Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Jun 29, 2010 - 12:35pm PT
|
What Jeremy said. Thanks Ed and Chiloe.
|
|
Tony Bird
climber
Northridge, CA
|
|
|
Jun 29, 2010 - 12:49pm PT
|
arrogance has always been a part of science, ed. it's because scientists are human. truth stands the test of time, and you know as well as i do that, time and again, truth has precipitated revolutions in scientific thinking.
rick is quite right about climatology being a relatively young science. it's very different from quantum mechanics, and your comparison of the two is far from good scientific thinking. it has also become, unfortunately, one big political football during the very period of its great growth. you're a smart fella, ed, but i don't think this is your area either.
i have a dvd on this subject which features a dozen working academic scientists arguing against the rush to conclusions about global warming. the thing i noticed was the universities they were associated with--state universities, secondary private universities, maybe even a junior college or two, not a harvard or a princeton or a yale in the lot. i know enough about the university scene to say that that could well make an even better case for their honesty.
i will gang up with you on rick over one aspect, however. he should spend more time in a big city learning how the other half lives. looking at pretty mountains all the time--"god's in his heaven, all's right with the world". and it ain't.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
Jun 29, 2010 - 01:48pm PT
|
One thing I have learned from the Taco is that many people will believe what they want to believe and pick and choose the evidence to support it. They will claim all kinds of nonsense about what the other side of an argument says and believes because if they really listened to what the other side is saying they would have a tougher time rejecting it.
|
|
Jim E
climber
away
|
|
|
Jun 29, 2010 - 02:29pm PT
|
Personally, I tend to rely on science.
The data will set you free
Ed and Chiloe have done a remarkable job 'dumbing it down' for us all. An amazing effort in the face of an endless barrage of anti-intellectualism.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Jun 29, 2010 - 03:27pm PT
|
Ed,
I really admire your posts on this thread. I think they've been true to both the scientific method and state of our knowledge.
My reading your posts and those of your seeming critics are like watching two ships pass in the night. The people who criticize the "arrrogant scientists" by and large are doing no such thing: they're criticizing the arrogant policy proposers. As you have pointed out repeatedly, and about as clearly as I've ever read, science and policy differ. Science informs policy (if we let it), but it doesn't make policy.
If this were an area without the polarizing policy debate, I doubt anyone would be too worked up over the "revalations" of "Climategate" other than a few scholars whose noses were tweaked. Instead, both the anti-capitalist and pro-capitalist factions have tried to claim that "science" compels their policy prescriptions. Accordingly, we get the sort of "political science" that makes so much of this discussion a circus.
I suggest that we be more careful separating our policy preferences from scientific thought. Science simply cannot answer the question of what we should do -- but it sure tells us a lot about what's likely to happen if we follow any particular course.
I'm sorry I'm in such a rantful mood today, but this topic -- even the topic statement -- sometimes drives me crazy. Any competent scientist is a skeptic. It's that skepticism that drives our desire to forumlate testable hypotheses, and then actually to test them.
John
|
|
corniss chopper
Mountain climber
san jose, ca
|
|
|
Jun 29, 2010 - 05:28pm PT
|
The Chief - like your common sense posts. The agenda freaks like Ed, Tony,
and Fet have lost sight of the real goal and want to punish success in the mistaken idea of helping the world.
Frickin Trojan horse scammers of course, even if they aren't smart enough
to know it.
Always be wary of people who just want to 'help you' for free.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Jun 29, 2010 - 06:45pm PT
|
I guess Chiloe and Ed are worn out.
As far as arguing with deep believers like the Chief and CC I am, that's a dead end. Although I greatly admire Ed's patient, sensible efforts to communicate.
I might still drop in occasionally to entertain the rest of you, however. Here are three words for the day:
Watch the Arctic
In numbers and graphs:
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
and in a satellite mosaic:
http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/subsets/?mosaic=Arctic
Both sites are updated daily. Some folks are watching them like a horse race right now, because big things are happening up north.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
Jun 29, 2010 - 07:11pm PT
|
Me:They will claim all kinds of nonsense about what the other side of an argument says and believes because if they really listened to what the other side is saying they would have a tougher time rejecting it.
corniss chopper:
The agenda freaks like Ed, Tony, and Fet have lost sight of the real goal and want to punish success in the mistaken idea of helping the world.
Awesome, thanks for proving my point! To a frickin' T.
Make up nonsense about what I believe because you are too weak to face facts. Oh yeah, I love to punish success! That makes a WHOLE lot of sense. Anyone who says that shows what a TOOL they are.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
Jun 29, 2010 - 07:25pm PT
|
sssssssssssssssssssssssssssh! We don't want the people to see the antarctic ice increase is caused by the hole in the ozone layer and is only temporary.
It's just amazing to me that people who supposedly appreciate the outdoors and nature will delude themselves so they can pollute with abandon.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
Jun 29, 2010 - 07:51pm PT
|
Chief I could post tons of peer reviewed data that supports human caused climate change but you would ignore it so whats the point?
