Scientific Consensus+GW

[hcap]

So we're clear, if you think mankind has made a contribution with any regard to 'climate change' beyond .1%, you're certifiable.

Man affecting climate? - That's rich. That would be akin to a teaspoon of oil in the gulf and you & your comrades exclaiming "It's an environmental catastrophe!"Here's an article explaining modern scientific methods. Specifically the peer review process. And why consensus is important.

http://www.alternet.org/books/147668/global_warming_deniers_aren%27t_%22experts%22_at_a ll%3A_it%27s_time_for_a_new_view_of_science/?page=entire


.....History shows us clearly that science does not provide certainty. It does not provide proof. It only provides the consensus of experts, based on the organized accumulation and scrutiny of evidence. Hearing “both sides” of an issue makes sense when debating politics in a two-party system, but there’s a problem when that framework is applied to science. When a scientific question is unanswered, there may be three, four, or a dozen competing hypotheses, which are then investigated through research. Or there may be just one generally accepted working hypothesis, but with several important variations or differences in emphasis. When geologists were debating continental drift in the 1940s, Harvard professor Marlin Billings taught his students no less than nineteen different possible explanations for the phenomena that drift theory -- later plate tectonics -- was intended to explain.

Research produces evidence, which in time may settle the question (as it did as continental drift evolved into plate tectonics, which became established geological theory in the early 1970s). After that point, there are no “sides.” There is simply accepted scientific knowledge. There may still be questions that remain unanswered -- to which scientists then turn their attention -- but for the question that has been answered, there is simply the consensus of expert opinion on that particular matter. That is what scientific knowledge is.

Most people don’t understand this. If we read an article in the newspaper presenting two opposing viewpoints, we assume both have validity, and we think it would be wrong to shut one side down. But often one side is represented only by a single “expert” -- or as we saw in our story -- one or two. When it came to global warming, we saw how the views of Seitz, Singer, Nierenberg, and a handful of others were juxtaposed against the collective wisdom of the entire IPCC, an organization that encompasses the views and work of thousands of climate scientists around the globe -- men and women of diverse nationality, temperament, and political persuasion. This leads to another important point: that modern science is a collective enterprise.

From its earliest, days, science has been associated with institutions -- the Accademia dei Lincei, founded in 1609, the Royal Society in Britain, founded in 1660, the Académie des Sciences in France, founded in 1666 -- because scholars (savants and natural philosophers as they were variously called before the nineteenth- century invention of the word “scientist”) understood that to create new knowledge they needed a means to test each other’s claims. Medieval learning had largely focused on study of ancient texts -- the preservation of ancient wisdom and the appreciation of texts of revelation -- but later scholars began to feel that the world needed something more. One needed to make room for new knowledge. Once one opened the door to the idea of new knowledge, however, there was no limit to the claims that might be put forth, so one needed a mechanism to vet them. These were the origins of the institutional structures that we now take for granted in contemporary science: journals, conferences, and peer review, so that claims could be reported clearly and subject to rigorous scrutiny.

.....Science has grown more than exponentially since the 1600s, but the basic idea has remained the same: scientific ideas must be supported by evidence, and subject to acceptance or rejected. The evidence could be experimental or observational; it could be a logical argument or a theoretical proof. But what ever the body of evidence is, both the idea and the evidence used to support it must be judged by a jury of one’s scientific peers. Until a claim passes that judgment -- that peer review -- it is only that, just a claim. What counts as knowledge are the ideas that are accepted by the fellowship of experts (which is why members of these societies are often called “fellows”). Conversely, if the claim is rejected, the honest scientist is expected to accept that judgment, and move on to other things. In science, you don’t get to keep harping on a subject until your opponents just give up in exhaustion.

[bigmack]

Oh for Heaven's sake, an indication of our eagerness to doubt issues that threaten our very existence & a petition to get Beck to 'stop spreading lies' & then over 18,000 signed. :lol:

How fitting. Junk article for junk science.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4096/4926521314_5ba7e50a85.jpg

[Robert Goren]

Like the horse maxim "the race may not always go the swift, but is the way to bet" The same thing applies to Scientific Consensus. I constantly amazed by people here who wager large portions of their personal fortunes on basis of statistical studies, yet pooh-pooh scientific research using the methods.

[hcap]

BM,

So you assume the peer review process that has been used successfully in other fields of science is flawed when it concerns GW?.Since you accept biological evolution, I assume you believe the process works in the biological sciences, but is subject to political pressures in GW..

ALL 20,000 international climate scientists???

[DJofSD]

So, what is your point hcap?

In the cited article, there's this:
So it comes to this: we must trust our scientific experts on matters of science, because there isn’t a workable alternative. And because scientists are not (in most cases) licensed, we need to pay attention to who the experts actually are -- by asking questions about their credentials, their past and current research, the venues in which they are subjecting their claims to scrutiny, and the sources of financial support they are receiving.

