Global Warming - It's Our Fault

[Unrepresented]

The fact that even a few scientists question our role in climate change is all the reason I need to question it myself.

"Scientists are not to be trusted, unless they're a small minority on an otherwise consensus issue and then they're to be given undue faith."

 

[bkbirge]

Thirty years ago the panic was that the world was cooling, and fear mongers claimed we were headed for another ice age.

This has been debunked numerous times. The actual truth is that the prevailing thought was that we *should* maybe possibly be entering a cooling pattern but due to greenhouse gasses (maybe) we had (possibly) interrupted that natural cycle. The conclusion was that more study was needed. And that is what was done. For 30 years now.

The popular press published some alarmist things at the time but no one in the science journals did.

Again, misinformation spread as fact influences people to form erroneous opinions on subjects they are too complacent to investigate but not too complacent to get on their soapbox made of cards and try and influence other people. In this case we've seen this repeated over a span of generations. That's not skepticism, that's flat out ignorance.

And in the last 30 years lots of progress in climate research has been made.

Your argument basically is that you don't believe the science results of today because you misunderstood the science results of 30 years ago. LOL

 

[ProgRocker]

Because a very well educated position with data and corroboration of other fields is much better than the position you're promoting -- skepticism of a very well educated position. You're not promoting data, you're not promoting a corroborated idea that ties into other fields. You're just simply being skeptical.

Having met my share of well educated idiots, a collection of degrees does not exempt one from scrutiny. I haven't the time or inclination to do the exhaustive research required to corroborate or debunk what scientists claim is true.

The fact that science discovers things that disprove previous conclusions, and that there are scientists who disagree with the popular conclusions regarding climate change.

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

Invalid Link Removed

Clearly I am not alone in my skepticism.

 

[Unrepresented]

Your argument basically is that you don't believe the science results of today because you misunderstood the science results of 30 years ago. LOL

Fool me once, shame on, shame on you. Fool me, you can't get fooled again.

 

[ProgRocker]

"Scientists are not to be trusted, unless they're a small minority on an otherwise consensus issue and then they're to be given undue faith."

Not at all. However, the presence of scientists who disagree means that some "very well educated" people disagree with what is being touted here as indisputable fact. The reason being given to believe this is the education level of the opinion holders.

My rebuttal is that there are equally educated people making a case for the opposition. Look at the links I just posted. The Forbes article is from this past February. They cite peer reviewed material (I know how attached to peer reviewed material people here are).

It appears my skepticism was well founded.

 

[aborgman]

Fair enough. So, why do so many here act like today's scientific conclusions are infallible?

No one is acting like science is infallible - just that today's scientific conclusions are the best, predictive, falsifiable explanation for the existing evidence.

They aren't perfect - but they're the best we've got and haven't (yet) been disproved.

 

[Unrepresented]

Having met my share of well educated idiots, a collection of degrees does not exempt one from scrutiny. I haven't the time or inclination to do the exhaustive research required to corroborate or debunk what scientists claim is true.

The fact that science discovers things that disprove previous conclusions, and that there are scientists who disagree with the popular conclusions regarding climate change.

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

Invalid Link Removed

Clearly I am not alone in my skepticism.

I don't think you appreciate the irony of accusing scientists of being idiots and supporting that statement with a list of scientists that agree with your position.

 

[aborgman]

There is also no dispute regarding those things or if and how they work.

Of course there is.

The inner working of quantum mechanics and how that plays out in channel generation in transistors (and thus all modern electronics) is still a bit of a "we think it works this way but aren't sure" field.

When planes crash, is science ever blamed?

Absolutely. Planes still crash semi-regularly due to poorly understood or modeled aerodynamics issues.

How about LiPo science and the Boeing 787?

 

[bkbirge]

Having met my share of well educated idiots, a collection of degrees does not exempt one from scrutiny. I haven't the time or inclination to do the exhaustive research required to corroborate or debunk what scientists claim is true.

That's true, there are lots of educated fools out there. There are a lot more uneducated ones. I wouldn't be too proud of either state.

LOL, that paragraph. So though you admit you don't have the time to devote to getting up to speed on the issues and you also don't currently have the knowledge you nonetheless consider it your duty to voice an opinion and expect that your words be taken with the same seriousness as people who do have time to study the issues and have done so.

Yes, having a degree doesn't protect one from scrutiny. Wearing anti-intellectualism as a badge of honor doesn't protect one from ridicule either.

 

[ProgRocker]

I don't think you appreciate the irony of accusing scientists of being idiots and supporting that statement with a list of scientists that agree with your position.

I never said scientists were idiots. I said that I've met some very well educated idiots, and I have. I never said they were scientists. Not all highly educated people are scientists, or did you not know that?

