Paper; Global Warming "The Biggest Science Scandal Ever"

mittman

All-American
Jun 19, 2009
3,942
0
0
I would dare say that any scientist not on board with the current consensus would have trouble being part of the leading scientific organizations worldwide today, the inertia is too strong. I met someone at a security software conference a few years back who used to write predictive modeling software and became skeptical of many of his own previous factors/weighting of those factors. He said he was let go just for that fact. I do have to take that with a grain of salt, one never knows when they are getting snowed. However, there are so many factors involved that is it is a truly humbling task. One thing that he told me does ring true. Those that say things with certainty get proved wrong with certainty.

I continue to be a skeptic as to the level of human causation and dismiss alarmist pretty much out of hand, especially if they have a vested interest in it. There is no difference in my mind in a scientist who is paid by an organization trying to prove a true and a scientist being paid by an organization trying to prove a false. I don't see a lot of evidence of organizations who are indifferent to the results of their findings when it comes to climate science these days.
 
Last edited:

Jon

Hall of Fame
Feb 22, 2002
12,202
2,568
173
Atlanta 'Burbs
I would dare say that any scientist not on board with the current consensus would have trouble being part of the leading scientific organizations worldwide today, the inertia is too strong. I met someone at a security software conference a few years back who used to write predictive modeling software and became skeptical of many of his own previous factors/weighting of those factors. He said he let go just for that fact. I do have to take that with a grain of salt, one never knows when they are getting snowed. However, there are so many factors involved that is it is a truly humbling task. One thing that he told me does ring true. Those that say things with certainty get proved wrong with certainty.

I continue to be a skeptic as to the level of human causation and dismiss alarmist pretty much out of hand, especially if they have a vested interest in it. There is no difference in my mind in a scientist who is paid by an organization trying to prove a true and a scientist being paid by an organization trying to prove a false. I don't see a lot of evidence of organizations who are indifferent to the results of their findings when it comes to climate science these days.
it is impossible to prove a negative, no scientist would try
 

TideEngineer08

Hall of Fame
Jun 9, 2009
20,197
1,501
178
Beautiful Cullman, AL
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?”
Trouble is, he has no chance of getting the nomination. He is one of the whiniest, mealy mouthed politicians on the planet, IMO.

Jon laid out the trouble of the consensus earlier. They've used questionable means to justify the ends and it has created a huge swath of the population that just can't trust them. So, people like Graham just don't get it. Although, it does help to see someone on the right begin to champion the cause of doing something about climate change/global warming. Still.. Graham just isn't the best one to be doing it, IMO. I would never vote for him. I suspect most others wouldn't either.

Again, I'm skeptical but as I began some time ago to earnestly determine why I am skeptical, I realized it wasn't so much because of the topic (humans are adversely affecting the climate which may or perhaps will bring a great deal of difficulty to our daily lives) it was because of the political "solutions." The economic destruction that will occur if we go along with the typical leftist ideas of combating this issue.

I too believe in science and technology's ability to find a solution to this. I just don't believe in the government's ability to execute it. And whether the whole climate change/global warming thing is a threat or not, I still believe in being cleaner more efficient people who don't trash the environment they live in.
 

Islander

1st Team
Jul 18, 2008
623
41
38
Hoover or Dauphin Island
Trouble is, he has no chance of getting the nomination. He is one of the whiniest, mealy mouthed politicians on the planet, IMO.

Jon laid out the trouble of the consensus earlier. They've used questionable means to justify the ends and it has created a huge swath of the population that just can't trust them. So, people like Graham just don't get it. Although, it does help to see someone on the right begin to champion the cause of doing something about climate change/global warming. Still.. Graham just isn't the best one to be doing it, IMO. I would never vote for him. I suspect most others wouldn't either.

Again, I'm skeptical but as I began some time ago to earnestly determine why I am skeptical, I realized it wasn't so much because of the topic (humans are adversely affecting the climate which may or perhaps will bring a great deal of difficulty to our daily lives) it was because of the political "solutions." The economic destruction that will occur if we go along with the typical leftist ideas of combating this issue.

I too believe in science and technology's ability to find a solution to this. I just don't believe in the government's ability to execute it. And whether the whole climate change/global warming thing is a threat or not, I still believe in being cleaner more efficient people who don't trash the environment they live in.
Well said-my sentiments exactly!
 

NationalTitles17

Super Moderator
May 25, 2003
17,011
6,328
253
Mountainous Northern California
Trouble is, he has no chance of getting the nomination. He is one of the whiniest, mealy mouthed politicians on the planet, IMO.

Jon laid out the trouble of the consensus earlier. They've used questionable means to justify the ends and it has created a huge swath of the population that just can't trust them. So, people like Graham just don't get it. Although, it does help to see someone on the right begin to champion the cause of doing something about climate change/global warming. Still.. Graham just isn't the best one to be doing it, IMO. I would never vote for him. I suspect most others wouldn't either.

Again, I'm skeptical but as I began some time ago to earnestly determine why I am skeptical, I realized it wasn't so much because of the topic (humans are adversely affecting the climate which may or perhaps will bring a great deal of difficulty to our daily lives) it was because of the political "solutions." The economic destruction that will occur if we go along with the typical leftist ideas of combating this issue.

