Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers.

[Wilikon]

"If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000."

"But the debate is settled. Climate change is a fact," said President Barack Obama in his 2014 State of the Union address. Saying the debate is settled is nonsense, but the president is right about climate change.

GlobalChange.gov gives the definition of climate change: "Changes in average weather conditions that persist over multiple decades or longer. Climate change encompasses both increases and decreases in temperature, as well as shifts in precipitation, changing risk of certain types of severe weather events, and changes to other features of the climate system." That definition covers all weather phenomena throughout all 4.54 billion years of Earth's existence.

You say, "Williams, that's not what the warmers are talking about. It's the high CO2 levels caused by mankind's industrial activities that are causing the climate change!" There's a problem with that reasoning. Today CO2 concentrations worldwide average about 380 parts per million. This level of CO2 concentration is trivial compared with the concentrations during earlier geologic periods. For example, 460 million years ago, during the Ordovician Period, CO2 concentrations were 4,400 ppm, and temperatures then were about the same as they are today. With such high levels of CO2, at least according to the warmers, the Earth should have been boiling.

Then there are warmer predictions. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, warmers, such as the Union of Concerned Scientists, made all manner of doomsday predictions about global warming and the increased frequency of hurricanes. According to the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, "no Category 3-5 hurricane has struck the United States for a record nine years, and Earth's temperature has not budged for 18 years."

Climate change predictions have been wrong for decades. Let's look at some. At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1969, environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, "The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind." C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said, "The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed." In 1968, Professor Paul Ehrlich predicted that there would be a major food shortage in the U.S. and that "in the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people (would) starve to death." Ehrlich forecasted that 65 million Americans would die of starvation between 1980 and 1989 and that by 1999, the U.S. population would have declined to 22.6 million. Ehrlich's predictions about England were gloomier. He said, "If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000."

In 1970, Harvard University biologist George Wald predicted, "Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind." Sen. Gaylord Nelson, in Look magazine in April 1970, said that by 1995, "somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals (would) be extinct."

Climate change propaganda is simply a ruse for a socialist agenda. Consider the statements of some environmentalist leaders. Christiana Figueres, the U.N.'s chief climate change official, said that her unelected bureaucrats are undertaking "probably the most difficult task" they have ever given themselves, "which is to intentionally transform the (global) economic development model." In 2010, German economist and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change official Ottmar Edenhofer said, "One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy." The article in which that interview appeared summarized Edenhofer's views this way: "Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection. ... The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world's resources will be negotiated."

The most disgusting aspect of the climate change debate is the statements by many that it's settled science. There is nothing more anti-scientific than the idea that any science is settled. Very often we find that the half-life of many scientific ideas is about 50 years. For academics to not criticize their colleagues and politicians for suggesting that scientific ideas are not subject to challenge is the height of academic dishonesty.


http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2015/03/11/global-warming-n1967847/page/full

The solar output of the sun and the inclination of the earth as well as the surface albedo characteristics have changed. CO2 is a thermostat, the rest of the climate system is the machine that brings us to where that thermostat points to.


California is experiencing extreme droughts right now and you can't deny the flooding caused by disasters in the very recent past.

Climate getting warmer was always in the vast majority of scientific opinion, quoting someone in the minority who got it wrong proves nothing.

Claiming that Science is tethered to a political agenda is utter bullshit as the two are very easily separable. There is no freedom to burn down forests and kill the environment. These things are and should be crimes.




This thread seems to have boiled down to a big circle jerk.

Al Gore: Climate Deniers Need to Pay a Price

While all of the wild Global Warming predictions of the Climate Priest, Al Gore, have all proven untrue, there are still those on the Progressive left who take heed of his words.

Recently, the words Al Gore has been spewing are a part of the Climate Denier witch hunt that is currently being waged by the left. As a matter of fact, the Chicago Tribune reports that Al Gore stated Climate Deniers need to pay a price:

“AUSTIN, Texas — Former Vice President Al Gore on Friday called on SXSW attendees to punish climate-change deniers, saying politicians should pay a price for rejecting “accepted science.”

Gore said smart investors are moving away from companies tied to fossil fuels and toward companies investing in alternative energy.

“We need to put a price on carbon to accelerate these market trends,” Gore said, referring to a proposed federal cap-and-trade system that would penalize companies that exceeded their carbon-emission limits. “And in order to do that, we need to put a price on denial in politics.”



http://www.progressivestoday.com/al-gore-climate-deniers-need-to-pay-a-price/


 

[1714953077]

1714953077

[1714953077]

1714953077

[1714953077]

1714953077

[galdur]

Forget Global Warming And Climate Change, Call It 'Climate Disruption'

Quote

People have been learned to cope with change by thinking it’s not all bad, but climate change is all bad, according to a climate scientist at Argonne National Laboratory who says it’s time to replace the term climate change, itself a replacement for global warming, with a new term: climate disruption. 

