tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post2033536676151272851..comments2024-03-18T21:52:45.757-07:00Comments on CONTRARY BRIN: The Real Struggle Behind Climate Change - A War on ExpertiseDavid Brinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comBlogger113125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-52483531936804730512012-08-21T21:01:19.811-07:002012-08-21T21:01:19.811-07:00I hate to say it but follow the money. The BIG mon...I hate to say it but follow the money. The BIG money backing anti global warming are, Oil, big business, power companies, Nuclear power, auto industry, world banking.<br /><br />Who is for global warming? Universities, NO they are bank rolled by the big corporations. Scientists No they are bank rolled by the big corporations. It is the small guy the non profit organizations Greenpeace etc.They have little to gain. <br /><br />The solar companies, Geothermal, wind power electric car makers have much to win but have little say in the White house including this one. Is there global warming. Yes that has been monitored for 40 years. The average surface temperature of the ocean is 1 deg higher. Is it all caused by humans, no not likely. The antarctic and green land have hot spots under them and are getting active! But what humans have done in the last 5,000 or so years (removed 90 of the trees in the world) has made it worse. I have no doubt if 50% of the trees were still here the millions of tons of CO2 and pollution humans put in the air would be "taken care of by the trees!.<br /><br />Again look at the money. Getting off oil is possible in 10 years or less, geothermal could supply 80% or our energy needs alone! But big oil and the auto companies and banks would not have it and will do ANYTHING to stop it.<br /><br />If you believe their propaganda, I wonder what is your motivation to ignore the worlds experts and listening to only the people that are the ones that have dirtied up the air for the last 200 years. It is much like the tobacco companies trying to convince that smoking is not bad for you,(and the still are).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-46996247303439559802010-02-16T01:55:46.674-08:002010-02-16T01:55:46.674-08:00Apologies for the self-promotion, but this really ...Apologies for the self-promotion, but this really is relevant: "<a href="http://ionian-enchantment.blogspot.com/2010/02/in-praise-of-deference_03.html" rel="nofollow">In Praise of Deference</a>".Anony Mousehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08077107616686254136noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-8368672507711521332010-02-14T13:51:07.027-08:002010-02-14T13:51:07.027-08:00Ah, but you miss the point. You see, recently, it ...Ah, but you miss the point. You see, <i>recently, it was cold</i>. THOSE FANCY SCIENTISTS PROMISED IT WOULD NEVER BE COLD AGAIN, AND THEY LIED, DAMNIT.<br /><br />This seriously seems to be a common attitude; a bit of snow demonstrates that human-assisted climate change is obviously nonsense.rsynnotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12125935382858758107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-71951229537938855662010-02-12T12:50:54.057-08:002010-02-12T12:50:54.057-08:00@Corey
Yeah, plan to. But, new baby, two school ...@Corey<br /><br />Yeah, plan to. But, new baby, two school age step-sons, full-time job, etc. Haven't been able to look at it in that depth yet, which is why I merely say AGW sounds plausible, that all the factions in science seem to accept it is compelling, and I am suspending judgment till I know more.<br /><br />Looks like I might get something like what I suggested above though:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123651132" rel="nofollow">NPR TOTN - Government Plans National Climate Service</a><br /><br />I will have to give this a listen. I <i>hope</i> that they publish their data online, keep their collection processes open, and clearly differentiate between analysis and data. Campaign-Obama would have been for such things. Perhaps President Obama will do it that way.Abilardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12849545632114544654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-49838413802497629542010-02-12T12:43:09.511-08:002010-02-12T12:43:09.511-08:00"Yes, the majority of areas you have engaged ..."Yes, the majority of areas you have engaged me on are areas where we have either no or no substantial disagreement. And, nevertheless, the temperature of the communication has risen inexorably."<br /><br />Perhaps 'had' would be a better word :). I think a better understanding on our relative positions has resolved finally that problem.<br /><br />"Where I see us parting company is the area you are getting to now, which has to do with the role of scientists in their failure to make their case politically with the public. As I state above, from my personal experience, the way academics gather data (or more particularly grad students gather data) can be sloppy, and the presentation of climate science data and arguments where I have looked at them (the Ohio report I read, the windmill project some local activists want, etc) have struck me as sloppy. I say why above."