Author Topic: More Global Warming Skeptics  (Read 79898 times)

Iain

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,490
Re: More Global Warming Skeptics
« Reply #50 on: May 19, 2007, 02:07:09 AM »
Wacki - I'm conscious that I pointed this thread out to you, and now you feel a little uneasy and even unwelcome. It wasn't my intention that this would happen, nor did I expect it.

My interest in this subject is not necessarily the science involved, but rather the public debate about the science. There are few subjects that I can think of where there are so many armchair experts, on both 'sides'.

I'm interested in where you think the opposition to anthropogenic global warming begins. The lay person who rejects it cannot really claim to be doing so based entirely on scientific understanding, that's probably going to upset some. There are one or two obvious sources, clearly the energy industry is paying for some of it.

Perhaps much less widespread I have also come across the idea of global warming as 'idolatry' (man as false god and false devil), but that isn't a universal Christian attitude, nor is it the sole source for opposition amongst religious groups. Politics informs here too, Christian groups on either side are claiming that their attitude is the Christian one. If parts of the American church reject it, there are as many worldwide who accept it.

Then we have the 'experts know nothing' attitude, which is curiously not applied to those few who are called 'skeptics'.

There was a report recently about media coverage that found that sensationalistic media reports have an adverse affect on public perception. This is why I found Wunsch's response to his 'Swindling' very interesting. So there is perhaps a certain degree of over-exposure, climate-fatigue going on. That would seem to be the source for a lot of opposition I've read here (UK). Despite TGGWS being aired recently, there is no media exposure for Bellamy, Stott et al on the scale that there seems to be in the American media. So for every media-exposed Brit who thinks that the Gulf Stream is in imminent danger but doesn't know albedo from albino then perhaps there is the 'global warming is a myth' media-exposed American who doesn't know err, albedo from albino.

Politically the climate is different here too. Lawson not withstanding (and he's now a Lord so not much power) there isn't political opposition to it from any notable figures, there is no British Inhofe berating scientists in public hearings that I can think of. This probably only adds weight to the assumption of some that this is a left/right thing, as apparently there is no European right. It does seem to be a roughly left/right thing in the US though, not strictly, but there is a trend.

These are just odds and ends of thoughts. I find the rejection of much scientific evidence and the wholesale adopting of other, much more limited, evidence and opinion by non-scientists to be fascinating.
I do not like, when with me play, and I think that you also

wacki

  • friend
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 361
Re: More Global Warming Skeptics
« Reply #51 on: May 19, 2007, 08:43:03 AM »
Wacki - I'm conscious that I pointed this thread out to you, and now you feel a little uneasy and even unwelcome. It wasn't my intention that this would happen, nor did I expect it.

Actually I've been surprised at how civil everyone is here.  I've engaged in debate where there was a good 50/50 split on this topic and name calling and insults where the norm.  None of that has really happened here and I am in the clear minority.  That is rather refreshing.  The only thing that bothers me about this thread is that the worldwide consensus on climate change is pretty strong:



http://logicalscience.blogspot.com/2007/01/worldwide-consensus-on-climate-change.html

Basically 90% of the planet is on what I believe is the correct side of the debate.  The scientific consensus is so strong and the skeptics are so populated with frauds and a complete lack of legitimate counter theories that it really is a no brainer for me.  Yet despite this it seems that the vast majority of pro-RKBA people tend to support the skeptics and the frauds.  Looking at the above histogram this puts a large portion of the pro-RKBA community in the bottom 8% of the world.  I am a strong supporter of the 2A, and  that little number is very disturbing to me.

Quote
My interest in this subject is not necessarily the science involved, but rather the public debate about the science.

I find the rejection of much scientific evidence and the wholesale adopting of other, much more limited, evidence and opinion by non-scientists to be fascinating.

This is a good book for you to read then:



I don't consider Chris Mooney to be a very good writer on this topic as he makes arguments poorly and he overlooks some obvious abuses of science.  But his information is accurate and I certainly learned a lot from that book.  There is a war on science from both the left and the right.  Politicians have learned that shooting the messenger, lying, and calling to authority (buying a few Ph.D.'s) is more effective than arguing ideology and complex historical concepts.  This book discussing how this new form of debate evolved after WWII.  Get the hardcover as it's the most recent version and has updates at the end of certain chapters.

I've thought long and hard about writing a similar book.  Mooney just doesn't have the background to understand how screwed up certain situations are.  I also don't think he does a very good job at explaining certain concepts.  But the book is certainly something anyone interested in science related politics needs to read.