Matters of science seems pretty clear to me. What you insist on pushing is political not scientific.

And, oh, by the way, no we must not trust out scientific experts. The basis of the scientific method is distrust. Blind faith does not work for me.

[hcap]

I was trying to point out the modern scientific method relies heavily on the peer review process. Successful in so many other scientific and technological fields. And the constant verification of the peer review process seems to me to have a built in political filter. Just as it has a personal bias filter.

[DJofSD]

The peer review process ensures "I's" being dotted and "T's" being crossed -- that there are no errors in the process or the data and that important questions regarding the enquiry have been asked and in some instances, answered. It is not a guarentee of the validity of the conclusion. Additional research only raises the confidence level, it does not prove conclusively the premis (hypothesis) is correct. Only after exhaustive study does the hypothesis become generally accepted but it is always open for questioning and additional research.

Don't confuse general acceptance of a description of natural phenomena for a scientific proof. We know how gravity affects objects with mass but we still do not know exactly what is gravity and how it works.

[hcap]

The peer review process ensures "I's" being dotted and "T's" being crossed -- that there are no errors in the process or the data and that important questions regarding the enquiry have been asked and in some instances, answered. It is not a guarentee of the validity of the conclusion. Additional research only raises the confidence level, it does not prove conclusively the premis (hypothesis) is correct. Only after exhaustive study does the hypothesis become generally accepted but it is always open for questioning and additional research.

Don't confuse general acceptance of a description of natural phenomena for a scientific proof. We know how gravity affects objects with mass but we still do not know exactly what is gravity and how it works.

Gravity is understood quite well. It can be described mathematically to the point where except for the very large and very small, we can predict the paths of the planets, manned and unmanned spacecraft and know with certainty the celestial mechanics of the solar system. The peer review process works in all areas of physics and the understanding of gravity is one example.

If it was just a matter of "dotting the I's or and "T's" being crossed", we would not be communicating over the internet or using our computers. All understood enough-to make practical use thereof. The physics, chemistry, and and math required was organized and developed by the peer review process. It works well enough.

[DJofSD]

You just proved my point: you are providing me with a description of the effects we can observe. Newton's 3 laws and even Einstein's relativity will give us the means of prediction but they do not tell us what the fundamental mechanism that causes force at a distance to actually work.

P.S. When it comes to celestrial mechanics, no, we can not completely described and predict. Kepler's laws go a long way to allow us to get very, very close in our predictions but we still observe and detect differences.

Have you ever heard of the three body problem? Do you have the mathematical equations that solve it? No, I didn't think so.

[46zilzal]

Matters of science seems pretty clear to me. What you insist on pushing is political not scientific.

.
Climate change and understanding it are SCIENTIFIC PURSUITS...The REACTION to it is political.....That does not change the science

[DJofSD]

Climate change and understanding it are SCIENTIFIC PURSUITS...The REACTION to it is political.....That does not change the science
Yes. However, when the stated assumption is the root cause is anthropomorphic it calls into question everything that follows.

Again, blind faith might be OK as it applies to religion. But when it comes to science and policy (i.e. money) that is based upon it or is used as justification, blind faith is a fools paradise.

[hcap]

The mathematical understanding of gravity is enough to accomplish space travel and predict details of where planets and other bodies will be in the future. The three body problem shows the limitations of an exact solution. Many approximations exist that accomplish close enough solutions.

The fact that we circumnavigated and landed on the moon shows an understanding of how three bodies interact-the earth, moon and spacecraft-well enough What about four body problems? Or n body? Much tougher. Although we cannot solve these and other unresolved issues in science we have certainly progressed over the last 200 years in understanding gravity. Perfection is not required to know if a comet or meteor s on a collision path. Just proper observational data.

What about my point that the peer review process has a political filter? And tends to look at facts not bias?

[Tom]

Climate change and understanding it are SCIENTIFIC PURSUITS...The REACTION to it is political.....That does not change the science

GUT reaction out trumps scientific evaluation.
- 46

[hcap]

http://www.esm.vt.edu/~sdross/books/space_book.html

......Furthermore, we develop the computational techniques needed to design trajectories for a spacecraft in the field of $n$ bodies by patching together solutions of the 3 body problem. These computational methods are key for the development of some NASA and ESA mission trajectories

Approximations are sometimes good enough

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_point#Lagrangian_point_missions

.....Lagrangian points are the stationary solutions of the circular restricted three-body problem. For example, given two massive bodies in circular orbits around their common center of mass, there are five positions in space where a third body, of comparatively negligible mass, could be placed which would then maintain its position relative to the two massive bodies. As seen in a rotating reference frame with the same period as the two co-orbiting bodies, the gravitational fields of two massive bodies combined with the satellite's circular motion are in balance at the Lagrangian points, allowing the third body to be stationary with respect to the first two bodies.[1]

[boxcar]

I was trying to point out the modern scientific method relies heavily on the peer review process. Successful in so many other scientific and technological fields. And the constant verification of the peer review process seems to me to have a built in political filter. Just as it has a personal bias filter.

