telling lies with the truth

[Old Rocks]

Peter Doran was the darling of the right wing for almost five years.

And he hated every second of it.

Prof tries to fix record on global warming :: The SouthtownStar :: Guy Tridgell

 

[Chris]

Peter Doran was the darling of the right wing for almost five years.

And he hated every second of it.

Prof tries to fix record on global warming :: The SouthtownStar :: Guy Tridgell

This is the best part....

Last year, he assembled a database of 3,146 geoscientists across the planet to get their views on global warming. The results: 90 percent believe it exists, with 80 percent sure that earthlings are causing most of it.

His survey was published last month in Eos, a publication of the American Geophysical Union.

"There is no debate," he said. "There are a few people on the fringes who make a living out of being contrarian, but you can't ignore the long-term trends.

 

[tigerbob]

Rocks - I haven't read your OP yet, but I'll go out on a limb and guess it's something about the right or GOP telling lies.

If you've started an open minded thread I will apologize.

 

[tigerbob]

Bingo.

 

[Chris]

The votes are in and you lose.

80% is a landslide.

 

[tigerbob]

The votes are in and you lose.

80% is a landslide.

Is that addressed to me? If so, why do I lose?

 

[JohnStOnge]

The votes are in and you lose.

80% is a landslide.

You think reality is determined by how people vote? The only known reality here is that 80% believe a certain way.

The worst thing that guy said is "there is no debate." I've seen that over and over again. It's like they want to declare the debate over when it's not. A 5 against 1, a 10 against 1, 100 against one, are even 1000 against one debate is still a debate.

And we have stuff like that Oreskes thing we discussed in another thread, where she tried to create the impression that there were no "contrary" papers published in peer reviewed journals when that just objectively isn't true.

To say that 80% of persons in a certain range of fields believe a certain way means "there is no debate" is really lame.

 

[Chris]

The votes are in and you lose.

80% is a landslide.

You think reality is determined by how people vote? The only known reality here is that 80% believe a certain way.

The worst thing that guy said is "there is no debate." I've seen that over and over again. It's like they want to declare the debate over when it's not. A 5 against 1, a 10 against 1, 100 against one, are even 1000 against one debate is still a debate.

And we have stuff like that Oreskes thing we discussed in another thread, where she tried to create the impression that there were no "contrary" papers published in peer reviewed journals when that just objectively isn't true.

To say that 80% of persons in a certain range of fields believe a certain way means "there is no debate" is really lame.

CO2 causes the earth to retain heat.

We are adding 8 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere every year.

About this there is no debate.

 

[JohnStOnge]

CO2 causes the earth to retain heat.

We are adding 8 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere every year.

About this there is no debate.

CO2 is one factor in what the temperature of the planet's atmosphere is. There are many other factors. When I say there is debate I'm talking about debate with respect to the idea that it's been established that the Earth's temperature is being significantly impacted by humankind and that if something dramatic isn't done disaster will ensue.

Here is an example of what I'd call "dissent:"

http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/230_TakingGr.pdf

A quote:

"The main point of this paper is simply to illustrate why serious and persistent doubts remain concerning the danger of anthropogenic global warming despite the frequent claims that 'the science is settled.'"

In that paper Lindzen says that the "bound" one might place on the proportion of warming attributable to human activity is about one third. However, I do not read him as saying that to mean that any warming at all can be definitely attributed to human activity. I say that because of this statement:

"Contrary to the iconic statement of the latest IPCC Summary for
Policymakers, this is only on the order of a third of the observed trend at the surface, and suggests a warming of about 0.4° over a century. It should be added that this is a bound more than an estimate. Greenhouse warming must appear in the neighborhood of 300 hPa, but warming at 300 hPa does not have to be greenhouse warming."

I realize Lindzen is frequently attacked. His high profile image as one of the skeptics the global warmists have one of the more difficult times dealing with due to his indisputable credentials as a "climate scientist" is why I usually do searches on his name to find "contrarian" papers.* But the fact is that there continues to be debate.

I've got to add, again, that the IPCC has itself conceded that unequivocal attribution of any aspect of climate change is not possible.

*I don't personally accept the premise that legitimate debate on the issue can only involve "climate scientists," nor do I accept the premise that legitimate debate can only be expressed in peer reviewed journals. However, I try to use climate scientists and statements made in papers published in peer reviewed journals when possible in order to eliminate those premises as issues.

