Reply With Quote
Though reasons aplenty can be furnished after the fact.
If there was a proof for it, it would no longer be an object of belief but of reason.
Though reasons aplenty can be furnished after the fact.
(burp)
I stand by my doctor statement then. People will believe what makes them feel best. In your case its that they're both wrong.
It doesn't make me feel better at all.
Maybe not better, but more comfortable. I mean you yourself say its just a feeling. I just don't see any logical reasoning for saying that scientists on the whole are wrong when it comes to this. Sure, there are political factions who are using this to their advantage but if thats not a fact of any given scenario then I don't know what is.
Get back to me in 20 years though.
So your take is that one side has all the science, no? For you it really is science vs. politics then.
Very much so, WH. There are questions about AGW theory but they mainly lie in the realm of scope and not so much in the realm of cause for me.
Honest man. I disagree but I can believe you believe it.
Have you been listening at all? I said it made me feel uncomfortable.Maybe not better, but more comfortable.
I feel the blackest gloom.Very like a hunch, yes. Time will prove all you assholes wrong.I mean you yourself say its just a feeling.
14! I haven't been keeping score, but was that a personal best for a soliloquy?
Logical people only believe illogical beliefs for various reasons - in my experience - WH. I'm not going to sit here and play amateur psychologist but you get my point.
Time will definitely prove all the assholes wrong. I just think you use the asshole brush way too widely - by your own admission - in an ignorant way.
Because there's no way your side could ever harbor schemers, scammers ignoramuses or assholes. Right.
That's a rather broad statement. Are you saying that both those who say it's warming AND not warming are wrong? That doesn't leave many right.
WH23, that's a false argument, and you know it. Manny never said there weren't assholes, schemers, scammers, ignoramuses etc etc on his side. He just claims that those who look at the scientific data of AGW conclude that the globe IS warming. As you said, time will prove who's right in the end.
Of course, WH. I don't think I ever claimed otherwise.
I'll break it down very simply here. For me it boils down to the science. Yes, people will use those findings in ways to benefit their agendas, but that is ancillary. Even if politicians are taking advantage of this situation to implement "solutions" that aren't actual solutions then thats an issue regarding those politicians and not the scientists who are providing the data and the burden and responsibility for those politicians certainly does not fall to the scientists alone but to all of us.
Flawed solutions don't change the science.
I'd like to also point out that it's easy to say that the scientists are wrong, etc etc. It's much harder to actually prove them wrong.
Look at the whole "earth is the center of the universe" thing... sure, a majority of scientists once believed that. Turns out it was wrong. That doesn't mean all those scientists were dumb; they were just working off incorrect assumptions.
As of yet, most people who don't believe in AGW haven't provided the "smoking gun" to disprove the theory. That might change in time, it might not.
There is no question about the science, from dozens of branches of science, from 1000s of scientists, over decades, from data that goes back centuries.
There is no question that denial of anthropogenic global warming is being financed by the carbon industries, buying scientists the same way BigPharma buys scientists and doctors to fake tests and promote their bull drugs.
I think it's safe to say that by objecting to my "overbroad" usage of the word "assholes", Manny wasn't complaining about my use of it to describe AGW debunkers.
Eh, I'm sure Manny thinks a select few of the debunkers aren't assholes... maybe.
In the beginning of my discussions on the topic with Wild Cobra, he provided me with a fairly long bibliography of links to various websites and studies done that supported his position.
Being somewhat skeptical of WC's thought processes, I decided to sift through the list and see just what the fuss was about, and look for myself firsthand at the things he reads to reach his conclusions.
I had read the better part of the IPCC reports, and even some of the underlying scientific papers cited in the bibliography, so I felt it would be fair enough to read the stuff that skeptics used to back their end.
What I found was a bizzarre shadow world, much akin to the 9-11 truther movement. My sense that the entire "denier" subculture was based on little more than pseudo-science in ways disturbingly similar to the Twoofers is an observation shared by more than a few people who study pseudo-science of all kinds.