Yeah...is that the same kind of political "filter" that works the same way as the fox guarding the chicken house?

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Climate change and understanding it are SCIENTIFIC PURSUITS...The REACTION to it is political.....That does not change the science

You're right. The "reaction is political" because it's politicians who have claim they have the answer. And the answer to them is very simple: TAX, TAX, TAX, TAX, TAX, TAX, TAX, TAX, TAX, TAX, TAX....Maybe you get the point?

Boxcar

[hcap]

Yeah...is that the same kind of political "filter" that works the same way as the fox guarding the chicken house?

So there are 20,000 climatologists (foxes) guarding the hen house? And are all corrupt?

[46zilzal]

- 46
as per usual you did not understand my joke about the Rutabaga cowboy and his way of understanding the world.

[Canadian]

Oh for Heaven's sake, an indication of our eagerness to doubt issues that threaten our very existence & a petition to get Beck to 'stop spreading lies' & then over 18,000 signed. :lol:

How fitting. Junk article for junk science.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4096/4926521314_5ba7e50a85.jpg


mack,

How about you don't know? How about Rush Limbaugh/ Glen Beck/ Dennis Prager or whoever else doesn't know?... And they don't.

They make great points (at least John Stossel and Prager did) about how the left uses global warming to advance their agenda... how the brainwash kids into little America hating environmental warriors... ect, ect.

I bought it most of it. When it came up I took the exact same position as yourself... I'm kind of a fan of the contrarian view anyway....

.... But after really thinking about it. I came to the conclusion... I don't know. You have the majority of the scientific body on one side (albeit alot of them holding the view with a religious conviction) and basically right wing radio talk show hosts and their fans on the other side.

What really got me to think of my position... was listening to 9/11 conspiracy theorists holding the same view I did... a group who are even stupider then birthers............. When they are spouting the same stuff you are on anything... time for a gut check.

Without getting much into the debate.... I'll take one exception to a point you (or maybe someone else) made on another thread regarding this issue. It's made constantly. The idea that humans couldn't influence climate change even if they wanted to. That just isn't true. You can see human creation from outer space. Humans are talking about simple machines to stop hurricanes. We could set off powerful enough bombs to launch debris in the atmosphere that would cool us for years. We can move massive bodies of water around at will and effect Earths gravitional pull.... we can cut down rain forests and completely change our planets atmosphere. There are a million things we could do.


... enough of a rant for now.

That's not to say they are wrong.... but lets be honest. Rush Limbaugh does not have the qualifications to be a climate scientist.

[DJofSD]

What about my point that the peer review process has a political filter? And tends to look at facts not bias?

I would say the peer review process has a political bias. It filters based upon that bias. Only when the item or topic has made it past those filters will there tend to be an emphasis on the facts. But even then politics and biases creep in. It is the rare investigator that ignores the potential negative impact on his source of fundings and pursues pure research.

[hcap]

So what is the political filter that the vast majority of climatologists have fallen victim to? Tell me in what other field of science and it's peer review process, has politics swayed proper research and tainted the outcome?

[DJofSD]

So what is the political filter that the vast majority of climatologists have fallen victim to? Tell me in what other field of science and it's peer review process, has politics swayed proper research and tainted the outcome?
Government money is filtered based upon the presumption it must be proven that global warming, now climate change, is cause by humans.

The history of science is full of examples where politics has muddied the waters. Galileo and Madame Curie come to mind.

[hcap]

Government money is filtered based upon the presumption it must be proven that global warming, now climate change, is cause by humans.All governments and international orgs?

Galileo was censored by the church. And prevailed in subsequent years. Are you saying GW skeptics are analogous to Galileo?

Don't get your reference to Madame Curie

[boxcar]

Government money is filtered based upon the presumption it must be proven that global warming, now climate change, is cause by humans.

The history of science is full of examples where politics has muddied the waters. Galileo and Madame Curie come to mind.

