birdog1960 Posted May 17, 2014 Posted May 17, 2014 no, it actually matters if CO2 is to blame. if it isn't, then there really isn't anything to do but accept fate. fortunately, it is due to CO2 and there are remedial measures available to the species.
Ozymandius Posted May 17, 2014 Posted May 17, 2014 when are you going to provide that list of motivations for climate scientists to lie in unison? Why do teachers unions' deny the benefits of school choice / vouchers? Self-interest can get you to believe a lie and participate in groupthink. Additionally, if you've been committed to a certain point of view for a long time, it's really hard to accept conflicting data.
birdog1960 Posted May 17, 2014 Posted May 17, 2014 Why do teachers unions' deny the benefits of school choice / vouchers? Self-interest can get you to believe a lie and participate in groupthink. Additionally, if you've been committed to a certain point of view for a long time, it's really hard to accept conflicting data. not an apt analogy. there are many teachers that agree with school choice. a decent percentage actually teach in private schools. vouchers involves many different issues but again, i doubt a near unanimous viewpoint is as prevalent as it is in climate science. as stated before, i think it's difficult to rationalize self interest in a profession with few material perks to begin with. it's a job that if ultimately successful, makes itself unneeded.
DC Tom Posted May 17, 2014 Posted May 17, 2014 Everyone here who's read more than three scientific papers on this subject, raise their hand. (And the IPCC reports do NOT count.)
birdog1960 Posted May 18, 2014 Posted May 18, 2014 Everyone here who's read more than three scientific papers on this subject, raise their hand. (And the IPCC reports do NOT count.) why not? there you go making up the rules again.
Ozymandius Posted May 18, 2014 Posted May 18, 2014 not an apt analogy. there are many teachers that agree with school choice. a decent percentage actually teach in private schools. vouchers involves many different issues but again, i doubt a near unanimous viewpoint is as prevalent as it is in climate science. as stated before, i think it's difficult to rationalize self interest in a profession with few material perks to begin with. it's a job that if ultimately successful, makes itself unneeded. What if they're not needed so much right now? Self-interest doesn't mean the individual scientists have to be paid millions (although it wouldn't shock me if the Green industry kickbacked some to the leading climate scientists). It could just mean the feeling of being important, of doing research that saves the world and wins recognition and awards. As for the level of consensus, first of all, scientific consensus has been wrong many times in the past. But I don't believe man-caused global warming is a true consensus. If it were a consensus and they were that confident, Climategate would not have occurred. Bullying of dissenters would not occur. As a comparison, whether evolution is correct or not, there is much greater scientific consensus there.
DC Tom Posted May 18, 2014 Posted May 18, 2014 why not? there you go making up the rules again. I know you haven't. Your knowledge of the subject literally doesn't go beyond pictures.
B-Man Posted May 18, 2014 Posted May 18, 2014 (edited) Why Global Warming Alarmism Isn’t Science Science is not a set of dogmas, and it is not a pronouncement by a committee. It is a method. Richard Feynman, perhaps the world’s most eminent physicist, put it this way: In general, we look for a new law by the following process: First we guess it; then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right; then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience, compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with the experiment, it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is—if it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong. The catastrophic anthropogenic global warming theory is based entirely on models, which are programmed by their creators to predict disaster. But we know for a fact that the models are wrong, because they disagree with reality. When the facts collide with a theory, the facts win. At Watts Up With That?, Don Easterbrook applies the scientific method to the recently-produced National Climate Assessment (NCA). The NCA predicts all kinds of awful consequences from a hypothetical rise in temperature that is based exclusively on models, not on observation. Easterbrook finds that the NCA fails the test of reality. Here are a few examples. NCA assertion: “Temperatures are projected to rise another 2°F to 4°F in most areas of the United States over the next few decades.” “By the end of this century, a roughly 3°F to 5°F rise is projected under a lower emissions scenario, and a 5°F to 10°F rise for a higher emissions.” Facts: How do we check the validity of this prediction? Well, we can look at comparisons of previous computer model results to recorded satellite temperatures. Figure 2 shows Roy Spencer’s plot of 44 of the latest climate models versus satellite measurements. As his graph shows, the models were not even close to the real measured temperatures. The obvious conclusion here is that the models failed miserably, a fact admitted to by the IPCC in their latest report. More at the link: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/05/why-global-warming-alarmism-isnt-science-2.php . Edited May 18, 2014 by B-Man
TH3 Posted May 18, 2014 Posted May 18, 2014 what motivates the opposing sides here? why would someone hypothesize and scientifically support global climate change when they truly believe it isn't real? why would someone dismiss it when the evidence suggests that it is real? i can imagine many answers to the latter (most of them concerning conservation of wealth or positive corporate or individual impacts). i can imagine few for the former, especially among relatively lowly paid climate scientists. You do realize where you are right? You have stumbled in to a water cooler conversation at a big company....the same 6-7 guys hang out here all the time - you know the type.....the guys who think they know everything - they are soooo smart - just ask them - or better yet just look at their coffee cup mugs... but in spite of all this vision and greatness they haven't advanced to upper management....they can't believe their intelligence hasn't been noticed and they have become - predictably - "against the mainstream". They find solace in being against things rather than for them, they find it easier to adopt conspiracy theories (after all - their must be a conspiracy to explain why they are not in charge) than to come to grips with the complexities and realities of the landscape. They think there are simplistic answers to the companies complex problems. They think everything that management does is stupid and misguided and offer up constant criticism but no pragmatic or executable solutions. They find solace here at the water cooler - they sit around reinforcing each other with cynical snippets and one liners that give themselves the false confidence of a small crowd of think-a-likes. The water cooler has become much like teenagers with texting - getting that little jolt of reinforcement from their buddies - so they hang out here all the time. You know where you are....
