Re: Jury still out != Denier
By the standards of the warm-mongers, you're a denier.
Scepticism regarding the need for immediate and massive action against carbon emissions is a sickness of societies and individuals which needs to be "treated", according to an Oregon-based professor of "sociology and environmental studies". Professor Kari Norgaard compares the struggle against climate scepticism to that against …
By the standards of the warm-mongers, you're a denier.
Science does not validate anthing by consensus, as is implied here. If a single individual can display empirical data that conflicts with or confounds a theory, then the theory needs to be modified or scrapped. In the case of CAGW, this conflicting/confounding data and alternate explanations to events that supposedly PROVE CAGW are coming out in a steady stream. If one chooses to believe a theory in the face of such data, one is engaged in a political and/or religious crusade, not science.
The reason the overwhelming majority of relevant scientists support the current consensus on climate change is because the overwhelming weight of evidence is in favour of it.
The default position on any technical topic in which one is not an expert should be the accepted majority view. Particularly when it is held by a very considerable majority. This has nothing to do with climate science. It is a simple and sensible and humble position for life generally.
Waffle about religious crusades and creationist-style casting-of-doubt arguments are the resort of the feeble witted and cowardly. No offence.
No offense taken. I worry, though, about anyone who merely defaults to a majority opinion and does not take the time to study all sides of an issue. In the case of CAGW, the science can be technically daunting. If that is too daunting, though, one can simply review the graphs of temperature change, Arctic ice change, sea surface temperature, sea level rise, etc. to see that the data is moving in the wrong direction to support CAGW. CO2 does indeed have an effect. It is simply small relative to natural effects.
Science is all about being skeptical. The two most scientific words in the English language are "Prove it".
Even if I am a slavering, "Einstein was in on the cover-up! Relativity is a lie the Global Conspiracy uses to hide The Truth That The Aliens Are Here And Are Running Things!", if I re-run the Michelson-Morley experiments, with modern equipment, and can show a result that is NOT consistent with General Relativity, and publish my results, with enough information that my experiments can be independently reproduced, then it doesn't matter that I am a complete nutter, it is the duty of any phycisist to at least attempt to check my work, and if it pans out, to acknowledge that "He may be nuts, but his results check out!". NOT to say "He is one of those Relativity Deniers, we need to re-educate him and all his followers."
One of the things that worries me is that many of the people crying the loudest about climate change are insisting upon severe changes in how we live - changes that will have enormous negative effects. And rather than acknowledging the severity of those effects - going into detail how they will indeed impact us, realistically and frankly, and then showing the science of why those severe results are still better than the results of ignoring the issue - those people tend to just gloss over the negatives with "but CLIMATE CHANGE - your arguments are invalid!".
And I ask this: IF the results of not changing our ways are so severe that we all must be asked to suffer, THEN how come the people who are the most strident about this are not INSISTING that we do a Big Project, a la the Apollo Project, to design a state of the art, type accepted, mass produce-able nuclear power plant, and start building them and replacing every combustion power plant on the planet? We know how to do this, we know it can provide base load that wind and solar cannot, we know it will at least buy us several decades to work on the other solutions, and it will reduce the pain and suffering needed to achieve the goal of reversing any anthropogenic element of climate change. Logically, it is the highest probability of success action we can take at this time. Yet, it is curiously absent from the discussion - so is the real goal other than reducing anthropogenic climate change?
"It's for your own good."
The rationale of totalitarians throughout history.
I initially read that as
"The rationale of trolltalitarians throughout history."
That should be a new word, IMHO.
Hum. I'm pretty sure he's heard of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism">Lysenkoism</a>? If not, there's a helpful link.
The CRU emails released in 2011 shows just how "settled" AGW "science" is. The numbers are the file numbers of the emails of the CRU scientists, followed by their names: The POLITICAL nature of AGW "research" is obvious.
the important thing is to make sure they're loosing the PR battle. That's what the site [Real Climate] is about.
 What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multidecadal natural fluctuation? They'll kill us probably [...]
I thought I'd play around with some randomly generated time-series and see if I could 'reconstruct' northern hemisphere temperatures. [...] The reconstructions clearly show a 'hockey-stick' trend. I guess this is precisely the phenomenon that Macintyre has been going on about.
Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary [...]
Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive [...] there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC [...]
Somehow we have to leave the[m] thinking OK, climate change is extremely complicated, BUT I accept the dominant view that people are affecting it, and that impacts produces risk that needs careful and urgent attention.
