OMG "All the scientist" were WRONG.

[humbolt]

Stupid scientists! Don't try to tell me I came from a monkey - I ain't come from no monkey!

If anybody here done come from a monkey, it's you. Billy Jo, go fetch me a science feller. We got us a live one what's done gonna prove it once and for all. We got us a livin whatjacallit.

 

[Diogenes]

The predictions are working out. Try to keep up.
Arctic shipping quadruples in past year as global warming melts sea ice.

What makes you think human activity is responsible for climate change?

 

[Diogenes]

Meh, other people said the same thing. The real lesson from the Global Warming debate is that we shouldn't politicize science.

True, but how else are second-rate "scientists" to get government funding?

 

[Diogenes]

Anybody who happens to follow the long-term weather forecasts on a regular basis would be well aware that climate science in the short term is an educated crap-shoot and in the long term is about as reliable as a tarot card reading.

Very well said! :applaud

 

[Dittohead not!]

So when the scientist admit they were wrong about AGW after we destroyed our economy and way of life based on their false assumptions ...... Point is the "all the scientist agree" argument is a joke and the Mt St Helens example proves just that.

Right, and when they wake up with egg all over their collective face and finally admit that diseases are caused, not by microorganisms, but by hexes, curses, and the wrath of God, then we can be sure that science is wrong and belief systems are correct.

 

[longview]

What if the Republicans are wrong and there really is man created global warming? Should we not be good stewards fo the earth until we are sure?

We should always be good stewards for the Earth!
I am not sure the two ideas are closely related.
To relate the two ideas, one must first believe Co2 is a pollutant,
which is a stretch of the definition.
We need to find a replacement for our organic hydrocarbon fuels,
because they are all that stand between us and starvation.
As has been said "we eat oil", and while the supplies may last another
1000 years, they are still finite.
Earth would surely survive Humanity, but that does not mean it would be fun for the Humans.

 

[longview]

No, we should recognize scientists who practice unbiased scientific principles for the sake of discovery and discount those who have an agenda and call themselves scientists to force their agenda on others. Any reasonable scientist would look at "evidence" such as the hockey stick model with skepticism understanding from history that sharp and radical departures of long term data is unusual and should be investigated before being accepted as absolute.

Don't be too hard on the Scientist, most are just hoping they win the Grant.
Winning grants, buys course release time, lab equipment, hires lab personnel, ect.
The proposed research will get done, but the Scientist also gets equipment and funding
for their real area of interest.
Sometimes the RFP and their interest line up, sometimes they don't,
but they still need to win the funding.

 

[Threegoofs]

What makes you think human activity is responsible for climate change?

Scientists.

But I digress.

 

[humbolt]

Right, and when they wake up with egg all over their collective face and finally admit that diseases are caused, not by microorganisms, but by hexes, curses, and the wrath of God, then we can be sure that science is wrong and belief systems are correct.

But you can't say with any certainty at all that microorganisms aren't caused by hexes, curses, and the wrath of God, either. Besides the GOP, where do viruses come from, anyway? I always thought they came from California personally, but I maintain an open mind on the matter.

 

[Fiddytree]

Damn you science, damn you to hell!

 

[Ikari]

No, we should recognize scientists who practice unbiased scientific principles for the sake of discovery and discount those who have an agenda and call themselves scientists to force their agenda on others. Any reasonable scientist would look at "evidence" such as the hockey stick model with skepticism understanding from history that sharp and radical departures of long term data is unusual and should be investigated before being accepted as absolute.

You, of course, being an expert on the scientific process and not viewing this subject through the glasses of partisan politics.

 

[Ikari]

True, but how else are second-rate "scientists" to get government funding?

Yes, those damned scientists! If only we didn't have them we would surely have the answers to everything!

 

[tech30528]

Don't be too hard on the Scientist, most are just hoping they win the Grant.
Winning grants, buys course release time, lab equipment, hires lab personnel, ect.
The proposed research will get done, but the Scientist also gets equipment and funding
for their real area of interest.
Sometimes the RFP and their interest line up, sometimes they don't,
but they still need to win the funding.

I own an auto repair shop. To draw a parallel I could decide that the most important thing to me is income and I could be dishonest and sell unnecessary work, drawing on my credentials as a mechanic to justify it. I'm on the hiring end of the equation, believe me there are plenty of people out there who call themselves mechanics who have no right to do so. In fat many of them self promote and charge people to do substandard work. This is why we as a group have the stigma of ripping people off. So why does anyone calling themselves a scientist get a pass? What is truly disappointing to me is the all or nothing mentality. We have gotten way to comfortable with bumper stick mentality. Just because there are a lot of scientists who push this BS for the sake of power and/ or grant money does not mean we should discount all science. REAL science is provable. 2+2 is always 4, because 4-2 is always 2.

 

[tech30528]

You, of course, being an expert on the scientific process and not viewing this subject through the glasses of partisan politics.

I diagnose and repair for a living. I have pure scientific process that I practice every day. I don't assume a conclusion and disregard information contrary to my expectations. I am very good at my job because of my scientific process and my customer base recognizes that. Had the AGW information presented been provable by other information I could certainly have gone with it, but it does not. My customers will bring in their cars and tell me how they hope it is something easy and cheap because they just spent this on that, or they don't have the money because of X, none of that matters a bit to me. It is not up to me what is wrong with their car. It is what it is, it is my job to find it. And if I came to the wrong conclusion my repair would not fix it.