Not only that but the very topic at hand differs significantly from other scientific investigations because, according to these scientists, the fate of the entire planet -- indeed all life on the planet -- depends on whether we act or not. (Or should I say knee-jerk REact? :rolleyes:) According to these scientists the entire world is in dire crisis mode. (Or is it "extreme crisis" mode? :rolleyes: ) What this means to these scientists and many politicians is that we don't have the luxury of fiddling while Rome burns. There is no time for debate. There is no time for questioning. There is no time for in-depth inquiries. Just like Time is the super-hero of evolutionary theory, but now with this man-made global warming crisis theory Time has become our arch enemy. The entire human race is fighting against Father Time, if we are to believe these "unbiased" scientists and those who fund them. In Evolutionary Theory, Time was our Friend. Now it is our Foe.

Boxcar

[DJofSD]

All governments and international orgs?

Galileo was censored by the church. And prevailed in subsequent years. Are you saying GW skeptics are analogous to Galileo?

Don't get your reference to Madame Curie

All? I don't know but I would feel confident is saying most.

Madame Curie was not able to pursue a position at the university in Poland. She was denied the post because she was a women. That was just the first notable insult due to politics.

Galileo was adversly affected by the largest and most powerful political body of his time: the Catholic Church. Whether or not his ideas were accepted eventually is not the point. His book, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, was surpressed, being placed on the index list. That was the peer review method of his time. Politics.

No, I am not drawing that analogy.

[kenwoodall2]

The proof of global warming is that the asphalt base of the SA track is melting and floating to the top of the cushion! :lol:

[GameTheory]

Researchers research (in general) what the grant-givers will pay for. Therefore the grant-givers control the focus of research, and they are heavily influenced by political winds. And then you've got the lower-level academic politics, etc etc. Science immune to politics? You've got to be kidding? (It is pretty easy to find examples of academics being black-balled for coming to the "wrong" conclusions or following the wrong thread of research.)

Remember science is also a CAREER for scientists -- they need to get paid. They go where the money is being offered to them.

[boxcar]

Researchers research (in general) what the grant-givers will pay for. Therefore the grant-givers control the focus of research, and they are heavily influenced by political winds. And then you've got the lower-level academic politics, etc etc. Science immune to politics? You've got to be kidding? (It is pretty easy to find examples of academics being black-balled for coming to the "wrong" conclusions or following the wrong thread of research.)

Remember science is also a CAREER for scientists -- they need to get paid. They go where the money is being offered to them.

Thank you! I've been saying the same thing for a long time now. Libs think that somehow scientists put their pants or skirts on differently than the rest of us mere mortals.

Boxcar

[bigmack]

Spend 10 minutes watching this and you'll have a better understanding of this nonsense than 98% of the public.

mNQy2rT_dvU

It's the sun/cosmic rays & clouds that are responsible for 99.999999999% of weather patterns. Mainly, the Sun.

To think man made Co2 has any effect on climate is like a car breaking down and looking at a lug-nut.

Once this silliness spread money was everywhere. Scientists need funding to their studies. Billions became available and they went on a rampage to start every little silly study trying to coorelate MM Co2 to weather patterns.

It's insane but most people don't know better so they eat it up. Especially the 'doom & gloomers'. The end is near we need to do something!!

The most stubborn headed ones are the hcaps & zilly's who don't even come close to having an open mind on this issue.

MM Co2 affecting weather. It beyond laughable. :lol:

[bigmack]

Remember science is also a CAREER for scientists -- they need to get paid. They go where the money is being offered to them.
Funding went from 170 million to 2 billion/year

5dzIMXGI6k8

[Tom]

as per usual you did not understand my joke about the Rutabaga cowboy and his way of understanding the world.

as per usual you did not understand my joke about you and your way of explaining the world. :rolleyes::D

[46zilzal]

I just recall Lorenz and his weather experiments..."sensitive dependence on initial conditions."

or the works of Waldrop in the great book COMPLEXITY........where the Santa Fe institute discovered self organizing systems beyond what anyone could have predicted based upon the initial conditions

[DJofSD]

Funding went from 170 million to 2 billion/year

5dzIMXGI6k8

Ah ha -- so the housing market bubble was caused by all of the climate and atmospheric scientists.

[bigmack]

Ah ha -- so the housing market bubble was caused by all of the climate and atmospheric scientists.
What you see there is just a tip. I mean the co-founder of Greenpeace in a meeting and the others wanting to push forward to ban all chlorine in the world? He ends up saying "It's on the periodic table!" :lol:

What makes perfect sense is how when all this nonsense started to snowball that all the militant anti-industrials grabbed on and ran with it like banshees. That's where you have the hcap's & zilly's.

Co-founder of Greenpeace goes on to talk of hundreds of thousands of people dying each year because in underdeveloped countries these types GREATLY DISCOURAGE their coal/oil exploration for electricity so they have to build fires in their homes, dying from smoke inhalation.

Another, "We'll tell you what's good for you" going completely haywire. Don't 'possibly' harm the environment but it's OK if you die.

[skate]

good one Mack

[DJofSD]

Let's not forget all of the deaths caused by the banning of DDT.

