Global Warming backdown

[Shady]

It doesn't appear to be a conflict of interest in any form.

[Michael Hardner]

What is the point ? That he has worked as part of an environmental network, and that should disqualify him ? Is anybody who believes in Global Warming now disqualified from investigating this case ? What about those who think it's not real ? Are they also too opinionated ?

[BubberMiley]

And yet Shady has no trouble with discredited information on climate change from Koch Industries and Exxon.

Gee, I guess they have no financial interest in destroying the earth.

[Shady]

And yet Shady has no trouble with discredited information on climate change from Koch Industries and Exxon.

Completely false. In fact, the vast majority of information discrediting AGW is from scientists and organizations with zero affiliation with any energy interests. That's just a common smear the AGW true-believers like to make in an attempt to taint the evidence.

And of course, that doesn't even count the way AGW scientists have discredited themselves!

[Michael Hardner]

Completely false. In fact, the vast majority of information discrediting AGW is from scientists and organizations with zero affiliation with any energy interests. That's just a common smear the AGW true-believers like to make in an attempt to taint the evidence.

I agree with that, if you qualify the 'vast majority of information' by saying 'credible information' and so-forth. There's a lot of misinformation out there thrown out to cloud the issue, but it's not credible.

[Shady]

Arctic Sea Ice Melting Season Posts Latest Start on Record

April 6 (Bloomberg) -- The extent of sea ice over the Arctic Ocean grew until the last day of March, the latest the annual melting season has begun in 31 years of satellite records, the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center said

Link

But the science is settled!

[Michael Hardner]

But the science is settled!

The fact that Phil Jones says the science isn't settled means that we can probably stop using that phrase to sarcastically represent the position of climate science.

[wyly]

The fact that Phil Jones says the science isn't settled means that we can probably stop using that phrase to sarcastically represent the position of climate science.

the science isn't settled on the Theory of Gravity either but does anyone doubt it exists?...well maybe a few members on this forum...

[Shady]

the science isn't settled on the Theory of Gravity either but does anyone doubt it exists?...well maybe a few members on this forum...

The theory of gravity isn't junk science. It's proven science. Unlike AGW.

[Michael Hardner]

the science isn't settled on the Theory of Gravity either but does anyone doubt it exists?...well maybe a few members on this forum...

No, no one does. There is also a consensus on AGW. But to say it's settled is to misunderstand and misrepresent how science considers things. It's done by people who want to push the public towards a political end.

[wyly]

The theory of gravity isn't junk science. It's proven science. Unlike AGW.

actually gravity isn't proven science but that just shows how little you know about science...

[wyly]

No, no one does.

with 20% of adult americans not believing the earth orbits the sun I'd say it's quite likely there are an equal number of Canadians...so forumers not believing in gravity doesn't require a stretch of the imagination...

There is also a consensus on AGW. But to say it's settled is to misunderstand and misrepresent how science considers things. It's done by people who want to push the public towards a political end.

there is no real consensus on gravity, it is not settled, but it does exist much as AGW does...are we to assume there are people who are pushing the acceptance of gravity for a political end?...it's all nonsense, the scientifically ignorant political ideologues that want to science as a political issue not as a scientific issue...if Harper and GWB were the champions of fighting AGW they'd be all on board with it...

[Michael Hardner]

there is no real consensus on gravity,

There isn't ? Uh oh ( I just flew up to the ceiling...)

[wyly]

There isn't ? Uh oh ( I just flew up to the ceiling...)

hmmm, I wrongly believed you would understand I knew shady never would...I was mistaken...

[Bonam]

The everyday applications of how gravity works are well understood and not in dispute. The fact that we do not yet have a solid theory of quantum gravity, have not unified the gravitational force with the electroweak and strong forces, and that there are fringe competing theories like MOND is hardly relevant to this particular discussion.

[Pliny]

No, no one does. There is also a consensus on AGW. But to say it's settled is to misunderstand and misrepresent how science considers things. It's done by people who want to push the public towards a political end.

Bravo! Clap! Clap!

[Pliny]

there is no real consensus on gravity,

Michael Hardner, on 07 April 2010 - 03:27 PM, said: There isn't ? Uh oh ( I just flew up to the ceiling...)

