This is a fantastic web site and so poignant. Every global warming cultist should read this from top-to-bottom, so that they can learn about REAL SCIENCE from a REAL SCIENTIST - Carl Sagan. Al Gore is a nitnoid dufus...he is NOT a scientist. I bet he couldn't discuss anything scientific using his OWN BRAIN for more than a few seconds; he's a PowerPoint goober who has been brainwashed by environmentally-biased, politically-steered scientists and, as a politician, has recognized a boondoggle - a personal moneymaker (he owns a carbon-credit business, makes a movie, and gives silly briefings to earn millions). In short, a high school science student knows more about science than does Al Gore. So why do you give him so much cred, alarmists? Because you want to drink the Kool-aid, that's why.
Another great thing: Carl Sagan was a great scientist but also very liberal; your liberal, alarmist friends will hate you for pointing out what he said!
Some great points from Sagan (emphasized bullets are mine):
- Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the facts
- Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view
- Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no "authorities") [This is the oft-sited 'consensus']
- Spin more than one hypothesis - don't simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy
- Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it's yours
- Quantify, wherever possible
- If there is a chain of argument every link in the chain must work
- "Occam's razor" - if there are two hypothesis that explain the data equally well choose the simpler
- Ask whether the hypothesis can, at least in principle, be falsified (shown to be false by some unambiguous test). In other words, is it testable? Can others duplicate the experiment and get the same result?
- Weasel words - for example, use of euphemisms for war such as "police action" to get around limitations on Presidential powers. "An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public" [How about substituting "climate change" for "global warming" when it was clear warming was not going on?]
- Short-term v. long-term - a subset of excluded middle ("why pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?") [For example, using a 30-year period of accurate observation to extrapolate temperatures for 4.5 billion years...]
- Suppressed evidence or half-truths [For example, ignoring the scientific facts of the last 10 years...]
To hear and see it all broken down for you in more layman's terms, please see the posts on Penn and Teller and George Carlin.
30 comments:
You know that Carl Sagan was one of the first scientists to realize that CO2-induced global warming was a threat to life on earth? And that he attributed global warming to human activity? He, presumably, came to that conclusion after running the climate science of the day through his own baloney detection kit.
Paul, first thing's first: Show me. Just tell me. Where and in what book did Carl Sagan EVER say the words "global warming?" He didn't. I read COSMOS...not in there. If you read his BALONEY DETECTION KIT and think like someone who questions what's being rammed down everyone's throat by the popular media and certain political elements, maybe you'll see that his BDK works in reverse too, because science is NEVER one-sided and definitely not political.
Just refer back to my post and please address some of those points.
SPIN MORE THAN ONE HYPOTHESIS. AGW proponents like yourself refuse to admit that anything causes climate fluctuations except the demonized CO2, which is moronic. Methane is far more potent as a greenhouse gas and so is plain water vapor. The sun--the biggest global warmer of them all--is ignored. Dumb. BTW, we're in an intense solar lull at the moment and the climate has cooled tremendously. Coincidence?
WEASEL WORDS. AGW proponents like to say "debate is over" and "consensus says" in an attempt to close down scientific debate. Carl Sagan would NEVER have bought into shutting up the other side. Contrary to what that dufus Al Gore says, debate IS NOT OVER on this subject. MIT climatologist Dr. Richard Lindzen (who I assume you've never heard of) is probably a little smarter than Gore, and he agrees with me...this is BS! A lot of scientists need this pipe dream to continue to keep the research grants coming in.
SHORT TERM VS. LONG TERM. Looking at 30-50 years of supposedly accurate climate data as a baseline and making broad proclamations about where we'll be in 100 years (i.e., flooded NYC, etc.). Climate predictions based on 30 years? That's 150-millionth of the Earth's age - a scientific and statistical no-no.
You need to learn the difference between science and politics cleverly disguised as science.
http://blather.net/globaleyes/archives/2007/04/carl_sagan_on_global_warming_a.html
Carl Sagan speaking on the issue of global warming. You have been shown.
If given the benefit of the doubt, at best, you are ill-informed. At worst...
He talked about it in Billions and Billions, which was his final book. Read it and weep, schmuck.