Because how can we be critical of Crowley for throwing out 40-years in the middle of his calibration, when we're throwing out all post-1960 data 'cos the MXD has a non-temperature signal in it, and also all pre-1881 or pre-1871 data 'cos the temperature data may have a non-temperature signal in it!
["Future of the IPCC", 2008] It is inconceivable that policymakers will be willing to make billion-and trillion-dollar decisions for adaptation to the projected regional climate change based on models that do not even describe and simulate the processes that are the building blocks of climate variability.
[to Hansen] Keep up the good work! [...] Even though it's been a mild winter in the UK, much of the rest of the world seems coolish - expected though given the La Nina. Roll on the next El Nino!
I've been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process
[FOIA, temperature data]
Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get - and has to be well hidden. I've discussed this with the main funder (US Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.
The "HARRY_README.TXT" from the 2009 released FOIA data tells a dismal tale of the condition of the data on which the "hockey stick" and AGW models were based.
The only thing "settled" about AGW are the proposed "solutions" -- massive worldwide redistribution of wealth and control by the UN of all nations.
Cherrypicked snippets out of 10 years of emails and you can't even interpret those right. I am not wasting my time going through the whole list, the first one will show my general point:
the important thing is to make sure they're loosing the PR battle. That's what the site [Real Climate] is about."
You think that is incriminating? You think that shows their research is political? There is certainly an interpretation of that sentence that is incriminating, if you assume a bunch of stuff and imaginate, but to push that interpretation as FACT you've avoided and ignored the far more obvious benign interpretation.
Which is typical of how climate deniers approach the climategate emails. Not ones to let a little uncertainty get in the way of their smears.
What is the obvious benign interpretation? Well given you are probably blinded by bias on the subject of climate I'll demonstrate it using an example from a different field of science: evolution.
A lot of vocal evolution skeptics out there, they like to write letters and put articles in the media about how evolution is a lie and scientific support for it is crumbling. They try to get creationism taught in schools, etc.
Any scientist who is willing to put their head above the parapet and fight back against such misinformation should be commended. But according to you if we found emails from a biologist reading:
"the important thing is to make sure they're loosing the PR battle. That's what the site [Real Biology] is about."
This would incriminate them and demonstrate their research was political.
What a joke.
I wise man once said "Skeptical scrutiny leads to deep thoughts, not deep nonsense".
It is no surprise that the MMGW crowd wants to silence skeptics, as they want to hold onto their nonsense to rape the world of treasure, while foisting an unprecedented violation of our natural rights to use our resources. Its tyrannical control found as the end result, wrapped nicely in a trumped up crisis made "important" due to hyperventillation.
Meanwhile, the biggest loser in this entire thing, beyond the people themselves, is science itself.
Science is not determined by consensus, never has been and never will be, no matter how hard you pound your fists and stomp your feet.
The reports that have been shown to be bogus was not fraudulent data, rather cherry picked data. That has been proven, and when one removes variables from a model to get the model to tell you want you want it to say, that equates to fraudulent representation of the results. Since none of the work that makes up the "groundbreaking report" was ever successfully peer-reviewed, and indeed once the truth of the cherry-picking was disclosed, this invalidates the report, and certainly at least illustrates what was done was NOT science. Its a sham.
Skeptical scrutiny leads to deep thoughts, not deep nonsense.
In order to preserve the deep nonsense which will lead to big piles of treasure, it is no wonder they want to shut down the skeptics. And whenever you are in doubt, just follow the money.
"academics such as herself must stand shoulder to shoulder with the actual real climate scientists".
Erm I think she means snout to snout in the same trough.
Anyone remember the phrase "The right to think for yourself is the only freedom anyone really has."
Prof Norgaard holds a B.S. in biology - a BS huh? No kidding.
7 billion top predators and climbing, Not having any impact on the planet? Yeah good one! lol
Baloney Detector :https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUB4j0n2UDU&hd=1
Here she is:
Paris, because if you average the two of them, you get a 3.
The good professor seems unable to grasp that treatment is already available and that skeptics of CAGW practice it daily. It's called the scientific method. It states, quite simply, that if empirical data can be found which is inconsistent with the hypothesis, then the hypothesis needs to be modified or scrapped. It has been used appropriately and effectively to show that there are indeed inconsistencies between the hypothesis (that increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels will cause CATASTROPHIC changes to the biosphere) and the empirical data needed to support it.
Not surprisingly, little effort appears to be going into reviewing the hypothesis while much effort is obviously going into denigrating those that have found fault with it. This is no longer science. It's political theater.
