Jimi Ray Clapton
enthusiast
Posts: 1976
Reg: 09-03-07
|
02-23-12 06:37 PM - Post#145834
In response to Joe Schirmer
But I suppose the bigger question that everyone is avoiding the one I asked earlier...
Interesting how you conclude that everyone is avoiding your question... I guess you equate no response to avoidance?
IMO, your "bigger" question... is irrelevant.
Having said that... I can instantly think of reasons why someone may mistakenly feel that they need to resort to fraud (assuming there is fraud!) to further their scientific position. But is it constructive to speculate on that? I think not.
My guess is that there is more room for debate on anthropomorphic climate change than Gleick would care to admit.
I am not aware of one single researcher who has or would say that the jury is out, no need for further debate, research/analysis, etc. That would be totally incongruent with scientific method.
| I reserve the right to change who I am, my opinions, my views and my actions based on new and more accurate information that I receive. |
|
nomoon
enthusiast
Posts: 984
Loc: Allen
Reg: 05-31-06
|
02-23-12 06:52 PM - Post#145836
In response to Joe Schirmer
I don’t know if the wording in your first paragraph was intentional or not, but I thought that it was misleading and contained a false premise. Maybe it was copied from somewhere else, but it was phrased in a manner that is often used by people promoting an alarmist view. The key question isn’t whether there has been any warming, or whether man made CO2 emissions may have contributed. Most scientists would agree that there was likely some warming over the past 150 years, since the end of the Little Ice Age. Most would agree that CO2 emissions are more likely to contribute to warming, rather than cooling. Your question also included the word “may,” which is pretty inclusive. A person may feel that man was unlikely to have been a significant cause, but they might still answer to “yes” if the question was worded with “may.” The key question is whether man made CO2 emissions are causing catastrophic warming. A secondary question would be whether CO2 emissions are even responsible for the majority of the warming over the last 150 years.
For people who rely primarily on an argument by authority for this issue, then whether or not the authorities are credible is very relevant.
|
Joe Schirmer
enthusiast
Posts: 1325
Loc: SE Allen
Reg: 06-30-08
|
02-23-12 10:02 PM - Post#145844
In response to carygold
I don't think Gleick was trying to support his theory as much as he was trying to expose the internal workings of HI. IMO
Really? Then why did everything, except for the faked document, nothing new or surprising? Why did he feel the need to expose something that was already common knowledge (except for the faked document))? Why doesn't he feel as if the scientific facts were strong enough to support his view without having to sink to the level of fraud?
This may not contribute anything to the anthropomorphic climate change debate, but it does say something about some of the most vocal supporters of ACC.
|
carygold
enthusiast
Posts: 4968
Reg: 05-30-08
|
02-24-12 01:21 AM - Post#145849
In response to Joe Schirmer
again... Gleick was not after scientific facts.. he was after internal information of the workings of HI, which was not public.
Why would he create a fake identity to get public information?
On nomoon's money comments, your forgetting all of the lobbyist behind stopping cap and trade. You can't stop cap and trade unless you have lots of people beating the "there is no such thing as global warming" drums.
If CEO's increased their pay at the same rate as Average Americans
their pay would average $1,384,890 not $10,621,000 |
|
nomoon
enthusiast
Posts: 984
Loc: Allen
Reg: 05-31-06
|
02-24-12 09:22 AM - Post#145859
In response to carygold
On nomoon's money comments, your forgetting all of the lobbyist behind stopping cap and trade.
It’s the other way around. The lobby FOR cap and trade is enormous. This market would be huge, and there are plenty who would like to get a piece of that pie.
motherjones.com/could-cap-and-trade-c ause-another-market-meltd own
Cap and trade would create what Commodity Futures Trading commissioner Bart Chilton anticipates as a $2 trillion market,
You can't stop cap and trade unless you have lots of people beating the "there is no such thing as global warming" drums.
