March for Science

[aix_xpert]

I'm saying that:

1. "Settled" science was deceptively described by Medic. Medic said no more snow, no polar icecaps, etc. was already supposed to happen as a matter of settled science. It was never settled science that Nebraska would be a wasteland by 1996, etc. He finds an unsubstantiated quote from fox (which can't be sourced) and says that was settled science. It's clumsy and deceptive tactic that shows he has to mislead and play word games to make a case. This is why I don't trust the skeptic community - it seems like there's always misdirection.

2. The "settled" part of the science is that carbon results in climate change, which is more extreme and hotter over time. It's deceptive to say that it was settled that there wouldn't be snow by 2013. Medic moved the goal post really quickly after his characterization of "settled" science was addressed.

3. You and medic are also pretending that scientific conclusions aren't refined, narrowed, improved, etc. over time. Name me a scientific discipline that hasn't improved over time. I can name dozens off the top of my head. You guys characterize that as a weakness of climate science, which shows you're not objective. You would never say "Oncology is incompetent and untrustworthy discipline" because of unsuccessful treatments and theories they pursued in the late 1970's.

4. Most skeptics, if pushed just a little, will demonstrate they're not interested in truth or objectivity. Take a look at Medic's response to a very fair question: What's the other side? That's a very fair question to someone that is objective. Instead, he lied and mischaracterized settled science. I've asked Glove on multiple occasions what degree of proof would be required to prove to him that carbon is causing climate change. It's always a deflection. There is simply no science that would ever satisfy these skeptics -- they just don't want it to exist, so presto, they manufacture arguments.

5. Many of the skeptic claims parrot professional corporate denials from the tobacco industry. Lots of close parallels. Just the nature of the arguments that we've all heard before is compelling to me.

6. It's always easy to punch holes in a theory. There's lots of data that temperatures are becoming much, much hotter. I could play the skeptic's game and say that the skeptic community also denied that for a long time, too. That doesn't determine whether it's getting hotter, though.

All of these combine to pretty conclusively establish the skeptics are full of shit, imo. I welcome objective science and objective analysis, but the usual sophistry and PR arguments just aren't compelling.

At least you gave a reasoned response. Thank you sys.

1 & 2) Its always been the alarmist camp that has called global warming "settle science". And its these same alarmists that make the wild predictions about sea levels rising 20 feet (as in Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth). So while you are right, I don't think anyone really believes that all of the wild predictions are going to occur and that science has foretold it. But its disingenuous of you to abstractly separate the alarmists from their dire (and thus far unrealized proclaimations of doom).

3) Not at all. In fact, I'd love to see that. But instead, every time some questions a finding, its the alarmist camp that rises to name calling and denegrating those that question. I do think that some (like Trump) have been absurd in their denial statements, and that there are some that are absolutely close-minded in the acceptance of either side. But when scientists are denigrated for questioning the results, thats when climatologists lose me and their positions lose credibility.

4) Not sure I follow this, but I imagine that both sides have its blind followers. I've raised a number of points that you chose to ignore in order to address other fallacies presented by Medic or others. For example, do you agree that based on the availability of very significant government funding, its in the scientists best interest to draw conclusions that promote the dramatization of man-made global warming?

5) The tobacco industry said what it said in order to keep its gravy train going. You choose to believe that the energy companies say what they say to keep their carbon-based gravy train going. However, you refuse to believe that the alarmists aren't also motivated to be alarmists in order to keep their gravy train going.

6) Not sure I follow your meaning its easy to punch holes in the denier's theories? I'm not sure I've seen many denier's theories. I know they've questioned the data. This goes back to the challenge I have of the climatologists processes. Many of the studies refuse to release their raw data for inspection. Where it has been released, there has been clear and confirmed modification of the data. Usually its documented as modeling adjustments or other scientific (and potentially justified) reasons. But when someone questions those reasons, they are ostracized to the "denier" community.

In the end, I don't know that the truth is. What I do know is that I'm skeptical of anyone who lacks transparency and is pushing for more power, both of which strongly describe the global warming alarmist community.

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

Why has climate science failed to produce one single accurate prediction?

Yesterday. They were pretty accurate about the forecast. Log onto the national weather service or any of the Oklahoma weather tv stations -- they're all pretty accurate on a consistent basis imo. And I'd bet they're more accurate than they were in the 1970's, too.

