walleyes
Crew Member
Right on well put.
The real science behind the myth.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Socialism_and_global_warming
What makes climate change deniers tick?
- Thread starter Clint r
- Start date
Right on well put.
The real science behind the myth.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Socialism_and_global_warming
SpringVelocity
Crew Member
If there is one thing everyone can do is stop/limit buying so much crap overseas. I find people simply dont get it. All give you a snap shot. Most of our products are designed here not Asia. To save on manufacturing (and because businesses can get away with it ) we ship our materials to china, and they are assembled there. We use ships/planes to do that. They manufacture the product and then ship it back to us. Freighters coming and going day and night. The problem is the consumer doesn't care anymore where things are made. Costco and Walmarts thrive. Why do you think China needs a secured pipeline? Don't you think our consuming habits are linked to increased container traffic? Coal demand and increased anchorages showing up on coast. Again we support that offshore manufacturing market to supply us cheap crap, and trash our environment.
Look at i-pods etc. Designed here in California shipped to China. China actually in some cases will actually ship in our materials from North America, and then it comes back to us on freighter. Look at other goods manufactured here claiming its made here when really its not. It may be assembled here but the parts are overseas.
If we really wanted to get a grip on pollution we should really look at how we consume. That's my take on it. Every person should question every day where there food and products come from. If you want to help environment you have to look at yourself. Like do you need the apples from Costco from USA and Mexico when your local farmer has them? If everyone thought that way it would cut a lot out of carbon footprint.
Consumers are a big part of the problem. Actually a major part.
Look at i-pods etc. Designed here in California shipped to China. China actually in some cases will actually ship in our materials from North America, and then it comes back to us on freighter. Look at other goods manufactured here claiming its made here when really its not. It may be assembled here but the parts are overseas.
If we really wanted to get a grip on pollution we should really look at how we consume. That's my take on it. Every person should question every day where there food and products come from. If you want to help environment you have to look at yourself. Like do you need the apples from Costco from USA and Mexico when your local farmer has them? If everyone thought that way it would cut a lot out of carbon footprint.
Consumers are a big part of the problem. Actually a major part.
Last edited:
Clint r
Well-Known Member
Yes I agree^^^. To a point. We need to make manufacturers accountable too. You wanna dig oil out the ground you should pay for that. Before it hits the refinery. Fracking? Pay. Mining logging anything where your destroying something to make a buck you should pay. And large. On the consumer end, do we really need a paper package wrapped in plastic, packed in boxs ect ect? We should pay for that but not as much as the manufacturer. I think we'd be better off cuz we'd be buying less because it would cost more and the actual business creating the pollution/garbage would actually start to feel the sting and figure out alternatives.
MadJigga
Well-Known Member
Clint r
Well-Known Member
Here's some interesting info copied from castanets news service.
Nicholas Johansen - Jun 17 5:00 am
Since Kinder Morgan's Trans Mountain pipeline expansion was approved by the National Energy Board, public opinion has swung both ways on the merits of the project.
A new Angus Reid poll shows that opinions can vary greatly, depending on geography.
Britsh Columbians are almost four times as likely to say the NEB made the wrong decision on approving the pipeline expansion than Albertans, where just nine per cent disagreed with the approval.
Sixty-three per cent of Albertans think the NEB made the right decision, compared to 41 per cent of British Columbians.
Nationally, public opinion appears to line up with British Columbian opinions, both having 41 per cent approval.
The polarizing results between the two provinces were seen in 2014, in a similar poll about the Northern Gateway pipeline.
The difference may come from where people's priorities lie on Canada's energy policy.
Fifty-six per cent of British Columbians feel that protecting the environment should be the biggest priority, while 65 per cent of Albertans feel that encouraging economic growth is the top priority.
The Angus Reid poll further breaks down the data and finds major differences in opinion on the Trans Mountain expansion amongst different age groups and genders.
Men aged 55 and older are most inclined to say the NEB made the right choice, while less than 17 per cent of woman between the ages of 18 and 34 agree with the NEB.
Nicholas Johansen - Jun 17 5:00 am
Since Kinder Morgan's Trans Mountain pipeline expansion was approved by the National Energy Board, public opinion has swung both ways on the merits of the project.
A new Angus Reid poll shows that opinions can vary greatly, depending on geography.
