holy cannoli
 

The Koch Brothers strike again.

Re: holy cannoli
 

Nah, just your boy Rupert.

Is there anything that comes from his extreme right slanted media empire that you don't gobble up like it was truffles on caviar?

As to the content? Same old stuff that was used to support the "hoax" conjecture is now deployed to back the softened "no big deal" stance.

Like I said, progress.

But the same rebuttals still apply.

The first thing they mention as a "collection of stubborn scientific facts" is "climategate"! Even if you are right, you gotta do better than that to even get people to read on!

Check out the declining number of environmental articles since the Rupie took the helm of the WSJ:
http://www.journalism.org/sites/jour...1-57-33_AM.png

Re: holy cannoli
 

Oh, and I almost forgot the funniest part of your "scientific" article. The direct comparison of the worlds scientific community to that of the soviet union under Stalinist rule!:
No one with an actual, factual ax to grind would need to resort to this kind of false equivalence. Especially when touting their case as supported by "a collection of stubborn scientific facts".
I now really hope for your sake the no-panic crowd is wrong, because if they are right, they are doing their cause more harm than good IMO.

They are always saying "follow the money" meaning the scientists are fabricating climate concern to get grant money, but when you have almost unlimited oil and coal money behind you and this is the best you can come up with, it seems more an indicator of how weak your case really is!

Re: holy cannoli
 

Grant money, prestige, a place in history... pretty intoxicating. And lest we forget, safety from being thought of as a neanderthal or being barred from that research job you so want and need. This is a lot about politics with science taking the back seat.

And this article/letter is by no means the best skeptics can and have come up with. They've been coming up with substantive stuff for a very long time. Here's one example of a woman who does consistantly good analysis. People like Curry are not unique and all skeptics are interested in valid research and valid conclusions coming from that research.

The list of scientists is pretty impressive IMHO, and certainly as impressive as the supposed consensus list. Can you at least admit that the science is not settled as we were told so unequivocally?...which is to me the main point.

Re: holy cannoli
 

Badhat, 16 "scientists" is probably less than .001% of the total number of people working on this. I put the word "scientist" in quotes, because just a cursory scan of the names shows Burt Rutan, who I admire greatly for his work at scaled composites, is an engineer, and not a scientist, let alone a climate one. Why would they make the bold claim they are all scientists when this is a lie from the outset, even by the facts on shown right there the page?

These editorialists have the entire fossil fuel industry behind them, PLUS the Murdoch "conservative" propaganda machine, and they can't even keep the facts in their own piece from contradicting themselves!
Embarrassing, at best.

If you really believe that having a job is the reason for an overwhelming majority of PHD's conclusions on this, then ask yourself this question:

If one does not accept the data analysis of the majority of researchers, then how hard do you think it would be to get a position with the most profitable industry the world has ever known, supporting a denier case that could save them trillions of dollars?

If you want to get me and others to accept the doubters case, you have a very, very long uphill climb, and you are sliding backwards right now.
Even the timing on this Murdoch "editorial" is suspicious. Couldn't have anything to do with the recent thumbs down on the pipeline could it? Or was there new data that came in? NOPE!

But you keep believing this is a hoax, sorry, a non issue, wait, no need to panic, or is it no need for any drastic measures, what's the position du jour again?

But I haven't presented any science here, or rebutted your assertions or links. I've just pointed out that when exposed to a just quick sniff test, your case stinks to high heaven!

But this isn't even worth the time I've wasted posting this. You are gonna beat this drum till there's nothing to gain. Maybe you can get Aemjeff to provide a thousand links for you to trivialize. But your pipeline is dead till you can get Newt, Romney, or some other upstanding genius in the white house. Sorry.

Re: holy cannoli
 

I think the point was how ugly politicized science actually gets.

Re: holy cannoli
 

Under Stalin! And by factual deniers, BTW!

Re: holy cannoli
 

I doubt that but so what? They don't claim to be the only scientists who think this way. They just happen to be 16 who got together, wrote the letter and signed it.

I actually would argue that aerospace engineering is a science. Never mind about climate...what makes aerospace engineering not a science?

No proof, just ad hominums. That's embarassing! And what 'facts' contradict themselves?

I don't.

Oh yeah, it's all about the pipeline. God save us from that! Hansen says if the tar sands are mined that'll be game over for the planet and people believe him. Never mind that that oil is going to get mined anyway and sold to someone. At least it won't be making its filthy way across America's heartland!


Further, I don't think the doubters case is sliding backwards at all. For instance you might note that Canada pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol. OOOPS!