Cap and trade might be stopped by people making reasonable arguments using sound science and logic.
|
Joe Schirmer
enthusiast
Posts: 1325
Loc: SE Allen
Reg: 06-30-08
|
02-24-12 10:05 AM - Post#145864
In response to carygold
again... Gleick was not after scientific facts.. he was after internal information of the workings of HI, which was not public.
That is exactly my point! Why would he stop using science to fight those who have doubts about AGW? Could it be that it is not quite as conclusive as he would like it to be?
Why would he create a fake identity to get public information?
You need to ask him about that. He already admited that he did this.
|
carygold
enthusiast
Posts: 4968
Reg: 05-30-08
|
02-24-12 01:20 PM - Post#145870
In response to Joe Schirmer
Joe when it comes to the facts and the voters, who knows which scientists are telling the truth about AGW?
So, if someone can prove an organization that is opposed to AGW, is supported by a known corporate polluter then that information speaks to a lack of validity in the data that that organization is supporting.
Its about perception. Even though most Democrats are both protestants and Catholic Christians, and many are Jews as well, the GOP push's the perception of Democrats being a Godless party. Who wants to be a member of a Godless party? Its a way to divide people on emotion rather than facts.
Gleick is trying to get information on HI letterhead to prove they are tied to bad people, therefore the postion they support is a bad one as well.
I'm starting to see nomoon's Teamism here. Gleick is working to build consensus by emotion, because emotion is a bigger motivator, than charts and graphs.
IMO
If CEO's increased their pay at the same rate as Average Americans
their pay would average $1,384,890 not $10,621,000 |
|
Joe Schirmer
enthusiast
Posts: 1325
Loc: SE Allen
Reg: 06-30-08
|
02-24-12 02:16 PM - Post#145874
In response to carygold
Joe when it comes to the facts and the voters, who knows which scientists are telling the truth about AGW?
I'm assume that all scientist tell the truth when it comes to scientific facts. (there appears to be a slight warming trend in the last century) They only differ when it comes to their interpretation of the facts (the warming trend is correlated to human development and therefore caused by humans, or not) or their predictions (Unless carbon production is drastically cut there will be cataclysmic consequences, or not).
So the real question is not who is telling the truth, but who has the better science to back up their conclusions? And I don't know the answer to that...
So, if someone can prove an organization that is opposed to AGW, is supported by a known corporate polluter then that information speaks to a lack of validity in the data that that organization is supporting.
I don't care if Beelzebub himself is financing the scientist. If the science is good, then the science is good. Let the science stand on its own merits not on who paid for it.
Its about perception. Even though most Democrats are both protestants and Catholic Christians, and many are Jews as well, the GOP push's the perception of Democrats being a Godless party. Who wants to be a member of a Godless party? Its a way to divide people on emotion rather than facts.
WTF? What does the above have to do with the subject?
Gleick is trying to get information on HI letterhead to prove they are tied to bad people, therefore the postion they support is a bad one as well.
Gleick should worry more about collecting evidence for AGW and less about the HI, because he is only hurting his cause by doing this.
I'm starting to see nomoon's Teamism here. Gleick is working to build consensus by emotion, because emotion is a bigger motivator, than charts and graphs.
IMO
Curious, I'm starting to see your teamism show. Maybe it was that political rant which gave it away....
|
carygold
enthusiast
Posts: 4968
Reg: 05-30-08
|
02-24-12 06:04 PM - Post#145886
In response to Joe Schirmer
I am talking about the underlying politics.
You think the science will prove itself in the end... and you are correct in the long run as the effects will prove to be right or wrong.
But for now, there may be a few thousand people that know how to read the science. And its the politics of the day that makes the difference. When the decision is made to make law for or against AGW, none of law makers will know the truth about the science. In the short term few law makers actually read the data, or study the science. Instead they depend on others to do it for them
How many members of congress do you really think has a clue what the real science is on either side of the AGW issue?
This issue is driven by politics at this point and its has been for over 30 years, when the idea of global carbon credits was first mentioned.