<br /><br />I am not so unsympathetic to these cases as you might imagine, and, indeed, I'm sure if one looks around they will find cases of "sloppy science" that needs to be corrected, as that's an important part of science, and revising research, theories, etc, to fit both new information, and from the simple and ongoing process of review of work by anyone and everyone is not just a way of increasing the credibility of such work, but also a way of increasing understanding of the issue.<br /><br /><br />That said, I guess I'd just ask that you consider the real big work that has really been the pillars of the public AGW case- the GISTEMP data, the HADCRU data, the NCDC ice core data, the major GCM projections that have accurately predicted countless features of climate, the whole of the IPCC Assessment Reports (which, while far from perfect, do compile a lot of good research with an overall tendency that leans overwhelming towards very solid and sound data), and even the work done to present this information in scientific outlets like Discovery, or Nat Geo, or even Real Climate.<br /><br />I think when you looks at a lot of this, you'll find that while imperfect, a lot (and dare I saw most) of the work is very solid, and worth the examination of the public, but is not understood by said public because that work is constantly being twisted and distorted for combination with scare-and-confuse tactics by the status-quo group, who try very hard to paint AGW as an obscure theory backed by a group of eco-socialist elites that if acted on, is going to be massively taxing on the global economy, and will further the so-called "Global Socialist Agenda" (a term I first saw seriously presented BY an AGW denialist claiming exactly what I'm saying).<br /><br />So while there is always work to be done in improving the robustness of science, I still think that the high-profile work that has really defined the AGW case IS SOLID, and that the presentation of it has been good, but obfuscated by very powerful interests who don't want the public to understand this information.Coreyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06487646409063141004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-81363920026949417302010-02-12T12:26:05.557-08:002010-02-12T12:26:05.557-08:00@Corey
Yes, the majority of areas you have engage...@Corey<br /><br />Yes, the majority of areas you have engaged me on are areas where we have either no or no substantial disagreement. And, nevertheless, the temperature of the communication has risen inexorably.<br /><br />Where I see us parting company is the area you are getting to now, which has to do with the role of scientists in their failure to make their case politically with the public. As I state above, from my <i>personal</i> experience, the way academics gather data (or more particularly grad students gather data) can be sloppy, and the <i>presentation</i> of climate science data and arguments where I have looked at them (the Ohio report I read, the windmill project some local activists want, etc) have struck me as sloppy. I say why above.<br /><br />These are my observations are drawn from my personal experiences, and I do not claim otherwise. Make of them what you will. But those experiences are the basis of my opinions, which I have shared here.Abilardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12849545632114544654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-37828891888455095272010-02-12T12:10:59.496-08:002010-02-12T12:10:59.496-08:00Okay, so what you're saying is that scientists...Okay, so what you're saying is that scientists are not making the public buy their case. You see, I thought you were saying that the scientists had not presented sufficient evidence, but then, you did say political case, so I suppose that was my misunderstanding.<br /><br />I suppose I can see the reasoning in what you're saying, and I can't argue that the public is woefully unaware of the science behind this issue, and yet, if you really look at what's being said between the two sides, the reason so much doubt is out there is really because of the war in science being conducted by the powerful status quo interests, and I'm not just talking about the GOP. <br /><br />The whole slew of nonsense surrounding "climategate", with people like Patrick Micheals (the same guy who used doctored data to lie about James Hansen's 1988 model right to Congress's face) going into prominent magazines like the Wallstreet Journal and saying "look at this phrase I picked out of an email that says that the CRU scientists admitted to doctoring all their data!" (though, refusing to show the context of the email, which when made public, shot down all the denialist claims).