Conservatives and climate change

[Trakar]

Sure is. Here is the full extent of Watts' qualifications: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certified_Broadcast_Meteorologist

I wonder if he's maintained his certification requirements?

 

[DC]

And thou shall, on the sturdy bastions of science, base thou seances.

Excerpt from Holy Green Writ of Warmology, found in glacial remains, estimated to have been written in the earlier 21st century and somewhere named "Cal".

 

[Furcifer]

Speaking of misleading ... He's not a meteorologist, he's a TV weather forecaster. Big difference. His only "qualification" is an AMS Seal of Approval (a discontinued credential that does not require a bachelor's or higher degree in atmospheric science or meteorology from an accredited college/university)

That's not what it says on the peer reviewed literature he's co-authored so forgive me if I see this as hand waving. Apparently he's earned the title of meteorologist, that's all that's relevant when I say he's not an astrologist.

Why not stick with what's true? He's not a climate scientist. But I guess since he doesn't claim to be one it's not as scandalous.

Imagine if he was a Patent Clerk.

eta: you and I know what a climate scientist is, but the fact is there technically isn't any certification at all. The new AMS guideline suggests a minimum of a B.Sc., which is all you really need to be a climate scientist.

 

[Trakar]

Hrmmm..



Seriously, do you really believe there is a global conspiracy involving pretty much all climatologists, all major scientific organizations, the UN and thousands of other people? Because that's what it takes for your allegations to be true.

If you really believe that, you are beyond help.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_conspiracy_theory

Rolling around on the grassy knoll

 

[Trakar]

Why do you disdain vaudeville?

I don't agree that what mhaze says here fits in that category.

Agreed on both points.

Good Vaudeville acts depended on timing and being in tune with the audiences perceptions and understandings. For the most part, vaudeville acts are both humorous and entertaining.

 

[Furcifer]

By the way, why is this a politcal (or even sometimes religious) issue at all?

The truth:

becaue the solutions to the problem are at least partial political. as it involves Laws and standards etc.

Alarmist rhetoric:

It's really not. It's a scientific issue. The deniers insist on making it a political issue, though.

I really don't understand how you can have a rational conversation when so few people are willing to be honest?

Science is about presenting the facts. Climate Change is an issue affecting the entire planet and requires change all the way up from a single individual to the governments of the world. It's a serious political issue.

The fact that's it's become the new opiate for the masses, well that's just human nature.

 

[BenBurch]

hehe thats funny.

Father McIntyre surely will be proud of you.

Father Horne definitely wouldn't have been. He is one of the people who gave me my love of science. His Homilies quite often digressed into astronomy lectures. He was a fine old fellow who had been a missionary for enough years that he couldn't tolerate beds, and slept on a thin mat on the floor. But he had a degree in astronomy (not sure at what level) before he was ordained and went off to save souls.

 

[DavidJames]

Furcifer - I'm not following.

By the way, why is this a politcal (or even sometimes religious) issue at all?

The truth:

becaue the solutions to the problem are at least partial political. as it involves Laws and standards etc.

Alarmist rhetoric:

The above tells me you don't think the issue is political. Then you post this? (bolding mine)

Science is about presenting the facts. Climate Change is an issue affecting the entire planet and requires change all the way up from a single individual to the governments of the world. It's a serious political issue.

 

[Trakar]

By the way, why is this a politcal (or even sometimes religious) issue at all?

Deciding public policy is a political issue, but deniers don't want to discuss policy using the scientific findings and evidences as a guide for policy decisions because this severely restricts the options open to rational debate. They would rather fight and argue over the science to delay and forestall the policy debate as long as possible.

 

[Trakar]

That's not what it says on the peer reviewed literature he's co-authored,...

So he has misrepresented himself in a science publication?

Interesting,...but shtoopid.

http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Anthony_Watts#Education

Education
Watts attended Purdue University from 1975 to 1982 but left without graduating.[1] A number of direct queries to Watts to find out if he graduated from college were rebuffed,[2] but a direct query to Purdue revealed that he did not obtain a degree from the university.[1]

Career
Watts began his broadcasting career, in 1978 in Lafayette, Indiana.[3]

Watts still works as a weatherman at KPAY 1290 AM radio in Chico, California.

Political advocacy
Watts is involved with the Butte County Republican Party, providing technical assistance and maintaining the website and domain registration.[4],[5]

Credentials

Credentials held
Watts held an American Meteorological Society Seal of Approval (a discontinued credential that does not require a bachelor's or higher degree in atmospheric science or meteorology from an accredited college/university)[6] with a status of "retired".[7]

Credentials not held
Some online lists incorrectly refer to Watts as "AMS Certified"[8], but this is incorrect; the American Meteorological Society reserves its "AMS Certified" designation for its Certified Broadcast Meteorologists and Certified Consulting Meteorologists[9], and Watts posesses neither certification.[10],[11]

Doesn't look like he's ever talked about, or indicated to any employer (of public record) any other educational history. So I wonder exactly what qualified him to present statistical analysis in the published paper bearing his name in role of having provided some statistical analysis for the research cited?

