Gore barely passed "Natural Sciences" in undergrad...(insert el oh el here)

[Old Rocks]

Scientist's climate change predictions can be proved only if it happens. No amount of evidence will be sufficient because the required changes cost too much for something that hasn't been proven. I doubt very many people on the left or right would be willing to sacrifice today to save the planet a hundred years from now. People are just not that benevolent.

"beneficient," but you are probably correct for the most part, this would be especially true if there were absolutely no harm until a century from now. The impacts, however, started quite some time ago and will only build and accelerate in frequency as time goes on. It is an exponential process and it won't stop in a century, it'll just be getting started. My only real concern is that we may have already waited to late to save the best parts, and by the time self-preservation motivations really kick in, it may be too late to do anything but prolong the agony.

I disagree. We banned DDT.

At the cost of fifty to eighty million lives.

That's what happens when ideologues bastardize science.

LOL. So this is your scientific standard. Why, I do believe it to be fully as reliable a source as the National Enquirer on scientific subjects.

Green Hands Dipped In Blood: The DDT Genocide | LifeSiteNews.com
Green Hands Dipped In Blood: The DDT Genocide

 

[Old Rocks]

Any science that relies on distorted data and massaged models isn't science.

Fully agreed, what method do you think we should use to discern which science is flawed and which is accurate...

Every single piece of data, every source, every model, every simulation, every last fraction must be made available to anyone who asks.

If this situation is as dire as is claimed, these people are irresponsible by refusing to share their work. They care more about publication and grants than they do about saving the planet.

...and what do you think should happen when deliberately distorted and massaged science is found?

Any public policy based on the bad science must be immediately overturned, and those involved barred from ever receiving public funding again. Ever. On any subject.

Excellent. Let us start with Singer, Lindzen, and the tobacco companies. Then we might have a look at a certain Senator Inhofe.

 

[Old Rocks]

The guy was a politician, a Senators son, a Senator, and a Vice President.

What moron would mistake him for a scientist?

Daveboy

 

[daveman]

Fully agreed, what method do you think we should use to discern which science is flawed and which is accurate...

Every single piece of data, every source, every model, every simulation, every last fraction must be made available to anyone who asks.

If this situation is as dire as is claimed, these people are irresponsible by refusing to share their work. They care more about publication and grants than they do about saving the planet.

So you believe that all information, methodologies, programming, code, communitcations, writings and intellectual product should be openly and freely available to all when it comes to any aspect of scientific investigation? That sounds rather socialistic to me, but regardless, are you willing to pay the extra amounts in administrative fees, costs and expenses when it comes to hiring the staffs of qualified technicians and clerks who would be required to handle this process?

We're talking about climate science, not all science.

I repeat: If the threat is so dire, why are the AGW scientists not willing to share their work?

Ultimately, this still doesn't answer the question I asked, which was: "what method do you think we should use to discern which science is flawed and which is accurate?"

Who do you feel is best qualified to properly evaluate the information and processes that mainstream climate science is using?

Other scientists, naturally. And not just climatologists -- all applicable disciplines. Geologists, physicists, statisticians, chemists, astrophysicists can all have valid input on differing aspects of climate change.

Of course, AGW climatologists will refuse to do this, since their errors and distortions will be exposed.

...and what do you think should happen when deliberately distorted and massaged science is found?

Any public policy based on the bad science must be immediately overturned, and those involved barred from ever receiving public funding again. Ever. On any subject.

Well, first you have to tell me how we decide what is "bad science" and what isn't.

I just did: Let every scientist who wants to see everything. The bad science will be weeded out.

Oh, and the peer-review process needs to be de-bastardized. The AGW climatologists have strangled it out to silence dissent. That in itself is bad science.

 

[daveman]

I disagree. We banned DDT.

At the cost of fifty to eighty million lives.

That's what happens when ideologues bastardize science.

LOL. So this is your scientific standard. Why, I do believe it to be fully as reliable a source as the National Enquirer on scientific subjects.

