Official Global Warming thread (merged)

[BartW]

Except for those few and very rare and "notorious" climate deniers. Bart, why are all the climate deniers "notorious?"

Because there’s so few of them they attract a lot of attention (and say some pretty silly things)! That said there’s a difference between your Fred Singers and Richard Lindzens. Fred Singer hasn’t published peer-reviewed work in decades and just spews nonstop pro-industry pseudoscientific BS. He’s the prototypical hired gun. He doesn't produce any new science, just denies, denies, denies. You picked a real nut with Singer Atleast the Lindzens and Currys put their work through peer-review. They flirt with denial but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and label 'em skeptics. Science needs it's cranks to challenge any status quo, and some people seem driven to be contrary by instinct & nature. God bless 'em. They've made the case all the stronger when they are acting as a scientist.

 

[Orangeslice13]

Link? So we’re back to “the scientific consensus is usually wrong therefore AGW is a hoax?” Next are you going to tell me how Columbus proved all those dumb scientists wrong by sailing the ocean blue?

I think a big reason people don’t realize there’s such a strong consensus is that the media, in an attempt to be “fair and balanced”, gives proponents just as much air time as skeptics. This creates the false appearance that the split is ~50/50 not 97/3. If you look at the literature the consensus is clear and has been for some time. But the layperson is much more likely to watch the news (or worse, faux news) then they are to read some scientific journals.

Google

 

[GoBigOrangeUT]

Bart,

You are arguing with people who are creationists. They clearly have a bias against science. Unless that science proves their stance, then they are a avid supporters of science.

 

[BartW]

Google

If it had popped up after a quick google I wouldn't have asked for a link

 

[BartW]

Bart,

You are arguing with people who are creationists. They clearly have a bias against science. Unless that science proves their stance, then they are a avid supporters of science.

True. I'm not sure why I even try. This one irks me more than creationism/evolution though because of the global sociopolitical implications.

 

[Sandvol]

Bart,

You are arguing with people who are creationists. They clearly have a bias against science. Unless that science proves their stance, then they are a avid supporters of science.

Now there is something wrong with Creationists?

 

[GoBigOrangeUT]

Now there is something wrong with Creationists?

Not at all. I just take your understanding of science with a grain of salt.

 

[Sandvol]

Because there’s so few of them they attract a lot of attention (and say some pretty silly things)! That said there’s a difference between your Fred Singers and Richard Lindzens. Fred Singer hasn’t published peer-reviewed work in decades and just spews nonstop pro-industry pseudoscientific BS. He’s the prototypical hired gun. He doesn't produce any new science, just denies, denies, denies. You picked a real nut with Singer Atleast the Lindzens and Currys put their work through peer-review. They flirt with denial but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and label 'em skeptics. Science needs it's cranks to challenge any status quo, and some people seem driven to be contrary by instinct & nature. God bless 'em. They've made the case all the stronger when they are acting as a scientist.

Fred Singer is 89 freaking years old. And you disparage him because he hasn't produced peer reviewed work in years. You should hope you have his track record when you're 89.

 

[BartW]

Now there is something wrong with Creationists?

You're free to believe as you wish but there's no room for religion in science and politics.

 

[Sandvol]

Not at all. I just take your understanding of science with a grain of salt.

And I yours.

 

[GoBigOrangeUT]

And I yours.

Fair enough :hi:

 

[Sandvol]

You're free to believe as you wish but there's no room for religion in science and politics.

People have to have a basis for their beliefs.

 

[BartW]

Fred Singer is 89 freaking years old. And you disparage him because he hasn't produced peer reviewed work in years. You should hope you have his track record when you're 89.

Oh he does plenty of work. He just avoids peer review by posting op-eds, writing books, testifying before congress, and appearing on radio/tv... the usual denialist routes.

If I have his track record at 89 please please put me out of my misery.

 

[Sandvol]

Oh he does plenty of work. He just avoids peer review by posting op-eds, writing books, testifying before congress, and appearing on radio/tv... the usual denialist routes.

If I have his track record at 89 please please put me out of my misery.

I don't see him avoiding peer review. He's debated alarmists on several occasions.

 

[Sandvol]

I mean you can say Muller avoids peer review by publishing his work on the internet and writing OP Ed pieces. What do you think of him?

 

[Orangeslice13]

You're free to believe as you wish but there's no room for religion in science and politics.

There should be no room for politics in science either. That's the problem most of us have with GW scientist. They have their belief and set out to prove it. If it doesn't fit they throw it out. I know many who work in science feilds. They all speak of what we currently believe is happening. And are willing to challenge their accepted ideas with new info. The difference being the GW guys think the science is settled on the subject. That's why many call it junk science.
I don't blame you for wanting to have faith in something.

 

[BartW]

I don't see him avoiding peer review. He's debated alarmists on several occasions.

Ken Ham debated Bill Nye and I don't see him publishing peer-reviewed work. SV you seem to subscribe to Conflict Thesis, but science and religion aren't incompatible. Many people believe in God and science.

I mean you can say Muller avoids peer review by publishing his work on the internet and writing OP Ed pieces. What do you think of him?

