Story of the Year: It's Global Warming, Stupid

Dec 31, 2012 Full story: Common Dreams 324

My favorite headline of 2012 was " It's Global Warming, Stupid ," which appeared on the cover of Bloomberg Businessweek on Nov.

Full Story

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#263 Feb 1, 2013
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
If that's what you consider a "rant," you need to get out more.
Now I'm a crank, too? Poor kid - surrounded by "cranks."
If my simply hanging my hat on the ageless and uncontroversial fundamentals of scientific thought, and calling out behaviors (like rhetorical appeals to numbers, appeals to Authority, consensus science) that have no place in the scientific method or scientific thought as fallacious makes me a "crank" - well, then yeah - I'm a "crank." Have it your way.
I reckon I'm in very good scientific company.
As for your sweeping little "rant" about various irrelevant 'cargo-cult science' subjects - well, yeah. Duh. Were you expecting some kind of argument from me?
Again, you're full of shit.
Teddy R

Houston, TX

#264 Feb 1, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem to have misconstrued what Feynman was saying as well as what Einstein was saying. One thing for sure, Feynman hated pseudoscience and would have had nothing to do with Josephson or Creichton, nor bogus graphs from pseudoscience blogs.
<quoted text>
Easy and wrong.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/fake-s...
Boy, you just can't shake your infatuation with ad homs against people I never cited, can you?

Thanks for the link - I'll peruse it over the week-end.
Teddy R

Houston, TX

#265 Feb 1, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, they seem to have been too clever by half for you- the points they were making went over your head.
Awww. You're still mad. Have another tea.
Teddy R

Houston, TX

#266 Feb 1, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, you're full of shit.
Really. That kind of puerile tantrum is quite beneath you. You're still wound too tight.

Perhaps the tea isn't soothing enough - maybe you need to treat yourself to a nice relaxing ... high colonic or something.

Have a pleasant weekend.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#267 Feb 1, 2013
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
Boy, you just can't shake your infatuation with ad homs against people I never cited, can you?
Teddy R wrote:
Perhaps you actually read the link I included in my post (gasp!), in which Chrichton IS quoted on the subject of 'consensus science.' If so, no doubt you also read there that the term pre-dates Chrichton's first reference to it in a 2003 article, and that it has long been in general use in the scientific community for many years (e.g., that article also mentions writings on the fallacies of concensus science by Nobel Laureate Brian David Josephson and Garth Paltridge, Visiting Fellow at the Australian National University and Emeritus Professor and Honorary Research Fellow at the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Oceans Studies (IASOS), University of Tasmania).
Josephson is one of the more well-known scientists who say that parapsychological phenomena may be real.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_David_Jose...
All the para-psychologists are looking for some experiment that can be repeated--that you can do again and get the same effect--statistically, even. They run a million rats--no, it's people this time--they do a lot of things are get a certain statistical effect. Next time they try it they don't get it any more. And now you find a man saying that is is an irrelevant demand to expect a repeatable experiment. This is science?
http://neurotheory.columbia.edu/~ken/cargo_cu...

You cited a parapsychologist, and a physicist who hates parapsychologists. Your own sources are attacking each other. I don't have to do it.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#268 Feb 1, 2013
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
Awww. You're still mad. Have another tea.
Troll. Ignored.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#269 Feb 1, 2013
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
Really. That kind of puerile tantrum is quite beneath you. You're still wound too tight.
Perhaps the tea isn't soothing enough - maybe you need to treat yourself to a nice relaxing ... high colonic or something.
Troll ignored.
Have a pleasant weekend.
You too.
Teddy R

Mclean, VA

#270 Feb 1, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_David_Jose...
<quoted text>
http://neurotheory.columbia.edu/~ken/cargo_cu...
You cited a parapsychologist, and a physicist who hates parapsychologists. Your own sources are attacking each other. I don't have to do it.
I did not.

I invoked concensus science as a well-understood un-scientific rhetorical dodge - in a response that wasn't even addressed to you.

You barged in in a sanctimonious huff and started flinging reactionary ad homs against Chrichton and your other favorite betes noires ... as a rhetorical dodge.

They're not "my sources."

To repeat my original point (you might actually go back and read it this time before posting):

- invoking "concensus science" - an appeal to numbers, authority, ot the majority - is a fallacious and UNSCIENTIFIC argument that real scientists reject out of hand - on principle. "Concensus" has no place in the scientific method, and contributes not an iota to determing the truthfulness or correctness of a scientific hypothesis or theory.

You're convinced the science is sound & conclusive? Then stick to arguing what the science and evidence tells us. When you indulge in throwing bullsh!t lists of warmista true believers vs. eeevul corrupt deniers at each other as if they lend ANY scientifically valid weight of evidence to the correctness of one side or the other - as the poster to whom I WAS responding was doing - you have taken complete leave of anything scientific, and gain no scientific credibility for your position by it.

It's a simple point, true by inspection, and hardly warranted your tantrums.

Do you seriously contest this point? Or are you just being contrary?

