By Peter GaluszkaNew Study: Climate Scientists Overwhelmingly Agree Global Warming Is Real and Our Fault!
Ninety-Seven Percent, You Chowderheads!
Share this article
ADVERTISEMENT
(comments below)
ADVERTISEMENT
(comments below)
Comments
34 responses to “Ninety-Seven Percent, You Chowderheads!”
-
I’m going to shorten the URL just in case some find it easier to follow it:
the folks who reject GW number about 100 out of 12000.
I’m not saying the 100 could be right and the others wrong but what disturbs me is that when we say that 97% – around the world – have reached a consensus – the folks who disagree classify this as a global conspiracy of scientists who have bad motives and are essentially engaged in a conspiracy to defraud people.
further, these folks are opposed to doing ANYTHING at all – even in a prophylactic, “lets be conservative until we know otherwise” – mode.
it’s”
1. – the majority of the worlds scientists are involved in a massive global conspiracy
and..
2. – we do nothing because the whole thing is fraud.
it’s a bet the bank reaction to global warming.
there is no such thing …. so we do nothing.
-
Well I guess the Club of Rome is right. We need to thin the global herd down to around 500,000 enlightened rich folks. So I guess the 99 percent better just make their reservation to a FEMA camp today. Too bad that includes all those climate scientists who thought they were too smart to die.
-
I don’t know about “thinning” the global herd down but understanding that land can only hold so many souls is a good first step to understanding that humans can do the same thing that deer do and overpopulate.
We are smarter so that we actually could scale back on our energy use, be more conservative.
the irony here is that it’s not the folks who live in primitive conditions that are using energy that is at issue with GW – it’s the developed and developing worlds where people like you and me use 10, 20 times as much energy as the fellow barely subsisting in a hut on the savannah.
It’s US… as we sit in our heated/cooled homes fingering our keyboards…
I don’t presume to know what we should do but I think nothing is inadequate given the concerns of most scientists.
-
Really? Really?
Wow, just oh wow, let’s find some really, really bias sources and trump up a study and from that let’s trump up an article. I love this line “… there is no reason to expect global warming to continue indefinitely unless humans are causing it.” From this link http://skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-cook-et-al-2013.html – oh??? And what pray tell caused the climate changes before man arrived on the scene? You know, all these chicken-littles-the-sky-is-falling types continue to ignore that the Sahara was once a lush rain forest; they continue to ignore that Greenland and Iceland were once lush and green.
And Larry, I love this from you – “… the irony here is that it’s not the folks who live in primitive conditions that are using energy that is at issue with GW” – REALLY??? So cutting down the rain forests in South America, not replanting them and BURNING the trees they cut down is having no effect? The cars in India (and China) that are polluting at very high levels of exhaust (by our standards), is having no effect? Come on, even liberals with tunnel vision can see that your statement has some major holes in it.
Oh, and regarding your (and my) discussion in an earlier thread regarding the Ozone. You claimed that our actions against CFC allowed/caused the hole in the Ozone to heal itself. Your proof? Nothing? The hole healed up but I claim it’s because every time the full moon was out I swung a dead cat over my head 21 times and chanted “Ozone heal” – so y’all owe me, not these pinhead scientists. Larry you KNOW that correlation does not imply causation. Would the Ozone have healed had we not done anything, the bottom line is we don’t know. Getting rid of the CFC’s a bad thing, not necessarily, but to say that was the answer and that is why the Ozone healed is a false. Just as to assume that the ONLY reason the climate is changing is because of man is also false, as is the idea that if mankind stops doing (place your activity or activities in here) then climate change will stop is also false. Sorry Peter, the link(s) and the articles were just liberal pratter with a typical liberal spin, really really bad liberal spin.
-
re: climate change before man.
I totally agree.. it DID happen when the earth was younger and massive changes were still underway. No question about it.
OTOH is it true that there is no way that mankind can cause changes – changes that could destroy the earth? would you make that statement?
How about the Ozone holes? Do you think they just “happened” and we had nothing to do with them – AND we had nothing to do with them subsequently shrinking?
what say you on that issue? speak up!