 

[editec]

Well OBVIOUSLY the solution to gloabl warming is just to convince the scientists who think it is happening to stop thinking it is happening.

Because we ALL know that perception is reality, right?

The globe, upon hearing that the scientists no longer believe in global warming will immediately begin cooling to conform to the scientists' belief systems.

Right?

Tomorrow's brilliant solution to the economic meltdown - convincing people that they have money so everything will be okay again.

 

[driveby]

I did not have sexual relations with that woman.......

There are no earmarks on this bill........

 

[tigerbob]

The votes are in and you lose.

80% is a landslide.

Is that addressed to me? If so, why do I lose?

Guess not then.

 

[JohnStOnge]

Well OBVIOUSLY the solution to gloabl warming is just to convince the scientists who think it is happening to stop thinking it is happening.

Because we ALL know that perception is reality, right?

The globe, upon hearing that the scientists no longer believe in global warming will immediately begin cooling to conform to the scientists' belief systems.

Perception is not reality. That's why the idea that 80% of defined group of scientists believes something is not prima facie evidence that the something is reality. Reality isn't subject to a vote or an opinion poll. If the scientists who sincerely believe there's going to be a disaster are right them changing their opinions won't change the reality. On the other hand, if they're wrong them sticking to their guns won't change the reality either.

 

[Old Rocks]

Observation is reality. Observation that the last 11 warmest years have been in the last 13 years. Observation that almost all of the world's glaciers are in rapid retreat. That both the Antarctic and Greenland ice caps are losing ice by the giga-ton at an accelerating rate. Observation that the oceans are becoming both warmer and more acidic.

Lindzen was very wrong in his 1993 paper in which he stated that the climatologists were assuming that the third world countries would become richer and build far more power plants. He veiwed that as very unlikely, and said that the climatologists basing future CO2 levels on that assumption was in error. But here we are today. In a world where Januarys sale of new automobiles in China exceeded those in the United States. And China's total CO2 output now exceeds that of the United States. Lindzen is no closer to being correct today than he has been in the past.

 

[Diuretic]

Cognitive dissonance. Ignoring the facts because they're so uncomfortable. Deniers can rationalise it all they wish, the fact is that it's here, it's not going to go away and if we don't change a few things then we're in deep shit. The main thing is that those who make policy not be spooked by the deniers. It's prudent to attend to what science is telling us and to make the necessary changes to slow down or hopefully reverse global climate change as far as it is influenced by human activity.

 

[del]

Cognitive dissonance. Ignoring the facts because they're so uncomfortable. Deniers can rationalise it all they wish, the fact is that it's here, it's not going to go away and if we don't change a few things then we're in deep shit. The main thing is that those who make policy not be spooked by the deniers. It's prudent to attend to what science is telling us and to make the necessary changes to slow down or hopefully reverse global climate change as far as it is influenced by human activity.

which few things?

 

[Diuretic]

Cognitive dissonance. Ignoring the facts because they're so uncomfortable. Deniers can rationalise it all they wish, the fact is that it's here, it's not going to go away and if we don't change a few things then we're in deep shit. The main thing is that those who make policy not be spooked by the deniers. It's prudent to attend to what science is telling us and to make the necessary changes to slow down or hopefully reverse global climate change as far as it is influenced by human activity.

which few things?

Depends on if we're talking about countries or individuals. But the "few things" are those practices that contribute to anthropomorphic global climate change.

 

[del]

Cognitive dissonance. Ignoring the facts because they're so uncomfortable. Deniers can rationalise it all they wish, the fact is that it's here, it's not going to go away and if we don't change a few things then we're in deep shit. The main thing is that those who make policy not be spooked by the deniers. It's prudent to attend to what science is telling us and to make the necessary changes to slow down or hopefully reverse global climate change as far as it is influenced by human activity.

which few things?

Depends on if we're talking about countries or individuals. But the "few things" are those practices that contribute to anthropomorphic global climate change.

well on a personal level, i've been holding my breath for quite some time now.

i'd like to think it's helped.

 

[JohnStOnge]

Ignoring the facts because they're so uncomfortable. .

I'll say. I've been trying to get the fact that it's not possible to infer cause and effect in this situation catch on since I started coming regularly to this board. I even quoted the IPCC Physical Science Basis report conceding that fact. It is, as far as I can tell, still being ignored.

 

[Diuretic]

well on a personal level, i've been holding my breath for quite some time now.

i'd like to think it's helped.

I haven't tried that, let me give it a shot, here we go............