It's the alarmists who are losing steam. And it's because of the way that they presented their case and all of the scandals which have ensued. They set themselves up for failure. Classic unbridled hubris. It'll get ya every time.

Re: holy cannoli
 

Well at least they didn't compare anything to Nazis! That just gets so old.

From James Hansen:

Re: holy cannoli
 

as the always delightful and charming James Hansen does quite often.

Re: holy cannoli
 

I found this quote yesterday while listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe podcast, and I remembered the many threads in this forum to which it would apply. I decided to share it:

PS: The podcast includes a segment with an interview with Sean Carroll, if anyone is interested.

Re: holy cannoli
 

The flip-side is hubris, immodesty, arrogance, authoritarianism, elitism etc.....

Once again there are trade-offs.

Re: holy cannoli
 

I would hope you will grant this is not an either/or possibility. There are multiple points in between. There's no need for trade offs.

Accepting that there are undesirable extremes is fine. Embracing one extreme (exultation of ignorance) and making it appear as virtuous is what bothers me. It's regressive and brutish.

Re: holy cannoli
 

This type of characterization is hardly ever true but it is a characterization that the opposition group always uses.

And just one more thing...climate skeptics are not exulting ignorance. They are heartily against it...as in an entire population in the thrall of a bunch of political opportunists who tell them the sky is falling. It's a religion, as Michael Crichton pointed out over a decade ago. Don't question or the planet will be annihilated.

Re: holy cannoli
 

I think the ignorance is in not knowing how to evaluate controversy. If 99% of scientists say one thing, and 1% say another, who would you be more likely to believe? Let's say the 1% does not represent the top authorities in the topic, but rather a random collection of science related people. Who to believe?

What if that 1% support a claim that benefits a powerful lobby, such as the oil industry? What if the media platform that gives voice to that 1% happens to be a well-known biased media, which has been exposed repeatedly for presenting a very skewed view?

What is the interest of the 99% of scientists to make a claim? If someone is primarily driven by interest in money or funding they may pursue a whole bunch of careers, but very unlikely that they would choose a career in science for that purpose.

We know you've been invested in defending your point of view on climate change for a couple of years now. I'm not expecting to convince you, but rather show you that there's always some degree of dissent in science, and an integral part of it is to know how to evaluate different claims, weigh the body of evidence, and move forward with the claims that are best supported.

That doesn't mean that the dissenting voices should be ignored completely. If they have sufficient evidence, they would get funding from reputable sources. If their view supports a certain industry, that industry will fund them. Unfortunately, their results may be tainted by a biased source of funding, but, they can still present them.

Re: holy cannoli
 

I have gone into this statistical trick multiple times and I'm not going to do it again. Suffice it to say, it has been shown the the study that resulted in these numbers was not rigorous and yet the statistics stand as a red flag for the alarmist side.

As far as who to believe I would think you should do some independent reading. If you are truly interested in the subject and would like to do your own investigations I would direct you to three skeptics' sites. These are just three of many who are working in the field. There is much controversy and few conclusions but hopefully you can glean from these sites that these people are not the Neanderthals the left would make them out to be.

Judith Curry

Anthony Watts

Roger Pielke, Jr.

Re: holy cannoli
 

Thank you for the links.

I am interested in the topic, and I already follow the sources that I can trust.

Re: holy cannoli
 

You don't have to be a climate scientist to be able to read data and evaluate whether or not research has been done properly or inproperly. Here's Rutan talking about why he is qualified to weigh in in the climate controversy.

Re: holy cannoli
 

I'm not sure if this means you will be looking at the links or not.

Oh I get it...you don't like to let anyone assume that you don't know everything.

Whatever.

god, I miss this forum.

Re: holy cannoli
 

And we know that you really don't know much about the science but that you enjoy being a member of the well meaning do gooder club that really, really cares about the environment. And thanks so much but you really don't need to inform me that there is always some degree of dissent in science. I would like to remind and inform you that your side has stated unequivocally, that the science is settled.

How very kind of you. They are presenting them in great quantity and more and more people are actually paying attention.

Re: holy cannoli
 

Lighten up, badhat, life is short.

It isn't that hard. Here. Here. And this.

I apologize. I said 99%. It's more like 97-98%.

Re: holy cannoli
 

It was an Murdoch controlled paper editorial, they didn't write it, they signed it.

Engineering is applied science, engineers are not considered scientists, but nice try. You might want to check your facts, because now you look like you really don't know what you are talking about.

See engineers vs. scientists above.

Where's that pipeline coming from again? Bigger oops!!
Shorter Bandhat: Duh! Winning!

Re: holy cannoli
 

There are nuts on both sides, true, but that's beside my point concerning yours.