“And Larry, I love this from you – “… the irony here is that it’s not the folks who live in primitive conditions that are using energy that is at issue with GW” – REALLY??? So cutting down the rain forests in South America, not replanting them and BURNING the trees they cut down is having no effect? ”
not compared to our coal burning AND our automobiles and, in general our 10X energy usage per person. It’s like we are burning 10x as much as primitive people do – so we can be comfortable at 72 degs while they live in a wider range of 40-100 degrees …“The cars in India (and China) that are polluting at very high levels of exhaust (by our standards), is having no effect? Come on, even liberals with tunnel vision can see that your statement has some major holes in it.”
I said primitive people – not developing nations. Developing nations have the same problem we do – but their impact per capita is lower because not as many of them are using as much energy as we do – per person.
re: the ozone healed itself.
Accurate – do you really believe this? do you really think that CFCs were not the cause and all the changes made were totally a coincidence despite what science says?
do you disbelieve what science said about the cause of the Ozone holes and what science says right now about the removal of CFCs and the shrinking of the Ozone holes?
who do you believe on this? or do you believe what you wish to believe no matter what science says?
this is why I say folks have become anti-science.
the things they don’t want to believe, they say science is corrupt/wrong/bad
but these same people will believe science when it says a CAT 5 hurricane is headed to Houston.
so they just pick and choose what science they like and disbelieve what they do not.
so of course, we have the view that what we did with CFCs had no effect on the Ozone holes.. it was all a hoax… and the holes healed themselves and would have anyhow no matter what we did.. or did not do.
right?
-
This is quite typical – it’s the norm –
It’s why the Earth remained flat for millennium after millennium –
The 97.2% massed into the Herd mindlessly charging off in wrong direction.
Everyday the Herd thunders across the prairie, going nowhere, mindlessly –
This is not science – it’s the sheep, the buffalo, the lemming in disguise.
97.2? agree exactly – proving their findings worthless at the same time.
-
calling 97% of science a “herd” of mindless thinking is just plain ignorant.
the ‘proving’ of “bias” basically is blog sites where some idiot lays out his reasoning why we should not believe science.
which is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_changeto reject the body of evidence in favor of what one wants to believe and relying on armchair science “skeptics” for one’s opinion is – in a word – ignorant.
no science is 100%. It’s ALWAYS in motion and ALWAYS subject to changes and revisions as knowledge is expanded but when you find yourself accusing 97% of scientists of being a “herd” because they have a level of consensus…
I would ask – do you feel that way about the rest of science – that when science reaches a consensus on anything – that’s it’s a “herd”?
what this boils down to is people believe what they want to believe and things they don’t want to believe, they don’t. Science is not really involved.
-
The 97% figure is a figment, a totally politicized number. I can guarantee you that if I went through and read the very same abstracts, I would come up with a different number than Cook. Cook had a point to prove, and, by Jove, he proved it.
The science is one thing. The representation of the science by the political/media classes is quite another.
-
-
Is the climate changing? Of course. It always has, over millions and billions of years. Is the climate warming? Perhaps. Looks like it. Certainly it has since the Little Ice Age. There is pretty strong evidence of a 1500 year or so cycle in play here, but the century of hard data, and the several centuries of implied data, don’t mean much on a 5-billion-year-old Earth. (Or are the climate alarmists also creationists?) Is the single dominant cause of recent warming the rising presence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere? It has to be contributing. But sun activity and other elements can also be contributing. The cycle was evident long before there were enough humans burning enough carbon to notice.
But here the biggie — if the climate changes drastically, and the arctic circle becomes the farm belt and the ocean’s swamp the Jersey Shore, is that the END OF ALL TIME? Hell no. My retirement plans involve the Blue Ridge. I’m a lot more worried about an asteroid strike. I’m a humanist but even without humans life on Earth will continue, adapt and thrive even under the most fevered scenario that Al Gore’s little brain can conceive.
-
I’m still waiting for the scientists to: 1) disclose how many of them receiving or are seeking funding for climate change work: 2) explain the warm period during the Middle Ages and the cold period thereafter; and 3) demonstrate why the “forthcoming Ice Age” mantra of the 1970s, which is no longer accepted, does not hurt their credibility now.
I don’t necessarily believe the 97% is wrong, but why are they given a pass on issues related to credibility? When I recently heard a speaker support the N-S Corridor, I asked him questions related to the credibility of his argument. I was not alone. But no one bothers to probe the “climate scientists’ ” credibility. Why not?
