Apparently not ALL scientists agree with Gore

[pboily]

A well-known trap to fall into. This guy may be a professor at MIT - if he states that 1+1 equals 9 he is clearly wrong in that. Vice versa: someone who has never told a truth in his life, claiming that 1+1=2 is right.
This MIT professor could be right about global-warming not existing, but his job is not a backing.

There are institutions where authority figures are automatically correct usually by virtue of their being authority figures: as per his claims, MobBoss belongs to at least two of them. It might be a tad too much to ask that he shed the habits of a lifetime.

 

[Rik Meleet]

There are institutions where authority figures are automatically correct usually by virtue of their being authority figures: as per his claims, MobBoss belongs to at least two of them. It might be a tad too much to ask that he shed the habits of a lifetime.

We aren't talking about the 2 instituitions MobBoss allegedly belongs to. We are talking science and therefore need to use scientific ways to approach the question. Reputation is not a scientific way to approach a scientific question. Neither is too limited information when more is available.

 

[pboily]

Rik, non-scientists (and even some scientists) who have already have a beef with science discrediting their beliefs will not stick to the scientific method, much more so if they have a lifetime of not openly disagreeing with authority figures. As such, I have no doubt that if the very same "brainiac" MIT prof had come out in favour of "global warming", his standing as an MIT prof would not have been brought up.

We're not really talking about science, here. As numerous posters (and scientists) have pointed out, we mostly all agree that there is some level of anthropomorphic climate change.

Why that is being rejected outright by a segment of the population is what this discussion is really about, in my humble opinion. When we deal with non-scientists over issues such as climate change or evolution, we need to use vocabulary that is understandable to both sides: that gives non-scientists the impression that the crux of the matter can be understood over a cup of tea or throught posts on an Internet message board, which in turn allows them to discredit the theory if it doesn't fit their beliefs. (It's not that people are not smart enough. None (well, most) of us understood our particular field of science only after years and years of study, and we might be better placed than others to understand a different field, but we still don't get it the second we look it up. Dammit, Rik, I'm a mathematician, not a climate expert! ).

What we need to do is understand why people accept notions (such as new age mysticism or Evolutionism) when there is not a single shard of evidence in their favour, but will reject notions when there is a lot of evidence in their favour, and react accordingly. I think we already know why they do so, and that is what we need to address here.

 

[Smidlee]

Here's an article about Gore's science.

"Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."

Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.

... Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."

Any time you hear about globel warming you might as well get ready to pay more taxes.

 

[nonconformist]

There are institutions where authority figures are automatically correct usually by virtue of their being authority figures: as per his claims, MobBoss belongs to at least two of them. It might be a tad too much to ask that he shed the habits of a lifetime.

Isn't Ward Churchill a professor somewhere?

 

[pboily]

I'm sure there is a point to that last comment, but it fails to register with me. Could you elaborate?

EDIT: I get it. Ward Churchill may safely be doubted, in spite of being a college prof, because we disagree with him. I had no idea who Ward Churchill was.

 

[MobBoss]

There is no such thing as global warming. Mt. Kilimanjaro's snow cap is not melting away. And this chart is merely leftist trickery.

Of course its getting warmer....the earth just ended a mini-ice age from the 1300s to mid 1800s.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

Check this one out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ice_Age_Temperature.png

Looks pretty cyclical to me.

Or maybe this one, grading such items since the last major ice age. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png

Bottom line, we can guess at it all we want. The earth goes through these types of cycles. The real question is exactly how much is man affecting these cycles, if any.

 

[MobBoss]

There are institutions where authority figures are automatically correct usually by virtue of their being authority figures: as per his claims, MobBoss belongs to at least two of them. It might be a tad too much to ask that he shed the habits of a lifetime.

I see. Dont ask questions or even allege their may not be an issue or else the personal attacks come out.

So because I post an article from a professor at MIT and think the guy might know a bit about what he is talking about I am engaging in mental lockstep with no ability to think for myself? Please. So I mention that an MIT professor might be more than a "tard" as Cleric suggested, so that makes me a mindless follower? Come on.

Instead of attacking me, why not refute what the man is saying. Good debate is usually a lot more enjoyable than personal attacks on ones character. Are you saying he is just flat out lying?

And if so, what would he have to gain by that?

 

[Truronian]

Instead of attacking me, why not refute what the man is saying. Or are you saying he is just flat out lying?

I believe Cuivienen already did that.

 

[Atlas14]

Seriously, not ALL "scientists" accept evolution, such as Michael Behe from Harvard. I don't take him seriously. Just because a few supposed "scientists" don't agree with Gore doesn't mean they have credibility or proof or a convincing argument.

 

[MobBoss]

I believe Cuivienen already did that.

Actually, if you read Cuivienens response, he still basically agreed with what the MIT guy put out. I believe the response was yes, yes, and yes....with a few "buts" in there.

Not much of a refutation if you ask me. Either the guy is factually correct or he is not....the old "yes, but...." reply isnt much of a counter arguement.