“Positive mental attitude is a really wonderful way to deal with change,” research meteorologist Doug Sisterson told about 200 people at the University of Chicago’s International House Tuesday night. “We’ve learned that we want to be optimists and have a positive mental attitude, and the way we deal with that is by thinking ‘Not all change is bad.’ Well, talking about climate change, it’s not good. So maybe it’s wrong to portray climate change with a positive mental attitude.

“Maybe we should start talking about climate disruption, because the things I’m talking about would seem to be highly disruptive. And so maybe the better way to characterize what’s happening with these extreme weather events is to think of it as climate disruption. Maybe it more accurately represents the journey we are about to be embarking upon.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2015/03/12/forget-global-warming-and-climate-change-call-it-climate-disruption/

[galdur]

Yeah it can probably be pretty hard ...

Tuesday night, Sisterson said it’s hard to talk to people about global warming when the effects of a warmer planetary average may include colder colds.

[Wilikon]

"If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000."

"But the debate is settled. Climate change is a fact," said President Barack Obama in his 2014 State of the Union address. Saying the debate is settled is nonsense, but the president is right about climate change.

GlobalChange.gov gives the definition of climate change: "Changes in average weather conditions that persist over multiple decades or longer. Climate change encompasses both increases and decreases in temperature, as well as shifts in precipitation, changing risk of certain types of severe weather events, and changes to other features of the climate system." That definition covers all weather phenomena throughout all 4.54 billion years of Earth's existence.

You say, "Williams, that's not what the warmers are talking about. It's the high CO2 levels caused by mankind's industrial activities that are causing the climate change!" There's a problem with that reasoning. Today CO2 concentrations worldwide average about 380 parts per million. This level of CO2 concentration is trivial compared with the concentrations during earlier geologic periods. For example, 460 million years ago, during the Ordovician Period, CO2 concentrations were 4,400 ppm, and temperatures then were about the same as they are today. With such high levels of CO2, at least according to the warmers, the Earth should have been boiling.

Then there are warmer predictions. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, warmers, such as the Union of Concerned Scientists, made all manner of doomsday predictions about global warming and the increased frequency of hurricanes. According to the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, "no Category 3-5 hurricane has struck the United States for a record nine years, and Earth's temperature has not budged for 18 years."

Climate change predictions have been wrong for decades. Let's look at some. At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1969, environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, "The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind." C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said, "The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed." In 1968, Professor Paul Ehrlich predicted that there would be a major food shortage in the U.S. and that "in the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people (would) starve to death." Ehrlich forecasted that 65 million Americans would die of starvation between 1980 and 1989 and that by 1999, the U.S. population would have declined to 22.6 million. Ehrlich's predictions about England were gloomier. He said, "If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000."

In 1970, Harvard University biologist George Wald predicted, "Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind." Sen. Gaylord Nelson, in Look magazine in April 1970, said that by 1995, "somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals (would) be extinct."

Climate change propaganda is simply a ruse for a socialist agenda. Consider the statements of some environmentalist leaders. Christiana Figueres, the U.N.'s chief climate change official, said that her unelected bureaucrats are undertaking "probably the most difficult task" they have ever given themselves, "which is to intentionally transform the (global) economic development model." In 2010, German economist and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change official Ottmar Edenhofer said, "One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy." The article in which that interview appeared summarized Edenhofer's views this way: "Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection. ... The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world's resources will be negotiated."

The most disgusting aspect of the climate change debate is the statements by many that it's settled science. There is nothing more anti-scientific than the idea that any science is settled. Very often we find that the half-life of many scientific ideas is about 50 years. For academics to not criticize their colleagues and politicians for suggesting that scientific ideas are not subject to challenge is the height of academic dishonesty.


http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2015/03/11/global-warming-n1967847/page/full

The solar output of the sun and the inclination of the earth as well as the surface albedo characteristics have changed. CO2 is a thermostat, the rest of the climate system is the machine that brings us to where that thermostat points to.


California is experiencing extreme droughts right now and you can't deny the flooding caused by disasters in the very recent past.

Climate getting warmer was always in the vast majority of scientific opinion, quoting someone in the minority who got it wrong proves nothing.

Claiming that Science is tethered to a political agenda is utter bullshit as the two are very easily separable. There is no freedom to burn down forests and kill the environment. These things are and should be crimes.




