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

Dec 31, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Common Dreams

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

Comments
261 - 280 of 324 Comments Last updated Feb 19, 2013
Teddy R

Mclean, VA

#283 Feb 2, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Yes, the devil can cite scripture - and Feynman - to his own purpose.

But of course Feynman's wisdom runs so wide and deep his writings provide valuable lessons to all - all those whose hubris allows them to listen, that is.

For example -

"We have learned a lot from experience about how to handle some of the ways we fool ourselves. One example: Millikan measured the charge on an electron by an experiment with falling oil drops, and got an answer which we now know not to be quite right.(Eventually) they settle down to a number which is higher. Why didn't they discover that the new number was higher right away? It's a thing that scientists are ashamed of--this history--because it's apparent that people did things like this: When they got a number that was too high above Millikan's, they thought something must be wrong--and they would look for and find a reason why something might be wrong. When they got a number closer to Millikan's value they didn't look so hard. And so they eliminated the numbers that were too far off, and did other things like that. We've learned those tricks nowadays, and now we don't have that kind of a disease."

Sound just a little familiar? Any honest and objective observer of the history of the very young field of climate science would admit it does, to a degree. I think Feynman would be disappointed to see the way this kind of unscientific political conformity bias disease has been allowed back into the professional tent in certain circles of climate science.
litesong

Everett, WA

#284 Feb 2, 2013
teddy r stupid wrote:
I think Feynman would be disappointed to see the way this kind of unscientific political conformity bias.....
Feynman would be disappointed that unscientific, business, energy money-funded websites are viewed by the re-pubic-lick-un citizenry, instead of proper science websites.
//////////
Half the lies they tell about me aren't true.
Yogi Berra
//////////
litesong wrote:
All the boardroom, Pee-R, propaganda pablum lies that unscientific, business, energy, re-pubic-lick-un money-funded websites tell about AGW, aren't true.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#285 Feb 2, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Great post!

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#286 Feb 2, 2013
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>

"We have learned a lot from experience about how to handle some of the ways we fool ourselves. One example: Millikan measured the charge on an electron by an experiment with falling oil drops, and got an answer which we now know not to be quite right.(Eventually) they settle down to a number which is higher. Why didn't they discover that the new number was higher right away? It's a thing that scientists are ashamed of--this history--because it's apparent that people did things like this: When they got a number that was too high above Millikan's, they thought something must be wrong--and they would look for and find a reason why something might be wrong. When they got a number closer to Millikan's value they didn't look so hard. And so they eliminated the numbers that were too far off, and did other things like that. We've learned those tricks nowadays, and now we don't have that kind of a disease."
We were at the beginning of understanding the atom, in the time period you picked.

in 1975, the US National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Report, when asked to comment on climate projections concluded

"...we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate..."

Compare that today where the NAS and virtually ALL the science organizations have put out statements strongly warning of the dangers of manmade global warming.

Here is the US National Academy of Science's current position: "there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring... It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities... The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action." This is in a joint statement with the Academies of Science from Brazil, France, Canada, China, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia and the United Kingdom.

And you forget what Feynman said on the science.

"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 would be appalled to you invoking NONsense to try and justifying the known science on global warming. Appalled!

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#287 Feb 2, 2013
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
A bullsh!t strawman. I didn't "compare myself" to Feynman.
I cited him.
You compared your scientific outlook to Feynman. No where did I ever imply you were a physicist -- nor even close to one.
Teddy R wrote:
<<quoted text>
"... 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.
Insane. He was a scientist and all the great scientific minds are supporting global warming. I don't know one who is not.

Take Stephen Hawkins, Martin Ries, Bill Nye the Science Guy --
All the science media. ALL the world renown science agencies, including

NASA strongly warn about the dangers of global warming.
So your statement is bizarre, and obviously driven by pure ideology.

Again, Hawkings would be appalled you invoke him for anything.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#288 Feb 2, 2013
Teddy R wrote:
Sound just a little familiar? Any honest and objective observer of the history of the very young field of climate science would admit it does, to a degree. I think Feynman would be disappointed to see the way this kind of unscientific political conformity bias disease has been allowed back into the professional tent in certain circles of climate science.
Honest and objective?

Your lazy and partisan.

Give us an example then.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#289 Feb 2, 2013
Opps!