[skate]

as per usual you did not understand my joke about you and your way of explaining the world. :rolleyes::D

It's almost like these , zillys/Hiccupers, are viewing us from a Fish Bowl.

They have problemos with vission. We try to make things simple for them, yet they cry for more, as if we were obligated to explain the "Yongle Dadian" to them, and dont ever leave something out in your explanlation, then they research and come in for the Kill. :)


But, then, it could be worse, just think how awful things would be if they could understand (common sense) and they were just not willing to come accross with 'Truth'.

The word LIBERAL, used for hiding, is their Fish Bowl.

[skate]

good one Mack


ANN points out, we might be able to consider that a fetus is not a full blown Person, yet, but these people want to give more concern to a Tree, than to a fetus.:bang:

[bigmack]

Let's not forget all of the deaths caused by the banning of DDT.
Banning of DDT is about to cause a bed bug problem of biblical proportions.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/8_25_10_13_11_26.png

[Canadian]

It's insane but most people don't know better so they eat it up.


But either do you. You have and I can tell by the talking points... the same talking points I read about 5 or 6 thousand times before, absolutely NO IDEA what you are talking about. It doesn't mean you're wrong. But you have zero qualifications and about 1% of the brain power to make even the slightest educated guess as to mans impact on the environment.

[skate]

Oh no, what are you saying?

That hiccups got this figured out?

Do you see what you're saying? Nothing!

And as for Hiccups, my god man, we'll start calling you "little-(h)inny".

[bigmack]

educated guess as to mans impact on the environment.
But yet you're dumb enough to accept the word of this nerd (who is one of the leading scientists) with 'evidence' in his fudging data and tree rings. :lol:

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/home/mann_treering.jpg

Who's the fool again?

Look, personally I think your brain has been ravaged from frostbite but I'll respond to you just this once. You're a fool for believing in MMGW. K?

By the bye, what was this rambling imbecility?

Humans are talking about simple machines to stop hurricanes.
We could set off powerful enough bombs to launch debris in the atmosphere that would cool us for years.
We can move massive bodies of water around at will and effect Earths gravitional pull
:lol:

Would you like to see why so many scientists write papers supporting MMGW? http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/80.gif

They laugh all the way to bank while dolts like you say - Well, I guess they know a whole heck of lot more than dumb, little ol' me.

It really is pathetic.

[hcap]

Researchers research (in general) what the grant-givers will pay for. Therefore the grant-givers control the focus of research, and they are heavily influenced by political winds. And then you've got the lower-level academic politics, etc etc. Science immune to politics? You've got to be kidding? (It is pretty easy to find examples of academics being black-balled for coming to the "wrong" conclusions or following the wrong thread of research.)

Remember science is also a CAREER for scientists -- they need to get paid. They go where the money is being offered to them.So all of these are on the dole and have no independent opinion? Peer review does not catch all these suck ups? Yes grrants may have a political component, but your supposition pretty much suggests a broad international conspiracy even among those organizations that do not receive grants as national science academies


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

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
* Agency for International Development
* United States Department of Agriculture
* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, United States Department of Commerce and National Institute of Standards and Technology
* United States Department of Defense
* United States Department of Energy
* National Institutes of Health, United States Department of Health and Human Services
* United States Department of State
* United States Department of Transportation
* United States Geological Survey, United States Department of the Interior
* Environmental Protection Agency
* National Aeronautics and Space Administration
* National Science Foundation
* Smithsonian Institution
intergovernmental Arctic Council and the non-governmental International Arctic Science Committee
Academies of Science
[edit] Joint science academies' statements

Since 2001, 32 national science academies have come together to issue joint declarations confirming anthropogenic global warming, and urging the nations of the world to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The signatories of these statements have been the national science academies:

* of Australia,
* of Belgium,
* of Brazil,
* of Cameroon,
* Royal Society of Canada,
* of the Caribbean,
* of China,
* Institut de France,
* of Ghana,
* Leopoldina of Germany,
* of Indonesia,
* of Ireland,
* Accademia nazionale delle scienze of Italy,
* of India,
* of Japan,
* of Kenya,
* of Madagascar,
* of Malaysia,
* of Mexico,
* of Nigeria,
* Royal Society of New Zealand,
* Russian Academy of Sciences,
* of Senegal,
* of South Africa,
* of Sudan,
* Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences,
* of Tanzania,
* of Turkey,
* of Uganda,
* The Royal Society of the United Kingdom,
* of the United States
InterAcademy Council
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Society of the United Kingdom
American Chemical Society
American Institute of Physics
European Physical Society
American Geophysical Union


More here....
http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensusD1.htm

[cj's dad]

Cap - you have way too much time on your hands to be posting this nonsense. Try signing up to help kids learn how to read or serve soup in a homeless shelter.