Britsh Columbians are almost four times as likely to say the NEB made the wrong decision on approving the pipeline expansion than Albertans, where just nine per cent disagreed with the approval.
Sixty-three per cent of Albertans think the NEB made the right decision, compared to 41 per cent of British Columbians.
Nationally, public opinion appears to line up with British Columbian opinions, both having 41 per cent approval.
The polarizing results between the two provinces were seen in 2014, in a similar poll about the Northern Gateway pipeline.
The difference may come from where people's priorities lie on Canada's energy policy.
Fifty-six per cent of British Columbians feel that protecting the environment should be the biggest priority, while 65 per cent of Albertans feel that encouraging economic growth is the top priority.
The Angus Reid poll further breaks down the data and finds major differences in opinion on the Trans Mountain expansion amongst different age groups and genders.
Men aged 55 and older are most inclined to say the NEB made the right choice, while less than 17 per cent of woman between the ages of 18 and 34 agree with the NEB.
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
From Dr. R. Spencer, food for thought.
If Skeptics can be Prosecuted for Fraud, So can Alarmists
June 17th, 2016
I’m glad to see this news report today, and I’ve been saying the same thing ever since the whole Attorneys General flap started:
“If Democratic attorneys general can pursue climate change skeptics for fraud, then also at risk of prosecution are climate alarmists whose predictions of global doom have failed to materialize.
The cuts both ways argument was among those raised by 13 Republican attorneys general in a letter urging their Democratic counterparts to stop using their law enforcement power against fossil fuel companies and others that challenge the climate change catastrophe narrative.
Consider carefully the legal precedent and threat to free speech, said the state prosecutors in their letter this week, headed by Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange.
If it is possible to minimize the risks of climate change, then the same goes for exaggeration, said the letter. If minimization is fraud, exaggeration is fraud.
The popular comparison of legitimate skepticism and uncertainty over the causes of climate change with hiding the risks of tobacco use is just so silly. No one can be demonstrated to have been harmed by manmade climate change, partly because there is no way to establish causation, there has been no demonstrable increase in severe weather events, etc.
Besides, can any investor in Exxon Mobil really claim they never heard of the possible risks of anthropogenic climate change? That’s all we’ve been hearing in the news for the last 30 years.
“But Dr. Spencer! It can be demonstrated that flash floods have killed more and more people in their cars over the last 150 years!” Sheesh. If you really think this is a valid argument, I can’t help you.
In fact, to the extent that recent climate change has been partly caused by humans (which I do believe…even though I cannot prove it), the positive externalities have likely outweighed the negative externalities (cold weather still kills more people than hot, crop productivity goes up with increasing CO2).
That is in addition to the fact that we have no large-scale replacements for fossil fuels yet, and to the extent we force expensive renewables on people, we make poverty worse. And poverty does kill.
Environmental groups that have pressured decision makers into bed with them on the issue should be held accountable for their deceit.
If Skeptics can be Prosecuted for Fraud, So can Alarmists
June 17th, 2016
I’m glad to see this news report today, and I’ve been saying the same thing ever since the whole Attorneys General flap started:
“If Democratic attorneys general can pursue climate change skeptics for fraud, then also at risk of prosecution are climate alarmists whose predictions of global doom have failed to materialize.
The cuts both ways argument was among those raised by 13 Republican attorneys general in a letter urging their Democratic counterparts to stop using their law enforcement power against fossil fuel companies and others that challenge the climate change catastrophe narrative.
Consider carefully the legal precedent and threat to free speech, said the state prosecutors in their letter this week, headed by Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange.
If it is possible to minimize the risks of climate change, then the same goes for exaggeration, said the letter. If minimization is fraud, exaggeration is fraud.
The popular comparison of legitimate skepticism and uncertainty over the causes of climate change with hiding the risks of tobacco use is just so silly. No one can be demonstrated to have been harmed by manmade climate change, partly because there is no way to establish causation, there has been no demonstrable increase in severe weather events, etc.
Besides, can any investor in Exxon Mobil really claim they never heard of the possible risks of anthropogenic climate change? That’s all we’ve been hearing in the news for the last 30 years.
“But Dr. Spencer! It can be demonstrated that flash floods have killed more and more people in their cars over the last 150 years!” Sheesh. If you really think this is a valid argument, I can’t help you.