-
These “climatologists” think that if they can get people to believe that man made climate now threatens everyone in the world with imminent destruction, they’d suddenly be in the Catbird Seat, Masters of the Universe.
That’s what behind the 97.2% “Consensus.” And you gotta love the word “Consensus” all these thousands of scientists huddled around, heads down, pondering the cosmos, taking it apart, fixing the broken pieces, oiling and polishing up all the rests, then carefully with absolute precision – GOD like really – putting the broken cosmos back together again better than new, and doing in seven days too – all done with perfect CONSENSUS, of course.
-
In the early part pf the last century scientists had found “conclusive proof” of another previously undiscovered trend in human genetics – eugenics.
“Eugenics was widely accepted in the U.S. academic community.”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States#cite_note-black-2003-1-6
As a side note, the idiots in Richmond’s elite were among the leaders in the false “scientific” theory of eugenics.
Beware of scientific consensus. Scientists, like society in general, are prone to chasing fads.
1. When scientists were unable to explain Mercury’s orbit around the Sun with Newtonian physics they insisted that there must be a planet between Mercury and the Sun. They even named the planet Vulcan. Enstein’s Law of General Relativity eventually explained Mercury’s orbit without the need for a new planet.
2. Aristotle, a leading thinker of his day, believed that much life was created through spontaneous generation. A twig falls in the water and a fish is born.
3. Items burn because they contain Pholgiston – a compound that allows combustion.
4. There are canals on Mars.
5. If space wasn’t full of lumineferous aether then light would not be able to travel through the cosmos.
6. Phrenology allows scientists to determine the innate talents of various people by studying the bumps on their heads.
7. Albert Einstein’s theory of a static universe. Now disproven.
8. Cold fusion.
Have you eaten your cod liver oil today?
At any given time in human history the “facts” of contemporary science were subsequently proven wrong.
-
I’ll try to take these one at a time and preface it with an apology to anyone who felt the word “ignorant” was directed at them personally. It was not.
What I was saying is that if for any field where people are formally educated and have spend decades working in that field – and who willingly submit their work to others to peer review it – that 97% is not herd in the sense that we normally attribute ‘herding’ type behavior to.
re: the media is engaged in a conspiracy to misrepresent the issue.
I refer you back to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
this is NOT the media and WIKI itself is not media when the basis of the article is derived from more than a 100 separate and distinct references NONE OF WHICH are “media”.
re: will the world end if New Jersey gets permanently flooded.
oh I agree… but if all places like NJ get flooded around the world including many port and facilities, and farming as we know it changes fundamentally so that crops don’t grow where they used to and farmers on land they own – no longer can make a living farming.. etc, etc… financial disaster around the world … is that also an “ok” future?
re: scientists AROUND THE WORLD – are taking bribes to distort science?
really? … around the world to include scientists in NOAA and NASA etc?
seriously?
re: “consensus” – when a consensus of scientists and doctors – to the 97% level tell you that 1 gram of plutonium will kill you or that 3 packs a day puts you at risk for lung cancer or that it’s possible for an asteroid to strike the earth – at what point do you say that people who are formally trained in the hard sciences, have spent a career studying the subject and peer-review studies – are a “herd” that should not be trusted?
at one point do you tell your doctor that when he tells you that smoking will likely give you lung cancer that he’s just part of the “herd”?
re: eugenics – it was never a widespread belief to the 97% level and it was driven in part by those who wanted to use science to bolster racism.
science makes mistakes – but they go forward – and they add to the body of knowledge to correct past errors –
what’s going on now is to disbelieve science – no matter what they say.
the vast majority of scientists look at the data about the earth warming and the data is overwhelming but the folks who disagree say the data is wrong, that 97% of scientists are lying about it – on a worldwide basis that includes scientists in our own NOAA and NASA.
what would it take for people to believe just the fact that the earth is warming – with absolutely no proffer about what to do about it?
this has become something in which the skeptics believe that if you sign on to the warming evidence that you are now on board with the rest of it so they refuse to even admit the obvious.
the fact that the vast majority of people who hold this view – are on the political right – the “conservative” (related to the words conserve, conservationist, etc) side is humorous and unsettling.
