Playing to the ignorant or actually that ignorant?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Creationists have representation at MIT?

Not MIT but there are credible scientists with incredible hypotheses.

Michael Behe^WP

Education and academics

Behe grew up in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, where he attended grade school at St. Margaret Mary's Parochial School and later graduated from Bishop McDevitt High School.[10][11] He graduated from Drexel University in 1974 with a Bachelor of Science in chemistry. He got his PhD in biochemistry at the University of Pennsylvania in 1978 for his dissertation research on sickle-cell disease. From 1978 to 1982, he did postdoctoral work on DNA structure at the National Institutes of Health. From 1982 to 1985, he was assistant professor of chemistry at Queens College in New York City, where he met his wife, Celeste. In 1985 he moved to Lehigh University and is currently a Professor of Biochemistry. Due to Behe's views on evolution, Lehigh University exhibits the following disclaimer on its website:

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....
The idiot uses only one source of water to draw his conclusions. The last place to get an opinion on actual science is on conservative squawk radio.

The promotion and bragging about their own culture of ignorance is a bizarre theme among some right wingers.

Some left wing fundies (the more extreme) are ignorantly unrealistic about the evils of capitalism and denigrate rich people despite the fact there are many decent rich people and many unethical poor people. Here we have the right wing fundies (which while they are also more extreme there seems to be more of them in the mainstream Republic Party) ignorantly demonizing science and educated people of all things.

 

[Sporanox]

Maybe we should start a list of scientists named Richard.

In any science field you can find the odd man out. Look at Michael Behe and his concept of trying to disprove evolution science by finding Irreducible Complexity. Over time such hypotheses either result in paradigm shifts in science like the theory of Plate Tectonics, or they fall by the wayside like Irreducible Complexity.

Right on.

Lindzen's hypotheses have not panned out and the IPCC has had a decade since Lindzen began speaking out against their "concensus". In that decade, Lindzen's hypotheses have failed to pan out and the climate change science has strengthened.

In the last few months, the case for AGW has weakened.

Lindzen's Discarded Global Warming ArgumentsNow can we get back to the thread topic please and move this another of the dozen threads on the subject?

Posting discarded hypotheses is not relevant to this discussion unless new evidence has emerged in support of such hypotheses.

So on that note, Lindzen has at least one relevant point to the thread.

Testimony of Richard S. Lindzen before the Senate Commerce Committee on 1 May 2001.(emphasis mine)(note the last bolded section quotes the Boston Globe, not Lindzen)

If only we could get rid of the filters. God believers could actually see the evolution science without the fear of science challenging those god beliefs and the public who should be concerned about the environment might be able to see the science of climate change without all the political filters currently distorting that actual science.

Amen. The pro-AGW filters, particularly in Britain, the United States, and the IPCC, should be set aside. And Inhofe or whoever keeps bringing up snowstorms should quiet down too.

 

[leftysergeant]

In the last few months, the case for AGW has weakened.

I have not seen any proof of that. Was there some actual evidence brought out that I missed?

 

[Dorian Gray]

My bolding:



Even if something about your conspiracy theory were true, it would be irrelevant.

Let's say there was worse global warming some millions of years ago. There was also a time when the Earth's atmosphere contained very little oxygen. Would you be cool if that happened too?

At any rate, Ginger said this thread is not for debating AGW. And I agree there are plenty of threads on that debate already. This is for the very narrow topic of people who claim that the recent large snow storms somehow disproves global warming (of any cause).

And of course the people who say that are either ignorant or playing to the ignorant. I think it's the former, except maybe for a few of them (like Rush Limbaugh).

The counter to the bolded part above is that since there was global warming way before humans ever existed, this warming trend could be just as natural as that one. It's not that we want it to happen now, it's that the fact that it has happened before points to natural warming.

That's what makes a determination of Anthropogenic Global Warming so difficult - even if everyone on earth agreed that the world was getting warmer, it does not necessarily follow that mankind caused that warming.

 

[applecorped]

even if everyone on earth agreed that the world was getting warmer, it does not necessarily follow that mankind caused that warming.

What? Correlation not necessarily causation! Oh noes!!!!!!

 

[applecorped]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/12/utah-climate-alarmists

"Carbon dioxide is "essentially harmless" to human beings and good for plants. So now will you stop worrying about global warming?
Utah's House of Representatives apparently has at least. Officially the most Republican state in America, its political masters have adopted a resolution condemning "climate alarmists", and disputing any scientific basis for global warming.
The measure, which passed by 56-17, has no legal force, though it was predictably claimed by climate change sceptics as a great victory in the wake of the controversy caused by a mistake over Himalayan glaciers in the UN's landmark report on global warming."



Utah! Who needs them.

 

[GreyICE]

[

This is in some ways a game of semantics. The Iris hypothesis was proposed in conjunction with Lindzen's observation that there is no cause for concern from CO2.

Actually, it is far more than semantics. Lindzen's position is completely incompatible with arguments put forth in this forum by many of the people you are defending.

To claim it is semantics is to claim that the distinction between 'the twin towers were brought down by explosives' and 'the twin towers were brought down by plane-shaped missiles' is semantics. I use this example not because I want to compare the arguments in this thread to the truthers, but because that is the only place where one can find logic that asinine.

