Global Warming

[SCYUKON 0]

Some more history around "the science is settled" in case you think I am making it up that it has been around. One persons opinion from http://frontpagemag.com/2010/02/17/the-sci...is-not-settled/It’s a sad commentary on the state of the world when a scientist’s declaration that there is indeed room for reasoned scientific debate counts as a victory, but there you have it. The mantra “the science is settled” traces its roots back to the Clinton administration, when President Clinton and Vice President Al Gore declared that the certainty of the case for global warming, the “fact” that scientists were sure disaster lurked just around the corner, along with the magnitude of the supposed danger, meant that we must stop arguing and start acting. The mainstream media quickly fell into line, as did many respected technical publications like Scientific American and C&E News. The editor of the latter, the signature publication of the American Chemical Society, Rudy Baum, went so far as to declare that C&E News had little interest in publishing papers that might tend to undermine global warming alarmism. That policy led many chemists, including myself, to resign from the American Chemical Society.Interestingly, the position on objectivity set forth later in the article seem to align somewhat with yours VB.edit, green wiki agrees that "the science is settled" can be traced back to the Clinton administration and others in the 1997 era as well:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_...ence_is_settled

[vbnautilus 48]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9047642Al Gore quote

No, there is no quote in that article. I have looked far and wide and can't find an actual quote of anyone using that phrase. The article you linked to is a paraphrase of what Gore was saying, the actual quote is not in there.

Thanks for doing some legwork for me 85suited. VB - did 85suited really need to have to dig those quotes up for you to admit that the AGW crowd has been echoing this position.

I still don't think anyone has ever really used that phrase. But certainly no scientist has. I am not concerned with what such-and-such a crowd has been echoing. I'm only interested in the science.

Can we get back to the facts, as you requested? I am still curious as to your response to the fact that Phil Jones and Michael Mann are under investigation. Does that not spur any curiousity in you?? Do you have any theories as to why they ignored freedom of information requests? Does it not bother you to see how flimsy the source was that exposed in the glaciergate scandal? You don't think this is all something made up by skeptics do you? You do agree that this is all factual, right?

If the existence of an investigation meant that someone was guilty, there would be no point in doing an investigation. Let's see what the results of the investigation are, since its purpose is to determine what happened. But I don't particularly care about that whole scenario either. Even if you assume that these three studies or whatever are entirely fabricated, you discard them and re-evaluate the data and the enormous quantity of other work which was not done by this person. example: The Lancet recently retracted the paper from that wacky guy who did quite a bit of fishy stuff in order to produce the result linking autism to vaccinations. We have mountains of evidence from other sources that show there is no relationship. The truth is like the internet, it routes around the bad nodes to find its way home.

[SCYUKON 0]

No, there is no quote in that article. I have looked far and wide and can't find an actual quote of anyone using that phrase. The article you linked to is a paraphrase of what Gore was saying, the actual quote is not in there. I still don't think anyone has ever really used that phrase. But certainly no scientist has. I am not concerned with what such-and-such a crowd has been echoing. I'm only interested in the science. So what has your research turned up? Care to share?If the existence of an investigation meant that someone was guilty, there would be no point in doing an investigation. Let's see what the results of the investigation are, since its purpose is to determine what happened. Agreed 100%But I don't particularly care about that whole scenario either. Even if you assume that these three studies or whatever are entirely fabricated, you discard them and re-evaluate the data and the enormous quantity of other work which was not done by this person. oh, ok.Kind of like Tiger gets caught with his pants down and the tour says, forget about him, plenty of other exciting golfers out here. edit - or a better analogy would be "Forget about Bernie Madoff, look instead at all the good work the people working for him do"example: The Lancet recently retracted the paper from that wacky guy who did quite a bit of fishy stuff in order to produce the result linking autism to vaccinations. We have mountains of evidence from other sources that show there is no relationship. The truth is like the internet, it routes around the bad nodes to find its way home.

Um, time to point out the obvious, these two dudes (Mann and Jones) are kind of like the big fish, not too little nodes in the big circuit of global warming, would you not agree? Mann is (oops was) the head of UEA, a key player hooked up with IPCC. Not going to accept your attempt at dismissing their significance, sorry. Anyways, enough of the semantics. Just the facts. Would be delighted to see your work in this area.