Since there are a lot of conservatives here this should be something many people here will find interesting.    The stem cell debate has been a very hot topic for about a decade.  The left is pushing embryonic (abortion) stem cells.  The right is pushing adult stem cells.  Both sides twists their facts.  And caught in the middle is a friend of mine.  Apparently the difference between ESC (embryonic) and ASC's (adult) is purely theoretical.  There is potential, but no novel therapies have currently been developed from ESC's that can't be used with ASC's.  My friend ( a NIH researcher) has been campaigning for years trying to get a law passed to simply require doctors to ask people if they want to donate their cord blood.  It's a simple question.  It costs nothing more than hot air and a little ink on a piece of paper.  Doctors are already required to ask certain questions so why not ask one more?  Cord blood (from the umbilical cord) is normally thrown in the trash.  Yet it is a rich source of stem cells.  If we just asked people if they were willing to donate it instead of throw it away tremendous amounts of stem cells would reach the market as well as research labs.  This would greatly increase the rate which we can research things like Parkinson's and Alzheimer's.   Unfortunately the left doesn't want this to happen.  And the right seems extremely slow to catch on to an insanely obvious and incredibly powerful weapon to support their anti-abortion battle.  So the bills that are introduced telling doctors to ask 1 single question get squashed year after year.  And in turn lots of people die from diseases that may have been cured by now.

Matthew Carberry

  • Formerly carebear
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,281
  • Fiat justitia, pereat mundus
Re: More Global Warming Skeptics
« Reply #52 on: May 19, 2007, 11:39:46 AM »
wacki,

I posted this same point in the other thread, but you are correct it is more a political battle than a scientific one.

I don't think anyone with half a brain says global warming isn't happening, the argument is over the degree to which humans are responsible and what should be done about it. 

In the political realm, instead of a neutral word like "contribute" or "responsible" the enviro's latch onto the science to push their agenda that "humans and human development are bad" and so use politically and morally charged words like "blame".

Since most enviro's, including many of the scientists involved, are to one degree or another statist, socialist asses; they also point up the worst-case scenarios to justify, as their type always has, the development of a scientific autocracy where their expertise can run everything for the "good of mankind", and the over-turning of free-market capitalism which they view as the root cause of all pollution and environmental degradation.

That's where my problem comes in.  The deliberate claims by individuals in the enviro and scientific community of "worst-case" scenarios solely to garner the political and economic change they want.  When, from within the consensing scientific community come corrections and statements contradicting them, they simply move on to the next Chicken Little scenario to advance their political and economic goals.

The failure of that consensing society to rein in their own wackos with the same fervor they seem to turn on dissenters costs them credibility and any perception of political impartiality they might have had.

"Not all unwise laws are unconstitutional laws, even where constitutional rights are potentially involved." - Eugene Volokh

"As for affecting your movement, your Rascal should be able to achieve the the same speeds no matter what holster rig you are wearing."

Iain

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,490
Re: More Global Warming Skeptics
« Reply #53 on: May 19, 2007, 12:00:14 PM »
carebear, can't say I agree about the socialist asses thing, it may be true.

The worst case scenario thing is a problem I have too. I made reference above to the Gulf Stream and the various theories that have been posited that global warming could shut it down and thus radically shift the European climate, for the worse, extremely quickly. Stories like this get a lot of media play, I'm not sure that there is a deliberate attempt by the whole scientific community to push these stories. They get media play because 'Global Warming will cause big freeze - millions feared dead by 2020' will always get more media attention than the more measured scientific analysis. Scientific analysis that refers to these events as possible but extremely unlikely.

I'll bring Carl Wunsch up again. After he felt he was duped by the 'Great Global Warming Swindle' documentary he released a statement that says an awful lot about how measured an individual he is.

http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/channel4response

Quote
I believe that climate change is real, a major threat, and almost
surely has a major human-induced component. But
I have tried to stay out of the `climate wars' because
all nuance tends to be  lost, and the distinction between
what we know firmly, as scientists, and what we suspect is happening,
is so difficult to maintain in the presence of rhetorical
excess...

...I am on record in a number of places complaining about the over-dramatization
and unwarranted extrapolation of scientific facts. Thus the notion
that the Gulf Stream would or could "shut off" or that with
global warming Britain would go into a "new ice age" are either
scientifically impossible or so unlikely as to threaten our credibility
as a scientific discipline if we proclaim their reality. They also
are huge distractions from more immediate and realistic threats.

