AWG conspiracy, why?

[fourtoe]

Thanks.

So, two points/questions.

Are all those who take a skeptical point of view, such as Mr Randi, deniers and CTers?

No.

And, the 0.5%.... what are the "scientists in relevant fields"? Or what are these relevant fields exactly?

This post and the comments are where I found that exact %. I found it linked in PZ Myers' post that I mentioned earlier.

About a year or so ago the first time I was introduced to sourcewatch.org by looking into this petition. Here is their article on the site.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

No..

Cheers. Good to know

This post and the comments are where I found that exact %. I found it linked in PZ Myers' post that I mentioned earlier.

About a year or so ago the first time I was introduced to sourcewatch.org by looking into this petition. Here is their article on the site.

Thanks.
In the first article it mentions about seeing a specialist. i.e seeing a cardiologist rather than a dermatologist (or similar) - and fair enough of course.

I have a bit of a problem with this climatologist 'tag. I put this post in another thread, perhaps you (or anyone else) could enlighten me on a couple of points that follow and are included in the post.....

And after reviewing the list, what would the numbers then be of people in relevant fields? The article only listed a handful - there appears many more to me.

Only Climate Change scientists can understand the science?
No one else has a valid opinion on the science, or the way they go about it?
Now I'm no scientist so I'd like some assistance with this next thought..
It seems to me that climate scientists need a number of disciplines. So to fully understand climate science and all its implications a number of disciplines will be required - a quick google search reveals some of them as follows:

Atmospheric and Physical Sciences:
Climatology,
Meteorology,
Atmospheric dynamics,
Atmospheric physics,
Atmospheric chemistry,
Solar physics,
Historical climatology

Earth Sciences:
Geophysics,
Geochemistry,
Geology,
Soil Science,
Oceanography,
Glaciology,
Palaeoclimatology,
Palaeoenvironmental reconstruction

Biological Sciences:
Ecology,
Synthetic biology,
Biochemistry,
Global change biology,
Biogeography,
Ecophysiology,
Ecological genetics

Mathematics,
Statistics and Computational analysis:
Applied mathematics,
Mathematical modelling,
Computer science,
Numerical modelling,
Bayesian inference,
Mathematical statistics,
Time series analysis

So, our climate scientists hold all the necessary qualifications and expertise to be at the top of ALL of these fields?
Wow!
Honestly, they sound like generalists in many things, rather than specialists in anything.

A bit like going to a General Practicioner to get specialised treatment. Odd.

Additionally, are you saying that the scientists holding even more specialised qualifications in the above fields are not qualified to comment on climate science?

Seriously?

 

[fourtoe]

No. No one I know of is saying such extreme things as

Only Climate Change scientists can understand the science?
No one else has a valid opinion on the science, or the way they go about it?

If I were saying that then why would I cite PZ Myers, a biologist?

I mean, I'm not above saying that the consensus of the scientific community as a whole, is in agreement on AGW.

I'm still not sure of your position about this petition is after supplying you with those links.

Do you feel that it is irrelevant to point out the fact that of the 30k scientists who have signed the petition, .5% are scientists in the relevant field?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

No. No one I know of is saying such extreme things as
If I were saying that then why would I cite PZ Myers, a biologist?

I mean, I'm not above saying that the consensus of the scientific community as a whole, is in agreement on AGW.

I'm still not sure of your position about this petition is after supplying you with those links.

Do you feel that it is irrelevant to point out the fact that of the 30k scientists who have signed the petition, .5% are scientists in the relevant field?

Not at all. Completely valid.
But it seems to me there would be more signatures on there that do have merit than the 0.5% based on the list of fields I provided.
I suppose my observations would be:
- the warmers discredit the entire thing as bogus or
- minimise the 'valid' signatures (and that was my inference re 'relevant fields)
- the skeptics overstate the importance of it.

In this instance, one wonders what the real figure is. In other words, how many signatures are valid?