Okay, well...Carl Sagan needs to heed his own advice, SCHMUCK. Because if you go point-by-point down through his so-called "kit," (read my post) you will see that he makes the case for alternative scientific theories, which alarmists aren't willing to entertain. "Thuh debate is over," says Al Gore. Debate in science IS NEVER OVER. Politicians don't get to declare such nonsense.
Can you really smart guys just respond, point-by-point, to my analysis of Sagan's assertions as they pertain to scientific arguments against manmade global warming?
If you're so married to the "reality" that man is farting and belching his way to a hotter planet, you'll not leave room to consider any other possibilities.
Weird...didn't Climategate shake your orthodoxy? Guess not, you zealots. You may as well be fundamentalist religious zealots, the way you alarmists cling to this total bullshit.
It's one thing to be a good steward of the Earth BECAUSE IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO. It's another thing to try scaring everyone to death in order to destroy capitalism, which is what all this BS is.
Do you really believe that argument? Do you really believe that Al Gore secretly wants to destroy capitalism? And it would be a secret, since he has never divulged this. What is it you imagine Al Gore has against capitalism that he wants to destroy it? Why has he decided that this is his best tactic? Or is it more likely that he sincerely perceives a threat and wants to mitigate it?
So, OK, let's step away from the politics and look at the science. The standard we use to measure the value or credibility of a theory, be it wormholes, global warming or thermodynamics, is its ability to model and predict the future. That's why we experiment; to test that ability. Scientists have been using global warming models to successfully predict future climate events and situations since the 1940's. I've looked, but I know of no global warming detractor-theory (is there one?) with such a track record.
However, I understand that absence of proof is not proof of absence. If you know of any theories or bodies of work, I would be very interested in hearing of them.
You DON'T believe that these liberals want to harm capitalism? Of course they do. Gore's "sustainable capitalism" is an example of how he wants to adjust market realities:
http://globalsham.blogspot.com/2009/11/gore-capitalism.html
All of this global warming mumbo-jumbo is nothing but an advertisement for the advancement of socialism over capitalism, because capitalism's life blood is oil, and oil is the global warming boogyman, remember? Prominent liberals have said continuously that the economy must be depressed to fight warming:
http://globalsham.blogspot.com/2009/04/castro-and-chavez-capitalism-causing.html
Now, as to your claims of "climate modeling" as science. This IS NOT science. A true experiment on CO2 as a climate modifier would involve using CO2 itself and removing as many variables as possible to PHYSICALLY TEST the hypothesis in laboratory experiments. But scientists can't do that (I guess) because of the countless climate variables involved. So they turn to computers to attempt "modeling" as a method of prediction. But this gets into the "garbage-in-garbage-out" paradigm; modeling the climate is inaccurate precisely for the reason it's used--too many variables to consider.
If modeling were accurate, many of the FAILED climate predictions made would have come to pass:
http://globalsham.blogspot.com/search?q=prediction
...I especially like the one where the North Pole was going to completely melt in the Summer of 2008. Didn't happen. Model failed.
If you would like to start ignoring the climate fear "experts" (who've now been shown to be liars) and listen to some of the opinions of ostracized climate scientists (because they don't agree with the "consensus"), check out Dr. Richard Lindzen at MIT or Dr. Roy Spencer at the Univ. of Alabama. These are a mere few of the THOUSANDS of scientists who think manmade global warming is baloney. Because it is...(as the world experiences another crushing, deadly winter)
Interesting, but you didn't answer the question. If it isn't global warming, what's *your* theory?
Which question did I not answer? I think I've responded adequately to most of the hyper-alarmism tagged onto this blog post. LOL.
Theory about what? About the climate? Well, I'm a molecular biologist, but my theory is that the climate is an oscillating, cyclical beast of peaks and troughs that occur naturally over time. There are natural events that may hike or depress global mean temperatures, but to take a 30-year snapshot (or even a 200-year snapshot) out of 4.5 billion years (a snapshot polluted by shoddy science, questionable data collection, and esoteric extrapolation) and proclaim it to be the portent of future climate calamities within 100-200 years is preposterous and a statistical no-no. It's not science...it's the antithesis of science.
Hi, not a regular reader of this blog. I stumbled across it while searching "Carl Sagan and Al Gore" - Gore was actually a student of Sagan's, and I was trying to remember where. It was Harvard.