Green Hands Dipped In Blood: The DDT Genocide | LifeSiteNews.com
Green Hands Dipped In Blood: The DDT Genocide

You didn't even read the article, did you?

Of course not. If you had, you'd have read that studies by the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a division of the World Health Organization, are referenced.

As for the count, you can see current estimates here. Sources for the data are referenced.

Since you cannot refute a single aspect of anything I presented, you're left with childishness and ignorance.

You are absolutely terrified of anything that challenges your worldview, aren't you?

 

[daveman]

Fully agreed, what method do you think we should use to discern which science is flawed and which is accurate...

Every single piece of data, every source, every model, every simulation, every last fraction must be made available to anyone who asks.

If this situation is as dire as is claimed, these people are irresponsible by refusing to share their work. They care more about publication and grants than they do about saving the planet.

...and what do you think should happen when deliberately distorted and massaged science is found?

Any public policy based on the bad science must be immediately overturned, and those involved barred from ever receiving public funding again. Ever. On any subject.

Excellent. Let us start with Singer, Lindzen, and the tobacco companies. Then we might have a look at a certain Senator Inhofe.

I have no problem with that. But you do: You don't want the AGW cult exposed, so you will not support full disclosure of AGW science.

 

[daveman]

The guy was a politician, a Senators son, a Senator, and a Vice President.

What moron would mistake him for a scientist?

Daveboy

Yet another claim you can't back up. I never said he was a scientist. He's a scam artist preying on suckers like you.

 

[Wicked Jester]

The guy was a politician, a Senators son, a Senator, and a Vice President.

What moron would mistake him for a scientist?

Daveboy

Yet another claim you can't back up. I never said he was a scientist. He's a scam artist preying on suckers like you.

While leaving a bigger "carbon footprint" than anyone else on earth.

Wonder if ol' Flipper, er, Tipper got BOTH Escalades and the Jet in the divorce?

Friggin' hypocrital sheister bastards!

 

[daveman]

Daveboy

Yet another claim you can't back up. I never said he was a scientist. He's a scam artist preying on suckers like you.

While leaving a bigger "carbon footprint" than anyone else on earth.

Wonder if ol' Flipper, er, Tipper got BOTH Escalades and the Jet in the divorce?

Friggin' hypocrital sheister bastards!

And liberals give them a free pass for it. Mind-boggling how they would rather listen to pretty words than look at a person's actions.

 

[RollingThunder]

Gore barely passed "Natural Sciences" in undergrad...

Transcript: Al Gore Got

He probably failed it...but his daddy was a senator after all and probably pulled a few strings.

Even allowing for the stupidity of the 'Gore derangement syndrome', this thread is beyond silly. Gore is not a climate scientist nor is he the source of the scientific information and evidence that he has helped to popularize, so attacks on him by the denier cultists and their fossil fuel industry puppet masters are pointless and say nothing whatsoever about the validity of the actual scientific evidence for AGW or the supporting testimony of the world's science community. Nevertheless, objectively, Gore is smarter and far more accomplished than all of you deeply deluded denier cult douche-bags put together.

Gore's SATs:
SAT Verbal Score - 625 (of 800)
SAT Math Score - 730 (of 800)

Graduated from Harvard, with honors
Bachelor of Arts degree in government

Opposed the Vietnam War and could have avoided going by taking a NG spot or other deferment, but did not, unlike the vast majority of his graduating class, including virtually all of the Republicans.

As a journalist, investigated and uncovered corruption in government.

Eight productive years in the House of Representatives.

Eight productive years in the Senate.

Eight years doing a good job as Vice President.

Won the Presidency by more than half a million votes in 2000.

