|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 12/23/2009 : 10:36:07 [Permalink]
|
Bill scott.....
In what part of the world do you live, Bill? |
 |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 12/23/2009 : 12:18:14 [Permalink]
|
But not to worry; when the Arctic permafrost thaws, which it is in the process of even as we speak, all denials will abruptly cease. Isn't that nice?
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 12/23/2009 : 12:48:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
I will not engage this time, Bill. We have been over all of this stuff before. Maybe there are others here who will once again make the attempt, but it won't be me. You are just a denier Bill. And that's that. I don't want to waste my time on this.
|
And considering Bill's initial post here he seems too preoccupied with the weather to seriously think about the climate. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 12/23/2009 : 13:36:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by moakley
Originally posted by Kil
I will not engage this time, Bill. We have been over all of this stuff before. Maybe there are others here who will once again make the attempt, but it won't be me. You are just a denier Bill. And that's that. I don't want to waste my time on this.
|
And considering Bill's initial post here he seems too preoccupied with the weather to seriously think about the climate.
|
As I sit through my 3rd severe winter in row now. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 12/23/2009 : 13:41:25 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
But not to worry; when the Arctic permafrost thaws, which it is in the process of even as we speak, all denials will abruptly cease. Isn't that nice?
|
I have already said thank man for man made global warming. I can't imagine how cold we might be here now without it. We just had the coldest July on record in these parts. Just think how cold we would have got without man made global warming saving us from the worst. Heat it up baby.. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 12/23/2009 : 14:39:08 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
And exactly how do they come up with global climate temps? |
That question itself is a wonderful display of ignorance, since climate is more than just temperatures.| There certainly could not be any fudging of the data here. |
If you think there has been fudging, then present evidence of it.| And they really have no clue what the global climate temps range or what they have ranged over the last few thousand years. They throw out their numbers as if they actually know. They don't. They just claim that they do. |
Where is your evidence that "they" don't know what the temperature range has been?| I have tried. Yet I keep having to go through yet another colder then normal winter season. This year we even lost our summer to "climate change". Coldest average temps for July since the records have been kept. Could not imagine what we would be going through without global warming. Without it I would have been ice fishing in July. |
This demonstrates your refusal to try to comprehend the global climate, and your insistence that your local weather is somehow relevant.| When the dude rakes in over $100,000,000 by claiming the sky is falling and then flies around on his private jet, floats his house boat down the Tennessee river with jet skies in tow pumps out tens of thousands of dollars for utilities bills each month for a house he hardly sleeps in this makes him the whipping boy for climate change skeptics. |
Thanks for admitting that it's nothing more than a personal attack.| The conciseness of climate scientists matters. |
What conciseness? |
Kil, of course, meant "consensus." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 12/23/2009 : 14:50:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Originally posted by dglas
You folks do realize that the history of skepticism extends much, much further back than the history of science, particularly modern science, right? To say that, "Everything that is good and useful about skepticism comes from the scientific process..." is quite the dogmatic little claim. Modern science itself is something good and useful that came from skepticism, not the other way around. As someone who has read Sextus Empiricus's depiction of Pyrrhonian skepticism, I see the context. Let's try not to get carried away, okay?
|
Since the discussion here and by Loxton is about the modern day scientific skepticism that we promote, the comment you have quoted should be taken in that context. |
Well, there's a reason that skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic are listed separately in our mission statement. They're not synonyms, even within the context of modern-day scientific skepticism. As Loxton points out, few of our skeptical critiques are actually scientific. Talking about science - even pointing out the flaws in serious scientific work - is not the same as doing science. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 12/23/2009 : 17:53:27 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Originally posted by filthy
But not to worry; when the Arctic permafrost thaws, which it is in the process of even as we speak, all denials will abruptly cease. Isn't that nice?
|
I have already said thank man for man made global warming. I can't imagine how cold we might be here now without it. We just had the coldest July on record in these parts. Just think how cold we would have got without man made global warming saving us from the worst. Heat it up baby..
|
What an odd statement to make! upon what do you base it?
Y'see Bill, the soft, summer breezes getting a little warmer and stickier isn't the whole picture. The Great Ocean Conveyor, comprised of all of the major currents plays an even bigger role than just the atmosphere by itself. And here's the really hilarious part: should those currents change due to a warmer atmosphere, there could and probably would have some parts of the earth drop to near ice age temperatures while parts of the rest sweltered. Dig it:
The Great Ocean Conveyor - The Achilles Heel of the climate system?