Wyly: hmmm, I wrongly believed you would understand I knew shady never would...I was mistaken...

You're just part of the rabble and must accept the only valid consensus; that of scientists, Michael.

Edited April 8, 2010 by Pliny

[Michael Hardner]

You're just part of the rabble and must accept the only valid consensus; that of scientists, Michael.

Science can say what it likes: I've been stuck on the ceiling since yesterday !

I agree with the scientists, but the emergence of the internet and of stupid cable news channels has created a new skepticism towards all authority: political, religious and scientific authority among other types.

The scientists can report science and just walk away, but if they do then they're leaving it to the mongrels of information to use it to their own ends. They need to realize that part of what they do is communicating their findings to the broader public, where public policy is involved. And that involves engaging across the political spectrum.

If one throws up their arms and says "nobody of THAT political stripe has any integrity" then they're giving up. Furthermore, they're indulging in a kind of vanity that says "my way of thinking is the only right way". This is a disease of both sides, currently. We're not used to having our political views challenged, and we haven't had that since broadcast media starting fighting political fights for us by proxy, IMO.

The strife we're seeing now is no different from the unleashing of ethnic tensions that happened in Eastern Europe when Communist dictatorships fell: we're no longer under the authority of large broadcast media entities who frame the political debate - we do it ourselves via the web, Fox News and so on.

The power is coming back to the people, so we have to engage with each other in order to ensure that good communication and good compromises happen. In the case of GW, scientists have to find opinion-makers across the political spectrum who are open-minded, honest and reasonable and make them part of the process.

From being on boards like these for 12 years (and MLW for 7 years) I can see that most of the time the truth falls in between the views of the political extremes. In this example, I think the science appears to be sound, but the communication and public engagement has been mishandled and the solutions proposed are not yet realistic enough to be adopted.

[bush_cheney2004]

....From being on boards like these for 12 years (and MLW for 7 years) I can see that most of the time the truth falls in between the views of the political extremes. In this example, I think the science appears to be sound, but the communication and public engagement has been mishandled and the solutions proposed are not yet realistic enough to be adopted.

Sound science is very different from public and economic policies. This is the fundamental arrogance of "science" when it comes to "Global Warming". There will not be substantial changes regardless of the "science" until the economic gods have been satisfied. I hope that's what you mean by "realistic".

[waldo]

as for that know-nothing knob who throws out an ice-extent related link... melting commenced early in March, and was delayed by a cold snap - imagine... weather!

hows that 2.6% ice extent loss per decade holding up? Why... just fine!

[waldo]

Sound science is very different from public and economic policies. This is the fundamental arrogance of "science" when it comes to "Global Warming". There will not be substantial changes regardless of the "science" until the economic gods have been satisfied. I hope that's what you mean by "realistic".

here... chew on another Nobel Prize winners economic thoughts - NYT: Paul Krugman - Building a Green Economy

[bush_cheney2004]

here... chew on another Nobel Prize winners economic thoughts - NYT: Paul Krugman - Building a Green Economy

No.....I don't have time for your brand of bullshit.

[waldo]

Bravo! Clap! Clap!

ah yes, Pliny ... clapping in the wind! I note during my little absence you didn't keep up your scheduled thread bumping - wassup!

[waldo]

here... chew on another Nobel Prize winners economic thoughts - NYT: Paul Krugman - Building a Green Economy

No.....I don't have time for your brand of bullshit.

whaaa! Just a tad touchy, hey? C'mon, expand your "get sum" horizons

[Pliny]

ah yes, Pliny ... clapping in the wind! I note during my little absence you didn't keep up your scheduled thread bumping - wassup!

Been busy on other threads myself and like others..somewhat of a lack of interest.

How could I guess Krugman would be your choice of economist! I had to laugh when you mentioned his name. Some here already know of Krugman's lib-left leanings. I have never agreed with anything Krugman has said. He is the poster boy for centrally planned econometrics and has a Nobel prize to prove it. And Obama has one for creating peace, he is so uniting. As long as you see things his way everything is ok. The Nobel panel likes to award those who appear to see things their way - all scientifically done of course. You deserve one as well.

I would rather discuss the necessity for central planning in light of the fact that science concludes "causal determinism" to be the sole driving force of human activity.

Edited April 9, 2010 by Pliny