Sagan actually wrote rather extensively about man-made global warming in Pale Blue Dot, which is the follow-up to Cosmos. He was discussing how the greenhouse effect on Earth was first understood by a scientist studying the high temperatures on Venus. Sagan gives a clear and concise explanation of the greenhouse effect which you might benefit from reading.
Carl Sagan would doubtless approve of your committment to alternative theories; however, he would also disapprove of your conflation of politics and science. What you think Al Gore's motives are is frankly irrelevant to the debate. A large majority of climate scientists do believe that we are warming the Earth, and destroying capitalism is not their agenda.
Your hypothesis that there is a vast conspiracy in the global scientific community to set up a socialist state in America is unfounded, and I reject it.
CO2--even in increasing concentrations due to human influence--is still a minor contributor to Earth's greenhouse gas load (we're talking 10ths of a percent). Water vapor is STILL the major greenhouse gas in our atmosphere, and we'd freeze to death without the greenhouse gas effect on this planet. And methane is far more potent a greenhouse gas than CO2.
Whether you reject or accept my arguments about capitalism and socialism, it's irrelevant to reality. I do believe that there are scientists out there, still smoking the pipe, who believe what they're preaching, but it's not the scandal-ridden guys in the IPCC or the CRU at East Anglia. The fact is that climate science has been hijacked by various groups with diverse agendas--whether that is to cause a social change that has hence been impossible to commence or whether it's simply to continue the generous climate research funding that has been coming for years. To deny these facts is really quite silly. Surely the recent climate scandals at the IPCC and CRU have shaken your orthodoxy a bit.
Oil is the lifeblood of capitalism. Without it, products wouldn't be made as they are today, they wouldn't make it to market as they are, they wouldn't be purchased by consumers on the same scale, and they wouldn't be consumed. Oil feeds all these processes on the large scale associated with western economies, and denying this is also equally silly. Oil has been turned into the global warming boogyman; prominent liberals have said that the U.S. economy must be cooled off to fight global warming (search on this blog to read it yourself).
Socialism's goal is to make government the answer to our collective ills--all for one and one for all. When these political struggles--capitalism versus socialism--taint and devalue TRUE science, we all suffer as a result. Al Gore is a moron...he couldn't debate or argue his way out of a paper sack, and if he attended Sagan's classes then it's obvious not much rubbed off in terms of intelligence. Did you see Gore's recent made-up assertion about the North Pole? Once he was called on it at Copenhagen, he brought out the goons to deflect questions and turn off microphones.
Sorry, but there are THOUSANDS of scientists (not a few) of all stripes who do not accept that man is causing the Earth to heat up (present company included). Have you heard of Dr. Richard Lindzen, climate physicist at MIT? Dig a little deeper and don't just accept the "company line" which says, "The debate is over" (it isn't) and "The consensus says..." Science is debate, and the rebel in science--history has shown--usually turns out to be correct, while the "consensus" is usually wrong. Think Galileo.
Thousands? Really? And yet you only mention one, Lindzen. I will concede that you picked the lone denier with a shred of credibility. (Just a shred, mind you.) But I notice even Lindzen isn't using that old water vapour canard anymore.
As for Galileo, you've got your analogy backward. He was a voice for the scientific consensus. Anyone with a telescope, some math skills and was up on the literature (such as it was) knew the earth went round the sun. What Galileo was actually kicking against was a ruling class of religious fundamentalists who were protecting their economic interests. Does that sound familiar to you at all?
Apparently, you pick and choose which of my blog posts and links you want to read. And no...Lindzen isn't the only credible one, though I admit that "the other side" tries to vilify ANYONE who dares utter a contrary theory to the "mainstream theory" and label that person a heretic instantly. Like the oft-used, "big oil" charge against any scientist claiming global warming is BS (because it is).
So, go to http://www.petitionproject.org/ and read all the names you want (about which the mainstream media refuses to tell you). >31,000 "denying" scientists and nearly a third of those with PhDs. Consensus isn't so BIG anymore, is it?
I'm also scientist (molecular biologist) and a skeptical climate realist. However, there are certain aspects of science that are the same from discipline to discipline, so I can tell you with assuredness that AGW theory smells like a turd statistically, not to mention other ways that climate scientists can point out.
