I'm Not a Scientist

[billvon 2,394]

>Does not seem to be the case with AWG. Too much fed money and gov power at stake

Meanwhile, worldwide governments funnel almost $2 trillion into fossil fuel subsidies every year. But since that goes to paying your salary, I expect we won't hear anything about that from you.

Like Upton Sinclair once said - "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it."

[lawrocket 3]

[Reply]Science encourages its practioners to challenge their beliefs

[Stumpy 256]

lawrocket

That's where climate science is an exception.

No it's not.
You're welcome.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[billvon 2,394]

>That's where climate science is an exception.

No, it's not. Write a paper, with experimentally verified proof, that CO2 does not increase forcing, and you will win a Nobel prize, guaranteed.

[craigbey 0]

BIGUN

***>Ya know, they're not half bad with some bacon grease.

There's a burger place down here (Slater's) that does a "50/50" - 50% beef and 50% bacon. Maybe they could add a 50% garden burger with 50% bacon. It might appeal to people who are habitually indecisive.

Throw an over-easy egg on the top of it and you've got the perfect breakfast.

https://slaters5050.com/menus/lunch-and-dinner/#burgers

Quote

THE 50/50

50/50, pepper jack, sunny side up egg, avocado mash, chipotle adobo mayo, brioche

Looks like they have some tasty options for breakfast too...
https://slaters5050.com/menus/breakfast/

Sorry for the drift. Just looks too yummy.

[lawrocket 3]

billvon

>That's where climate science is an exception.

No, it's not. Write a paper, with experimentally verified proof, that CO2 does not increase forcing, and you will win a Nobel prize, guaranteed.

Right, bill. Because the whole climate debate is narrowed to exactly that issue. That's why the e-mails showed suggestions of boycotting those journals that published that CO3 did not cause warming.

Come on, bill. The reports after the CRU hack commented on the secretive and clique-based subculture in the climate science community. I think it was the Oxburgh report that said that the climate science community's very insular attitude has brought about mistrust of the climate scientists. I agree.

I go again to Judith Curry. She became HATED by the climate science community. Why? Because she actually engaged deniers. She gave her side. She hearf their arguments. Actually thought some had valid points that required re-examination.

And then she took these points to her colleagues. The response? "In future I will simply assume you are a conduit for untrue statements rather than their originator." - Gavin Schmidt to Judith Curry.

Yep. How dare she? She challenged orthodoxy. She went from eminence in her community to disdain and hatred because she had the stupidity to actually tell them that the deniers might have some legitimate points and to try to insert some different perspective. As she said, to challenge the "groupthink."

She's a moderate voice. She challenged the clique, and this was unacceptable. She challenged the deniers, and this was unacceptable because to engage them was to acknowledge them, and thus give them credibility.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[dmkellett 0]

you don't have to be a scientist to be able to assess evidence.
the evidence is that climate change is happening and is caused by man.
thats it folks...
now when are we going to stop arguing over something that over 95% of scientists agree on ???????????

[lawrocket 3]

dmkellett

you don't have to be a scientist to be able to assess evidence.

Agreed.

[Quote]the evidence is that climate change is happening and is caused by man.

How about, "there is much evidence that climate change is happening. There is also much evidence that human activities are contributory to that change?"

When people speak in absolutes, as you just did, it's pretty easy to nullify it and ruin credibility with one fact.

It's why I prefer a middle ground. Fact: Climate change is natural. Fact: it has happened for at least a couple billion years. Law of nature: it will happen for a few billion more years. Fact: human activities contribute to the change. Assessment: climate change, while natural, has some human causes, too.

This would make me a denier in many circles. An alarmist in others.

[Reply]thats it folks...

[billvon 2,394]

> That's why the e-mails showed suggestions of boycotting those journals that
> published that CO3 did not cause warming.

Sounds like some climate scientists are . . . . just like the people in Speaker's Corner. But I have a feeling that if someone said "you know, I wasn't going to downsize to that Velo 79, but now that I see a post in which Rhys called someone a jackass, I realize that there is NO CONSENSUS in the skydiving community that a small canopy is more dangerous!" you'd point out that acrimonious posts and emails do not change the facts behind downsizing.

