Huntsman supports science

As a medical student, I'd be woefully outgunned. Simple Algebra based physics was my worst subject as a premed. Though, I wish I had paid more attention to the connection between physics and physiology.

At any rate, I frequent science topics on this board. Usually about evolution. It's always annoying to watch people who have no understanding (or interest to understand) the scientific process act like they are experts in the field.




Yes, it is. As a PhD in geology I find it astonishing that supposedly thinking people can believe the pronouncments of a group of scientists, and I use the term very loosely here, who have perverted the very meaning of peer review. It is not science to prevent publication of studies that contradict the current paradigm. That is the equivalent of the Catholic Church's attack on Gallileo.

If the climatologists methods of dealing with dissent were used 50 years ago the theory of plate tectonics would still be heresy. You claim to be all about the science and you forget that science is not about "consensus" science is about the quest for knowledge through the observation of physical phenomena.

Climatology is based almost wholly on the observations of computer models. Computer models that are unable to re-create the weather that occured 5 days ago. Just think about that. The scientific method states that first you develop a hypothesis, prepare an experiment or observe the physical world to gather evidence that supports your hypothesis
interpret the data and present your case. The computer models ARE the climatologists experiment. They have never predicted anything correctly to date. They and the media and the un-educated believe the computer models as if they were observations of the physical world and they are not.

They are imaginary constructions of what the climatologists believe will happen. And they have never worked yet. Until they can recreate what has allready occured they are useless as instruments of prediction. That is a simple unarguable fact. At least it is to a good scientist.

I hope you aren't asserting such a thing to my person, as I would be more than happy to describe in detail exactly what I think climatologists can shove up their ass if they follow anything other than the science.






Just reiterating the obvious as I believe I was answering GTH. But if you wish to describe in detail the various methodologies...feel free!:lol:
 
Yes, it is. As a PhD in geology I find it astonishing that supposedly thinking people can believe the pronouncments of a group of scientists, and I use the term very loosely here, who have perverted the very meaning of peer review. It is not science to prevent publication of studies that contradict the current paradigm. That is the equivalent of the Catholic Church's attack on Gallileo.

If the climatologists methods of dealing with dissent were used 50 years ago the theory of plate tectonics would still be heresy. You claim to be all about the science and you forget that science is not about "consensus" science is about the quest for knowledge through the observation of physical phenomena.

Climatology is based almost wholly on the observations of computer models. Computer models that are unable to re-create the weather that occured 5 days ago. Just think about that. The scientific method states that first you develop a hypothesis, prepare an experiment or observe the physical world to gather evidence that supports your hypothesis
interpret the data and present your case. The computer models ARE the climatologists experiment. They have never predicted anything correctly to date. They and the media and the un-educated believe the computer models as if they were observations of the physical world and they are not.

They are imaginary constructions of what the climatologists believe will happen. And they have never worked yet. Until they can recreate what has allready occured they are useless as instruments of prediction. That is a simple unarguable fact. At least it is to a good scientist.

I hope you aren't asserting such a thing to my person, as I would be more than happy to describe in detail exactly what I think climatologists can shove up their ass if they follow anything other than the science.






Just reiterating the obvious as I believe I was answering GTH. But if you wish to describe in detail the various methodologies...feel free!:lol:

I think I'll abstain lest I make someone ill. :D
 
All right - I am going to put my 2 cents in here as well.

First - to Rabbi: The simple fact is that this subject has been politicized beyond belief but that the fact the earth is warming is there, irrefutable as direct measurements have proven it to be so. Unfortunately, because the politicization, this subject has mangled AGW and global warming into one single concept when they are not. The FACT the earth is warming (and the evidence is in the ocean, NOT the air so don't post idiotic claims about stable atmospheric temperatures) is fact because direct instrument measurement is there and is fully reproducible. That is not science, it is data. That data is available for anyone to access and study so, please do.

The problem arises when the politicians get involved and AGW with its agenda is brought up. The right is correct in throwing out the wants of AGW alarmists but they are doing it in the wrong way. Denying the data is stupid beyond belief. The problem is that the OUTCOME (as westwall points out) has not been scientifically proven or even adequately studied. Add that to the fact that, IMHO, carbon has not been sufficiently proven to be the driving factor here, all we have is data without any real solutions.

Further, all the so called solutions that the left have put forth as an answer to AGW amount to nothing more than 'spitting in the ocean" to plagiarize another posters statement. Reducing CO2 emissions by tenths of a percent does NOTHING to actually address the problem. Even worse, IF we are causing AGW and IF that is going to cause catastrophic problems in the future THEN what we need is a strong economy and advanced sciences to clean it up. What the proposals for AGW will do is destroy the economy so that the one thing we will be missing when the time comes is the ability to do something about it. All in all, we are approaching this problem in exactly the wrong way: denying it exists on the right and jumping to random unproven assumptions on the left. Both sides end us up at the same junction: no real solution.