Re: holy cannoli
 

Your Rutan quote was a comment response to this rebuttal of the WSJ article.

Here's the comment right under his:

Re: holy cannoli
 

But James Hansen is one of the most respected nuts on the planet and I might add, a very highly paid employee of your federal government.

Re: holy cannoli
 

The way I see it the scientists wrote it. You say a Wall Street Journal editor wrote it. Who is he/she?

Re: holy cannoli
 

So engineers are not scientists. What is the defining quality of a scientist may I ask? For instance are people involved in genetic engineering scientists or are they engineers?

Re: holy cannoli
 

Yes, I know that the Rutan quote was a rebuttal of the post criticizing the WSJ article. That's where I got it. What's your point? You certainly didn't address mine.

Re: holy cannoli
 

When "the facts" are subject of debate ignorance might be bliss. Better still would be 'informed skepticism'.

I did not realize at first that this was a discussion about global warming, but even in that case being a skeptic or being partial to skepticism does not mean embracing or praising ignorance, does it?

Re: holy cannoli
 

Oh yes it does! The fate of the whole flipping planet is on the line and those pesky guys are standing in the way of fixin' things.

This is such an old story getting played out in modern times.

Earth Day predictions 1970. They're all wonderful but the first, in light of the current debate is, as they say, priceless:

Re: holy cannoli
 

I was providing context for my link and quote that made my point better than I could. But you barely scanned my post, obviously.
Notice how I generously give you credit for laziness rather than accusing you of ignorance or stupidity? Try to live up to the expectation.

Here's the point (again):

Re: holy cannoli
 

You're right, I should never take your word for it. Prove you point then. He compared the modern global science community to that of the Soviet Union under Stalin? Or what?

Re: holy cannoli
 

Good question, I couldn't find an author, but an editorial piece usually means the editor wrote it unless otherwise attributed. Maybe your propaganda god Rupert wrote it. I does smack of his far right POV.

I like how you funnel my responses down to the only point you think you can refute:


Way to dumb down the conversation. You think you are gaining ground in these things, but you just grind them down to pointlessness in an effort to get the last post.
Keep up the good work for your cause! Your efforts are appreciated though, by the other side, that is.

Re: holy cannoli
 

You're kidding, right? I just explained this.
FROM THE WIKI (yawn):
I'm just going to start merely contradicting your posts, and let you ruin your cause by exposing a lack of competence with regards to critical thinking.

Re: holy cannoli
 

Engineering is not science. Engineers are not scientists. Engineers make or design things. The test for the quality of an engineer's work is whether or not the things function within the parameters of their designs. Scientists produce papers. The test for the quality of a scientist's work is based on peer approval in regard to the papers he or she has produced. These are intrinsically different tasks, requiring completely different sets of skills (and that's apart from the specific technical skill sets that accompany each discipline.) And you're right, this goes directly to harry's critical thinking skills, at least insofar as she allows us to glimpse them, such as they are, in this forum.

Re: holy cannoli
 

In your own words:

Re: holy cannoli
 

You've finally discovered my dastardly plan.

Re: holy cannoli
 

Ruin my cause on a long since abandoned forum. That's rich.

Your original point (?) was that Rutan had no business weighing in on the subject of climate change because he is not a scientist. AND your other brilliant point was to say that the writer of the editorial (which it was not and who you could not identify) mis-stated that 16 scientists signed it.

And then you accuse me of picking silly points to argue. Hilarious.

And BTW, my husband is an electro-mechanical engineer and when asked, he said that very often he was involved in scientific endeavors in his R&D work. So I would say that there are many cutting edge engineers (of which even you would have to admit Rutan is one) who could honestly call themselves scientists. Not to mention the fact that an engineer of his stature is certainly qualified to speak about the efficacy of the climate models and statistics which are being offered in the research.

And you never explained just what is the the defining feature of science or a scientist that makes it/him unique...except to say DUHHHH!

I suspect that is because you can't.

Re: holy cannoli
 

You think somehow that I am supposed to be cowed by some guy on the internet saying that Rutan is in error. I suppose you also think that I should change my mind about the whole issue because some guy on the internt thinks that Rutan has a completely inaccurate view.

I doubt very much that you have any notion about what the real issues are in this conflict and that is why you have to use some guy on the internet's words instead of your own.

Re: holy cannoli
 

Um no...he compared not being as hysterical as he is about the imminent threat of climate change or warming or whatever they're calling it these days to sending Jews to the gas chambers.

That was in response to this from you: No one with an actual, factual ax to grind would need to resort to this kind of false equivalence.