If you want to be a sheep that follows Al Gore over a cliff, go ahead...when you get a little older, you'll realize you've been taken for a sucker.
And are you REALLY implying that Galileo was a consensus leader? No, my friend, YOUR brain is thinking backwards. That's not what I've read:
"Galileo's championing of Copernicanism was controversial within his lifetime, when a large majority of philosophers and astronomers still subscribed (at least outwardly) to the geocentric view that the Earth is at the centre of the universe." ~ Wikipedia
Sound familiar? "Large majority of philosophers and astronomers" can easily be replaced with the word "consensus." And there are a number of scientists TODAY who keep their mouths shut (see "at least outwardly...") about their true feelings on AGW theory. I haven't met a scientist yet in my field who believes it's valid.
So, for argument's sake...let's assume you're right. Then go back to Copernicus. Why would Copernicus wait until his deathbed to publish his theory if he wasn't bucking the church-led consensus?
You see, global warming alarmists are much like those church leaders of long ago, labeling anyone who dares utter a contrary theory as a heretic, just as YOU are trying to do to me now. You guys don't want to hear that what you've believed in now for so long is full of holes; it's normal...people fall in love with their beliefs and defend them vociferously. But that's got nothing to do with science...science <> belief. Interesting that you can't see your own role in repeating history. It's you who are thinking about history backwards; you're unable to see the religious nature of this pseudo-scientific movement.
Global warming is the new church of the left. Don't worry...real scientists will bring you all, kicking and screaming, back to reality and out of the clutches of the idiot politicians and boondoggle-chasing scientists who are brainwashing you.
The Petition Project? Seriously? You're pointing me to the Petition Project? You know there are architects and orthopedic surgeons and just, like, random non-scientists on that list, right? I mean, maybe you signed it. But the thing was debunked hours after it went live. Smells like another Exxon-backed Oregon petition, frankly.
And since when has science been conducted by petition anyway?
As for quoting me Galileo's Wikipedia page at me... um... yeah, that's a pretty common myth about Galileo's time that "astronomers" of the day believed the sun went round the earth. That's why it's on Wikipedia. Thing is, even many of the "astronomers" in the Vatican knew the church's line didn't hold any water. Galileo got smacked down by a big money special interest.
Sorry guy, hate to break it to you, but you're no Galileo.
Not that it matters. You're making an argument by analogy. Hardly a scientific approach to the subject.
As for what real scientists will do... how about we talk about what they've already done?
Real scientists have spent the last few decades uncovering the truth about climate change: the planet is warming and human activity (burning fossil fuels) is the key contributor to that warming. Left unchecked, that warming will have dire consequences for our society.
In recent years, these facts were finally starting to gain some ground in political circles and lead to some positive policy changes. That is, right up until a well-funded, fossil-fuel-industry-backed public relations (read: smear) campaign succeeded in creating the appearance of scientific dissensus where little to none of substance existed.
Anyway, thanks for helping the scammers, the hucksters, the crap-slingers, the loons, the world-government-conspiracy nutjobs and the tragically malinformed along with your blog.
This is what intelligent people have to endure from the alarmist ilk out there. Oh so many ways for me to pick apart everything you just typed; where shall I start?
My guess is that your criticism of the Petition Project is by way of MSNBC or some other liberal news outlet (that have about 3 viewers or readers). Or maybe you're a college student being preached at by Bolshevik professors; we know how evenhanded they are in their teaching approaches.
Gee, I've never heard the argument before that any skeptical scientist is in the pocket of "big oil." Puh-leeze! That's such a juvenile, Rachel Maddow-esque argument. It's also bullshit...like the theory of AGW. What about me? See any advertising on this blog? I do this to fight against the moronic indoctrination that's going on (like what has taken hold in that brain of yours). I work with bacteria and viruses for a living, so NO BIG OIL here.
Here's some news for you. I'm a scientist. Are you? I'm a molecular biologist, and so I know about the scientific method. That's enough for me to see what's going on with this pseudo-science of global warming (ahem...liberal-political environmentalism).