This thread seems to have boiled down to a big circle jerk.

Harry Reid: Republicans Need A Global Warming “Day Of Reckoning”…

Senate Democrats slammed Republicans Friday over their climate change tactics.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) said Republicans have “no plan” to tackle climate change.

“Republicans in Congress have no plan to address climate change and cannot even bear to utter the words. Even worse, the majority leader [Mitch McConnell] wants to impose on states his irresponsible plan for congressional action,” the Senate Democrats wrote in a USA Today op-ed. “The Republican Party in Congress has become the political arm of the fossil fuel industry.” […]

“There is a massive political and public relations operation being run by the fossil fuel industry to create false doubt and plant phony questions to delay their day of reckoning so they can keep making money,” they said. “It’s the same game, and in many cases the same people, that Big Tobacco used for years to raise doubt that its products make people sick.”


http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/235635-senate-dems-gop-needs-climate-change-day-of-reckoning



-----------------------------------------------------------
That sounds like a religious reference from a LDS church member (as he is). Far from a scientific statement... He is waiting for a miracle!


 

[Wilikon]

"If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000."

"But the debate is settled. Climate change is a fact," said President Barack Obama in his 2014 State of the Union address. Saying the debate is settled is nonsense, but the president is right about climate change.

GlobalChange.gov gives the definition of climate change: "Changes in average weather conditions that persist over multiple decades or longer. Climate change encompasses both increases and decreases in temperature, as well as shifts in precipitation, changing risk of certain types of severe weather events, and changes to other features of the climate system." That definition covers all weather phenomena throughout all 4.54 billion years of Earth's existence.

You say, "Williams, that's not what the warmers are talking about. It's the high CO2 levels caused by mankind's industrial activities that are causing the climate change!" There's a problem with that reasoning. Today CO2 concentrations worldwide average about 380 parts per million. This level of CO2 concentration is trivial compared with the concentrations during earlier geologic periods. For example, 460 million years ago, during the Ordovician Period, CO2 concentrations were 4,400 ppm, and temperatures then were about the same as they are today. With such high levels of CO2, at least according to the warmers, the Earth should have been boiling.

Then there are warmer predictions. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, warmers, such as the Union of Concerned Scientists, made all manner of doomsday predictions about global warming and the increased frequency of hurricanes. According to the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, "no Category 3-5 hurricane has struck the United States for a record nine years, and Earth's temperature has not budged for 18 years."

Climate change predictions have been wrong for decades. Let's look at some. At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1969, environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, "The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind." C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said, "The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed." In 1968, Professor Paul Ehrlich predicted that there would be a major food shortage in the U.S. and that "in the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people (would) starve to death." Ehrlich forecasted that 65 million Americans would die of starvation between 1980 and 1989 and that by 1999, the U.S. population would have declined to 22.6 million. Ehrlich's predictions about England were gloomier. He said, "If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000."

In 1970, Harvard University biologist George Wald predicted, "Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind." Sen. Gaylord Nelson, in Look magazine in April 1970, said that by 1995, "somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals (would) be extinct."

Climate change propaganda is simply a ruse for a socialist agenda. Consider the statements of some environmentalist leaders. Christiana Figueres, the U.N.'s chief climate change official, said that her unelected bureaucrats are undertaking "probably the most difficult task" they have ever given themselves, "which is to intentionally transform the (global) economic development model." In 2010, German economist and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change official Ottmar Edenhofer said, "One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy." The article in which that interview appeared summarized Edenhofer's views this way: "Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection. ... The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world's resources will be negotiated."

The most disgusting aspect of the climate change debate is the statements by many that it's settled science. There is nothing more anti-scientific than the idea that any science is settled. Very often we find that the half-life of many scientific ideas is about 50 years. For academics to not criticize their colleagues and politicians for suggesting that scientific ideas are not subject to challenge is the height of academic dishonesty.


http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2015/03/11/global-warming-n1967847/page/full

The solar output of the sun and the inclination of the earth as well as the surface albedo characteristics have changed. CO2 is a thermostat, the rest of the climate system is the machine that brings us to where that thermostat points to.


California is experiencing extreme droughts right now and you can't deny the flooding caused by disasters in the very recent past.

Climate getting warmer was always in the vast majority of scientific opinion, quoting someone in the minority who got it wrong proves nothing.

Claiming that Science is tethered to a political agenda is utter bullshit as the two are very easily separable. There is no freedom to burn down forests and kill the environment. These things are and should be crimes.




This thread seems to have boiled down to a big circle jerk.