I don't know who has quoted what to get what -- I'm not a clearing house for anybody's talking points. I'm a guy in Oklahoma that hasn't studied the issue in depth, but can spot a line of bullshit regardless of who's saying it. I just want an intellectually honest exchange that doesn't go down constant rabbit trails of exaggeration, misdirection and alarmism. Saying climate change isn't real because some liberal was alarmist about it 30 years ago is like saying that terrorism isn't real because a conservative was alarmist about it.

Again -- I'm fine with skepticism but not lying about what the other side said. You tried to pitch crazy predictions as being settled science and it never was.

 

[aix_xpert]

Again -- I'm fine with skepticism but not lying about what the other side said. You tried to pitch crazy predictions as being settled science and it never was.

Sys, how do we separate the crazy prediction part from the settled science part when they are included in the same reports and stated by the same individuals? And we are sorry that after 30 years of crazy predictions made in the name of climate change (30 years ago it was called global cooling), we are skeptical when we hear more of these crazy predictions. But we then use these same crazy predictions to drive decisions of real consequence (such as the Paris Accord). These predictions drive decisions that allow the control of trillions of dollars of economic impact.

 

[Medic007]

5) The tobacco industry said what it said in order to keep its gravy train going. You choose to believe that the energy companies say what they say to keep their carbon-based gravy train going. However, you refuse to believe that the alarmists aren't also motivated to be alarmists in order to keep their gravy train going.

syskatine has told us that funding bias is not only not present in climate research, it's not possible. Hard to contemplate that level of ignorance.

His last rant is the usual diatribe of lefty bullshit engineered to avoid facts. Deflect, point fingers, name call. It's literally all they do. Don't agree with Obama? Racist. Not voting for Hillary? Sexist. Don't buy 100% into this month's climate change predictions? Denier. It's been very interesting to see posts from left of center leaning folks like davidallen, pilot, and SMemmett all of whom I consider to be well rounded independent thinkers, and compare them with syskatine and GL97 or whatever his latest name is who are hardcore party line parrots. Blows me away to see the divide between mature political thought and what WaPo or HuffPo regurgitated into the mouths of the baby birds today.

Manmade climate change is a possibility, but where is the smoking gun? All we have really been shown is some level of correlation, not causation. The dire predictions made by scientists have yet to materialize. That tells me that either the models used are flawed, or the folks presenting information are flawed. A monkey rolling a f#$%ing dice probably has a better probability of making a correct prediction. And if the accuracy of the models/information is always that wrong, why the hell are we trying to make policy based on them? I don't know of any other industry that has had 40 plus years of mulligans but still insists they are correct.

I don't think the invested scientific community and politicians are willing to say they don't really know because of the political and financial inconvenience of that admission. Al Gore didn't tour the globe because he gives a shit. He made a killing promoting something that would make him even more money.

Call me a denier, skeptic, whatever, I'm not going to support policy that is based on years of failed alarmist predictions. That's just common sense. During his speech in Indonesia in 2014, John Kerry made a point I can stand behind, and it was that if the worst thing about climate research is that they are wrong and the predictions didn't pan out, at least we have cleaner air, water, and land, and ultimately less dependence on fossil fuel. I dig that thought. Love it actually and he's dead on. Where I part company is using alarmism to try to convince people we have to do all of these things NOW or our unborn grandchildren are doomed before they're born despite no real supporting evidence to support the alarm.

 

[Medic007]

Again -- I'm fine with skepticism but not lying about what the other side said. You tried to pitch crazy predictions as being settled science and it never was.

Nope. And you're dishonest for suggesting that's what I posted. And you're fine with that. And that's ok by me. You being blatantly dishonest isn't a new concept and I doubt I'm the only here not shocked by it.

I would ask you to post exactly which crazy prediction didn't come from the climate researchers and/or politicians who use their information for alarm, but we both know you'll go into another mouth foaming moronic tirade and not actually answer the question.

 

[Medic007]

Yesterday. They were pretty accurate about the forecast. Log onto the national weather service or any of the Oklahoma weather tv stations -- they're all pretty accurate on a consistent basis imo. And I'd bet they're more accurate than they were in the 1970's, too.

Yep, they are certainly more accurate predicting weather than they were 30 years ago. My point exactly. Thanks for making it for me. Why have the predictions regarding global cooling/warming/climate change not become more accurate in the same time period?

I'm not a clearing house for anybody's talking points.

