Cold, hard facts take the heat out of some hot claims

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by photon

You've made this mistake before and I am sure will continue to think that way.. but scientists aren't on the pedestal, it's science itself that is on the pedestal. Some scientists can be wrong, on the take, prideful, whatever, but science is open and you can't fake results forever; science corrects itself because new data, observations, predictions are constantly done to test the consensus.

In a vacuum science would correct itself but, science doesn't live in such ideal conditions. It lives in a world where it needs money from people whose interests are never neutral. The science is only as good as the scientist who generate it. As far as fake results go with global warming the results are theories or computer models based on an assumed association between our planets warming trend and CO2 emissions. These computer models have had failures short term(like last years hurricane season) but really won't be proven one way or another for at least twenty years. A scientist could be dead wrong on this theory and have retired a millionaire before proven wrong.

Originally Posted by photon

The fact that there is dispute about global warming is a result of lack of understanding the science more fully.

You and I certainly could be in the lack of knowledge camp but, there are scientists within this field who reject the CO2 theory outright. They bring science to prove their positions as well. I believe they should be heard on the basis of their science.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

A scientist could be dead wrong on this theory and have retired a millionaire before proven wrong.

Do you have some sort of inside knowledge of how these people work that is different than what the rest of us know?

Climate scientists retiring as millionaires? Where do you get this stuff? Are there any examples? I can't imagine there are many scientists retiring as millionaires on unproven and evidently flawed conjecture.

Did you go to university? If so which one. I'm not trying to be a snot here, I'm actually curious as to how you came up with this idea.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

You implied it when you said "So instead of listening to people sho have spent years of study in their fields". You didn't say "some people" or "the majority of people". You said "people" which suggests "all" people with years of experience in there fields.

If I say, "I saw people who were wearing parkas today," it doesn't mean that all people I saw today were wearing parkas; it means that at least two were. Similarly in the sentence you're referencing, the dependent clause restricts the noun: it merely says that all the people you should be listening to have spent years of study in their fields. To read it that the subject of the sentence is "all people with years of experience" simply goes against any grammatical rule I've ever heard.

Perhaps you're confusing this with the way that a dependent clause can sometimes be used to refer to the whole of a subject even when the subject is referring to a limited quantity. If I say, "I saw beavers, who are known for their silky coats, while I was passing over the bridge." In that case, the dependent clause refers to 'all', but that's very different structurally than the sentence above.

Hopefully this clears it up for you. I normally don't harp on grammar in threads like this, but when you're misrepresenting someone else's arguments through poor grammar, I feel obligated to point it out.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by photon

If Gore misrepresented thing, that's a political thing not a scientific thing. That's the problem with the whole global warming "debate" in my mind, is it's completely politicized.

Well said. And the reason the proponents of man-made global warming get so much funding is also political. In fact, the WHOLE global warming issue has been politicized. Its pretty hard to find ANY voice of reason, especially when trusted institutes, like NASA, have skewed data.

Might only be small....but what happened to the part of science where your theory, and data essentially, is tripled checked for ALL errors?

What exactly does such a mistake say of NASA? Especially considering the struggle the blogger went through to get the information.

[Azure]

In regards to another issue...there are scientists on 'both' sides of the argument.

Skeptics one might call them....also people educated enough to understand climate science, and so on and so forth. Its not like one side of the argument is dominated by educated 'geeks' from MIT...and the other side has the high school graduate with the big mouth.

Which is exactly my problem. I know you never implied it in such a way Rouge...but my point still stands. Why is it that one side has the valid viewpoint, based on an educational background, while the other side in neglected even though both share similar schooling? Why is it that one side receives so much funding?

Considering how important the issue to our future...shouldn't we make SURE that our science is correct? Shouldn't NASA be triple checking their data before they present it as a valid source?

Again I ask....what happened to the scientific aspect of all of this?

[ken0042]

Something I've been wondering about- what ever happened to those holes in the ozone layer? The ones that were caused by us using CFCs?

I was under the impression those holes wouldn't just fix themselves quickly, and wouldn't the increased solar radiation contribute to global warming?

Anyways, just thinking out loud. If anybody knows, I'd be curious to hear.