UCLA Professors Exposes Climate Fraud, Funding Cut, Punished And Fired; Sues UCLA And Wins Out Of Court Settlement…

School says it’s purely a financial decision – trial ain’t cheap

Scientific research at universities is supposed to involve inquiry into established theories and hypotheses.

That is, unless they question environmental regulations.

One UCLA science researcher, a 34-year veteran of the school, found himself out of a job in 2011 after examining the data underlying diesel regulations proposed by a California regulator and exposing the shoddy credentials of a lead author of that regulator’s report.

James Enstrom secured victory in a two-and-a-half year legal battle against UCLA last week when the school agreed to settle the case.

The school is paying the “diesel particulate matter” expert $140,000, reinstating his title as “Retired Researcher,” and restoring his access to UCLA resources, “effectively” rescinding his termination, according to the American Center for Law & Justice, which represented Enstrom.

Enstrom had challenged the validity of a California Air Resources Board study on diesel particulate matter and mortality in the state and the regulations that followed. He denounced the research as a faulty reading of data.

UCLA retaliated against Enstrom after he “became an aggressive and lone critic at UCLA of air pollution research,” escalating in 2008 after he testified in California Senate hearings, according to a lawsuit filed by the center in 2012.

It accused the school of initiating “a series of actions designed to silence and ultimately terminate Dr. Enstrom.”

Enstrom exposed fraudulent behavior in the studies on which the board relied, including that of the lead author of a 2008 report. Hien Tran “admitted he purchased” a magna cum laude Ph.D. for $1,000 from a “diploma mill associated with a fugitive pedophile,” according to CalWatchdog.

It’s “the standard MO” of the regulatory board to use “unverified studies to gin up regulations” in the state, according to Lois Henry, a Bakersfield Californian columnist who covers California politics, in a column last month.

After blowing the whistle, Enstrom found his position’s funding cut, as detailed in a 2010 letter from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education to then-Chancellor Gene Block.[…]

Speaking about the settlement, UCLA told The Daily Bruin that it did not target Enstrom for his political beliefs.

It said that “Enstrom’s presence as a researcher for decades, despite his minority positions defending diesel emissions and tobacco, demonstrates” that UCLA promotes academic diversity.

A spokesman told The Fix that UCLA settled the case because it would cost “far less than the legal costs of a trial.” Enstrom’s settlement includes “some other incidental campus services, such as eligibility for parking and email, associated with his retiree status.”


http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/21611/

[Spendulus]

The solar output of the sun and the inclination of the earth as well as the surface albedo characteristics have changed. CO2 is a thermostat, the rest of the climate system is the machine that brings us to where that thermostat points to.


California is experiencing extreme droughts right now and you can't deny the flooding caused by disasters in the very recent past.

Climate getting warmer was always in the vast majority of scientific opinion, quoting someone in the minority who got it wrong proves nothing.

Claiming that Science is tethered to a political agenda is utter bullshit as the two are very easily separable. There is no freedom to burn down forests and kill the environment. These things are and should be crimes.

Co2 is a thermostat?

No, I can't see any reason for that analogy.  Water and water vapor may well be a thermostat.

California is experiencing....

Left out of your assertion is the well known fact that Western coastal USA weather is heavily influenced by the 60-80 year Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). 

Omitting this fact and then attributing or asserting that cause of "extreme weather" in California is the result of man's carbon emissions is simply lying.  Yes it may be lying in pursuit of a political agenda.  But as you note and as I have illustrated, the two are easily separatable.

which is of course why the warmers want to shut certain people up....

[Wilikon]

Reviews are in! Skeptic Morano as villain in warmist film is ‘terrifyingly impressive, sadistic’ – ‘The doc’s most engaging character’ – ‘A magnificent antihero, a cheery, chatty prevaricator’ – ‘Slick’ – ‘Scary’ – ‘A loathsome mercenary’ – ‘Sleazy spin doctor’





New Warmist film by Sony Pictures, 'Merchants of Doubt', portrays Marc Morano as evil nemesis/arch-enemy of climate change promoters - Morano is ‘a grinning-skull nihilist’

Global warming movies sets out to smear skeptics, but ‘features 'a semi-affectionate portrait of professional attack dog Marc Morano'

[Note: The other upcoming documentary, Morano's skeptical global warming documentary, 'Climate Hustle' ,is set to rock climate debate - Release set for later in 2015. Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry: 'Morano’s film Climate Hustle; check out the trailer.  Seems to more entertaining anyways than 'Merchants of Doubt.'...Stay tuned...]

'Merchants of Doubt' director pushing to ban Morano & other skeptics from TV!

