Home › Forums › Open Discussion › Conflicting Science in Global Warming/Cooling
- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
May 2, 2013 at 6:08 pm #746516
ZOneParticipantMay 2, 2013 at 6:13 pm #746517
ZOneParticipantMy favorie cite to “Positive Proof of Global Warming”:
http://globalwarming-factorfiction.com/2010/03/02/positive-proof-of-global-warming/
May 2, 2013 at 6:44 pm #746518
wakefloodParticipantNew Scientist is non-peer reviewed.
Daily Tech: Lord Monckton’s article was from 2008. He was roundly criticized for his positions on GW, tried to sue a TV program about him and was denied. He is formerly Margaret Thatcher’s science adviser and recommended blood testing all citizens for AIDS and quarantining them indefinitely if positive.
The last link to your favorite site is a personal blog from a non-climatologist. He can selectively post whatever he wants.
And we can keep rolling…
May 2, 2013 at 6:50 pm #746519
ZOneParticipantOh, Good Grief,wf…the last cite is to a very funny picture of underwear from tghe big bllomers of the 1800’s to the thongs. IT IS A JOKE!
Why bother trying to educate YOU. There are few Peer REviewed anything on GW as it is so divided it is silly. But hey, when we are talking billions of years…woud a wolly mammoth do? This is a waste of time. which is sad as it only takes a few of your type to stop productive discussion. Bye Bye!
May 2, 2013 at 7:08 pm #746520
wakefloodParticipantSorry, Zone, didn’t realize there was a joke in the middle of the other posts. I get it now. And I did chuckle.
But having said that, this topic amounts to this analogy for me.
You start coughing and it gets worse over time. You smoke…alot. You go to the top 100 doctors in the country. 95 of them look at the x-rays, say you have a massive lung tumor and need to stop smoking and have radical surgery and chemo cuz you’re DYING.
You choose to listen to the 5 doctors who offer you the options that vary from, it’s ok -keep smoking, to a prescription for cough syrup, to hey, let’s take a few more x-rays in a few months.
If it was only you coughing, I’d say, go for it. But it ain’t. And if that’s the extent of your capacity to address the situation, I don’t want you making that decision for me too.
May 2, 2013 at 7:09 pm #746521
dobroParticipant“Yeah, this is where the train usually stops on these threads.”
Looks like you proved wakeflood’s point.
May 2, 2013 at 8:55 pm #746522
WorldCitizenParticipantZOne:
I’ll give you one simple result from a 3 minute cursory search for peer-reviewed articles from scientific jourals.
James Powell currently serves as Executive Director of the National Physical Science Consortium. Below is a link to a study he did on the scientific consensus behind human driven anthropomorphic climate change. He includes his methodology for your convenience.
In a nutshell: “24 of the 13,950 articles, 0.17% or 1 in 581, clearly reject human-caused global warming or endorse a cause other than CO2 emissions for observed warming. The articles have a total of 33,690 individual authors (rounded to 33,700 in the figure). The 24 rejecting papers have a total of 34 authors, about 1 in 1,000.”
Please tell me how there is not a consensus here.
May 2, 2013 at 9:12 pm #746523
wakefloodParticipantAs always, thanks for the data-driven analysis, WC.
I’ll update my analogy accordingly, with a new ratio:
You see 100 doctors, 99.1 of them recommend you do something big and now.
But apparently that .9 of a guy is pretty persuasive for you. What with all his, “don’t worry, it’s not your smoking, and even if it might be, relax, you’ve got lots of time. Speaking of which, I’ve got an opening on my foursome tomorrow…”
May 2, 2013 at 11:14 pm #746524
WorldCitizenParticipantActually wake, it’s more like out of a hundred docs it’s 99.83 recommend a change. Which makes that .17 of a doctor even that much more persuasive. I hate to belabor the point, but even that difference is HUGE.
May 2, 2013 at 11:22 pm #746525
wakefloodParticipantI stand corrected. Used the wrong number. Man, that doc has some mad skilz!
May 2, 2013 at 11:23 pm #746526
wakefloodParticipantI was using the 1 of 1000 authors, not the articles.
May 3, 2013 at 5:31 pm #746527
WorldCitizenParticipantZOne:
Just out of curiosity, does the information provided to you change your mind at all? Do you find any of it compelling? If not, then what woud it take to change your mind?
I’d like to know as it may help in speaking with people on this matter in the future.
May 6, 2013 at 3:29 pm #746528
wakefloodParticipant…crickets…
Hey WC, there’s building evidence that conservative and liberal brains are wired differently. The reason they don’t have a good answer to the question you pose might have its roots in that physiology.
Here’s a quote that I think goes toward the core issue:
“…Although Markoff concluded the studies combine to mean that the different groups communicate in different ways, psychiatrist Greg Appelbaum said the studies point toward conservatives’ tendency to avoid something called self-harm, while liberals avoid collective group harm.”
Which, in the GW scenario, might suggest that they’re more likely to deny something whose required response (change their habits) triggers their individual response AND whose impacts are more likely felt across the larger group, i.e. society at large (only a liberal trigger) .
I realize this is armchair psychiatry but there has to be a reason that so many of these left vs. right discussions end up at the same place, regardless of topic.
May 6, 2013 at 4:49 pm #746529
dobroParticipantI don’t think it breaks down so much along “cons” vs “libs”. I think its more an authoritarian viewpoint vs democratic view. Some people prefer to to be told what they should do or think and are willing to defend that against any conflicting evidence. Think “catholics” and “pedophile priests”.
Then there are people who accept science as our best human efforts to discover the workings of our universe. These people can’t go along with Jesus riding dinosaurs less than 6000 years ago.No amount of evidence will change the minds of people who think their “belief” trumps facts.