Go put your hand behind the exhaust of your car and tell us if it is hot or cold. Multiply that times a billion.
Please tell me you are joking.... That is not the AGW case at all. The heat from your care is little more than a fart in a hurricane. It means nothing, ads nothing and will NEVER affect the weather in any shape of form. Do you not even bother to understand the theory that you are referring too. The ONE source for heat that can truly affect the planets temperature in any major way is the sun. It is the carbon blanket that comes from your car, breath, industry, food stocks and other sources that are trapping incoming heat that are the problem. Not the 'hot air' you are feeling from your car...
Well, this thread certainly proves to me just how really dumb teabaggers are about science. Holy shit...

Says the people claiming opinions are science.

The science behind the theory concerning global warming is not opinion. It is solid science from Fourier's observations concerning the earth's temperature in the 1820's to the present scientists that are observing solar output, ice caps, and climate changes.
Yes, but the outcome of that fact is not hard science yet. That is what is needed if we are to address the problem in any meaningful capacity.
 
Yep, and if you are willing to converse with me on matters of physics, I would be more than happy to accommodate you.

As a medical student, I'd be woefully outgunned. Simple Algebra based physics was my worst subject as a premed. Though, I wish I had paid more attention to the connection between physics and physiology.

At any rate, I frequent science topics on this board. Usually about evolution. It's always annoying to watch people who have no understanding (or interest to understand) the scientific process act like they are experts in the field.




Yes, it is. As a PhD in geology I find it astonishing that supposedly thinking people can believe the pronouncments of a group of scientists, and I use the term very loosely here, who have perverted the very meaning of peer review. It is not science to prevent publication of studies that contradict the current paradigm. That is the equivalent of the Catholic Church's attack on Gallileo.

If the climatologists methods of dealing with dissent were used 50 years ago the theory of plate tectonics would still be heresy. You claim to be all about the science and you forget that science is not about "consensus" science is about the quest for knowledge through the observation of physical phenomena.

Climatology is based almost wholly on the observations of computer models. Computer models that are unable to re-create the weather that occured 5 days ago. Just think about that. The scientific method states that first you develop a hypothesis, prepare an experiment or observe the physical world to gather evidence that supports your hypothesis
interpret the data and present your case. The computer models ARE the climatologists experiment. They have never predicted anything correctly to date. They and the media and the un-educated believe the computer models as if they were observations of the physical world and they are not.

They are imaginary constructions of what the climatologists believe will happen. And they have never worked yet. Until they can recreate what has allready occured they are useless as instruments of prediction. That is a simple unarguable fact. At least it is to a good scientist.

But consensus is a valid concept in science, and in manners in which I am not an expert, I defer to the consensus.

Sorry if you are an outlier. I would never claim to know more about geology then you. However, I am not going to ignore the overwhelming opinion of all the other experts.
 
All right - I am going to put my 2 cents in here as well.

First - to Rabbi: The simple fact is that this subject has been politicized beyond belief but that the fact the earth is warming is there, irrefutable as direct measurements have proven it to be so. Unfortunately, because the politicization, this subject has mangled AGW and global warming into one single concept when they are not. The FACT the earth is warming (and the evidence is in the ocean, NOT the air so don't post idiotic claims about stable atmospheric temperatures) is fact because direct instrument measurement is there and is fully reproducible. That is not science, it is data. That data is available for anyone to access and study so, please do.

The problem arises when the politicians get involved and AGW with its agenda is brought up. The right is correct in throwing out the wants of AGW alarmists but they are doing it in the wrong way. Denying the data is stupid beyond belief. The problem is that the OUTCOME (as westwall points out) has not been scientifically proven or even adequately studied. Add that to the fact that, IMHO, carbon has not been sufficiently proven to be the driving factor here, all we have is data without any real solutions.

Further, all the so called solutions that the left have put forth as an answer to AGW amount to nothing more than 'spitting in the ocean" to plagiarize another posters statement. Reducing CO2 emissions by tenths of a percent does NOTHING to actually address the problem. Even worse, IF we are causing AGW and IF that is going to cause catastrophic problems in the future THEN what we need is a strong economy and advanced sciences to clean it up. What the proposals for AGW will do is destroy the economy so that the one thing we will be missing when the time comes is the ability to do something about it. All in all, we are approaching this problem in exactly the wrong way: denying it exists on the right and jumping to random unproven assumptions on the left. Both sides end us up at the same junction: no real solution.

.
I would say that is a fair summation. The earth is warmer than it was. No one actually knows why. No one knows whether it will actually be detrimental or not. Proposing to spend billions on unproven science is absurd.
Is that about right?
 
As a medical student, I'd be woefully outgunned. Simple Algebra based physics was my worst subject as a premed. Though, I wish I had paid more attention to the connection between physics and physiology.

At any rate, I frequent science topics on this board. Usually about evolution. It's always annoying to watch people who have no understanding (or interest to understand) the scientific process act like they are experts in the field.