-
But, but, but its a concensus – besides, I still maintain that it’s my swinging of my dead cat over my head (and I miss that cat) that stopped the Ozone.
Look, is it bad or wrong to look at evidence and try to draw conclusions or do extrapolations, no, we do it all the time; and a certain percentage of the time they are correct, but likewise a certain percentage they are dead wrong. Nothing wrong with polluting less, but as you know, merely breathing out (exhaling) is ‘contributing’ to the CO2 problem.
The earth has existed for billions of years. Throughout it’s history it has had climate changes and fluxuations, NOT just the early years. The hysteria has grown so great that now, each and every event is chalked up to GW … er, climate change. Funny, I remember hurricanes, rain and snow storms and heat waves in the past that easily riviled what we see now. The GW people (this means you Larry) ignore when one of thier vanted predictions don’t come true. 2012 was originally predicted to be one of the worst hurricane years. “On December 7, 2011, Tropical Storm Risk (TSR), a public consortium consisting of experts on insurance, risk management, and seasonal climate forecasting at University College London, issued an extended-range forecast predicting an above-average hurricane season. In its report, TSR noted that tropical cyclone activity could be about 49% above the 1950–2010 average, with 14.1 (±4.2) tropical storms, 6.7 (±3.0) hurricanes, and 3.3 (±1.6) major hurricanes anticipated, and a cumulative ACE index of 117 (±58).[3] Later that month on December 21, Weather Services International (WSI) issued an extended-range forecast predicting a near average hurricane season. In its forecast, WSI noted that a cooler North Atlantic Oscillation not seen in a decade, combined with weakening La Niña, would result in a near-average season with 12 named storms, 7 hurricanes, and 3 major hurricanes. They also predicted a near-average probability of a hurricane landfall, with a slightly elevated chance on the Gulf Coast of the United States and a slightly reduced chance along the East Coast of the United States.[4] On April 4, 2012, Colorado State University (CSU) issued their updated forecast for the season, calling for a below-normal season due to an increased chance for the development of an El Niño during the season.[5] In April 2012, TSR issued their update forecast for the season, slightly revising down their predictions as well.” But of course there was hurricane Sandy which made up (in the eyes of GW folks) for what was over all a mild season. And what is with this newest trend of naming … what is it? Rainstorms? Really?
I don’t discount science, I use science, I find it interesting and fastinating, but I also completely realize that it doesn’t know all. I KNOW that it changes as more facts become available. I know that it’s not the total answer, I accept that, I know they are flawed I accept that, I’ve learned to take things both in science and in life with a grain of salt.
Yes, there is climate change. If mankind was wiped off the face of this earth tomorrow, it would still happen, maybe not the way it is now, but it would happen. Do we affect it? Well, by the mere fact that there is the population of the world that is breathing out how many tons of CO2 per day, we affect it, but as I said, even without us, there would be change going on.
-
One of the most actively eras of big hurricanes was the early mid 50’s in the middle Atlantic states, a series of monsters storms hit Virginia beach, for example. It was also a era of cold weather, heavy snows, for example.
Changes in weather, small, and large, are the norm, not the exception. Let’s count our blessings. Thank God for the variety he puts into our lives.
-
-
If either Cuccinelli or McAuliffe proposed a revenue neutral carbon tax I’d say “Yipee”.
But Cuccinelli won’t propose anything that looks or sounds like a new tax.
And McAuliffe would be fine with a new tax but Virginia progressives would howl that the extra money be thrown down the money-pit rat hole called BigEd without lowering any other taxes.
Stalemate.
I’d institute a carbon tax in Virginia. Then, I’d give the money to the localities where the tax was collected. Some localities might use the extra revenue to lower other taxes. Some might spend the money on increased government services.
While the carbon generation might be “one size fits all” the use of the additional proceeds should not be centrally dictated from Richmond.
-
re: ” But, but, but its a concensus – besides, I still maintain that it’s my swinging of my dead cat over my head (and I miss that cat) that stopped the Ozone.”
you could swing dead cats and smoke 3 packs a day and have the same view but it would not make it any less ignorant.
