Global Warming: "Pseudoscientific Fraud"

[Jeff Lebowski]

What is your personal opinion as to why Obama vetoed the Keystone Pipeline. Unbiased science?

As was the case with the NY state decision on fracking, it was not a basic science question. It was a policy decision based on an assessment of risk and environmental impact.

Bad decision, IMO.

[USUC]

Animals including human beings have been adapting to chages forever. The last 2,000 years is a blip on the evolutionary process of the earth. Perhaps the scientific oriented folks on here can correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think the Sahara Desert was always a Desert. I guess human beings somehow caused that change.

How arrogant are the Obama types to think they can change what the Earth's evolution has in store for us? Go back to any civilization a thousand or more years ago and tell them there is climate change. Their response might be, you mean sometimes it snows and sometimes it doesn't and sometimes it doesn't do it at the same time each year?

Humans have typically dealt with changes in climate by moving to more hospitable areas. That is how they adapt. There were humans living far north before the last glacial period that had to obviously move south. Climate has always been chaotic for sure. The theories about carbon emissions and warming as a result appear to be robust (I am by no means anything close to a scientist). But the computer models have thus far overestimated the amount of warming that is actually taking place. That doesn't necessarily mean they are wrong. But the current science also can't tell us definitively that the observed warming isn't just natural climate variability. But again, its not like any realistic/feasible policy change is going to put a meaningful dent in emissions. If it continues to get warmer, regardless of whether it is happening because of human activity, adaption will be necessary.

[byu71]

Brother, I sometimes cringe at the elder abuse the less, uh, seasoned among us heap upon you, but the above even made me cringe. You really don't think humans can change what the Earth's evolution has in store for us? Let me take an extreme, if too easy, example. Suppose for the fun of it the U.S. and Russia detonated their respective nuclear arsenals? No effect? If the foregoing, which would take only a few minutes to occur, could drastically alter the earth's ecosystem, couldn't decades or centuries of less dramatic, but still harmful, behaviors have a significantly deleterious effect as well? It's not just Obama-types who believe this.

Let me put approach this from a religious perspective: if what we do has no effect, why did God waste time telling our forebears to take care of the earth?

I am dismayed at seeing you gradually moving to the evil side (whatever JL says). Tell me where I said humans can not change the environment? We, humans are part of the evolutionary process, if you think that "the" major impact on climate change is humans, then I would still love to have to you play golf with me, just not share your politically correct views with my friends while we are playing.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I never said humans couldn't impact the environment. You are so fun to have a discussion with. Not only do you think you know what you mean, but you are always telling the other person what they meant. I guess part of being on this board is it's your world and we are living in it.

No, that is exactly what you were implying. But it was a few minutes ago, so maybe you forgot.

Animals including human beings have been adapting to chages forever. The last 2,000 years is a blip on the evolutionary process of the earth. Perhaps the scientific oriented folks on here can correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think the Sahara Desert was always a Desert. I guess human beings somehow caused that change.

How arrogant are the Obama types to think they can change what the Earth's evolution has in store for us? Go back to any civilization a thousand or more years ago and tell them there is climate change. Their response might be, you mean sometimes it snows and sometimes it doesn't and sometimes it doesn't do it at the same time each year?

[byu71]

No, that is exactly what you were implying. But it was a few minutes ago, so maybe you forgot.

Come on, are you really saying the human beings caused the change to the Sahara Desert? LOL

So the climate doesn't change unless humans cause it too. You have me rolling with laughter.

I got to tell my friends what the PC class now thinks. Only humans cause the climate to change. Thanks. I really needed a humorous uplift today.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Come on, are you really saying the human beings caused the change to the Sahara Desert? LOL

So the climate doesn't change unless humans cause it too. You have me rolling with laughter.

I got to tell my friends what the PC class now thinks. Only humans cause the climate to change. Thanks. I really needed a humorous uplift today.

No, that is not what I am saying at all. I am saying that the Sahara Desert provides zero evidence to the claim that you were making.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Let me try to spell this out a little more carefully so that maybe you can understand it. Nobody here has ever argued that the climate has never changed through natural causes. You are arguing against a strawman that is entirely of your own creation. The fact that the climate has sometimes changed through natural causes in no way proves that humans cannot alter the climate. It's a really simple concept.

[PaloAltoCougar]

...Tell me where I said humans can not change the environment? We, humans are part of the evolutionary process, if you think that "the" major impact on climate change is humans, then I would still love to have to you play golf with me, just not share your politically correct views with my friends while we are playing.

I don't mean to pile on what JL has already said, but when you said "How arrogant are the Obama types to think they can change what the Earth's evolution has in store for us?", I understood that to mean that you don't think humans can change what the Earth's evolution has in store for us. I also don't understand why it's arrogant to think humans can make such a change. It's rather obvious that we can.

I also don't understand the point you're making about "the" major impact on climate change. It's a given that with or without humans, the climate has changed and will change. No one has argued otherwise. The question is whether humans have had, and will have, a significant effect. An overwhelming majority of people smarter than I believe that it has and will. The question is what can/should we do about it.