Lol. If that were only true.

Saying climate change isn't real because some liberal was alarmist about it 30 years ago is like saying that terrorism isn't real because a conservative was alarmist about it.

I have never once posted that "climate change isn't real." Not once. My position hasn't changed from the climate does in fact change and has for 4 billion plus years. I simply question the science behind claims that it's greatly affected by humans to the point we are constantly at a tipping point of no return. Claiming that I or anyone else who questions that science are saying climate change isn't real is just pure unadulterated intellectual dishonesty.

I just want an intellectually honest exchange that doesn't go down constant rabbit trails of exaggeration, misdirection and alarmism.

I literally couldn't make this shit up if I tried. Your team has been deeply rooted in rabbit trails of exaggeration, misdirection, and alarmism for more than 40 years regarding the climate. I actually made a very succinct post about a few of the slew of comments made by your climate Messiah during his 2 terms, complete with links to the White House archives. WTF was he basing that alarmism on? Did he just randomly make that shit up himself? And now you defend that by claiming you want an intellectually honest exchange free from the shit you and your team has become notoriously famous for? I am literally laughing out loud right now dude. Holy shit! You're literally a real life cartoon character parody of the left.

 

[N. Pappagiorgio]

I just want an intellectually honest exchange that doesn't go down constant rabbit trails of exaggeration, misdirection and alarmism.

 

[Medic007]

That was me a few minutes ago. Funniest shit I've seen posted on a message board in a while.

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

Sys, how do we separate the crazy prediction part from the settled science part when they are included in the same reports and stated by the same individuals? A

I think that science is typically published in scientific journals and papers, or something that reflects a consensus view of scientists. For example, you won't find a peer reviewed journal or paper that says Nebraska will be a barren wasteland by 1996. Likewise, you won't find some signed statement from 500 scientists (with credentials, not making youtube videos out of their house between seances) saying Nebraska would be a barren wasteland by 1996.

I dont' think that a politician or reporter saying something wild constitutes settled science. My suggestion would be to tune out Washington D.C. and the corporate media and look to the sources they cite, if they even do.

And we are sorry that after 30 years of crazy predictions made in the name of climate change (30 years ago it was called global cooling), we are skeptical when we hear more of these crazy predictions.

It depends on who made the crazy predictions. Natural healers have made all kinds of crazy claims about curing cancer. They can say aaaaall they want to, I want to hear from a board certified oncologist or a study by someone with real credentials and data. So I don't hold it against oncologists that a guy in a strip mall in Topeka says he can cure liver cancer with St. John's Wort. It would be silly to overlay my issues with his science over what a board certified oncologist says. Most of us understand that.

Please show me some scientific consensus that was predicting an ice age in 1987. I am confident that if pressed, I can show you science was screaming about the ozone layer and that was successfully fixed. It would be interesting to see if there was skepticism over that one, too.

These predictions drive decisions that allow the control of trillions of dollars of economic impact.

What predictions? The Topeka guy, or a board certified oncologist? A guy that says someone said something about Nebraska one time, or a real prediction made with scientific integrity and competence?

Mark Twain said it's easier to fool someone than to convince them they're being fooled. You won't ever convince me I'm being fooled by citing fools. Don't cite bullshit stuff like Medic, don't cite a styx666beastcrusher and his mom, tell me where hard science has screwed it up in a way that suggests they're incompetent.

Either way trillions of dollars will be impacted. That's why I would liek to see hard evidence instead of medic-style exaggeration and distortion.

I have to work now.

 

[aix_xpert]

I think that science is typically published in scientific journals and papers, or something that reflects a consensus view of scientists. For example, you won't find a peer reviewed journal or paper that says Nebraska will be a barren wasteland by 1996. Likewise, you won't find some signed statement from 500 scientists (with credentials, not making youtube videos out of their house between seances) saying Nebraska would be a barren wasteland by 1996.

I dont' think that a politician or reporter saying something wild constitutes settled science. My suggestion would be to tune out Washington D.C. and the corporate media and look to the sources they cite, if they even do.



It depends on who made the crazy predictions. Natural healers have made all kinds of crazy claims about curing cancer. They can say aaaaall they want to, I want to hear from a board certified oncologist or a study by someone with real credentials and data. So I don't hold it against oncologists that a guy in a strip mall in Topeka says he can cure liver cancer with St. John's Wort. It would be silly to overlay my issues with his science over what a board certified oncologist says. Most of us understand that.