Why are you so opposed to reducing pollution?
|
|
Brian
climber
California
|
|
|
Jun 30, 2010 - 10:52am PT
|
Here is another thing for which you can thank the lousy, and I do mean lousy, 4th estate (along with, for example, unwillingness to question ridiculous sham "evidence" of WMD in Iraq). What an embarrassment. "One of the strongest, most-repeated findings in the psychology of belief is that once people have been told X, especially if X is shocking, if they are later told, “No, we were wrong about X,” most people still believe X."
http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/the-gaggle/2010/06/25/newspapers-retract-climategate-claims-but-damage-still-done.html
Brian
|
|
Senor Pinche Wey
Big Wall climber
OB
|
|
|
Jun 30, 2010 - 11:06am PT
|
Blame engineers not scientists.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
Jun 30, 2010 - 01:17pm PT
|
Chief:I am not opposed to reducing pollution. If that is in fact the issue here I gladly support it.
That is the issue, and you don't support it. Otherwise you wouldn't be twisting all the evidence and the position of the other side to justify your position. Climate change is just one of the POSSIBLE negative impacts of EXCESS pollution.
Ed's example above is good. You are just like the yuppies who sh#t all over the back country and claim it's good for the environment. Should we just allow people to crap all over the mountains or should we regulate wag bags? If we don't regulate them do you think the yuppies will use them?
And for the last time you don't need to eliminate your impacts, you should just reduce them as much as you can without a big impact on your lifestyle. Most Americans could easily cut their pollution by 25-40%. NO ONE is saying you can't drive a car, heat your house, etc. except YOU. If we didn't regulate pollution factories and power plants would spew out millions of tons of pollution of all types ino the air, water, and land. The question is how much do we regulate it.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 1, 2010 - 11:36pm PT
|
Of course, those who don't want to look at facts will call the NYT a liberal mouthpiece spewing worthless junk. But how about this headline:
Climate Scientist Cleared of Altering Data
“I’m aware, and many researchers now are keenly aware, of the depths to which the climate-change disinformation movement is willing to sink, to the point where they’re willing to criminally break into a university server and steal people’s personal e-mail messages,” Dr. Mann said in an interview.
Read all about it:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/02/science/earth/02climate.html?_r=1&hp
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 8, 2010 - 01:12pm PT
|
Al Gore is just trying to steer the Bazillion$ in Oil Subsidies into his own greasy pocket.
~ OR ~
There is no science in the climate, because God is not about science.
~ OR ~
Now we can grow bananas in Maine!
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
Now, can we start focusing on the misdeeds of that scumbag who hacked the e-mails, and who many of you cheered?
I think that scumbag did all of us a favor, by providing a reason for independent review of what was done, and giving us an independent confirmation of the integrity of the science.
I also think the leaking of the emails shined a spotlight on some real misdeeds, namely the withholding of data from critics. The only criticism of East Anglia that emerges is one of a lack of faith in their ability to convince people. They did the right science, so there was no reason to withhold data.
Had they released the data initially, the science process would have gone on normally. Critics could publish their criticisms, and others could refute those criticisms, all using the same data. The withholding of data gave critics a real -- if non-scientific -- argument to disbelieve the scientific findings.
For this reason, I find the conclusions concerning anthropogenic climate change strengthened by the "Climategate" process, rather than weakened.
John
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
I think that scumbag did all of us a favor, by providing a reason for independent review of what was done, and giving us an independent confirmation of the integrity of the science.
That's sugar-coating it, John. If someone stole and excerpted decades worth of your email in order to spread false accusations that led to avalanches of hate mail and death threats against your family, politicians and bloggers around the world calling you a criminal, multiple investigations started, and hundreds of attack pieces in the media -- would you consider that they did you a favor?
The false accusations have been read and believed by thousands of people for every one who will read or believe the outcome of these investigations. The hate stirred up against these scientists remains a huge fact in their lives, and it's shaping the future for the rest of us as well.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
I'll accept your assessment, Chiloe.
John
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
I also think the leaking of the emails shined a spotlight on some real misdeeds, namely the withholding of data from critics.
Have you really looked into this, what was requested, what was provided, and why? The FOIA requests were meant as a harassment tactic, because they require 18 hours each to process. The folks demanding these data carefully divided their requests up into many small pieces that would be 18 hours *each* (they've admitted this in writing), bascially using FOIA requests like a denial-of-service attack against an office with only 3 full-time staff. They didn't really want or need the data, it turned out they had most of it anyway -- except for some pieces that were not CRU's to give away. They just wanted to pressure them and precipitate a crisis.
Naturally the CRU people got grumpy and resistant under this attack, that's the most "incriminating" thing anyone has actually found in their emails. But the data had already been freely provided to others who asked in good faith, and despite McIntyre's unrelenting efforts to claim otherwise it has proved to contain no smoking guns.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!