meazza Posted May 18, 2014 Posted May 18, 2014 You do realize where you are right? You have stumbled in to a water cooler conversation at a big company....the same 6-7 guys hang out here all the time - you know the type.....the guys who think they know everything - they are soooo smart - just ask them - or better yet just look at their coffee cup mugs... but in spite of all this vision and greatness they haven't advanced to upper management....they can't believe their intelligence hasn't been noticed and they have become - predictably - "against the mainstream". They find solace in being against things rather than for them, they find it easier to adopt conspiracy theories (after all - their must be a conspiracy to explain why they are not in charge) than to come to grips with the complexities and realities of the landscape. They think there are simplistic answers to the companies complex problems. They think everything that management does is stupid and misguided and offer up constant criticism but no pragmatic or executable solutions. They find solace here at the water cooler - they sit around reinforcing each other with cynical snippets and one liners that give themselves the false confidence of a small crowd of think-a-likes. The water cooler has become much like teenagers with texting - getting that little jolt of reinforcement from their buddies - so they hang out here all the time. You know where you are.... You go girl!
birdog1960 Posted May 18, 2014 Posted May 18, 2014 (edited) You do realize where you are right? You have stumbled in to a water cooler conversation at a big company....the same 6-7 guys hang out here all the time - you know the type.....the guys who think they know everything - they are soooo smart - just ask them - or better yet just look at their coffee cup mugs... but in spite of all this vision and greatness they haven't advanced to upper management....they can't believe their intelligence hasn't been noticed and they have become - predictably - "against the mainstream". They find solace in being against things rather than for them, they find it easier to adopt conspiracy theories (after all - their must be a conspiracy to explain why they are not in charge) than to come to grips with the complexities and realities of the landscape. They think there are simplistic answers to the companies complex problems. They think everything that management does is stupid and misguided and offer up constant criticism but no pragmatic or executable solutions. They find solace here at the water cooler - they sit around reinforcing each other with cynical snippets and one liners that give themselves the false confidence of a small crowd of think-a-likes. The water cooler has become much like teenagers with texting - getting that little jolt of reinforcement from their buddies - so they hang out here all the time. You know where you are.... i do, indeed. but give credit where it's due. if they're here, they are not simultaneously getting reinforcement from the most maileable of sources for water cooler dudes: fox news. i've never worked at a big company so i've really only seen the phenomenon on a small scale. at any rate, we're both here lately with some regularity so i'm not sure it's wise to throw stones. Edited May 18, 2014 by birdog1960
meazza Posted May 18, 2014 Posted May 18, 2014 i do, indeed. but give credit where it's due. if they're here, they are not simultaneously getting reinforcement from the most maleable of sources for water cooler dudes: fox news. i've never worked at a big company so i've really only seen the phenomenon on a small scale. at any rate, we're both here lately with some regularity so i'm not sure it's wise to throw stones. Says the person who posts with motherjones
3rdnlng Posted May 18, 2014 Posted May 18, 2014 You do realize where you are right? You have stumbled in to a water cooler conversation at a big company....the same 6-7 guys hang out here all the time - you know the type.....the guys who think they know everything - they are soooo smart - just ask them - or better yet just look at their coffee cup mugs... but in spite of all this vision and greatness they haven't advanced to upper management....they can't believe their intelligence hasn't been noticed and they have become - predictably - "against the mainstream". They find solace in being against things rather than for them, they find it easier to adopt conspiracy theories (after all - their must be a conspiracy to explain why they are not in charge) than to come to grips with the complexities and realities of the landscape. They think there are simplistic answers to the companies complex problems. They think everything that management does is stupid and misguided and offer up constant criticism but no pragmatic or executable solutions. They find solace here at the water cooler - they sit around reinforcing each other with cynical snippets and one liners that give themselves the false confidence of a small crowd of think-a-likes. The water cooler has become much like teenagers with texting - getting that little jolt of reinforcement from their buddies - so they hang out here all the time. You know where you are.... What is the mainstream opinion on global warming here at PPP?