New York Times: Morano exemplifies 'slickness, grandiosity & charm'

New York Times: 'Morano is a cheerful and unapologetic promoter of climate-change skepticism'

Morano in starring role as villain in warmist film ‘Merchants of Doubt’ – Morano: ‘I’m not a scientist, but I play one on TV’

Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry: 'Morano is actually quite broadly knowledgeable about climate science and the associated politics’

Warmist review of Merchants Of Doubt criticizes film for being ‘swindled by the charm of charismatic talking heads’ like Morano

Warmist Naomi Oreskes: 'People like Morano have made a career out of being contrarians, and they are very good at it. When a scientist comes up against a well-trained, savvy person, scientists will always lose in the debate.'

Warmist Randy Olson laments: ‘Wish the enviros had someone comparable to Morano, but they don't’

TV villain slogan: "If only he'd used his powers for good, instead of for evil."

Morano responds to tobacco smear: 'The warmists have it exactly backwards. It is the global warming proponents who are guilty of the tobacco tactics.' See: Flashback: Warmists’ mimic tobacco industry tactics: ‘Like tobacco industry, Warmists’ manufactured uncertainty & fear by stridently proclaiming certainty & consensus based on dubious & uncertain modeled results predicting disastrous consequences of a warmer climate’


By: Marc Morano - Climate DepotMarch 15, 2015 8:10 PM with 280 comments

Watch ‘Merchants of Doubt’ Trailer here:


http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/03/15/film-reviews-are-in-for-warmist-film-morano-as-villain-is-terrifyingly-impressive-sadistic-the-docs-most-engaging-character-a-magnificent-antihero-a-cheery-chatty-prevaricator/

[galdur]

Yeah, it probably goes without saying that they get whacked when they come up against their exact opposite.

Good luck, g

'People like Morano have made a career out of being contrarians, and they are very good at it. When a scientist comes up against a well-trained, savvy person, scientists will always lose in the debate.'

[SgtMoth]

http://ecowatch.com/2015/03/16/al-gore-sxsw-punish-climate-deniers/

[tvbcof]

The solar output of the sun and the inclination of the earth as well as the surface albedo characteristics have changed. CO2 is a thermostat, the rest of the climate system is the machine that brings us to where that thermostat points to.
...

Co2 is a thermostat?

No, I can't see any reason for that analogy.  Water and water vapor may well be a thermostat.
...

That was my thought also when I read the statement.  A thermostat tends be a simple device but still it contains a couple of distinct parts.  A classic mechanical one is often a bi-metallic coil which actuates something like a mercury switch and has some calibration mechanism.

If anything, CO2 might be a component of a thermostat, but it could also be more along the lines of something which is simply off in the corner of the room that happens to be influenced by the thermodynamics of the space.  My sense at this point is that CO2 is important enough in the rather complex system to qualify as a non-trivial feature of a very complex 'thermostat'.  If I had to choose between being wrong and 1) it ranks near the top in terms of importance, or 2) it utterly inconsequential, I'd probably select the latter.

---

In other news, I just listened to a reasonably interesting presentation by a couple of Canadians on opposite sides of the issue.  The questions coming in from the field indicate to me that people are feeling like they are being hustled and there is an effort to produce an unnecessary panic on the part of the Warmistas.  For anyone interested:

  https://soundcloud.com/ian-jessop-cfax/march-16-1pm?in=ian-jessop-cfax/sets/ian-jessop
or in more nicely edited form:
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0Ih2Wi8AAQ

Canada does seem to be unusually interested in this issue based on the number of Canadians who have significant input relative to their population and economic footprint.  I suppose it has to do with their economy which has a significant fossil fuels component and perhaps their geographical situation as well.

[sed]

I feel like this is somewhat relevant to this thread:

http://www.cnet.com/news/there-are-too-many-scientific-studies-says-scientific-study/

Now a scientific study says there are too many scientific studies.  I'm not saying this means that science is broken, I am emphasizing that science is only one way to examine the world/your existence.  I still stand by my earlier comment that if people are trying to bring non-science into the science forum then it seems like there's a good reason to kick them out.

[Wilikon]

I feel like this is somewhat relevant to this thread:

http://www.cnet.com/news/there-are-too-many-scientific-studies-says-scientific-study/

Now a scientific study says there are too many scientific studies.  I'm not saying this means that science is broken, I am emphasizing that science is only one way to examine the world/your existence.  I still stand by my earlier comment that if people are trying to bring non-science into the science forum then it seems like there's a good reason to kick them out.

This, right there, is the problem...