My wife holds a degree from MIT and a PhD in Environmental Engineering. She is also an expert in computer modeling of the environment. She is still waiting for definite proof of man-made global warming....or any signs of intelligence from this author.
The good Prof is suggesting that it is the scientists themselves that need re-educating with communication skills as they obviously flunked the first education, witness the numbers of creationists about despite scientists knowing about evolution for ages and trying to communicate these ideas to rednecks, the rednecks still abound, therefore scientists (generally) are rubbish at it. (including the Prof herself as I still think she is a dangerous idealogue)
..oh sorry. That's always been the way religion works, hasn't it?
How you do it is to say the people who don't agree with you are just not smart enough to understand. As another commenter did, you call the people who don't agree, or don't understand names like red necks. That makes people want to be with the smart and brainy set who agree with global warming or evolution or whatever theory. Only a few people actually understand this stuff in reality and those people could be lying or have it totally wrong and most of us would not know.
Must be pretty smart then.
After seeing a photo of Ms Kari Norgaard
.. you'll all realise who really needs treatment
... to trash her for her looks (as a few above have done). And it tends to detract from any serious point to be made about what she has proposed.
I'm still bloody annoyed at the arrogance of her ideas regardless of her looks ( and I wonder how pretty/handsome the average commentard is anyway).
Every woman has the right to be ugly, but she's abusing the privilege!
her head would even give Freddy Krueger nightmares,
..... explains why she's a miserable misanthropic wretch.
I'll concede the "miserable misanthropic wretch" part.
Isn't this the way the Soviet Union used to deal with dissent?
Wow! Just wow!
It's not enough for beard-scratching liberals to control the media, government, healthcare, and schools, and what is or isn't OK to say in public. Now they want to control the way we think. Is this the Soviet Union, China, North Korea or Cuba? Somebody remind me because I could have sworn this was the USA. (Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness)
Wonder how long it will be until they start rounding us up and sending us to re-education camps or insane asylums because we disagree with them. I guess political correctness wasn't enough for them. Now they are proposing "thought police" to enforce "thought crimes".
How Orwellian of the idiots in ivory towers.
Tell you what, Professor: I'll accept global warming, climate change or whatever you are calling this scam today as soon as the you knuckleheads can accurately predict the weather every day for next 30 days. How's that sound, Buttercup?
Until then, I'm not convinced. So, go soak your head, smoke another joint, or hug your favorite tree, but leave me, my thoughts and opinions alone.
What a douche.
"The earth is 4.5 billion years old and has gone through five glaciation periods. Man wasn’t around for the first four. Between each glaciation period the earth warmed up be coming hot by our standards. We started coming out of the last glaciation period about ten thousand years ago. We are not out of it yet, we still have glaciers. As we continue to come out of it, it will warm up, becoming hot, then the pendulum will swing the other way bring us a cooler climate, even another glaciation period. No world government or any other legislative body can change that. It is amazing that the once great science magazine fails to consider science instead wants to become a political rag instead of a great science magazine. Climate change is real, but faith based climate change is not."
We finished coming out of the last glaciation period 8,000 years ago. It's not an explanation for the recent warming. Listen to the climate scientists please, they do know what they are talking about.
I should imagine this has been ignored for the same reason the article ignores the early family life of Jane Austen ... because it has absolutely bugger all to do with anything in the article. Derp derp derp.
We skeptics are indeed listening to the climate scientists. They are telling us that there is empirical data that conflicts with the hypothesis and that there are alternate hypotheses that can explain the majority of the warming we have experienced over the past few hundred years. If you disagree, then you are not looking at ALL of teh science.
The climate change gravy train is rapidly coming off the rails. Looks like the good professor is trying to get her piece of the action before it crashes completely.
I find it mildly amusing. Dear Isaac's little maths idea would never have worked due to being infinitely subject to initial conditions - but when, he was writing, Chaos was not fashionable maths. That is to say, its full impact on pretty much everything had not been fully recognized at the time. (Also let's face it, he was rubbish. Almost none of his writings have stood the test of time and Yes, that includes his robot stories. He was a hack.)
We now know you can't predict roulette and can only limitedly predict the weather, 'psychomaths' never stood a chance.
But the irony comes from the fact that the idiots 'denying' (I put in quotes to be gramatically and semantically correct - you cannot 'deny' a fact) anthropically forced global warming are usually pig ignorant morons who have never heard of such a thing as Chaos Theory.
When the commentards have spent as much time and come up with another outcome, then they have the right to believe it. Untill then shut the f.up.
I thought people that read the register could count past ten without taking their shoes off.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017