Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 10/16/2010 3:57:51 PM PDT by neverdem
In last week’s column, I lamented the devolution of the climate debate into dueling ad hominem attacks, which has led in almost a straight line to the incredible totalitarian vision of the 10:10 climate group’s recent film showing school kids getting blown up for not adhering to the global warming alarmists’ position.
In writing that column, it struck me that it was not surprising that many average folks may be unfamiliar with the science behind the climate skeptic’s position, since it almost never appears anywhere in the press. This week I want to give a necessarily brief summary of the skeptic’s case. There is not space here to include all the charts and numbers; for those interested, this video and slide presentation provides much of the analytical backup.
It is important to begin by emphasizing that few skeptics doubt or deny that carbon dioxide (CO2) is a greenhouse gas or that it and other greenhouse gasses (water vapor being the most important) help to warm the surface of the Earth. Further, few skeptics deny that man is probably contributing to higher CO2 levels through his burning of fossil fuels, though remember we are talking about a maximum total change in atmospheric CO2 concentration due to man of about 0.01% over the last 100 years.
What skeptics deny is the catastrophe, the notion that man’s incremental contributions to CO2 levels will create catastrophic warming and wildly adverse climate changes. To understand the skeptic’s position requires understanding something about the alarmists’ case that is seldom discussed in the press: the theory of catastrophic man-made global warming is actually comprised of two separate, linked theories, of which only the first is frequently discussed in the media.
The first theory is that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels (approximately what we might see under...
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.forbes.com ...
Read Michael Crichton’s book “State of fear” and he explains it all.
In the book, the environmentalists conspired to change the phrase “global warming” to the phrase “climate change”.
I laughed.
Who could be so foolish and so stupid as to believe that if the temperature goes up or the temperature goes down either way it must be climate change and therefore it is a bad thing.
Climate change–doesn’t happen every day? Isn’t it called the weather?
Anyway, read the book–I strongly recommend It…
According to our own observation, we all lived on this earth without dinasaurs, which vanished because of weather or whatever the reason? I can guarantee you that me, and 99% of the earth inhabitants do not lose sleep thinking how life would have been if dinasaurs were still around.
The holocaust of the oil spill in Alaska, and New Orleans illustrated that the earth is more than capable of compensating for trouble. Our body is more than capable for compensating for traumas.
The busy body environmentalists are fed by the America haters of the socialist European intellectuals, who hate our extravagant life style.
The busy body environmentalists are fed by the America haters of the socialist European intellectuals, who hate our life style.
Fixed.
The environmental fanatics have given scientists a worse reputation than used car salesmen.
Yup, scientists are as low as lawyers now, and they deserve to be.
Ping
 |
||
| · join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic · subscribe · | ||
Much like social science-ish, it attempts to use the methodology and borrow the respectability, but without the rigor or reproducibility.
People understand that science works, so they have glommed on to the word for whatever it is they are doing. Your shampoo is “Scientifically formulated”.
And as far as reputation, scientists are right up there with doctors and firemen as far as having respect. But then again, most are actually doing science, not academic think tank foundational fear mongering.
That's a good point - Since many people tend to lump all scientists together, the alarmist climate 'scientists' are trashing the reputations of those doing the hard sciences . I've come to view science today as existing in three distinct branches: legitimate science (rigor and reproducibility), social 'science' (fuzzy and feel-good), and climate 'science' (evil and deceptive).
Most scientists don't know enough outside their own area of expertise to comment, and hope that other scientists are ethical and committed to real word results not politicized outcomes; but I know if I was sending an e-mail telling people I used a “trick” to “hide the decline” involving any of my own science work - heads would roll. Mine first. And nobody would defend me.
But different rules apparently apply to the science-ish branches. Seeings as how it is all mostly bullsh*t anyway, you want to come down hard on someone for fudging the bullsh*t? Well yes, actually - if they are going to try to call it science, and peer reviewed and all that.
Besides ‘trick's to ‘hide the decline’ the e-mails also showed collusion to circumvent the peer review process. Their bovine excrement was falling apart and they were caught saying that they would ‘change the peer review process if he have to’; they knew they had to in order to keep ‘hiding the decline’.
Thanks for keeping the distinction clear.
Never forget that the Communists tried to call their economic system a “science”. If it was then every ‘experiment’ was an absolute failure, with ‘theory’ not only not explaining all observed data, it was at odds with all of it.
“Don’t confuse climate science-ish with actual science.”
Since The National Academy of Sciences, The Royal Society, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, Nature, and Scientific American, have all expressed themselves forcefully and dogmatically in favor of bogus climate science, the reputation of science as a whole is now in disrepute.
My condolences to real scientists who still do real scientific work.
If anyone in actual science were caught doing ANY of that it would be termination time, and rightly so.
I am unsure of the argument why this is A-OK in climate science-ish when it would be grounds for termination and intellectual exile in science.
It's OK because it's being done to 'save the planet' from being destroyed by the Evil Capitalists. I seem to recall a quote about ends justifying means. I think that fully applies here.
I get a stock bonus every year that accrues 20% a year over five years, most scientists have similar motivations vis a vie stock prices, American pie, white picket fences, and SUV’s filled with geeky little children.
An Ad Hominem attack would be: 'Al Gore is a democrat, so therefore he can't claim global warming is real...'
However, 'Al Gore stands to profit from the furthering of AGW so his arguments are tainted and, likely false or exaggerated' is not ad hominem.
Global Warming on Free Republic
He acts like it's honest hastiness that led to pinning the blame on anthropogenic CO2 as the culprit (yes I realize police/prosecutors sometimes do this for evil ends too). Had they found the trend to be driven by something NOT caused by humans this would have been merely another sky-is-falling scientific boondoggle accompanied by much hand-wringing and gnashing of teeth among those who believed it, followed by it falling from the radar with no permanent effect. There's no money or power over other people's lives to be gained in that scenario.
Well said dude!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.