[hblask 1]

I really need to stop clicking on this thread.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

I really need to stop clicking on this thread.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

...this phrase was created by global warming oppositionists...

Oh come on. Really? When?Global Warming Climate Change proponents have for some time been declaring that Science is on their side, to the point of deriding anyone who dared oppose them as ignorant fools.Someone asked earlier why some of us are now so anti-climate change.Because many of us were somewhat offended by having been part of a group that has been portrayed for the past several years as "anti-science" and worse by a group that has now been revealed as having followed the questionable science presented as facts by media, politicians, and scientists. Global Public Policy has (somewhat happily at times) been led astray by demagogues. Those of us who preferred to remain rational in the midst of histrionics are now feeling somewhat vindicated by the revelation and admission of the convenient untruths.I am not even saying that Climate Change is impossible, nor even that it hasn't been influenced by the actions of Mankind - I'd just rather the witch hunt to implement public policy change would have waited for conclusions (and, as necessary, solutions) based on better scientific methods. Instead we had Gore, members of Congress, and even the Scientists themselves trying to force Public Policy, often citing a warm spell in Atlanta or torrential rains in Hawaii.

[vbnautilus 48]

Oh come on. Really? When?Global Warming Climate Change proponents have for some time been declaring that Science is on their side, to the point of deriding anyone who dared oppose them as ignorant fools.

Right, but arguing that science is on your side is not the same as uttering an indefensible phrase like "the science is settled". That language is rhetoric used by the anti-side. Look, people arguing with this phrase are still not able to show a single instance of one person using the phrase.

[vbnautilus 48]

So what has your research turned up? Care to share?

What research? What are you talking about? I am not a climate scientist.

oh, ok.Kind of like Tiger gets caught with his pants down and the tour says, forget about him, plenty of other exciting golfers out here. edit - or a better analogy would be "Forget about Bernie Madoff, look instead at all the good work the people working for him do"

These are horrific analogies.

Um, time to point out the obvious, these two dudes (Mann and Jones) are kind of like the big fish, not too little nodes in the big circuit of global warming, would you not agree? Mann is (oops was) the head of UEA, a key player hooked up with IPCC. Not going to accept your attempt at dismissing their significance, sorry.

Do you think that truth is determined by authority?

[JoeyJoJo 18]

Do you think that truth is determined by authority?

It seems like the disconnect in this debate is that all you care about is the science or the truth of global warming/climate change, while the other side is more concerned with whether the science/truth justifies the policies enacted regarding gw/cc.I think. I've skimmed over a lot of the recent posts.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

Right, but arguing that science is on your side is not the same as uttering an indefensible phrase like "the science is settled". That language is rhetoric used by the anti-side. Look, people arguing with this phrase are still not able to show a single instance of one person using the phrase.

OK. So the Anti group "started it" by saying "The science isn't settled" and the "scientists" now reply: "Well of course, we're scientists, science is rarely settled - we never said it was settled." Yeah. Sure. And whatever. This is a Red Herring, and I suspect you know it.The bottom line is that many "Scientists" have taken a position and drawn and definitively presented conclusions in this matter. Often giving doomsday worst case scenarios and apparently deviating from good scientific principles in the process. If they didn't use the actual phrase, they certainly implied it and actively tried to manipulate the perception of QED. What their true motivations were in doing so, we may never know. But it has become clear to me that they did deviate from science into public policy - which should actually be based on sound quantitative principles but hasn't come close in this area.

[85suited 0]

this reminds me of the famous quote "depends on the definition of 'is'"

[colonel Feathers 5]

That was my question, yes. Al Gore is not a scientist, so if that's who SCYUKON is railing against, that seems quite silly. But at any rate I cannot find any evidence that Al Gore actually used that phrase.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9047642

[vbnautilus 48]

It seems like the disconnect in this debate is that all you care about is the science or the truth of global warming/climate change, while the other side is more concerned with whether the science/truth justifies the policies enacted regarding gw/cc.I think. I've skimmed over a lot of the recent posts.