<br /><br />Let me put it another way: last year I read an article in the journal Natural History in which author Stephan Reebs described a survey taken by a university (I forget which one), that showed that out of the 3,000 scientists surveyed (10,000 were contacted, 3,000 responded), 85% agreed with the AGW theory, and ***97%*** of climate scientists agreed. Reebs also noted, however, that the public is not even aware of this, because less than 60% of the US public thinks that a majority of scientists are behind the AGW theory.<br /><br />I wouldn't call that a failure to present the case by scientists so much as I would call that the public just not being on the same page as the scientists, and yet, in the face of well-funded people and organizations will to say ANYTHING to keep the status quo, what are these scientists to do but continually re-iterate the truth? I agree that the public isn't being convinced, but I'm not sure exactly what more can be done but to slowly just try to get them to understand to truth.<br /><br />In the end, the political battle hasn't exactly gone that poorly. Climate laws aren't as robust as it could for the world, but progress is being made, and supported by a lot of politicians in many places, and yet, there is still a big PR problem that's hard to fix. Maybe Robert is right, maybe the thing to do is to go out and attack the denialist movement head-on and paint them as the unpatriotic and harmful people that they are; maybe the biggest flaw of the scientists is placing themselves above that kind of fight. <br /><br />I really don't know. Those are answers I don't have.Coreyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06487646409063141004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-30358233781732381182010-02-12T11:24:29.020-08:002010-02-12T11:24:29.020-08:00@Corey
Bloomberg - Yale Finds Climate-Change Conc...@Corey<br /><br /><a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aF6DUHL2Hr3s" rel="nofollow">Bloomberg - Yale Finds Climate-Change Concern Wanes in U.S.</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2010/February/12021001.asp" rel="nofollow">Chemistry World - Belief in climate change plunges</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/opinion/world-wide-web-of-doubt/story-e6frgd0x-1225829874281" rel="nofollow">The Australian - World Wide Web of Doubt</a><br /><br />Ergo, scientists are not making their case. For my personal take as to why, see above.Abilardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12849545632114544654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-5275900813585384332010-02-12T10:45:32.048-08:002010-02-12T10:45:32.048-08:00I'm not opposed to the idea of healthy skeptic...I'm not opposed to the idea of healthy skepticism, and indeed, I was not convinced of the AGW case for a long time, but if someone is going to make a claim to stake skepticism on, then I want to see evidence in the case made for AGW.<br /><br />Slinging mud at individual scientists, does, indeed, make them less credible in the eye of the public as a community, but that's a dishonest tactic, one that is best countered by showing the robustness of the overall case made for AGW, because, to re-apply what I said before, if sloppy scientists make for a sloppy case (and vice versa), then a robust case makes for robust scientists, at least in the overall community.Coreyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06487646409063141004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-6985299382503207302010-02-12T10:40:53.618-08:002010-02-12T10:40:53.618-08:00Ah, but you see Alibard, that's just another s...Ah, but you see Alibard, that's just another strawman (accusing me of a strawman, ironically), because I never said you claimed that the AGW case can't be made.<br /><br />You are, in fact, claiming that the case has not been made to the public, and yet, when I ask you to show the inadequacy of the case MADE TO THE PUBLIC, this is all I'm asking you to show weakness in on the subject of the case for AGW, you completely fail to provide any compelling evidence.<br /><br /><br />You have used anecdotal tangents to try to paint the scientific community at large as "sloppy", as part of a thesis that the case made by them TO THE PUBLIC (again, that all we're discussing) is not considered strong enough by you to be a solid case, but the fact that you can't show anything of substance against the case made TO THE PUBLIC (as in, already made, I'm not sure how many ways I have to say it), shows that contrary to your thesis, the scientists have done a robust job making a robust case for AGW, ergo, the scientists have not been sloppy, and your points are coming off as ad hominem tactics to discredit them.