So yes, I AM an expert on scientific process, at least as it applies to what I do professionally and in my personal life, which is why AGW has never passed muster with me.

 

[Manc Skipper]

You have a very limited understanding of the scientific process. A simple trouble-shooting either/or decision tree could replace your "diagnostic" skills.

 

[Buck Ewer]

My example proves that scientific consensus means nothing and that science is never "settled". If some guy at Mt St Helens 30 years ago spoke up and said it would recover in 20 or 30 years he would have been called a nut maybe even a denier and laughed off the mountain. See the parallel here?

The scientific consensus NEVER WAS SETTLED. From the article:

``We were wrong at least 50 percent of the time.'' - Larry Bliss, professor of botany, University of Washington

Not sure if you are capable of doing simple arithmetic but that means that in his opinion they were correct 50% of the time as well.
There were in fact some scientists 30 years ago that said that the area could and would recover by now. No scientific consensus for a predicted timeline for recovery of the area was ever established.
The sum total of your knowledge on the subject comes from one article in the Seattle Times that you no doubt were steered to from some right wing blog... and you didn't even read it beyond to headline ...
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha:lamo
Your ignorant indictment of all science based on a newspaper reporter's misinterpretation of what the science consensus was 30 years ago is hilariously misinformed and sophomoric.:lamo

 

[Ikari]

I diagnose and repair for a living. I have pure scientific process that I practice every day. I don't assume a conclusion and disregard information contrary to my expectations. I am very good at my job because of my scientific process and my customer base recognizes that. Had the AGW information presented been provable by other information I could certainly have gone with it, but it does not. My customers will bring in their cars and tell me how they hope it is something easy and cheap because they just spent this on that, or they don't have the money because of X, none of that matters a bit to me. It is not up to me what is wrong with their car. It is what it is, it is my job to find it. And if I came to the wrong conclusion my repair would not fix it.

So yes, I AM an expert on scientific process, at least as it applies to what I do professionally and in my personal life, which is why AGW has never passed muster with me.

Car mechanics diagnose and repair all day, wouldn't say they are better experts at the scientific method than scientists. I would expect a mechanic to be able to fix my car, but not disentangle complex, non-linear systems on small data sets. All you saw was the politicized tripe the media and political parties wanted to trot out in front of cameras. Words twisted and select conclusions trumpeted or razed.

What you didn't see, less you were reading the actual publications and attending the talks, seminars, and conferences was the actual work and words that many were using. You got the overblown parade and a few individuals. Quite honestly, many of you just wouldn't understand the unabridged version.

So I'll leave the mechanic work to you and you can leave the science to the scientists.

 

[Buck Ewer]

What makes you think human activity is responsible for climate change?

http://www.climatechoices.org.uk/pages/cchange3.htm

 

[longview]

View attachment 67152312
Causes of Climate Change

Why does your graph stop 8 years ago in 2005?

 

[Diogenes]

Why does you graph stop 8 years ago in 2005?

Probably because that's the point at which the BS starts to fall apart.

 

[Lutherf]

I know y'all love to bust Sawyer's balls but it isn't exactly unheard of for practitioners in the sciences to come up with a theory and then seek first to prove it rather than to explore it and find out whether it actually holds water. It also isn't all that unusual for academic studies to explore stuff that politicians like because that keeps the funding coming in.

 

[mak2]

That is why scientific method and peer review are so important. Researchers squabble like little kids, if someone research is flaw it get pointed out.

I know y'all love to bust Sawyer's balls but it isn't exactly unheard of for practitioners in the sciences to come up with a theory and then seek first to prove it rather than to explore it and find out whether it actually holds water. It also isn't all that unusual for academic studies to explore stuff that politicians like because that keeps the funding coming in.

 

[Lutherf]

That is why scientific method and peer review are so important. Researchers squabble like little kids, if someone research is flaw it get pointed out.

It is.

However, from a practical standpoint, if a supporting review is likely to generate a 10 year, multi-million dollar federal grant and a critical review is likely to generate a reduction in funding then which do you think is most likely to hit the journals?

 

[Buck Ewer]

Why does your graph stop 8 years ago in 2005?

That is when the study was done and published.
Do you have newer data that contradicts the hundred year correlation trend ?
Note that there was a downward occurrence around 1940 that lasted for almost ten years but the larger trend continued to rise establishing the relatively linear correlation between CO2 emissions and average global temperature over the larger sample.
Even if there were another eight year aberration in the linear nature of the relationship the larger curves correlation has been well established at over ten times that aberration, and so, demonstrates the likely relationship of causation between the rise of CO2 and average global temperature.
What do you have?.

 

[Dittohead not!]

I diagnose and repair for a living. I have pure scientific process that I practice every day. I don't assume a conclusion and disregard information contrary to my expectations. I am very good at my job because of my scientific process and my customer base recognizes that. Had the AGW information presented been provable by other information I could certainly have gone with it, but it does not. My customers will bring in their cars and tell me how they hope it is something easy and cheap because they just spent this on that, or they don't have the money because of X, none of that matters a bit to me. It is not up to me what is wrong with their car. It is what it is, it is my job to find it. And if I came to the wrong conclusion my repair would not fix it.

So yes, I AM an expert on scientific process, at least as it applies to what I do professionally and in my personal life, which is why AGW has never passed muster with me.

Then you do understand that, when the facts point to a defunct transmission, the customer saying, "But I can't afford that. Can't you make it a clogged filter instead?" doesn't change those facts one whit.