To personalize it, I recognize that I'm going to die eventually, and there's nothing I can do to stop that. But I can lengthen, and improve the quality, of my life by eating right and exercising. Old age is "the" major cause of death, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't address the other, man-made factors.

[USUC]

Somewhat related to Cowboy's point, another reason why the climate work being done in academia is slanted towards one side is it is becoming increasingly difficult to raise dissenting views/questions. Roger Pielke, Jr, who is not a skeptic, has come under investigation from representative Raúl Grijalva the ranking member of the House of Representatives Committee on Environment and Natural Resources for his testimony on the economic impacts of climate change. In a blog post, he made the following statement:

The incessant attacks and smears are effective, no doubt, I have already shifted all of my academic work away from climate issues. I am simply not initiating any new research or papers on the topic and I have ring-fenced my slowly diminishing blogging on the subject. I am a full professor with tenure, so no one need worry about me — I’ll be just fine as there are plenty of interesting, research-able policy issues to occupy my time. But I can’t imagine the message being sent to younger scientists. Actually, I can: “when people are producing work in line with the scientific consensus there’s no reason to go on a witch hunt.”

When “witch hunts” are deemed legitimate in the context of popular causes, we will have fully turned science into just another arena for the exercise of power politics. The result is a big loss for both science and politics.

https://theclimatefix.wordpress.com/2015/02/25/i-am-under-investigation/

[Northwestcoug]

Chris Mooney with another excellent article. Touches on all of the issues we have been discussing.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/e...11424883759752

...the more reasonable position to take in light of the theory of motivated reasoning is that we should trust the scientific community as a whole but not necessarily any individual scientist. Individual scientists will have many biases, to be sure. But the community of scientists contains many voices, many different agendas, many different skill sets. The more diverse, the better.

Thus, in a large community of researchers, where criticism is encouraged, biases offset and check each other — in theory. It may not always work out perfectly, but it’s the best system we have in an imperfect world. And that’s why the scientific process must be respected and why scientific consensus matters and should be taken very seriously — on climate change, or anything else.

In a sense, scientific consensus is simply what is left standing after all the biases run their course.

In a somewhat related way, I have seen this play out in breast cancer classification. For decades physicians have debated the classification of a common precancerous condition, which has significant patient and economic impact. It can be confusing for pathologists, surgeons, and oncologists. Numerous classification systems have been proposed. One expert breast pathologist has been very vocal about her own classification. She has taken it upon herself to promote it at most conferences where she is a presenter. The majority of pathology experts disagree with her, but her proposal has gotten enough exposure that it needed to be addressed. She was included in the latest breast pathology consensus conference where she vigorously defended her proposal. Most other pathologists disagreed, so the original classification scheme remained intact. The official consensus statement did mention her opinion, though noted it was not adopted.

There are still significant problems with the current classification. But like the article said, it is the best system 'left standing' after everyone, biases and all, have hashed it out and tried their best to come up with a consensus based on the most current evidence. I have my biases, which in large part were inherited by my pathology mentor. So I disagree with the pathologist I described above. For now, the majority of breast pathologists also disagree with her, and science moves on. The next consensus conference may play out differently, but until then we work with what we have.

[old_gregg]

breast pathologist

so, when is goatnapper going to change his title?

[Pelado]

In a somewhat related way, I have seen this play out in breast cancer classification. For decades physicians have debated the classification of a common precancerous condition, which has significant patient and economic impact. It can be confusing for pathologists, surgeons, and oncologists. Numerous classification systems have been proposed. One expert breast pathologist has been very vocal about her own classification. She has taken it upon herself to promote it at most conferences where she is a presenter. The majority of pathology experts disagree with her, but her proposal has gotten enough exposure that it needed to be addressed. She was included in the latest breast pathology consensus conference where she vigorously defended her proposal. Most other pathologists disagreed, so the original classification scheme remained intact. The official consensus statement did mention her opinion, though noted it was not adopted.

There are still significant problems with the current classification. But like the article said, it is the best system 'left standing' after everyone, biases and all, have hashed it out and tried their best to come up with a consensus based on the most current evidence. I have my biases, which in large part were inherited by my pathology mentor. So I disagree with the pathologist I described above. For now, the majority of breast pathologists also disagree with her, and science moves on. The next consensus conference may play out differently, but until then we work with what we have.

She should know that men are much better at classifying and categorizing breasts.

[Northwestcoug]

She should know that men are much better at classifying and categorizing breasts.

Oddly enough, most of the breast pathologists I know are men!

[scottie]

Looking forward to 71's closing argument.

[TexTechCoug]

Not sure who said it, but all of the debate is essentially moot because no one is willing to make any changes. Even the fully indoctrinated aren't attempting to modify their behavior.

The world economy and our individual consumption is so heavily dependent on the use of fossil fuels and CO2 production that barring the catastrophic Waterworld melting of the icecaps no one is really making any effort.

The can will continue to get kicked down the road because all the negative externalities of our current behavior are going to be paid way down the line.