5 ms·

Or in 50 years when things are the same will we finally look back and realize what influence greed and stupidity can effect over people that reason things throu

by gretful 13y ago

Or in 50 years when things are the same will we finally look back and realize what influence greed and stupidity can effect over people that reason things through rather than accepting everything printed? Remember - 40 years ago it was Global Cooling.

scarmig 13y ago
So you're saying that climate scientists are motivated by greed and stupidity? And if you've been involved in climate debates before, you know full well that an article in Newsweek does not mean global cooling was widely accepted among climatologists. It was not.
- BrandonMarc 13y ago
  There's always this adage: "No problem, no funding."
  - onetwofiveten 13y ago
    Are you insane? If there was any credible science to contradict the climate change hypothesis, it would absolutely be funded. There are trillion dollar industries with massive vested interests in climate change not being a real thing. I can't say for certain how corrupt or not the climate science community is. I can say for certain that there isn't a lot of money in being a scientist.
  - scarmig 13y ago
    An irrationalist revolt against the Enlightenment and the possibility of rational debate.
acqq 13y ago
Remember: the science just improves, and the science works. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_c... "The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is extremely likely (at least 95% probability) that humans are causing most of it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels."
- gd1 13y ago
  Through skepticism. What you're doing there is faith.
  - acqq 13y ago
    No, through the better scientific work. Without it, it's just trolling. Better scientific work isn't produced by deniers simply because they aren't actually interested in the science. Just like in the article. Please read the article. Have you?
    - gd1 13y ago
      Your link wasn't there when I posted was it?
  - onetwofiveten 13y ago
    What you're doing is baselessly asserting things.
yobb 13y ago
My thoughts exactly. The planet goes through natural cycles of warming and cooling. Man made "climate change" of any stripe is a hoax.
- crazy1van 13y ago
  "hoax" seems like way too charged of a word. But I don't understand the intellectual condescension towards people who are skeptical about a theory that claims to not only predict the future behavior of an entire planet's climate but also how much one element of the planet (humans) impacts the climate.
  - onetwofiveten 13y ago
    The condescension comes because of the quality of the arguments used. People who claim to be "skeptical" use fallacious arguments, misrepresent information and make general emotive points rather than pointing to scientific data and statistical interpretation. For example, you make a point about predicting "the future behaviour of an entire planet's climate". But you could equally say that we should be skeptical of Newton's theory of gravity because it predicts the future physical movements of every atom of an entire planet. It was a specious point. You just said something that was true in a way that sounded impressive. You didn't even mention the models, let alone give any criticisms of the current state of climate model validation. You just made the target of the model sound complicated, without giving any detailed consideration of how complicated it actually is when taken in aggregate. If you're going to criticise a science then use science to do it. The quality of the criticism has to be on a par with the interpretation it criticises. Otherwise it's clear you're arguing from ignorance. While it makes sense to be skeptical while ignorant, you can't expect people who aren't ignorant to take your views seriously.
    - crazy1van 13y ago
      Newton's law of universal gravity is a thing of beauty in its simplicity and power. It is simple enough that basic experiments can be run in any high school physics class, and yet so powerful that it can with a great deal of accuracy predict the movement of the planets. I'm contending that current climate science is different. I think it is too complex to ever boil down to a nice little F = G x (m_1 x m_2) / r^2 package. But perhaps we just haven't discovered that piece yet. Please understand that I'm not arguing we shouldn't study climate change. The complexity of what climate science is trying to predict just gives me pause.
buerkle 13y ago
40 years ago, global cooling was a media fairy tale. It had little scientific backing.
- mlvljr 13y ago
  Now the things are different!! :)
RyanMcGreal 13y ago
Remember - 40 years ago it was Global Cooling. This is a red herring, used to hand-wave away the serious, broad, deep, and highly credible body of evidence that points to significant human-caused global warming. So-called "global cooling" was a fairly marginal conjecture that was floated in the 1970s but never taken very seriously by most climate scientists. Already by 1970, most climate research focused on warming, not cooling.
- iterationx 13y ago
  using five adjectives in a row, LOL
krastanov 13y ago
I made an account specifically to address this fallacy. It is absolute nonsense to pretend that "Global Cooling" was ever an accepted scientific prediction. Wikipedia is sufficient for a quick overview: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling BadAstronomy is a well respected scientific journalism blog that has a more personal and less formal take on this nonsense: http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/09/10/climate_change_sea_ice_global_cooling_and_other_nonsense.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/09/10/climate_...
onetwofiveten 13y ago
If you consider "global cooling" and "global warming" to be similar phenomenon within the scientific community, then you really are very badly misinformed. This is ironic since you accuse others of "accepting everything printed". I think maybe you're the one with a poor sense of credibility.
subsection1h 13y ago
> Remember - 40 years ago it was Global Cooling. Please direct me to a large collection of reports and policy statements published by mainstream scientific organizations 40 years ago that stated that the totality of empirical evidence at the time substantiated global cooling. I want a collection like the following, but one that relates to global cooling: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_c... Thanks for your help.

by gretful 13y ago

scarmig 13y ago

So you're saying that climate scientists are motivated by greed and stupidity? And if you've been involved in climate debates before, you know full well that an article in Newsweek does not mean global cooling was widely accepted among climatologists. It was not.