Science is science; it doesn't matter WHO does science (so long as it's done ethically and with integrity--something missing from climatology lately). And any scientist--myself included--has the background to look at statistical bullshit and call it on the floor for what it is--that is, bullshit. The scientific method is the same from discipline to discipline, whether medicine, biology, geology, astronomy, and even precious climatology. Oh, but you already knew that...
Did I ever claim to be Galileo? Where the f*ck did that come from? You can't really argue with historical fact: Galileo and Copernicus were ostracized and labeled heretics by the consensuses of their day (the church--which is a lot like the global warming cult of today).
This is typical of liberals who are having their precious global warming religion assaulted. They resort to ad hominem attacks.
The only scammers and hucksters are those like yourself. pedaling fear in the form of manmade global warming and that the normal gas called CO2 is the devil.
EVERYTHING'S THE DEBIL TO YOU, MAMA!!!
So, you tell me...where's your evidence that CO2 is unequivocally causing the Earth to heat up (which is, in turn, causing more cooling and snow lately, as well as warming)? Even the IPCC could only write in their erroneous report that CO2 is "probably" the cause. That means that it might NOT be the cause...because IT IS NOT THE CAUSE!
You can put on blinders all you want, but if you're young (and I'd venture you are), you'll probably live long enough to understand that you've been scammed. Hopefully, your lesson won't come at the expense of our way of life and standard of living.
I accidentally rejected the following comment from "Anonymous" and was unable to restore it through Blogger's wonderfully buggy system:
Okay, let me get this straight. You're objecting to my use of ad hominems after you've just spent four paragraphs in which your only argument against me is that I'm wrong because you think I like MSNBC, Bolshevists and Rachel Maddow? (As for that last one, hubba hubba.)
From there you segue into "I'm a scientist so I know climate science is crap." Sorry, that's an "argument from authority" and if you'll check your Baloney Detection Kit you'll discover that's a logical fallacy.
As for evidence, look man, I can send you to lots of places with lots of very good science that's been peer reviewed and everything. The whole deal. Numbers. Charts. Error bars. You'll love it. Start at Real Climate, maybe. It's a good resource. Managed by real scientists.
Oh, I notice on your front page that you mention you're happy to finally be having some real debate with some of Al Gore's minions. It's funny you should mention that. I play bass in a band called Gore's Minions. (Umlaut over the 'o' in Gore. We kick some wicked, old-school metal jams.) Rock on, GW Denier!
Now, my response to Anonymous:
First, notice that your entire last response centered on me--merely one of many challenging this "theory" that has been declared unassailable by the AGW ilk. This is the ad hominem I'm talking about: Aarmists and AGW cultists go after anyone, personally, who challenges their cult hedgemony or chastises their climate canon.
Secondly, I'm not the one pedaling the theory; I'm one of those resisting the compulsory adherence to this bullshit. Also, I challenge this f*cking crap, not only emotionally, but scientifically. My career in science was NOT mentioned as a pedestal of authority with which to intimidate you (though you alarmists use that "consensus" authority trick all the time), but primarily to demonstrate to YOU, Mr. Anonymous Alarmist, that there ARE SCIENTISTS (and many) who don't agree with this religion...and guess what? They're not remotely affiliated with oil. Religion and science do NOT mix, and this is just another form of faith; it's definitely not rooted in science, that's for sure. It's rooted in politics, plain and simple, and it hides behind a veil of pseudo-science to trick the simpletons among us.
So now that you've attacked my use of "authority" and "ad hominems," what do you say when you turn that same Baloney-Detection-Kit gaze (thanks to Dr. Sagan) back towards the AGW faithful? In other words, why not use the BDK to look at the global warming side instead of attempting to discredit the "deniers"?
If you so vehemently defend global warming belief, it likely means you have some doubts about it (strange that this happens in many religious faiths that command obedience and unquestioning loyalty). If you weren't remotely threated by my blog, you wouldn't be taking the time to read it and respond to it. I hope it's making you realize that there IS an intelligent rebuttal lying on the other side of this debate (that is not allowed by The Al Gore), upon which lefty sources like "REAL CLIMATE" (not much real there) haven't touched.
The central question still remains and is in doubt: Is increasing manmade CO2 heating the planet towards catastrophe? Even the alarmist IPCC report (now proven full of errors and hyperbole...even after a Nobel Prize) stated that CO2 was "probably" warming the Earth. This means that there is doubt; it's not unquestionable, as The Gore has stated.