[Spendulus]

....  I still stand by my earlier comment that if people are trying to bring non-science into the science forum then it seems like there's a good reason to kick them out.

Then we get to kick out Bill Nye, Al Gore, the moderators of the climate forums on Reddit....

When do we start?

[sed]

....  I still stand by my earlier comment that if people are trying to bring non-science into the science forum then it seems like there's a good reason to kick them out.

Then we get to kick out Bill Nye, Al Gore, the moderators of the climate forums on Reddit....

When do we start?

Huh?  Why are those guys anti-science?  I understand that most of the climate-change deniers are simply denying the scientific method and if people are denying the scientific method then in my opinion it's weird to have them posting in a science forum.  It's like having me, and atheist, going to a church convention on how to interpret the virgin birth of Jesus.  I don't accept the starting point so having me at that convention would be ridiculous.  Are you saying these guys are denying the scientific method?

[Wilikon]

....  I still stand by my earlier comment that if people are trying to bring non-science into the science forum then it seems like there's a good reason to kick them out.

Then we get to kick out Bill Nye, Al Gore, the moderators of the climate forums on Reddit....

When do we start?

Huh?  Why are those guys anti-science?  I understand that most of the climate-change deniers are simply denying the scientific method and if people are denying the scientific method then in my opinion it's weird to have them posting in a science forum.  It's like having me, and atheist, going to a church convention on how to interpret the virgin birth of Jesus.  I don't accept the starting point so having me at that convention would be ridiculous.  Are you saying these guys are denying the scientific method?

Is this a 100% scientific experiment?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/climate-fail-files/gore-and-bill-nye-fail-at-doing-a-simple-co2-experiment/

You are always welcome in my church. I will never deny you the right to express yourself...

 

[sed]

....  I still stand by my earlier comment that if people are trying to bring non-science into the science forum then it seems like there's a good reason to kick them out.

Then we get to kick out Bill Nye, Al Gore, the moderators of the climate forums on Reddit....

When do we start?

Huh?  Why are those guys anti-science?  I understand that most of the climate-change deniers are simply denying the scientific method and if people are denying the scientific method then in my opinion it's weird to have them posting in a science forum.  It's like having me, and atheist, going to a church convention on how to interpret the virgin birth of Jesus.  I don't accept the starting point so having me at that convention would be ridiculous.  Are you saying these guys are denying the scientific method?

Is this a 100% scientific experiment?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/climate-fail-files/gore-and-bill-nye-fail-at-doing-a-simple-co2-experiment/

You are always welcome in my church. I will never deny you the right to express yourself...

 

Ok, two replies here:

1) Gore and Nye aren't scientists themselves, they are some sort of talking heads who want to popularize science.  This is a reasonably important job imo because scientists themselves aren't really good popular communicators by training---they have other strengths (ie, science).  Gore is a politician and Nye is a tv personality.  I think it's fine for non-scientists to try to popularize and distribute scientific results but I'm not surprised if they don't actually have the skills to do properly controlled scientific experiments because, lets face it, they aren't scientists.

2) Thanks for the invite to your church but I'm not really into that kinda thing.    My point is this, imagine your pastor/priest/imam or whatever having a meeting with other pastors/priests/imams in your faith to talk about how to interpret some aspect of your scripture or doctrine or whatnot.  That is not a meeting where my opinion would be considered helpful (ie, I call bullshit on all of it).

Do you feel me?

[tvbcof]

....  I still stand by my earlier comment that if people are trying to bring non-science into the science forum then it seems like there's a good reason to kick them out.

Then we get to kick out Bill Nye, Al Gore, the moderators of the climate forums on Reddit....

When do we start?

Huh?  Why are those guys anti-science?  I understand that most of the climate-change deniers are simply denying the scientific method and if people are denying the scientific method then in my opinion it's weird to have them posting in a science forum.  It's like having me, and atheist, going to a church convention on how to interpret the virgin birth of Jesus.  I don't accept the starting point so having me at that convention would be ridiculous.  Are you saying these guys are denying the scientific method?

I, as an atheist and a skeptic, can probably produce a far more adequate set of hypotheses regarding the birth of Jesus than someone who is constrained by dogma, fear of excommunication, roasting in hell, losing one's friends and things to do on Sunday morning, etc.

What I see happening in climate science is that any exploration which does not promote a particular view is roundly and immediately attacked by the majority.  I find the 'skeptics' to be far more flexible and open to lines of reason which could result in any outcome.  True, an outcome which happens to result in pay-check for someone running a carbon trading platform receives more skepticism, but that is an understandable reaction given the ways and means of the climate science machine and the impressive amount of baggage it has picked up in the past few decades.