“Look, is it bad or wrong to look at evidence and try to draw conclusions or do extrapolations, no, we do it all the time; and a certain percentage of the time they are correct, but likewise a certain percentage they are dead wrong. Nothing wrong with polluting less, but as you know, merely breathing out (exhaling) is ‘contributing’ to the CO2 problem.”
do you think ANY chemical in ANY concentration is NOT pollution guy?
perhaps your idea of “pollution” needs some re-examining. If you ate a pound of salt a day, would you still believe it’s not ‘pollution’ to your body?“The earth has existed for billions of years. Throughout it’s history it has had climate changes and fluxuations, NOT just the early years. The hysteria has grown so great that now, each and every event is chalked up to GW … er, climate change.”
global warming is real and undeniable… except to those who refuse to believe even real data… read this:
http://science.nasa.gov/earth-science/big-questions/is-the-global-earth-system-changing-and-what-are-the-consequences/you won’t believe because if you do it means you have to think about what needs to be done or not?
“Funny, I remember hurricanes, rain and snow storms and heat waves in the past that easily riviled what we see now. The GW people (this means you Larry) ignore when one of thier vanted predictions don’t come true. 2012 was originally predicted to be one of the worst hurricane years…. [deleted]
you mention insurance companies guy. Have you paid attention to what the costs of insurance has done in recent years? Have you seen the insurance rates for New Jersey as of late? what do you make of this if the insurance companies themselves are getting out of some markets all together and charging almost what a house is worth to insure it in others? Do you think this is a “global conspiracy”?
“I don’t discount science, I use science, I find it interesting and fastinating, but I also completely realize that it doesn’t know all. I KNOW that it changes as more facts become available. I know that it’s not the total answer, I accept that, I know they are flawed I accept that, I’ve learned to take things both in science and in life with a grain of salt.”
if science tells you that a micro-gram of plutonium will kill you – do you believe it?
“Yes, there is climate change. If mankind was wiped off the face of this earth tomorrow, it would still happen, maybe not the way it is now, but it would happen. Do we affect it? Well, by the mere fact that there is the population of the world that is breathing out how many tons of CO2 per day, we affect it, but as I said, even without us, there would be change going on.”
do you NOT think we cannot damage the earth Accurate?
can you conceive of no ways that we could do this?
-
Reed,
Virginia Beach was hit by three hurricanes in 1954 and 1955 and North Carolina suffered far more damage. There is no question among most scientists that humans are expediting weather changes by emitting more carbon dioxide. The Virginia cyclones are rather peanut vendor issues. -
Yup, I was there on the beach watching the monster waves roll in – big storms, and quite beyond the norm – statistics will show those seasons to be what nature is, highly erratic, quite unpredictable, and even today, beyond our poor powers of explication, even by the hour, which is why daily forecasts more and more tell us nothing because otherwise they most likely will be wrong.
-
Yup iwas there too but in nc
-
Newsweek April 28, 1975 http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/05/21/1975-tornado-outbreaks-blamed-on-global-cooling/
-
I do not attribute the tornados to GW at this point. they are disturbing but it would be way premature without science having a say…. and a consensus – which won’t come quick.
-
-
Mark Reynolds, executive director of Citizens Climate Lobby, published an op-ed in the Times-Dispatch today. He wrote:
“For hundreds of thousands of years, prior to the industrial revolution, CO — the principle greenhouse gas that holds heat in our atmosphere — never rose above 300 ppm. The last time Earth’s CO was 400 ppm was during the geologic era known at the Pliocene, some 3 million years ago. During that era, sea levels were 49 to 82 feet higher than they are today. ”
Let me see if I get this straight. Three million years ago, CO2 levels were the same as today. But sea levels were 49 to 82 feet higher today, presumably an indicator that temperatures were far higher as well.
Does that not imply that forces more powerful than CO2 were at work back then? What were those forces? Why aren’t they present today?
It is scientifically undeniable that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that, all other things being equal, rising CO2 levels will increase temperatures. But all other things are *never* equal. There are positive and negative feedbacks galore in the climate system, not all of which are well understood. Also, a factor over geological time, there are external forcings such as volcanic eruptions, gigantic meteor strikes, oscillations in the earth’s orbit and oscillations in solar output.
The *science* of global warming is not a hoax. There are thousands of climatologists doing solid work. The hoax is the claim that the science is “settled,” a claim that is perpetuated by politicians, media and advocacy groups far more than the scientists themselves.