I too believe in science and technology's ability to find a solution to this. I just don't believe in the government's ability to execute it. And whether the whole climate change/global warming thing is a threat or not, I still believe in being cleaner more efficient people who don't trash the environment they live in.
Well said. 3 things mainly bother me on this subject: 1. The alarmist claims of catastrophe and 2. alarmist claims of larger temp increases based on positive feedback mechanisms that to date have not worked out that way and 3. the very bad behavior of scientists (and others) who do believe the ends justify the means and in the process undermine their credibility and the credibility of the science by extension.
 

TideEngineer08

Hall of Fame
Jun 9, 2009
20,197
1,501
178
Beautiful Cullman, AL
Well said. 3 things mainly bother me on this subject: 1. The alarmist claims of catastrophe and 2. alarmist claims of larger temp increases based on positive feedback mechanisms that to date have not worked out that way and 3. the very bad behavior of scientists (and others) who do believe the ends justify the means and in the process undermine their credibility and the credibility of the science by extension.
I agree. Even though my opinions on this matter have changed somewhat, it's still going to take a lot to convince me we are headed for catastrophe tomorrow if we don't act now (because of your points 2 and 3). I'm more on board with a slow, gradual decline in our standard of living if we don't get serious as a population about doing something. And what that something is? Well, it's not handicapping our economy as a good faith measure to the rest of the world who will gladly follow our example.

Again... focus on being a cleaner people, who should desire efficiency. Get the government out of the way and let these brilliant entrepreneurs do their thing. Stop trying to incite panic (which has not worked anyway).
 

NationalTitles17

Super Moderator
May 25, 2003
17,011
6,328
253
Mountainous Northern California
I agree. Even though my opinions on this matter have changed somewhat, it's still going to take a lot to convince me we are headed for catastrophe tomorrow if we don't act now (because of your points 2 and 3). I'm more on board with a slow, gradual decline in our standard of living if we don't get serious as a population about doing something. And what that something is? Well, it's not handicapping our economy as a good faith measure to the rest of the world who will gladly follow our example.

Again... focus on being a cleaner people, who should desire efficiency. Get the government out of the way and let these brilliant entrepreneurs do their thing. Stop trying to incite panic (which has not worked anyway).
I almost typed something earlier about the boy who criedd wolf and chicken little, but yeah...I agree.
 

mittman

All-American
Jun 19, 2009
3,942
0
0
it is impossible to prove a negative, no scientist would try
In the strict sense of the term I agree. I think you are smart enough to know that is not what I meant.

I will rephrase:

There is no difference in my mind in a scientist who is paid by an organization to prove human causation is high enough to warrant massive government spending /intervention and a scientist being paid by an organization to prove that the spending/intervention is unnecessary. I do not see a lot of evidence of organizations who are indifferent to the results of their findings when it comes to climate science these days.

Better?
 
Last edited:

Jon

Hall of Fame
Feb 22, 2002
12,202
2,568
173
Atlanta 'Burbs
In the strict sense of the term I agree. I think you are smart enough to know that is not what I meant.

I will rephrase:

There is no difference in my mind in a scientist who is paid by an organization to prove human causation is high enough to warrant massive government spending /intervention and a scientist being paid by an organization to prove that the spending/intervention is unnecessary. I do not see a lot of evidence of organizations who are indifferent to the results of their findings when it comes to climate science these days.

Better?
much actually

though I do appreciate your compliment I wasn't quite sure what you meant
 

TideEngineer08

Hall of Fame
Jun 9, 2009
20,197
1,501
178
Beautiful Cullman, AL
http://patriotpost.us/opinion/36771

pres obama introduces LOTS of new environmental regs to help prevent 0.01 degree centigrade change in earth's temp. smh
Has nothing to do with climate change at all, and everything to do with more power and control for the federal government. Which also means more money coming out of your pocket for bills, and less disposable income.

That's what is going to happen. Again, nothing will happen regarding the climate - NOTHING. But prices, taxes, etc WILL go up. Energy prices are about to "necessarily skyrocket." Change we can believe in.
 

Bamaro

Hall of Fame
Oct 19, 2001
22,127
1,588
173
Jacksonville, Md USA
Has nothing to do with climate change at all, and everything to do with more power and control for the federal government. Which also means more money coming out of your pocket for bills, and less disposable income.

That's what is going to happen. Again, nothing will happen regarding the climate - NOTHING. But prices, taxes, etc WILL go up. Energy prices are about to "necessarily skyrocket." Change we can believe in.
Nothing to do with "power and control", everything to do with taking the lead, setting an example and doing the right thing.
 

Bodhisattva

Hall of Fame
Aug 22, 2001
20,411
327
93
Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida
Nothing to do with "power and control", everything to do with taking the lead, setting an example and doing the right thing.
How many threads have we had with examples of govemment stupidity at epic levels? In those theads you often chime in on how incompetent government is. Yet you want govenmet to lead, set an example, and do the right thing? What makes you think the government is capable of doing this?
 
Last edited:

Bamaro

Hall of Fame
Oct 19, 2001
22,127
1,588
173
Jacksonville, Md USA
How many threads have we had with examples of govemment stupidity at epic levels? In those theads you often chime in on how incompetent government is. Yet you want govenmet to lead, set an example, and do the right thing? What makes you think the government is capable of doing this?
Because this is an area that with the right direction it could be beneficial. What we dont need is hundreds more civil servants hired and then do little.
 

Latest threads

TideFansStore.com - Get your gear!

Purchases made through our TideFansStore.com link may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.