[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Dr. Leslie Woodcock, emeritus professor at the University of Manchester (UK) School of Chemical Engineering and Analytical Science, is a former NASA scientist along with other impressive accomplishments on his distinguished professional resume…[/quote]
If appeals to authority are going to stand as evidence here, you are going to lose, in both quantity and quality.[/quote]
"Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, chairman of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, President’s Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety
Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON; Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board; Served in US Navy in WW II…
“It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.” - from his letter of resignation
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Dinosaur farts cause global warming:
"When everything is proof of climate change, warmists enlist even dinosaurs in their cause…
Two British professors, Dr Wilkinson and Prof. Ruxton, [allege] that sauropods of the Mesozoic Era, 150 million years ago, could have broken wind to the extent of “around 472 million tonnes of methane per year.”
You know that the livestock flatulents are a significant source of anthropogenic CO2, right? Regardless of whether you believe CO2 is important or not.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Dinosaur farts cause global warming:
"When everything is proof of climate change, warmists enlist even dinosaurs in their cause…
Two British professors, Dr Wilkinson and Prof. Ruxton, [allege] that sauropods of the Mesozoic Era, 150 million years ago, could have broken wind to the extent of “around 472 million tonnes of methane per year.”
You know that the livestock flatulents are a significant source of anthropogenic CO2, right? Regardless of whether you believe CO2 is important or not. [/quote]
Actually no they’re not and I don’t know anyone who makes that claim. The alarmists warn about the methane gas from flatulence which is another greenhouse gas.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Dinosaur farts cause global warming:
"When everything is proof of climate change, warmists enlist even dinosaurs in their cause…
Two British professors, Dr Wilkinson and Prof. Ruxton, [allege] that sauropods of the Mesozoic Era, 150 million years ago, could have broken wind to the extent of “around 472 million tonnes of methane per year.”
You know that the livestock flatulents are a significant source of anthropogenic CO2, right? Regardless of whether you believe CO2 is important or not. [/quote]
Actually no they’re not and I don’t know anyone who makes that claim. The alarmists warn about the methane gas from flatulence which is another greenhouse gas.[/quote]
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Dr. Leslie Woodcock, emeritus professor at the University of Manchester (UK) School of Chemical Engineering and Analytical Science, is a former NASA scientist along with other impressive accomplishments on his distinguished professional resume…[/quote]
If appeals to authority are going to stand as evidence here, you are going to lose, in both quantity and quality.[/quote]
"Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, chairman of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, President’s Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety
Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON; Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board; Served in US Navy in WW II…
“It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.” - from his letter of resignation
Like I said, if we are appealing to scientific authority, your side loses. Should people who believe in anthropogenic climate change start posting quotes? From individual researchers? How about from entire scientific societies? Who do you think will have more ammunition, in the end? I think you know the answer to that question. Or are only your scientists valid?
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Dinosaur farts cause global warming:
"When everything is proof of climate change, warmists enlist even dinosaurs in their cause…
Two British professors, Dr Wilkinson and Prof. Ruxton, [allege] that sauropods of the Mesozoic Era, 150 million years ago, could have broken wind to the extent of “around 472 million tonnes of methane per year.”
You know that the livestock flatulents are a significant source of anthropogenic CO2, right? Regardless of whether you believe CO2 is important or not. [/quote]
Actually no they’re not and I don’t know anyone who makes that claim. The alarmists warn about the methane gas from flatulence which is another greenhouse gas.[/quote]
Excuse me, it is methane. I haven’t my coffee yet :)[/quote]
Just be sure not to fart or breath. The UN will send someone around soon to perform the vasectomy.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Dr. Leslie Woodcock, emeritus professor at the University of Manchester (UK) School of Chemical Engineering and Analytical Science, is a former NASA scientist along with other impressive accomplishments on his distinguished professional resume…[/quote]
If appeals to authority are going to stand as evidence here, you are going to lose, in both quantity and quality.[/quote]
"Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, chairman of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, President’s Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety
Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON; Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board; Served in US Navy in WW II…
“It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.” - from his letter of resignation
Like I said, if we are appealing to scientific authority, your side loses. Should people who believe in anthropogenic climate change start posting quotes? From individual researchers? How about from entire scientific societies? Who do you think will have more ammunition, in the end? I think you know the answer to that question. Or are only your scientists valid?[/quote]
It’s not a popularity contest. In the late 19th century phrenology was all the rage. Now we know it’s all nonsense. I’m appealing to reason and facts. Climategate and the ridiculous alarmist claims I have quoted substantiate my claim that something is rotten in the state of climate science. What’s even more alarming than the billion dollars a day spent on this nonsense is the calls for imposing forced sterilisation by a international force. I’m not one for conspiracy theories but some very influential people are calling for what amounts to a draconian world government using climate alarmism as the vehicle.