 

[fourtoe]

Not at all. Completely valid.
But it seems to me there would be more signatures on there that do have merit than the 0.5% based on the list of fields I provided.
I suppose my observations would be:
- the warmers discredit the entire thing as bogus or
- minimise the 'valid' signatures (and that was my inference re 'relevant fields)
- the skeptics overstate the importance of it.

In this instance, one wonders what the real figure is. In other words, how many signatures are valid?

I see what you're saying.

To answer your last question would be real hard if you look at the petition website, it is just the names of the signers without stating their respected fields.

Basically it seems kind of odd that Randi is using a petition as support for his view on AGW. And this isn't saying that it is bad to be skeptical, it is more like it is too bad that Randi isn't being skeptical when it comes to this petition.

 

[fourtoe]

I couldn't find Michael Crichton on the petition.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

I see what you're saying.

To answer your last question would be real hard if you look at the petition website, it is just the names of the signers without stating their respected fields.

Basically it seems kind of odd that Randi is using a petition as support for his view on AGW. And this isn't saying that it is bad to be skeptical, it is more like it is too bad that Randi isn't being skeptical when it comes to this petition.

Gotcha.
And I can agree with that.
I can only assume that he does see some merit in some of the signatures. I also doubt he will ever get so low level on the subject to discuss these individual points.

 

[BenBurch]

I couldn't find Michael Crichton on the petition.

I believe he was deceased prior to it's circulation.

 

[Bob from NJ]

In all those years did you ever try to study the problem?

Study it HOW? I'm not a scientist. I have no instruments placed around the globe, I have no weather records going back 10,000 years or more- the only 'study' I can do is second-hand sources like the Internet, or take Public Television's word for it.

All I got in school was the revealed wisdom ofl scare-movies; in the 1980s Global Warming would certainly destroy the world by 2000.

Now it's past 2000 and they're all chanting "2020" or "2050" So if it's ALWAYS 20 or more years away does that mean it'll never happen?...

 

[Aoidoi]

My initial skepticism regarding AGW was due to it's presentation as yet another end of the world scenario. When you start predicting disaster if the entire world does not repent right now it's hard not to sound like a crank. It appeared like an environmentalist version of "if I don't get $85 Million dollars by the end of the week the good lord will call me home."

It's easy enough to go from such skepticism to believing all sorts of things regarding motivations of those involved, depending on your belief system. Anti-gov people with think the government is forcing it on us, right wingers will think it's a lefty plot, socialists blame capitalists etc. And with an issue so enormous and amorphous it's easy enough for people to read into it whatever they want.

I find myself utterly unsurprised that significant numbers of people disagree with the common view of AGW. People disagree with things that seem a lot more obvious to me all the time, and the pattern of justifications seems to relate more to the people involved than anything related to AGW.

btw, I read a thing by Bjorn Lomberd (sp?) the other day that made a great point about investing in alternative energy instead of the whole carbon trading thing... made a lot of sense to me. But then, maybe that's just my biases showing

 

[Hallo Alfie]

So if I doubt Global Warming I must also be a Holocaust denier? Hmmm OK you're absolutely right; Henceforth I shall deny the Holocaust. The millions of missing Jews were actually abducted by UFOs, WW2 was a hoax, and Hitler was really a piece of cheese!

Congrats! You've won a convert. You're so brilliant, you've made me see the TRUTH; I wish I could be more like you.....

(Anyone else wanna insult me now? Bring it on!!)

Welcome to the post (whipping that is). I hope you have thick skin: It is a prerequisite for anyone wanting to hold a different viewpoint than that which is the religion of AGW.

My initial skepticism regarding AGW was due to it's presentation as yet another end of the world scenario. When you start predicting disaster if the entire world does not repent right now it's hard not to sound like a crank. It appeared like an environmentalist version of "if I don't get $85 Million dollars by the end of the week the good lord will call me home."

It's easy enough to go from such skepticism to believing all sorts of things regarding motivations of those involved, depending on your belief system. Anti-gov people with think the government is forcing it on us, right wingers will think it's a lefty plot, socialists blame capitalists etc. And with an issue so enormous and amorphous it's easy enough for people to read into it whatever they want.