The global ocean is not a static pond, but a body in constant motion. Winds blow across its surface, generating waves and currents, while the pull of gravity gently sloshes it back and forth in a lunar rhythm of tides. But beneath these familiar surficial motions lies an enigmatic process which has profound implications for climate: the Great Ocean Conveyor (also called the thermohaline circulation). The Conveyor is one of the great unknowns in humanity's unintentional climate change experiment.
A simplified diagram of the Great Ocean Conveyor.
The Conveyor is slow-moving - at most, 10cm per second - but its vast extent includes a flow equivalent to 100 Amazon rivers. On average, 30 million cubic metres of water enter the Conveyor every second.
Surface water, warmed at the equator, moves to high latitudes where it releases heat to the atmosphere. As a result, the water cools - becoming denser - and sinks to the deep ocean. Deep water slowly travels through the oceanic abyss, eventually mixing up to the surface in distant parts the world, as much as 1000 years later.
|
I strongly recommend opening the link and reading the entire article. It might clear up a lot of misconceptions and give an insite into just how complicated this science is.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Randy
SFN Regular
USA
1990 Posts |
Posted - 12/23/2009 : 17:57:35 [Permalink]
|
| Filthy, Bill can only see as far as his nose. |
"We are all connected; to each other biologically, to the earth chemically, to the rest of the universe atomically."
"So you're made of detritus [from exploded stars]. Get over it. Or better yet, celebrate it. After all, what nobler thought can one cherish than that the universe lives within us all?"
-Neil DeGrasse Tyson |
|
|
|
Chippewa
SFN Regular
USA
1496 Posts |
Posted - 12/23/2009 : 18:00:23 [Permalink]
|
There is a skepticism around for a number of years that String Theory is so difficult to test scientifically that it is basically safe from falsifiability and therefore possibly not a true scientific theory. The counter argument is complex but in a distorted nutshell (as simplistically understood by non-physicist me) - since String Theory is part of quantum mechanics, it is therefore falsified along with unitary quantum mechanics. Wikipedia has a pretty clear summary further down under the heading "Suggestions that string theory is not predictive" via this link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory |
Diversity, independence, innovation and imagination are progressive concepts ultimately alien to the conservative mind.
"TAX AND SPEND" IS GOOD! (TAX: Wealthy corporations who won't go poor even after taxes. SPEND: On public works programs, education, the environment, improvements.) |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 12/23/2009 : 18:13:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Randy
Filthy, Bill can only see as far as his nose.
|
Yeah, I know. But I keep hoping I can extend his his vision, as there looks to be no way I can extend his nose. And others might be interested as well.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 12/23/2009 : 18:25:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Kil
Since the discussion here and by Loxton is about the modern day scientific skepticism that we promote, the comment you have quoted should be taken in that context. |
Well, there's a reason that skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic are listed separately in our mission statement. They're not synonyms, even within the context of modern-day scientific skepticism. As Loxton points out, few of our skeptical critiques are actually scientific. Talking about science - even pointing out the flaws in serious scientific work - is not the same as doing science.
|
Right.
And yes, I allowed my spell checker to screw up "consensus" for me... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 12/23/2009 : 20:41:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Originally posted by moakley
Originally posted by Kil
I will not engage this time, Bill. We have been over all of this stuff before. Maybe there are others here who will once again make the attempt, but it won't be me. You are just a denier Bill. And that's that. I don't want to waste my time on this.
|
And considering Bill's initial post here he seems too preoccupied with the weather to seriously think about the climate.
|
As I sit through my 3rd severe winter in row now.
|
'nuff said... |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 12/24/2009 : 03:33:36 [Permalink]
|
The denialists, who are they?
They are a pretty interesting bunch, many if not most associated with or funded by the corporations with a financial interest in promoting AGW skepticism, and some are with conservative "think" tanks  . Few, if any, actually work in the field, some on the list are deceased, and most are doddering old codgers. All strike me as being something less than completely honest, including the corpses. With that said, let's have a look:
"Who are the climate change skeptics?
One of the courses I took this semester was a seminar on the human dimensions of climate change, a geography course that briefly looked at the scientific evidence for climate change and then focused primarily on the social science aspects of the problems of mitigation and adaptation. The paper I wrote for the class was about the philosophical problem of how a layman can identify relevant expertise and evaluate the debate without being an expert, by looking at features such as relevance of expertise, consensus within fields, credentials and institutions, track records, logical validity and cogency of arguments, and so forth, and then applying these criteria to the IPCC scientists vs. the climate change skeptics.
What follows is a list of some of the organizations promoting skepticism about anthropogenic climate change and some of the individuals associated with them, with some information about their credentials and activities. It's my impression that those with the best reputations tend to agree that there is a global warming trend and that human emissions of greenhouse gases are a contributing factor to that warming, but the organizations tend to promote a more skeptical view (fairly characterized as "denial"), as exhibited by such evidence as expressions of apparent pleasure at the recent 2009 Pew survey result that showed a decrease in American acceptance of global warming.
Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)
One comparison I made was between the scientists of the IPCC and the scientists of the NIPCC, a group sponsored by The Heartland Institute. I compared the fourth-most-cited paper of the top 83 scientists of the former to the fourth-most-cited paper of all of the 2008 NIPCC participants, using Jim Prall's excellent website of citation counts for climate scientists. Of the 619 scientists of the AR4 (2007) Working Group 1 on the physical science basis of climate change, the top 83 each have more than 200 citations to their fourth-most-cited paper. There are only thirteen climate skeptics with that level of citation, most of whom received those citations for papers having nothing to do with climate science, and none of whom were involved with the 2008 NIPCC report. (In 2009, William Gray, who is in that category, participated in a second NIPCC meeting, but I didn't review that for my paper.)
The top scientist of the 2008 NIPCC report with publications containing the word "climate," the organizer and editor of the report, S. Fred Singer, has 31 citations to his fourth-most-cited paper. He's a retired physics professor (Ph.D. earned in 1948) who is not only a skeptic about climate change but about the health effects of second-hand smoke, the link between CFCs and the ozone hole, and has received tobacco and oil company funding for his work. His name pops up frequently when it comes to attempts by corporations to block environmental regulation. There were 24 participants listed as authors on the 2008 NIPCC report, six of whom have no academic credentials or affiliations and no published academic work of relevance to the climate change debate (Dennis Avery, Christopher Monckton, Kenneth Haapala, Warren Anderson, Klaus Heiss, and Anton Uriarte). The top-cited scientist, Lubos Motl, has 150 citations for his fourth-most-cited paper, but he's a theoretical physicist with no publications containing the word "climate." The next guy after Singer, George Taylor, has an M.S. in meteorology and 25 citations for his fourth-most-cited paper. There are a few people on the list with relevant credentials, but none are top names in climate science. The majority with scientific credentials have little or no relevant expertise, like Fred Goldberg, with a Ph.D. in welding technology, and Tom Segalstad, a mineralogist with a Ph.D. in geology.
It should be noted that the climate skeptics with the best credentials in climate science tend to be participants in the IPCC process, such as John R. Christy, who was a lead author on the Working Group 1 reports in 2001 and 2007. Robert Balling of ASU has also participated in the IPCC process, and despite being often regarded as a skeptic, agrees that there is global warming and that it has a human component, and told me that the IPCC report is the best place for the layman to find accurate information about climate science (see my summary of his recent talk at ASU)."
I pulled the link from yet another of PZ's posts.
Spotting the black hats among the climate change denialists
Category: Environment • Politics
Posted on: December 23, 2009 7:52 PM, by PZ Myers
Jim Lippard has put up an excellent post identifying the major institutions behind climate change denial. They are almost uniformly conservative and populated with old and unqualified cranks, although Jim is too genteel to put it that way. It's useful information if you need a scorecard to keep track of the players.
It's also amusing. Lippard makes this passing mention of a certain notorious crank in a discussion of the denialists with the best academic credentials:
The top-cited scientist, Lubos Motl, has 150 citations for his fourth-most-cited paper, but he's a theoretical physicist with no publications containing the word "climate."
Lubos Motl replies!
Commie,
I urge you to instantly remove the libels and lies from this blog, otherwise I will start to work on the legal liquidation of the criminal that you are.
These things may be common among the green trash in which you seem to live but I won't tolerate it against myself.
Wow. "Legal liquidation." I'm impressed. Although…did anyone spot any lies or libels against Motl? Does he have 151 citations for that paper, or what?
If you hadn't realized that Motl is a freakish little sociopath before, that comment may just persuade you.
|
Italics mine. Read on; it gets better, or worser depending on your point of view. Our Bill has wandered himself into rare company.
Anyhow, there we have it; from the what & who, it is easy to figger out the how-come.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 12/24/2009 : 05:41:53 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
The denialists, who are they?
They are a pretty interesting bunch, many if not most associated with or funded by the corporations with a financial interest in promoting AGW skepticism, and some are with conservative "think" tanks . Few, if any, actually work in the field, some on the list are deceased, and most are doddering old codgers. All strike me as being something less than completely honest, including the corpses. With that said, let's have a look:
"Who are the climate change skeptics?
One of the courses I took this semester was a seminar on the human dimensions of climate change, a geography course that briefly looked at the scientific evidence for climate change and then focused primarily on the social science aspects of the problems of mitigation and adaptation. The paper I wrote for the class was about the philosophical problem of how a layman can identify relevant expertise and evaluate the debate without being an expert, by looking at features such as relevance of expertise, consensus within fields, credentials and institutions, track records, logical validity and cogency of arguments, and so forth, and then applying these criteria to the IPCC scientists vs. the climate change skeptics.