Enjoy your band. You should use a prop on stage of Al Gore being consumed by fire; now that would be cool (no pun intended). Then to extinguish it, spray it with a CO2 canister. I would pay to see that. LOL!
Some people here seem be highly emotional. That never serves to be a good thing, in trying to understand nature. Violent, intolerant, and hateful language shows a lack of maturity and or possibly intelligence. Using loaded language and ad-hominem attacks is not productive to finding the truth on a matter. I suggest we all calm down a little.
About the BDK, this was mentioned..
"(in science there are no "authorities") [This is the oft-sited 'consensus']"
I think there is a serious misunderstanding here.
An appeal to authority is fallacious when...
A) the authority(ies) being appealed to is not really an authority on the subject.
In this case we are discussing the climate and therefore the opinions of "climatologists" are to be taken with more seriousness than non-climatologists. If this is not true, then you should tell me why it is not true for biologists, geologists, etc etc. Have the climatologists erred somewhere in the hydrodynamics course, or some other course they took, where is the unique error that all these degreed climatologists have unwittingly succumbed to? You need to specify that error or errors in the science studied to show that a "climatologist" does not know the science of climatology as well as say a geologist knows his field. If you have a problem with the science itself, then you need to convince the climatologists with peer-review process (like every other field in science) and they will change that part of what is being taught to climatologist students.
It is not that non-scientists of XYZ branch of science can not comment on something in the XYZ branch, but they would be humble and understand that their knowledge is lacking versus the scientist that specialized in XYZ field.
Humility is the key work.
If (as is the case in AGW) a overwhelming majority of the "authorities" on a subject of "science" agree on a point of issue, then that is the consensus scientific view.
B) the authority(ies) can not be trusted to tell the truth.
I submit that it is much more likely to bribe or manipulate a handful of climatologists than a very large number of climatologists. If that large number of climatologists were say, under penalty of death (as perhaps in the days of Galileo) then one might say they were highly influenced to lie, or not tell the truth. Unless somebody finds a few thousand secret bank accounts in Switzerland with climatologist names on them, I highly doubt this is an issue currently.
C) is appealed to on a subject where the majority of authorities disagree about the subject
The majority of climatologists agree. Therefore there is an "authority" and that is the consensus view.
D) Is misquoted
except for a few errors due mostly to mismanagement, the IPCC documents form the summary of the consensus opinion.
Quibbling about minor mistakes made by bureaucratic types is a logical fallacy.
misquoting, or taking out of context statements to serve your a purpose is another logical fallacy. Carl Sagan's words should be read in their entirety if you want to know what he thought of AGW.
Appeals to Slippery Slope ideas like the destruction of capitalism have no effect on the truth about the AGW theory. Appeals to the destruction of the Earth from AGW also should have no effect on whether AGW is true.
My own opinion on this subject is similar to Christopher Hitchens opinion. Just google Christopher Hitchens on global warming.
Hopefully people here can dispense with the emotion and loaded language. On the matter of loaded language such as "liberal" one might want to reduce such usage in the light of certain evidence...
http://reason.com/blog/2010/02/24/why-liberals-and-atheists-are
You started off as someone with a cogent argument, but you quickly degenerated into someone who can't think without tripping over his own prejudices.
First and foremost, my assertion about scientific knowledge applied to this myth of global warming is quite academic among all science fields. Global warming or climate change pseudo-science has been statistically manipulated to exist. Any grad student in any serious field of scientific study--whatever the discipline--would easily be able to detect these shenanigans. You don't need to be a climatologist to find the statistically manipulated problems with climate change scare-science. "Hide the decline…"
I'll respond point-by-point to your points, rather pointedly:
A) At no point did Sagan claim you should accept this authority while rejecting another authority. Keep in mind he was talking generally about science, not global warming. He was obviously talking about scientific authorities…all of them…as NOT being sacrosanct. You global warming freaks have made a certain group of authorities SACROSANCT, which is what religions do.
Scientific authorities are like ANY authorities, and the climate scandals of Climategate and in the U.N. demonstrate well why the so-called ULTIMATE authorities should be the MOST questioned. That's in anything...religion, politics, and SCIENCE. Question ALL AUTHORITIES, sir. I really wish college students were learning this these days, but unfortunately professors are indoctrinating them into certain viewpoints and lines of thinking.