I find myself utterly unsurprised that significant numbers of people disagree with the common view of AGW. People disagree with things that seem a lot more obvious to me all the time, and the pattern of justifications seems to relate more to the people involved than anything related to AGW.

All valid points imho.

 

[fourtoe]

Study it HOW? I'm not a scientist. I have no instruments placed around the globe, I have no weather records going back 10,000 years or more- the only 'study' I can do is second-hand sources like the Internet, or take Public Television's word for it.

All I got in school was the revealed wisdom ofl scare-movies; in the 1980s Global Warming would certainly destroy the world by 2000.

Now it's past 2000 and they're all chanting "2020" or "2050" So if it's ALWAYS 20 or more years away does that mean it'll never happen?...

Sorry we're all kind of ganging up on you here but seriously? Also if we were going to go along with your excuse, it is possible to access different climate related instruments around the world on Google. You can also read peer-reviewed articles.

You don't have to be like some, millionaire scientist to study AGW.

 

[fourtoe]

I believe he was deceased prior to it's circulation.

Oh no, it has been circulating since 1998.

 

[fourtoe]

My initial skepticism regarding AGW was due to it's presentation as yet another end of the world scenario. When you start predicting disaster if the entire world does not repent right now it's hard not to sound like a crank. It appeared like an environmentalist version of "if I don't get $85 Million dollars by the end of the week the good lord will call me home."

I agree with what Alfie said earlier about Al Gore sucking. When ppl describe this issue as an end of the world problem it is pretty inaccurate and when ppl look into AGW more they realize this quite easily and become jaded.

It's easy enough to go from such skepticism to believing all sorts of things regarding motivations of those involved, depending on your belief system. Anti-gov people with think the government is forcing it on us, right wingers will think it's a lefty plot, socialists blame capitalists etc. And with an issue so enormous and amorphous it's easy enough for people to read into it whatever they want.

I find myself utterly unsurprised that significant numbers of people disagree with the common view of AGW. People disagree with things that seem a lot more obvious to me all the time, and the pattern of justifications seems to relate more to the people involved than anything related to AGW.

btw, I read a thing by Bjorn Lomberd (sp?) the other day that made a great point about investing in alternative energy instead of the whole carbon trading thing... made a lot of sense to me. But then, maybe that's just my biases showing

This is my flaw with this topic, I know a lot about scientific aspects of AGW but I don't like any of the ideas that have been suggested for addressing AGW.

 

[Bob from NJ]

Moreover, what school was even aware of AGW in the 1980s?

I simply don't buy it.

Perhaps they didn't use the term "Global Warming" but we watched films in my High School in the 80s about how pollution (starting from the Industrial Revolution) would destroy the ecosystem in a few decades. And also how we'd have 12 billion people on earth by 2000.

Just look at pop culture from the 80s; every Sci-Fi movie featured a dystopian future, either ravaged by nukes or hopelessly polluted. And Acid Rain had a huge effect on the public consciousness as well.

But the dystopian wasteland is always "30 years away"

 

[Travis]

Perhaps they didn't use the term "Global Warming" but we watched films in my High School in the 80s about how pollution (starting from the Industrial Revolution) would destroy the ecosystem in a few decades. And also how we'd have 12 billion people on earth by 2000.

Just look at pop culture from the 80s; every Sci-Fi movie featured a dystopian future, either ravaged by nukes or hopelessly polluted. And Acid Rain had a huge effect on the public consciousness as well.

But the dystopian wasteland is always "30 years away"

Are you suggesting we should dismiss the science because of what is presented in popular culture? In the 80's predicting the end of the rainforests was all the rage and we had one speaker at my school on Earth Day in 1989 who said the rainforests would be gone by 1999, which clearly didn't happen, but does that mean that deforestation isn't an important issue?

 

[Bob from NJ]

Sorry we're all kind of ganging up on you here but seriously? Also if we were going to go along with your excuse, it is possible to access different climate related instruments around the world on Google. You can also read peer-reviewed articles.

You don't have to be like some, millionaire scientist to study AGW.