In fact, to the extent that recent climate change has been partly caused by humans (which I do believe…even though I cannot prove it), the positive externalities have likely outweighed the negative externalities (cold weather still kills more people than hot, crop productivity goes up with increasing CO2).
That is in addition to the fact that we have no large-scale replacements for fossil fuels yet, and to the extent we force expensive renewables on people, we make poverty worse. And poverty does kill.
Environmental groups that have pressured decision makers into bed with them on the issue should be held accountable for their deceit.
Last edited:
Dave H
Well-Known Member
And yet not one iota of "science" is offered in your link, just the usual mindless babble designed to appeal to that part of the population who are unfortunate enough to be in the lower half of the intelligence curve.
Based on the fact that half the population is below average in intelligence you'll always have someone who believes the crap found in "Conservapedia" and other ad hoc websites.
It's what allows them to exist in a world where the actual facts that counter their crap is discounted by the denier types because "it's all a Socialist plot" so they create the Infinite Loop of Denial by simply discrediting the science.
If you cannot understand the science it's easy to deny it and there's your "Infinite Loop". You can "deny" until the cows come home if you are so inclined, but the manifestations shown by the actual events happening globally as a result of increased global warming and the following climate change show reality, something lacking amongst the deniers it appears.
Much like OBD, you find your sites that confirm your bias and rarely (if ever) take a look at who they are and who they represent.
Take Dr. Roy Spencer for example.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Roy_Spencer.htm
Read his claims then read what the science actually shows.
Different eh?
Take care.
windsurfer
Member
More people = More pollution. The world is finite. Realistically, are any of us going to stop driving, heating, boating.
Clint r
Well-Known Member
Yet another Alberta town sees the light:
Copied from Castanets news service:
The Canadian Press - Jun 19 6:57 am
The "next generation" in a Star-Trek-obsessed southern Alberta community involves a solar park and art display.
The latest attraction in Vulcan, a town of about 2,000 that shares a name with Mr. Spock's home planet, is getting some attention for boldly going into a new era of power production.
And, since planet Vulcan was forged in flames, perhaps it's only fitting that the town's new power project harnesses energy from the fireball that is our sun.
The solar park, which cost about $680,000 to build, includes solar panels both stand alone and as part of stylized grain elevators, a green living space and an art exhibit that lights up at night. The community believes the park is the first of its kind in Canada.
That being said, the town's mayor acknowledges it only generates enough electricity for two homes - certainly not enough to power up any spaceships - so it really qualifies more as a tourist attraction than as a way to light up the community.
"We are boldly going where no man has gone before," Mayor Tom Grant said. "It's like anything in life - one person's junk is another person's treasure and one person's art is another person's solar energy. I think we just have to look outside the box and work with it."
For decades there was little to note about Vulcan, named after the Roman god of fire, other than golden fields of grain, a smattering of cows and grain elevators.
But in the 1990s, local tourism officials realized they could make something of their town sharing a name with Spock's birth place.
In 1995, Vulcan unveiled its own Starship FX6-1995-A to welcome visitors. Its plaque includes greetings written in English, Vulcan and Klingon. Another sign welcomes visitors to Vulcan with the "Live Long and Prosper" motto.
Three years later, the space-themed Vulcan Tourism Trek Station was opened. The community also holds an annual Vul-con Convention and the Spock Days Rodeo.
Leonard Nimoy, who played the Spock character in the original series, in spinoffs and in movies, visited Vulcan in 2010 and was greeted with much fanfare and adoration.
"I think there's always the naysayers in anything that anybody does," Grant said about the solar park. "I'm sure some people don't think it's the best way to go. "But as they buy into the concept, see what it produces and what it can do for our community, I think the majority will be on side.
"Hey! This is the future."
Grant, who has lived in Vulcan his entire life, said the Star Trek influence and the town's science-related endeavours have been embraced by most residents.
He said it has also put Vulcan on the map.
"There are people who still think it's as hokey as can be, but I was in Boston and I had a coat on with a symbol from our tourism," Grant said.
A woman asked where he got the jacket and he told her Vulcan.
"She said, 'Not Vulcan, Alberta?'
"We have to look at these things as a positive no matter what ... and every small town community is trying to survive. We all need that niche in our communities and this is ours."
Copied from Castanets news service:
The Canadian Press - Jun 19 6:57 am
The "next generation" in a Star-Trek-obsessed southern Alberta community involves a solar park and art display.