Typo: you're

Not that earthling is around to jump on typos any more.
Do something4your country

Milan, Italy

#290 Feb 2, 2013
Hey! I see you are all talking about politics, but have you tried to do something for your country? I am taking part to a worldwide political-strategical simulation with thousands people from all around the world, and I see politics aren't that easy you seem to say. If you join it and you'll taste by yourself. It's free, it's fun, it's easy and it takes little time to grow up your character.
At least you'll feel you do something for your country. It's not a waste of time to give it a chance.
http://www.erepublik.com/en/referrer/Fanaxidi...
PHD

Overton, TX

#291 Feb 3, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
The commander TROLL has spoken again. Can anyone out there understand walloped, walloped again and again? Wallop10 AKA walloped agian and again likes being walloped that it had its tires out of round to go walloped ,walloped again and again.
PHD

Overton, TX

#292 Feb 3, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
In addition, you think topix does not know what you publish. Attacks on me will not delete or erase what you are and what you do. You should stop making an ASSumption of your---self before you know the facts. Do contact topix to satisfy your accusations of the reprint BS your posting of what I said. You are a dumbASSumption of your---self again.
litesong

Everett, WA

#293 Feb 3, 2013
phud fetid feces face fiend wrote:
...... you think.....
....... you don't think, but have to copy......
PHD

Overton, TX

#294 Feb 4, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
....... I don't think, but have to copy......
And you think topix doesn’t know what you publish? Attacks on me won't delete or erase what you are and what you do. You should stop making an ASSumption of your---self before you know the facts. Do contact topix to satisfy your accusations of the reprint BS your posting of what I said. You are a dumbASSumption of your---self again.

“dening those who deny nature. ”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#295 Feb 5, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
No. These are 100% of the non-petroleum based, world renown science agencies in the world. And I'll repeat these JUST FOR YOU in the next post.
It also includes 100% of the mainstream science media and world renown science journals.
But hey, lie away.
<quoted text>
Yeah, it includes these **BUT ONLY BECAUSE IT ALSO INCLUDES ALL THE US, EUROPE, AND ASIA'S world renown science organizations that are not petroleum sponsored.
How about that. LOL.
<quoted text>
I can include **all** the official NASA websites on climatology with their logo on it. Same with NOAA, and every other world renown science organization in the world.
http://climate.nasa.gov/
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence
And you can't produce any. I said you were running off. No, you came back and are just LYING about it.
Need to see that lie again.
<quoted text>
All the world renown science agencies (not petroleum based) are on record in suppport of global warming.
I'll give you a list next. Try to find one that says what you claim.
It should be EASY -- assuming you aren't a fat a$$ liar.
And 100% of the political agenda baased as well, not 100% of the non-petroleum based. Actually there are others of the political agenda that you failed to list. The biggest giveaway that you were wrong is the 100% claim. When humans are involved there is no 100% on any subject. Same goes with the claim about mainstream science media and world renown science journals. Some of which published the research that disproved AGW.

As for web sites, someone can post a rebuttal to NASA climate change can include the NASA logo. So the logo proves nothing. Someone who wants to take the time can find anything on the Internet. Look deeper to find the truth and those two you had were both approved by Dr Hansen which is his right as the administrator but the fact that he is also a climate activist is also well known so claiming those sites are the truth has to be taken with a grain of salt. Evena more so when you consider the number of climate scientist who disagree with Hansen.

If you want to impress people then try finding a no"petroleum based" research organization that suppport it then I will be impressed. But a bunch of oranizations that sup at the political trough, no. Then again many of those same ones believed in global cooling four decades ago.

http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2012/04/is-nasa-...
PHD

Overton, TX

#296 Feb 5, 2013
NASA will soon be out of business.
check out this video

Bucharest, Romania

#297 Feb 5, 2013
PHD

Overton, TX

#298 Feb 5, 2013
No video please.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#299 Feb 5, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
And 100% of the political agenda baased as well, not 100% of the non-petroleum based. Actually there are others of the political agenda that you failed to list.
My long list was virtually 100% of the world renown, SCIENCE based organizations.

I could include political organizations such as GreenPeace and Sierra Club. But did not.

You have **0** science organizations that say global warming is a hoax,(excluding petroleum backed science organizations that are on neutral) because 100% of these are right wing organizations.
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
The biggest giveaway that you were wrong is the 100% claim. When humans are involved there is no 100% on any subject.
Actually, it should make it easy for you to refute it... if you could.
You can't!
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Same goes with the claim about mainstream science media and world renown science journals. Some of which published the research that disproved AGW.
Gee, weren't you the one who said it was twits that don't support their statements.

Where's the beef by a REPUTABLE science journal.

I already proved to you that Roy Spencer's article you cited was proven to have such flagrant errors in it (and it was published in a satellite journal, which is his speciality) that the editor resigned.