Yes, it is. As a PhD in geology I find it astonishing that supposedly thinking people can believe the pronouncments of a group of scientists, and I use the term very loosely here, who have perverted the very meaning of peer review. It is not science to prevent publication of studies that contradict the current paradigm. That is the equivalent of the Catholic Church's attack on Gallileo.

If the climatologists methods of dealing with dissent were used 50 years ago the theory of plate tectonics would still be heresy. You claim to be all about the science and you forget that science is not about "consensus" science is about the quest for knowledge through the observation of physical phenomena.

Climatology is based almost wholly on the observations of computer models. Computer models that are unable to re-create the weather that occured 5 days ago. Just think about that. The scientific method states that first you develop a hypothesis, prepare an experiment or observe the physical world to gather evidence that supports your hypothesis
interpret the data and present your case. The computer models ARE the climatologists experiment. They have never predicted anything correctly to date. They and the media and the un-educated believe the computer models as if they were observations of the physical world and they are not.

They are imaginary constructions of what the climatologists believe will happen. And they have never worked yet. Until they can recreate what has allready occured they are useless as instruments of prediction. That is a simple unarguable fact. At least it is to a good scientist.

But consensus is a valid concept in science, and in manners in which I am not an expert, I defer to the consensus.

Sorry if you are an outlier. I would never claim to know more about geology then you. However, I am not going to ignore the overwhelming opinion of all the other experts.





May I suggest you read up on how the "consensus" was manufactured? Here is a good start. Jane Goodwin is a English professor at Iowa State University and she penned this a couple of years ago. Don't worry that she is not a climatologist or physical scientist the AGU hired an English major for their new Director of Communications so the precedent has been set.

If you choose to actually look into the "science" you will rapidly find that it falls apart. The consensus was 76 of 79 anonymous climatologists, not scientists in the hard sciences like physics and chemistry and geology. We make predictions all the time based on our theory's, we never use the words "could", "might", "may" etc.

Those words are the staple of climatolgists. Just imagine if you asked your doctor, "so doc, if I have this bypass surgery will I get better and he said "maybe". When I had my surgery the surgeon came in and said I fixed you! No maybe's or mights. It was a solid claim.


The authority of the IPCC First Assessment Report and the
manufacture of consensus
National Communication Association, Chicago, November, 2009
Jean Goodwin ([email protected])
Iowa State University


1. Introduction
It is widely perceived that "manufactured controversy" has become a serious problem for
contemporary civic deliberations. Advocates for special interests have been able to delay, or
even derail, much-needed policies by creating an appearance of scientific doubts where there are
in fact none. "Denialists" in controversies over policies towards AIDS or towards teaching
biology tread a path first laid down by advocates for Big Tobacco, who famously proclaimed
"doubt is our product" (Ceccarelli; Michaels; Weinel; Paroske).
In this environment, the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) seems
a remarkable achievement. Through a series of (up to now) four reports starting in 1990, the
IPCC has managed to establish as a political "given" that the earth is warming, and that human
activity is a significant cause. The fourth report was the occasion for the Bush II administration's
shift from statements like this:
We do not know how much effect natural fluctuations in climate may have had on
warming. We do not know how much our climate could, or will change in the
future. We do not know how fast change will occur, or even how some of our
actions could impact it.
in 2001, with it's typical assertions of "uncertainty" as a reason for inaction, to statements like
this:
[The IPCC report] reflects the sizeable and robust body of knowledge regarding
the physical science of climate change, including the finding that the Earth is
warming and that human activities have very likely caused most of the warming
of the last 50 years.
in 2007. How did the IPCC manage this feat? In opposition to those who would create an
appearance of doubt, the IPCC has made evident a broad and deep agreement among scientists—
they have "manufactured consensus."
My first goal for this paper is to give an account of the long-term work of rhetorical strategy or
design which resulted in the "manufacture of consensus." My second goal is to critique it. Now,
it may seem unwise to cast doubt on a strategy that managed against all odds to achieve a result
that many of us agree with. Further, it has been proposed that it is just such a scientific
consensus—and not unobtainable "proof"—that can provide the basis for sound public policy
(Oreskes "Science and Public Policy: What's Proof Got to Do with It?"). Nevertheless, I hope to
sketch an account of the IPCC's rhetorical design which suggests that its success came at a
price—a price which included contributing to the decades of political controversy over
anthropogenic warming which it finally (at least for now) put to rest."







http://goodwin.public.iastate.edu/pubs/goodwinipcc.pdf
 
All right - I am going to put my 2 cents in here as well.

First - to Rabbi: The simple fact is that this subject has been politicized beyond belief but that the fact the earth is warming is there, irrefutable as direct measurements have proven it to be so. Unfortunately, because the politicization, this subject has mangled AGW and global warming into one single concept when they are not. The FACT the earth is warming (and the evidence is in the ocean, NOT the air so don't post idiotic claims about stable atmospheric temperatures) is fact because direct instrument measurement is there and is fully reproducible. That is not science, it is data. That data is available for anyone to access and study so, please do.

