I understand your stepping away from the discussion at this point, Christcorp, because we’ve crossed back over the line into territory where it is possible to have objective data which is not scientifically beyond our knowledge base from which to determine that which is in fact true, and that which is in fact false, and your position is dead wrong. </p>
<p>It is objectively true that the vast majority of scientists working in the fields of climate science agree with the consensus view on climate change (or global warming, if you prefer). The simplest objective test of that is the quantity of peer-reviewed articles written by scientists which either support (or assume the truth of) the consensus view, and those which reject (or question) that view. The answer is overwhelmingly clear. Out of hundreds of articles reviewed, the debate has shrunk to the question of whether (a) the consensus is unaninimous, or (b) as many as 3% of the articles suggest doubt or rejection of the theory, with the other 97% supporting it. (see [A</a> Few Things Ill Considered: What About Peiser?](<a href=“http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/03/what-about-peiser.html]A”>A Few Things Ill Considered: What About Peiser?) ) </p>
<p>And your defaming of those who feel that it is appropriate to respond to this scientific consensus, by labeling them as “alarmists” and projecting onto them ignoble motivations which exist primarily in your own skewed worldview, does little to add credence to your claim to be in favor of actually taking action which would benefit the future generations who will reap the consequences of our actions and inactions.</p>
<p>Kluge; you’re arguing with someone with a lot of self confidence and border line good side of arrogance. I understand what you are saying; as well as your double talk and psychology to try and rationalize your position against ALL OTHERS WHO DISAGREE. You can’t justify your position as being right. You can justify it as an alternative view and opinion. That is respectable. But not with enough proof to without question be 100% correct. Your position however that anyone else’s opinion and position is automatically wrong is very narrow minded. It is very easy to take the position of so called “Experts” and base your entire opinion and position on it. It’s a very easy cop-out. It allows you to be wrong, but able to blame someone else. After all, they are the expert.</p>
<p>I however do not follow the opinion of ANYONE. I take in as much information as I can find, and I make my OWN opinion. Everyday, my opinions and positions are altered because of new information being discovered. Opinions, positions, and education should be an “Evolution”. it should ALWAYS be changing. If you have an opinion or position based on another person/people’s expertise; and refuse to change that unless someone indisputably provides proof, that is narrow minded. Most of these positions and opinions are based on PROOF. Therefor, requiring PROOF as a means to dispute those opinions and positions is not realistic.</p>
<p>Anyway; you can throw your words around to describe my view as ignorant and uneducated. I know all those pretty words also and know many people who have tried to use those methods to discredit another person’s opinion or position. That’s fine. You are allowed. My arrogance allows me to no care that much of what people think of me or my opinions. I will discuss, debate, and argue as long as I see growth. For me and the other person. When I see a person who displays the inability to think outside the box on a topic, I find that to be a waste of time. Either way, I respect your opinion. If you can’t respect other’s opinions, that’s your loss.</p>
<p>Christcorp, save your words. You won’t budge kluge with any sort of facts or logic. </p>
<p>How about some speculation instead? I wonder what will happen if global temps continue a downward slide for a few years. I suspect we will see a lot of those supposed consensus scientists changing positions. I think any of them, who have jumped on the consensus bandwagon and entered into the political sphere, should no longer be eligible for research grants or even employment as scientists. It is the job of scientists to be skeptical and to consider alternatives. Unfortunately, it seems that rarely happens anymore. You have to join the club, if you expect to receive jobs, status, and research money.</p>
<p>Christcorp, I acknowledge your self-proclaimed arrogance. I’m afraid I can’t match it. When an issue turns on a question of science which is beyond my personal ability to meaningfully analyze, I’m not arrogant enough to substitute my personal opinion (based on ???) for that of 97% of the actual (not “so called”) experts in the field. I acknowledge the limits of my own ability to make meaningful scientific determinations. I understand that you feel differently.</p>
<p>Oh, and for those of you who were wondering what I meant by “tin-foil hat” level conspiracy theories? Just read Edad’s post.</p>
<p>Aaaah kluge, you’re at it again. You deride any facts presented that counter your arguments as blog-induced propaganda (but since when is the report from a Senate sub-committee a “blog”) but then respond with your own blog. I guess when your blog agrees with you then it’s fine.</p>
<p>Anyway, I’ll see your blog and raise you one (a more recent one):
<p>Fundingfather, you’re far too modest. Your Daily Tech article is not merely “more recent”, it is, as with the Daily Tech article misrepresenting the blog Barrons initially linked to, grossly inaccurate. Dr. Shulte’s “study” has never been published, in “Energy and Environment” or anywhere else. And the few bits of data which have been released from it don’t support the party line spewed by Daily Tech (and faithfully repeated by you.) 3% is in fact on the high side of articles which actually dispute the consensus view; less 1% is probably most accurate. And as to the many articles which your bloggers breathlessly report “refuse to either accept or reject” the consensus view? You’d be surprised how few peer reviewed scientific articles expressly accept or reject those other scientific theories like “gravity”, “speed of light” and “bacteria as a source of disease.” </p>
<p>The consensus of the actual scientists who actually work in this field is so far out in front of the public’s perception it’s comical, and a tribute to the propaganda expertise of the folks who are working to convince the general public that it’s OK to ignore those silly guys in the lab coats over there. I bet the “Creation Science” folks are jealous.</p>
What if they continue the same net upward trend that they have shown for the LAST 100 YEARS (cf. the original graph)? When will you finally accept their reality?</p>
