It's not exactly uncommon in these little debates, if you haven't noticed. We have a blue text rule for a reason.
Besides, not like I haven't been called worse up to and including a Nazi on the matter.
Paper; Global Warming "The Biggest Science Scandal Ever"
- Thread starter ValuJet
- Start date
- Status
Besides, not like I haven't been called worse up to and including a Nazi on the matter.
Well I'm on my phone so the blue font is cumbersome. The intent was only to see what you all thought of the man and his views, not to argue a point. Honestly I didn't mean to offend with the comment.
No prob. Honestly, once you've been called a Nazi or "Ecoterrorist" on the matter, not much offends.
Good Lord I wouldn't call you that at all. The whole "fundamentalist" comment was a play on the "religious" aspect that folks bring into the debate (from both sides).
Back to Dyson, the man is an unquestioned modern day genius. No, climatology isn't his area of expertise. (Seems I remember you saying it's not yours either but you do speak with authority on the subject). However I read an article from The Atlantic last night which was about him and his stunningly incorrect assessments of global warming. What I found ironic was a statement one of his colleagues on The Orion project made about him. It was that Dyson had a super human ability to understand amazingly complex systems and how each part worked.
Seems his opinions on the subject of climate shouldn't be dismissed so casually.
Thanks. You get used to it, though.
The anonymity of the internet results in a disconnect from common decency for some folks.
I try to be very careful concerning my own arguments to avoid arguing from my own authority (ipse dixit). If you'll go back to when the science was being more heavily discussed around page 25-26, note that I included references to scholarly articles supporting my position.
In that past, he has admitted his own ignorance on the subject:
"My objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but it’s rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have. I think that’s what upsets me."
so careful taking his word as authority. His denialist position strikes me a more of a "stick to the man" position rather than quibbling over the facts of the debate. One of the few times he did wander into a debate over the details, he was dead wrong, and as Carl Sagan once said:
"Genius is no guarantee against being dead wrong."
If he's truly "skeptical," he should refrain from blithely presenting his uninformed opinions on the matter as fact. In the case of the article I linked above, he's minimizing the possible effects of a changing climate with a pseudoskeptical opinion.
Denialists like to claim they are just skeptics. After all, no one wants to self-identify as a denialist.
As has been pointed out, there is plenty of that mentality on both sides of the argument.
That said, people who are in full blown denial (think that human CO2 has had NO effect) are pretty rare. I talk to enough people about this, and read enough articles that I believe I have a good enough sample. I have yet to meet one, and can't remember more than one or two cases where I have read an article to that effect. Generally it is always a case of three questions: degrees of effect, whether our effect is enough to do something about it, and if so what.
I don't disagree. There are folks on both sides of the debate suffering from a raging case of the Dunning-Kruger effect. One side more so than the other in my opinion, but I digress.
Seems like a smart fellow to call "uninformed". My guess is he knows more than you and me put together.
About QFT, mathematics, solid state physics, or nuclear engineering? Darn skippy. I'd defer to his expertise on those matters without a second thought. However, once an expert begins to make claims outside of his or her field of expertise, the authority is no greater than yours or mine.
Not necessarily. Neither of us have claimed expertise on the matter, have we? We're both pretty much relying on arguments from authority.
You do realize that healthy skepticism is the basis of scientific endeavors, right?
Anyone who claims "the science is settled, so there is no debate" are the true deniers, as they are not true scientific people.
And one last point, that galls me to death...............this "97% (or whatever number) of climate scientists...............blah, blah, blah.............." refers to a survey of climate scientists.
The small print they leave out is that it was a survey of the most published climate scientists. Which leaves it wide open to their interpretation of most published. Does not mean most knowledgeable or most highly respected, or any other metric.
Just because someone is "published" does not mean they know what they are talking about. Just means someone of similar views is on the editorial board, of the publication. Those on the editorial boards, of any technical publication are subject to their own biases and beliefs.
I've quit some professional organizations when the academics took control over the folks in industry. Being published doesn't hold much water, in my book. I've read my share of codswallop. All peer-reviewed, and impractical in industry.