The latest attraction in Vulcan, a town of about 2,000 that shares a name with Mr. Spock's home planet, is getting some attention for boldly going into a new era of power production.
And, since planet Vulcan was forged in flames, perhaps it's only fitting that the town's new power project harnesses energy from the fireball that is our sun.
The solar park, which cost about $680,000 to build, includes solar panels both stand alone and as part of stylized grain elevators, a green living space and an art exhibit that lights up at night. The community believes the park is the first of its kind in Canada.
That being said, the town's mayor acknowledges it only generates enough electricity for two homes - certainly not enough to power up any spaceships - so it really qualifies more as a tourist attraction than as a way to light up the community.
"We are boldly going where no man has gone before," Mayor Tom Grant said. "It's like anything in life - one person's junk is another person's treasure and one person's art is another person's solar energy. I think we just have to look outside the box and work with it."
For decades there was little to note about Vulcan, named after the Roman god of fire, other than golden fields of grain, a smattering of cows and grain elevators.
But in the 1990s, local tourism officials realized they could make something of their town sharing a name with Spock's birth place.
In 1995, Vulcan unveiled its own Starship FX6-1995-A to welcome visitors. Its plaque includes greetings written in English, Vulcan and Klingon. Another sign welcomes visitors to Vulcan with the "Live Long and Prosper" motto.
Three years later, the space-themed Vulcan Tourism Trek Station was opened. The community also holds an annual Vul-con Convention and the Spock Days Rodeo.
Leonard Nimoy, who played the Spock character in the original series, in spinoffs and in movies, visited Vulcan in 2010 and was greeted with much fanfare and adoration.
"I think there's always the naysayers in anything that anybody does," Grant said about the solar park. "I'm sure some people don't think it's the best way to go. "But as they buy into the concept, see what it produces and what it can do for our community, I think the majority will be on side.
"Hey! This is the future."
Grant, who has lived in Vulcan his entire life, said the Star Trek influence and the town's science-related endeavours have been embraced by most residents.
He said it has also put Vulcan on the map.
"There are people who still think it's as hokey as can be, but I was in Boston and I had a coat on with a symbol from our tourism," Grant said.
A woman asked where he got the jacket and he told her Vulcan.
"She said, 'Not Vulcan, Alberta?'
"We have to look at these things as a positive no matter what ... and every small town community is trying to survive. We all need that niche in our communities and this is ours."
Clint r
Well-Known Member
And I thought I'd follow up with this article just to show the mentality of the other side of the coin.
Also copied from castanet news service:
Target 'meant for a laugh'
Photo: Twitter
The Canadian Press - Jun 19 6:46 am
An organizer of an Alberta golf tournament where a cutout of Premier Rachel Notley was placed on the course as a target says it was meant to be humorous and was never intended to promote violence.
Ernest Bothi, president of the Big Country Oilmen's Association, says it was his idea to use the cutout, which was placed on the 11th hole of the Brooks Golf Club during the association's annual golf tournament on Friday.
The cutout drew criticism Saturday from an Alberta NDP member of the legislature, who says it was inappropriate to put a woman's face on a target, especially following the murder of British MP Jo Cox.
Bothi says people in the local energy industry are frustrated with Notley's carbon tax and the cutout was meant as a laugh.
He also says he was unaware of Cox's gender, and thought the MP was a man when news reports Friday said the victim's name was Jo.
Bothi says he doubts there would have been an uproar if former prime minister Stephen Harper's face was on a target.
"There's a lot of people here down in Brooks that, for want of a better term, needed a bit of a lift," Bothi said in an interview on Saturday.
He said no one hit the target.
"Everybody had a good laugh and that's all it was. It was good-hearted laughter. Nobody's going to hop into their vehicles and head off to Edmonton and do something horrible," he added.
"There was even women on the course who got a good chuckle out of it."
Marie Renaud, a New Democrat who represents St. Albert in the legislature, called the Notley target upsetting. Renaud returned a call from the premier's office seeking comment on it.
"Of course, you hear the normal excuse, 'It's a joke.' That's not a joke," she said, reacting to earlier media reports on the golf tournament.
Renaud said after Cox was murdered on Thursday, she decided to share what she called "ugly posts and messages" on social media that she's received in the past year.