Before it was 'popular' Gore went out on a limb to protect the planet.
From Wikipedia:
"According to The Concord Monitor, "Gore was one of the first politicians to grasp the seriousness of climate change and to call for a reduction in emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouses gases. He held the first congressional hearings on the subject in the late 1970s." During his tenure in Congress, Gore co-sponsored hearings on toxic waste in 1978–79, and hearings on global warming in the 1980s. In 1989, while still a Senator, Gore published an editorial in the Washington Post, in which he argued, "Humankind has suddenly entered into a brand new relationship with the planet Earth. The world's forests are being destroyed; an enormous hole is opening in the ozone layer. Living species are dying at an unprecedented rate.""

2007 Nobel Peace Prize
"The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity. It is also our greatest opportunity to lift global consciousness to a higher level. My wife, Tipper, and I will donate 100 percent of the proceeds of the award to the Alliance for Climate Protection, a bipartisan non-profit organization that is devoted to changing public opinion in the U.S. and around the world about the urgency of solving the climate crisis." Al Gore

 

[bripat9643]

Have you not heard, all were exonerated of all of those specious charges?

They weren't "exonerated" of diddly squat. Kangaroo courts populate with AGW activists whitewashed their crimes.

 

[RollingThunder]

Have you not heard, all were exonerated of all of those specious charges?

They weren't "exonerated" of diddly squat. Kangaroo courts populate with AGW activists whitewashed their crimes.

That's the kind of insane delusion to be expected from someone as seriously retarded as you are, bripatsy.

 

[Trakar]

So you believe that all information, methodologies, programming, code, communitcations, writings and intellectual product should be openly and freely available to all when it comes to any aspect of scientific investigation? That sounds rather socialistic to me, but regardless, are you willing to pay the extra amounts in administrative fees, costs and expenses when it comes to hiring the staffs of qualified technicians and clerks who would be required to handle this process?

We're talking about climate science, not all science.

I repeat: If the threat is so dire, why are the AGW scientists not willing to share their work?

Other scientists, naturally. And not just climatologists -- all applicable disciplines. Geologists, physicists, statisticians, chemists, astrophysicists can all have valid input on differing aspects of climate change.

Of course, AGW climatologists will refuse to do this, since their errors and distortions will be exposed.

Actually, this is the way climate science (like all science) has always been done. The data is all available from the same sources that the various climate science research teams acquire it, from global governmental and private climate data collection entities. Often this data is "leased" rather than donated or sold outright to these research teams, in such cases the researchers are not allowed to publically release that particular data, it is the proprietary information of those who own the data. But this doesn't mean that anyone who is interested can't pay the fees for such data and obtain copies of it for themselves (most US government collected data is freely available to any who request it online - but this isn't always the case with data from foriegh governmental sources or international universities and research organizations. Most researchers also freely distribute their codes and methodologies in association with publication, unless there are organizational proprietary rights associated with those processes that the researchers have little to no control over. For the overwhelming bulk of climate research, however, these proprietary issues do not apply and the data and processes are open and clear. This is the same situation in almost all areas of science with the exception of those areas that have direct military application. BTW, most climate scientists are "Geologists, physicists, statisticians, chemists, astrophysicists" (etc.) who happen to be working in the field of climatology research. Only about a third of the scientists actually working and publishing in the field of climate science are actually degreed in Climatology. And all of the methods and practices used are the same basic procedures and understandings prevelant across the broad spectrum of the physical sciences.

I just did: Let every scientist who wants to see everything. The bad science will be weeded out.

that is precisely how publication and the subsequent review and counter-publication process works and has always worked for every legitimate science feild of study I am aware of.

Oh, and the peer-review process needs to be de-bastardized. The AGW climatologists have strangled it out to silence dissent. That in itself is bad science.

That sounds like a "sour grapes" conspiracy proposition that I see no compelling evidence of in climate science or any other major scientific field. If you know of objective and compelling evidence that supports this assertion please present it.

 

[Trakar]

Have you not heard, all were exonerated of all of those specious charges?

They weren't "exonerated" of diddly squat. Kangaroo courts populate with AGW activists whitewashed their crimes.

