"Obama has now fired more cruise missiles than all other Nobel Peace Prize winners combined."

[PearlWatson]

How about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change? This is made up of scientists from over 130 countries. Also the Academies of Science of 32 countries including the United States all have stated there is between 90%-99% chance that climate change is caused by humans. I understand Pascal's Wager applies to a voluntary behavior, but that is pretty irrelevant to the point I was trying to make. Let's say making environmentally friendly choices is voluntary which it is. Then the argument can be made that because of the benefits that have nothing to do with climate change, it still would be the most beneficial choice to be environmentally conscious. You seem to be opposed to policy being made that forces people/businesses to make those choices, which I am not. That is an entirely different argument where you have more ground to stand on, because that is just political preference. The mistake is denying that it is likely that mankind causes climate change just because you are opposed to what we should do about it. It is very difficult to argue that it would not be beneficial to reduce CO2 emissions. What isn't as concrete is whether or not it is economically beneficial to make these decisions. I believe in the long run that the economic impact of our climate problems will outweigh the economic problems that certain policies would cause now. This is an entirely different debate in which I think you have a very compelling argument that I happen to disagree with, but denying that climate change is most likely man made is what I find a little terrifying. The denial of this fact skews peoples' weighing of the pros and cons of the real issue which is: "What should we do about climate change?".

A politically motivated panel of scientists creeps me out.

How many scientists make up this group of "most actively publishing scientists?" They could just be a dozen *** kissers who say what the publishers want to hear.

I haven't denied any so called "fact" and why would it matter if I did? I have no influence over public policy.

I take Crichton's warning to heart though:

Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

 

[PearlWatson]

Now back to the original topic:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnLqoRtUAVg

 

[One Brow]

So you can say what you want, but I take Crichton's opinions regarding science more seriously than a layman's.

I take the opinion of a dozen scientific organizations much more seriously than that of any individual scientist. That's what consensus is. It is inconsistent to say our positions are invalid because we lack authority, but that Chrichton's is valid despite authority.

Pretty sure that guy has a clue.

Based on the quote he gave from Crichton below, I'm pretty sure not.

It is our responsibility as scientists, physicians, reviewers, and/or editors to be alert and always remember that “...consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way” (M. Crichton).

Spoken like a man who has never argued with a relativity-denier or a flat-earther. That's exactly what you have to say when you discuss science with these people. It's not so different than with global-warming-deniers.

 

[One Brow]

Michael Crichton tells us about the poor track record of consensus among scientists:

So, absent a mechanism for puerperal fever, pellegra, and continental drift, scientists were skeptical. Good, that what scientists should be. For every Goldberger there are a ten or more other people putting forth different theories. It's very easy to go back in history and cherry-pick after you know what the mechanism is, and who was right.

Of course, we know the mechanisms behind global warming. That's why scientists are no longer skeptical of it. We're not trying to run around and figure out why the planet is warming, we already know the reason.

However, I wouldn't expect such a minor a difference as not knowing the cause in one case, and knowing it in the other, to keep a troll from treating such things as being equivalent.

 

[One Brow]

In my opinion a truly free market would say first that you can manufacture whatever you'd like, but you take 100% responsibility for your actions and if anyone anywhere is damaged by your actions then you are fully liable.

When the pollution is caused jointly by 20 different companies and 30 million car drivers, it is realistic to expect the courts to to be able to address it?

 

[moevillini]

I for one am extremely surprised that this thread is still breathing.

it's running on fumes...





I just couldn't resist that one

 

[One Brow]

That's the rub right there:

Exactly. Scientists have signed off on global warming in part because it is the conclusion of verifiable experiments conducted by multiple researchers. Tha'ts why it is consensus.

 

[One Brow]

(how many scientists is that and what exactly do they accept?).

You could start by reading the relevant releases of the AAAS and the NAS, if you actually cared to find out how many that is and what they accept.

 

[One Brow]

A politically motivated panel of scientists creeps me out.

Which panel would be polically motivated? Discuss how you know the political leanings of the various scientific organizations, please.

 

[LogGrad98]

I always wondered why the models developed can't "predict" the past. If they can't reproduce accurately what actually happened how good can the model be?

We have also shown that the observed and simulated uncertainty in 1950–2000 trends drops by about half when the natural signals are removed, making clearer where the anthropogenic response in some models deviates significantly from observed. The simulated and observed global mean temperature trends are statistically indistinguishable in 12 of 24 models for the raw data, but in 8 of 24 models for the residual data.

https://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010GL044255.shtml

 

[One Brow]

I always wondered why the models developed can't "predict" the past. If they can't reproduce accurately what actually happened how good can the model be?

Being able only to read the abstract and what you quoted, it reads to me that the point is the variability in the models was greatly reduced when ignoring specific factors,, not that the models could not predict mast behavior. Could you provide a quote that is more on-point for that?

 

[franklin]

How about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change? This is made up of scientists from over 130 countries.

I've read them. Complete waste of paper. The IPCC's 4th Assessment completely changed my opinion on GW. Everything that has come out about IPCC's motivation says it all. I'm sure One Brow will call this fear mongering. I think specifically changing models that don't predict until you get lucky is pretty results driven science, don't you? Their models will never work. They're hoping to get lucky for enough years that legislation gets passed.

I say Mars is a nice control group, and it's magically warming at the same rate. Magical, isn't it folks.

Why do GW advocates hate dinosaurs? Last time CO2 levels were significantly higher we had dinosaurs sun tanning by the pool. Why do you hate dinosaurs so badly?

 

[LogGrad98]

I've read them. Complete waste of paper. The IPCC's 4th Assessment completely changed my opinion on GW. Everything that has come out about IPCC's motivation says it all. I'm sure One Brow will call this fear mongering. I think specifically changing models that don't predict until you get lucky is pretty results driven science, don't you? Their models will never work. They're hoping to get lucky for enough years that legislation gets passed.

