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.
Pretending that AGW is as settled and as certain as evolution or gravity as some others have posited on these forums, really stretches it to the breaking point.
It's a disingenuous and pejorative analogy also because it seeks to compare CAGW skeptics to those who might deny gravity or deny evolution in favor of regressing back to man's more primitive explanations for these dynamics such as the world is flat or God created life in 7 days.
The fact is, a good scientist is always questioning things!
We might even come to question "settled science" like the theory of gravity as we learn more about things like string theory or dark matter:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/13/sc...anted=all&_r=0
This does not mean that we choose to regress to believing the Earth is flat, it means that as we learn more about how the universe works, our theories and presumptions change with it.
If we say the "debate is over" or this is "settled science" we effectively KILL science in favor of unyielding dogma and we stay stuck there until such a time as we decide to think freely again.
Same thing with the theory of catastrophic, man made climate change. Many of us are not satisfied with the notion that computer models can predict the future climate or that we understand enough about the climate and all of it's variables and influences enough to even presume to construct a computer model of them in the first place. Many of us are not convinced that the scientific environment is free from politics, activism, dogma, greed and groupthink. We are not convinced that scientist are freely encouraged and supported in investigating ALL angles of the research, even research that casts doubt on the so called consensus view.
The treatment of Judith Curry is a perfect example of everything that is WRONG with the scientific climate today. She doesn't deny AGW, she simply wants openness and transparency and for that she is vilified, marginalized and cast out as a pariah among her peers. What message does that send to the graduate students or tenured professors working in the trenches?
Basically, it's either play ball and do what we want you to do or end up like her.
You're saying the same thing the creationists are, using the same rationale, and pretending that it's different this time. It's a different topic, but ID/creationists and flat Earth people have their own pseudoscience backing them up as well. It doesn't change the fact that the overwhelming majority of scientists agree that evolution, gravity and AGW are real.
I mean, remember this?:
And hey, look at this one-- a Christian stands up to the unjust education system that is trying to crush his independent thinking, which we all know Christians are good at:
^Tell me how this type of reasoning is any different from what you or the other 'skeptics' on this forum are using.
And about Judith Curry-- I don't understand why I am supposed to feel sorry for this woman. Why is this one woman's opinion so much more important than the opinions of the hundreds of science organizations out there? What makes you think there isn't any openness or transparency? If there's such a massive conspiracy, why aren't more people coming forward?
There is plenty of disagreement comes when talking about the effects of warming... some people think it will be severe/apocalyptic, some people think it will be manageable... but it's definitely NOT natural and it's probably best that we stop making it worse, considering our options range from bad to unthinkable.
Last edited by Spatula City; 05-22-2014 at 07:01 PM..
What makes you think there isn't any openness or transparency?.
Have you read any of the emails from Climategate? There is other examples like these:
Quote:
D]on’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites — you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? - our does! […] Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it—thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that.
Quote:
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. […] Can you email Gene and get him to do the same? […] We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
Is there also a graph that includes years before 1880? To be sure, it would have to be based on indirect geologic data, but it might be useful in putting the recent changes in context of the whole.
What I see on that graph is a flattening since 2000. Not for 17 years. But this is not showing the actual temps. What is the zero baseline? And what is the vertical scale from the baseline? I'm assuming temperature deviation, but from what? Obviously it is a mean of some sort, but what exactly?
I didn't want to have to go to the NOAA site, but it looks as though they call it a "reference value."
It would be useful to see an absolute mean temp graph rather than whatever they are using as a reference value. Unfortunately the site gives me an error when I try to bring that one up.
At any rate, this gives me enough motivation to actually look at some of the numbers... ignore the posts here and look at them for awhile.
Download the unadjusted data sets from NOAA. They include the high and low in tenths of a degree. Pick big five cities and five remote areas since 1994. Plot them. Notice the upward trend? Me neither.
Have you read any of the emails from Climategate? There is other examples like these:
It's probably best not to let personal discussions be published since right wingers have a habit of taking statements out of context and running with them, which is exactly what happened with 'Climategate'.
It's probably best not to let personal discussions be published since right wingers have a habit of taking statements out of context and running with them,.
If you feel what I posted above was taken out of context feel free to post the entire email and show why they are out of context.
^Tell me how this type of reasoning is any different from what you or the other 'skeptics' on this forum are using.
Simple. The reasoning doesn't come from blind faith and religious brainwashing, it comes from having an OPEN mind and asking questions when something is not persuasive to you. When those questions are met with insults, anger and dismissive, condescending language, it tends to raise even more red flags.
If anything the side that is guilty of blind faith on this issue is yours. Yours is the side that treats this as a religion with all of the baggage that goes along with one.
No, I've proven you're lying about that five or six times now. Continuing to say it doesn't make it true, it means you'll say things you know are false to support your right-wing masters.
Sort of like a creationist lying for Jesus isn't it?
It's probably best not to let personal discussions be published since right wingers have a habit of taking statements out of context and running with them, which is exactly what happened with 'Climategate'.
But the studies themselves are published.
If you actually read those emails and think they were being taken out of context because of what the spin doctors said afterwords about them, you are the one who will believe what you want to believe despite all evidence to the contrary, not the skeptics.
Hilarious! The NSA, the EPA and a few liberal universities *investigated* Climategate and *surprise* found nothing wrong!
That's like asking Bernie Madoff to audit his own books and then taking his word on it when he says they are on the up and up
Yeah...let's keep arguing about it while the glaciers melt in Switzerland, the polar bears starve in the Artic, and the ice shelf continues to dwindle.
Honestly, the deniers are going to keep it up until the waters close over their heads. The rest of us will build a better future.
Did you drive this week? Your house have heating and AC?
Private e-mails between scientists are not evidence...They are red herrings that deniers jump all over because deniers have nothing to support their OPINION.
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.
