Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
James Lovelock, the maverick scientist who became a guru to the environmental movement with his “Gaia” theory of the Earth as a single organism, has admitted to being “alarmist” about climate change and says other environmental commentators, such as Al Gore, were too.
The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time… it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising
Oops?
What do you say when you realized that you redirected and/or paniced half of Western society and caused them to spend billions in panic and you were wrong?
This kind of reminds me of them learning at the end of the cold war, that the Soviet Weapons pretty much did not work, or hey look no WMDs in Iraq after all.
Kind of hard to apologize for this type of mistake.
If you had quote mined a loony raving on a street corner it would have been better...at least people would have had to search to figure who that person is.
Using him as a spokesperson for science is like using Fred Phelps as the spokesperson for all Christianity.
Something has changed. When one of the primary scientists upon whom most others rely or at least reference comes out and say "I was wrong. There is none. My bad."
Not as much a global warming thread as a "what do you do when you change the world and then find out you were mistaken?" thread.
What I find interesting is the manitude of the discovery of the error, not the issue itself.
It is like finding out the earth is nto really round after all.
I think I woudl just go hide in a cave somewhere. At least for a while.
Alhore should be immediately arrested and charged with crimes against humanity. Then convicted and sent to North Korea as fodder for soylent green factories to feed the starving.
I think this story is important. I am impressed that a scientist had the guts to admit he was wrong.
His original very dire opinions/conclusions have been widely quoted and used to defend or justify many government programs and political positions.
Now he says his original predictions were VERY wrong. They were based on an incomplete understanding of climate in general. That isn't surprising at all is it? No one can predict with certainty the weather over the next five days. How can they with certainty predict what will happen based on a few decades of data?
If you had quote mined a loony raving on a street corner it would have been better...at least people would have had to search to figure who that person is.
Using him as a spokesperson for science is like using Fred Phelps as the spokesperson for all Christianity.
This is exactly why I keep my politics to myself or lie and say that I'm liberal: to prevent hysterical throw-under-the-bus types from blackballing me from a faculty position.
This is exactly why I keep my politics to myself or lie and say that I'm liberal: to prevent hysterical throw-under-the-bus types from blackballing me from a faculty position.
ScienceBlogs said it best...
Quote:
Another common conspiratorial attack on consensus science (without data) is that science is just some old-boys club (not saying it's entirely free of it but...) and we use peer-review to silence dissent. This is a frequent refrain of HIV/AIDS denialists like Dean Esmay or Global Warming denialists like Richard Lindzen trying to explain why mainstream scientists won't publish their BS. The fact is that good science speaks for itself, and peer-reviewers are willing to publish things that challenge accepted facts if the data is good. If you're just a denialist cherry-picking data and nitpicking the work of others, you're out of luck. Distribution of scientific funding (another source of conspiracy from denialists) is similarly based on novelty and is not about repeating some kind of party line. Yes, it's based on study-sections and peer-review of grants, but the idea that the only studies that get funded are ones that affirm existing science is nuts, if anything it's the opposite.
denialism blog : About (http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/about.php - broken link)
Quote mining isn't data. It's the opinion of the person giving it. The person is a raving lunatic, so their word is taken as the word of a raving lunatic.
denialism blog : About (http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/about.php - broken link)
The peer-review process is another reason why direct democracy doesn't work. Fortunately, in my field, we don't have to deal with such politically charged retards sitting on the conference committees.
Can you speak to the data and why you believe it's "not good"?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
