Paper; Global Warming "The Biggest Science Scandal Ever"

[NationalTitles18]

Stereotypical skeptic? Not based on my definition but that's another issue

On the political power grab, I agree completely. It is 100% obvious and clear that the Environmental movement was hijacked years ago by the anti-capitalist left, communists, extreme socialists, etc that saw the movement as a particularly effective weapon for harming the right and their "evil corporatist" friends. What's worse is that they are very very happy to lie and even gloss over the sins of their own in order to accomplish their far left goals. They yap on about this and that while hypocritically flying around in massively inefficient private jets and own 10K+ square foot palaces while making a fortune selling carbon credits and other nonsense (looking at you Al Gore)

but what is most sad about all of this is that, in the end, they weren't wrong. I wish they were. I fought alongside the right on this for years. Pointed out these hypocrisies, quoted The Skeptical Environmentalist and Dixie Lee Ray and you know what? I was wrong, as were they, the planet is being effected by our behavior and ultimately we do need to do some things, and fast.

What is most clear to me at this point is that politicians won't solve this. Neither will the free market, mostly because we don't have one. The billionaires running the right are fully aligned with the energy companies and while I don't believe they are the evil characters out of "Captain Planet" they are certainly very willing to line their pockets while looking the other way. The billionaires on the left and their multimillionaire friends in the Entertainment industry are just as bad. I argue this with my lefty friends all the time. Their lies have caused those of us in the middle to question it all. They think the end justifies the means, it doesn't. The means just confuses the issue and causes us to question everything to the point of paralysis, as we can see in this very thread

oh, and for the record I have no idea what to do about this but at this point I've got my hopes pinned on science and technology figuring a way. In the 50's the math all showed that there was no way we could feed the population of earth, then Norman Borlaug came along and saved the world (look him up, he's a freaking hero that should be honored). Who will be the Borlaug of the 21st century? Elon Musk is certainly trying as is Dean Kamen, Peter Diamandis, Bill Gates and several others, but I suspect like old Norman it will be someone unknown quietly working away in a lab and it will start with the best three words in science, "Huh, that's odd".

Best post in the thread.

 

[NationalTitles18]

aw shucks, thanks guys

Borlaug's been a hero of mine ever since I first heard of him back in an old issue of Scientific American in the 90's

GMO's? Mostly I hate the term. We've been genetically modifying organisms so long I seriously doubt anyone could ever find a first time. We could point to Gregor Mendel as perhaps the great great grandfather of it all but he only formalized artificial selection as a scientific endeavor, we've been doing it with crops since we first started agriculture. Ever see what corn started as? It was a grass. Same with Banana's (for fun here google Ray Comfort Banana and then look at a non modified natural banana not the Cavendish Comfort is holding) and broccoli, heck cauliflower doesn't even exist in nature, there are thousands of examples. You, me, we all eat GMO's everyday and at practically every meal.

So based on that I am for GMO's. Where is get's a little dicier for me is with some, not all or even most of the modern GMO's. Want to add Beta Carotene to rice, aka Golden Rice, and solve massive issues for billions of people in the 3rd world? I'm all for it. Want to make your crop resistant to glyphosate (aka round-up) so you can drench your food crop in it and not kill the plant you want me to eat? There is where I draw the line. When these crops first came out we were warned that super weeds and super bugs would come about as a result, and guess what? Monsanto and their scientists assured us that it wouldn't happen, and well of course it has, so I find it rather hard to take their current dismissals seriously.

If you were to pin me down I would say. GMO's are an incredibly important, perhaps even necessary technology that has massive potential for abuse and unintended consequences. Most of what is being done is good and again needed but I do worry about what could happen

You are on a roll today.

 

[Tide1986]

wow, you and I are much closer in age than I pictured you

You thought I was much older didn't you? I'll be 47 in August.

 

[AUDub]

I come from logic-based thinkers. My Dad was a University Professor and my Mom has her Masters+30....in Education....and are both very intelligent and logic-based thinkers. So, I do have an affinity for Math -- and Science both. But, I found myself early in my career more fascinated by the personal interactions between people. I am a people watcher and reader....and I love seeing how people to react to a good argument.....

I admire your persistence....but I am also quite happy you are a Barner. I wish you would take a few of these lefties on here back with you to Lee County

With regards to the topic.....I would love to know how many scientists in the 70s thought we were headed to another ice age.