[GameTheory]

So all of these are on the dole and have no independent opinion? Peer review does not catch all these suck ups? Yes grrants may have a political component, but your supposition pretty much suggests a broad international conspiracy even among those organizations that do not receive grants as national science academiesI'm not taking a side on GW in this thread, just pointing out that you're a fool if you don't think politics affects science. Grants or not, someone is subsidizing the research, which means committees, etc, i.e. politics. Believe it or not these are people that like prestige, recognition, have career ambition, etc. They are going to do what will further those ambitions. It is a rare person that will give up money, job security, and respect just to go against the majority opinion. All of this is common sense, eh?

We can also point to hundreds of years of scientific consensus that was dead wrong -- climate science is pretty new you know. Science textbooks from just decades ago taught what is nearly the exact opposite of current consensus in almost every major area. The history of doom and gloom scientific predictions being utterly wrong is a long one.

Here's another angle for you: the logical fallacy of the "appeal to authority". You would be kicked off a high-school debate team for using this argument. Just because the "smart guys" say it is true, doesn't mean it is true. It just means they say it is. I can also point to lots of research about group dynamics, and the psychology of agreement, etc. Only the actual facts mean something, not what a bunch of people agree on. (Do you think GW would become untrue if everyone who believed in it suddenly dropped dead?)

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

[hcap]

This is not only an "appeal to authority" argument

If some one asked you about the the magnetic bottle used to constrain man made fusion plasma, could you give a professional level description that went into depth? You would have to rely on an experienced plasma physicist. What about designing a propulsion system for NASA?

There are limits to what a layman can do and therefore must rely on experts. The "appeal to authority" argument may be a valid objection when all debaters share the same level of understanding on the issues as the expert but not when their knowledge and understanding is severely limited. In fact they should stay out of the technical side of the argument due to ignorance.

I understand that scientists work for a living and prestige is important but find it hard to believe that scientific agencies worldwide would all buy into shading their opinions in such a massive way.

And yes GW is new but not that new. This has been brewing in this direction for over a decade.And generally the scientific methods used to test the theory have improved like cell phones and computers. Previous now dis proven views are also examples of how the scientific world moves on. The current state of peer reviewed science may not be perfect, but when the agreement is close to 100% and grew there from much smaller consensus over the last decade indicates something other than your point of an older scientific consensus that was dead wrong in the past and then debunked Of course that has happened.But this is not the flat earth theory reborn.

[bigmack]

The agreement is close to 100% and grew there from much smaller consensus over the last decade indicates something other than your point of an older scientific consensus that was dead wrong in the past and then debunked Of course that has happened.But this is not the flat earth theory reborn.
100%? Wow!

Of course by 'wow' I mean it's obvious you only read what you want to believe. Thus, further proving my theory of your mind being as closed as the legs of a woman I once dated in 1984.

Take your time with this. It's 255 pages with a boatload of links. I hope you don't object to the assembler. The US Senate.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/8_25_10_17_55_57.png

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/8_25_10_17_56_43.png

http://hatch.senate.gov/public/_files/USSenateEPWMinorityReport.pdf

[fast4522]

Special post for Hcup

[Tom]

Simple question: Why is it you Global Warming Moonbats continue to suck the pablum and not hold your fearless leaders accountable for this impending disaster. If you rally believe this crap, Al Gore should your public enemy number one for his blatant attacks on the planet by his very lifestyle. And Pelosi, the jet-flying-planet killing queen of carbon.
BUSH was by far the most eco-friendly president ever. What a bunch of hypocrites! :lol:
ZXrc1XZayp4&feature=related

[bigmack]

Of course that has happened.But this is not the flat earth theory reborn.
Al Gore/consensus/flat earth/hcap? How could this be they're using the same lame argument?

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/8_25_10_19_47_58.png

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport

Consensus, what a laugh.

[Let's Roll]

Way to go Texas !!

"Texas fights global-warming power grab"
......Lone Star state won't participate in Obama's lawless policy.......


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/aug/25/texas-fights-global-warming-power-grab/?page=1

[NJ Stinks]

BUSH was by far the most eco-friendly president ever. What a bunch of hypocrites! :lol:


Really. I guess he rode a horse back to his ranch for 8 years. :rolleyes:

[GameTheory]

There are limits to what a layman can do and therefore must rely on experts. The "appeal to authority" argument may be a valid objection when all debaters share the same level of understanding on the issues as the expert but not when their knowledge and understanding is severely limited. In fact they should stay out of the technical side of the argument due to ignorance.If you're going to cite experts as YOUR argument because you're a layman, then I get to play the "appeal to authority" card because by your own logic you should stay out of it.