The problem arises when the politicians get involved and AGW with its agenda is brought up. The right is correct in throwing out the wants of AGW alarmists but they are doing it in the wrong way. Denying the data is stupid beyond belief. The problem is that the OUTCOME (as westwall points out) has not been scientifically proven or even adequately studied. Add that to the fact that, IMHO, carbon has not been sufficiently proven to be the driving factor here, all we have is data without any real solutions.

Further, all the so called solutions that the left have put forth as an answer to AGW amount to nothing more than 'spitting in the ocean" to plagiarize another posters statement. Reducing CO2 emissions by tenths of a percent does NOTHING to actually address the problem. Even worse, IF we are causing AGW and IF that is going to cause catastrophic problems in the future THEN what we need is a strong economy and advanced sciences to clean it up. What the proposals for AGW will do is destroy the economy so that the one thing we will be missing when the time comes is the ability to do something about it. All in all, we are approaching this problem in exactly the wrong way: denying it exists on the right and jumping to random unproven assumptions on the left. Both sides end us up at the same junction: no real solution.

.
I would say that is a fair summation. The earth is warmer than it was. No one actually knows why. No one knows whether it will actually be detrimental or not. Proposing to spend billions on unproven science is absurd.
Is that about right?





Not billions...TRILLIONS!
 
But consensus is a valid concept in science, and in manners in which I am not an expert, I defer to the consensus.

Sorry if you are an outlier. I would never claim to know more about geology then you. However, I am not going to ignore the overwhelming opinion of all the other experts.
Absolutely false. Consensus is useful for those of us that are not scientists because it gives us a gauge on theories but, scientifically speaking, consensus is worthless. No matter how many scientist get together tomorrow and tell you that the earth is flat, it will still be round. No matter how many scientists of their time ascribed to false theories it NEVER made those theories correct, just accepted at the time. As stated by another poster, it only takes ONE scientist to challenge an infinite number of 'consensus' scientists to overturn a theory if he can provide reproducible evidence to the contrary. Science is DIRECTLY based on the ability to accurately describe current observations and make accurate predictions on future events/observations. Climatology has FAILED in massive regard to this. They have the data and they have some sound theories but they have no real science in the AGW crowd to tell us what we will experience, how bad it will be or even what we realistically need to do to avert the negative outcomes. In all honesty, a warmer earth than today would be BETTER to a point.


Until that accurate model exists, there is nothing to base our 'preventative' actions or to even font the ideal balance that we should be looking for. That balance may well be one that has a higher temperature than what we would have naturally. The problem is that real science does not sell. Sure, you can get grants from truly concerned people and people interested in the science but the real money is in scaring the public to get the big bucks. It is an intrinsic problem and encourages outrageous claims to be made before the real science is able to verify it. IT is not a conspiracy, just a flaw in the way the funding works. I really would like to see science catch up on this issue as it is clear the earth is warming and I am tired of the dualistic fighting about the end of the world and nothing is happening crowd. NEITHER is correct and they are causing any possible solutions to be delayed.
 
The Navy said that man-made global warming caused the rise in sea levels? Do you have a link to this wonderous statement?

Didn't claim that. We can read in Georgia.
Navy states there IS GLOBAL WARMING GOING ON, and you deny it.
So which is it Mr. Wishy Washy.
Are you now admitting there IS global warming going on?
A simple yes or no would suffice.

That the temperature on the earth varies has never been an issue. How much man has contributed to it, and how much effect we can have on it, and whether the increased temperature is a bad thing to begin with, are all issues.
Are you backtracking now in typical fashion, to say something different from what yo obviously said?

Is that Otis in your avatar btw?

I have never back tracked. I come from the blind side and am a upfield rusher.
Your "varied" comment proves you are a bench sitting fence sitter.
"whether the increased temperature is a bad thing":lol::lol::lol:
You have got to be shitting me. Take a look at Texas and tell me increased temperatures are a good thing.
You live a sheltered live. Join me and get out more in the REAL WORLD.
 
But consensus is a valid concept in science, and in manners in which I am not an expert, I defer to the consensus.

Sorry if you are an outlier. I would never claim to know more about geology then you. However, I am not going to ignore the overwhelming opinion of all the other experts.
Absolutely false. Consensus is useful for those of us that are not scientists because it gives us a gauge on theories but, scientifically speaking, consensus is worthless. No matter how many scientist get together tomorrow and tell you that the earth is flat, it will still be round. No matter how many scientists of their time ascribed to false theories it NEVER made those theories correct, just accepted at the time. As stated by another poster, it only takes ONE scientist to challenge an infinite number of 'consensus' scientists to overturn a theory if he can provide reproducible evidence to the contrary. Science is DIRECTLY based on the ability to accurately describe current observations and make accurate predictions on future events/observations. Climatology has FAILED in massive regard to this. They have the data and they have some sound theories but they have no real science in the AGW crowd to tell us what we will experience, how bad it will be or even what we realistically need to do to avert the negative outcomes. In all honesty, a warmer earth than today would be BETTER to a point.