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#271 Feb 1, 2013
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean Michael Chrichton M.D., Summa Cum Laude graduate of Harvard College in biological anthropology, member of Phi Beta Kappa, Harvard Med School grad, post-doctoral fellow at the Salk Institute, and successful author of works both fiction and non-fiction? That Michael Crichton?
: Crichton had ZERO expertise on climatology:
He had looney beliefs
<<At Harvard he developed the belief that all diseases, including heart attacks, are direct effects of a patient's state of mind. He later wrote: "We cause our diseases. We are directly responsible for any illness that happens to us."[17] Eventually he came to believe in auras, astral projection, and clairvoyance.[17]>> >>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton
Which possibly explains why, even though he had medical training, he still insisted (even directly to children) that second hand tobacco smoke simply cannot have any health risks.



On global warming, the experts showed where he distorted the views of others:

<<"Many of Crichton's publicly expressed views, particularly on subjects like the global warming controversy, have been rebuked by a number of scientists and commentators. An example is meteorologist Jeffrey Masters' review of State of Fear:

Flawed or misleading presentations of Global Warming science exist in the book, including those on Arctic sea ice thinning, correction of land-based temperature measurements for the urban heat island effect, and satellite vs. ground-based measurements of Earth's warming. I will spare the reader additional details. On the positive side, Crichton does emphasize the little-appreciated fact that while most of the world has been warming the past few decades, most of Antarctica has seen a cooling trend. The Antarctic ice sheet is actually expected to increase in mass over the next 100 years due to increased precipitation, according to the IPCC."[34]

Peter Doran, author of the paper in the January 2002 issue of Nature which reported the finding referred to above that some areas of Antarctica had cooled between 1986 and 2000, wrote an opinion piece in the July 27, 2006 New York Times in which he stated "Our results have been misused as 'evidence' against global warming by Michael Crichton in his novel State of Fear."[35]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#272 Feb 1, 2013
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps you would have been a bit slower to sneer at the scientific authority of Richard Feynman on what separates good sound science and scientific integrity from mere partisan rhetoric and dogma dressed up as science
You're comparing yourself with Feynman? He studied and greatly respected science.

I always like this from him:

The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.

and

The chance is high that the truth lies in the fashionable direction. But, on the off chance that it is in another direction — a direction obvious from an unfashionable view of field theory — who will find it? Only someone who has sacrificed himself by teaching himself quantum electrodynamics from a peculiar and unfashionable point of view; one that he may have to invent for himself.

Feynman was a Renaissance, pro science guy. He would be appalled to see the Hard Right try to claim him as one of their own.

Regards, Wallop10.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#273 Feb 1, 2013
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
I did not.
Oh, yes you did!
I invoked concensus science as a well-understood un-scientific rhetorical dodge
And backed up that claim with a link to a parapsychologist and a fossil fuel lobbyist, then directly quoted it.
Teddy R wrote:
Perhaps you actually read the link I included in my post (gasp!), in which Chrichton IS quoted on the subject of 'consensus science.' If so, no doubt you also read there that the term pre-dates Chrichton's first reference to it in a 2003 article, and that it has long been in general use in the scientific community for many years (e.g., that article also mentions writings on the fallacies of concensus science by Nobel Laureate Brian David Josephson and Garth Paltridge, Visiting Fellow at the Australian National University and Emeritus Professor and Honorary Research Fellow at the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Oceans Studies (IASOS), University of Tasmania).
In my dictionary, that's called citing.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#274 Feb 1, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
You're comparing yourself with Feynman? He studied and greatly respected science.
I always like this from him:
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.
and
The chance is high that the truth lies in the fashionable direction. But, on the off chance that it is in another direction — a direction obvious from an unfashionable view of field theory — who will find it? Only someone who has sacrificed himself by teaching himself quantum electrodynamics from a peculiar and unfashionable point of view; one that he may have to invent for himself.
Feynman was a Renaissance, pro science guy. He would be appalled to see the Hard Right try to claim him as one of their own.
Regards, Wallop10.
Feynman was writing about the sort of consensus found in education, where a theory is adopted and demanded to be put into practice even though there is no real evidence to support it, or even where the evidence is against it.

And against the sort of sloppy experiments that allow people to draw unwarranted conclusions.

How this supports the supposed unscientificyness of every scientific academy on the planet saying that the evidence that AGW is real and we're responsible is incontrovertible is a mystery.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#275 Feb 2, 2013
Teddy R wrote:
Just for you to ponder as we sail into the week-end:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/20...
Will the IPCC cowboy up and face the data, do you think? Big opportunity to regain some of their lost credibility. "Yes, it appears we got it slightly wrong, biased to the high side, but we think we mostly know why, we're modifying our models and predictions in line with our continuously improving knowledge, and the fundamental scientific understandings we have about GCC and the part that anthropogenic forcings are playing in it remain valid."
See how easy that was?
A misunderstanding here about the nature of the models. The expected temperature rise is not up the middle of the range, it is anywhere in the range.

The actual temperature rise is within the range of model runs, which supports the validity of the models.

That the actual temperature rise is at the lowest end of model runs does not say anything about long term temperature rise.

http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~ed/bloguploads/...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php...

