Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Jon Hodgson]

Fiasco wrote on Sun, 29 November 2009 15:33

Not our fault and can't be stopped.

And yet the majority of scientists who study the subject would honestly disagree with you.

I can't think of any other field where such a high proportion of joe public thinks they know more about the subject than those who spend their lives studying it.

Skepticism can be a healthy thing, but what I see all too often from people on this subject is not skepticism, where one asks questions, but rather a belief that they already know the answers... despite knowing almost nothing about the subject.

[Bill_Urick]

This is fun.

Pointless, but entertaining.

What makes Gore an expert and how much money has he made off this?

Jon, you imply that if a majority of experts in a field say something, our response should be that we are ignorant and they they know better and that we should keep our mouths shut and comply.

I seem to recall the medical community forever being sure that stomach ulcers were stress, spicy food and/or alcohol related. It took one guy willing to infect himself with helicobacter pylori to prove them wrong. This was in 1982, I believe.

These experts are on somebody's payroll because of this and have a serious vested interest in continuing the scam.

I find the argument that I'm ignorant and therefore shouldn't question some self appointed authority figure to be disturbing.

It is, however, consistent with left wing political philosophy.
The few know best and the masses should follow.
Or to put in Orwellian terms, "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."

It is the political left that is driving this for reasons that have nothing to do with climate.

We who disagree are buying into "oil industry propaganda" and want to destroy the planet.

[Jon Hodgson]

Bill_Urick wrote on Sun, 29 November 2009 21:51

This is fun. Pointless, but entertaining. What makes Gore an expert and how much money has he made off this?

Who said he's an expert? I certainly didn't, I don't think he has either.

He made a film presenting the findings of the climate scientists in a way that people were able to grasp it and be moved by it, that doesn't require expertise in the field of climate science, just the ability to understand enough of it to pass on.

I personally find the obsession of US citizens with Al Gore on this matter a little irritating... for most of the people I know, global warming was already old news before he came onto the scene, just because you as a nation were largely ignorant of it before he made a film, don't make the mistake of thinking he "invented" it.

As for how much money he's made from it, I have no idea. But since he's not been involved in the development of the scientific theories and collection of the data, and those that have have not made money from the film, it's a rather tenuous link in my opinion.

Quote:

Jon, you imply that if a majority of experts in a field say something, our response should be that we are ignorant and they they know better and that we should keep our mouths shut and comply.

There's nothing wrong with asking questions, but we ARE ignorant. What do you know about climatology? About the data that has been gathered? The models that have been developed? The multiple areas of supporting evidence?

In percentage terms, you know nothing about the subject, and almost nothing about how much the climate scientists know about the subject.

That doesn't mean the climate scientists definitely have it right, but it does make anything you come up with little more than a guess.

Quote:

I seem to recall the medical community forever being sure that stomach ulcers were stress, spicy food and/or alcohol related. It took one guy willing to infect himself with helicobacter pylori to prove them wrong. This was in 1982, I believe.

Science and medicine make new discoveries all the time. It may be that next year someone will find a new variable or climate mechanism which hasn't been included in the models up till now which means it's all ok. The guy who discovers it will get a Nobel prize, and the rest of the community, once they've verified the results, will largely breathe a sigh of relief, because they won't have to worry about how fucked up the world of their grandchildren will be.

But that will come from further research, not from a bunch of armchair scientists making guesses.

Quote:

These experts are on somebody's payroll because of this and have a serious vested interest in continuing the scam.

And yet they seem to manage to consistently blow deniers out of the water with scientific argument, damn those left wing laws of physics!

Quote:

I find the argument that I'm ignorant and therefore shouldn't question some self appointed authority figure to be disturbing.

Question, yes, but you're not questioning. You starting from the point of view that you know the answer... when you don't even know the real questions.
Having to do something about global warming doesn't suit you... well guess what, it doesn't suit any of us, no matter what our political leanings.

Quote:

It is, however, consistent with left wing political philosophy. The few know best and the masses should follow.

In this field the masses say human contribution to global warming is a problem, it is the few who say it isn't.

Quote:

Or to put in Orwellian terms, "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others." It is the political left that is driving this for reasons that have nothing to do with climate.

In the UK, and I suspect much of the world outside the US, the WHOLE political spectrum is driving this, so from this side of the pond the whole global warming = socialist conspiracy thing is laughable.

Quote:

We who disagree are buying into "oil industry propaganda" and want to destroy the planet.

As opposed to those of us buying into the left wing socialist propaganda and wanting everyone subverted into being state  following sheep?

[Edvaard]

Who benefits financially from either scenario?


"Global warming is true"


Beneficiaries;

A few medium and small sized companies manufacturing and further developing pollution amelioration devices, more efficient motors, alternative power generation, less or zero emission technologies, etc.

And a few book writers.



"Global warming is false"


Beneficiaries;

Long-entrenched major industries with combined multi-trillions of dollars in market capitalization who have long benefited from the status quo and have shown no compunction thus far about starting wars, inciting coups, or destroying villages and ecologically essential environments to maintain that, along with their huge well paid lobbying and PR firms in DC.


And a few book writers.

And Fox news.


I'm sure that as soon as we can determine which book writers and media outlets and leftists or rightists have made the most money from this debate, we can then ascertain which scenario is the most scientifically valid, huh?