[Flame On]

It's funny to me because this thread is a microcosm of the entire debate.
A little doubt shed on one area of the issue on the pro human caused climate change side and most are wading in with an "i told you so mentality".
But doubt shed from the other side is not met with the same standards.
IMO

[Flame On]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Something I've been wondering about- what ever happened to those holes in the ozone layer? The ones that were caused by us using CFCs?

I was under the impression those holes wouldn't just fix themselves quickly, and wouldn't the increased solar radiation contribute to global warming?

Anyways, just thinking out loud. If anybody knows, I'd be curious to hear.

I think the ozone issue is for the most part a success story. Though I seem to remember reading recently that there's a gets worse before it gets better side to it. I'll try and find the article.
I think this is the one I read Ken0042.
Discover magazine.

[Shawnski]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Some people went to school for 7 or 8 years and learned about something

And some of the dumbest people I have EVER met had MBA's. Schooling is not the end all, be all. If I only had a nickle for each schmuck that thought their piece of paper proved their wisdom...

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

You've got two guys. One of them has a PhD in aeronautical engineering from MIT. The other guy has a high school diploma, an internet connection and a loud voice. They both design an airplane. Which one would you fly in?

Where do the Wright brothers fit into this little scenario? Neither obviously. But they were pioneers in a field that has now flourished over the last century... in a field that had not only visable results, but also was crutial in the advancement of mankind.

Climatologists? They have only in recent decades had a voice, moreso now than ever. But no visable results that people can sink their teeth into (don't give me the hockey stick bunk...) And worse yet, a BLOGGER noticed NASA screwed up data!! Kind of makes you wonder about their collective acumen when no one else in the scientific community noticed the problem? Hell, if I see an anomoly like the jump ~ 2000 I would have been digging hard to ensure their data was right to begin with... But hey, that is just little old me... a number cruncher with a high school diploma.

I am more with Bingo than not. Nothing is "proven" in my mind. Not even close. I certainly have concerns though, but not where the current mindset is focused.

And hey, if anyone is really, really concerned about CO2 emissions.... you can always stop breathing. THAT emission is definitely man-made.

[Flame On]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

And some of the dumbest people I have EVER met had MBA's. Schooling is not the end all, be all. If I only had a nickle for each schmuck that thought their piece of paper proved their wisdom...



Where do the Wright brothers fit into this little scenario? Neither obviously. But they were pioneers in a field that has now flourished over the last century... in a field that had not only visable results, but also was crutial in the advancement of mankind.

Climatologists? They have only in recent decades had a voice, moreso now than ever. But no visable results that people can sink their teeth into (don't give me the hockey stick bunk...) And worse yet, a BLOGGER noticed NASA screwed up data!! Kind of makes you wonder about their collective acumen when no one else in the scientific community noticed the problem? Hell, if I see an anomoly like the jump ~ 2000 I would have been digging hard to ensure their data was right to begin with... But hey, that is just little old me... a number cruncher with a high school diploma.

I am more with Bingo than not. Nothing is "proven" in my mind. Not even close. I certainly have concerns though, but not where the current mindset is focused.

And hey, if anyone is really, really concerned about CO2 emissions.... you can always stop breathing. THAT emission is definitely man-made.

In fact they weren't just mere bloggers but in fact Scientists. So what would they know any way.
Actually another place states that he's simply a mineral consultant. Another grey area, like we need more of those.

[Shawnski]

Originally Posted by Flame On

In fact they weren't just mere bloggers but in fact Scientists. So what would they know any way.
Actually another place states that he's simply a mineral consultant. Another grey area, like we need more of those.

Right... and your point is????

[badnarik]

Steve McIntyre is the blogger. http://www.climateaudit.org/

[Flame On]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

Right... and your point is????

My point is you went on a big tirade about how qualifications don't necesarrily give credibility. Then misrepresent the lowly blogger as taking down NASA when in fact that lowly blogger is in fact not so lowly.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

And some of the dumbest people I have EVER met had MBA's. Schooling is not the end all, be all. If I only had a nickle for each schmuck that thought their piece of paper proved their wisdom...



Where do the Wright brothers fit into this little scenario? Neither obviously. But they were pioneers in a field that has now flourished over the last century... in a field that had not only visable results, but also was crutial in the advancement of mankind.