Actually, when it comes to you and I, it kind of is a popularity contest. Because you aren’t a scientist, much less a scientist working in the relevant field, I ascribe literally no weight to your opinion of the matter. {You would be prudent to feel the same about me, as I am equally inexpert.}
Because these guys are scientists, I do weigh theirs (as you should as well):
If I want to stop relying on the testimony of experts, I will have to go for a PhD. Maybe after I did that, I would conclude that there really is some vast conspiracy afoot, or at least that the consensus is mistaken. As of now, if I thought myself qualified to make such a claim, I’d be foolish.
Science has changed far too much since the 19th century for this to be relevant.
[quote]
I’m appealing to reason and facts.[/quote]
No, you are posting individual quotes from individual scientists. It’s an appeal to authority–albeit a rather weak one, given that your authorities are so outnumbered by those of your opponents.
Actually, when it comes to you and I, it kind of is a popularity contest. Because you aren’t a scientist, much less a scientist working in the relevant field, I ascribe literally no weight to your opinion of the matter. {You would be prudent to feel the same about me, as I am equally inexpert.}
Because these guys are scientists, I do weigh theirs (as you should as well):
If I want to stop relying on the testimony of experts, I will have to go for a PhD. Maybe after I did that, I would conclude that there really is some vast conspiracy afoot, or at least that the consensus is mistaken. As of now, if I thought myself qualified to make such a claim, I’d be foolish.
Science has changed far too much since the 19th century for this to be relevant.
From the article: “The authors of this study operate the climate change website Skeptical Science.”
Let’s take a look at some of these ‘experts’ and their qualifications:
Rob Painting
Rob is an environmentalist, scuba diver, spearfisherman, kayaker and former police officer. Has researched climate science, in an amateur capacity, for 4 years.
Barbel Winkler lives and works in Germany. She has always had a lot of interest in environmental issues and has been active as a volunteer at the local zoo…
Sveinn Atli lives in Iceland and is one of the two editors of loftslag.is (loftslag meaning climate), the Icelandic climate website and translator of skeptical science articles. Sveinn has long been interested in environmental issues and has actively been taking part in the climate discussion. First(sic) encounter for him with the climate issue was to take a close look at the arguments - from as many sides as possible. After carefull scrutiny he found out that the only legitimate arguments were to be found in the scientific literature…
Bob Lacatena is a software developer with a lifelong interest in and love of science…
Klaus Flemlose
I am master of science in mathematics and statiscis(sic) from University of Arhus, Denmark…
Glenn Tamblyn
Glenn studied Mechanical Engineering at Melbourne University…
Doug Bostrom
1958 model, background in broadcast engineering and management, wireless telemetry, software architecture and authorship with a focus on embedded systems, TCP/IP network engineering, systems integration…
Graham Wayne is a journalist who writes about climate change science and the ways it will affect us in the UK’s Guardian…
Ron Honeycutt
Rob’s claim to fame is being the founder of the popular pack and bag company Timbuk2. He is a guru of mass customization and, through the application of Toyota manufacturing methods, created a unique and enduring brand in the outdoor products industry…
John Garrett is a technical illustrator residing in Wildomar, California, USA…
Ari Jokimaki
Ari lives in Finland and has a BSc in computer engineering. He has been studying climate science as a hobbyist…
Excuse me if I don’t take these hobbyists and amateurs seriously…
Doug Mackie
In the 70’s I had a dinosaur book that included a Keeling curve as part of the inevitable ‘what happened discussion’. (This was before Alvarez)…
As is clearly evidenced from their website and bios, these people are:
A). Not qualified in anything remotely relevant to climate science.
And
B). About as far from impartial as one can be.
Their methods such as they are, resemble a Stalinist show trial where the conclusion is established at the outset and the evidence crafted to fit the narrative. Their work is not subjected to peer review as no serious scientist would even bother to review work by self described amateurs and hobbyists. Unfortunately the media laps up this horse shit and smears it over otherwise semi-respectable newspapers.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Dr. Leslie Woodcock, emeritus professor at the University of Manchester (UK) School of Chemical Engineering and Analytical Science, is a former NASA scientist along with other impressive accomplishments on his distinguished professional resume…[/quote]
If appeals to authority are going to stand as evidence here, you are going to lose, in both quantity and quality.[/quote]
SO, you appealed to authority with somebody from U Manchester, and another guy from UCSB.