On the basis of this, Wunsch is innocent of charges. I'd prefer that we default to the position that most in fact are innocent of the charges you lay, not all. The greatest guilt lies with sensationalistic media coverage, that as I alluded to above, as recently been demonstrated to be seriously counter-productive.
I do not like, when with me play, and I think that you also

cassandra and sara's daddy

  • Guest
Re: More Global Warming Skeptics
« Reply #54 on: May 19, 2007, 12:10:07 PM »
you fellers familiar with the panel presentation where the audience was polled before and after a pro con presentation involving amongst others michael chricton?  and how quiclky the folks  changed position once they heard both sides?

Matthew Carberry

  • Formerly carebear
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,281
  • Fiat justitia, pereat mundus
Re: More Global Warming Skeptics
« Reply #55 on: May 19, 2007, 12:21:59 PM »
Iain,

I should have been more clear.  Some scientists may be socialist asses and allow that to sway, not necessarily their research but rather the recommendations they make based on it, but almost uniformly the folks who make and push into the media spotlight the apocalyptic worst case (and scientifically tenuous) scenarios (such as the Gulf Stream's shift and others) ARE most definitely socialist statist asses.  That's not really debateable based on their own statements.

The Green Party, the enviro-wing of our Democratic Party, Earth First, PETA, Greenpeace, Sea Rescue and all the other fringe environmentalists seize on any research that hints to human responsibility as support for their neo-Luddite and self-specie-hating agenda.  They then promulgate the most extreme interpretation of that science to garner support for their radical (and counter-freedom) political and economic aims.

I would like to see more like Wunsch going the extra mile to counter media sensationalism.  Their research is providing the fuel, some of their peers are deliberately fanning the flames, they, the dispassionate moderates, have a moral responsibility to help manage the fires that result or they will deserve being lumped in with the asses.  

Write editorial letters when the London or NY Times spout off some apocalyptic nonsense.  Iterate again and again the facts and solid theories and emphasize that policy making and responses should be left in the hands of the people and their representatives, not handed down as dictat by conclaves of scientists.
"Not all unwise laws are unconstitutional laws, even where constitutional rights are potentially involved." - Eugene Volokh

"As for affecting your movement, your Rascal should be able to achieve the the same speeds no matter what holster rig you are wearing."

Iain

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,490
Re: More Global Warming Skeptics
« Reply #56 on: May 19, 2007, 01:02:59 PM »
you fellers familiar with the panel presentation where the audience was polled before and after a pro con presentation involving amongst others michael chricton?  and how quiclky the folks  changed position once they heard both sides?

I'm familiar with it. The nature of public debate and understanding being what it is, I don't put a lot of store in it. It's certainly interesting, but it tells us a lot more about where the public debate is at than where the scientific debate is at. I believe one of the panelists hinted at something like this, and I get the impression it turned the room against him.

We've had accusations that consensus amongst scientists is not science, so I hardly think that consensus amongst a public audience tells us more than perhaps a bit of sociology.

carebear - I'm afraid that with the debate as it is, guys like Wunsch are getting burned. Wunsch agreed to appear on the Great Global Warming Swindle in order to talk about his concerns with sensationalistic coverage, the result was that small parts of his comments were cut and paste into a larger polemic, the aim of which was seemingly concealed from him.

Also, it seems to me that the attempts at global warming related dictat are coming from the representatives of the people, elected or self-styled. I've not seen nor read much about Gore's film, it may be an important contribution, but for certain sectors of the American political landscape pretty much only Hilary going on about global warming would be worse. I don't know about solutions, but all the 'stop flying peasant' stuff is coming from political or non-scientific figures. Prince Charles appears to be doing his best to do as he says though.
I do not like, when with me play, and I think that you also

wacki

  • friend
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 361
Re: More Global Warming Skeptics
« Reply #57 on: May 19, 2007, 01:21:15 PM »
you fellers familiar with the panel presentation where the audience was polled before and after a pro con presentation involving amongst others michael chricton?  and how quiclky the folks  changed position once they heard both sides?