What bugs me about the GW debate is that no one seems to be making the case -- there are lots of obvious questions (that may just be due to layman ignorance, or they may be legitimate) that no one seems to want to answer. They just say "trust the scientists". I was watching a round table discussion about how wrongly the media covers GW, and there was this guy on who runs a climate blog and he said, "Look, if you really want to understand climate change, it's at my blog. We are way more comprehensive than anything in the traditional media." (The general thrust of the discussion was what you brought up in this thread -- that they tend to cite both sides as equals which may not be appropriate.) So I went to his blog and what I found was a rant about Rand Paul on the front page (this was about the time Paul was on Rachel Maddow). Sigh.

EVERY TIME I see a scientist being interviewed they talk about how the climate is changing and everyone agrees (and I am right there with them at this point because you don't have to convince me the climate changes -- when wasn't it?), and then they always add as if they've forgotten their notes, "Oh yeah, and it is because of humans." I've heard that 100 times, always as an after-thought. And they never make the case why it has to be man-made. Not one word why it "is because of humans" -- it just is.

Where are these simple questions being answered in a simple (as possible) way? With all those gazillions of scientists why isn't it easy to find simple answers that don't demonize the questioner for asking what are only natural, obvious questions?

I posted a link to Walter Russell Mead's blog post (who was also on that panel I mentioned above) about climate alarmists and how they need to shut up now EVEN IF THEY ARE RIGHT so the reasonable people can take over, which was filled with one good argument after another, and not one word from the usual suspects around here, which is a pattern whenever a good argument is made they don't want to hear -- silence. They one of you creates a new thread with the same old nonsense. Have some intellectual honesty and actually defeat the stronger arguments (if you can, otherwise admit so). Don't just pick the low-hanging fruit. (I'll be the first to admit that there is a lot of nonsense thrown your way, but it is not all nonsense, and I find it telling that the most well-reasoned and well-written posts tend to be the most ignored.)

[rastajenk]

Game Theory be bringin' his A Game to this thread. :ThmbUp:

[Tom]

His "D" game would have been enough on this issue! :lol:

[DJofSD]

You mean like "D" as in dummies?

Is there a Global Warming for Dummies out there someplace?

[Tom]

You mean like "D" as in dummies?

Is there a Global Warming for Dummies out there someplace?

Now that you mention it.....

[GameTheory]

Naturally:

http://www.amazon.com/Global-Warming-Dummies-Elizabeth-May/dp/0470840986/

It is more of a green manual though, i.e. "use renewable energy and ride a bike".

[DJofSD]

Now that you mention it.....
:lol: :3x:

[ArlJim78]

Game Theory be bringin' his A Game to this thread. :ThmbUp:
no kidding, GT makes some of the most logical, well reasoned arguments in OT. the one below is no expection.

[bigmack]

I posted a link to Walter Russell Mead's blog post (who was also on that panel I mentioned above) about climate alarmists and how they need to shut up now EVEN IF THEY ARE RIGHT so the reasonable people can take over, which was filled with one good argument after another, and not one word from the usual suspects around here, which is a pattern whenever a good argument is made they don't want to hear -- silence.
I have reason to believe this is officially a moment of silence.

Another interesting essay from WR Mead where he states:

The greens claim to understand the dynamics of complex ecosystems better than the rest of humanity; the simplistic assumptions and unrealistic strategies with which they’ve approached the complex ecosystem of international politics don’t provide the dispassionate observer with much evidence in support of this claim.http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2010/02/19/how-al-gore-wrecked-planet-earth/

The earth has always been in flux. Pointing a finger to the start of the industrial revolution and assigning EXPONENTIALLY WAY MORE detrimental weight to M-M Co2 is scientifically dishonest. Heck, it's nuts.

As my brother, who is the biggest greenie/peacenik you'd ever meet would say - Follow the money. The ruse is that it's been a well funded effort within the scientific community, where it's said: "Cut me a check & tell me what you want me to find"

[skate]

Really. I guess he rode a horse back to his ranch for 8 years. :rolleyes:


the fact that "the ranch" was where he went says much, but you gots to think about it.

[Tom]

[QUOTE=Tom]Simple question: Why is it you Global Warming Moonbats continue to suck the pablum and not hold your fearless leaders accountable for this impending disaster. If you rally believe this crap, Al Gore should your public enemy number one for his blatant attacks on the planet by his very lifestyle. And Pelosi, the jet-flying-planet killing queen of carbon.
BUSH was by far the most eco-friendly president ever. What a bunch of hypocrites! :lol:


I was asking this seriously.......when do you moonbats start to do something about this impending doom other than argue with the right about it? Is Al Gore and his lifestyle no concern to you? Are Pelosi's attacks on clean air getting your approvals?