Please show me some scientific consensus that was predicting an ice age in 1987. I am confident that if pressed, I can show you science was screaming about the ozone layer and that was successfully fixed. It would be interesting to see if there was skepticism over that one, too.



What predictions? The Topeka guy, or a board certified oncologist? A guy that says someone said something about Nebraska one time, or a real prediction made with scientific integrity and competence?

Mark Twain said it's easier to fool someone than to convince them they're being fooled. You won't ever convince me I'm being fooled by citing fools. Don't cite bullshit stuff like Medic, don't cite a styx666beastcrusher and his mom, tell me where hard science has screwed it up in a way that suggests they're incompetent.

Either way trillions of dollars will be impacted. That's why I would liek to see hard evidence instead of medic-style exaggeration and distortion.

I have to work now.

Apparantly citing Al Gore isn't good enough for you. And if you don't think his dire predictions drive the governing consensus, then I'm sorry, but you are the fool Mark Twain talks about.

 

[Medic007]

For example, you won't find a peer reviewed journal or paper that says Nebraska will be a barren wasteland by 1996.

True, Michael Oppenheimer made this claim in his 1990 book Dead Heat. Somebody should let the climate research community and politicians know that Oppenheimer is a fiction writer posing as a scientist because he's managed to work his way into the upper echelon of climate science and his predictions have been widely cited. He's a professor at Princeton and has held positions that influence policy including the IPCC, Kyoto Protocol, the Clean Air Act, and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

How can a non-scientist cracker fiction writer get that high up in the climate science hierarchy without anyone noticing? Freaking weird.

If those damn lefty politicians who use this crazy fiction as a basis for policy would stop, that would be great. At least you're finally catching on that the bullshit peddled by leftist politicians is actually bullshit. Baby steps bro.

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

Apparantly citing Al Gore isn't good enough for you. And if you don't think his dire predictions drive the governing consensus, then I'm sorry, but you are the fool Mark Twain talks about.

Right! He's a former politician that made a documentary! Now if he quoted some scientific journal, and we go find the journal or article he quoted and it was just flat wrong, you're part way there. At the same time let's look to some other scientific journals in other disciplines published at the same time and see if there have been any changes.

This idea of "scientist" and "science" just doesn't penetrate does it? After all that and you quote... Al Gore. Good Lord. Why Al Gore? Because he made a documentary? Because that's who you've heard deniers pile on?

 

[07pilt]

Exxon:

"The risk of climate change is clear and the risk warrants action. Increasing carbon emissions in the atmosphere are having a warming effect. There is a broad scientific and policy consensus that action must be taken to further quantify and assess the risks."

Shell:

"
Our lives depend on energy wherever we live. But in order to prosper while tackling climate change, society needs to provide much more energy for a growing global population while finding ways to emit much less CO2.

Shell has long recognised the climate challenge and the role of energy in enabling a decent quality of life. We believe that, while technological developments will emerge, effective policy and cultural change is essential to drive low-carbon business and consumer choices and opportunities. The transition to low-carbon solutions is best underpinned by meaningful government-led carbon “pricing” mechanisms.

We welcome efforts made by governments to cooperatively reach the global climate agreement and support long-term climate goals that balance environmental pressures with development opportunities. We particularly welcomed the United Nations Paris Agreement on climate change, which came into force on November 4, 2016. The agreement seeks to limit global warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius by managing climate and environmental pressures while ensuring economic development."

Chevron:

"Chevron shares the concerns of governments and the public about climate change risks and recognizes that the use of fossil fuels to meet the world’s energy needs is a contributor to rising greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the earth’s atmosphere. GHGs contribute to an increase in global temperatures. We believe that taking prudent, practical and cost effective action to address climate change risks is the right thing to do. Mitigation of GHG emissions, adaptation to climate change and continuation of scientific and technological research should all be considered."

BP:

"As scientists and engineers, BP recognizes the urgency of the climate challenge - and we intend to be part of the solution. We are calling for a price on carbon, increasing gas in our upstream portfolio, investing in renewables and low carbon innovation, and pursuing energy efficiency."

 

[Medic007]

Exxon:

"The risk of climate change is clear and the risk warrants action. Increasing carbon emissions in the atmosphere are having a warming effect. There is a broad scientific and policy consensus that action must be taken to further quantify and assess the risks."