She said using the premier's face as a target promotes a violent message.
"A lot of times it's just faceless, nameless accounts online, but it's disgusting and it's horrific, the violence that people talk about," Renaud said.
"I don't think it's OK in this day and age. When you know better, you do better, and this isn't any better."
Bothi said he would never advocate harm to Notley or any politician.
"I'm sure she's a wonderful person to sit and drink coffee with, but I just wish she'd have a change of heart on what she's doing, especially with this carbon tax," he said.
"Our industry is being beaten up bad."
Also copied from castanet news service:
Target 'meant for a laugh'
Photo: Twitter
The Canadian Press - Jun 19 6:46 am
An organizer of an Alberta golf tournament where a cutout of Premier Rachel Notley was placed on the course as a target says it was meant to be humorous and was never intended to promote violence.
Ernest Bothi, president of the Big Country Oilmen's Association, says it was his idea to use the cutout, which was placed on the 11th hole of the Brooks Golf Club during the association's annual golf tournament on Friday.
The cutout drew criticism Saturday from an Alberta NDP member of the legislature, who says it was inappropriate to put a woman's face on a target, especially following the murder of British MP Jo Cox.
Bothi says people in the local energy industry are frustrated with Notley's carbon tax and the cutout was meant as a laugh.
He also says he was unaware of Cox's gender, and thought the MP was a man when news reports Friday said the victim's name was Jo.
Bothi says he doubts there would have been an uproar if former prime minister Stephen Harper's face was on a target.
"There's a lot of people here down in Brooks that, for want of a better term, needed a bit of a lift," Bothi said in an interview on Saturday.
He said no one hit the target.
"Everybody had a good laugh and that's all it was. It was good-hearted laughter. Nobody's going to hop into their vehicles and head off to Edmonton and do something horrible," he added.
"There was even women on the course who got a good chuckle out of it."
Marie Renaud, a New Democrat who represents St. Albert in the legislature, called the Notley target upsetting. Renaud returned a call from the premier's office seeking comment on it.
"Of course, you hear the normal excuse, 'It's a joke.' That's not a joke," she said, reacting to earlier media reports on the golf tournament.
Renaud said after Cox was murdered on Thursday, she decided to share what she called "ugly posts and messages" on social media that she's received in the past year.
She said using the premier's face as a target promotes a violent message.
"A lot of times it's just faceless, nameless accounts online, but it's disgusting and it's horrific, the violence that people talk about," Renaud said.
"I don't think it's OK in this day and age. When you know better, you do better, and this isn't any better."
Bothi said he would never advocate harm to Notley or any politician.
"I'm sure she's a wonderful person to sit and drink coffee with, but I just wish she'd have a change of heart on what she's doing, especially with this carbon tax," he said.
"Our industry is being beaten up bad."
Last edited:
triplenickel
Well-Known Member
Success!! Only $700k to power 2 homes! Renewables are ready for the mainstream.
GLG
Well-Known Member
Yea that gave me a chuckle too when I read that. Poorly written or just a typo because it's not cheap but 30K all in and you can get someone to get you to net zero on your hydro bill. If you do most of the work it's around 20K. Sure would be nice if they would drop the 300% trade tariff on cheap china panels.
walleyes
Crew Member
I see very clearly but thx.
But again I could careless what a goof like you thinks anyways the only reason you started a post like this was to be a prick and create an argument so just thought I would give you one.
Last edited:
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
About Dave H's Skeptical Science website.
The New “Skeptical Science” Website: What is Going On Here?
By John Droz, Jr. -- August 13, 2010
I was recently informed of a website called “Skeptical Science” run by a Mr. John Cook. As a scientist (physicist), I decided to check it out to see what I could learn. I started with the assumption that Mr. Cook was a competent and well-intentioned person. After some looking around there, here’s what I found out and concluded.
The first red flag is the fact that Science (by definition) is skeptical, so why the repetition in the name? It’s something like naming a site “The attractive fashion model”.
Of more concern is the fact that (c0ntrary to what one might be led to believe by the title) the site is actually focused against skeptical scientists — specifically those who have the temerity to question anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Hmmm.
Mr. Cook says he’s motivated by his young daughter’s future. Great — all the more reason he should want to get it right.
I was fascinated by his site’s supposedly comprehensive list of 119 reasons given by “AGW skeptics,” as well as his rather cursory dismissal of each of these.