To be more specific:
- For starters, there is the much touted Oregon Pe ion of concerned "scientists", who include in their number, Darth Vader, and a few hudred dieticians. While I can respect the science of the chemistry of the human body, I would tend to discount dieticians as being qualified to really tell me about the adequacy of the scientific evidence that concern climate science. While there are indeed a majority of self-professed hard scientists, such as physicists, it smacks of the similar Architect Pe ion on the twoofers websites calling for more investigation into the Controlled Demoltion theory, especially when one really tries to find signatories with actual PhD's in the discipline of climate science.
- Another disturbing find were papers and studies, pushed as being valid science on the subject, and certainly having very similar formats to actual peer-reviewed science. Yet when one looked at the underlying publication, unsurprisingly, none of the ones I looked at were actually in a specific peer-reviewed publication. The journals that these "studies" were presented in were often run by groups with VERY definite political agendas, and eschewed the normal peer-review process. In this, these papers represent EXACTLY what they charge others of being, i.e. not really open to opposing viewpoints, and lacking scientific rigor.
- This tactic is reminiscient of the "tobacco doesn't cause cancer, silly" type papers that the tobacco companies paid for, and indeed one of the architects of that rather shameful science for sale showed up at the beginning of the "skeptic" movement, and published a few papers with similar formats. I think the "skeptic" movement glommed onto this, and that is the origin of a lot of those "scientific" papers.
- Other seemingly "scientific" articles and quotes tended to have less than stellar origins, like an oft-cited skeptical article written by the same guy who "debunked" E=Mc2 among other things. Dismissing someone like this is generally ad hominem, but it does tend to add another cooberrating brushstroke to the overall picture for me, and cause me to really not assign his work much weight.
But, hey, don't take my word for it, do some digging yourself, I'm sure WC will be more than happy to provide the links to start digging.
No one in the climate science community is debating whether or not changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations alter the greenhouse effect, or if the current warming trend is outside of the range of natural variability, or if sea levels have risen over the last century.
This is where there is a consensus. (lifted from a website, it is as good as I could write)
As you point out, some of them may indeed be "schemers, scammers ignoramuses or assholes" in climate science but the *majority* of them? That strains belief for me. , even WC won't go there. (he very pointed ignored my question concerning his estimation of the % of honest climate scientists) I might be inclined to think some, but not all or even most of them are that cynically self-serving without more evidence than has been presented to me so far.
Climategate, for all its sound and fury, signified nothing more than how to present the data, not really any overly damning faking of actual data itself.
Respectfully:
If you think the science on both sides is equal, I think you should really look at that science a bit closer. I am no expert by any stretch, but what I am good at is evaluating sources. WC et al. fall short, IMO.
I will readily take this all back if the skeptics really tried to get some valid, decent recearch through the peer-review process. If the science is that sound, it should be possible, even against the resistance of established orthodoxy, despite protestations otherwise. Good science wins in the end. That none have really bothered speaks volumes to me.
, I might plumb the depths of climate change denial again, it has been a few years, maybe something new has bubbled up.
If I do over the holidays, I will let you know what I find. WildCobra, feel free to throw in a few links for me to read.
After getting through Ron Pauls book for Parker, of course, heh.
plunging in to carbon-financed climate denial misinformation is like going into a house expecting nuns.
Where's the outrage about yet another VRWC/carbon-energy/Repug- lie denying global warming? And TX Repugs are particularly nasty bunch of lying, corrupt s.
"The report was requested by Barton in 2005, when he was the head of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, a position he is currently trying to reclaim. In 2006, he said that global warming science is "pretty weak stuff."
Plagiarism experts told USA Today that the report, which was authored by George Mason University statistician Edward Wegman, copied material from textbooks, Wikipedia, and other sources.
John Mashey, a retired computer scientist, conducted a year-long analysis of the Wegman report and found that 35 of the report's 91 pages "are mostly plagiarized text, but often injected with errors, bias and changes of meaning.""
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/g...e-plagiarized/
People who bow unthinkingly to scientific consensus without really understanding it are no more respectable.
The politicians who push science into the political meat grinder are enough for me. The policy that comes out the other end isn't trustworthy just because it addresses the consensus view of respected scientists.
I said no such thing. I said both sides are probably wrong in the long run. ANd that's a hunch, not a closely reasoned conclusion.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
