Paper; Global Warming "The Biggest Science Scandal Ever"

[AUDub]

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

When do I get "part of the scenery" status. :tongue:

 

[seebell]

When do I get "part of the scenery" status. :tongue:

Try and be more humble. Weeds and cow patties could be considered scenery!:biggrin:

 

[Tide1986]

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

Not at all.

 

[Tide1986]

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

I don't think so.

 

[AUDub]

Try and be more humble. Weeds and cow patties could be considered scenery!:biggrin:

I take offense! I'm very humble and take good care of my cow patty and weed fields! :biggrin2:

 

[mittman]

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.

 

[Jon]

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]

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.

 

[NationalTitles18]

it is impossible to prove a negative, no scientist would try

You are correct, of course. Scientists attempt to "disprove" the null hypothesis. So the default position is that the "negative" is true until strong enough evidence supports "discarding" the null hypothesis.

 

[Islander]

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!

 

[NationalTitles18]

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]

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).

 

[NationalTitles18]

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]

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?

 

[Jon]

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

 

[rjtide]

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

 

[TideEngineer08]

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]

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]

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?

 

[Bamaro]

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.