<br /><br />Now do you see the problem I have with your statements? It's just simple application of the transitive property. If sloppy scientists equal sloppy work, and sloppy work equal a sloppy case, then sloppy scientists equal a sloppy case, and therefore, if you cannot provide evidence of a sloppy case, you are without evidence of sloppy scientists. You can point out one or two anedotal instances of an individual here or there, but that is not ground to make a general statement about the scientific community at large.Coreyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06487646409063141004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-21411853940434110692010-02-12T05:22:20.983-08:002010-02-12T05:22:20.983-08:00That's because we're not just mindless Rep...That's because we're not just mindless Republicans marching to the beat of a Neocon drum and exiling anyone who dares oppose the Party Line. Dissent and different ideas is a part of what it means to be human. Neocons? I don't know what they are, but they gave up their humanity for protection and stability... and didn't even get that much.<br /><br />Rob H.Acacia H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07678539067303911329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-19542376789997587302010-02-12T03:10:20.383-08:002010-02-12T03:10:20.383-08:00The Problem has to do with the scientific communit...The Problem has to do with the scientific community itself.<br /><br />Science is for sale -- you might object to this statement -- but it is true -- look at all the scientists who said that health issues and smoking were not related and this is not the only case -- lets not even go to the whole creationist group -- full of PhD's who have chosen a belief system over science fact <br /><br />Then there is the whole medical argument that -- We are doctor's and are infallible until you find out that the guy just killed you -- or that the whole premise is wrong on what they were looking at -- as in the good bad fat and cholesterol argument<br /><br />The fact is that when " Science " comes out with one of these " Profound Statements " they are usually half the time wrong or Biased to their own research or belief's <br /><br />Look at the Cretaceous boundary dispute and what actually killed off the Dino's that community is still split and the naysayers are abundant !<br /><br />So now we have a debate about climate change and causes and they say that man is solely to blame -- and yet Volcanism is on a huge rise and so is earthquakes and the sun is acting up too -- yet none of that counts and we should just shut up and not ask questions and listen to the " experts " tell us -- until they find out new stuff or choose to hide things that don't agree with their scenario <br /><br />This is the innate problem with the whole global warming thing <br /><br />I agree that we live like slobs and our society should and could live better and cleaner and greener and we do need to get off fossil fuels !! I am also a pro-technology and pro-science guy -- Butt you guys are your own worst enemies half the time --Mr-Ednoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-10340897049683582842010-02-11T20:48:18.043-08:002010-02-11T20:48:18.043-08:00@Corey
"So in other words, no, you can't...@Corey<br /><br />"So in other words, no, you can't show evidence of a lack of solidity in the case made by scientists for the attribution of anthropogenic CO2 (and other GHG) contributions to recent observed temperature change, despite stating earlier that you did not feel the scientists had made their case for this very point (which you now claim you don't dispute?"<br /><br />I also did not show evidence that Thor flies around the earth on a chariot pulled by goats, but that was not the topic. Scientists have a credibility problem because of the way they have presented their arguments to the public. I just gave you three examples from my own experience as to why I am skeptical, since you asked. <br /><br />Given your reaction, perhaps I should have added superciliousness to the critique.<br /><br />Saying someone has not made a case to the public or has handled the public sloppily is distinct from saying 1) that the case cannot be made or 2) that they are wrong. You should learn that subtlety if you are going to compete in the scientific arena.Abilardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12849545632114544654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-91994412894312999442010-02-11T20:40:05.031-08:002010-02-11T20:40:05.031-08:00Perhaps the problem was in a misinterpretation on ...Perhaps the problem was in a misinterpretation on my part about a statement of not believing the case for AGW had been made, if so, then I apologize.<br /><br />In any case, there appears to be no issue on that point.Coreyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06487646409063141004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-11430038279356444592010-02-11T20:38:33.567-08:002010-02-11T20:38:33.567-08:00So in other words, no, you can't show evidence...So in other words, no, you can't show evidence of a lack of solidity in the case made by scientists for the attribution of anthropogenic CO2 (and other GHG) contributions to recent observed temperature change, despite stating earlier that you did not feel the scientists had made their case for this very point (which you now claim you don't dispute? I'm confused).<br /><br />In any case, I have my answer, the science behind this simple theory is clearly not in question, and so, I see no cause to seek further debate on this point.Coreyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06487646409063141004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-57062211179670723042010-02-11T20:33:27.177-08:002010-02-11T20:33:27.177-08:00@Corey