-
the science is pretty much settled in terms of warming and CO2 levels; that’s called credible evidence that most folks do believe is true.
but trying to find a one-to-one correlation between CO2 levels and ocean levels is not for amateur scientists, no disrespect intended, but there is a lot more to the issues than seemingly simple correlations.
I think you’re revealing your “skepticism” again in terms of what the higher levels and temps might mean – or not.
science is never “settled” 100% and as DJ has pointed out, you can have a majority of scientists believing something and then later find out they were wrong.
but the bigger question for me is always this: what are the consequences of being wrong?
on both sides of the equation?
I’m basically from the safe is better than sorry school when the science is not irrefutable but consequences if nothing is done could be catastrophic.
if that is the case – taking prophylactic measures – that can be undone later if it turns out to be wrong is a safer path that believing nothing needs to be done – and if you’re wrong – catastrophe ensures.
we took the safe rather than sorry path on CFC/Ozone and we can still undo it if we acted too strongly but it appears to me that we did it right.
we may never know 100% but why bet the farm when you don’t have to and you can back up later if it’s not the threat originally feared.
what happened to the “conservative” approach?
-
-
“There are thousands of climatologists doing solid work.”
Gee, Jim, I bet those thousands of climatologists really do appreciate this pat on the back. I assume, also, that you have thoroughly studied all of their work.?
No? Then what’s the point of the patronizing comment?
From what little i know of the period, the start was considerably warmer than now but cooled off.
-
The best sources of climate history are daily diaries of those actually alive in earlier times, getting up out of bed every morning, to report on the weather at dawn –
Fortunately, a doctor living in St. Michael’s Maryland did this each day of his lieve between 1805 and 1807 – I can assure that reading his daily weather reports will open your eyes wide on the question of weather change long before our current mad dash into modern scientific nonsense.
Another excellent perspective on the complexity of weather, the inexplicably of it rapid morph and alteration, comes from the book Heaven’s Breath. This poetic masterpiece on wind and weather is the perfect antidote to the the moronic tendencies of today’s group think herd mentality of scientist.
-
using the phrase “herd mentality” to describe a consensus of formally trained scientists who have spent entire careers looking at data is ignorant, Reed.
you can use the “herd” word for groups of people who have no background and no knowledge of something that just follow each other – like a caribou herd but when you apply it to thousands of people who have spent their entire lives truly studying hard science – it’s …. not good guy.
Using your criteria – “herds” of Doctors will tell you that if you smoke you could get lung cancer… that’s not a “herd” guy – that a consensus of people who have background and training in the areas they are agreeing on.
interesting article here:
” Why Rational People Buy Into Conspiracy Theories”
” “The best predictor of belief in a conspiracy theory is belief in other conspiracy theories,” says Viren Swami, a psychology professor who studies conspiracy belief at the University of Westminster in England. Psychologists say that’s because a conspiracy theory isn’t so much a response to a single event as it is an expression of an overarching worldview.”
-
The truth is the reverse. The vast majority of the work product of the vast majority of scientists is wrong or irrelevant. As such, it serves only to send others off on wild goose chases, or it is widely ignored, or it is repeated mindlessly with approval by the majority without a clue, until its forgotten when they hope on the next fad that comes along.
Only the very best of those that fail are never delivered as progress but are served up truthfully as evidence of identified dead ends. But far too few today will admit even though it performs highly valuable service for science.
Conversely the sign of the landmark scientific breakthrough is that it will be attacked and vivified mindlessly by the vast majority of the herd.
If you don’t understand this, you don’t know how science works. But I am not singling out science or scientists for approbation. It’s simply how the world works with regard to serious endeavor and accomplishment whether it be in law, or in literature, or science, history, philosophy, economics, politics, or urban planning, or whatever. It’s the way that stuff works.
If you doubt it drive Interstate 95 from Fredericksburg to DC everyday.
-
I still wonder if today’s climate scientists no longer believe global cooling is happening even though climate scientists in the 70’s had that belief, why I should automatically give today’s group my trust. “We had it wrong in the 70’s, but you can believe us now.” Also, even though the Middle Ages were much warmer than today, without today’s level of carbon emissions, why are carbon emissions the key cause of global warming?
