Manbearpig The Movie

[Chef Jim]

Link....

 

Don't shoot the messenger.  I thought it might be interesting.

 

Link

708220[/snapback]

 

"Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present the truth as they see it," Al Gore sensibly asserts in his film "An Inconvenient Truth",

 

Don't most scientist work from hypothesis? The truth as they see it. What is that crap???

 

And don't worry, I won't shoot you.

[RuntheDamnBall]

Don't most scientist work from hypothesis?  The truth as they see it.  What is that crap???

708306[/snapback]

My guess is that the truth as they see it would be inferred from their use of induction, scientific method, etc., etc., and not just that they read it in a book or thought it sounded nice.

[Johnny Coli]

Link....

 

Don't shoot the messenger.  I thought it might be interesting.

 

Link

708220[/snapback]

The author's suggestion that scientists not directly involved in "climate change" research aren't qualified enough to interpret data is misleading. One does not need to be an expert on a specific aspect of science to understand what impact data might have on the larger picture.

 

The reality is that there is a consensus amongst the scientific community as a whole, recognizing that global warming can be attributed to human activity. In fact, the scientists from twelve national academies of science issued a statement today to the G8.

Scientists urge G8 not to ignore global warming

World leaders must not allow concern for energy security to distract them from taking promised action on global warming, top world scientists said on Wednesday.

 

Climate change solutions agreed at the G8 summit in Scotland a year ago risked being pushed off the agenda at next month's G8 summit in Russia by worries about security of energy supply, they said.

 

(emphasis mine)

 

Here is their statement from last year (Joint science academies’ statement: Global response to climate change (pdf))

Climate change is real

 

There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system

as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now

strong evidence that significant global warming is

occurring1. The evidence comes from direct measurements

of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean

temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in

average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes

to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that

most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed

to human activities (IPCC 2001)2. This warming has already

led to changes in the Earth's climate.

 

(emphasis mine)

The National Academy(s) of Science from twelve nations signed onto the statement today, and eleven of them were on the document from last year. These aren't twelve individual scientists. These are twelve national academies.

 

The author of the opinion piece would have you believe that none of the signatories that had the blessings from their respective national academy members, and none of the scientists recognized for their work by the worldwide scientific community, are qualified to interpret climate change data and fit that data into the larger picture? Based on the comments from a few? That's about as uninformed an opinion as you can get.

[Chef Jim]

My guess is that the truth as they see it would be inferred from their use of induction, scientific method, etc., etc.,

708308[/snapback]

 

Truth as they see it is not necessarily truth but hypothesis, correct? That's the challenge I'm having with this.

[Alaska Darin]

It's ludicrous to think we can continue to pollute the oceans and land masses the way we have been. That doesn't change the fact that "science" and the enviromentalist wackos are just as guilty of fear mongering on this subject as the right wing they so deplore is on (insert favorite talking point here).

 

People can link stuff until hell won't have it, for both sides. At the end of the day, until our governments start passing meaningful legislation and then actually ENFORCE it, nothing is going to change. I'd love to whittle thirty gallons of clean fuel from a piece of wheat, but until I figure it out I'm pretty much stuck with what's out there and affordable.

[Wacka]

The new eco freak catch phrase is "tipping point".

Didn't Ted Danson predict in the 90's that the oceans would be dead by now?

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

It's ludicrous to think we can continue to pollute the oceans and land masses the way we have been.  That doesn't change the fact that "science" and the enviromentalist wackos are just as guilty of fear mongering on this subject as the right wing they so deplore is on (insert favorite talking point here).

 

People can link stuff until hell won't have it, for both sides.  At the end of the day, until our governments start passing meaningful legislation and then actually ENFORCE it, nothing is going to change.  I'd love to whittle thirty gallons of clean fuel from a piece of wheat, but until I figure it out I'm pretty much stuck with what's out there and affordable.

708596[/snapback]

 

This looks suspiciously like pragmatism, and hence has no place on this board.

[colin]

The author's suggestion that scientists not directly involved in "climate change" research aren't qualified enough to interpret data is misleading.  One does not need to be an expert on a specific aspect of science to understand what impact data might have on the larger picture. 

 

The reality is that there is a consensus amongst the scientific community as a whole, recognizing that global warming can be attributed to human activity.  In fact, the scientists from twelve national academies of science issued a statement today to the G8.

Scientists urge G8 not to ignore global warming

Here is their statement from last year (Joint science academies’ statement: Global response to climate change (pdf))

 

The National Academy(s) of Science from twelve nations signed onto the statement today, and eleven of them were on the document from last year.  These aren't twelve individual scientists.  These are twelve national academies. 

 

The author of the opinion piece would have you believe that none of the signatories that had the blessings from their respective national academy members,  and none of the scientists recognized for their work by the worldwide scientific community, are qualified to interpret climate change data and fit that data into the larger picture?  Based on the comments from a few?  That's about as uninformed an opinion as you can get.

708312[/snapback]

 

there is not a consensus on climate change, its cause, or its impact.

 

there are essentially two schools of thought, and one school declared consensus, but that doesn't make it so.

 

there are independent groups (the sepp at www.sepp.org being the most widely quoted one) who feel that the national academies are political and have a bias (they exist to publish reports and get more funding for scary stories --- AIDS killing half of america, global warming, global freezing, nuclear war, etc).

 

the biggest problem with this kind of passion for the issue is that other perhaps more solvable issues get ignored (things like boring regular old pollution) because the sexy topic gets all the interest.