In the 'denier' venues that I frequent, the rapid-fire stream of hypotho-facts from the warmist side are attacked with relish, but usually using what are distinctly principles of science.  I also don't see any calls for censorship and punishment such as those which are increasingly prevalent on the warmist side.  Nor do I see the kind of fire-and-brimstone techniques which are also highly leveraged on the warmist side.  Almost literally, amusingly enough.

In short, the assertion that 'climate science' is taking on a distinctly religious flavor seems a pretty valid (and amusing) observation and the warmist side maps to the religious wing fairly well.

I do feel a bit bad for the real scientists on the warmist side as the politician and zealots get involved and sully their work.  The precautionary principle is a tool which has a place, and it is not at all irrational to consider it for problems such as we are facing on the environmental front.  It is, however, a sharp and dangerous tool.  Having the likes of Al Gore grab it is like having a toddler grabbing and running around with one's scissors.  The appropriate way to deal with that situation is to take the scissors away and give the kid a talking to and perhaps a swat on the ass.  We see that happen from time to time (it looks like someone 'switching sides' or being to cozy with the 'deniers'...e.g., Judith Curry) but not often enough to mitigate the damage.

[Spendulus]

....  I still stand by my earlier comment that if people are trying to bring non-science into the science forum then it seems like there's a good reason to kick them out.

Then we get to kick out Bill Nye, Al Gore, the moderators of the climate forums on Reddit....

When do we start?

Huh?  Why are those guys anti-science?  I understand that most of the climate-change deniers are simply denying the scientific method and if people are denying the scientific method then in my opinion it's weird to have them posting in a science forum.  It's like having me, and atheist, going to a church convention on how to interpret the virgin birth of Jesus.  I don't accept the starting point so having me at that convention would be ridiculous.  Are you saying these guys are denying the scientific method?

Is this a 100% scientific experiment?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/climate-fail-files/gore-and-bill-nye-fail-at-doing-a-simple-co2-experiment/

You are always welcome in my church. I will never deny you the right to express yourself...

 

Ok, two replies here:

1) Gore and Nye aren't scientists themselves, they are some sort of talking heads who want to popularize science.  This is a reasonably important job imo because scientists themselves aren't really good popular communicators by training---they have other strengths (ie, science).  Gore is a politician and Nye is a tv personality.  I think it's fine for non-scientists to try to popularize and distribute scientific results but I'm not surprised if they don't actually have the skills to do properly controlled scientific experiments because, lets face it, they aren't scientists.

2) Thanks for the invite to your church but I'm not really into that kinda thing.    My point is this, imagine your pastor/priest/imam or whatever having a meeting with other pastors/priests/imams in your faith to talk about how to interpret some aspect of your scripture or doctrine or whatnot.  That is not a meeting where my opinion would be considered helpful (ie, I call bullshit on all of it).

Do you feel me?

Yes, I am saying that they deny the scientific method.    And many others.  You are correct that there are a bunch of parrots around who do not even understand the scientific method, but just repeat things they have heard.

Critical examination and skepticism is at the heart of the scientific method.  Well, and add a fair dose of humility to that.

[sed]

....  I still stand by my earlier comment that if people are trying to bring non-science into the science forum then it seems like there's a good reason to kick them out.

Then we get to kick out Bill Nye, Al Gore, the moderators of the climate forums on Reddit....

When do we start?

Huh?  Why are those guys anti-science?  I understand that most of the climate-change deniers are simply denying the scientific method and if people are denying the scientific method then in my opinion it's weird to have them posting in a science forum.  It's like having me, and atheist, going to a church convention on how to interpret the virgin birth of Jesus.  I don't accept the starting point so having me at that convention would be ridiculous.  Are you saying these guys are denying the scientific method?

I, as an atheist and a skeptic, can probably produce a far more adequate set of hypotheses regarding the birth of Jesus than someone who is constrained by dogma, fear of excommunication, roasting in hell, losing one's friends and things to do on Sunday morning, etc.

...

For sure.  And I can too.  But my point is that those pastors or whatever aren't going to be interested in hypotheses which don't already assume some facts which atheists would call straight bullshit on.  I'm just trying to promote the idea that if people are denying the scientific method then a science forum probably isn't the place to do that.

I also hear you guys that some are arguing that it's the "warmists" not the "deniers" who are being unscientific.  You may be correct, I don't know.  I do know that politics has become so involved here that unless you're reading the research yourself, it's probably had to get to the bottom of any of this.