One more time, I am not totally rejecting the idea that today’s climate scientists could be correct. But why do they get a pass on the issue of credibility? I’d like answers to the questions I posted above. They seem quite relevant. Why doesn’t anyone in the MSM ask them? Herd mentality?
-
That’s a great question.
The more you look in history – real history told by those living it, the more anomalies you find. Its seems the list is endless – but for example was not Greenland called green land because it was green? Did not the Romans marveled at the wonderful vineyards in Britain gentle and agreeable climb. Didn’t the Viking called Newfoundland Vinland for the same reason? My doctor friend at St. Michaels in 1805 walked across the Miles River daily. The great question was when river ice break up on the spring. I’d climb winter waterfall ice regularly 30 miles west of Warrenton Va 30 years ago.
This testimony alone is hundreds of years apart, yet spans 2000 years. Meanwhile today’s climate experts issue grand proclamations about our future based on what happened last week.
-
Reed – do you know where GPS and NOAA satellites come from? Hurricane and Tsunami models? Cancer research and treatment? The Hubble Telescope? Ozone detection and research? Lasers, Drones, smartphones, ????
it’s al Science guy and it all works the same way – thousands of people spend years in a hard science curricula in college then years doing research, publishing papers and having their work peer-reviewed….
what is it about this one particular area of science that causes people to denigrate all science and worse – all the people who have dedicated their lives to science? You guys hate govt, hate teachers and public schools, hate colleges and universities, and now science…
I just don’t get it…
-
well.. it turns out that more than a couple of those who did studies did not agree with the characterization that included them in the 97%.
so this is not good… eh?
-
Actually, it is exactly the reverse. I highly value people of accomplishment in all endeavors, both large and small, whether it be in private or public, those working alone or in groups, whether geniuses or mothers at home, or caretakers in places of sickness and pain, or CEO’s or others of all stripes out working on the edge, doing the hard things most will not do, and don’t even what to talk about. And the reason I do is because what these folks do takes tremendous effort, courage, and character to overcome the norm, mostly working in obscurity, and never beating their own drum, or talking about their advanced degrees and expertize much less about their 97. 2% consensus, or claiming God like powers and other such insufferable nonsense without earning it, but those who simple go about the daily task of quietly overcoming the obstacles we the 97.2% everyday put in their way.
So what I do not do is hand out respect to self appointed groups for gratuitous reasons. Its cheap and insults the worthy and unworthy alike.
-
there is no contest here between individual effort and collective effort.
Science does not advance on an individual basis. Individuals contribute to the body of knowledge but it advances when others replicate individuals efforts and the body of knowledge is expanded based on a consensus of those who have worked independently but towards a collective understanding.
No independent person puts up a GPS satellite network. No independent person becomes the sole trusted predictor of hurricane paths. No independent person tells everyone else how pancreatic cancer works.
no independent person builds a road or a school or a library by themselves.
the fundamental difference between human beings and animals is that human beings have the ability to work collectively to build things that are bigger than any one of them could accomplish. They contribute as individuals towards something that is bigger than any individual and that is decidedly not “herding”.
this is how we go forward – how we learn from the flaws in our current NOAA or GPS satellites and put up the next generation which corrects flaws and adds more features rather than just putting up the same satellites over and over.
No one person does this Reed. It’s a collective effort by people who are formally educated in the sciences and work together on issues and challenges via publishing papers and studies that others will look at and validate.
apparently some do not believe in the collective aspect of expanding science…. and equate the peer-review aspect of science to “herding”.
Let me refer you to Thomas Edison – a great inventor – but a man who fought others over the theory of electricity and a man who electrocuted elephants to “prove” that his rivals like Telsa were wrong to pursue AC rather than what he wanted – DC.
It was not pretty. There were vicious fights and accusations. Claims of fraud and worse – but ultimately the science of it did move forward – not by the efforts of one individual – but collectively.
Using Reed’s premise – the science of electricity involved “herds” and advances came about because of individuals who eschewed the “herds”.
here Reed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCx89BRbVeU
this is a video of Edison electrocuting an elephant.
does this make Edison a corrupt and greedy miscreant instead
of a real scientist?science is not pretty. It’s full of conflict, but is it really a “herd”?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.