Climatologists? They have only in recent decades had a voice, moreso now than ever. But no visable results that people can sink their teeth into (don't give me the hockey stick bunk...) And worse yet, a BLOGGER noticed NASA screwed up data!! Kind of makes you wonder about their collective acumen when no one else in the scientific community noticed the problem? Hell, if I see an anomoly like the jump ~ 2000 I would have been digging hard to ensure their data was right to begin with... But hey, that is just little old me... a number cruncher with a high school diploma.

I am more with Bingo than not. Nothing is "proven" in my mind. Not even close. I certainly have concerns though, but not where the current mindset is focused.

And hey, if anyone is really, really concerned about CO2 emissions.... you can always stop breathing. THAT emission is definitely man-made.

All that and you didn't even answer Rouge's question.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

And some of the dumbest people I have EVER met had MBA's. Schooling is not the end all, be all. If I only had a nickle for each schmuck that thought their piece of paper proved their wisdom...

And if I had a nickle for every know-it-all I've met who doesn't know what he's talking about I'd have more nickles than you.

I'm not putting forward revolutionary ideas here. I just think that a person who has several years of training and education in a certain subject probably has a better grasp on that subject than somebody who has zero training and education in that same subject.

Is that unreasonable? If the brakes are squeaking on your car do you take it to the dentist? If your piano needs tuning do you phone a plumber?

[Shawnski]

Originally Posted by Flame On

My point is you went on a big tirade about how qualifications don't necesarrily give credibility. Then misrepresent the lowly blogger as taking down NASA when in fact that lowly blogger is in fact not so lowly.

Uhhh.. so one decenting voice after all these years... albeit recognized if you say so (link didn't work).. out of all the voices yapping over these years... now makes everything OK... yeah... right.

[Shawnski]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

All that and you didn't even answer Rouge's question.

I did. My answer indicated and demonstrated that his question was not pertinent in context to the current scenarios.

[Shawnski]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I'm not putting forward revolutionary ideas here. I just think that a person who has several years of training and education in a certain subject probably has a better grasp on that subject than somebody who has zero training and education in that same subject.

At least you are now indicating that training and education are differnent beasts. Even then, I believe you are missing self-taught learning. I cannot stress this enough to people who want to succeed in anything they endeavor.

Even the definitions of who educates us are noteworthy....

teach (v)

Synonyms: impart, communicate, show, explain, clarify, instill, give a grounding in, equip with, inculcate with

Sounds good... grade school, teachers are usually quite good in getting us to the next level....

profess (v)

Synonyms: admit, own, own up, confess, acknowledge, agree, allow, recognize

Now here is where the disconnect happens for me... "professors" deal with significantly larger audiences and do not necessarily perpetuate learning that are accurately ahead of their time.

Ones leaving university whom think they know business practices, ideologies or whatnot are sadly mistaken. Does your IQ increase with educatoin? You have it, or you don't. And even then, you USE it, or you don't and that is where enterpreneurs make headway. Not necessarily the highest IQ's but man, some of them apply themselves astoundingly.

Anyway, I believe in results, not parchments. Always will.

[Flame On]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

Uhhh.. so one decenting voice after all these years... albeit recognized if you say so (link didn't work).. out of all the voices yapping over these years... now makes everything OK... yeah... right.

What are you talking about? Who's the dissenting voice? What's OK now?

[Bingo]

I think it's a shame that this topic has been moved to debating whether or not a scientist knows more than a ditch digger ...

I think we can put that to rest ... unless the topic is ditches we can can conclude that a scientist in the field of global science probably knows a thing or two.

However, that doesn't mean that this scientist is right about whatever theory they hold dear to their hearts at the moment as hypothesis are likely changing as fast as the climate itself.

I'm not a pro-pollution guy, but I do think that there is a rush to judgement on this, and you hate to see focus and funds devoted almost exclusively to only one area when said area is far from proven to the extent of gravity.

Is the NASA mistake the end of global warming? Of course not. But I do think since the ranking was a hot button for a lot of global warming supporters including the opening of Gore's movie I do think it might be an assistance in getting people to slow down and really understand this before wasting a whole lot of money on solutions that many experts feel will solve nothing.

I don't want to drown or burn to a crisp either, believe me.