BrandonMarc 13y ago
There's always this adage: "No problem, no funding."
- onetwofiveten 13y ago
  Are you insane? If there was any credible science to contradict the climate change hypothesis, it would absolutely be funded. There are trillion dollar industries with massive vested interests in climate change not being a real thing. I can't say for certain how corrupt or not the climate science community is. I can say for certain that there isn't a lot of money in being a scientist.
- scarmig 13y ago
  An irrationalist revolt against the Enlightenment and the possibility of rational debate.

acqq 13y ago

Remember: the science just improves, and the science works. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_c... "The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is extremely likely (at least 95% probability) that humans are causing most of it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels."

gd1 13y ago
Through skepticism. What you're doing there is faith.
- acqq 13y ago
  No, through the better scientific work. Without it, it's just trolling. Better scientific work isn't produced by deniers simply because they aren't actually interested in the science. Just like in the article. Please read the article. Have you?
  - gd1 13y ago
    Your link wasn't there when I posted was it?
- onetwofiveten 13y ago
  What you're doing is baselessly asserting things.

yobb 13y ago

My thoughts exactly. The planet goes through natural cycles of warming and cooling. Man made "climate change" of any stripe is a hoax.

crazy1van 13y ago
"hoax" seems like way too charged of a word. But I don't understand the intellectual condescension towards people who are skeptical about a theory that claims to not only predict the future behavior of an entire planet's climate but also how much one element of the planet (humans) impacts the climate.
- onetwofiveten 13y ago
  The condescension comes because of the quality of the arguments used. People who claim to be "skeptical" use fallacious arguments, misrepresent information and make general emotive points rather than pointing to scientific data and statistical interpretation. For example, you make a point about predicting "the future behaviour of an entire planet's climate". But you could equally say that we should be skeptical of Newton's theory of gravity because it predicts the future physical movements of every atom of an entire planet. It was a specious point. You just said something that was true in a way that sounded impressive. You didn't even mention the models, let alone give any criticisms of the current state of climate model validation. You just made the target of the model sound complicated, without giving any detailed consideration of how complicated it actually is when taken in aggregate. If you're going to criticise a science then use science to do it. The quality of the criticism has to be on a par with the interpretation it criticises. Otherwise it's clear you're arguing from ignorance. While it makes sense to be skeptical while ignorant, you can't expect people who aren't ignorant to take your views seriously.
  - crazy1van 13y ago
    Newton's law of universal gravity is a thing of beauty in its simplicity and power. It is simple enough that basic experiments can be run in any high school physics class, and yet so powerful that it can with a great deal of accuracy predict the movement of the planets. I'm contending that current climate science is different. I think it is too complex to ever boil down to a nice little F = G x (m_1 x m_2) / r^2 package. But perhaps we just haven't discovered that piece yet. Please understand that I'm not arguing we shouldn't study climate change. The complexity of what climate science is trying to predict just gives me pause.

buerkle 13y ago

40 years ago, global cooling was a media fairy tale. It had little scientific backing.

mlvljr 13y ago
Now the things are different!! :)

RyanMcGreal 13y ago

Remember - 40 years ago it was Global Cooling. This is a red herring, used to hand-wave away the serious, broad, deep, and highly credible body of evidence that points to significant human-caused global warming. So-called "global cooling" was a fairly marginal conjecture that was floated in the 1970s but never taken very seriously by most climate scientists. Already by 1970, most climate research focused on warming, not cooling.

iterationx 13y ago
using five adjectives in a row, LOL

krastanov 13y ago

I made an account specifically to address this fallacy. It is absolute nonsense to pretend that "Global Cooling" was ever an accepted scientific prediction. Wikipedia is sufficient for a quick overview: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling BadAstronomy is a well respected scientific journalism blog that has a more personal and less formal take on this nonsense: http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/09/10/climate_change_sea_ice_global_cooling_and_other_nonsense.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/09/10/climate_...

onetwofiveten 13y ago

If you consider "global cooling" and "global warming" to be similar phenomenon within the scientific community, then you really are very badly misinformed. This is ironic since you accuse others of "accepting everything printed". I think maybe you're the one with a poor sense of credibility.

subsection1h 13y ago

> Remember - 40 years ago it was Global Cooling. Please direct me to a large collection of reports and policy statements published by mainstream scientific organizations 40 years ago that stated that the totality of empirical evidence at the time substantiated global cooling. I want a collection like the following, but one that relates to global cooling: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_c... Thanks for your help.