Seriously, not ALL "scientists" accept evolution, such as Michael Behe from Harvard. I don't take him seriously. Just because a few supposed "scientists" don't agree with Gore doesn't mean they have credibility or proof or a convincing argument.

So, check this out. If you dont agree with Gore, then now you are only a "supposed" scientist. This is precisely what the guy was referring to. If you dont agree you are somehow not credible as a scientist. Sheesh. Looks a lot like the Inquisition to me.

 

[pboily]

I see. Dont ask questions or even allege their may not be an issue or else the personal attacks come out.

So because I post an article from a professor at MIT and think the guy might know a bit about what he is talking about I am engaging in mental lockstep with no ability to think for myself? Please. So I mention that an MIT professor might be more than a "tard" as Cleric suggested, so that makes me a mindless follower? Come on.

Instead of attacking me, why not refute what the man is saying. Good debate is usually a lot more enjoyable than personal attacks on ones character. Are you saying he is just flat out lying?

And if so, what would he have to gain by that?

An attack? There's a word for people like you: perceptnoid ... hehe. No, after seeing some of the crap you've had to endure in endless "debates" around here, you can not seriously consider this an attack on your character. I haven't happened to agree with many of the things you've said since you've joined, but when you think you see a spade, you tend to call it a spade (even though they are often clubs). That being said, your notion of what constitutes a good debate could use a refresher in the ease of emoticons AND emotions. I think you're clearly not used to have people disagree with you. Who cares, this is the Internet.

Now, you belong to two clubs where you are not allowed to question authority openly. Your statement that a MIT prof cannot be questioned by Cuinieven without sending you to the floor in fits of laughter because he's a MIT prof (together with associated statements you've made before) strongly suggests that questioning authority is not your ball game, and is not something you think anybody should do.

Any scientist worth his or her salt (including Lindzen, whom I have absolutely no reason to think is not worth his salt and excluding Gore, because he is just a political hack) practices science by asking questions and trying to knock down authority. Unless the scientists I know are completely atypical, he himself would be ashamed to learn that people took his word at face value just because he's an MIT prof: rather I surmise he wants people to agree with him because he's right.

If you chose to think that this is a personal attack or that it implies you are not able to think for yourself, have a field day with it.

One thing that is clear, however, is that you do not fully read posts. Climate science is not easy to understand: as it stands, neither you (as a non-scientist) nor me (as a non-climatologist scientist) really knows anything about the topic. I can no more refute the claims than you can defend them.

What I can do, however, is express scepticism because climate change is morphing into a political issue, not a scientific issue. And repeat my previous comments about why both you and I react the way we do: you already think Gore's "science" is alarmist BS and this confirm what you already "knew", and I already think that there is some level of anthropomorphic climate change and Gore's "science", while faulty, is a step in the right direction.

 

[Atlas14]

So, check this out. If you dont agree with Gore, then now you are only a "supposed" scientist. This is precisely what the guy was referring to. If you dont agree you are somehow not credible as a scientist. Sheesh. Looks a lot like the Inquisition to me.

Precisely. If you claim to be a scientist, but deny evolution in favor of creationism, you don't count in my book as a credible, worthy scientist. The facts are there, and you (the "scientist") chose to ignore them or scew them to a non-scientific belief. Im not saying, however, that all scientists that disagree with Gore are not credible. Instead, those that deny human induced global warming altogether are not credible and a waste of time. Im merely sceptical of both the motives of these "I-disagree-with-Gore" scientists and whether they actually disagree with Gore's presentation of global warming or the actual notion of global warming. Its complicated. Don't put words into my mouth though please.

 

[MobBoss]

An attack? There's a word for people like you: perceptive ... hehe, no, the real word is paranoid.

You belong to two clubs where you are not allowed to question authority openly.

Oh? And which clubs would those be? Mind you, I tell my boss he is wrong ALL the time. Then he makes me go look it up and prove it.

Your statement that a MIT prof cannot be questioned by Cuinieven without sending you to the floor in fits of laughter because he's a MIT prof (together with associated statements you've made before) strongly suggests that questioning authority is not your ball game, and is not something you think anybody should do.

Actually, not what I said. I replied to Cleric when Cleric called the MIT professor a tard. And I never, ever said that the guy "could not be questioned". I said he probably knows more in his little toe than Cleric knows in total. So, please...do us all a favor and try to get your facts straight before labeling people.

If you chose to think that this is a personal attack or that it implies you are not able to think for yourself, have a field day with it.

Well, lets see. You called me paranoid, put words in my mouth that I didnt say, and pretty much labeled me as unable to question authority because of the "clubs" I belong too. All of which add nothing to the discussion in any way, except to demean me and any opinion I may have.

One thing that is clear, however, is that you do not fully read posts. Climate science is not easy to understand: as it stands, neither you (as a non-scientist) nor me (as a non-climatologist scientist) really knows anything about the topic. I can no more refute the claims than you can defend them.

Oh...which post did I not "fully read" Mr. Put words in my mouth? I mean you accuse me of saying this MIT guy is unquestionable (which I didnt say) and then have the gall to say I dont fully read posts? Sheesh.