B) See, again, Climategate and U.N. Climate Scandals.
C) The majority of scientists do not agree, however. See my point in A) on statistical shenanigans. Remember, science cabals like those of the global warming ilk need each other to continue existing and should be questioned MOST OF ALL. Don't accept anything. Question everything…especially those the media has told you not to question. See A). Or remain in ignorance. Your choice to go on believing in your religion, if you see fit.
D) Many IPCC scientists--those who had opinions counter to the accepted "consensus"--were left out of the report. The IPCC's report itself (the flawed, scandalized one…as so recently revealed) stated that global warming was "probably" caused by man. That means there's doubt. That little word leaves them an "out." For everyone else, it should be a giant warning.
Nothing you've said remotely challenges any of my assertions. You guys are just like brainwashed children. Please, please…give some attention to the other side of this argument--or any issue. Search out the other side. It's there. And don't listen to the other side with preconceived notions. Global warming IS NOT happening. It just plain isn't.
your assertion that global warming is false or a myth, is a hypothesis.
this hypothesis does not have the results of scentific method and experimentation, lending credibility to it. conversely, carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere have measured, understood and physically and mathematically proveable realisations.
i share your concerns of yellow journalism and Gore's attempts at creating a moral panic. but you are exhibiting disrespect for the late Mr Sagan, to correlate this culture of fear with the subject at hand being false.
@barf (love the moniker)
Global warming believers and alarmists must prove THEIR assertions beyond doubt; they can't point fingers at detractors (ahem…deniers--like me) and scream, "PROVE AGW ISN'T HAPPENING!" That, of course, is insane in the realm of science. Cancer researchers would never do something similar; they would be required to provide proof that their new drug worked as described. They wouldn't be allowed to tell another questioning authority to prove a new cancer drug doesn't work.
…first, questioning the validity of someone else's hypothesis is NOT, itself, a hypothesis. I'm casting doubt or questioning…not explaining, because my area of scientific expertise is not in climatology. However, I can doubt another's scientific theory (regardless of subject matter) if I'm able to look at the basic statistical mechanics utilized and call attention to obvious manipulations.
I'm glad that you're able to see the problems in the media today and that Al Gore is a moron. However, you'll have to describe in detail why you feel I'm 'disrespecting' Carl Sagan. Really? On what grounds? And what constitutes 'disrespect'? Is it because Sagan's BDK really pokes holes in a theory into which Sagan himself would have subscribed?
I think you and I agree that fear is being utilized to manipulate society in this case. However, it seems you're still fully onboard with CO2's role in climate change. I feel, based on current (scandalized, manipulated) "evidence," that IT IS NOT. However, I don't need to "prove it." I think that current "evidence" of AGW proves it's not real, if digested with an unbiased, questioning mind.
Great Blog!
There are only three way by which Anthropogenic Global Warming can be proven.
1. Statistical
2. Empirically
3. By proving the "Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide causes Global Warming Hypothesis".
Statistical proofs rely on correlation. Stats 101 "Correlations are never proof of anything, merely a required condition for a relationship".
The correlation between CO2 and Global temperatures is just that, a correlation and never in a million years approaching "proof" or "evidence".
Empirical Evidence: Empirical evidence seems to indicate the climate has shown some warming, but considering the state of the climate temperature data in my country and other worldwide contraversies, thats even doubtful.http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/05/crisis-in-new-zealand-climatology
http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2010/10/observations-on-niwas-statement-of-defence/
http://www.youtube.com/user/inthehousenz#p/u/2/Roku_QeiE3s
And there is empirical evidence that shows us the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. but there is no empirical evidence to show the alleged causation between warming and CO2. So there is insufficient or no empirical evidence.
Prove the "Antropogenic CO2 Causes Global Warming" hypothesis?
The null hypothesis should be "Global Warming is part of the earths natural variation"
H1 should be "Anthropogenic Co2 causes Global Warming"
Then you do a significance test. Now find factors that show there is a 95-99% likelihood that what we see around us with regard to Global Warming cannot be due to other natural causes, which have regularly warmed and cooled the world since time immemorial and a number of times during historic times.