I say Mars is a nice control group, and it's magically warming at the same rate. Magical, isn't it folks.

Why do GW advocates hate dinosaurs? Last time CO2 levels were significantly higher we had dinosaurs sun tanning by the pool. Why do you hate dinosaurs so badly?

Agreed. This also figures in the debate about damage caused by global warming, or climate change. We have no real way of knowing how much, or if at all, any result of substantial warming would be bad. If you go back to the time in earth's past when CO2 levels were the highest we can assess from the geological record, it also coincided with huge diversity of flora and fauna, as well as simply huge flora and fauna. There we have the convergence of 2 modern disputed theories: evolution and climate change. If the climate changes, and if that change is bad, and if that "bad" is bad enough, then species will adapt or die out. But we cannot definitely define what bad is, or if it will even happen.

My biggest concern is that expressed by a few in this thread: the development of public policy influenced by the fear generated by the global warming alarmists. We need a measured approach to balance environmental policy with fiscal to ensure we make as much progress as possible as fast as possible to eliminating the need for fossil fuels while minimizing the impact to our and the world's economy.

 

[One Brow]

Everything that has come out about IPCC's motivation says it all.

You have evidence about a uniform motivation for the entirety of the IPCC? Do go on.

Their models will never work.

Hansen's 1988 model has been fairly successful.
The models have improved since then.

I say Mars is a nice control group, and it's magically warming at the same rate.

We don't know that Mars is warming, actually.

Maybe you should try getting your science from sites interested in science, instead of denial.

 

[One Brow]

Agreed. This also figures in the debate about damage caused by global warming, or climate change. We have no real way of knowing how much, or if at all, any result of substantial warming would be bad.

The biggest issue is the rate of change, even if the change itself may not be bad.

My biggest concern is that expressed by a few in this thread: the development of public policy influenced by the fear generated by the global warming alarmists. We need a measured approach to balance environmental policy with fiscal to ensure we make as much progress as possible as fast as possible to eliminating the need for fossil fuels while minimizing the impact to our and the world's economy.

However, when push comes to shove, economies recover much more quickly than ecologies.

 

[franklin]

You have evidence about a uniform motivation for the entirety of the IPCC? Do go on.



Hansen's 1988 model has been fairly successful.
The models have improved since then.



We don't know that Mars is warming, actually.

Maybe you should try getting your science from sites interested in science, instead of denial.

Where's the denial? Your problem is you assume too much, including that I give a damn if it's proven or shot down. As a scientist--well, that's part of my job title anyway--I don't care either way. It's about more than that. But back ta yo games nah, chile, back ta yo games.


They've been fear mongering with this rate of change nonsense for quite some time now; survival of the fittest be damned. It's like the politician who picks out the bad manufacturer shutting down and headed to Mexico story and disregard the new jobs that come ahead and the increased standard of living of all. Cherry picking makes for feel bads, but it doesn't really tell you much. Scientists don't pretend they can figure out if rate of change will be detrimental or beneficial. They don't have crystal balls. But the poly-sci's, now, they see way into the future. Here's their secret folded into a nice little note: it's all doom!


I'm passed global warming and on to bigger and scarier things. We need a global defense system to thwart asteroid attacks; planetary survival of the fittest be damned! Damned unless we're talking about survival on other terms, then we have to control that too. Control, control, control!!!

 

[Mission Accomplished]

The only reason that the right doesn't want global warming to be seen as a real issue is the will lose their privilege to rape and pillage the earth. This is what I don't get from conservatives is they want to sit back and take away all of the regulations and give all the power to the rich and corporations. And then they talk about how the private sector is where all the jobs need to come from. So they are slashing government jobs and expecting companies that are only worried about stockholders to create jobs. Where are these so called JOBS???? Conservatives are butt hurt that they lost so they sit and hold every piece of legislation hostage.

 

[LogGrad98]

The only reason that the right doesn't want global warming to be seen as a real issue is the will lose their privilege to rape and pillage the earth. This is what I don't get from conservatives is they want to sit back and take away all of the regulations and give all the power to the rich and corporations. And then they talk about how the private sector is where all the jobs need to come from. So they are slashing government jobs and expecting companies that are only worried about stockholders to create jobs. Where are these so called JOBS???? Conservatives are butt hurt that they lost so they sit and hold every piece of legislation hostage.

Looks like you got all of your liberal talking points covered:

(1) Conservatives hate the environment [check]
(2) Conservatives all want the rich and powerful to get richer and powerfuller [check]
(3) Coservatives don't want any regulation or taxation of business in order to bring about #2 [check]
(4) Conservatives drive away jobs [check]
(5) Conservatives are the only ones holding up congress from solving every world problem (hunger, environment, sock lost in dryers, etc.) [check]

You only missed abortion, separation of church and state (religious nut-jobs), only taxing the poor while never taxing the rich, unjust wars, and big oil to round out your talking points. I am glad you have been paying attention to Maher, Moore and Franken. They have indoctrinated you well.

 

[Surely]

The only reason that the right doesn't want global warming to be seen as a real issue is the will lose their privilege to rape and pillage the earth. This is what I don't get from conservatives is they want to sit back and take away all of the regulations and give all the power to the rich and corporations. And then they talk about how the private sector is where all the jobs need to come from. So they are slashing government jobs and expecting companies that are only worried about stockholders to create jobs. Where are these so called JOBS???? Conservatives are butt hurt that they lost so they sit and hold every piece of legislation hostage.

I sure hope you aren't referring to the election last November.

 

[One Brow]

As a scientist--well, that's part of my job title anyway--

So, when you agree with the concensus in your field, is that because of politics?