Until that accurate model exists, there is nothing to base our 'preventative' actions or to even font the ideal balance that we should be looking for. That balance may well be one that has a higher temperature than what we would have naturally. The problem is that real science does not sell. Sure, you can get grants from truly concerned people and people interested in the science but the real money is in scaring the public to get the big bucks. It is an intrinsic problem and encourages outrageous claims to be made before the real science is able to verify it. IT is not a conspiracy, just a flaw in the way the funding works. I really would like to see science catch up on this issue as it is clear the earth is warming and I am tired of the dualistic fighting about the end of the world and nothing is happening crowd. NEITHER is correct and they are causing any possible solutions to be delayed.

How many scientists are there claiming the earth is flat?
What is the concensus that the earth is not flat?
The "scaring the public" claim was debunked 20 years ago.
Where are there scare tactics used in the R&D funding for every major engineering and scientific research in American and other world wide corporations?
Where is it and when was it used in the last 100 years other than your claim on global warming?
 
Yes, it is. As a PhD in geology I find it astonishing that supposedly thinking people can believe the pronouncments of a group of scientists, and I use the term very loosely here, who have perverted the very meaning of peer review. It is not science to prevent publication of studies that contradict the current paradigm. That is the equivalent of the Catholic Church's attack on Gallileo.

If the climatologists methods of dealing with dissent were used 50 years ago the theory of plate tectonics would still be heresy. You claim to be all about the science and you forget that science is not about "consensus" science is about the quest for knowledge through the observation of physical phenomena.

Climatology is based almost wholly on the observations of computer models. Computer models that are unable to re-create the weather that occured 5 days ago. Just think about that. The scientific method states that first you develop a hypothesis, prepare an experiment or observe the physical world to gather evidence that supports your hypothesis
interpret the data and present your case. The computer models ARE the climatologists experiment. They have never predicted anything correctly to date. They and the media and the un-educated believe the computer models as if they were observations of the physical world and they are not.

They are imaginary constructions of what the climatologists believe will happen. And they have never worked yet. Until they can recreate what has allready occured they are useless as instruments of prediction. That is a simple unarguable fact. At least it is to a good scientist.

But consensus is a valid concept in science, and in manners in which I am not an expert, I defer to the consensus.

Sorry if you are an outlier. I would never claim to know more about geology then you. However, I am not going to ignore the overwhelming opinion of all the other experts.





May I suggest you read up on how the "consensus" was manufactured? Here is a good start. Jane Goodwin is a English professor at Iowa State University and she penned this a couple of years ago. Don't worry that she is not a climatologist or physical scientist the AGU hired an English major for their new Director of Communications so the precedent has been set.

If you choose to actually look into the "science" you will rapidly find that it falls apart. The consensus was 76 of 79 anonymous climatologists, not scientists in the hard sciences like physics and chemistry and geology. We make predictions all the time based on our theory's, we never use the words "could", "might", "may" etc.

Those words are the staple of climatolgists. Just imagine if you asked your doctor, "so doc, if I have this bypass surgery will I get better and he said "maybe". When I had my surgery the surgeon came in and said I fixed you! No maybe's or mights. It was a solid claim.


The authority of the IPCC First Assessment Report and the
manufacture of consensus
National Communication Association, Chicago, November, 2009
Jean Goodwin ([email protected])
Iowa State University


1. Introduction
It is widely perceived that "manufactured controversy" has become a serious problem for
contemporary civic deliberations. Advocates for special interests have been able to delay, or
even derail, much-needed policies by creating an appearance of scientific doubts where there are
in fact none. "Denialists" in controversies over policies towards AIDS or towards teaching
biology tread a path first laid down by advocates for Big Tobacco, who famously proclaimed
"doubt is our product" (Ceccarelli; Michaels; Weinel; Paroske).
In this environment, the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) seems
a remarkable achievement. Through a series of (up to now) four reports starting in 1990, the
IPCC has managed to establish as a political "given" that the earth is warming, and that human
activity is a significant cause. The fourth report was the occasion for the Bush II administration's
shift from statements like this:
We do not know how much effect natural fluctuations in climate may have had on
warming. We do not know how much our climate could, or will change in the
future. We do not know how fast change will occur, or even how some of our
actions could impact it.
in 2001, with it's typical assertions of "uncertainty" as a reason for inaction, to statements like
this:
[The IPCC report] reflects the sizeable and robust body of knowledge regarding
the physical science of climate change, including the finding that the Earth is
warming and that human activities have very likely caused most of the warming
of the last 50 years.
in 2007. How did the IPCC manage this feat? In opposition to those who would create an
appearance of doubt, the IPCC has made evident a broad and deep agreement among scientists—
they have "manufactured consensus."
My first goal for this paper is to give an account of the long-term work of rhetorical strategy or
design which resulted in the "manufacture of consensus." My second goal is to critique it. Now,
it may seem unwise to cast doubt on a strategy that managed against all odds to achieve a result
that many of us agree with. Further, it has been proposed that it is just such a scientific
consensus—and not unobtainable "proof"—that can provide the basis for sound public policy
(Oreskes "Science and Public Policy: What's Proof Got to Do with It?"). Nevertheless, I hope to
sketch an account of the IPCC's rhetorical design which suggests that its success came at a
price—a price which included contributing to the decades of political controversy over
anthropogenic warming which it finally (at least for now) put to rest."