The proof easily fails this test as well.
Explained clearly on this site http://www.experiment-resources.com/null-hypothesis.html
Ever wondered where the real scientists have got to since the AGW debate started?
Cheers
Roger
http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com
Here, here Roger!!!
People who are "alarmists" are not talking real science, neither are people like yourself wrapping everyone arguing against you into a neat little blanket that's easily dismissed.
Sadly, picking and choosing Sagan's work to fit your close-minded world view is completely ignoring the statement he's trying to make.
You should pick up a copy of Demon Haunted World if you want to understand his "baloney detection kit" and how he truly operated. As of right now, if you honestly believe you know better than hundreds of people with dozens of years of study on the subject, you could always write a paper and submit it to be peer-reviewed. These people you detract from, in doing real science, would be thrilled to be proven wrong. That's not sarcasm either, that's science, that's how it really works.
Wow! This thread really hit a nerve with the academic elite, judging by the incessant commentary. They can't stand it when someone uses the mirror of one of their own respected scientists to force them to look at themselves.
Now, ANONYMOUS (another anonymous), exactly where did I "pick and choose" from Sagan's own writings on scientific theories--specifically the tendency of some in science to fall so in love with their pet theories that they become incapable of entertaining an alternate viewpoint. That's exactly what the manmade climate debate is (although debate has been forbidden by the "consensus" mind you--exactly what Sagan was talking about). Even though Sagan would've been the first to stand in that line and agree with global warming, his own BDK shows--with cruel illumination--exactly how flawed the theory is, especially in terms of silencing the considerable scientific resistance to the theory that you and your ilk choose to ignore on a regular basis.
I'm a biological scientist, and EVERY PhD level colleague I personally know DOES NOT believe in this bullshit. You can take it or leave it. But if you leave it, make sure you're NOT doing so to obey the global warming orthodoxy. Make sure that YOU have read all the peer reviewed garbage and believe it yourself (I feel for you if you do, because you're deluded).
Don't worry about me…the detractor. If anyone feels the need to attack me because of my disbelief in this matter of faith, they need to turn and look at themselves and ask why they feel the need to so bitterly attack anyone who utters a word against it.
Frank P says, love your discussions. I believe there is nothing man can do to destroy this planet. He may destroy it for human life but the planet will go one.Carl Sagan is the Einstein of our time.
I will be following this blog from now on... Open debate on this topic is few and far between these days. It is as if "man-made global warming" is already viewed as a fact by the corporate-controlled media.
If you are like most American's, like zombie's being programmed by their television. You can't go more than 10 minutes without being force-fed a "green" commercial, or a "green" message in a sitcom/etc... I think the one thing that all of you are not talking about that you need to bring into your conversation is the money trail.
You can debate until you are blue in the face about the science of global warming and the possibility of man influencing global warming. If history has shown us anything about humans, it has shown that if you follow the money trail. You will get your answer of where the truth lies.
I only need to say two words, carbon credits. If you think that carbon credits weren't the reason for this bullshit science being propped up for us all to accept as fact. You obviously do not know how much people like Al Gore stand to profit from this global scam. It is BILLIONS of dollars, what a joke!
You and I are the reason for the world being on the brink of disaster... We drive trucks and do not care about mother earth. You and I need to give up our luxuries and live "greener" lives.
All this while they have fleets of private jets and 20 room mansions. Puh-lease...
People who make the news, control our views. They silence those in opposition and bring to the forefront the people that will push their agenda ahead.
Wiki-leaks provided us with a glimpse behind the curtain of lies, I hope more is to come.
A paper that was published very recently by Dr. Spencer was proved to be false, and resulted in the resignation of the editor for printing his "scientific findings". All the researchers at East Angolia were cleared of any wrong doings. And Mr. Lindzen, it has been proven time and again that he cannot read data correctly.
Paul,
If you can't source it, don't put it on my blog. No one at East Anglia was "cleared" except by the same academics that believe in this bull shit. Dr. Spencer hasn't been proven wrong. And so on, and so on. And so you're an authority to criticize a PhD-level climatologist at MIT? I'll take Dr. Lindzen's opinion. You stick with the consensus; they're unassailable, after all.
Post a Comment