I see what Gleick is doing, not that I support him, but I see the truth is not in the science... its in the politics.
That's all I'm talking about "the politics." Only the science geeks are actually looking at the charts and graphs, but the science geeks don't make law... politicians do.
And most politicians don't know squat about science.
If CEO's increased their pay at the same rate as Average Americans
their pay would average $1,384,890 not $10,621,000 |
Edited by carygold on 02-24-12 06:05 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
Joe Schirmer
enthusiast
Posts: 1325
Loc: SE Allen
Reg: 06-30-08
|
02-25-12 09:33 AM - Post#145889
In response to carygold
I am talking about the underlying politics.
There's your problem! You are turning AGW into a political debate rather than a scientific. Making it political is just encouraging there scientists to play politics and feel the need to cover their backs rather than taking a serious look at the science.
You think the science will prove itself in the end... and you are correct in the long run as the effects will prove to be right or wrong.
But for now, there may be a few thousand people that know how to read the science. And its the politics of the day that makes the difference. When the decision is made to make law for or against AGW, none of law makers will know the truth about the science. In the short term few law makers actually read the data, or study the science. Instead they depend on others to do it for them
It depends on what you mean by "people that know how to read the science." If you mean people who actually know what is going on with GW much less the possibility of AGW, then I would but that number closer to zero. If you mean people who could look at the published science and it underling data, then that number swells to hundreds of thousands if not millions. The problem is that the politics of AGW have encouraged those who support AGW to not publish all of their data so that it can be reviewed by their peers, thus slowing down the scientific process even more.
How many members of congress do you really think has a clue what the real science is on either side of the AGW issue?
None. I don't expect them too. But I do expect them to find competent advisors and figure out good policy given their best reading of the science of the day. There will be disagreements but politics is where disagreements belong.
This issue is driven by politics at this point and its has been for over 30 years, when the idea of global carbon credits was first mentioned.
Ironically, 30 years ago they were worried about anthropomorphic global cooling. Just goes to show you how quickly science develops.
I see what Gleick is doing, not that I support him, but I see the truth is not in the science... its in the politics.
That's all I'm talking about "the politics." Only the science geeks are actually looking at the charts and graphs, but the science geeks don't make law... politicians do.
And most politicians don't know squat about science.
I too see what Gleick was doing which is why I fault him for it. If his predictions behind AGW is accurate then this bit if foul play is just hurting his credibility, if it is false then it is just making the debate even more political.
Get the politicians out of science, and stop encouraging scientists to play politics.
|
carygold
enthusiast
Posts: 4968
Reg: 05-30-08
|
02-25-12 02:21 PM - Post#145891
In response to Joe Schirmer
I am not changing the subject from science to politics.
I am saying that Gleick's actions were about politics and not science, remember that he was publishing who the financial backers of HI were to imply HI's political position.
How many people for or against the idea of AGW, have spent 10 minutes studying the science behind it. How many have based their views on an Al Gore video, how many based their views on opposition to "job killing tree hugger science" as presented by the republican party.
When science asks that laws be made for whatever reason, or when laws are made to control science such as with stem cell research, then the world of science, politics and sometimes religion clash.
You cannot keep politicians out of science nor can you keep science out of politics, especially when one is trying to influence or control the other.
If CEO's increased their pay at the same rate as Average Americans
their pay would average $1,384,890 not $10,621,000 |
Edited by carygold on 02-25-12 02:24 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
Joe Schirmer
enthusiast
Posts: 1325
Loc: SE Allen
Reg: 06-30-08
|
02-26-12 12:38 AM - Post#145898
In response to carygold
I am not changing the subject from science to politics.
You're not fooling anyone. Of course you changed the topic to politics. You seem to have trouble keeping your eye on the subject without making this a left/right republican/democrat issue. But it's not your fault, you see the world the two-tones glasses.
I am saying that Gleick's actions were about politics and not science, remember that he was publishing who the financial backers of HI were to imply HI's political position.
