What do you think, Global Warming people?
Precise, short and easy to understand. Rather then limit itself to Climate Change, the video gives a perfect idea of how non-scientists should approach any scientific issue.
Of course Kano does not like it because he is totally unable to divorce himself of his political bias and thus unable to follow the fundamental pieces of advice given in the video (get your information from people who study climate change full time; on any science question, go with the relevant expert in that field; don't listen to engineers, pundits, politicians or scientists in other fields;)
BTW, Kano, Steve McIntyre is not an engineer. You are hopelessly lost in the swamps of Denierland and so politically biased that you wander from one climate myth to the next, completely unable to separate fact from fiction.
Combining the above message with the best from SkS we get:
A common skeptic argument is that argon had 18 electrons in the past, long before SUVs and coal-fired power plants, and this somehow tells us that humans can't be the main cause of argon having 18 electrons. Peer-reviewed research and simple logic show this is not the case.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
One of the problems with filtering out any scientists that you don't believe leaves you with none on the warmist side because the only ones we hear from are the vocal activists. The scientists he recommends do not publish papers saying: "We think global warming is happening". Instead, they produce detailed treatises on the historic rainfall in a corner of Turkey. You need to read a lot of those to form a view.
The bottom line on Global Warming is current temperature and all of the aspects that affect it. It's safe to say that CO2 is a GHG, but the most important aspect of that fact is the affect 1 part in 10,000 molecules of air have on the entire climate system. There is no definitive proof that it has much of an effect at all. Only scientific conjecture. There is just as much, if not more, scientific information that says the extra molecule of CO2 in the atmosphere is a wonderful thing and I have shown links with 55 benefits that support the idea of a higher CO2 content in our atmosphere.
Putting aside any politics, there is proof that alarmism from environmental zealots is still driving the "Global Warming" movement without due cause and they are also being backed by financial elites along with Governmental elites. Who's paying for all of that media time and research? Surely not the majority of people who seem smarter than you and your cohorts here. Governments (the few who think they are in charge of the many) and financial elites are paying for it!!!
There are 2 religions in climate science and science in general. There's the evolutionist climate science that are the alarmists who teach that evolution is the scientific rule and say that it can't be stopped and then there is Creationist climate science where a supreme intelligence in charge. If evolution is based on simple reasoning and intelligent scientific thinking, then alarmism is hypocritical and 2-faced in the first place.
Evolutionist climate science alarmism is simply a chaotic look at intelligent thinking. Climate science can't even define what constitutes abnormal climate change simply because all of the things that are happening with the climate today have happened before without the help of fossil fuel emissions from humans.
The current alarmist report from the IP CC is another feeble attempt at scaring people into action by making statements based on climate models. When they can prove that their future climate models are correct, then maybe people will heed to their warning, but the models continue to fail miserably.
Hey Dook - Get your information straight please! Margaret Thatcher began this whole charade by giving money to the Royal Society to "prove" CO2 warming. She wanted nuclear energy as Great Britain's main energy source The British Parliament didn't want to have to deal with the oil cartels or the coal miner's union and have the price be controlled by outside sources. This is where the IP CC was established and it was all political. You're not only scientifically wrong, your politics suck too. Are you and antarcticice related?
Unfortunately, the message is an appeal to be logical and reasonable, but the people that deny AGW are neither logical nor reasonable, so I can't see it having any effect on them. The people that are logical and reasonable ALREADY accept AGW, so it's not going to do much for them either.
And no, Kano, McIntyre is not a mining engineer, or any other kind of engineer. He worked in the mining industry, but didn't do any mining engineering. If you want to listen to engineers, Pachauri, the chair of the IPCC is an engineer, and V. Ramanathan, one of the famous climate scientists, started in engineering. Even my job title was "engineer" for many years (since I designed electrical circuits), but I went to lengths to tell people I wasn't really an engineer.
And Raisin Caine, if you feel articles are in error, you shouldn't be writing about them in here--why not comment in the actual journals or write your own articles? Is it because you haven't really have looked at these things very carefully? You make all sorts of claims in here, but I've never seen you back a single one up. At least I will occasionally bring the physical equations into the discussion (thermal wind equation, Clausius-Clapeyron equation, etc.)