So EVERY ONE of you has looked all this up on Google, collated the raw data, gotten a degree in Climatology in your spare time and analyzed the state of the entire planetary ecosystem? I see...

(Sorry for the sarcasm, you don't seem to be one of the 'Zealots' who've been bludgeoning me over the head with their insults)

I denied Evolution for years for similar reasons; until I found the "Skeptic's Guide" podcast I'd NEVER ONCE heard it presented as anything other than Revealed Truth.
School and PBS present it as "this is exactly how it hapopened, we know everything now" but all I could see were modern day equivalents of the Geocentric universe when the church KNEW the Sun revolved around the Earth, only to find out differently later and then cling to that new doctrine as 'absolute and final Truth'. It's the exact same attitude; Authoritarians turn everything into Dogma.

A Black Belt must "Put on the White Belt" in his mind and in his attitude; meaning he knows a lot and has come a long way, but he is always a beginner. It's a humble attitude that's sadly missing from so many people. (Richard Feynman certainly had the "white belt" attitude)

That's why I'm here on this forum, because I DON'T know everything and I humbly admit it. But I know enough about life to point out the people with a lousy attitude- the sort of insults being hurled at me do nothing to advance the cause of truth; Carl Sagan had the right attitude, he recognized how the scientific community comes off as arrogant and closed-minded to laymen. We need 1000 Carl Sagans, and we need to shut up the bad-mouthers till they grow up a little.

I contend that this arrogance on the part of many skeptics is as destructive to the "cause" as any superstition or pseudoscience.

 

[Bob from NJ]

Are you suggesting we should dismiss the science because of what is presented in popular culture? In the 80's predicting the end of the rainforests was all the rage and we had one speaker at my school on Earth Day in 1989 who said the rainforests would be gone by 1999, which clearly didn't happen, but does that mean that deforestation isn't an important issue?

No we should never dismiss the science- but where is the science EVER presented to the masses? Your example of deforestation is a perfect example; there's little difference between that speaker's scare tactics and a religious evangelist; it's "Fire and Brimstone" in a scientific guise.

All I've EVER heard till recently was the "Fire and Brimstone" of Global Warming. Same thing with Evolution (see my prev post) Sagan's "The Demon Haunted World" (which I got from my local LIBRARY a few years ago as an audiobook) really started to open my eyes to how badly science is presented to 'the masses'.

 

[BenBurch]

Perhaps they didn't use the term "Global Warming" but we watched films in my High School in the 80s about how pollution (starting from the Industrial Revolution) would destroy the ecosystem in a few decades. And also how we'd have 12 billion people on earth by 2000.

Just look at pop culture from the 80s; every Sci-Fi movie featured a dystopian future, either ravaged by nukes or hopelessly polluted. And Acid Rain had a huge effect on the public consciousness as well.

But the dystopian wasteland is always "30 years away"

Can't you tell the difference between a polluted future and one with AGW?

And had we not changed the pollution rates of the 1960s, we would be in pretty bad shape now. A warning that was HEEDED and dealt with seriously and which therefore prevents the bad event it predicted was simply not an alarmist or wrong warning.

Is that so very hard to understand?

 

[Travis]

No we should never dismiss the science- but where is the science EVER presented to the masses? Your example of deforestation is a perfect example; there's little difference between that speaker's scare tactics and a religious evangelist; it's "Fire and Brimstone" in a scientific guise.

All I've EVER heard till recently was the "Fire and Brimstone" of Global Warming. Same thing with Evolution (see my prev post) Sagan's "The Demon Haunted World" (which I got from my local LIBRARY a few years ago as an audiobook) really started to open my eyes to how badly science is presented to 'the masses'.

I'll grant you that many took the torch of legitimate issues and went into crazy land with them. With the issue of AGW I was very much inclined to not believe it as a result. But I wanted to know what was going on outside the politicized rhetoric so I read a bunch of books on the subject and came away pretty convinced it was likely true and something that needs to be dealt with even if it isn't the "end of the world" scenario some presented it as.