The debate you are talking about can be downloaded here:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9082151

One of the key arguments used by the skeptics was that the sun was causing global warming.  Please read this link:

http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/the-sun-is-the-problem.html

look at the pretty side by side graphs and tell me if you think that the sun is responsible for the warming.  The vast majority of arguments put forth during this debate by the skeptics were little more than nice sounding sound bites that had little or not truth to them.  I hope my sun example is more than enough proof of this.  I love science, but this talk was one of the final nails in the coffin (of which there were many) that convinced me that I'd be wasting my time trying to help humanity out through grant funded research.  It's sad because the vast majority of interesting developments come through non-profit research.  People are just way too easily fooled and it's impossible to grab everyone one by one and explain everything to them.  And I constantly wonder whether or not people in general are just too dumb, too busy to learn (I will admit it takes a lot of reading to understand climate change), or just don't care.  And so I've stopped caring, started shooting and dating a lot more, and I'm a whole lot happier.

cassandra and sara's daddy

  • Guest
Re: More Global Warming Skeptics
« Reply #58 on: May 19, 2007, 01:28:55 PM »
so how do you smarter than the average bear folks account for the rises on the other planets? someone using too many areosol cans there?

and why do you suppose some of the oldtimers aren't so behind the chicken lil guys?  its a failing of mine that i sometimes favor experience over enthusiasm


wacki

  • friend
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 361
Re: More Global Warming Skeptics
« Reply #59 on: May 19, 2007, 01:49:54 PM »

I don't think anyone with half a brain says global warming isn't happening,

Good

Quote
the argument is over the degree to which humans are responsible and what should be done about it. 

Actually the debate really isn't in the past.  The debate is how much will the global temps rise once we get to 550ppm CO2.

Quote
In the political realm, instead of a neutral word like "contribute" or "responsible" the enviro's latch onto the science to push their agenda that "humans and human development are bad" and so use politically and morally charged words like "blame".

Since most enviro's, including many of the scientists involved, are to one degree or another statist, socialist asses; they also point up the worst-case scenarios to justify, as their type always has, the development of a scientific autocracy where their expertise can run everything for the "good of mankind", and the over-turning of free-market capitalism which they view as the root cause of all pollution and environmental degradation.

I've worked for 7 different labs and companies in multiple states (including MA) and I've never met an enviro hippie technology hating scientist.   Claiming that scientists hate technology is one of the worst arguments I've ever heard.  Who do you think spends their entire life studying very difficult subjects just to invent new toys for other people to play with?  Claiming a NASA rocket scientist hates technology and wants us to become peasants is one argument that just baffles me.

Quote
That's where my problem comes in.  The deliberate claims by individuals in the enviro and scientific community of "worst-case" scenarios solely to garner the political and economic change they want.

Most of these "worst-case" scenarios are based of high sensitivity to 550ppm CO2.  That is what the IPCC report is based off of.  After attending a lecture by Nate Lewis I find the 'goal' of stabilizing at 550ppm CO2 to be a bit of a stretch.  I think it will take a massive effort to stabilize at 750ppm and therefore 550ppm will be a miracle.  The significance of the difference between these two numbers is enormous.  James Hansen was worried that a 5 degree C sensitivity to 550ppm would wipe countries like Bangladesh (174 million people) off of the map due to sea level rise (80' rise over 4 centuries).

Quote
The last time that the Earth was five degrees warmer was three million years ago, when sea level was about eighty feet higher.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19131

    It is also of my opinion, and many others, that the odds of 98% of the ocean coral going extinct by mid century from ocean acidification is going to be damn near 99%.

Quote
When, from within the consensing scientific community come corrections and statements contradicting them, they simply move on to the next Chicken Little scenario to advance their political and economic goals.

Pick up a copy of Science.  Carbon trading is hotly debated in the scientific community.  I personally do not support carbon trading even though I can understand why others would.

Quote
The failure of that consensing society to rein in their own wackos with the same fervor they seem to turn on dissenters costs them credibility and any perception of political impartiality they might have had.

Try listening to the NAS press releases of their assessment reports.  They are, from what I can tell, impartial.  The IPCC report is pretty damn good as well.  A lot of scientists I know refuse to talk to reporters via anything other than e-mail because they are so frequently misquoted.  I have little or no faith in news sources that are driven by ratings and advertisements.

wacki

  • friend
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 361
Re: More Global Warming Skeptics
« Reply #60 on: May 19, 2007, 01:52:27 PM »
so how do you smarter than the average bear folks account for the rises on the other planets? someone using too many areosol cans there?

If you scroll 20 posts up you will find the answer:
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=7127.msg114922#msg114922

wacki

  • friend
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 361
Re: More Global Warming Skeptics
« Reply #61 on: May 19, 2007, 01:54:56 PM »
The worst case scenario thing is a problem I have too. I made reference above to the Gulf Stream and the various theories that have been posited that global warming could shut it down and thus radically shift the European climate, for the worse, extremely quickly. Stories like this get a lot of media play, I'm not sure that there is a deliberate attempt by the whole scientific community to push these stories. They get media play because 'Global Warming will cause big freeze - millions feared dead by 2020' will always get more media attention than the more measured scientific analysis. Scientific analysis that refers to these events as possible but extremely unlikely.