What I can do, however, is express scepticism because climate change is morphing into a political issue, not a scientific issue. And repeat my previous comments about why both you and I react the way we do: you already think Gore's "science" is alarmist BS and this confirm what you already "knew", and I already think that there is some level of anthropomorphic climate change and Gore's "science", while faulty, is a step in the right direction.

So, you encourage faulty science as long as it meets your agenda? Now that really sounds ethical and scientific. Yeah, supporting faulty science makes me believe in this even more.

 

[pboily]

Oh? And which clubs would those be? Mind you, I tell my boss he is wrong ALL the time. Then he makes me go look it up and prove it.

For what it's worth, you replied to my post before I finished editing mine.

 

[ironduck]

"Evidence so far suggests that the Greenland ice sheet is growing on average" -- Evidence apparently too ephemeral to cite, or to elaborate upon. Or perhaps he misunderstands "thinning and spreading wider" as "growing".

(Just to clarify: Greenland's ice sheet will shrink and the Antarctic's will expand, approximately balancing each other out. The latter is because warming will have no appreciable effect on bringing Antarctica's temperatures closer to the melting point of water, but will cause more moisture to be carried by the warmer air and deposited as snow. The former is obvious.)

Actually, I recently saw data that showed a clear increase of the inland ice sheet of Greenland. While the coastal ice sheet is shrinking according to this data overall the amount of ice is actually increasing.

I agree on your other points.

 

[Keshik]

So, you encourage faulty science as long as it meets your agenda? Now that really sounds ethical and scientific. Yeah, supporting faulty science makes me believe in this even more.

Try to think of this as the environmentalists prosletysing their religion. That's really the best analogy to describe the level of their beliefs. You really can't argue with them and hope to get anywhere.

 

[pboily]

Oh? And which clubs would those be? Mind you, I tell my boss he is wrong ALL the time. Then he makes me go look it up and prove it.

Have you disobeyed an order from a CO, recently? Or stood up in church and told the pastor he's full of it? Of course not. Every time I attend a talk or give one, people ask questions, or try to falsify a theory. That's science. There is no room for disagreement in the Armed Forces or in a Church, if there was, nothing would ever get done. But not only is there room for that in science, it's necessary for it to forge ahead. Being wrong is a requirement for being right.

Actually, not what I said.

You didn't read the words "strongly suggest"?

Well, lets see. You called me paranoid, put words in my mouth that I didnt say, and pretty much labeled me as unable to question authority because of the "clubs" I belong too. All of which add nothing to the discussion in any way, except to demean me and any opinion I may have.

Please, it's a quote from Woody Allen's The Curse of the Jade Scorpion. We've been over this personal attack business already, give us a break.

Oh...which post did I not "fully read" Mr. Put words in my mouth? I mean you accuse me of saying this MIT guy is unquestionable (which I didnt say) and then have the gall to say I dont fully read posts? Sheesh.

The posts about this not even being a scientific issue anymore. And again, I said your posts strongly suggest it. Now, I don't care how much you tell me you haven't said this particular thing: you are far removed from being a high schooler. You also haven't said that you're not a climatologist, but we all know it. You were rolling on the floor laughing because Cuinieven was contradicting an MIT prof. Hell, I even recall you "demeaning" carlosMM's opinion because he only had an undergrate degree, and not a Ph.D. It's ok if you can't/won't/don't want to add these together, we will do it for you.

So, you encourage faulty science as long as it meets your agenda? Now that really sounds ethical and scientific. Yeah, supporting faulty science makes me believe in this even more.

But it's not science, it's science vulgarization. You had no issue with faulty intelligence gathering when it advanced your agenda, why do you have an issue with this now? Answer: because it would bring your agenda backwards. I love the smell of irony in the morning.

 

[pboily]

Try to think of this as the environmentalists prosletysing their religion. That's really the best analogy to describe the level of their beliefs. You really can't argue with them and hope to get anywhere.

That's exactly the point: the issue is not scientific anymore, it is political, it has now become prosetylization. The analogy is perfect: those who don't believe can't stand hearing about it, but those who do think they're fully justified to go on doing it.

Of course, that this describes both sides of the issue is sad beyond belief.

 

[Lotus49]

Of course its getting warmer....the earth just ended a mini-ice age from the 1300s to mid 1800s.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

Check this one out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ice_Age_Temperature.png

Looks pretty cyclical to me.

Or maybe this one, grading such items since the last major ice age. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png

Bottom line, we can guess at it all we want. The earth goes through these types of cycles. The real question is exactly how much is man affecting these cycles, if any.

So, that point of view being, that we're gradually trending warmer from the last (full) ice age, while in addition we're also bouncing back from a little one at the same time, causing an acute temperature rise, more recently.

I like to think of myself as a chartist (stocks, anyway), so how do you explain that very recent breakout, since industrialization? A short squeeze??

C'mon now - that's definitely a sharp and sudden trend upwards, since the 19th century. It doesn't exactly look 'natural' on the grand scheme of things, looking at the long chart.

If you look at the trendline, and remove the 'cup' caused by the 'little ice age', we're currently significantly above projected warmth, based on the previous trend.