For instance, his answer to the consensus matter (#3) is that “97% of climatologists support AGW.” Well that in itself is debatable, but nowhere do I see any discussion that addresses the larger issue: the fact that science is not decided by consensus. What was the consensus of 99% of the “experts” about the solar system in Galileo’s time? Twenty-five years ago what was the consensus of 99% of the “experts” about the cause of ulcers? In both cases (and in many others) 99% of the experts were 100% wrong. That is exactly why science is not decided by consensus.
Another example is item #94: “Over 31,000 scientists signed the OISM Petition Project” and his response is “The ‘OISM petition’ was signed by only a few climatologists.” Maybe I’m missing something, but I thought that this was a scientific matter (remember the website title?). Is he really saying something so elitist as “physicist, chemists, biologists and other scientists are not qualified to assess the scientific legitimacy of AGW”? Apparently so.
Oops — if so then that means that Dr. Hansen’s theories should be discarded, since he is a physicist!
Further, if Mr. Cook is saying we should listen only to specialists, and if Mr. Cook is not a specialist in climate science, what is his authority for reaching such a conclusion? Should I also ask my barber who to listen to?
The OISM petition should be looked at as a peer-review process where a great number of scientists (from many fields) have concluded that a relatively small number of specialized scientists (climatologists) have diverged from good scientific practices. In other words, the 31,000± petition signers have concluded that the methodology for supporting AGW was more political than scientific.
The IPCC’s Own (Back Door) Skepticism: Two Examples for Mr. Cook
The Skeptical Science website can begin its revision with these two quotations from the IPCC itself to introduce skepticism toward climate alarmism and open-ended policy activism. Here they are:
“The set of available models may share fundamental inadequacies, the effects of which cannot be quantified.”
– IPCC, Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis (Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2007, p. 805.
“Limited and early analytical results from integrated analyses of the cost and benefits of mitigation indicate that these are broadly comparable in magnitude, but do not as yet permit an unambiguous determination of an emissions pathway or stabilization level where benefits exceed costs.”
– IPCC, Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change (Working Group III Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2007, p. 18.
So in my opinion (as a physicist), the most surprising thing is that his exhaustive list of 119 reasons does not get to the fundamentals of the AGW debate in its scientific and public policy dimensions. How can such an extensive enumeration omit the most important core issues?
Maybe it’s partly our fault. In response to the AGW claims of its proponents, it seems that good sites like this tend to respond with a shotgun approach, instead of using a rifle. For example, look at the recent articles in WattsUpWithThat. They cover an exceptionally diverse list of topics.
That’s good in some ways, but it’s bad if it leads any of us to lose our focus.
So what IS the number one concern about AGW? The answer lies in what science is all about.
The Scientific Method
Science is NOT a collection of data. Science is a PROCESS. (That’s why when 31,000 scientists criticize the process, it is apropos and significant.) When an answer (e.g., AGW) is proposed to a technical problem it is entirely up to the proponents to subject it to the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.
This has NOT been done — and is by FAR the number one deficiency of the AGW hypothesis.
AGW promoters are well aware of this key shortcoming. Their solution is to devalue the merits of the Scientific Method. Of course, they usually aren’t foolish enough to come out and say that specifically, but that is the effect of their actions.
So how are AGW proponents attempting to undermine real science? It’s in their assertions that “consensus” trumps the Scientific Method; that computer models are superior to empirical evidence; that we don’t have the time to get down and dirty so the precautionary principle justifies specious extrapolation; that “Post Normal Science” is a better way of resolving complex technical issues, etc., etc.
This is, in a word, bunk.
The Scientific Method is at the core of real science. Until AGW (and other illegitimate offspring — e.g., wind energy) are truly subjected to the Scientific Method, they remain entirely in the category of being unproven hypotheses.
We simply must keep this is mind as the most fundamental of ALL issues here.
The New “Skeptical Science” Website: What is Going On Here?
By John Droz, Jr. -- August 13, 2010
I was recently informed of a website called “Skeptical Science” run by a Mr. John Cook. As a scientist (physicist), I decided to check it out to see what I could learn. I started with the assumption that Mr. Cook was a competent and well-intentioned person. After some looking around there, here’s what I found out and concluded.
The first red flag is the fact that Science (by definition) is skeptical, so why the repetition in the name? It’s something like naming a site “The attractive fashion model”.