Shell:

"
Our lives depend on energy wherever we live. But in order to prosper while tackling climate change, society needs to provide much more energy for a growing global population while finding ways to emit much less CO2.

Shell has long recognised the climate challenge and the role of energy in enabling a decent quality of life. We believe that, while technological developments will emerge, effective policy and cultural change is essential to drive low-carbon business and consumer choices and opportunities. The transition to low-carbon solutions is best underpinned by meaningful government-led carbon “pricing” mechanisms.

We welcome efforts made by governments to cooperatively reach the global climate agreement and support long-term climate goals that balance environmental pressures with development opportunities. We particularly welcomed the United Nations Paris Agreement on climate change, which came into force on November 4, 2016. The agreement seeks to limit global warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius by managing climate and environmental pressures while ensuring economic development."

Chevron:

"Chevron shares the concerns of governments and the public about climate change risks and recognizes that the use of fossil fuels to meet the world’s energy needs is a contributor to rising greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the earth’s atmosphere. GHGs contribute to an increase in global temperatures. We believe that taking prudent, practical and cost effective action to address climate change risks is the right thing to do. Mitigation of GHG emissions, adaptation to climate change and continuation of scientific and technological research should all be considered."

BP:

"As scientists and engineers, BP recognizes the urgency of the climate challenge - and we intend to be part of the solution. We are calling for a price on carbon, increasing gas in our upstream portfolio, investing in renewables and low carbon innovation, and pursuing energy efficiency."

No way dude. Big oil is the information source for all deniers. There's no way those people are investing in anything but cheap to produce dirty tar sand oil.

If they were actually doing these things that they are clearly not because they are big oil, I applaud them for moving those directions even if we actually aren't all going to become climate refugees because of them.

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

@aix_xpert THIS is consensus.

 

[Medic007]

I dont' think that a politician or reporter saying something wild constitutes settled science. My suggestion would be to tune out Washington D.C. and the corporate media and look to the sources they cite, if they even do.

If only Washington DC didn't have its fingers in a lot of funding pie in regards to climate research. You are speaking my language now though. Idiotic predictions should not be the basis for policy and we should be listening to the actual scientists on all things related to climate, not to the political types.

When a well known scientist makes a, as you called it, crazy prediction, we should be interested in why the prediction was made and what information was it based on. Sadly, a well known scientist that also served as Obama's climate czar, Dr. John Holdren (who has publically made several failed crazy predictions), chose to not release the data that he claims he used to produce the video that was available on whitehouse.gov where he tried to explain how global warming causes extreme winter weather (The Polar Vortex Explain in 2 Minutes). Even the scientific community was baffled by his claim. The resultant lawsuit regarding the FOIA request that was denied was quite the shit show and info regarding that is already previously linked in a post. The problem you ask? Dr. John Holdren, who is actually a very well credentialed scientist that served as a climate change policy advisor to the President, has actually made crazy predictions and then refused to release the data he used to make them. Here's the rub. If according to you, I shouldn't be listening to this whacko, then why the f&^% was the President of the US listening to him? It's a conundrum and that type of shit is why I question everything and look at information from every imaginable direction, and base my opinion on how credible the scientist appears to be.

We should focus on the work of scientists that are willing to look at all of the data, including that which finds faults in the models, and examine those for information to make better models instead of the silly bullshit of labeling "Misinformer!" "Denier!" Also sadly, Some of the climate science community strongly disagrees with that concept.

Dr. John Christy, a very well credentialed climate scientist at the University of Alabama, took on the challenge of reviewing the available data from multiple sources and compared the model outputs to real world observations. I would have expected the climate change community to examine the results from a highly credentialed climate scientist with a welcoming eye and dive into his data with an open and objective mind. Strangely enough, even though his results haven't been scientifically refuted, he's been labeled a Denier! and Misinformer! from some of the folks engaged in his same profession who chose to attack him and the actual real world data from multiple sources that he used to test the accuracy of the models instead of taking another critical look at the models. Why a scientist resorts to that kind of behavior is indeed puzzling and one can only surmise there is political influence of some kind involved.

Dr. Christy's congressional testimony is here.

Maybe you'll see this as serious conversation, maybe you won't. Either way, it's been enjoyable as always, and that is a serious compliment to you sir.

 

[Medic007]

@aix_xpert THIS is consensus.

I'm gonna take a look at this. I'll report my opinion later.