AGW people, an opinion on an article that tells them not to have an opinion? Let's find out what most experts agree on and outlaw everything else.
We are not being asked to believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it is warmer globally today than it was 150 years ago, there is more CO2 in the atmosphere. We are being told to agree with ambiguous conclusions about bad things, from weather to prostitution, being caused by these facts. We are being told to conclude that these facts mean a whole lot of bad stuff happening now, and even more bad stuff that may happen in the future may be occuring because human activities are releasing CO2 and by punishing what we think are bad activities and rewarding good activities we maybe probably can make the world a better place and even if it doesn't we need to try for the sake of our children and because our goals are altruistic.
Chemflunky,
Do you really not see the actual problem? I doubt the "scientists" would have had any trouble convincing people that CO2 is causing warming and we should limit our CO2 output. Heck I am convinced.
You have actual climate scientists like Trevor, Gary F, Pegminer, here all of the time. This should not even be a real debate. But it is. Why? Because I can pull out a TON of crap studies claiming far too much and thrash them for their unscientific methods. I can point to thousands of articles making AGW out to be a climate apocalypse.
This is simple yin and yang. The truth in the middle is going to have as much push from one side as the other. The more you have warmers claiming the apocalypse, the more you are going to have an opposing stance claiming the opposite.
You warmers need to get control of yourselves. You need to get control of how things are published and reported. I can point to catastrophic predictions made for 2050. That is just 36 years away. What are you doing??? The changes that need to be made to truly reduce CO2 are going to take decades and could be costly. Surely you know this.
If you go with the most costly solutions, like ethanol, and make extreme predictions, what do you think will happen? 15 years down the road, are we going to see enough to warrant the 2050 predictions? And if we do not, what happens???
Your warmer buddies actually think that any attack of poor methodololgy and extreme exageration means they are against science. That is why I have no trouble debating climate scientists. While I can't truly debate the experts in a given field, I can easily debate people that have let themselves become nothing more than political hacks.
People who believe in Global Warming are just like an alcoholic who doesn't think he is one. They can't see how perverse their minds really are. This is what they are happily leading us into:
Quote from the UN's Own "Agenda 21": "Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level."
Only a person with a sick mind would want that for their offspring.
Offers some good advice, but I'm sure deniers are busy trying to invent excuses why we shouldn't follow the advice, It does seem to be aimed at a U.S. audience, as many other countries don't have the political divide mentioned, countries like the U.K and Australia have a fairly strong divide between political issues and science which is why, I think denial has had a struggle here and in the U.K.
Follow the advice in the vid, even if you disregard the advice of scientists deniers claim are paid (as long as you do the same for denier experts who are now known to have been paid, even though they denied it at the time) and what do you have left, thousands of scientists from around the world who think (based on the science) that climate change is happening. What do deniers have left, nothing. So please take the advice offered in the video. As the video states ignore the blogs (of both sides) go to the sources and again deniers have nothing.
The basic message is sensible and even welcome, but there are some serious misstatements in it that significantly weaken its power:
1. Climate change "was first presented to the public by divisive politicians, who proposed responding to it with policy changes that had broad economic consequences."
This is incorrect and misleading. Climate change was heavily studied by scientists for many decades, and most of the key conclusions about it were reached by the early 1980s, long before almost any politician had heard of it. The publicity came mainly as the news media picked up on the scientific consensus.
2. "Probability curves" are actually NOT central to the science of climate change or even its policy impacts.
"How urgent is it? We don’t know, and therefore it’s urgent. Come again? Well, if you don’t know whether your house is on fire, but there’s a good chance it might be, that’s urgent. Even if there’s only a small chance that it will ever catch fire, you’re willing to spend a significant fraction of your wealth on insurance."
- Spencer Weart http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/...
No so far I dont like it, I can see him shaping up to the consensus argument, and I disagree about not listening to engineers Steve Mcintyre is an engineer, I'd listen to him before Mikey Mann.
Gringo. I dont have any political bias, I think all politics is sh!t
So what is Steve Mcintyre the I thought he was a statistical mining engineer?
http://infactvideo.com/episode/03/03/
What do you think, Global Warming people?