Like I said, demonstrate that adding CO2 doesn't increase forcing, publish - and you are guaranteed a Nobel prize. If you really think that good work on the topic would be suppressed, you've been reading too many of RushMC's posts.

Or, if you can't, that's fine too. But not being able to prove such a thesis does not equate to "there's a conspiracy!" - just as there's no conspiracy to suppress cold fusion, perpetual motion machines or antigravity engines. Despite what their "inventors" claim.

[dmkellett 0]

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/sep/27/global-warming-ipcc-report-humans

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-24292615

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/scientists-95-per-cent-certain-that-climate-change-is-manmade-8778806.html

[dmkellett 0]

how obviously intelligent people could possibly still be on the fence about human caused climate change is beyond me.

only scientists who believe in god make me cry more

[tkhayes 125]

Quote

Issue to me: when scientists become policy advocates, they lose a degree of credibility.

not an issue to me at all, especially when they develop new vaccines, or find chemicals that we put into the environment that cause damage, or find a better more fuel efficient car, or whatever it is that they do. Not an issue to me at all.

Issue to me: when politicians completely ignore science and do it their way based on how much money they are getting paid to help get reelected, they lose a degree of credibility.

[rushmc 18]

billvon

>Does not seem to be the case with AWG. Too much fed money and gov power at stake

Meanwhile, worldwide governments funnel almost $2 trillion into fossil fuel subsidies every year. But since that goes to paying your salary, I expect we won't hear anything about that from you.

Like Upton Sinclair once said - "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it."

I have said often her bill and you know it
I would like to see the gov get out of everything
period
but then, you like to forget what does not work for you

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

dmkellett

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/sep/27/global-warming-ipcc-report-humans

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-24292615

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/scientists-95-per-cent-certain-that-climate-change-is-manmade-8778806.html

For someone wanting to be all scientific, I'd suggest that basing an argument on appeal to authority and appeal to popularity are, shall we say, fallacious. Add it red herring and, by golly, you've hit the trifecta! Because they are actual logical fallacies.

So when logic fails, you resort to fallacy. Because logic fails.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 1,623]

lawrocket

[Reply]Science encourages its practioners to challenge their beliefs

That's where climate science is an exception. .

[lawrocket 3]

tkhayes

Quote

Issue to me: when scientists become policy advocates, they lose a degree of credibility.

not an issue to me at all, especially when they develop new vaccines, or find chemicals that we put into the environment that cause damage, or find a better more fuel efficient car, or whatever it is that they do. Not an issue to me at all.

Issue to me: when politicians completely ignore science and do it their way based on how much money they are getting paid to help get reelected, they lose a degree of credibility.

So you have no problem with Ron Paul, MD, taking a position against abortion. Abortion is a medical procedure. He's a doctor. Therefore, he knows what is better for you.

The same logical path is followed by climate scientists knowing what is better for you. Or an economist who tells you that you are better off doing x. Or a lawyer who says you are better off by doing z.

Here's a study. A recent one. http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0110509

And it's also an example of engineering a result. Because they had people soak their fingers in hand sanitizer and, while wet, hold onto receipts for a while. BEcause, as we all know, everybody likes to grab things ad squeeze them with wet hand sanitizer slathered on the hands.

Here's one of the authors from a 1998 interview: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/nature/interviews/vomsaal.html

And another interview from April, 2014: http://www.forbes.com/sites/trevorbutterworth/2014/04/09/bpa-the-scientists-the-scare-the-100-million-dollar-surge/

So this is a guy who has made a career out of raising the alarm about BPA. At least the last 15 years. And his most recent study assumes people will soak their hands with hand sanitizer and will squeeze receipts for a minute. THus to demonstrate a danger we will all face.

Do other fields of science focus on extreme scenarios that are unlikely to happen and engineer results? I don't know why they wouldn't.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[tkhayes 125]

I have no problem with Ron Paul taking a position on abortion as long as he is using medical or scientific facts to back it up.

you have COMPLETELY missed my point.