Scientists are no different than lawyers or statisticians. You can always find a few to state almost whatever argument/agenda/corporate mandate you like in the respective scientific or medical or legal or statistical terms if you pay them enough money.

Considering the beneficiaries cited above, who do you think has the most funds available for this purpose, and the greatest incentive to do so?


Media oversimplification aside, at the university my overtly conservative Geology professor stated that he and everyone else in the department know that anthropogenic global warming is real, and that the Geo-sciences academic journals argue about various mechanisms and particulars, not about the phenomenon itself.

Likewise my overtly conservative Economics professor states plainly that tax cuts for lower-middle income people provide some boost to the economy that lasts awhile, while tax cuts for the wealthy do little to nothing in that regard, while my overtly liberal Economics professor is getting seriously worried about the big deficit we are incurring.

They are all going by what the science in their fields tells them. They are still entitled to have whatever leanings or general outlook they like, but they know what comes first.



In any good savings plan the first thing to do is to pay off the debt first, eliminating the "negative savings."


The first thing to do in any attempt to attain knowledge and awareness is to cut off the dis-information first, eliminating the "negative knowledge."


Turn off the tube (whether CNN or Fox), the radio rants, and their internet equivalents. The sooner you do that, the less time it will take for you to get caught up.

[Edvaard]

PS

Lest I inadvertently convey any such hubris to the contrary, I am far from being "caught up" myself here, but I'm working on it.

[compasspnt]

Now we find that 90% of all humans will be killed by global warming...

http://www.scotsman.com/latestnews/Warming-will-39wipe-out-b illions39.5867379.jp

[Roadster]

It's gotten impossible for me to even believe there are those who are still in denial about global warming and our hand's on contribution to it.

[Jon Hodgson]

compasspnt wrote on Mon, 30 November 2009 14:49

Now we find that 90% of all humans will be killed by global warming...   http://www.scotsman.com/latestnews/Warming-will-39wipe-out-b illions39.5867379.jp

Without explanation it's  impossible to get it all into context. Kevin Anderson is quoted as saying "might"... is that a worst case scenario if everything goes wrong and nothing goes right? What probability of "might" are we talking about? What are the mechanisms resulting in death? Starvation? Disease? War over limited food resources?

But for anyone who finds the idea of mass deaths impossible to conceive of... what so you think would happen if the rice crops in China and India failed?

[Roadster]

It's funny how so many were able to grasp "global economy" in the blink of an eye. (Or so they thought)

Talk about "global warming" or "global climate change"....different story.

All those terms look pretty mild next to "global extinction".


HA HA!! (where's my aspirin?)

[compasspnt]

One good asteroid makes this all a moot point anyway...

[Jon Hodgson]

compasspnt wrote on Mon, 30 November 2009 22:42

One good asteroid makes this all a moot point anyway...

And one out of control truck makes servicing your car's brakes moot also.

Not really a reason to not service your brakes though, is it?

[fiasco ( P.M.DuMont )]

Jon, you and others may not believe me, but I see both sides of this
and the single most frustrating thing to me is I can't trust anyone.

I am not some conspiracy theorist, undignified bull in a china shop,
under educated, over segregated dummy.

There are legitimate doubts and unanswered questions regarding these issues.
There always are in science.

Everything has become politics, and it worries me greatly.

Until I perceive no ulterior motives on any side, I remain doubtful and suspicious.

[compasspnt]

Jon Hodgson wrote on Mon, 30 November 2009 17:46

compasspnt wrote on Mon, 30 November 2009 22:42 One good asteroid makes this all a moot point anyway... And one out of control truck makes servicing your car's brakes moot also. Not really a reason to not service your brakes though, is it?

Of course.

I meant that flippantly.

[bblackwood]

Fiasco wrote on Mon, 30 November 2009 17:07

Jon, you and others may not believe me, but I see both sides of this and the single most frustrating thing to me is I can't trust anyone. I am not some conspiracy theorist, undignified bull in a china shop, under educated, over segregated dummy. There are legitimate doubts and unanswered questions regarding these issues. There always are in science. Everything has become politics, and it worries me greatly. Until I perceive no ulterior motives on any side, I remain doubtful and suspicious.

Agreed.

[Jon Hodgson]

Fiasco wrote on Mon, 30 November 2009 23:07

Jon, you and others may not believe me, but I see both sides of this and the single most frustrating thing to me is I can't trust anyone. I am not some conspiracy theorist, undignified bull in a china shop, under educated, over segregated dummy. There are legitimate doubts and unanswered questions regarding these issues. There always are in science.

I suspect that if you go to realclimate you'll find that they have answers for most of your unanswered questions, certainly many of the deniers' favourites seem to be long dealt with.

Quote:

Everything has become politics, and it worries me greatly.

Politics has become involved in the science, it HAS to in this case, because it's the only way to make the changes necessary... but don't assume that makes the science political.

Edvaard pointed out quite rightly that the camp that has the most to lose from people believing in AGW is not only wealthy and politically powerful, but also has a history of using that power. So if what the scientists said was just down to who was paying them (as some people seem to think), then at the very least we should be seeing something like a 50/50 split.

Yet despite the wealth of that camp (and all too often the most vocal deniers with scientific credentials can be tied directly to such groups or companies), the overwhelming majority of climate scientists say that AGW is real.

That to me shows that it is NOT about the money for most of the scientific community, and that they genuinely believe in AGW.