Yeah, if you read my posts you might reali...@Corey<br /><br />Yeah, if you read my posts you might realize I am not disputing AGW. Probably why I am not debating those points. Maybe. Yep. I think that's it.Abilardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12849545632114544654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-88712926641753307062010-02-11T20:33:07.781-08:002010-02-11T20:33:07.781-08:00It's not my intention to be rude or adversaria...It's not my intention to be rude or adversarial here, but like Dr Brin, I don't feel I'm asking an unreasonable question here, and I'm getting quite the runaround in seeking an answer.Coreyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06487646409063141004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-13348799389680331012010-02-11T20:31:28.877-08:002010-02-11T20:31:28.877-08:00It would appear that I forgot an intended citation...It would appear that I forgot an intended citation there.<br /><br />http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/03/models-are-unproven.php<br /><br />There we go.Coreyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06487646409063141004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-53263264373589584282010-02-11T20:30:25.196-08:002010-02-11T20:30:25.196-08:00Alibard, that's impressive skill in red herrin...Alibard, that's impressive skill in red herrings, but doesn't answer the question on the soundness of the science regarding the attribution of anthropogenic CO2 contributions to recent observed rising temperatures.<br /><br />"1. If the Hadley and Canadian models aren't sharp enough for tree planting, what are they good for?"<br /><br />As it turns out, they're good for attributing anthropogenic CO2 contributions to climate change! Who knew?! /sarcasm<br /><br />An exerpt from a often-quoted blog on the subject:<br /><br />"But putting global surface temperatures aside, there are some other significant predictions of enhanced greenhouse gas warming that have been made and confirmed: <br />the warming at the surface should be accompanied by cooling of the stratosphere and this has indeed been observed <br />as well as surface temperatures warming, models have long predicted warming of the lower, mid and upper troposphere even while satellite readings seemed to disagree. But it turns out the satellite analysis was full of errors and on correction, this warming has been observed <br />models expect warming of ocean surface waters as is now observed <br />models predict an energy imbalance between incoming sunlight and outgoing infrared radiation. This has been detected <br />models predict sharp and short lived cooling of a few tenths of a degree in the event of large volcanic eruptions and Mount Pinatubo confirmed this. <br />models predict an amplification of warming trends in the Arctic region and this is happening"<br /><br /><br /><br />That sounds awfully good for “useless models”, wouldn't you agree? <br /><br /><br /><br />"2. When Wind4Coal River and all their buddies (Hansen, Daryl Hannah, et al.) come here and argue for windmills, why don't they bother to address the fact that the govt. classifies the area as a class one wind resource zone (i.e. not suitable for power generation). Challenged the activists on this and they said they had a private study. No thought given to publishing this with their argument. No notion that the discrepancy between what they were suggesting and what the govt. data said was viable would need to be explained from the get-go. No thought that even if the mountain in question does have slightly better wind, it won't be as nice a deal for our tax dollars as the plains.<br /><br />3. State of Ohio commissioned an economic model based on AGW. I read it. Lots of gloom and doom, including comments about Lake Erie drying up. Surprised, I went online and checked Army Corp data on the lake: the levels were normal for the last decade. Again, perhaps the modelers had private studies, like Wind4CoalRiver, but due diligence would require that they mention the Army data and explain why theirs differed.<br /><br />Sloppy. Now, I only have so much time, but whenever I take some of that time to dig a little deeper to see if I can USE some of this stuff I find discrepancies like the above."<br /><br />You know, maybe being a simple biology student without your apparent knowledge of climatology has rendered me obtuse in this matter, but I'm not actually sure as to what either of those has to do with the attribution of anthropogenic CO2 contributions to recent observed temperature change, commonly known as the "anthropogenic global warming theory", at least not beyond being a general ad hominem attack against the scientists.Coreyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06487646409063141004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-18182987635823070202010-02-11T20:16:03.083-08:002010-02-11T20:16:03.083-08:00@Corey
