Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
I'm very interested in the response to this video. This speaker seems extremely compelling to me:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCy_UOjEir0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCy_UOjEir0
Global Warming
- Thread starter Joe Bagadonuts
- Start date
So what did the other 35 Nobel-winning speakers on this topic say?
Did you find any of them compelling?
Did you find any of them compelling?
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
I'm willing to watch or read them if you post links.
You already know what they said. Be honest.
https://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/07/06/3677180/nobel-laureates-climate-change-action-plan/
This is a classic example of cherry-picking. The video title ignores that he's the lone dissenter on the issue and 35 of his peers all went the other direction.
I read an article on this topic some time ago (I'm having problems finding it now). Part of the issue is that there a handful of people so smart and self-assured that they believe mankind will eventually figure out the solution to any problem that faces us. As a result, they aren't worried about climate change because that's a problem that can be solved another day.
Who? Joe Bagadonuts? He is a Fox Newser? I don't believe it.
b_line
Well-Known Member
35 of your colleagues do!
hey. . . . Siro is not a Nobel laureate. And those 35 Kicky alleges do "believe" in global warming are idiots who don't understand science, it seems. For a scientist, even a "Nobel Prize" scientist, to espouse a conclusion as a personal belief, must be properly understood as not speaking as a scientist but as a personal advocate of an interpretation of data, or of a belief somehow derived from some "Science".
Science is a method of investigation. It invokes stuff like a hypothesis, seeks results related to the hypothesis, and seeks to communicate those results in a manner susceptible to question and debate, even of verification by subsequent researchers.
Some religious folks invoke science to substantiate their beliefs, and evidently some scientists respond to political influence to get funding.
Probably can't expect Kicky to see the distinction, since I bet he is so fond of his politics he wouldn't object to a judge declaring global warming deniers criminals worthy of incarceration.
A lot of people lose their objectivity in the glory of some pet belief.
A scientist who will discard objectivity in announcing a political conclusion as justified by science is in the same boat.
The OP link is an excellent example of someone with a firm grasp of what science is, and is not.
I actually couldn't figure out what b_line meant by my "colleagues". He can't mean the scientists, since they're not Fox News watchers. I honestly have no idea. I'm sure it is related to some Jazzfanz drama that I would totally get if I was aware of it. But I rarely keep track of this site's politics.
b_line
Well-Known Member
You haven't changed the fact that I believe climate change is happening. The reason I believe it: science!
b_line
Well-Known Member
I was inferring that you could find 35 other people who believe jobag watches fox news. And also kind of inferring that thus scientist must be joking like you were. No scientist can actually not think climate change is a thing.
I wasn't joking tho. I'd be surprised if Joe watched Fox News. He seems like a reasonable guy to me.
Either way, it is difficult to argue that the climate isn't changing. The evidence is very strong. I don't know why many in the pro-capitalism crowd naturally gravitate toward the denialist camp.
But there is a lot of sensationalism on the other side as well. Global warming is as bad a global nuclear war? lol. We don't even know how the patterns will actually change, and over how long. Talk about drama queens.
At least that's not the most melodramatic example I've seen from liberals. In that show Newsroom, they had a scene where a scientist rants about how this is the end of life on Earth, and that nothing can be done about it.
OK. I fundamentally think it's best to let people believe what they wish, for what reasons they may see, or whatever. I get it that a lot of professionals with high respect in their fields have done research on climate, and many consider it likely that human use of combustibles for energy is linked to warmer temps. I was being pretty pompous to besmirch a lot of scientists, and I didn't think I was going to change your mind, or Kicky's. Siro, on the other hand, I think might change his mind if he saw the evidence leading that way. Some people actually care for truth, others are happy enough to presume they know truth on evidence at hand.
My larger point is that I consider science to be the process of working through ideas to test them objectively and update them if needed. . . . as opposed to a political campaign to make compliance legally required or to compel one belief to be accepted.
I think the next step will be in the Paris confab later this month, where the nations meeting there will announce a global tax on carbon or something equivalent to that.