Can you provide compelling objective evidence of:

"kangaroo courts"

stacked and biased jurists ("populate with AGW activists")

and "whitewashed their crimes"?

 

[daveman]

So you believe that all information, methodologies, programming, code, communitcations, writings and intellectual product should be openly and freely available to all when it comes to any aspect of scientific investigation? That sounds rather socialistic to me, but regardless, are you willing to pay the extra amounts in administrative fees, costs and expenses when it comes to hiring the staffs of qualified technicians and clerks who would be required to handle this process?

We're talking about climate science, not all science.

I repeat: If the threat is so dire, why are the AGW scientists not willing to share their work?

Other scientists, naturally. And not just climatologists -- all applicable disciplines. Geologists, physicists, statisticians, chemists, astrophysicists can all have valid input on differing aspects of climate change.

Of course, AGW climatologists will refuse to do this, since their errors and distortions will be exposed.

Actually, this is the way climate science (like all science) has always been done. The data is all available from the same sources that the various climate science research teams acquire it, from global governmental and private climate data collection entities. Often this data is "leased" rather than donated or sold outright to these research teams, in such cases the researchers are not allowed to publically release that particular data, it is the proprietary information of those who own the data. But this doesn't mean that anyone who is interested can't pay the fees for such data and obtain copies of it for themselves (most US government collected data is freely available to any who request it online - but this isn't always the case with data from foriegh governmental sources or international universities and research organizations. Most researchers also freely distribute their codes and methodologies in association with publication, unless there are organizational proprietary rights associated with those processes that the researchers have little to no control over. For the overwhelming bulk of climate research, however, these proprietary issues do not apply and the data and processes are open and clear. This is the same situation in almost all areas of science with the exception of those areas that have direct military application. BTW, most climate scientists are "Geologists, physicists, statisticians, chemists, astrophysicists" (etc.) who happen to be working in the field of climatology research. Only about a third of the scientists actually working and publishing in the field of climate science are actually degreed in Climatology. And all of the methods and practices used are the same basic procedures and understandings prevelant across the broad spectrum of the physical sciences.

I just did: Let every scientist who wants to see everything. The bad science will be weeded out.

that is precisely how publication and the subsequent review and counter-publication process works and has always worked for every legitimate science feild of study I am aware of.

Oh, and the peer-review process needs to be de-bastardized. The AGW climatologists have strangled it out to silence dissent. That in itself is bad science.

That sounds like a "sour grapes" conspiracy proposition that I see no compelling evidence of in climate science or any other major scientific field. If you know of objective and compelling evidence that supports this assertion please present it.

Before I answer your concerns, we need to establish what you consider "compelling".

Because in my experience , most AGW supporters define "compelling" only as "anything that supports AGW". Anything else is not compelling.

 

[Old Rocks]

Daveboy, almost all the people doing the articles on the observed warming in the Arctic are field scientists, the fellows who go out in all kinds of weather and climates and do the actual field work. Now if you have some actual scientists that work in the field in this area and have differant data, why don't you post their articles?

We both know why. Because the fellows doing the field work all come back with the same data. In the Arctic, the warming is proceding far faster than even the 'alarmists' predictions. And there are some very serious feedbacks associated with that warming.

 

[daveman]

Daveboy, almost all the people doing the articles on the observed warming in the Arctic are field scientists, the fellows who go out in all kinds of weather and climates and do the actual field work. Now if you have some actual scientists that work in the field in this area and have differant data, why don't you post their articles?

We both know why. Because the fellows doing the field work all come back with the same data. In the Arctic, the warming is proceding far faster than even the 'alarmists' predictions. And there are some very serious feedbacks associated with that warming.

Obviously, world socialism is the only thing that will save us.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Daveboy, almost all the people doing the articles on the observed warming in the Arctic are field scientists, the fellows who go out in all kinds of weather and climates and do the actual field work. Now if you have some actual scientists that work in the field in this area and have differant data, why don't you post their articles?