keepthefaith Posted May 18, 2014 Posted May 18, 2014 Everyone here who's read more than three scientific papers on this subject, raise their hand. (And the IPCC reports do NOT count.) A very relevant question. I haven't. My mind isn't made up on the subject. I simply haven't been convinced yet that climate change is mostly man made because the climate has changed significantly over the past 10,000 years mostly without Man's impact. When people like Obama state that anyone who doesn't agree is wrong, I become even more skeptical. The man doesn't realize how not credible he is apparently. If climate change is significantly man made, then the questions for me become how realistic is it that we can stop or reverse change? At what costs? How much can we realistically impact the rate of change which appears to be ever so slow anyway? How else can we adapt to slightly warmer temps over time? How do we get all on the globe to cooperate? Are we more likely to be wiped out by disease before we all drown in the boiling ocean or frozen by the next ice age? When someone reports "if we melt Greenland and part of Antarctica over the next 100 years we'll add 40 feet to the ocean level which will mean bye-bye to Florida", and they don't report any reason or facts to believe that those areas will melt over the next 100 years, I turn the page. The climate change folks continually hurt their own cause when they get caught manipulating their research and make outrageous claims of impending doom.
3rdnlng Posted May 18, 2014 Posted May 18, 2014 (edited) Famed scientist Dr. Ichiro Serizawa seems to get it just about right: http://www.washingto...alarmism-block/ There’s a lot going on here, but think about it this way: Serizawa, the only man who seems to grasp the true nature of the issue facing humanity, believes that the ecosphere will heal itself, will restore its own balance. He denounces mankind’s belief that we are able to drastically impact the environment in such a way that would make it uninhabitable. In other words, the Earth is a massively complex system, one that we can’t really damage by pumping a little excess carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. We can, however, make things radically worse for mankind by arrogantly believing in our own ability to ruin, then fix, the world. The nuclear bomb that threatens to wipe out San Fran represents mankind’s fumbling attempts to fix a problem it has no ability to impact—it is a rather explicit denunciation of the urge to “do something!” even though we have no idea what to do. We can make things much worse for ourselves, but we can’t really stop nature from running its course. And nature will be just fine regardless of what we sentient apes believe—or do. Edited May 18, 2014 by 3rdnlng
birdog1960 Posted May 19, 2014 Posted May 19, 2014 clever. if i were to try to intentionally mislead a large group of people on climate, the audience for this movie would be a very good target over, lets say, a remake of "othello". therein lies the problem however. this drew 90+ million. othello wouldn't. and then there are folks that quote dialogue lines from a truly ridiculous movie premise as evidence for their political point.
Gary M Posted May 19, 2014 Posted May 19, 2014 You do realize where you are right? You have stumbled in to a water cooler conversation at a big company....the same 6-7 guys hang out here all the time - you know the type.....the guys who think they know everything - they are soooo smart - just ask them - or better yet just look at their coffee cup mugs... but in spite of all this vision and greatness they haven't advanced to upper management....they can't believe their intelligence hasn't been noticed and they have become - predictably - "against the mainstream". They find solace in being against things rather than for them, they find it easier to adopt conspiracy theories (after all - their must be a conspiracy to explain why they are not in charge) than to come to grips with the complexities and realities of the landscape. They think there are simplistic answers to the companies complex problems. They think everything that management does is stupid and misguided and offer up constant criticism but no pragmatic or executable solutions. They find solace here at the water cooler - they sit around reinforcing each other with cynical snippets and one liners that give themselves the false confidence of a small crowd of think-a-likes. The water cooler has become much like teenagers with texting - getting that little jolt of reinforcement from their buddies - so they hang out here all the time. You know where you are....
3rdnlng Posted May 19, 2014 Posted May 19, 2014 clever. if i were to try to intentionally mislead a large group of people on climate, the audience for this movie would be a very good target over, lets say, a remake of "othello". therein lies the problem however. this drew 90+ million. othello wouldn't. and then there are folks that quote dialogue lines from a truly ridiculous movie premise as evidence for their political point. Damn, you truly are a simpleton and,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, you can't take a joke.
birdog1960 Posted May 19, 2014 Posted May 19, 2014 (edited) Damn, you truly are a simpleton and,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, you can't take a joke. why do you think the washington times is using space in their paper for this story? are they known for comedy? it would be interesting to explore the investors behind the movie as well. Edited May 19, 2014 by birdog1960
3rdnlng Posted May 19, 2014 Posted May 19, 2014 why do you think the washington times is using space in their paper for this story? are they known for comedy? it would be interesting to explore the investors behind the movie as well. I'm sure it was just some of the right leaning Hollywood establishment investors.
Recommended Posts