http://goodwin.public.iastate.edu/pubs/goodwinipcc.pdf

She has a liberal arts degree in education, teaching speech class.
Her piece is all rhetoric with zero fact. 100% speculation.
Yawn.
 
But consensus is a valid concept in science, and in manners in which I am not an expert, I defer to the consensus.

Sorry if you are an outlier. I would never claim to know more about geology then you. However, I am not going to ignore the overwhelming opinion of all the other experts.





May I suggest you read up on how the "consensus" was manufactured? Here is a good start. Jane Goodwin is a English professor at Iowa State University and she penned this a couple of years ago. Don't worry that she is not a climatologist or physical scientist the AGU hired an English major for their new Director of Communications so the precedent has been set.

If you choose to actually look into the "science" you will rapidly find that it falls apart. The consensus was 76 of 79 anonymous climatologists, not scientists in the hard sciences like physics and chemistry and geology. We make predictions all the time based on our theory's, we never use the words "could", "might", "may" etc.

Those words are the staple of climatolgists. Just imagine if you asked your doctor, "so doc, if I have this bypass surgery will I get better and he said "maybe". When I had my surgery the surgeon came in and said I fixed you! No maybe's or mights. It was a solid claim.


The authority of the IPCC First Assessment Report and the
manufacture of consensus
National Communication Association, Chicago, November, 2009
Jean Goodwin ([email protected])
Iowa State University


1. Introduction
It is widely perceived that "manufactured controversy" has become a serious problem for
contemporary civic deliberations. Advocates for special interests have been able to delay, or
even derail, much-needed policies by creating an appearance of scientific doubts where there are
in fact none. "Denialists" in controversies over policies towards AIDS or towards teaching
biology tread a path first laid down by advocates for Big Tobacco, who famously proclaimed
"doubt is our product" (Ceccarelli; Michaels; Weinel; Paroske).
In this environment, the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) seems
a remarkable achievement. Through a series of (up to now) four reports starting in 1990, the
IPCC has managed to establish as a political "given" that the earth is warming, and that human
activity is a significant cause. The fourth report was the occasion for the Bush II administration's
shift from statements like this:
We do not know how much effect natural fluctuations in climate may have had on
warming. We do not know how much our climate could, or will change in the
future. We do not know how fast change will occur, or even how some of our
actions could impact it.
in 2001, with it's typical assertions of "uncertainty" as a reason for inaction, to statements like
this:
[The IPCC report] reflects the sizeable and robust body of knowledge regarding
the physical science of climate change, including the finding that the Earth is
warming and that human activities have very likely caused most of the warming
of the last 50 years.
in 2007. How did the IPCC manage this feat? In opposition to those who would create an
appearance of doubt, the IPCC has made evident a broad and deep agreement among scientists—
they have "manufactured consensus."
My first goal for this paper is to give an account of the long-term work of rhetorical strategy or
design which resulted in the "manufacture of consensus." My second goal is to critique it. Now,
it may seem unwise to cast doubt on a strategy that managed against all odds to achieve a result
that many of us agree with. Further, it has been proposed that it is just such a scientific
consensus—and not unobtainable "proof"—that can provide the basis for sound public policy
(Oreskes "Science and Public Policy: What's Proof Got to Do with It?"). Nevertheless, I hope to
sketch an account of the IPCC's rhetorical design which suggests that its success came at a
price—a price which included contributing to the decades of political controversy over
anthropogenic warming which it finally (at least for now) put to rest."







http://goodwin.public.iastate.edu/pubs/goodwinipcc.pdf

She has a liberal arts degree in education, teaching speech class.
Her piece is all rhetoric with zero fact. 100% speculation.
Yawn.




Actually she teaches these Graduate Level classes. Something you never bothered to try.
Nice attempt but as usual you fail. You still can't get through your tiny little brain that weather is weather. All of these records being set had to break pre-existing records that in some cases are over 100 years old. That means they were set before man was able to do anything to affect the climate according to your failed theories. But that doesn't compute to you clowns. Yes, you are correct...yawn, you are so mindlessly boring and uneducated that you even put yourself to sleep.