Oh dear. I seem to have deviated from the...@Corey<br /><br />Oh dear. I seem to have deviated from the One True Faith. <br /><br />"His one claim about precipitation is a red herring on whether or not climate change can be attributed to anthropogenic CO2 contributions based on the available information, followed by nothing but the opinion statement that 'the scientists have not made their case.'"<br /><br />1. If the Hadley and Canadian models aren't sharp enough for tree planting, what are they good for?<br /><br />2. When Wind4Coal River and all their buddies (Hansen, Daryl Hannah, et al.) come here and argue for windmills, why don't they bother to address the fact that the govt. classifies the area as a class one wind resource zone (i.e. not suitable for power generation). Challenged the activists on this and they said they had a private study. No thought given to publishing this with their argument. No notion that the discrepancy between what they were suggesting and what the govt. data said was viable would need to be explained from the get-go. No thought that even if the mountain in question does have slightly better wind, it won't be as nice a deal for our tax dollars as the plains.<br /><br />3. State of Ohio commissioned an economic model based on AGW. I read it. Lots of gloom and doom, including comments about Lake Erie drying up. Surprised, I went online and checked Army Corp data on the lake: the levels were normal for the last decade. Again, perhaps the modelers had private studies, like Wind4CoalRiver, but due diligence would require that they mention the Army data and explain why theirs differed.<br /><br />Sloppy. Now, I only have so much time, but whenever I take some of that time to dig a little deeper to see if I can USE some of this stuff I find discrepancies like the above.Abilardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12849545632114544654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-57499157890399167412010-02-11T20:12:40.010-08:002010-02-11T20:12:40.010-08:00So tell me, Alibard, exactly where is this sloppy ...So tell me, Alibard, exactly where is this sloppy work done?<br /><br />Again, you're just making opinion statements, and not showing any actual facts that contradict the "sloppy" AGW theory.<br /><br />There is solid attribution of atmospheric CO2 to temperature, both in physical experimentation dating back more than a century, and in all of climate data, from paleoclimate data dating back half a million years, to modern climate data. There is the unprecedented nature of present atmospheric CO2 concentrations, as well as both chemical features to the C02 and accounting of carbon emitted/absorbed by natural sources showing a profound human influence on these long-unprecedented levels of CO2. There is a complete lack of a competing theory that works on any significant level. There are climate models that have been ACCURATELY predicting not just temperature, but many features of climate, from sensitivity to aerosol forcings, to the response of the atmosphere to surface-level warming.<br /><br />I could spend three or four full posts going into specifics and showing data, but I think the point is made.<br /><br />By the standard of science in any other area, this is a case that is sufficiently strong to warrant strong consideration and widespread adoption, and CERTAINLY action on the issue. Thus far, you have presented nothing but opinion statements and a single red-herring point on climate modeling to attempt to condemn an entire branch of science, and the conclusion reached by all those involved (an area of science for which you have shown no particular expertise).<br /><br />Of course, I've already pointed out this lack of substance in your posts, but thus far, it has gone un-responded to. If the case is so full of holes as to not be made, then show these holes. Show where these scientists are wrong in their assertion that the information presently available constitutes enough information for a high probability that humans are significantly affecting climate.Coreyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06487646409063141004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-34639468068919525022010-02-11T19:58:00.885-08:002010-02-11T19:58:00.885-08:00@Tony
"As a matter of interest, Abilard, whi...@Tony<br /><br />"As a matter of interest, Abilard, which field of academia were you in?"<br /><br />Cultural Anthropology. Stuck with it through the MA. Then developed a severe allergic reaction to post-modernists and fled in terror.Abilardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12849545632114544654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-75143951935917821822010-02-11T19:54:57.892-08:002010-02-11T19:54:57.892-08:00@Brin
