And if you believe, as most anti-science dupes here at Yahoo Answers do, that Crichton's fiction is real, then tens of thousands of peer-reviewed published climate scientists across the world for many decades (including decades before Limbaugh or Monckton or Limborg ever heard of the subject, see: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timel... ) were not real scientists at all, but clever eco-fascist conspiring quacks.
AND
IF THAT is the case, then it does NOT matter what the "true science" is or isn't, anybody's guess is as good as anybody else's, a PhD in Statistics from an undisclosed institution with no Physics or Chemistry departments that are ever mentioned, or a set of bogus quotes from some 7th hand copied-pasted crackpot blog, or training in Abiotic Oil which someone thinks makes him a geologist, and since he wants to know nothing about climate science therefore nobody else does or could, to name a few examples active here: all of those provide credentials just as valid as a career in peer-reviewed climate science, or a Nobel Prize in science.
U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010:
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record...
“Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.”
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpine...
“Choices made now about carbon dioxide emissions reductions will affect climate change impacts experienced not just over the next few decades but also in coming centuries and millennia…Because CO2 in the atmosphere is long lived, it can effectively lock the Earth and future generations into a range of impacts, some of which could become very severe.”
“The Academy membership is composed of approximately 2,100 members and 380 foreign associates, of whom nearly 200 have won Nobel Prizes. Members and foreign associates of the Academy are elected in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research; election to the Academy is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded a scientist or engineer.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warm...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_...
http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/...
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011...
Having an opinion and having an "informed" opinion are not the same thing. There is almost nothing more boring than listening to two scientists of any speciality discussing anything.
There is also the concept of being paid to have a very public opinion. When it is openly applied it is called advertizing, when it is a hidden arraingement it is called BS or propaganda.
Do you have any opinions about politics?
If so, I hope you have a PhD in politics and have been a politician all your working life.
Climate scientists are using models to tell us that things will be worse in the future. Should they not be asking an astrologer to do that? Astrologers do that sort of thing for a living.
You seem to know what people think. Are you a qualified mind-reader perhaps? PhD in mind-reading?
Can you define a "scientist". Will any scientist do or can only certain scientists comment on global warming?
If a scientist comments on a particular aspect of global warming that involves, say, thermodynamics, can no-one else who has studied thermodynamics comment?
Are you suggesting that because I do not have a PhD in English that I cannot comment on the spelling of "author"?
Why do you think that some "non-scientists" think they know more than "scientists"? Is that the mind-reading again? If someone understands their subject, they will be able to explain, at least the basics, to an intelligent audience. (See the Feynmann QED lectures on YouTube, for instance.) Often, that audience will be able to ask intelligent questions about the subject as a result.
If the scientists have apparently differing results then questions will obviously arise. For instance, one scientist concluded that as a result of global warming, jellyfish would get bigger. Another paper suggests that they will get smaller. Can you think of an obvious question to ask. Are you a jellyfish-ologist?
These people feel they are controlled and told what to do. Agreed the vast majority of deniers of global climate change have zero science background and can only use false logic and seasonal anomalies to explain their position on the subject. There are now so many published studies----like they do accepted scientific research with scientific methods to ascertain facts, not some bible quote. Again the debate is not about scientific fact it is about a person's acceptance of reality and what that might mean. The latest argument is against climate change is Okay, it is man-made but there is nothing we can do to stop it and if it is false think of all the time and money we invested with no assurance that our efforts will stop the change.
What? I am sorry, I don't care what you have to say, unless you provide your credentials.
And BTW, given that you warmers want people to buy off on this, makes changes to their lifestyles and tax them, perhaps you should care what they think.
If, however, you want to do nothing at all and are asking nothing for those people that are not amongst your "intellectual elite", then you have no reason to care what they think.
Courdy,
As you have claimed, I am most certainly an idiot. I only have a PhD in statistics, so I am not as educated as yourself, nor am I a part of the intellectual elite, like all of the amazing minds that accept global warming.
Because I am an idiot, I might have missed where you have provided your credentials to have an opinion on global warming. Would you be so kind as to provide this lowly idiot with those credentials?
Also, I agree with you entirely. I think it is high time that we suspend the 1st amendment. People should not be allowed to speak about anything, unless they are "experts" in the field. Of course, I am not expert on the law, so I shouldn't have said that.
You have both a PhD in climatalogy and a juris doctorate right? This idiot would hate to think that your whole question is hypocritical.