Gleick is a scientist not a politician. He couldn't defend his predictions with better science so he chose to make a personal attack against one of his opponents, it was petty, not political. In other words I don't think he was trying to support a specific political ideology, but was trying to support his scientific conclusions in a very unscientific manner.
When science asks that laws be made for whatever reason, or when laws are made to control science such as with stem cell research, then the world of science, politics and sometimes religion clash.
Science does not ask for laws. Scientists may, but science does not. Politicians have the responsibility to make laws for the betterment of the public who elect them to office. Sometimes it is good to make laws to put limits on scientist, such as laws against human experimentation , making sure that scientists use some minimal ethical standards, which may even include (if you believe in the sanctity of hum life from the moment of conception) laws against using embryonic stem cell research . But that is different from abusing science in order to support a political view.
You cannot keep politicians out of science nor can you keep science out of politics, especially when one is trying to influence or control the other.
I think it is definitely possible to keep politicians from abusing science. To give in and say it is not possible is to doom us to the dark ages.
|
carygold
enthusiast
Posts: 4968
Reg: 05-30-08
|
02-26-12 04:49 PM - Post#145905
In response to Joe Schirmer
You know I understand what you're saying.
You're saying that the science should stand on its own. And you believe that Gleick's actions prove that his science cannot stand on its own. You're saying his fraud and trickery are required to make up for his failed science. I also understand that you feel Gleick has lost creditability do to his actions.
I'm not saying that any of your points of view are not true.
But you don't understand what I'm saying, regardless how many ways I try to frame it.
Now you want to attack me personally with words like "two tone" world view, when I'm only presenting contrasts from past events to try explain what I am saying.
You're assuming I'm picking a side when I'm just talking about the facts as I see them. I don't care if Gleick is successful or not. Nor I am not talking about right or left politics, as the Heartland Institute President Joe Bass was talking about when he said a "liberal narrative" in reference to those he disagrees with in the topic, I was talking about politics in the broad general sense.
So, let me ask you this.
Why is it that the most contested document of the group is the one that talks about "exposing donors" to use Joe Bass' words and removing "climate science" from schools and not about the actual science of AGW itself?
Is that not politics just as much as calling Al Gore's film "propaganda," and AGW a "liberal narrative." There are lots of ways to say that without using political terminology.
If CEO's increased their pay at the same rate as Average Americans
their pay would average $1,384,890 not $10,621,000 |
|
pup
enthusiast
Posts: 3755
Reg: 03-29-06
|
02-26-12 07:23 PM - Post#145906
In response to carygold
If you didn't take this as a direct threat to your ideology, you wouldn't have ever responded, much less beaten the fossilized horse into dust.
Your transparency is showing again...LOL
| Pup has left the building. |
|
carygold
enthusiast
Posts: 4968
Reg: 05-30-08
|
02-26-12 08:11 PM - Post#145908
In response to pup
It isn't about ideology at all. I'm fairly neutral when it comes to the CO2 debate. I'm not sold on the fact that AGW is impossible, and I could see how it could be an issue down the road. How far "down the road" is, is to be determined in my mind. There is global warming that I'm sure of, what the cause is, I'm so sure.
What I am trying to get across to the very idealist Mr. Schirmer, is that the science is almost irrelevant. Even the disputed document is mostly about funding and influence not a science debate at all.
Most people don't know the truth, they don't know which data are correct, which charts have meaning or which people are even real climate scientists for that matter.
So, we follow the Team we like most, just as nomoon predicted.
Unless or until CO2 becomes overwhelming or once we spend billions of dollars trying to stop it and then the world gets hotter anyway, because of something like undersea volcanic activity, the battle will rage in political arena.
Which ever way the ball bounces it will not be driven by science, it will be driven by money and politics.
If CEO's increased their pay at the same rate as Average Americans
their pay would average $1,384,890 not $10,621,000 |
Edited by carygold on 02-26-12 08:12 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
|