Graduate seminars
Eng 489: Undergraduate seminar/Rhetoric of reconciliation
Sp Cm 412: Rhetorical Criticism
Eng 350: Rhetoric & the History of Ideas
Sp Cm 324: Legal Communication
Hon 321: Honors seminars
Sp Cm 322: Argumentation, Critical Thinking & Debate
Sp Cm 305: Language, Thought & Action
Sp Cm 212: Fundamentals of Public Speaking
 
May I suggest you read up on how the "consensus" was manufactured? Here is a good start. Jane Goodwin is a English professor at Iowa State University and she penned this a couple of years ago. Don't worry that she is not a climatologist or physical scientist the AGU hired an English major for their new Director of Communications so the precedent has been set.

If you choose to actually look into the "science" you will rapidly find that it falls apart. The consensus was 76 of 79 anonymous climatologists, not scientists in the hard sciences like physics and chemistry and geology. We make predictions all the time based on our theory's, we never use the words "could", "might", "may" etc.

Those words are the staple of climatolgists. Just imagine if you asked your doctor, "so doc, if I have this bypass surgery will I get better and he said "maybe". When I had my surgery the surgeon came in and said I fixed you! No maybe's or mights. It was a solid claim.


The authority of the IPCC First Assessment Report and the
manufacture of consensus
National Communication Association, Chicago, November, 2009
Jean Goodwin ([email protected])
Iowa State University


1. Introduction
It is widely perceived that "manufactured controversy" has become a serious problem for
contemporary civic deliberations. Advocates for special interests have been able to delay, or
even derail, much-needed policies by creating an appearance of scientific doubts where there are
in fact none. "Denialists" in controversies over policies towards AIDS or towards teaching
biology tread a path first laid down by advocates for Big Tobacco, who famously proclaimed
"doubt is our product" (Ceccarelli; Michaels; Weinel; Paroske).
In this environment, the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) seems
a remarkable achievement. Through a series of (up to now) four reports starting in 1990, the
IPCC has managed to establish as a political "given" that the earth is warming, and that human
activity is a significant cause. The fourth report was the occasion for the Bush II administration's
shift from statements like this:
We do not know how much effect natural fluctuations in climate may have had on
warming. We do not know how much our climate could, or will change in the
future. We do not know how fast change will occur, or even how some of our
actions could impact it.
in 2001, with it's typical assertions of "uncertainty" as a reason for inaction, to statements like
this:
[The IPCC report] reflects the sizeable and robust body of knowledge regarding
the physical science of climate change, including the finding that the Earth is
warming and that human activities have very likely caused most of the warming
of the last 50 years.
in 2007. How did the IPCC manage this feat? In opposition to those who would create an
appearance of doubt, the IPCC has made evident a broad and deep agreement among scientists—
they have "manufactured consensus."
My first goal for this paper is to give an account of the long-term work of rhetorical strategy or
design which resulted in the "manufacture of consensus." My second goal is to critique it. Now,
it may seem unwise to cast doubt on a strategy that managed against all odds to achieve a result
that many of us agree with. Further, it has been proposed that it is just such a scientific
consensus—and not unobtainable "proof"—that can provide the basis for sound public policy
(Oreskes "Science and Public Policy: What's Proof Got to Do with It?"). Nevertheless, I hope to
sketch an account of the IPCC's rhetorical design which suggests that its success came at a
price—a price which included contributing to the decades of political controversy over
anthropogenic warming which it finally (at least for now) put to rest."







http://goodwin.public.iastate.edu/pubs/goodwinipcc.pdf

She has a liberal arts degree in education, teaching speech class.
Her piece is all rhetoric with zero fact. 100% speculation.
Yawn.




Actually she teaches these Graduate Level classes. Something you never bothered to try.
Nice attempt but as usual you fail. You still can't get through your tiny little brain that weather is weather. All of these records being set had to break pre-existing records that in some cases are over 100 years old. That means they were set before man was able to do anything to affect the climate according to your failed theories. But that doesn't compute to you clowns. Yes, you are correct...yawn, you are so mindlessly boring and uneducated that you even put yourself to sleep.

Graduate seminars
Eng 489: Undergraduate seminar/Rhetoric of reconciliation
Sp Cm 412: Rhetorical Criticism
Eng 350: Rhetoric & the History of Ideas
Sp Cm 324: Legal Communication
Hon 321: Honors seminars
Sp Cm 322: Argumentation, Critical Thinking & Debate
Sp Cm 305: Language, Thought & Action
Sp Cm 212: Fundamentals of Public Speaking

"Rhetoric and the History of Ideas"
More than half the football team took BS courses just like those in my day.

"Language, Thought and Action"
"Under water basket weaving"
"Processes of thought and action"
"Speaking in tongues and the history of sign language"
"Shoveling Bull Shit with a Spoon"

:lol::lol::lol: All a bunch of BS nothing courses. Exhibit A of left leaning liberal panty wetting education.
 
She has a liberal arts degree in education, teaching speech class.
Her piece is all rhetoric with zero fact. 100% speculation.
Yawn.