The "propoganda" (inhofes words) blog realclimate.org also report that thermohaline failure is unlikely:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/ocean-circulation-new-evidence-yes-slowdown-no/

cassandra and sara's daddy

  • Guest
Re: More Global Warming Skeptics
« Reply #62 on: May 19, 2007, 01:55:29 PM »
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/18/ixnewstop.html

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/05/08/neptune-news/

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html


William Gray, hurricane expert and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project at Colorado State University, in a 2005 interview with Discover magazine:

"I'm not disputing that there has been global warming. There was a lot of global warming in the 1930s and '40s, and then there was a slight global cooling from the middle '40s to the early '70s. And there has been warming since the middle '70s, especially in the last 10 years. But this is natural, due to ocean circulation changes and other factors. It is not human induced.

"Nearly all of my colleagues who have been around 40 or 50 years are skeptical as hell about this whole global-warming thing. But no one asks us. If you don't know anything about how the atmosphere functions, you will of course say, 'Look, greenhouse gases are going up, the globe is warming, they must be related.' Well, just because there are two associations, changing with the same sign, doesn't mean that one is causing the other."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in an editorial last April for The Wall Street Journal:

"To understand the misconceptions perpetuated about climate science and the climate of intimidation, one needs to grasp some of the complex underlying scientific issues. First, let's start where there is agreement. The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 [carbon dioxide] in the atmosphere have increased by about 30 percent over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming.

"These claims are true. However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man's responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred. In fact, those who make the most outlandish claims of alarm are actually demonstrating skepticism of the very science they say supports them. It isn't just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right as justifying costly policies to try to prevent global warming."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Patrick J. Michaels, professor of Natural Resources, Virginia Tech, State Climatologist for Virginia in an email interview:

"In climate science, we only have two things: data (the past) and models or hypotheses (the future). The data show us that distribution of warming since the mid-1970s is consistent with what one would expect from an enhanced carbon dioxide-related greenhouse effect. The ensemble behavior of our models is that, once this warming is initiated, it tends to take place at a constant (rather than an ever-increasing) rate. Indeed this has been the case for the last three decades.  

"Consequently we know, with considerable confidence, the rate of warming for the policy-foreseeable future, and it is about 0.85 degrees Celsius, [1.53 degrees Fahrenheit] per half-century.  This is near the low end of projections made by the United Nations. However, there is no known suite of technologies that can affect this rate significantly, so the proper policy is to invest in the future rather than to waste money today in a futile attempt to significantly reduce warming."

http://www.livescience.com/environment/060713_global_warming.html

more concensus

wacki

  • friend
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 361
Re: More Global Warming Skeptics
« Reply #63 on: May 19, 2007, 02:01:16 PM »
cassandrasdaddy,

Please read these articles on your experts:

http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/patMichaels.html

http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/Gray.html

http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/Lindzen.htm

They have a rather colorful history that should not be ignored.  I'm repeating myself and you don't appear to be reading this thread.

Iain

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,490
Re: More Global Warming Skeptics
« Reply #64 on: May 19, 2007, 02:08:51 PM »
If we're going to turn this thread (or this forum) into a series of 'your link/my link' battles we aren't going to be learning much.

Wacki can cover the science. In the meantime I'm curious as to why you'd choose to believe your guys over the rest. In your national geographic link for instance we find this

Quote
"His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion," said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University.

"And they contradict the extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report." (Related: "Global Warming 'Very Likely' Caused by Humans, World Climate Experts Say" [February 2, 2007].)

Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, added that "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations."

Now I don't have the scientific expertise to know whether or not the guy is right, but I do know this - when Wilson says that it is completely at odds with mainstream scientific opinion - that is true.

So on what are you basing your rejection of mainstream scientific opinion?
I do not like, when with me play, and I think that you also

wacki

  • friend
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 361
Re: More Global Warming Skeptics
« Reply #65 on: May 19, 2007, 02:15:52 PM »
So on what are you basing your rejection of mainstream scientific opinion?

Just to make it clear to others I didn't post that article (cassandrasdaddy did) and I'm pretty sure that nothing I've said conflicts with the mainstream opinion.

wacki

  • friend
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 361
Re: More Global Warming Skeptics
« Reply #66 on: May 19, 2007, 02:22:28 PM »
If we're going to turn this thread (or this forum) into a series of 'your link/my link' battles we aren't going to be learning much.