That's part of it, I guess. But really I have focused on two points: 1 - Those people outraged by the perceived practices of these "tainted" scientists should be willing to apply the same level of objectivity they are demanding from the scientists to their own argumentation. For instance, cherry-picking phrases out of an interview to give a false impression of what someone said disqualifies you from being the arbiter of objectivity. 2- There seems to be an unchallenged assumption that if A the worst version of the e-mail scandal is true (and I do not know that it is, but I'm willing to concede that for the purposes of this discussion), that B global warming is false. This is my main issue. I do not see that "global warming is false" follows from "these three scientists suppressed some papers and unfairly cherry-picked data". I myself am not familiar enough with all the literature to draw a conclusion, but I can see that B does not logically follow from A.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9047642

I mean, here is a perfect example of #1. This article was linked twice already as proof that Al Gore said "the science is settled". But the article does not quote him as saying that, and even after pointing this exact thing out, someone else went ahead and posted it again as if it were evidence of Al Gore's word choice. I think it's rather ironic to use such shoddy evidence gathering in support of your criticism of other people's science. I understand that these people are professionals and are held to a different standard, but these arguments are hard to take seriously when they are made in this way. I'd like to see us try and make some progress on point #2.

[85suited 0]

That's part of it, I guess. But really I have focused on two points: 1 - Those people outraged by the perceived practices of these "tainted" scientists should be willing to apply the same level of objectivity they are demanding from the scientists to their own argumentation. For instance, cherry-picking phrases out of an interview to give a false impression of what someone said disqualifies you from being the arbiter of objectivity. 2- There seems to be an unchallenged assumption that if A the worst version of the e-mail scandal is true (and I do not know that it is, but I'm willing to concede that for the purposes of this discussion), that B global warming is false. This is my main issue. I do not see that "global warming is false" follows from "these three scientists suppressed some papers and unfairly cherry-picked data". I myself am not familiar enough with all the literature to draw a conclusion, but I can see that B does not logically follow from A. I mean, here is a perfect example of #1. This article was linked twice already as proof that Al Gore said "the science is settled". But the article does not quote him as saying that, and even after pointing this exact thing out, someone else went ahead and posted it again as if it were evidence of Al Gore's word choice. I think it's rather ironic to use such shoddy evidence gathering in support of your criticism of other people's science. I understand that these people are professionals and are held to a different standard, but these arguments are hard to take seriously when they are made in this way. I'd like to see us try and make some progress on point #2.

even if al gore has never mentioned those 4 words together he certainly has implied that over and over and over again

[vbnautilus 48]

even if al gore has never mentioned those 4 words together he certainly has implied that over and over and over again

That's fine. But do you realize you've been defending the fact that he actually said those words, in the absence of any evidence for it? SCYUKON has been putting the phrase in quotes every time he uses it as if it were an actual quote. It was put forth as the default position of scientists to the point where when the guy in the interview rationally answered that there was continuing debate, he was chastised for going back on his position. It probably seems like I'm being pedantic here, but I'm just trying to make a meta-point about how we believe things and what lengths we must go to in order to keep ourselves objective.

[85suited 0]

That's fine. But do you realize you've been defending the fact that he actually said those words, in the absence of any evidence for it? SCYUKON has been putting the phrase in quotes every time he uses it as if it were an actual quote. It was put forth as the default position of scientists to the point where when the guy in the interview rationally answered that there was continuing debate, he was chastised for going back on his position. It probably seems like I'm being pedantic here, but I'm just trying to make a meta-point about how we believe things and what lengths we must go to in order to keep ourselves objective.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2006/may/31/usa.environmentThe scientists are virtually screaming from the rooftops now. The debate is over! There's no longer any debate in the scientific community about this. But the political systems around the world have held this at arm's length because it's an inconvenient truth, because they don't want to accept that it's a moral imperative.VB will this work for you?

[vbnautilus 48]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2006/may/31/usa.environmentThe scientists are virtually screaming from the rooftops now. The debate is over! There's no longer any debate in the scientific community about this. But the political systems around the world have held this at arm's length because it's an inconvenient truth, because they don't want to accept that it's a moral imperative.VB will this work for you?

