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 (Page 12)

Showing posts 221 - 240 of324
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#243
Feb 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Teddy R wrote:
Consensus science is not science - it is politics.
LOL, seems to be a quote from Michael Crichton, the science fiction writer.

So we have a misuse of a quote from a real scientist, and a correctly used but worthless quote from a fantasy novelist.
PHD

Bertram, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#244
Feb 1, 2013
 
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

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#245
Feb 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Einstein was of course responding to a list of scientists who were denying his theory of relativity.
The parallel with global warming denial is obvious: if there was any real doubt about the theory, one good opponent would be enough.
Of course there isn't. The fact that deniers like to put together similar lists of scientists who don't believe in AGW of course exposes the weakness of their case, as Einstein knew.
Just as warmistas who like to put together similar lists of scientists who do believe in AGW (disingenuously pretending that scientific concensus means 100% vs. 0% black-or-white certainty with no room for any shred of doubt or imperfection in the theory) only amplify doubts about the strength of their case.

Show me one who is relying on an 'appeal to the majority' as their primary argument, and I'll show you one who is no longer speaking as a scientist - whether they be an AGW jihadi warmista or an AGW denier. They are merely indulging in rhetoric and debate, which has no place in the scientific method.

As Einstein and every real scientist knows ...

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#246
Feb 1, 2013
 
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
Just as warmistas who like to put together similar lists of scientists who do believe in AGW (disingenuously pretending that scientific concensus means 100% vs. 0% black-or-white certainty with no room for any shred of doubt or imperfection in the theory) only amplify doubts about the strength of their case.
Show me one who is relying on an 'appeal to the majority' as their primary argument, and I'll show you one who is no longer speaking as a scientist - whether they be an AGW jihadi warmista or an AGW denier. They are merely indulging in rhetoric and debate, which has no place in the scientific method.
As Einstein and every real scientist knows ...
A straw man, of course. The primary argument is the evidence.

Einstein knew that if the evidence was not firm, it would only take one scientist to give a good argument as to why.

Crichton couldn't see that it's the evidence that determines the strength of the argument, because he didn't have the scientific background to understand the evidence, unlike a scientific writer who was a scientist:

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Crichton believed the misinformation pushed out by the fossil fuel industry scientists with their pockets full of dollar bills because of his political bent.

Because he didn't have the scientific skill to see the real science from the misinformation.

That's why the scientific consensus is so important: the people with the skill can see the evidence.

The deniers see the importance too, which is why they are desperate for numbers, and have their petitions and lists of retired geologists and engineers.

But where is the one scientist who can argue why the evidence is not firm?

Lindzen and Spencer and Christy have given up trying to put a scientific argument and appeal to the retired geologists and engineers at wattsupwiththat, who still lap up their failed arguments.

Where is the one scientist? There isn't one.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#247
Feb 1, 2013
 
Correction: unlike a science fiction writer who was a scientist:

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#248
Feb 1, 2013
 
Teddy R wrote:
Quite a list. Most impressive.
Of course, the true scientist would acknowledge -
"If I were wrong, one would be enough." - Einstein

Consensus science is not science - it is politics.
http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Consensus_sc...
Er, so all the crackpots who insist the Earth is flat MUST be considered right too, if you're going there.

There is no science to support the skeptics. I've seen the arguments.

Solar radiation has been flat to even declining in the last decades, and temperatures have been rapidly increasing.

The natural cycles guys have no explanation for that -- because prior to CO2 warming, the sun was the primary cause of temperature changes.

==========
Teddy R wrote:
"Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_conse...
That's right. It is the testing of a hypothesis that makes something a scientific theory. Global warming passed those tests.

That's why it has about a 97% consensus among climatologists, the latter who are solid right wingers or hard right Libertarians who typically also say second hand smoke does not pose a health risk.
Teddy R wrote:
A word of advice - if the science is solid (as you seem utterly certain it is)- stick to arguing the science. Appeals to the majority like this only serve to discredit and weaken the strength of the underlying scientific argument.
I've done both. You've ignored the science posts.

NASA gives a great summary
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

The Arctic has 30% less ice now that it did 30 years ago, and 50% than it did 50 years ago. All scientific measurements show the Antarctic is melting {lastest NASA satellites}; same with almost all glaciers {the only exceptions being at very high altitudes}

The oceans show it is more acidic {the oceans are absorbing more of the CO2}
Teddy R wrote:
Leave the consensus bullsh!t to the partisan idealogues who only care about the science to the extent they can exploit it as a stalking horse to advance their real political agendas.
Why Tina Anne is going around posting there is no scientific consensus.
I've seen no interested by you to do a deep dive in the science.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#249
Feb 1, 2013
 
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.
Teddy R

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#250
Feb 1, 2013
 
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL, seems to be a quote from Michael Crichton, the science fiction writer.
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?

No, I did not quote Michael Chrichton in my post. I wouldn't dare - I'm sure his paltry academic credentials from pedestrian academic institutions don't hold a candle to the blinding luminosity of your own.

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).

Instead of 'concensus science,' I suppose I might just as well have invoked the closely related "cargo cult science."

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

http://neurotheory.columbia.edu/~ken/cargo_cu...

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.

On second thought, you probably reckon you're holier than Feynman, too.