What follows is a list of some of the organizations promoting skepticism about anthropogenic climate change and some of the individuals associated with them, with some information about their credentials and activities. It's my impression that those with the best reputations tend to agree that there is a global warming trend and that human emissions of greenhouse gases are a contributing factor to that warming, but the organizations tend to promote a more skeptical view (fairly characterized as "denial"), as exhibited by such evidence as expressions of apparent pleasure at the recent 2009 Pew survey result that showed a decrease in American acceptance of global warming.
Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)
One comparison I made was between the scientists of the IPCC and the scientists of the NIPCC, a group sponsored by The Heartland Institute. I compared the fourth-most-cited paper of the top 83 scientists of the former to the fourth-most-cited paper of all of the 2008 NIPCC participants, using Jim Prall's excellent website of citation counts for climate scientists. Of the 619 scientists of the AR4 (2007) Working Group 1 on the physical science basis of climate change, the top 83 each have more than 200 citations to their fourth-most-cited paper. There are only thirteen climate skeptics with that level of citation, most of whom received those citations for papers having nothing to do with climate science, and none of whom were involved with the 2008 NIPCC report. (In 2009, William Gray, who is in that category, participated in a second NIPCC meeting, but I didn't review that for my paper.)
The top scientist of the 2008 NIPCC report with publications containing the word "climate," the organizer and editor of the report, S. Fred Singer, has 31 citations to his fourth-most-cited paper. He's a retired physics professor (Ph.D. earned in 1948) who is not only a skeptic about climate change but about the health effects of second-hand smoke, the link between CFCs and the ozone hole, and has received tobacco and oil company funding for his work. His name pops up frequently when it comes to attempts by corporations to block environmental regulation. There were 24 participants listed as authors on the 2008 NIPCC report, six of whom have no academic credentials or affiliations and no published academic work of relevance to the climate change debate (Dennis Avery, Christopher Monckton, Kenneth Haapala, Warren Anderson, Klaus Heiss, and Anton Uriarte). The top-cited scientist, Lubos Motl, has 150 citations for his fourth-most-cited paper, but he's a theoretical physicist with no publications containing the word "climate." The next guy after Singer, George Taylor, has an M.S. in meteorology and 25 citations for his fourth-most-cited paper. There are a few people on the list with relevant credentials, but none are top names in climate science. The majority with scientific credentials have little or no relevant expertise, like Fred Goldberg, with a Ph.D. in welding technology, and Tom Segalstad, a mineralogist with a Ph.D. in geology.
It should be noted that the climate skeptics with the best credentials in climate science tend to be participants in the IPCC process, such as John R. Christy, who was a lead author on the Working Group 1 reports in 2001 and 2007. Robert Balling of ASU has also participated in the IPCC process, and despite being often regarded as a skeptic, agrees that there is global warming and that it has a human component, and told me that the IPCC report is the best place for the layman to find accurate information about climate science (see my summary of his recent talk at ASU)."
I pulled the link from yet another of PZ's posts.
Spotting the black hats among the climate change denialists
Category: Environment • Politics
Posted on: December 23, 2009 7:52 PM, by PZ Myers
Jim Lippard has put up an excellent post identifying the major institutions behind climate change denial. They are almost uniformly conservative and populated with old and unqualified cranks, although Jim is too genteel to put it that way. It's useful information if you need a scorecard to keep track of the players.
It's also amusing. Lippard makes this passing mention of a certain notorious crank in a discussion of the denialists with the best academic credentials:
The top-cited scientist, Lubos Motl, has 150 citations for his fourth-most-cited paper, but he's a theoretical physicist with no publications containing the word "climate."
Lubos Motl replies!
Commie,
I urge you to instantly remove the libels and lies from this blog, otherwise I will start to work on the legal liquidation of the criminal that you are.
These things may be common among the green trash in which you seem to live but I won't tolerate it against myself.
Wow. "Legal liquidation." I'm impressed. Although…did anyone spot any lies or libels against Motl? Does he have 151 citations for that paper, or what?
If you hadn't realized that Motl is a freakish little sociopath before, that comment may just persuade you.
|
Italics mine. Read on; it gets better, or worser depending on your point of view. Our Bill has wandered himself into rare company.
Anyhow, there we have it; from the what & who, it is easy to figger out the how-come.
|
You alarmists are rather amusing with your titles you like to throw around. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
| Edited by - Bill scott on 12/24/2009 05:49:32 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
What, If Anything, Can Skeptics Say About Science?