I... really don't understand what you're trying to say.

[85suited 0]

I... really don't understand what you're trying to say.

never mind - scyukon, pot odds - did you get it?

[vbnautilus 48]

never mind - scyukon, pot odds - did you get it?

Just in case it wasn't clear already, you, mr. 85suited, are clearly not interested in having a discussion about global warming, and instead just enjoy rallying for your "side". Why else would it be more important to you that the people who already agree with you understand what you are saying? It's similar to what you did in this post:

please explain the above to the global warming nuts

where you at once 1) cheered me on for calling for objectivity over emotionalism and 2) made an emotional derision of the other side.For the record, I've been a global warming skeptic since before some of you were born (assuming 85suited is 18 or so), but I have yet to see the #2 issue in my post above addressed adequately by anyone who is claiming to be so sure of their position here.

[85suited 0]

Just in case it wasn't clear already, you, mr. 85suited, are clearly where you at once 1) cheered me on for calling for objectivity over emotionalism and 2) made an emotional derision of the other side.For the record, I've been a global warming skeptic since before some of you were born (assuming 85suited is 18 or so), .

btw - in the 35-40 age group

[SCYUKON 0]

I am in the 40-45 age group.VB - I call bs that you are a skeptic. You and Yorkie and even FCP Bob (who by the way never did return to call out a certain someone as being stupid for developing a view on AGW after watching AIT) masquerade as seekers of the pure truth (in my opinion) and defenders of logic, but I never see you putting forth any analysis or logic checks which challenges the warmists. In your case, recently it just seems like you are on some unrelenting quest for complete exactness in quotations.And Yorkie - please don't stop clicking on this link - we would miss your "err" of superiority. ;)Yes 85suited - I understood what you were getting at.

[CaneBrain 95]

I am in the 40-45 age group.VB - I call bs that you are a skeptic. You and Yorkie and even FCP Bob (who by the way never did return to call out a certain someone as being stupid for developing a view on AGW after watching AIT) masquerade as seekers of the pure truth (in my opinion) and defenders of logic, but I never see you putting forth any analysis or logic checks which challenges the warmists. In your case, recently it just seems like you are on some unrelenting quest for complete exactness in quotations.And Yorkie - please don't stop clicking on this link - we would miss your "err" of superiority. ;)Yes 85suited - I understood what you were getting at.

Yes, because if he does not actively try and poke holes in AGW theory that means he too believes the science is settled. Excellent point. First, we have a surplus of people in here who thinks climate change or global warming is a scam. (By the way, warmists? You're really in your 40s?) VB and York represent the mainstream science side. Second, I think you are not a masquerader but someone who is brazenly open about how close-minded he is on this issue. It seems like you are on some unrelenting to quest to convince us that a cold winter in certain regions of the US and a handful of un-ethical scientists means that decades of scientific work is a complete sham/possible conspiracy. And that NASA is a corrupt organization with a dangerous hidden agenda.I eagerly await your first post putting forth analysis or logic checks which challenge the deniers.

[SCYUKON 0]

Second, I think you are not a masquerader but someone who is brazenly open about how close-minded he is on this issue. It seems like you are on some unrelenting to quest to convince us that a cold winter in certain regions of the US and a handful of un-ethical scientists means that decades of scientific work is a complete sham/possible conspiracy. And that NASA is a corrupt organization with a dangerous hidden agenda.

Throw in the fact that the climate models are not calibrated as of yet, have little predictive ability, and you pretty much have my position, yes. God Bless. I must say my mind was open at one point but after I started into the IPCC reports those doors got shut pretty quickly.

[Balloon guy 158]

Well the serious cold weather infecting the rest of the country ( low 70s here ) seems to be an indicator that the earth was created with the ability to cool itself off when it gets warm. Higher temperatures = warm air = higher levels of vapor evaporation = more reflective cover over earth to weaken the influence of the sun's rays = lowering the temperature. Looks like the earth was made pretty well, pretty well indeed.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

never mind - scyukon, pot odds - did you get it?

The Science isn't Settled.