Muller doesn't exclusively do that, he also publishes peer reviewed work. Same goes for Lindzen, Spencer, and Curry. They actually do science and contribute to the body of knowledge, whereas the Singers only try to poke holes. Discredit the science, disseminate false information, spread confusion, and promote doubt. That's the denialist mantra.

 

[BartW]

There should be no room for politics in science either. That's the problem most of us have with GW scientist. They have their belief and set out to prove it. If it doesn't fit they throw it out. I know many who work in science feilds. They all speak of what we currently believe is happening. And are willing to challenge their accepted ideas with new info. The difference being the GW guys think the science is settled on the subject. That's why many call it junk science.
I don't blame you for wanting to have faith in something.

There's no room for politics in science, but there must be room for science in politics. Climate scientists don't simply throw out contradictory data. There just isn't any contradictory data. If someone could disprove AGW they would win a Nobel Prize.

"Sound science has two meanings. When used by scientists it means robustly supported science, confirmed by multiple peer-reviewed studies. When used in politics (generally by wingnuts) it means ideologically sound science, i.e. a euphemism for industry-funded pseudoscientific bull****.

An opposite phrase that almost always appears alongside "sound science" is "junk science," which roughly translates not to pseudoscience, but established science that goes against a rigid ideology or might cut into the funder's profits. The term is most commonly used by anti-environmental astroturf campaigns and, sometimes, creationists. In any case, the "sound/junk science" dichotomy is usually a sign that blatant pseudoscience is involved."

-rationalwiki

 

[MG1968]

There's no room for politics in science, but there must be room for science in politics. Climate scientists don't simply throw out contradictory data. There just isn't any contradictory data. If someone could disprove AGW they would win a Nobel Prize.

If AGW could be proved, it'd be Nobel worthy as well.

 

[zreeves]

If AGW could be proved, it'd be Nobel worthy as well.

you realize that isnt how science works right? science doesnt prove anything. science only gathers evidence to support theories and is capable of disproving other theories. even gravity and evolution havent been proved. but there have been in the neighborhood of 150,000 papers that mention evolution and 0 have disproven it. so climate change will never be proved. there will just be a lot of data that supports it

 

[BartW]

If AGW could be proved, it'd be Nobel worthy as well.

IPCC already got one.

inb4 we circle back to previously covered topic--science cannot prove, it can only disprove. This doesn't mean we can't be 99% sure about things. Sure enough, by any measure, to take action.

 

[MG1968]

you realize that isnt how science works right? science doesnt prove anything. science only gathers evidence to support theories and is capable of disproving other theories. even gravity and evolution havent been proved. but there have been in the neighborhood of 150,000 papers that mention evolution and 0 have disproven it. so climate change will never be proved. there will just be a lot of data that supports it

who said anything about climate change? It's obvious that happens, what isn't so obvious or settled is how much of a role man is playing in it.

 

[Sandvol]

you realize that isnt how science works right? science doesnt prove anything. science only gathers evidence to support theories and is capable of disproving other theories. even gravity and evolution havent been proved. but there have been in the neighborhood of 150,000 papers that mention evolution and 0 have disproven it. so climate change will never be proved. there will just be a lot of data that supports it

You can apply that to anything but theories do become laws of science. AGW isn't even at a high confidence right now. Even if some day they can show that the surface temperature data is fairly accurate they still haven't shown a high confidence as to what might be contributing and whether or not randomness isn't the best explanation.

Also, there are 150,000 papers that haven't proven it either.

 

[zreeves]

who said anything about climate change? It's obvious that happens, what isn't so obvious or settled is how much of a role man is playing in it.

You can apply that to anything but theories do become laws of science. AGW isn't even at a high confidence right now. Even if some day they can show that the surface temperature data is fairly accurate they still haven't shown a high confidence as to what might be contributing and whether or not randomness isn't the best explanation.

Also, there are 150,000 papers that haven't proven it either.

i havent met a person in the field of geology or atmospheric science that didnt support global warming and the influence that man is having on it.

and i am pretty sure the number of papers that reference evolution is in that ball park. i did not say any of them proved it. i said 0 have disproven it.

 

[Orangeslice13]

There's no room for politics in science, but there must be room for science in politics. Climate scientists don't simply throw out contradictory data. There just isn't any contradictory data. If someone could disprove AGW they would win a Nobel Prize.

"Sound science has two meanings. When used by scientists it means robustly supported science, confirmed by multiple peer-reviewed studies. When used in politics (generally by wingnuts) it means ideologically sound science, i.e. a euphemism for industry-funded pseudoscientific bull****.

An opposite phrase that almost always appears alongside "sound science" is "junk science," which roughly translates not to pseudoscience, but established science that goes against a rigid ideology or might cut into the funder's profits. The term is most commonly used by anti-environmental astroturf campaigns and, sometimes, creationists. In any case, the "sound/junk science" dichotomy is usually a sign that blatant pseudoscience is involved."

-rationalwiki

Climate scientist are the ones being used by politics to advance an adgenda. Their funding comes from that adgenda and they agree at a 97% rate. They are the ones being referd to as junk scientist.


Did you know that alcoholics who drink coffee have a healthier liver?
It was in a study paid for by Folgers so it must be true.