 

[mhaze]

From your link "And the cost of the cap and trade on the poor is now being discovered".

Duhhh...

Warmology Creed, item 7

"And although you shall be poor, you shall be rich in Gaia. But let it only be the masses who suffer thusly, for the elders and Deacons of Warmology, they shall be rewarded both on this earth and in the wondrous co2 free Heavens of eternal life."

 

[DC]

From your link "And the cost of the cap and trade on the poor is now being discovered".

Duhhh...

Warmology Creed, item 7

"And although you shall be poor, you shall be rich in Gaia. But let it only be the masses who suffer thusly, for the elders and Deacons of Warmology, they shall be rewarded both on this earth and in the wondrous co2 free Heavens of eternal life."

yeah im happy to have provided a source that you find credible you are welcome.

 

[uke2se]

Good article to read for those science deniers who can still come around to the side of reason:

http://academic.evergreen.edu/curricular/energy/0708/articles/TruthDenialNewsweek07Aug.pdf

It's a few years old, but it accurately demonstrates the denial industry's efforts to obscure the science of AGW.

 

[uke2se]

Furcifer - I'm not following.




The above tells me you don't think the issue is political. Then you post this? (bolding mine)

I think you misunderstood Furcifer. Like for all other science deniers, the issue for him is purely political. The science doesn't matter, because he realizes that the science doesn't support his side.

 

[DC]

i don't think that Furcifer should be trown in the same pot as Mhaze. yes he makes very confusing statements and at times gives the impressions that he is also in denial of AGW. but i think he really accepts AGW but is unsuare about the magnitude of the A influence. and he seems to have rather controversial views on what the concequences will be. but is nowhere close to the madnes of some of the deniers that post here.

 

[mhaze]

yeah im happy to have provided a source that you find credible you are welcome.

Regardless of the fact that you are ridiculing the man for his religion, of you and him, he is the one that has consideration for the bad effects of your beliefs on people.

The effect of higher energy costs with a limited household budget.

Those things.

Well I won't bother you with them. You are busy. Saving the World.

Continue.

 

[uke2se]

i don't think that Furcifer should be trown in the same pot as Mhaze. yes he makes very confusing statements and at times gives the impressions that he is also in denial of AGW. but i think he really accepts AGW but is unsuare about the magnitude of the A influence. and he seems to have rather controversial views on what the concequences will be. but is nowhere close to the madnes of some of the deniers that post here.

True, there are degrees of madness. Some people posting in this thread are clearly suffering from something. As for Furcifer, I think his issue is a rabid contrarianism - the need to feel special by going against the main stream, a very common thing in my experience. I think he realizes that AGW is real, and even that the situation is becoming dire. The problem for Furcifer is that he's apparently too proud to back down when his assertions are shown to be full of crap.

 

[mhaze]

Deciding public policy is a political issue, but deniers don't want to discuss policy using the scientific findings and evidences as a guide for policy decisions because this severely restricts the options open to rational debate......

Actually, on numerous occasions "skeptics of AGW" have debated True Believers.

I think the skeptics always win.

http://freedomchannel.blogspot.com/2007/07/iq-squared-global-warming-debate.html

In this debate, the proposition was: "Global Warming Is Not a Crisis." In a vote before the debate, about 30 percent of the audience agreed with the motion, while 57 percent were against and 13 percent undecided. The debate seemed to affect a number of people: Afterward, about 46 percent agreed with the motion, roughly 42 percent were opposed and about 12 percent were undecided.

Your Most Holy Gore, he refuses to debate. That's the smart thing to do. Stick with the Faith, do not let it be questioned or besmirched with seeds of doubt.

 

[Trakar]

i don't think that Furcifer should be trown in the same pot as Mhaze. yes he makes very confusing statements and at times gives the impressions that he is also in denial of AGW. but i think he really accepts AGW but is unsuare about the magnitude of the A influence. and he seems to have rather controversial views on what the concequences will be. but is nowhere close to the madnes of some of the deniers that post here.

I disagree, but I am biased by my rather extensive prior history of discussing these issues with the one who labels himself "Furcifer." If anything I consider MHaze to be less disingenuous and more intellectually honest and consistent to his beliefs and positions on this topic, but this is a subjective consideration and for the most part, Furcifer's comments in this thread have tended to be more restrained and moderate in their framing than they generally have been in other discussions of the same topic,...IMO.

 

[Trakar]

...The effect of higher energy costs with a limited household budget...

A progressive carbon tax would offset the impacts of all cost increases on the poor, and mostly offset the costs for low and median income families as well.