May 6, 2013 at 5:02 pm #746530
wakefloodParticipantHey Dobro,
I’m not sure that the two thoughts are inconsistent, especially if you don’t attribute party affiliation to the labels “lib & con”. A more liberal(pun intended) definition of those terms might still encompass both our statements.
But your point is well taken. The concept of “motivated reasoning” seems to be an overriding element in the conservative perspective. i.e. Looking for any seemingly rational, supportive evidence to support those beliefs.
May 7, 2013 at 3:32 pm #746531
JoBParticipantI have been looking at this phenomenon pretty closely as it has infected my family…
i am the lone bleeding heart liberal in our family..
i am also the eldest child of a single very conservative mother
of my younger sibs.. the least educated among us is the most likely of my conservative sibs to actually listen to an argument and weigh it on it’s merits
regardless of a lifelong rivalry that predisposes them to want nothing more than to prove me wrong.
the younger two who are the least likely to actually listen to and respond the merits of an argument.
both chose authoritarian careers…
but.. i think the dividing line has more to do with age and with the quality of primary education than with authoritarian versus democratic viewpoints…
though i will concede that falling standards in education contribute to authoritarian viewpoints..
it’s an interesting conundrum…
May 7, 2013 at 3:50 pm #746532
wakefloodParticipantYes, well, let’s look at the root of the issue of education, shall we?
I wonder what side of the argument has been systematically defunding schools via tax initiatives? Who has been leading the charge to remove civics from public school curriculum? Who’s been working over school boards to add pseudo-science (looking at you, intelligent designers)?
Stupid is as stupid does, my mama used to say…
May 7, 2013 at 4:21 pm #746533
JoBParticipantwakeflood..
they have been far more effective than stupid…
which is how an intelligent educated sibling of mine ends up “rationally” countering an opposing argument on a birther thread…
and his educated scientist brother in law temporizes instead of handing him his head…
his sister merely queried whether booze had addled his brain.
May 7, 2013 at 4:36 pm #746534
wakefloodParticipantYeah, I guess I have to admit that what was once just tinfoil-hat-wearing hushed banter amongst the faithful was coalesced into a bullying, very public and unashamed mob. Thank you, Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch…NOT.
May 7, 2013 at 4:57 pm #746535
JoBParticipantrecognizing what has happened to our society is the first step towards fixing it…
made harder to do of course by the fact that a good many of those you are trying to enlighten are products of the educational system that taught them that rationalization is every bit as valid as scientific evidence
May 7, 2013 at 4:59 pm #746536
JoBParticipantbtw. thanks for the interesting conversation this morning
i have been pretty housebound and was in need of mental stimulation :)
May 7, 2013 at 6:13 pm #746537
wakefloodParticipantMy pleasure, JoB.
I sure wish someone had chimed in to WC’s question about what really WOULD change some of their minds.
I suspect it can’t come from any source they perceive as being whatever term they want to call us folks on this side. I guess I liken it to the debate on LGBT rights. Until certain voices on their side started to soften to the idea of it (however disingenuous, they really only want their votes, not their physical presence), they weren’t gonna’ budge. Now a sizable chunk of them have caved enough to entertain the idea and the snowball started rolling downhill quickly.
I suspect the only way they’ll start to move on the issue of Climate Change is when Murdoch’s mansion goes up in flames and he can’t get water for his swimming pools.
May 7, 2013 at 8:23 pm #746538
ZOneParticipantTo those educated among us who understand science and are amazed that the “religious left warmers” still do not understand that the globab warming blather is a hoax, but who don’t bother commenting on a forum such as this in order not to get bitch slapped, take heart. You saw that within mere minutes the usual smug suspects here dismissed the citations as not being peer reviewed. Gosh, those articles and the Court findings took me hours to review. Yeah, right…not experts (peers) were called to testify at the trial. I’ve Googled “Global warming climate change peer review” and of course most,not all “peers” (depends on what the definition if “is” “is”) dismiss the concept as a sucessful hoax.
Let’s see if these bloggers will be able to comment piont by point and not dismiss as “not on my talking points”.
May 7, 2013 at 8:57 pm #746539
wakefloodParticipantOK, Zone, let’s start with the quality of the content you list. Let’s take a quick peek at the 1100 Peer Reviewed Articles…
Here’s just one response to that list from “The Carbon Brief Blog:
“The authors of the list claim it includes more than 900 scientific papers which question human forced climate change, an assertion which has been repeated on blogs and the Global Warming Policy Foundation website. As we have already reported, nine of the ten most prolific authors have links to oil giant Exxon.
Some of the papers cited have been published in prominent peer review journals, including 34 from Nature and 33 from Science.
However, our analysis also shows that many of the papers do not focus on human-induced climate change – and so have little relevance to the theme of the list.
Furthermore, some of the authors featured on the list surprised us, so we contacted a selection to see whether they supported this interpretation of their work – the responses confirmed their work is being misappropriated by inclusion in lists such as this.
Professor Peter deMenocal, of the Earth Institute, Columbia University, told the Carbon Brief when asked about the inclusion of his paper on the list:
“I’ve responded to similar queries over the years. No, this is not an accurate representation of my work and I’ve said so many times to them and in print.
“I’ve asked Dennis Avery of the Heartland Institute to take my name off [another similar] list four times and I’ve never had a response. There are 15 other Columbia colleagues on there as well … and all want their names removed.”
I’m working so I can’t spend any time now to further respond…Soon.
May 7, 2013 at 9:02 pm #746540
wakefloodParticipantAnd Zone, you sidestepped the basic questions posed to you by WC.
What ratio of experts do you need to see to call something consensus?
And what would it take for you to call the science settled?
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.