If Lindzen is right, then all the positions put forth by MHaze, AA, Beerina, et al are completely, utterly, wrong. You cannot point to Lindzen and say 'well, he's wrong about 98% of the things he says, but hey, his conclusion roughly agrees with mine if I squint a lot, so he's totally right.' To call this distinction semantic is to display a complete and total lack of understanding of the meaning of that word.

I repeat - the difference between the Iris hypothesis put forth by Lindzen and the 'conventional' global warming hypothesis is whether, in Cirrus Clouds, the ratio of infrared energy reflected to earth versus the solar energy reflected to space, and whether increased heat in the oceans will increase the number of clouds or reduce them (Lindzen's hypothesis is they are a net warming effect, and the warming in the oceans will reduce them). This is the difference.

You cannot seriously tell me that this is the same thing as Beerina's question on whether manmade CO2 is even significant. I dare you to tell me they're the same thing, and that the difference is semantic.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html

I'm not sure if you call that "denying" or not (too bad people still use that label; it's pretty much an appeal to ridicule at this point).

It's hard to appeal to ridicule when deniers work so hard to make themselves ridiculous. To see them jump from hypothesis to hypothesis, embracing things like Lindzen when he disagrees with 98% of the crap they spout, how can one ridicule this? It surpasses ridicule, and moves into farce.

It is indeed fortunate for Lindzen that he has largely escaped censure. Other subjects named in the hacked emails were not as fortunate.

The NWO will get to him eventually, amright?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The counter to the bolded part above is that since there was global warming way before humans ever existed, this warming trend could be just as natural as that one. It's not that we want it to happen now, it's that the fact that it has happened before points to natural warming.

You've missed my point. It really doesn't matter if it's "natural" or man-made global warming. What matters is that now that we're here, it could be disastrous for us.

Again, some very important climate changes had to happen for oxygen breathers to evolve and flourish. From our point of view, we wouldn't want to go back to an atmosphere without this oxygen pollution.

Nature doesn't have any preference or intention.

But we humans do.

ETA: Consider this analogy: it might be "natural" for a large extraterrestrial chunk of rock and ice to slam into the Earth every 50 millions years or so pressing the ecological "reset" button. (It's certainly not man-made.) But that doesn't mean we ought not do whatever we can to prevent that from happening simply because it's "natural" and has indeed occurred in the past.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...In the last few months, the case for AGW has weakened.

That's just not true. A tiny fraction of the evidence which came under question has been exaggerated by the political interests.

..Amen. The pro-AGW filters, particularly in Britain, the United States, and the IPCC, should be set aside. And Inhofe or whoever keeps bringing up snowstorms should quiet down too.

Have you examined your own filters recently?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

...In the last few months, the case for AGW has weakened.

That's just not true. A tiny fraction of the evidence which came under question has been exaggerated by the political interests.

To return to your topic, it's at least certain that the case for AGW hasn't weakened because of "snowmageddon".

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

To return to your topic, it's at least certain that the case for AGW hasn't weakened because of "snowmageddon".

The latest now is Glenn Beck denies he said the DC snowstorm was evidence against AGW.

It would appear the accusations of ignorance may have actually threatened to embarrass him.

 

[Francesca R]

Please take this to another thread unless you have something pertinent to tie in to the OP. The OP issue is claiming the latest snow storm in DC is proof Al Gore is wrong. There are many other threads on AGW.

The OP said the science was overwhelming. The OP was in error. I am unwilling to let your error stand.

 

[Francesca R]

A lot of the Anti AGW people seem to be motivated by a basic hatred of Any Government Regulations and/or an economic interest in the status quo that is presumed to outweigh the economic consequences of addressing the issue. This does not address the political panderers. (That is not to say the people who believe the scientist are not also concerned about the economic impact of action.)

Very few of the pro AGW people seem to not like Capitalism much in the first place and are happy to find a new club to beat it with. Most are concerned that the consequences of inaction outweigh the consequences of action, and many like me, are disgusted by the discredited canards repeatedly trotted out by many of the far right AGW deniers.

The posturing is overwhelming . . . .

 

[daredelvis]

The posturing is overwhelming . . . .

dudalb's, I agree...

Daredelvis

 

[Shadowdweller]

The OP said the science was overwhelming. The OP was in error. I am unwilling to let your error stand.

You've not the slightest clue what you're talking about. Familiarize yourself with the research - elsewhere - before making inane pronouncements.

 

[Francesca R]

How would you know what I know? You wouldn't. Dogmatic posturing on your part.

The OP false statement really should have been left out of this topic.

 

[GreyICE]

How would you know what I know? You wouldn't. Dogmatic posturing on your part.

The OP false statement really should have been left out of this topic.

Begging the question of course.

You really should stick to economics, you're much better at it than you are at understanding science.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The OP said the science was overwhelming. The OP was in error. I am unwilling to let your error stand.

You've stated your belief. How many more off topic posts do you need now that you've done that?

 

[Francesca R]

Begging the question of course.

You really should stick to economics, you're much better at it than you are at understanding science.

The statement "The science of AGW is overwhelming" is not a scientific statement. It is not about understanding science. It is borne of an agenda that seeks to subvert scientific enquiry. Rejecting it as pure posturing is the opposite.