I remain committed to freedom of belief, freedom of conscience, freedom of thought, and freedom of speech. . .. and to governance subject to democratic processes including election of officials empowered to make law or international agreements.
A system of global governance that is not responsive to the public, that is determined by international corporate influence and that cannot be subjected to public critique and removal from office for corruption or for actions offensive to the public sentiment is not the future I want.
While I think the evidence does indicate the obvious expected warming is here, we have been "here" before in geological history many times. Variances in atmospheric carbon dioxide are the norm, and episodic rises should be expected naturally from volcanic action, large-scale forest fires or acid imbalance coming from such natural things. I just think the OP linked scientist is right about his general questions of whether science is determining the "consensus" or politics. It takes courage to stand out and and question a mob that has lost it's objective bearings.
I also note that ice ages have been, in geological sequences suggested by actual research data like ice cores and sediment cores examined for pollen and other climate-related materials, preceded by short cycles of significant warming in the climate.
If you want to question current scientific results, and if you will develop some hypothesis and maybe do some testing relevant to the idea, science says you have the right to publish or speak what you've done. If "science" is your reason for not questioning or for not reserving conclusions for better information, perhaps you misunderstand "science".
Do you realize that your position is tantamount to saying that the a scientist saying the earth rotates around an axis, or is an oblate spheroid, or revolves around the sun, is 'not speaking as a scientist but as a personal advocate of an interpretation of data, or of a belief somehow derived from some "Science"'? If you can make a conclusion, within science, that the earth is round, then you can conclude that global warming is real.
Beantown
Well-Known Member
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
I am being honest. I did not know anything about this conference. The article you linked to tells me what these other scientists believe, but not why. Did you watch the video in the OP? Is he twisting the facts? If so, how? The arguments he is making seem to make perfect sense. I was very surprised by this video and I would honestly like to hear his arguments refuted.
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
My interest is in knowing the truth. I rarely watch FOX News, but I'm not afraid to watch it either (except for Hannity because he is a biased hack who cannot be trusted). And no, I have no fears of global cooling.
GVC
Well-Known Member
I know very little (read: nothing) about climate change/global warming, and just watched the first five minutes of the video. I may watch more later, but his first couple objections (not including his issue with the word 'incontrovertible') were pretty ridiculous.
1. A 0.3% fluctuation could be significant. How does that change in global average temperatures compare to historical fluctuations? What are the predicted/hypothesized effects of continued warming of that magnitude? How is pointing out local, seasonal temperature changes relevant?
2. So what if there are only 8 thermometers in Antarctica? Does that make the readings taken any less reliable or predictive of global trends? Why/why not?
Maybe he brings some harder hitting stuff to the table later on, but he opens up the discussion with some pretty weak arguments.
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
I hope you find time to watch more. I think that he ultimately does a good job of showing why the current amount of variation is insignificant.
The stuff about the number of thermometers in Antartica is part of a wider point that determining the average temperature of the earth is virtually impossible. I'm interested in how they do that as well because in the data he later shows they are giving the average temperature of the earth at any given time to a fraction of a degree. How can a calculation like that be made?
That said, he uses their data, but then shows that their conclusions do not appear to be incontrovertible at all. I am honestly interested in how anybody could look at the data he is presenting (or in learning what he is leaving out) and saying that we have incontrovertible proof that the world is undergoing human caused global warming.
It's obvious that humans are having a wide variety of impacts on the environment, but I'm not seeing compelling evidence (and definitely not "incontrovertible evidence") that we are causing the planet to hurtle toward the sort of catastrophic destination that we are being told. Based in the info I've been able to find, it seems more likely that this issue is being used as a political tool to collect huge taxes and exert massive control on a global scale. I'm very interested in the counter-argument that shows me why this is not the case.
This isn't a debate for which both sides have equal weight of authority. You know that. I know that. Everybody knows that. I don't really see the need to pretend that this guy is saying anything particularly new or that hasn't been addressed before.
Scientific consensus is exactly that: consensus. It does not mean unanimity.
We're at the point where climate denial is bizarre cherry-picking contrarianism.