|
Phydeaux -> RE: So.. what moron said... (3/25/2016 1:32:51 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
quote:
So Peon - the hard core leftists here that will never consider another point of view, that would rather bury their head in the sand than consider real science - well these articles and discussion aren't for you, now are they.
On the other hand, I have gotten a pretty fair number of people that found certain studies interesting. Thats the point.
There is a second point. You liberals are taking a course of action that is morally wrong, intellectually dishonest, and economically fraudulent. The imposition of your agenda is incredibly harmful. Morally, every man must do what they can to oppose evil. So I am.
Firstly, to nail this once and for all, it isn't just 'hard core lefties' nor even 'liberals', Phydeaux. It's the vast majority of all people in the scientific world and across the political spectrum in most industrialised nations. It's a conceit to imply that climate-change denying is a 'moderate' position. It's an extreme position.
Secondly, the science of climatology is *incredibly* complicated. We live in an age of specialisation - no one person can become a master of every discipline. Instead, we have to rely a hell of a lot on those specialists-in-their field. Even I have to do that: I was educated quite highly in the subject of ecological politics - but I still knew my limits when talking to climatologists (as well as many others who were involved in some way in the study of 'ecology').
We have to trust specialists as best we can. But to get to the position where they're even at first base in terms of trustworthiness, they have to pass quite a lot of tests. Why should we trust you, Phydeaux?
First , It is not the vast majority of the scientific world. There is no one theory of global warming and no consensus how fast, what temperature profiles are.
The 97% is pure fiction without scientific backing. For example: Richard Tol:
http://twitter.com/RichardTol/status/341086919930830848
quote:
In fact, 34.6% of papers that should have been rated as neutral were in fact rated as non-neutral. Of those misrated papers, 99.4% were rated as endorsements. It is therefore reasonable to assume that the volunteers were not neutral, but tended to find endorsements where there were none. Because rater IDs were not reported, it is not possible to say whether all volunteers are somewhat biased or a few were very biased.
Tol also says this about the 97% scientific consensus claim:
It is a strange claim to make. Consensus or near-consensus is not a scientific argument. Indeed, the heroes in the history of science are those who challenged the prevailing consensus and convincingly demonstrated that everyone thought wrong. Such heroes are even better appreciated if they take on not only the scientific establishment but the worldly and godly authorities as well.
I've previously reported dozens of similar studies. The actual number of papers that are (somewhat) supportive of AGW is around 45%.
Second. I've never asked you to trust me. All I've asked you to do is read damn reports. When NASA says the net contribution from CO2 is unknown - just read the damn paper.
When judith curry IPCC contributor - says that the mechanicsms for aersol forcings are completely demonstrably wrong - at least consider it.
When the IPCC itself publishes math that says that the CO2 contribution is a logarythmnic function based on CO2 concentration (a paper I provided here) then consider it. Understand that means that the temperature contribution from CO2 will NOT be rising dramatically.
What I would ask you to do is to desist in the accusations of trollery, just because I have a different point of view than you do. I have no interest in letting the world destroy itself; I have no profit motive in challenging the science, and I get very little joy out of speaking truth to intolerant liberal tyros.
It is fact that a few liberal cliques attempted to surpress publication of articles that disagreed with them. It is fact that they have falsified data.
So if you're willing to actually consider discussing one of these points - I'll be happy to back up any of these points with citations.
|
|
|
|