In my own life, I can merely report that I have seen evidence that on the whole, things are warmer than they were 20 years ago (snow caps on my local mountains nearly gone, large glaciers missing).  Of course there's that other debate about the cause of these observations (human behavior driven or natural world cycle driven).  I don't want to get into all that.  I just want to emphasize that certain discussions come with a framework and discarding that framework can make your contribute decidedly unhelpful.  That's my point about religion and whatnot.  I call bullshit on virgin births and other things like that and I certainly think I'm right to do so.  However, religious people wouldn't consider that to be a helpful contribution to discussions which assume virgin births as a starting point and are trying to work out other ramifications.

[Wilikon]

....  I still stand by my earlier comment that if people are trying to bring non-science into the science forum then it seems like there's a good reason to kick them out.

Then we get to kick out Bill Nye, Al Gore, the moderators of the climate forums on Reddit....

When do we start?

Huh?  Why are those guys anti-science?  I understand that most of the climate-change deniers are simply denying the scientific method and if people are denying the scientific method then in my opinion it's weird to have them posting in a science forum.  It's like having me, and atheist, going to a church convention on how to interpret the virgin birth of Jesus.  I don't accept the starting point so having me at that convention would be ridiculous.  Are you saying these guys are denying the scientific method?

I, as an atheist and a skeptic, can probably produce a far more adequate set of hypotheses regarding the birth of Jesus than someone who is constrained by dogma, fear of excommunication, roasting in hell, losing one's friends and things to do on Sunday morning, etc.

...

For sure.  And I can too.  But my point is that those pastors or whatever aren't going to be interested in hypotheses which don't already assume some facts which atheists would call straight bullshit on.  I'm just trying to promote the idea that if people are denying the scientific method then a science forum probably isn't the place to do that.

I also hear you guys that some are arguing that it's the "warmists" not the "deniers" who are being unscientific.  You may be correct, I don't know.  I do know that politics has become so involved here that unless you're reading the research yourself, it's probably had to get to the bottom of any of this.

In my own life, I can merely report that I have seen evidence that on the whole, things are warmer than they were 20 years ago (snow caps on my local mountains nearly gone, large glaciers missing).  Of course there's that other debate about the cause of these observations (human behavior driven or natural world cycle driven).  I don't want to get into all that.  I just want to emphasize that certain discussions come with a framework and discarding that framework can make your contribute decidedly unhelpful.  That's my point about religion and whatnot.  I call bullshit on virgin births and other things like that and I certainly think I'm right to do so.  However, religious people wouldn't consider that to be a helpful contribution to discussions which assume virgin births as a starting point and are trying to work out other ramifications.

(2011) Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns Over Global Warming




The global warming theory left him out in the cold.

Dr. Ivar Giaever, a former professor with Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and the 1973 winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, abruptly announced his resignation Tuesday, Sept. 13, from the premier physics society in disgust over its officially stated policy that "global warming is occurring."

The official position of the American Physical Society (APS) supports the theory that man's actions have inexorably led to the warming of the planet, through increased emissions of carbon dioxide.

Giaever does not agree -- and put it bluntly and succinctly in the subject line of his email, reprinted at Climate Depot, a website devoted to debunking the theory of man-made climate change.

"I resign from APS," Giaever wrote.

Giaever was cooled to the statement on warming theory by a line claiming that "the evidence is incontrovertible."

"In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?" he wrote in an email to Kate Kirby, executive officer of the physics society.

"The claim … is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period," his email message said.

A spokesman for the APS confirmed to FoxNews.com that the Nobel Laureate had declined to pay his annual dues in the society and had resigned. He also noted that the society had no plans to revise its statement.

The use of the word "incontrovertible" had already caused debate within the group, so much so that an addendum was added to the statement discussing its use in April, 2010.

"The word 'incontrovertible' ... is rarely used in science because by its very nature, science questions prevailing ideas. The observational data indicate a global surface warming of 0.74 °C (+/- 0.18 °C) since the late 19th century."

Giaever earned his Nobel for his experimental discoveries regarding tunneling phenomena in superconductors. He has since become a vocal dissenter from the alleged “consensus” regarding man-made climate fears, Climate Depot reported, noting that he was one of more than 100 co-signers of a 2009 letter to President Obama critical of his position on climate change.

Public perception of climate change has steadily fallen since late 2009. A Rasmussen Reports public opinion poll from August noted that 57 percent of adults believe there is significant disagreement within the scientific community on global warming, up five points from late 2009.

The same study showed that 69 percent of those polled believe it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data in order to support their own theories and beliefs. Just 6 percent felt confident enough to report that such falsification was "not at all likely."



http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/09/14/nobel-prize-winning-physicist-resigns-from-top-physics-group-over-global/