The difference is, the science on climate change is pretty much settled, not completely, but overwhelmingly. The right wing is DENYING that science, and then basing public policy on it.

Which is different from saying "Hey we understand the science, but we are going to ignore it and base public policy on what we WANT to do instead."

that is the difference.

Everything you quoted is valid as DATA. basing public policy on DATA is valid and basing public policy on WHATEVER OTHER CRITERIA you decide is also valid.

As long as you do not DENY the data while basing your policy on those other factors.

governments do this all the time. The data says mining is mostly safe, but has problems and can be improved, and people still die in mines. No one passes new laws to make the mines safer. But no one stands up and says "people are not dying in mines" - that would be denying the data and then basing policy on it.

Everyone agrees that annoying soliciting phone calls are bad for society and most people want them to stop, the data is overwhelmingly there. So we create a Do-not-call list, but then we do not fund it. What they are saying is that the calls are still annoying, but no, we cannot afford to enforce it. They are not denying that the phone calls do not exist or that they are not annoying.

back to climate change - they are denying that the science exists and then basing public policy on that. All scientists, just like all citizens, and everyone else for that matter can say whatever they want about public policy and I never said any particular group should or should not.

However, politicians are lying when they say the data does not exist and then making policy about it. I would not expect them to be honest about it anyway. Does not mean that I cannot voice my concerns over it.

The science on climate change is overwhelmingly settled. By scientists. Whether or not we actually do anything about it is a separate matter.

[billvon 2,394]

>So you have no problem with Ron Paul, MD, taking a position against abortion.

I don't have a problem with that, no. He's more informed than most. I just disagree with him.

>The same logical path is followed by climate scientists knowing what is better for you.

I have never heard Ron Paul say "avoiding abortion is better for you." I have heard him say that he thinks abortion is murder, and that such decisions should be left up to individual states rather than the Federal government. (Which are inconsistent but that's beside the point.)

Scientists do have a role in shaping public policy. Indeed, the Union of Concerned Scientists advocates for a science-conscious approach to public policy.

> And his most recent study assumes people will soak their hands with hand
> sanitizer and will squeeze receipts for a minute. THus to demonstrate a danger
> we will all face.

You're a smart guy, so I assume you are just pretending to not understand the sort of design-of-experiment used for a test like this.

[JerryBaumchen 1,047]

Hi rocket,

Quote

Abortion is a medical procedure.

And on an even larger scale, it is a societal issue.

You're acting like an attorney when he is losing: 'Hey, look over here.'

Yup, in its base definition it is a medical procedure. But, in a more far-reaching decision, it is a societal issue.

And, for me, the Supreme Court settled it long, long ago.

Jerry Baumchen

[kelpdiver 2]

tkhayes

Quote

Issue to me: when scientists become policy advocates, they lose a degree of credibility.

not an issue to me at all, especially when they develop new vaccines, or find chemicals that we put into the environment that cause damage, or find a better more fuel efficient car, or whatever it is that they do. Not an issue to me at all.

Issue to me: when politicians completely ignore science and do it their way based on how much money they are getting paid to help get reelected, they lose a degree of credibility.

Lawrocket's point, which you complete missed, is that scientists aren't above this. They can selectively view data, and having not even going through the motions of swearing an oath to the Constitution, often choose to ignore the rights of citizens to make their own decisions.

Lawrocket already cited Ron Paul. I point to Stan Glantz, a man so convinced that no one should consume nicotine that he works to make e-cigs just as hard to get/use as the products it replaces. That's not his call. Personally, given a choice of second hand cigarrette/joint smoke or second hand e-cig vapor, it's a no brainer.

As for climate science, the consensus is marred somewhat by the obvious gaps in the modeling (their inability to explain recent trends). But in any event, the data and the policy decisions over what to do about it are very different beasts.