You refused to even acknowledge it. Which is about the time I started calling you a liar.
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
As for web sites, someone can post a rebuttal to NASA climate change can include the NASA logo. So the logo proves nothing.
Then the article itself wouldn't be officially from NASA would it. Of course you can have nut case letters.

Now are you really THAT unintelligent?
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Someone who wants to take the time can find anything on the Internet.
.

yes, like the right wing misinforamtion crap site you REGULARLY post frm.
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Look deeper to find the truth
You mean, unlike you?
tina anne wrote:
ha ha And you don't read well. Your author asks should NASA tell the truth when its own satellites are telling them it is warming.

From YOUR source:
"But what is NASA to do? Many of its satellites are providing climate scientists the data they use to make their findings. Is the space agency to deny its own data?"

Tsk tsk. LOL.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#300 Feb 5, 2013
From Wikipedia in noting there is not one reputable world renown science organization today opposed to global warming.

There used to be... one.

The AAPG is a professional organization that works to advance the science of geology (especially in regard to exploration for and production of petroleum), It is headquartered in Tulsa, Oklahoma.

Prior to June 2007, it “was the only major scientific organization that rejected the finding of significant human influence on recent climate, according to a statement by the Council of the American Quaternary Association.”

The changed their position AFTER June 2007, to be noncommittal because of so many members were resigning because of their previous stance.

<<president Lee Billingsly wrote in March 2007 that "Members have threatened to not renew their memberships... if AAPG does not alter its position on global climate change.... And I have been told of members who already have resigned in previous years>>

The are now counted in the noncommital. Here is there actual statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) Position Statement on climate change:

"the AAPG membership is divided on the degree of influence that anthropogenic CO2 has on recent and potential global temperature increases ... Certain climate simulation models predict that the warming trend will continue, as reported through NAS, AGU, AAAS and AMS. AAPG respects these scientific opinions but wants to add that the current climate warming projections could fall within well-documented natural variations in past climate and observed temperature data. These data do not necessarily support the maximum case scenarios forecast in some models."[70]

not necessarily support the MAXIMUM case scenarios... that's walking the

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#301 Feb 5, 2013
See why I keep some of my old posts.

Because some liars, ignore them and then repost their original lie.

Tina Ann says: Do you realized that the Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences once published articles claiming that man was going to cause an ice age.

Walloper10:
I do. Here is how you are distorting it. Again you show you do not know the difference between a hypothesis with a solid theory.

PROOF:

In 1971, Rasool and Schneider wrote a scientific paper that was focused on entitled Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate" (Science 173, 138-141).

--The paper never actually predicted an ice age. Instead, it projected a possible scenario - if aerosol levels increased 6 to 8 times then sustained those levels for several years, it could trigger an ice age.

--Carbon dioxide was assumed to play a minor role.

--Shortly after, Schneider realized he had overestimated the cooling effect of aerosols, and underestimated the warming effect of CO2 by a factor of about three. Also he found most aerosols had natural causes, which would not be affected by human activities (i.e., smog).

In 1974, he published a retraction of his earlier paper.

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

Climate modeling was just starting. There was no consensus on global warming back then.

-- In fact in 1975, the US National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Report, when asked to comment on climate projections concluded

"...we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate..."

Compare that today where the NAS and virtually ALL the science organizations have put out statements strongly warning of the dangers of manmade global warming.
Here is the US National Academy of Science's current position: "there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring... It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities... The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action."

This is in a joint statement with the Academies of Science from Brazil, France, Canada, China, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia and the United Kingdom.

See your gross distortion?????

I'll just repost this again, if I see your original lie... again, Ms. Tina Anne.
PHD

Overton, TX

#302 Feb 6, 2013
More scientific science fiction cut and paste useless babble from the wallop10 AKA walloped again and again. The walloped again and again dosen't know real science just fiction.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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 Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Dangerous Rip Currents Strike Jersey Shore 19 hr Just asking 1
Toppled Philippine church cross overlooks typho... (Nov '13) Sun INC - Iglesia ni ... 221
Bay St. Louis leaders look back nine years to K... Sat coast person 1
Towing company helps Sandy victims (Feb '13) Aug 29 Seth Ashford 2
Cuban migrant boat turned away from Caymans des... Aug 29 WE JUST DONT CARE 6
Park officials discover fire on Lake Superior's... Aug 28 Natural 1
Apostle Islands fire burns for weeks; rangers l... Aug 28 Natural 1
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Hurricane People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••