Of course there may be other factors involved- the huge increase in coal burnt in China causing aerosol pollution and global dimming is an obvious suspect.

Deniers would love to believe that this graph proves that the IPCC got it wrong and they were right and AGW is nothing to worry about, but they are just fooling themselves, and as Feynman said, science is how we avoid doing that.
PHD

Overton, TX

#276 Feb 2, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
Here is the reason for the extremely strong consensus.
There are strong clues the warming we have experienced in previous decades is from CO2 and not from the sun:
(i) The sun has been flat (and recently declining TSI)in terms of solar radiation for the past 50 years.
-- But the average global temperature has been warming.
(ii) If it were the sun causing the warming: Increased sunlight would heat the stratosphere first, where the ozone layer absorbs solar ultraviolet light.
-- But the stratosphere is cooling (as predicted by CO2 radiative warming)
(iii) Increased sunlight would heat the equator more than the poles (Lambert's cosine law).
- Instead we see "polar amplification," (read more for details on the site)
(iv) Increased sunlight would increase daytime temperatures more than nighttime temperatures.
-- But nighttime temperatures have risen more, which is consistent with an atmosphere of increased IR opacity holding in surface warmth better. Think of the way a cloudy night is warmer than a clear night.
(v) Increased sunlight would increase summer temperatures more than winter temperatures.
-- But winter temperatures have risen more. Again, more greenhouse gases hold in the heat better when sunlight is decreased.
see more details here
http://BartonPaulLevenson.com/Sun.html
who gets it from the IPCC.
More scientific science fiction. It must be a new virus and no medication for it. Well folks will it spread around the world?
Teddy R

Mclean, VA

#277 Feb 2, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
: Crichton had ZERO expertise on climatology:
He had looney beliefs
(rest of hysterical anti-Chichton screed trimmed)
Oy vey - send in the AGW warmista jihadis.

None of which has anything to do with my point.

I didn't cite Crichton.
Teddy R

Mclean, VA

#278 Feb 2, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
You're comparing yourself with Feynman? He studied and greatly respected science.
A bullsh!t strawman. I didn't "compare myself" to Feynman.

I cited him.

FOAD.
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>I always like this from him:
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.
and
The chance is high that the truth lies in the fashionable direction. But, on the off chance that it is in another direction — a direction obvious from an unfashionable view of field theory — who will find it? Only someone who has sacrificed himself by teaching himself quantum electrodynamics from a peculiar and unfashionable point of view; one that he may have to invent for himself.
Feynman was a Renaissance, pro science guy. He would be appalled to see the Hard Right try to claim him as one of their own.
Regards, Wallop10.
Yes, a very wise man.

"... the Hard Right try to claim him as one of their own?" Really, man - get a grip on yourself.

He certainly would be most distressed by the sorry and silly spectacle that BOTH sides are making of themselves in the current GCC/AGW, yes.
Teddy R

Mclean, VA

#279 Feb 2, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, yes you did!
<quoted text>
And backed up that claim with a link to a parapsychologist and a fossil fuel lobbyist, then directly quoted it.
<quoted text>
In my dictionary, that's called citing.
Quit fencing.

Do you or do you not dispute my point: "concensus science" (as distinct from "scientific consensus" - and stop pretending you don't understand exactly what the difference is between these two terms is) has no place in the scientific method, or in scientific thought?

A straight answer would be greatly appreciated.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#280 Feb 2, 2013
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
Quit fencing.
Do you or do you not dispute my point: "consensus science" (as distinct from "scientific consensus" - and stop pretending you don't understand exactly what the difference is between these two terms is) has no place in the scientific method, or in scientific thought?
A straight answer would be greatly appreciated.
Straw man.

You haven't demonstrated that "consensus science" exits, that AGW relies on it, or that anyone is advocating it.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#281 Feb 2, 2013
Teddy R wrote:
I didn't cite Crichton.
Nope, not like you're citing Crichton.
Teddy R wrote:
Consensus science is not science - it is politics.
Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics.
Michael Crichton on consensus science

http://creation.com/crichton-on-scientific-co...
litesong

Everett, WA

#282 Feb 2, 2013
teddy r stupid wrote:
Quit fencing.
AGW science says that man is affecting Earth climate & will cause changes to billions of people. Your self-righteous, but not valid efforts to steer away from that information & state otherwise, is unworthy, but expected for toxic topix AGW deniers.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Hurricane Sandy Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Travelers Unit Sued Over Allegedly Manipulated ... Dec 9 Fema Regions map 1
Home sales climb 2% in October (Nov '12) Dec 7 Btc Arab 22
Enviro Notes: We're better off, but still unpre... Dec 4 r we really bette... 1
Chris Rock tweets sharp, short response to Eric... Dec 4 Go Blue Forever 9
Move over big power - the micropower revolution... Dec 1 Philly2034 6
Lawmakers hope FEMA will waive reimbursements Nov 24 Cordwainer Trout 2
An Ill Wind Blows in Antarctica, Threatens Glob... Nov '14 IBdaMann 3
More from around the web