Maybe people would take you guys seriously if YOUR LEADERS showed that they take it seriously. They DO NOT, other than to tell other people how to live.

Bark Bark. Hear the dogs?

[Let's Roll]

Consensus? Not any more.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/meltdown_of_the_climate_consensus_G0kWdclUvwhVr6DY H6A4uJ

I would like to see Congressional hearings into this fraud. Let's find out who got paid off and who knew this was going on and said nothing.

[46zilzal]

Consensus? Not any more.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/meltdown_of_the_climate_consensus_G0kWdclUvwhVr6DY H6A4uJ

I would like to see Congressional hearings into this fraud. Let's find out who got paid off and who knew this was going on and said nothing.
the Post has been a rag a lot longer than Murdoch since poisoned it from being anywhere close to being objective,

From Wiki:The Post has been criticized since the beginning of Murdoch's ownership for what many consider its lurid headlines, sensationalism, blatant advocacy and conservative bias. In 1980, the Columbia Journalism Review opined that "the New York Post is no longer merely a journalistic problem. It is a social problem – a force for evil."

[Let's Roll]

Nice head fake, Doc. Big smoke screen, bashing the Post with a 30 year old "opinion", without addressing the article, the InterAcademy Council findings or the alegations of outright fraud. Good thing you didn't have to use ink and paper to do that, you wasted alot of text to say nothing.
Is that all you got ?

[boxcar]

I have reason to believe this is officially a moment of silence.

Another interesting essay from WR Mead where he states:

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2010/02/19/how-al-gore-wrecked-planet-earth/

The earth has always been in flux. Pointing a finger to the start of the industrial revolution and assigning EXPONENTIALLY WAY MORE detrimental weight to M-M Co2 is scientifically dishonest. Heck, it's nuts.

As my brother, who is the biggest greenie/peacenik you'd ever meet would say - Follow the money. The ruse is that it's been a well funded effort within the scientific community, where it's said: "Cut me a check & tell me what you want me to find"

Not only follow the money, but trace this moronic movement back to its political sources in the world. The commies are thoroughly "green" because it's how they manipulate the masses and get the people cowering in fear of their own actions, etc.

Boxcar

[Tom]

the Post has been a rag a lot longer than Murdoch since poisoned it from being anywhere close to being objective,

From Wiki:The Post has been criticized since the beginning of Murdoch's ownership for what many consider its lurid headlines, sensationalism, blatant advocacy and conservative bias. In 1980, the Columbia Journalism Review opined that "the New York Post is no longer merely a journalistic problem. It is a social problem – a force for evil."

Try addressing this specifically instead of shotgunning BS......


True or false?

But the prestigious InterAcademy Council, an independent association of "the best scientists and engineers worldwide" (as the group's own Web site puts it) formed in 2000 to give "high-quality advice to international bodies," has finished a thorough review of IPCC practices -- and found them badly wanting.

For example, the IPCC's much-vaunted Fourth Assessment Report claimed in 2007 that Himalayan glaciers were rapidly melting, and would possibly be gone by the year 2035. The claim was actually false -- yet the IPCC cited it as proof of man-made global warming.

[bigmack]

Try addressing this specifically instead of shotgunning BS......
True or false?
He's a walking, talking rorschach test. Complex thoughts allude him. But if you want a 'blink' take he's at the ready. Somehow his blink responses never change.

[hcap]

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201008310030

while recommending changes to IPCC's structure and procedures in order to "enhance the quality and authoritative nature of future assessments," the review board and its chairman, Princeton professor Harold Shapiro, also praised the IPCC and its work.

The Associated Press reported that the IAC "didn't study the quality of the science itself, although Shapiro said the key recommendations in the climate report 'are well supported by the scientific evidence.'" Likewise, in his opening statement at the press conference releasing the IAC report, Shapiro said:

Overall, IPCC's assessment process has been a success and served society well. The assessments have put IPCC on the world stage, raised public awareness of climate change, and driven policymakers to consider options for responding to climate change.

The report itself confirms the IPCC's central findings, stating that "Climate change is a long-term challenge that will require every nation to make decisions about how to respond," and that "The Committee found that the IPCC assessment process has been successful overall."

The Washington Post's editorial board wrote that the report further shows the right-wing's critique of climate science has been "overblown":

Also on Monday, an international review panel from the independent InterAcademy Council released a report on the IPCC's procedures for producing "assessments" of climate science, which are supposed to provide policymakers with a rigorous guide to the evidence and its interpretation. Though Fox News claimed it "slams" the IPCC, the study doesn't show that the much-maligned assessment process was rigged or even fundamentally flawed. In fact, much of what the review panel suggests involves enhancing and making more transparent the procedures already in place, and the report's authors underscore how valuable the IPCC's work has been.