<p>Edad: You’ll never be able to explain that stuff, because you’re not a climate scientist, are you? You don’t even understand the science behind the current consensus climate change theory - not that that deters you in the slightest from defaming the many many scientists who are working on the subject and do understand it. You just blindly accept the snide blog-bilge from equally unqualified propagandists about what the hundreds of climate scientists who are working in the field - and who do know what they’re talking about - do and don’t know.</p>
<p>You express scorn, derision, contempt and ridicule of people you don’t know, based on near-total ignorance of their work and fueled by ideologically-driven propaganda and nothing else. Do you ever stop to think about who is forming your opinions for you?</p>
<p>No I am not a climate scientist. On the other hand, I have no vested interest in the outcome. I believe that is not your situation. Could it be that your employment has tainted your perspective?</p>
<p>I think I have a right to dislike science entering the political sphere. History seems to show this occurs frequently and does not have a good outcome. I have worked in science long enough to be really disillusioned on the extent of politics in science.</p>
<p>Edad, I’m an appellate lawyer. I represent individuals who have won or lost civil or criminal trials when the judgment has been appealed to a higher court. My employment has exactly zero connection with climate change issues one way or the other, except that my particular line of work requires me to be scrupulous about making claims that can’t be backed up by accurate reference to specific evidence in the case record. This makes me a poor fit for the “skeptics” camp. I have to note that your attempt at an ad hominem attack is SOP for the substance-free form of anything-goes argument the anti-science contingent brings to the climate change discussion. </p>
<p>The only “politics” involved in climate change science is that which has been injected into the debate by the “skeptics”. The climate scientists are pretty calm about the whole thing. They’re not the ones who are blogging distortions and outright lies like the two that have been cited in this thread alone from “Daily Tech.” I’m sorry your personal experience in your profession has been so negative.</p>
<p>Sorry about the unfair and inaccurate accusation. I will try to explain the basis for my skepticism in a bit more detail. First, the science really seems weak, but you are right none of us are climatologists with the insider information and advanced understanding. My initial disbelief is more of a gut reaction, because the models supporting the theory are not readily understandable and don’t have the ring of truth. The models and the predictions are not consistent and are constantly being changed. To be reliable, you build a model based on observation and then test the model with a new set of data. We can’t do that with our one and only earth. Second, we know that ice ages and other large and rapid climate changes have occurred and these are basically unexplained. It could be that the current climate changes are unrelated but it seems to me that it is essential that we understand the past changes before we can make that assumption. Third, I am indeed disillusioned about the politics of science. It seems I was born into this field since my father spent his career establishing science policy at the highest level of the government. I have also experienced the level of politics in academia and have come to believe our system of funding science is far from perfect. Jobs and grants go to those who learn to work the system, not necessary to those who know what they are doing. The publish or perish requirements are also immensely harmful. We can congratulate our society on the advancement of science and the huge growth in publications. Unfortunately most of it is rehashed and virtually worthless drivel. The scientist who embarks on some major line of research is likely to be unemployed before they get anywhere. If their research efforts conflict with the current consensus, they are not likely to be published. Our tenure system does help somewhat but it takes a lot of years to get there. Finally, I don’t see scientists as being better or having more sense than anyone else. Most just plod through life trying to get by. Some also clearly attempt to be publicity hounds and garner attention. </p>
<p>My negative comments about research funding and researchers do not come from some personal disappointment. I enjoyed doing research in grad school, but realized that was not how I wanted to make a living and I quickly gravitated to more applied sciences.</p>
<p>Do you suppose that the scientists have determined the ‘ideal global temperature’? Since the earth’s climate is ALWAYS either warming or cooling, are we just by sheer coincindence at the ideal temperature or would it be better off a bit warmer or a bit cooler?</p>
<p>Bluebayou - you’re serious, aren’t you? I can’t access any of the speaker information, becuase my computer crashes everytime I try to do so, but the Heartland Institute is an old-school PR front for the tobacco industry, which expanded to working for Exxon/Mobil with financing from the usual right-wing foundation funders - Scaife, Bradley, etc. once the business of spreading half-lies and confusion about tobacco tapered off. I mean, they’ve done everything but hang a sign around their neck saying “We’re PR whores for big business.”</p>
<p>And you take them seriously. :rolleyes: Dozens of actual scientists, around the world, working separately on various different pieces of the overall climate puzzle, all coming the the same conclusion - publishing their studies in peer reviewed form for all to see, dissect, and try to disprove - and you’re happy as a clam simply ignoring all that, in favor of a pop science PR stunt paid for by the corporations with the biggest stake in discouraging any action aimed at lessening the growing tide of climate change, designed and paid for expressly as propaganda - and you want me to “check it out?” </p>
<p>Why not refer me to a “creation science” conference? And big tobacco still hasn’t given up (Heartland is still doing tricks for them, even to this day: [Welcome</a> to Heartland’s Smoker’s Lounge! - by Maureen Martin and Joseph L. Bast - The Heartland Institute](<a href=“http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=10594]Welcome”>http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=10594) .) Or you could point me to the odious Stephen Milloy - another old tobacco flack turned “science correspondent” for Fox. </p>
<p>Honestly, Bluebayou: how raw, blatant and overt does the fact that these folks are paid propagandists have to be before you develop just the tiniest bit of skepticism about the “skeptics?” Or are you just too used to accepting the “news” you’re fed from your usual blogs to apply any degree of independent, critical analysis to the opinions your trained to accept?</p>