LOL.
serfs up

Kissimmee, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#251
Feb 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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.
To many people have stolen to much of others possessions over the years, over the decades and over history. Even if true. I don't believe them. They look for any reason to make a buck to keep the power elite living high off the hog. The real reason for taxing this is the global initiative to get us used to a world government. If Gore lived a humble life, it would help his cause with some. But he is a fraud. A rich one, but a fraud. Thing is, if true, to me it is the lies shoved down our throats by corrupted men and women who have corrupted many in the general population that makes me deny. They will get the money in some underhanded way at some point, and probably are.
Teddy R

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#252
Feb 1, 2013
 

Judged:

5

3

3

Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
So we have a misuse of a quote from a real scientist, and a correctly used but worthless quote from a fantasy novelist.
No, actually what we have here is a smart-azz who’s chosen to get pissed off at being properly called out by peerless scientific authority for straying outside the bounds of science into the realm of political rhetoric and behaving un-scientifically.

And we have a smart-azz incapable of intellectually honest dialectic on the merits who apparently can muster nothing but a snarky juvenile ad hom in response.

Please recall, FG – I wasn’t posting in response to you – you’ve chosen to act the wounded party here. But if the shoe fits, I guess …

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#253
Feb 1, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Teddy R wrote:
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).
LOL.

So now in addition to the sci-fi writer, your sources are a parapsychologist and a climate change denier who writes for a Republican lobbying web site?

They don't believe in consensus? Well they wouldn't, would they?

Crichton seems to have been little restrained by scientific evidence even after his scientific education.
He experimented with astral projection, aura viewing, and clairvoyance, coming to believe that these included real phenomena that scientists had too eagerly dismissed as paranormal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton

Azimov knew that stuff was phoney stock.

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Mind you, he spent 5 days a week doing the science and left the writing to the weekend.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#254
Feb 1, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Teddy R wrote:
...peerless scientific authority...
MD Dinosaur, Professor Paranormal Phenomena and Dr Denial (energy industry lobbyist)?

You're full of shit.
Teddy R

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#255
Feb 1, 2013
 

Judged:

3

1

1

Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL.
So now in addition to the sci-fi writer, your sources are a parapsychologist and a climate change denier who writes for a Republican lobbying web site?
They don't believe in consensus? Well they wouldn't, would they?
Crichton seems to have been little restrained by scientific evidence even after his scientific education.
<quoted text>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton
Azimov knew that stuff was phoney stock.
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Mind you, he spent 5 days a week doing the science and left the writing to the weekend.
More sputtering ad homs. Still incapable of formulating a point and cogent argument on the merits.

Sad. You're better than this, you know. Stick to what you know - the science. Take off your AGW alarmist jihadi hat and put it away. Confine yourself to posting on the state of scientific knowledge in this arena, as a credible SCIENTIST, and learn to acknowledge the scientific knowledge is imperfect and incomplete. You'll be much more credible and effective than when you play high priest and demand adherence to AGW religious dogma.

Any cult cargo science faker can do that - leave that crap to them.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#256
Feb 1, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

What you have there is a bunch of cranks. Cranks don't like consensus because the consensus says they are selling phoney stock, and they want you to believe their stock is real.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#257
Feb 1, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
More sputtering ad homs. Still incapable of formulating a point and cogent argument on the merits.
Sad. You're better than this, you know. Stick to what you know - the science. Take off your AGW alarmist jihadi hat and put it away. Confine yourself to posting on the state of scientific knowledge in this arena, as a credible SCIENTIST, and learn to acknowledge the scientific knowledge is imperfect and incomplete. You'll be much more credible and effective than when you play high priest and demand adherence to AGW religious dogma.
Any cult cargo science faker can do that - leave that crap to them.
You're ranting a bit, teddy.

Bit of a crank yourself, aren't you?

Astral projection, aura viewing, clairvoyance, paranormal phenomena and global warming denial- the science is good enough to say these are all phoney stock.
Teddy R

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#258
Feb 1, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
MD Dinosaur, Professor Paranormal Phenomena and Dr Denial (energy industry lobbyist)?
You're full of shit.
Einstein? Feynman? WTF are you talking about?

You've lost your temper.

Come, come. Settle down. Have some tea.

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?
Teddy R

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#259
Feb 1, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Fair Game wrote:
What you have there is a bunch of cranks. Cranks don't like consensus because the consensus says they are selling phoney stock, and they want you to believe their stock is real.
Einstein? A crank? Ooooo-kayyyy ...

Feynman? A crank? Ooooo-kayyy ...

No - they didn't like appeals to "consensus" as a cheap substitute for real, good, always-skeptical-and-questioni ng-theory science, or scientists falling in love with a theory and losing their scientific objectivity.

Because they were - well - real scientists, with scientific integrity.

You are certainly working VERY hard at arguing against this inarguable truth, and it's very puzzling.

Why is that? Why is it sooo hard for you to admit the universally accepted epistematological truth that scientific knowledge is ALWAYS incomplete and imperfect, to some non-zero degree, however small, and that REAL scientists can readily be distinguished from the fake ones by their unalloyed acceptance & acknowledgement of that truth?
Teddy R

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#260
Feb 1, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
You're ranting a bit, teddy.
Bit of a crank yourself, aren't you?
Astral projection, aura viewing, clairvoyance, paranormal phenomena and global warming denial- the science is good enough to say these are all phoney stock.
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?

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#261
Feb 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
Einstein? Feynman? WTF are you talking about?
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.
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?
Easy and wrong.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/fake-s...

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#262
Feb 1, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Teddy R wrote:
Because they were - well - real scientists, with scientific integrity.
Yes, they seem to have been too clever by half for you- the points they were making went over your head.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 221 - 240 of324
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••