[BIGUN 1,051]

billvon

Like I said, demonstrate that adding CO2 doesn't increase forcing

I don't know if you remember; but even this mostly right-winger was enlightened while watching the contrails of aircraft early one morning. I may not be a scientist; but I have to be open-minded enough to ask the question:

When you have this emitted into the atmosphere:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJ_P1UaBbds

This many times a day (14,000 over the US)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ystkKXzt9Wk#t=45

Then add this to the equation:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1030-09.htm

And it's something that we can't bury our heads in the sand about. As mentioned, Billions of people on the planet breeding billions more... We're either going to have to go down or up for survival. It's not JUST about climate change. It's about environmental change.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[lawrocket 3]

JerryBaumchen

Hi rocket,

Quote

Abortion is a medical procedure.

And on an even larger scale, it is a societal issue.

You're acting like an attorney when he is losing: 'Hey, look over here.'

Yup, in its base definition it is a medical procedure. But, in a more far-reaching decision, it is a societal issue.

And, for me, the Supreme Court settled it long, long ago.

Jerry Baumchen

And like abortion, climate is not about the science so much as it is about the policy. It's a societal issue. With one side against the other side. And here each side will pervert and tist the facts for its own benefit.

The politics of the issue are more important than the science. One has models that do projections. Another has thermometers that say, "your projections are off."

Both sides will change their arguments as stuff happens, as there is evidence for and against. When there's a hurricane, the AGW alarmists will blame global warming and the deniers will say fewer hurricanes are predicted with global warming. Then when the hurricane drought occurs (like now) both sides are like, "Fuck. This is hat was predicted but we screwed ourselves back in '05."

But here's a quick question as a test of certainty:

Do you have as much trust in the predictions of climate models that you would have in, say, the predictions of Newtonian mechanics? That is, do you trust that a climate model can predict the the sea level on Jan 1, 2100 as accurately as it can predict the position of Saturn on that same date?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[BIGUN 1,051]

lawrocket

That is, do you trust that a climate model can predict the the sea level on Jan 1, 2100 as accurately as it can predict the position of Saturn on that same date?

Well, there are variables just as there are with Saturn. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/future.html#sealevel

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[lawrocket 3]

There is the N-body problem. When N>3 there are big problems.

Hen variable are added, the uncertainty increases. We get mathematical random. Chaos.

But I took this from an op-ed in the NYT.

According to the head of NASA's earth sciences division, climate models are as trustworthy as weather forecasts. And both are as trustworthy as, yes, Newtonian mechanics.

[Url]http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/11/12/opinion/wobbling-on-climate-change.html?ref=opinion&_r=0&referrer=[/url]

Of note was this:
[Quote]This whole system of observation, theory and prediction is tested daily in forecast models and almost continuously in climate models. So, if you have no faith in the predictive capability of climate models, you should also discard your faith in weather forecasts and any other predictions based on Newtonian mechanics.

The 2 degrees C increase in temperature by 2100? If you doubt that, you may as well doubt that any action elicits and equal and opposite reaction.

He then stated this:
[Quote]t is almost certain that we will see a rise of two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) before 2100, and a three-degree rise (5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) or higher is a possibility

Isn't that "uncertainty?"

Now, I am not a scientist, but just this week the ESA demonstrated that they could use Newtonian physics to send a machine almost 4 billion miles over ten years and rendezvous with a foreign object 2 and a half by 2 by 1 mile in size, 300 million miles away after altering trajectory 4 times with only planet gravity.

To me, that level of mastery of prediction is awesome to behold. Newtonian physics. Our ability to predict speed, trajectories, etc., seems to be proven enough with enough accuracy to not question it much.

But, yes, Dr. Sellers also may have inadvertently made a point. Newtonian mechanics become chaotic with the introduction of variables. Newtonian mechanics have limitations. The more variables put in, the more chaotic it becomes. Such as the N body problem when N>3.

And chaos sets in. Add a few thousand variable relationships and you get a weather forecast. Short-term is fine. Long-term is chaotic.

Do you trust Newtonian physics more than a climate model? If so, you are a denier. I do not that Dr. Sellers is not a climate scientist. He's just a meteorologist who has orbited the earth on three occasions. Wh( is ith NASA earth scientists putting Brits in charge? He and Schmidt running things? Brittania may not rule the waves, anymore, but they've got NASA by the balls.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,394]

>Do you trust Newtonian physics more than a climate model? If so, you are a denier.

Uh . . . . no.