If you are going to form an educated opinion on this topic you need to understand the history of the leading skeptics.  When you read these articles please keep in mind these three are supposed to be the best the skeptics have.  I suggest you start with Pat Michaels as his bio is the easiest to understand.

Matthew Carberry

  • Formerly carebear
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,281
  • Fiat justitia, pereat mundus
Re: More Global Warming Skeptics
« Reply #67 on: May 19, 2007, 02:24:50 PM »
Quote
In the political realm, instead of a neutral word like "contribute" or "responsible" the enviro's latch onto the science to push their agenda that "humans and human development are bad" and so use politically and morally charged words like "blame".

Since most enviro's, including many of the scientists involved, are to one degree or another statist, socialist asses; they also point up the worst-case scenarios to justify, as their type always has, the development of a scientific autocracy where their expertise can run everything for the "good of mankind", and the over-turning of free-market capitalism which they view as the root cause of all pollution and environmental degradation.

I've worked for 7 different labs and companies in multiple states (including MA) and I've never met an enviro hippie technology hating scientist.   Claiming that scientists hate technology is one of the worst arguments I've ever heard.  Who do you think spends their entire life studying very difficult subjects just to invent new toys for other people to play with?  Claiming a NASA rocket scientist hates technology and wants us to become peasants is one argument that just baffles me.

You are completely misreading me.  Read again without the chip on your shoulder blocking your view.

I was pretty careful to distinguish between responsible scientists and the non-scientist enviro wackos and their "many" (admittedly an overstatement) and albeit mainly focused in Europe, socialist scientist sympathisers who support their gloom-and-doom pronouncements of the worst case.  Most scientists, socialist or otherwise, obviously aren't Luddites, that'd be the non-sci wackos, and even the anti-Western capitalist-style development scientists aren't against tech in general, they just want to be the ones driving the train instead of individuals making choices in a free market determining which technological developments they want to support with their tax and free-market dollars.

Such socialist-minded scientists are promoting, outside of their actual fields, political and economic solutions like government or supra-government mandates and prohibitions (Kyoto and the ilk) on consumption and allowable technologies, which is technocratic statism at its worst.  

Quote
Quote
The failure of that consensing society to rein in their own wackos with the same fervor they seem to turn on dissenters costs them credibility and any perception of political impartiality they might have had.

Try listening to the NAS press releases of their assessment reports.  They are pretty, from what I can tell, impartial.  The IPCC report is pretty damn good as well.  A lot of scientists I know refuse to talk to reporters via anything other than e-mail because they are so frequently misquoted.  I have little or no faith in news sources that are driven by ratings and advertisements.

Impartial press releases are fine, but if you have to go looking for them, they're a little futile.  How about forcefully denouncing in any media available any misquote, misstatement or outright lie.  If the idiot shouting lies (and making you look bad by association) on the corner belongs to your club, it's your job to go shut him up or stand next to him shouting the truth.  Not sit back in the clubhouse, tut-tut-ing and occasionally publishing a demurral in the club newsletter.
"Not all unwise laws are unconstitutional laws, even where constitutional rights are potentially involved." - Eugene Volokh

"As for affecting your movement, your Rascal should be able to achieve the the same speeds no matter what holster rig you are wearing."

Iain

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,490
Re: More Global Warming Skeptics
« Reply #68 on: May 19, 2007, 02:36:05 PM »
If we're going to turn this thread (or this forum) into a series of 'your link/my link' battles we aren't going to be learning much.

If you are going to form an educated opinion on this topic you need to understand the history of the leading skeptics.  When you read these articles please keep in mind these three are supposed to be the best the skeptics have.  I suggest you start with Pat Michaels as his bio is the easiest to understand.

Err, I was talking to cassandrasdaddy. In both cases where you have quoted me.

I'm perfectly happy to believe that you understand, in cases, wrote, the content of your links. Thus interjecting them is useful. My objection to this thread becoming a series of links about who said what in objection to global warming is that we could post everything that Lindzen et al have ever said about global warming, but I'd be no closer to understanding why they are believed and all the others are dismissed.

I've been reading the link about Gray. Found his exchange with Boxer interesting, would sort of like to know about his previous exchange with Inhofe though, I bet that was much cosier.