Of course. But the sheer amount of hard evidence simply ignored by the majority of the denialists doesn't reflect a position of skepticism. Too often, no amount of evidence would convince them. It's pseudoskepticism. Denialism dressed up to give it a thin veneer of legitimacy.
437 posts ago, you called it a "hoax," among other nonsensical jargon in that little Gish Gallop. That does not reflect a healthy sense of skepticism. That is outright rejection.
Depends on which study you're referring to. The most commonly cited nowadays is the Cook et al 2013 study, which was an analysis of abstracts followed by asking the authors to self rate their papers.
There have been many, generally ending up in the upper 90% support position. That reflects an overwhelming consensus. The debate over the consensus is contrived. It exists.
I'd suggest reading these papers. Most of them are quite short. They're all pretty open about their methodology.
Do not disagree. Peer review doesn't catch all of the chaff. They must be weighed on their merits.
Being a clinical engineer, I do read a lot articles to stay up on the goings on in my field. A lot of medical studies and articles that don't have much bearing on me and a lot of physics studies and articles that do. Most of them are useless. Some, however, are extremely insightful and helpful in my field.
Last edited:
An honest question here: Where is the line on denier vs skeptic? Where does one cross that line when it comes to global warming or climate change? It's obvious the Earth has warmed over the last 200-300 years (honestly, we can say more about the northern hemisphere than the southern). There's no doubt the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has increased. It seems likely that man has contributed to that. CO2 is a known greenhouse gas. All makes sense. Doesn't the question mostly come down to one of several from whether the models are right, if their fudge factors (they all have them) accurately reflect the real thing, the amount of warming, how much man actually contributes to that, and maybe a few other questions? So are some of those not legitimate? Which question makes one a denier? Which one makes one a skeptic? I honestly want to know.
It is a hoax, because I have been hearing about it for over 40 years. Same crap, reheated and served back up. Back then, "ZPG" was the accompanying buzz word. Now, it is "de-growth".
I suppose you missed the study that shows phosgene gas is produced in much higher quantities than any model has taken into account. All from biological activity, of organisms on the surface of the oceans. Humans have nothing to do with it.
Anyway, it causes cooling. I thought we are supposed to be getting warmer? Isn't that the latest party line?
The earth has been here for over 4.5 billion years longer than we have. And gone through numerous monumental changes. Yet, some folks want to take an infinitesimal slice of its history, and extrapolate all manner of dire consequences. That is just fantasy.
Darn near everyone that I know, who clings to that fantasy, will also tell me there were 8, no, wait........10 (or is it 12) shooters in Dealy Plaza, back in Nov. '63. Is that a coincidence? I think not.
And let's not forget the leaders of the radical "climate change" movement, who openly profess that capitalism is a system that causes worldwide suffering, and must be eliminated.
I suppose you miss all of those statements, as well.
I suppose you missed the study that shows phosgene gas is produced in much higher quantities than any model has taken into account. All from biological activity, of organisms on the surface of the oceans. Humans have nothing to do with it.
Anyway, it causes cooling. I thought we are supposed to be getting warmer? Isn't that the latest party line?
The earth has been here for over 4.5 billion years longer than we have. And gone through numerous monumental changes. Yet, some folks want to take an infinitesimal slice of its history, and extrapolate all manner of dire consequences. That is just fantasy.
Darn near everyone that I know, who clings to that fantasy, will also tell me there were 8, no, wait........10 (or is it 12) shooters in Dealy Plaza, back in Nov. '63. Is that a coincidence? I think not.
And let's not forget the leaders of the radical "climate change" movement, who openly profess that capitalism is a system that causes worldwide suffering, and must be eliminated.
I suppose you miss all of those statements, as well.
- Status
Latest threads
-
Texas Hill Country flooding...- Started by TIDE-HSV
- Replies: 6
-
40th Anniversary Redux: The Rick Camp Game (Braves vs Mets)- Started by selmaborntidefan
- Replies: 7
-
-
-
-