We both know why. Because the fellows doing the field work all come back with the same data. In the Arctic, the warming is proceding far faster than even the 'alarmists' predictions. And there are some very serious feedbacks associated with that warming.

So, do they even bother to explain that naturally occuring cycles have been going on since the beginning?

Of course they don't....It would mean losing grants.

 

[IanC]

Trakar- you have been posting a lot of sensible comments lately. if you actually want to investigate why so many people consider members of the Hockey Team to be less than reputable then I would suggest you start here-
- Bishop Hill blog - The Yamal implosion

while it is a good example of how data has been hidden, and likely cherrypicked, it also shows the determined sleuthing of S McIntyre.

ps the FOIA requests for Yamal are likely the subject of Nurse's rant. I believe Nurse has been somewhat duped by his collegues from climate science because he has taken their complaints at face value rather than investigate for himself what has been going on. quite natural really but it probably ends in embarrassment for some climate scientists.

 

[RollingThunder]

Daveboy, almost all the people doing the articles on the observed warming in the Arctic are field scientists, the fellows who go out in all kinds of weather and climates and do the actual field work. Now if you have some actual scientists that work in the field in this area and have differant data, why don't you post their articles?

We both know why. Because the fellows doing the field work all come back with the same data. In the Arctic, the warming is proceding far faster than even the 'alarmists' predictions. And there are some very serious feedbacks associated with that warming.

Obviously, world socialism is the only thing that will save us.

LOLOLOLOL.......rightwingnuts.....it's like Pavlov's dogs......conditioned to drool at the sound of 'socialism'...

Of course I haven't seen any of us climate scinece realists mentioning socialism as the "only" solution to the crisis or even mentioning it at all. You seem to be the one bringing it up. It's your conspiracy theory, I guess.

One quick question though, daveboy. Purely hypothetical. Just for a moment, try to imagine that you turn out to be wrong about all this and the warming and climate changes get progressively worse and more disastrous and do indeed, undeniably, threaten to kill most or maybe even all human life on Earth. OK, just imagine that it has gotten so bad that even you have become convinced by the undisputable evidence in front of your face. OK, just imagine that. And now let's say that it also turned out to be obvious, even to you, that the only possible way to prevent that outcome would be to have a world government capable of dealing with a crisis that threatens the whole world and that government would of necessity have to be basically what you would probably call "socialist" since they would have to be working to save the humans and the biosphere rather than corporate profits. OK, the question. Would you personally prefer to accept and live with 'socialism', knowing it was really the only way to prevent utter catastrophe or would you choose to die a proud, defiant capitalist knowing that your children and grandchildren along with the rest of humanity were also going to die within a century because of your choices?

I'd really be interested in hearing what you think and what you would choose under those particular hypothetical circumstances.

In the 50's and 60's, America adopted a cold war nuclear defense strategy called MAD (seriously) which stood for Mutual Assured Destruction. It meant that we kept building more and more nuclear weapons so that we would have had enough hardened, mobile or submarine launched nuclear weapons to destroy the Soviet Union even if they should launch a first strike nuclear attack. The detonation of that many nuclear weapons in such a war would have thrown so much crap high into the atmosphere that dust and particulates would have shrouded the Earth for literally years and caused something that scientists studying the matter would come to call "nuclear winter", and in the process, would kill everybody on the planet. The slogan in America at the time was "Better Dead Than Red". The people who said it seemed to genuinely believe that it would be preferable to die and take the whole world with them, than to live under a different economic system. At that time the boogieman word that the rightwingers had been conditioned to freak out at was "communism". These days it is "terrorist" first and then "socialism". Will the new rightwingnut slogan be "Better To Fry Than Have To Share My Stuff"?

Please note that I am not advocating socialism here or in any way saying that socialism is the only solution to the climate change crisis. This was a hypothetical question about how far some people would take their political ideologies if the real world started to seriously intrude.