Some of your "hard science" buddies in the 70s.....and there are dozens more....if you need more. I'm wondering why your "hard science" buddies are right this time, but so wrong 40 years ago.

A minority, as any review of the published scientific literature from that period would reveal. The consensus opinion supported a warming trend.

This link sums it up pretty well. I liked their conclusion enough to quote it here:

There was never scientific consensus that the Earth was cooling. That is a myth. That's not to say that there weren't alarmists forecasting doom. Some did; they just weren't scientists. Those people also weren't helping anything. Climate change deserves honest discourse from both sides of the political spectrum. The Left's alarmism may be as equally counterproductive as the Right's denialism. Climate change is real and something needs to be done about it. To find a solution we need to strip away biases, do away with petty point-scoring, and recognize what we agree upon: a less polluted planet benefits everyone.

 

[CajunCrimson]

A minority, as any review of the published scientific literature from that period would reveal. The consensus opinion supported a warming trend.

This link sums it up pretty well. I liked their conclusion enough to quote it here:

That link -- is a leftist site....what do you think they will say....that article and others like it all surfaced over the past 2 years AFTER people finally realized we are heading into another cooling period.....and that the calls for continued heating of the planet over the next 2-3 decades was wrong.....

Your author....

Steven "Ross" Pomeroy is the assistant editor of RealClearScience. A zoologist and conservation biologist by training

There are articles piled on top of articles from that era.....in the NY Times, Time, Newsweek, WSJ, etc.....as well as mainstream Sci Journals of the time.....nice effort to twist that....but no dice!

Plus some of the other articles by your boy Pomeroy.....

"Can You Propel Yourself in Space by Farting?"
"A Chimpanzee Has Rattled Off a Drum Solo"
and
"Is Breathing Oxygen a Terrible Idea"

(heavy sigh!)

 

[CajunCrimson]

You thought I was much older didn't you? I'll be 47 in August.

You are older than me by 4 months....

 

[Jon]

You thought I was much older didn't you? I'll be 47 in August.

and I just turned 45 but yeah I had you pictured late 50's at the earliest, hope that doesn't offend

 

[AUDub]

That link -- is a leftist site....what do you think they will say....that article and others like it all surfaced over the past 2 years AFTER people finally realized we are heading into another cooling period.....and that the calls for continued heating of the planet over the next 2-3 decades was wrong.....

Your author....

So rather than dispute the content of the article, particularly this passage...

"A review of climate change literature between 1965 and 1979, undertaken in 2008, found that 44 papers "predicted, implied, or provided supporting evidence" for global warming, while only seven did so for global cooling."

...you'll dismiss it out of hand because it fails your ideological purity test. Fine then. How, uh, contradictory in light of this statement:

I come from logic-based thinkers.

I mean, it's not like I pointed the same fallacy out around 8 pages ago.

There are articles piled on top of articles from that era.....in the NY Times, Time, Newsweek, WSJ, etc.....as well as mainstream Sci Journals of the time.....nice effort to twist that....but no dice!

We are discussing the consensus opinion among scientists. If you can't tell the difference between peer-reviewed literature written by actual climate scientists on the subject and pop-sci articles, we really won't be able to advance this conversation.

Plus some of the other articles by your boy Pomeroy.....

"Can You Propel Yourself in Space by Farting?"
"A Chimpanzee Has Rattled Off a Drum Solo"
and
"Is Breathing Oxygen a Terrible Idea"

(heavy sigh!)

Yeah. So what?

 

[seebell]

Can You Propel Yourself in Space by Farting?

I have, on occasion, achieved lift off!:eek2:

 

[AUDub]

I have, on occasion, achieved lift off!:eek2:

A sophomoric but interesting question from a physics standpoint.

 

[CajunCrimson]

So rather than dispute the content of the article, particularly this passage...



...you'll dismiss it out of hand because it fails your ideological purity test. Fine then. How, uh, contradictory in light of this statement:



I mean, it's not like I pointed the same fallacy out around 8 pages ago.



We are discussing the consensus opinion among scientists. If you can't tell the difference between peer-reviewed literature written by actual climate scientists on the subject and pop-sci articles, we really won't be able to advance this conversation.



Yeah. So what?

I did dispute it....it's a leftist site....every article he writes has a leftist spin....

.....you can quote that article....but I can guarantee you that I could find hundreds of articles from the 70s that would completely contradict what you typed. But, it's pointless.....

