climatology is far removed from the rigors of physics. Today it is closer to alchemy.
Now, let’s get to the point: earth has been warming for several centuries since the Maunder Minimum of the late 17th century. Of course, that warming has not been linear… climate change is never linear. Earth is approaching a “warm” period similar to that during the Roman Empire and the Middle Ages, but still within a geological cold period… a warm interlude that is not unprecedented within “modern” times.
What is unprecedented is the level of government funding and competition among the mundane science of climatology for these funds. But the money grab is not limited to the hyperbolic feeding frenzy of academics. Environmentalists, nascent industries, and former politicians have benefited enormously from this fountain of money. Is that bad? Well, only in the sense that it is an incentive to prove a conclusion rather than find the complete truth. Money guarantees that the answer will always support the continuation of the money supply.
In science, it does not take a consensus to find what is correct; it takes one scientist who is correct and others to verify. Politics relies on consensus, not science. Science relies on falsifiable evidence. Computer models are not falsifiable evidence. There is much more work to be done. The first step should be the verification of the raw data which has been the biggest source of contention, most notably data revisions and inconsistent measurement techniques. Then skip the computer models and move to real analytical efforts that don’t involve “earthquakes caused by global warming” type of hyperbole.
Of course, the consensus of “accepters” will not like that approach. Consensuses rarely do. Real science, such as physics, always does. Doubt and skepticism is the hallmark of real science. Any area of science that relies on ad hominem attacks on those who question consensus is not real science.
If you’re going to play follow-the-money, first ask this: Where is more money at stake–in the government funding of climate science or in the industries who believe (rightly or wrongly) that steps taken to attempt to alleviate global warming will affect their bottom line?
What, exactly, do you think the consensus is? What happens when one scientist is correct and others verify that the one scientist is correct? Would you describe the result as a “consensus”?
I am not, as I’ve said above, a climate scientist, and I’m also for the record not a geologist. My understanding of plate tectonics is pretty basic. But it seems to me that physics suggests that changes in weight on a continental plate by, for example, massive shifts from solid to liquid water could result in changes to how that plate is aligned–i.e., earthquakes. I don’t know if that’s what you’re talking about or not, but it doesn’t sound completely far-fetched to me.
5 Likes
You know, I don’t think history has been fair to Lord Kelvin on that. Of course he’s wrong, but you have to consider that he was mainly arguing against uniformitarians who were saying the world was infinitely old. Thermodynamics did show that they were wrong, and in a very real sense he was much closer to the real value than they were, just not in a way useful to geologists. I’d consider it more different experts talking past one another.
Science is settled that people don’t spontaneously mutate into dinosau – oh no! More likely, when someone starts their argument by explaining how nobody ever really knows anything, you can be assured they are about to try selling you a bill of goods. This spiel is no exception.
Right off the bat there is the fountain of money for researchers promoting climate change. There is some money given for researching climate, same as other important fields, but the feeding frenzy you describe is pure fiction. At the same time, there is so much money being pumped into think tanks trying disprove it, the only explanation they haven’t had more results is that the evidence is just against them. So this is a lie on par with swiftboating. Enough with it.
Your other particulars are full of mistakes too. There’s no complete geological correlation between carbon dioxide and temperatures because there are lots of other factors, but it certainly is there, as things like the much-cited Vostok cores support. There was no “warm” period during the Middle Ages comparable to what we have now; there was a warm period in Europe, but not for the globe. Computer models actually can help provide falsifiable evidence if you understand how to use them in combination with data. There has been a little contention over that data, but not on a scale that actually changes the results.
And most importantly, doubt per se is not the hallmark of real science. Scientists always look for evidence that might overturn things, but when that evidence is not forthcoming, they don’t invent doubt for its own sake. That’s rather the work of people trying escape what evidence shows, deniers and creationists, who are anything but true skeptics.
Edit: Welcome to the boards, by the way. You might have a better time on one of the plasma cosmology threads.
9 Likes
You believe people who admit that they are like blind men?
The elephant, the blind, and the intersectoral intercomparison of climate impacts
Despite winter chill, world still warming - Chicago Tribune
Hayhoe likened climate change being described as "global warming" to the parable of the blind men and the elephant. In that story, the men touch different portions of the animal to understand what it is and come away in complete disagreement.
Even with the eye patch, at least Pat has one eye open…
3 Likes
Like those pinko insurance companies… For some reason big business actually listens to scientific consensus when they have something to lose:
Insurers Stray From the Conservative Line on Climate Change
Global warming no hoax to insurance companies - Al Lewis - MarketWatch
Responding to climate change – THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY PERSPECTIVE - climate-action-insurance.pdf
7 Likes
You believe people who admit that they are like blind men?
The elephant, the blind, and the intersectoral intercomparison of climate impacts1
Wow… wow… wow… that was a great, enlightening read. I’m gonna have to read it again later to absorb it better, I think. Thank you.
Despite winter chill, world still warming - Chicago Tribune1
LIARS!!!
Even with the eye patch, at least Pat has one eye open…
Ha, indeed. Pat is the one eyed snake that scares the elephant in the room shitting enormous dumps on the coffee table.
1 Like
This is complete absolute rubbish. I’ll let someone much better with words then myself explain your folly…take it away isaac asimov:
http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
7 Likes
So a stupid man from a stupid show on a stupid medium says something stupid and it becomes a talking point because it’s what?..a platform for a meaningful discussion?
Am I missing something because I don’t have a tv?
Really? Another Neil deGrasse Tyson graphic?
Forget Godwins Law. I introduce Bobbys Law, to wit: The first person, engaged in an online debate to post a picture of NDT with some seemingly clever text on it, wins.
You read it here first, BB Nation.
My favorite Tyson quote:
2 Likes
I think some of the criticisms of climate science have some validity in principle. It’s a relatively new field that is based on many complex and interacting variables. At this scale, it’s difficult to make precise predictions on timescale and extent, and there have been a number of changes to the official line on these issues in recent years. Furthermore, not every study is going to challenge the basic principles of the scientific model on which it is based; if a model is flawed, people may build on it and assume its fundamental accuracy when the facts could better support a different model. Scientists in the past have had pretty large blind spots that seem obvious to us now, so it makes sense to assume that some accepted theories may have significant flaws.
However, if trained scientists (who have vastly more knowledge and data to work with than earlier scientists like Kelvin) should have some humility with regard to their theories and the bounds of human knowledge, lay people who have no experience in the field at all should be a lot more cautious about expressing their opinion. This is especially true given their admission of how complex the system is and the bias from media and powerful interest groups that helps to form that opinion. “It will all work out in the end” is not skepticism. “I’m sure humans aren’t really having much of an effect” isn’t humility. Even if the science is wrong on a number of issues, this does not mean that you are right, and skepticism (if that’s what it actually is) should really start with the opinions that you personally find easiest to accept.
1 Like
Thats pretty heavy.
NDT talking about souls???
Wrong Tyson.
1 Like
Oh, ha!
Thats what I get for not googling/thinking.
1 Like
2 Likes