 

[DerHoggz]

I'm skeptical of alarmists crying "The sky is falling!" when such claims have repeatedly proven empty and unwarranted. Thirty years ago the panic was that the world was cooling, and fear mongers claimed we were headed for another ice age. My understanding is that climate is cyclical, and we've been headed for another ice age since the planet emerged from the last one.

We are technically still in a glacial age. Yes there are cycles.

I've seen my tax dollars given to "green" companies like Solyndra and Evergreen Solar to see those companies squander the money they were given, move the company to China, and then close down completely.

Therefore the overwhelming majority of climate scientists are wrong?

I'm not convinced human contribution to climate is significant, or that despite the arrogance of the Global Warming alarmists, we can make a significant impact to alter climate change, or even that we should. This argument reminds me of the people who want to save all the cute animals from extinction, even though the natural rate of extinction in an undisturbed ecosystem is 1 per decade (Invalid Link Removed) not counting for mass extinctions that happened throughout history without our help.

So Wikipedia which requires citation is a bad source, but the irrelevant text answer service Chacha is good? We are actually in the Holocene extinction right now which coincides with the rise of humanity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction

I think climate change is similar. It is something the planet does, and will continue to do long after we're gone. I see people trying to change the climate as arrogant meddlers who in the end will likely do more harm than good. Typical of humanity, we try to change things to suit ourselves rather than simply adapt to the changes.

Yes, climate changes naturally, but according to research not as drastically as recent records show.

My comments in bold.

Having met my share of well educated idiots, a collection of degrees does not exempt one from scrutiny.

Not at all. However, the presence of scientists who disagree means that some "very well educated" people disagree with what is being touted here as indisputable fact. The reason being given to believe this is the education level of the opinion holders.

Emphasis mine.

Figured out the problem for you. Either you can believe 97% to be idiots, or 3%. Which seems more likely?

To address the claims of scientists being bought out: Do you really think the much smaller environmentalist groups could possibly pull those punches against the massive oil industry?

 

[ProgRocker]

That's true, there are lots of educated fools out there. There are a lot more uneducated ones. I wouldn't be too proud of either state.

LOL, that paragraph. So though you admit you don't have the time to devote to getting up to speed on the issues and you also don't currently have the knowledge you nonetheless consider it your duty to voice an opinion and expect that your words be taken with the same seriousness as people who do have time to study the issues and have done so.

Yes, having a degree doesn't protect one from scrutiny. Wearing anti-intellectualism as a badge of honor doesn't protect one from ridicule either.

From what I've read here most of the people who have the time and therefore have studied the matter are themselves in science to one degree or another. That's convenient.

Not my duty, just my opinion. Or must I have certain degrees for that luxury?

 

[DerHoggz]

From what I've read here most of the people who have the time and therefore have studied the matter are themselves in science to one degree or another. That's convenient.

Not my duty, just my opinion. Or must I have certain degrees for that luxury?

So you don't trust scientists?

 

[Unrepresented]

From what I've read here most of the people who have the time and therefore have studied the matter are themselves in science to one degree or another. That's convenient.

Not my duty, just my opinion. Or must I have certain degrees for that luxury?

Science proves that the majority of people who study science professionally are scientists.

 

[Unrepresented]

So you don't trust scientists?

Only the ones who disagree with other scientists.

 

[Tituscrow]

From what I've read here most of the people who have the time and therefore have studied the matter are themselves in science to one degree or another. That's convenient.

Not my duty, just my opinion. Or must I have certain degrees for that luxury?

If I want to learn about geology, I'll listen to a geologist.

If I want to learn about genetics, I'll listen to a geneticist.

So....if I want to learn about climatology, I'll listen to a climatologist.

If I want to hear the random musings of an armchair expert on everythingology, I come to TB.

Keep it civil please fellas... I'm really enjoying the thread

 

[DerHoggz]

Only the ones who disagree with other scientists.

But if they disagree with (1st) other scientists, then from the (1st) other scientists view the (1st) other scientists are disagreeing with (2nd) other scientists. (The (2nd) other scientists being the first group) Then we would need to employ general relativity to determine where we are, but we can't trust relativity because (other?) other scientists and all that.

If I'm following; the only trustworthy scientists are those that don't do science and disagree with scientists that do do science?

BAM, (other other) SCIENCED. DON'T WORRY I DON'T USUALLY SCIENCE SO YOU CAN TRUST ME.

 

[slobake]

Is it getting warm in here or is it just me?

 

[NWB]

I understand. Of my pet peeves is when science gets demonized for political gain.

You trust science to land your plane flight. You trust it to connect your cell phone call. You trust it to have this conversation on computers across the globe, but when a few talking heads and big money start discussing a specific branch that ties into a convenient narrative, it's suddenly "bunk."

You'll never win an argument using an arsenal of reason, facts, and logic against a position of "because I said so!".

Cripes, I knew I shouldn't have stepped into this thread.

Now I'll never get the hyperbole off my shoes.

 

[bkbirge]

Science proves that the majority of people who study science professionally are scientists.