My Heloise corrects me quite often, but tha...@Brin<br /><br />My Heloise corrects me quite often, but that is the way I like it.<br /><br />"You insist that the lack of any defectors doesn't mean anything, because they ALL are..."<br /><br />Loyal to their factions.<br /><br />"My point is that a field of study as diverse and rambunctious as atmospheric studies would have big pockets of DISSENT, if any of the widely-touted GCC doubter "gotcha" points were true."<br /><br />Well, that is where your case is the strongest, as I have said on previous threads. It's also the only reason I've taken AGW seriously enough to investigate. This does not mean I will not double check the levels for Lake Erie, or wind classes for nearby mountain ranges, when scientists make arguments based on them. Or that I won't say something when I see discrepancies. <br /><br />"Your premise DOES boil down to stating that ALL of them have fallen for the mental traps that you described."<br /><br />Actually, no. I think there is sufficient evidence that they have all gotten behind AGW, and that AGW is plausible. I just think that they have been sloppy making their case and that conformism is strong enough that they do not see that they have been sloppy.Abilardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12849545632114544654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-51992599709114622042010-02-11T19:51:29.078-08:002010-02-11T19:51:29.078-08:00"The lack of any defectors doesn't mean a..."The lack of any defectors doesn't mean anything, because they ALL are..."<br /><br />EXACT DUPLICATES!<br /><br />The scientists have all been replaced by shapeshifting magmapod people from COROT-7b, a planet where average temperatures exceed 3300 Fahrenheit. Their nefarious plot to Corotaform Earth into a sleazy lava-pooled tourist trap is making great strides, great strides indeed.<br /><br />I'll bet you thought Abilard was its real name. It's probably Blblugblghlug.<br /><br />(I keed, I keed.)TCBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08153506222271955110noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-90741942562927866832010-02-11T19:45:21.746-08:002010-02-11T19:45:21.746-08:00"Abilard, it is no strawman. Ask Heloise, she..."Abilard, it is no strawman. Ask Heloise, she'll tell you.<br /><br />My point is that a field of study as diverse and rambunctious as atmospheric studies would have big pockets of DISSENT, if any of the widely-touted GCC doubter "gotcha" points were true. Thousands of researchers, scattered all over the globe and in a wide variety of institutions, tenure levels and competing groups...<br /><br />Your premise DOES boil down to stating that ALL of them have fallen for the mental traps that you described. Yes, all. Because NONE of them have given in to the blandishments and open offers of rich financial rewards from Exxon and Fox, to come over and give the deniers support.<br /><br />You insist that the lack of any defectors doesn't mean anything, because they ALL are...<br /><br />...are what? We're still waiting, Which of your scenarios could do such a thing, to so many different smart people?"<br /><br />While I wouldn't mind explanation, does the answer even really matter?<br /><br />No matter what he might give as a response to that (by which I mean a real response that doesn't dance around the question), isn't it still just ad hominem reasoning used in lieu of any ability to refute the science itself?<br /><br />The reason the "'gotcha' points", aren't given scientific attention is because there's nothing too them, and that isn't just apparent because the experts don't point them out, but rather also because Alibard himself has failed to point them out. His one claim about precipitation is a red herring on whether or not climate change can be attributed to anthropogenic CO2 contributions based on the available information, followed by nothing but the opinion statement that "the scientists have not made their case".<br /><br />I mean, I realize the point you're trying to make here is part of what your entire post is about, but isn't the whole reason behind an ad hominem attack the very fact that you don't have to justify it?<br /><br />You pointed out Micheal Crichton in your post, which I really liked, because from all that I read from him, the one point he never seemed to grasp (or at least admit) in his rantings on "consensus science" was that it was science that made the consensus, not the other way around as he proposed. I guess all I'm trying to say is, If Alibard can't actually show where a factual piece of information was ignored, then doesn't it kind of take away any substance to the accusations against the scientists?Coreyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06487646409063141004noreply@blogger.com