I'm just glad you are who you are.......I'm done......not mad......but, if we were at a party, I would have left this conversation a long time ago.....

 

[AUDub]

I did dispute it....it's a leftist site....every article he writes has a leftist spin....

You did not. You dismissed it out of hand because the source bothers you. Facts aren't worth your consideration if you don't like the source, apparently.

You should have put logic-based thinking in blue.

.....you can quote that article....but I can guarantee you that I could find hundreds of articles from the 70s that would completely contradict what you typed. But, it's pointless.....

And none of that would mean a hill of beans concerning your assertion that my hard science "buddies" we're wrong, when in fact, the consensus was already established and has only gotten stronger. I have the majority of peer reviewed literature on the matter. You have popular science articles. LOL.

I'm just glad you are who you are.......I'm done......not mad......but, if we were at a party, I would have left this conversation a long time ago.....

Buh-bye.

 

[NationalTitles18]

I dare say you are taking this attitude a little to far for a visitor - even for non-sports.

 

[seebell]

From the NASA website. Consensus: 97% of climate scientists agree

List included.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

I don't know why AUDub would be called a visitor. If he is not a member then I guess I'm not a member? Would be good to increase the level of civil discourse though.

 

[Jon]

I dare say you are taking this attitude a little to far for a visitor - even for non-sports.

and I would say that he is as much a visitor as you or I at this point and does that status even matter on non-sports? IMO it shouldn't

In fact I think cajun is the one that has taken it too far and ganging up ain't cool

 

[Islander]

I dare say you are taking this attitude a little to far for a visitor - even for non-sports.

LIKE

 

[Islander]

Anyone with AU in Their name on TF is what I call a visitor.

 

[NationalTitles18]

From the NASA website. Consensus: 97% of climate scientists agree

List included.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

I don't know why AUDub would be called a visitor. If he is not a member then I guess I'm not a member? Would be good to increase the level of civil discourse though.

I have several problems with a "consensus". The first is the fact that there was a concerted effort to keep dissenting voices from peer-review publications (this has been well documented). That calls into question not only the "consensus" itself, but also the motivations of those working in concert to shut out dissenters - not to mention their integrity.

In addition, a consensus is not proof or evidence. Barry J. Marshall and Robin Warren forever changed not just medicine, but turned the field of microbiology (and by extension cosmology in relation to the number heavenly bodies "suitable" for life) upside down when "everyone knew" that 1. ulcers were caused by stress and 2. nothing can live in an environment as acidic as the human stomach. Although certainly not the only discovery in that field, it certainly further stretched what was considered "habitable" and the extent of extremophile variability.

It wasn't that the reasoning was far off base - stress does have an influence on ulcer development and we had never found life at a pH of 1-2.

Consensus does not prove an idea. It means nothing. Well, it does mean some pretty smart folks are in general agreement, but as shown happening very recently, a group of smart guys can and do get it wrong.

And when those smart guys get involved in the politics of it, their science often suffers from the bias. They have to defend their opinion, after all. And when the orthodoxy - or many in it - seek to punish and wreck careers and reputations of dissenters you have more incentive for the science to suffer.

If that enough to completely discredit the idea? No. Not even close.

It does undermine credibility of those scientists engaging in that behavior (and their friends in the media) and it causes people to doubt the science due to the association to such unsavory behavior. That aspect cannot be ignored in a serious discussion of the issue.

 

[NationalTitles18]

and I would say that he is as much a visitor as you or I at this point and does that status even matter on non-sports? IMO it shouldn't

In fact I think cajun is the one that has taken it too far and ganging up ain't cool

As far as I am concerned he can say what he likes. My problem was/is with the way he says it.

I tolerate him because most of the time he is at least respectful and has some pretty good input at times. On occasion I might even, gulp, enjoy his input. But I don't like the attitude.

 

[seebell]

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/07/15/3680736/lindsey-graham-late-night/

I've been seeing a lot of Graham lately. He's risen a few notches in my estimation based on his commentary about The Donald.

“I know I’m not a scientist,” he continued, “but here’s the problem I’ve got with some people in my party: When you ask the scientists what’s going on, why don’t you believe them? If I went to 10 doctors and nine said, ‘Hey, you’re gonna die,’ and one says ‘You’re fine,’ why would I believe the one guy?”