How about UCSD, Harvard, Colorado State, Penn State, Stanford, MIT, UT Austin, Texas Tech, Georgia Institute of Technology, and the largest general scientific society on Earth (which also happens to be the publisher of one of the most competitive and respected peer-reviewed journals):
How about a list of the concurring academic societies and institutes (I’m not hunting down each one; if you don’t like the source, you can go for that on your own):
[From the above: As of 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement, no scientific body of national or international standing rejected the findings of human-induced effects on climate change." Again, if you take issue with the source, you are free to look this up yourself.]
If I want to stop relying on the testimony of experts, I will have to go for a PhD. Maybe after I did that, I would conclude that there really is some vast conspiracy afoot, or at least that the consensus is mistaken. As of now, if I thought myself qualified to make such a claim, I’d be foolish.
[/quote]
I agree with you that laymen need to be able to rely on experts, but the experts I like to rely on can generally withstand heavy cross-examination by skilled examiners prepped by competing experts. I would really like to see some cross-examination with prep from the best experts from both sides and see where things sit after a few weeks of testimony. Some of the things Aragorn is posting are giving me some pause before blindly accepting the consensus; I’d feel better about accepting the consensus after I saw how the best weathered a direct assault.
Instead of actually critically examining the claims you are appealing to some abstract notion of ‘scientific consensus.’ Your argument in essence is that neither of us is capable of critically examining the data therefore whoever has the most academics up his sleeve wins by default.
The following problems are then conveniently brushed under the carpet:
A) The Climate Research Unit was caught red handed falsifying their results.
B) The predictions made by the IPCC and scores of other researchers have almost universally and spectacularly failed.
C) In response to these failures climate alarmists have claimed that the failures prove their arguments - the ice caps have actually increased instead of disappearing like we said? Oh that’s due to climate change see?
D) Many of the claims made by supposedly reputable bodies are beyond the pale and strain the credulity of even the most ardent supporters of anthropogenic climate change - UFOs will kill us all if we don’t submit to the IPCC recommendations.
E) Many climate alarmists are calling for totalitarian measures including drugging our water supplies with sterilisation drugs.
So let’s look at the claims in the first link you posted:
'despite promising to inform us as to ?what the science is showing,? the AAAS report largely sidesteps the best and latest science that points to a much lowered risk of extreme climate change, choosing instead to inflate and then highlight what meager evidence exists for potential catastrophic outcomes - evidence that in many cases has been scientifically challenged (for example here and here).
Somehow in its haste to scare us, the AAAS seems to have missed (or ignored) the two hottest topics in climate change these days?1) that climate models have done remarkably poorly in replicating the evolution of global temperature during the past several decades , and 2) that high end climate change scenarios from the models are largely unsupported by observations.’
By Patrick J. (“Pat”) Michaels (born February 15, 1950)…an American climatologist. Michaels is a senior research fellow for Research and Economic Development at George Mason University, and a senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute. Until 2007 he was research professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, where he had worked from 1980.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Instead of actually critically examining the claims you are appealing to some abstract notion of ‘scientific consensus.’ Your argument in essence is that neither of us is capable of critically examining the data therefore whoever has the most academics up his sleeve wins by default.[/quote]
What I have argued is that consensus says you’re wrong. And I have argued it conclusively.
You should look into actually came to light, because it isn’t a tenth as damning as you think it is. Yes, I know that you can link me to some hysterical critic who will yell about the word “trick” without explaining what exactly the word meant and why it was said. I’m not interested. I’ve read through it and it’s weak.
[quote]
B) The predictions made by the IPCC and scores of other researchers have almost universally and spectacularly failed.[/quote]
I’m not endorsing predictions made in the past, and I’m not endorsing alarmism. In fact I am generally in agreement with the business centrists on the issue of political responses to climate change. I’m communicating to you a fact, which is that the consensus says it’s happening and humans are contributing.
…and on and on.
You are piling a bunch of shit together, and very little of it actually supports your point. For example:
“1) that climate models have done remarkably poorly in replicating the evolution of global temperature during the past several decades , and 2) that high end climate change scenarios from the models are largely unsupported by observations.”
First, note that this is an appeal to authority–it’s a quote from a guy with a degree, and–this being the definition of an appeal to authority–you and I must take his word for it (because don’t even begin to try to tell me you’ve assessed those models yourself). As I’ve already explained and showed, you will lose in the arena of appeals to authority.
But it doesn’t matter, because what you’re linking here doesn’t prove your point. You deny anthropogenic climate change, yes? Well, the above quote argues that “high end climate change scenarios from the models are largely unsupported by observations,” which is hardly an arrow in your quiver.