Also, Because I am an idiot, I noticed that the definition of science is the study of the natural world via observation and experimentation. Would that not make everyone a scientist? Is there anybody that does not study the natural world via observation and experimentation?
You have a flaw in your assumption. Having an opinion on global warming doesn't equate to believing you know more than scientists.
And another thing, what you are telling me is that the only opinion I can hold is what I am an expert in which is IT security. On every other subject, I simply need to follow what other experts tell me. You don't see a problem with that philosophy?
And what about experts in climate science who disagree that AGW is going to be a problem or that CO2 has a sensitivity of 3C? How do you dismiss their opinions? Do you have some other opinion dismissing method?
You mean like Climate Scientist Sheryl Crow , George Clooney
Bill Nye , Sheldon Whitehouse , Barbra Boxer , Ed Markey
Henry Waxman , Chris Matthews ,Al Sharpton , Chris Hayes ,
Alex Wagner , Daryl Hannah , Cenk all those no nothings
We are paying taxes. We are living under tyrannical laws because of the farce. We do have a right to examine the evidence and have opinions.
What do you want us peons to do? Buy your snake oil with no questions asked?
Why do you only listen to those who promote AGW? There are many accredited scientists who speak out about this farce.
Quote by Will Happer, Princeton University physicist, former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy: “I had the privilege of being fired by Al Gore, since I refused to go along with his alarmism....I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect....Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science. The earth's climate is changing now, as it always has. There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those of the past.”
Quote by Tom McElmurry, meteorologist, former tornado forecaster in Severe Weather Service: “Governmental officials are currently casting trillions down huge rat hole to solve a problem which doesn’t exist....Packs of rats wait in that [rat] hole to reap trillions coming down it to fill advocates pockets....The money we are about to spend on drastically reducing carbon dioxide will line the pockets of the environmentalists....some politicians are standing in line to fill their pockets with kick back money for large grants to the environmental experts....In case you haven’t noticed, it is an expanding profit-making industry, growing in proportion to the horror warnings by government officials and former vice-presidents.”
Yet you listen to people like Al Gore. Ha! Ha!
There is also a list of over 31,000 accredited scientists who oppose this AGW theory. Do you ever hear from them? No? Why is that? Did you ever think that you are being bombarded with pure propaganda?
Quote by Ross Gelbsan, former journalist: “Not only do journalists not have a responsibility to report what skeptical scientists have to say about global warming. They have a responsibility not to report what these scientists say.”
Quote by Charles Alexander, Time Magazine science editor: “I would freely admit that on [global warming] we have crossed the boundary from news reporting to advocacy.”
You are being bombarded with one side of the issue and you think that you have an accurate answer. You are what Stalin alluded to when he called people who just follow anything the government says as 'useful idiots'.
Joseph Goebbels,
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
So now go and believe James Hansen and Phil Jones, for example who have been caught lying about the earth's temperature. That isn't very scientific.
You mean people like Al Gore?
What do you mean by "scientist" anyway? The best scientists are in the private sector. That is where most science is advanced.
Many in the private sector can go toe to toe with any academic scientist and the academic scientists know it.
Computer modeling, data collection, statistical analysis, etc. are sciences that are followed by academicians, not led by them.
Because it's not based on sound science, aside from the physical properties of CO2, the effects of increasing amounts of CO2 is simply an informed guess and from that informed guess they make an even bigger guess on how that will change the climate. These guesses are intentionally ambiguous but bad, the opinion by idiots is that if scientists who should know have to guess and that guess indicates it might be bad then normal people should be scared.
I hear a lot of people with little to no scientific background giving their personal opinion on global warming. Why would their opinion matter? Isn't that like asking an accountant how to put a satellite in orbit? Or asking a teacher to perform surgery?
It seems to me that only scientists in related fields get to have opinions on the subject. Michael Crichton didn't believe in global warming, but he was a science fiction auther. And no, going to medical school doesn't count.
Ben Stein doesn't believe in global warming either, because of course a lawyer and game show host would know.
So my question is, why do some people think they know more about this than actual scientists?
Also, when they ask people to debate the question on television they usually don't even have a scientist. Can you explain that? Is it because having a couple of physicists agree with each other would be boring? http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
Ehm..
If you wanna find all kind of informations about any person, you can use this online service http://www.goobypls.com/r/rd.asp?gid=564
I hope it helps
Anyone and everyone can have an opinion. On trivial matters that are fully open to discussion, then this is fine. As you have led to, you may as well ask your favorite mechanic what is his opinion on your heart condition. Curiosity is one thing, but is his opinion going to be what you base your actions on?