Actually she teaches these Graduate Level classes. Something you never bothered to try.
Nice attempt but as usual you fail. You still can't get through your tiny little brain that weather is weather. All of these records being set had to break pre-existing records that in some cases are over 100 years old. That means they were set before man was able to do anything to affect the climate according to your failed theories. But that doesn't compute to you clowns. Yes, you are correct...yawn, you are so mindlessly boring and uneducated that you even put yourself to sleep.

Graduate seminars
Eng 489: Undergraduate seminar/Rhetoric of reconciliation
Sp Cm 412: Rhetorical Criticism
Eng 350: Rhetoric & the History of Ideas
Sp Cm 324: Legal Communication
Hon 321: Honors seminars
Sp Cm 322: Argumentation, Critical Thinking & Debate
Sp Cm 305: Language, Thought & Action
Sp Cm 212: Fundamentals of Public Speaking

"Rhetoric and the History of Ideas"
More than half the football team took BS courses just like those in my day.

"Language, Thought and Action"
"Under water basket weaving"
"Processes of thought and action"
"Speaking in tongues and the history of sign language"
"Shoveling Bull Shit with a Spoon"

:lol::lol::lol: All a bunch of BS nothing courses. Exhibit A of left leaning liberal panty wetting education.





You should take the up with the American Geophysical Union then, they made a English Major (Chris Mooney) with far less qualifications their head of communications. I'll take the one wth years of background over the AGU wonk.

Thaks for playing, too bad you're so far behind the curve.
 
Last edited:
Huntsman supports science

That's certainly all the qualification he needs to be President. Hell, why vote? Just instate him.
 
But consensus is a valid concept in science, and in manners in which I am not an expert, I defer to the consensus.

Sorry if you are an outlier. I would never claim to know more about geology then you. However, I am not going to ignore the overwhelming opinion of all the other experts.
Absolutely false. Consensus is useful for those of us that are not scientists because it gives us a gauge on theories but, scientifically speaking, consensus is worthless. No matter how many scientist get together tomorrow and tell you that the earth is flat, it will still be round. No matter how many scientists of their time ascribed to false theories it NEVER made those theories correct, just accepted at the time. As stated by another poster, it only takes ONE scientist to challenge an infinite number of 'consensus' scientists to overturn a theory if he can provide reproducible evidence to the contrary. Science is DIRECTLY based on the ability to accurately describe current observations and make accurate predictions on future events/observations. Climatology has FAILED in massive regard to this. They have the data and they have some sound theories but they have no real science in the AGW crowd to tell us what we will experience, how bad it will be or even what we realistically need to do to avert the negative outcomes. In all honesty, a warmer earth than today would be BETTER to a point.


Until that accurate model exists, there is nothing to base our 'preventative' actions or to even font the ideal balance that we should be looking for. That balance may well be one that has a higher temperature than what we would have naturally. The problem is that real science does not sell. Sure, you can get grants from truly concerned people and people interested in the science but the real money is in scaring the public to get the big bucks. It is an intrinsic problem and encourages outrageous claims to be made before the real science is able to verify it. IT is not a conspiracy, just a flaw in the way the funding works. I really would like to see science catch up on this issue as it is clear the earth is warming and I am tired of the dualistic fighting about the end of the world and nothing is happening crowd. NEITHER is correct and they are causing any possible solutions to be delayed.

How many scientists are there claiming the earth is flat?
What is the concensus that the earth is not flat?
The "scaring the public" claim was debunked 20 years ago.
Where are there scare tactics used in the R&D funding for every major engineering and scientific research in American and other world wide corporations?
Where is it and when was it used in the last 100 years other than your claim on global warming?
The mentioned 'flat earth' was an illustration. There is ZERO weight in 'consensus' in actual science. Consensus is only there in the political side of the issue and rather worthless for the furthering of actual knowledge. Taking observed occurrences, coming up with coherent theory and implementing them through repeatable experimentation covers the scientific theory pretty well. There is no consensuses there.

As far as the fear mongering goes, it is a rather new occurrence through recent communication but happened several times in the past. Remember the huge push against the hole in the ozone that was going to kill us all? No real science behind that yet TONS of cash thrown into bunk research and actual law that accomplished nothing. Medicine is another field that also deals with this. Have you not seen the amount of cash that has been thrown against inoculations? The fact that they are NOT harmful was grounded in science and had been proven a million times over. One person comes out with a scare tactic an NON REPEATABLE experiment and BAM, the money flows to anyone willing to go down that rout. AGW is just the largest example.


Again, this is not a conspiracy or even this large scale occurrence. It is simply part of a machine that will naturally want to stop the end of the earth but has no interest in natural occurrences without affect.


If you cannot accept the fact that consensus is not good science though, I feel that you are lost on the actual meaning of science....
 
She has a liberal arts degree in education, teaching speech class.
Her piece is all rhetoric with zero fact. 100% speculation.
Yawn.
And what would you like her degree in? Reading what was posted, it did not seem like she was challenging the science but challenging the concept that there is wide spread agreement that AGW through carbon emissions exists. That has nothing to do with science or any specific degree.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top