Of more concern is the fact that (c0ntrary to what one might be led to believe by the title) the site is actually focused against skeptical scientists — specifically those who have the temerity to question anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Hmmm.
Mr. Cook says he’s motivated by his young daughter’s future. Great — all the more reason he should want to get it right.
I was fascinated by his site’s supposedly comprehensive list of 119 reasons given by “AGW skeptics,” as well as his rather cursory dismissal of each of these.
For instance, his answer to the consensus matter (#3) is that “97% of climatologists support AGW.” Well that in itself is debatable, but nowhere do I see any discussion that addresses the larger issue: the fact that science is not decided by consensus. What was the consensus of 99% of the “experts” about the solar system in Galileo’s time? Twenty-five years ago what was the consensus of 99% of the “experts” about the cause of ulcers? In both cases (and in many others) 99% of the experts were 100% wrong. That is exactly why science is not decided by consensus.
Another example is item #94: “Over 31,000 scientists signed the OISM Petition Project” and his response is “The ‘OISM petition’ was signed by only a few climatologists.” Maybe I’m missing something, but I thought that this was a scientific matter (remember the website title?). Is he really saying something so elitist as “physicist, chemists, biologists and other scientists are not qualified to assess the scientific legitimacy of AGW”? Apparently so.
Oops — if so then that means that Dr. Hansen’s theories should be discarded, since he is a physicist!
Further, if Mr. Cook is saying we should listen only to specialists, and if Mr. Cook is not a specialist in climate science, what is his authority for reaching such a conclusion? Should I also ask my barber who to listen to?
The OISM petition should be looked at as a peer-review process where a great number of scientists (from many fields) have concluded that a relatively small number of specialized scientists (climatologists) have diverged from good scientific practices. In other words, the 31,000± petition signers have concluded that the methodology for supporting AGW was more political than scientific.
The IPCC’s Own (Back Door) Skepticism: Two Examples for Mr. Cook
The Skeptical Science website can begin its revision with these two quotations from the IPCC itself to introduce skepticism toward climate alarmism and open-ended policy activism. Here they are:
“The set of available models may share fundamental inadequacies, the effects of which cannot be quantified.”
– IPCC, Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis (Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2007, p. 805.
“Limited and early analytical results from integrated analyses of the cost and benefits of mitigation indicate that these are broadly comparable in magnitude, but do not as yet permit an unambiguous determination of an emissions pathway or stabilization level where benefits exceed costs.”
– IPCC, Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change (Working Group III Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2007, p. 18.
So in my opinion (as a physicist), the most surprising thing is that his exhaustive list of 119 reasons does not get to the fundamentals of the AGW debate in its scientific and public policy dimensions. How can such an extensive enumeration omit the most important core issues?
Maybe it’s partly our fault. In response to the AGW claims of its proponents, it seems that good sites like this tend to respond with a shotgun approach, instead of using a rifle. For example, look at the recent articles in WattsUpWithThat. They cover an exceptionally diverse list of topics.
That’s good in some ways, but it’s bad if it leads any of us to lose our focus.
So what IS the number one concern about AGW? The answer lies in what science is all about.
The Scientific Method
Science is NOT a collection of data. Science is a PROCESS. (That’s why when 31,000 scientists criticize the process, it is apropos and significant.) When an answer (e.g., AGW) is proposed to a technical problem it is entirely up to the proponents to subject it to the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.
This has NOT been done — and is by FAR the number one deficiency of the AGW hypothesis.
AGW promoters are well aware of this key shortcoming. Their solution is to devalue the merits of the Scientific Method. Of course, they usually aren’t foolish enough to come out and say that specifically, but that is the effect of their actions.
So how are AGW proponents attempting to undermine real science? It’s in their assertions that “consensus” trumps the Scientific Method; that computer models are superior to empirical evidence; that we don’t have the time to get down and dirty so the precautionary principle justifies specious extrapolation; that “Post Normal Science” is a better way of resolving complex technical issues, etc., etc.
This is, in a word, bunk.
The Scientific Method is at the core of real science. Until AGW (and other illegitimate offspring — e.g., wind energy) are truly subjected to the Scientific Method, they remain entirely in the category of being unproven hypotheses.
We simply must keep this is mind as the most fundamental of ALL issues here.
Similar threads