There are two streams to the conversation here, one is scientific and the other is more like amateur sociology. I hope they can continue to co-exist in this thread as I believe that they inform one another.
I do not like, when with me play, and I think that you also

cassandra and sara's daddy

  • Guest
Re: More Global Warming Skeptics
« Reply #69 on: May 19, 2007, 02:46:11 PM »
the pediatric docs changed direction 180 degrees without flinching with their back to sleep campaign

i plan on living long enough to mock al gore and the chickem lils


And yet another anonymous pediatrician.  When will people learn?  See this is what I'm talking about.  Almost everyone here will (rightfully) slam the media because they can't get firearms right.  Yet you somehow think the media accurately reports science?  That seems a little inconsistent.  If you can't give your sources in situations like this I'd appreciate it if you don't even bother posting in this thread.  Anonymous sources are all but useless.  And those that refuse to source are more than likely trolls.


anonymous doc?  let me guess no kids?  it was one of those august groups of experts that issued both proclamations. for decades it was put em to sleep on the belly  then the new improved research came in ad we turn and run back the other way.

wacki

  • friend
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 361
Re: More Global Warming Skeptics
« Reply #70 on: May 19, 2007, 02:58:50 PM »
You are completely misreading me.  Read again without the chip on your shoulder blocking your view.

I was pretty careful to distinguish between responsible scientists and the non-scientist enviro wackos and their "many" (admittedly an overstatement) and albeit mainly focused in Europe, socialist scientist sympathisers who support their gloom-and-doom pronouncements of the worst case.  Most scientists, socialist or otherwise, obviously aren't Luddites, that'd be the non-sci wackos, and even the anti-Western capitalist-style development scientists aren't against tech in general,

My apologies.  When you said this:  "Since most enviro's, including many of the scientists involved" I thought you were labeling a large portion of the scientists as enviro's.  Apparently that is not the case.  There are documentaries out which make the arguments that I thought you were making.  But in all honesty I'm not mad right now.  I'm more bored than anything else.

Quote
Such socialist-minded scientists are promoting, outside of their actual fields, political and economic solutions like government or supra-government mandates and prohibitions (Kyoto and the ilk) on consumption and allowable technologies, which is technocratic statism at its worst.

meh.... the impact of Kyoto was blown way out of proportion.  It could have been implemented in the US and I doubt anyone would have noticed.  It's impact on coal would have been a fraction of what gasoline prices have changed in the last week alone.  It was a stepping stone and little more.  That being said I don't think Kyoto is a very good plan.  Like any complex system, it's just too easily abused.  I'm a huge supporter of a Apollo Energy program.  Develop new technologies, break oil's monopoly on the transportation market, and then let capitalism take over.  As of right now there is little or no competition in the energy market.  I mean lead acid batteries are the best option for your car and those were invented in the civil war.  Energy is the largest industry on the planet, the largest polluter on the planet, and yet it spends one of the lowest amounts on R&D percentage wise.

Quote
Impartial press releases are fine, but if you have to go looking for them, they're a little futile.  How about forcefully denouncing in any media available any misquote, misstatement or outright lie.  If the idiot shouting lies (and making you look bad by association) on the corner belongs to your club, it's your job to go shut him up or stand next to him shouting the truth.  Not sit back in the clubhouse, tut-tut-ing and occasionally publishing a demurral in the club newsletter.

Grant funded scientists do not have an easy life.  They work long hours and they barely have enough time to discuss their own research with reporters let alone read every single newspaper article out there.  My boss works from 7AM-11PM 6 days a week.  Money is scarce and getting that next grant can be very stressful.  That being said there are some scientists that go the extra mile and do exactly what you are talking about.  Check out the blogs on SEED magazine as well as realclimate.org.  The problem with that is that blogs are not peer review and mistakes will be made.  That being said the NAS was created to do exactly what you are asking them to do.  If you have a better method i'd love to hear it.  As it is grant funded science is one of the hardest working and least paid professional fields I know of.

Gewehr98

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 11,010
  • Yee-haa!
    • Neural Misfires (Blog)
Re: More Global Warming Skeptics
« Reply #71 on: May 19, 2007, 08:06:40 PM »
Quote
Dont' feed the troll....

http://www.newszapforums.com/forum60/29173.html
He's got a lot of posts over on THR. So what if global warming is a hot button issue for him - there are plenty of others around here the same, at least one who cuts and pastes endless articles in new threads and never responds to any posts, he doesn't get labelled a troll.

Wacki = Nematocyst-870?   shocked
"Bother", said Pooh, as he chambered another round...

http://neuralmisfires.blogspot.com

"Never squat with your spurs on!"

Matthew Carberry

  • Formerly carebear
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,281
  • Fiat justitia, pereat mundus
Re: More Global Warming Skeptics
« Reply #72 on: May 19, 2007, 08:21:49 PM »
wacki,

Again, if they aren't getting press, they aren't trying hard enough.  If that leads to "the public" or some policy makers not respecting them and they have a beef with that, they have only themselves to blame as they are failing to compete in the market of ideas. 

And, from a market perspective, I'm against publically-funded grant research on principle.  If investors want to spend their own money on research and can know that whatever comes of it won't be stolen (for "the public good") or taxed/regulated out of profitability by government I don't see the need.  We create regulatory strictures on private science to make it unprofitable and then perversely insist that we need to spend tax money to get anything done.

Energy, like medicine, has a monopoly because we have allowed the government to protect those monopolies through regulation.  Remove the ability of government to regulate, really remove it, not the "deregulation" farce of recent history, and the situation would reverse pretty quickly. 

But that is not what those who currently hold the floor by volume and vehemence, the extremists, will allow to happen, as they insist that government-driven political and economic statist solutions are the best, if not only, way.  And they are aided and abetted, tacitly if not actively, by public-grant financed scientists to whom dissent could mean a loss of professional standing and livelihood and so who do not stand boldly against their unscientific alarmism.

If we pull the prop of public money and government-supported monopoly out from under them, the whole house of cards will fall and pure, honest, profit-driven science can inform the decisionmaking process.
"Not all unwise laws are unconstitutional laws, even where constitutional rights are potentially involved." - Eugene Volokh

"As for affecting your movement, your Rascal should be able to achieve the the same speeds no matter what holster rig you are wearing."

wacki

  • friend
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 361
Re: More Global Warming Skeptics
« Reply #73 on: May 20, 2007, 12:08:00 AM »
Quote
Again, if they aren't getting press, they aren't trying hard enough.  If that leads to "the public" or some policy makers not respecting them and they have a beef with that, they have only themselves to blame as they are failing to compete in the market of ideas.

Scientists aren't lobbyists.  They are researchers.  Their message is freely available via internet.  If they aren't getting the press it's because people would rather find out what britney spears's cooch looks like or who anna nicole smith's daddy is.


Energy, like medicine, has a monopoly because we have allowed the government to protect those monopolies through regulation.  Remove the ability of government to regulate, really remove it, not the "deregulation" farce of recent history, and the situation would reverse pretty quickly. 
.......

If we pull the prop of public money and government-supported monopoly out from under them, the whole house of cards will fall and pure, honest, profit-driven science can inform the decisionmaking process.

Well you are correct that the government subsidizes the military but for the wrong reasons.   If you take all the money used to stabilize oil rich countries (via military or other means) and instead tack that tax onto each gallon of gasoline then the price of gas will increase somewhere between $1.50 and $3 a gallon.  At current prices that would mean gasoline would be between $4.80 and $6.30 a gallon.  In contrast an apollo program could be funded with only a 5 cent tax.  But as you say you are "against publically-funded grant research on principle".  So I guess you would prefer the $6.30 a gallon.  Even with gas being at $6.30 a gallon the research probably wouldn't be done as that is the going price of gas in many countries in europe.  There are basically two entities that can spend a few billion a year to research energy.  They are the oil companies and the government.  The oil companies sure as hell aren't going to give up on their cash cow.  Especially not since they are currently breaking historical records for profits.  Not even microsoft can compete with Exxon and friends.

The only other regulation the government uses to protect oil is property rights.  Do you want to give up property rights?

wacki

  • friend
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 361
Re: More Global Warming Skeptics
« Reply #74 on: May 20, 2007, 12:22:53 AM »
Quote
Energy, like medicine, has a monopoly because we have allowed the government to protect those monopolies through regulation.

Btw, I currently work in pharmaceuticals.  Specifically I'm developing new medicines to treat brain cancer.  I have experience in both grant funded and private research.  Pharmaceutical companies generally don't do the groundwork when it comes to medicine.  University researchers tend to do the groundwork and the drug companies tend to finish the job.  Drug companies also ignore vaccines like the plague because the real money is in treatment and not cures.  Drug companies spend more money hiring 22 year old hot blonds to peddle their drugs than they do hiring Ph.D.'s to develop new drugs.  To give you an idea, a 22 year old hot blond that majored in art will typically earn the same amount of money flirting with doctors to sell scripts as a Ph.D. does developing the very same drugs the blond is trying to sell.

So I find it a bit ironic that you use medicine as an argument against grant research.  When you are talking about monopolies on medicine, I assume that you are against patents too?  Otherwise I'm not sure what monopoly you are talking about.