Global Warming? are humans to blame?

I'm not saying YOUR opinions are simple. But, are your opinions YOURS? or adopted?
Hey, many of my opinions are ALSO adopted. They best explain what I observe. All of us do this.
Science has theories. The ethic with theories is, they stand untill disproven. Fine. Other scientists can subscribe to a theory, or, a contrary theory, or devise a NEW theory. Fine. Doesn't hurt anybody.
Now science has entered realm of political activism. Scientists are NO LONGER following science ethics now, and they are WRONG to expect US to accord acceptance as if it was mere hypothesis. Acceptance of scientists proposed global societal changes as automatic, untill proven wrong, is a naive and stupid concept!
There's too much danger in such unfounded precipitous change. Consequences are too dire.

No longer is the onus on refuters. Now, scientists have to PROVE the theory is a FACT, not merely a credible theory. OR we aren't going to adopt their social engineering!

 

Some corrupted scientists doesn't mean science is dead.
It means you have to clear thru the obfuscation and find the actual science.

 

Thanks BPL
But that wasn't my point.
I'll tack upwind! Then run down on the objective!

Does traditional science ethics differ from political ethics? I HOPE so!

Under science ethics a theory remains viable untill sucessfully disproven. Refuted.
That's workable in the Ivory Tower and laboratory.

Out in the real world, we need facts to make action decisions.
Theories carry little weight untill PROVEN, where action is contemplated.
Scientific ethics and respect for theories, are not applicable in REAL WORLD.
Some scientists dimly understand this.
They have some gone so far as adopted scurilous political chicanery ethics.
But they fail one and all, to appreciate their theories need to be more than merely explainable.

When scientists involve themselves in real world politics, they should not expect the same latitude as they give each other in theorectical science.
They have a NEW responsibility if they want to mandate change. PROOF! The onus is on them!
The world is not their laboratory to conduct social experiments in!

 

I do not post on this subject, though I am an educated man my education tought me nothing about this subject matter(warming and Carbon dioxide). I have watched most every space rocket take off since we started in the 1960s. When I see the many people in the centers, behind computers I know the majority of them have Masters degrees in very difficult subjects and many hold Doctorates. So when a few hundred NASA employes asked NASA to stop their large, ongoing support for the warming crowd I took notice. I do not think the subject is settled by any means and the "bad press"
they have received due to trying to hide stuff does not help their cause. I also have built homes for many pilots including 4 for SR-71 pilots who all held Masters degrees in Math, Physics, Engineering, etc. I consider these folks very smart in what they do so if they (as a group) express doubt on the subject, then I will follow their footsteps until convinced otherwise. As I said above, the subject is not proven and is open to continued differing opinions. Just my two-bits.

 

later. got to go.

 

Have you crossed the final line into total paranoia, or are you just a troll saying stupid things to get a rise out of people?

It has to be one of the two.

 

Ray, that type of language is not needed. Just say "Strongly disagree".

 

Frankly, Yobbo has gone completely beyond the bounds of saying things that I "strongly disagree" with.

In this case, his nutty pronouncements (like the below in red) need to be ridiculed.

I love this article: http://openparachute.wordpress.com/2010/06/30/ridiculing-ridiculous-science-commentary/
"No more! he cries. No more of your telling people how things work, using only facts and evidence to back up your ridiculous claims.”

Have you crossed the final line into total paranoia, or are you just a troll saying stupid things to get a rise out of people?

It has to be one of the two.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yobarnacle
Now science has entered realm of political activism. Scientists are NO LONGER following science ethics now...)

 

well then I strongly disagree with your assessment, Yabs nonsense borders on what could easily be described as irrational. Its simply so irrational that there's little or no rebuttal possible, other than to question sanity what reasonable response is possible ? When shown a graph of obvious rising characteristics he claims its falling. When its pointed out that CO2 has been found to be a greenhouse gas, and demonstrably so since about the mid 1800s, he claims its not. When shown that all four major studies, even one specifically funded and chaired by the deniers has found warming, he simply ignores it. If there was ever an argument to be made for the psychological condition known as denial, Yabs the poster child. Its more accurately described as a mental condition than a valid opinion, and certainly not a type of language. What it boils down to is, is it age related, simply a psychological condition or financially induced. IE is he taking money from the oil and gas industry? Which he has stated he would be happy to do.

I strongly disagree that the language needed to expose either the insanity or deception is out of line. Its most in line. After all, are we as a group going to be satisfied with presenting false information to our readers ? I think we owe the forum more than that. I'm betting my retirement on the honesty of this group. Sure everyone is welcome to share there opinion but damn, if that opinion is bordering on psychosis shouldn't that psychosis be reveled as such, to the readers ? Why do you guys think I was so incensed over the <insult directed toward other member removed> being presented by the downwind faster than the wind <insult directed toward other member removed>, OK I was wrong, the thing works, but the <insult directed toward other member removed> was so non existent that it completely tainted the subject. I'm going to be retiring back to the water eventually, and I'm counting on the honesty of the group to help me do it, so when I find dishonesty, it seriously takes me back. The language I might use to express that disappointment, I'll try to keep in line, however, any lack of honesty does need to be exposed lest any of us end up following not just pore advice, but specious advice at best.

Obviously the few who have constantly interrupted every attempt at a rational conversation concerning climate shift must be called out for what it is, a specious attempt to impose a psychological condition against the facts of science.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas
CO2 is the primary forcing agent in our atmosphere
mans activities have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by `~33%
That increase will have the effect of warming
that warming is being observed in almost the exact relationship to the excess CO2 as expected by the theory

Period.

Question
is there any other branch or discipline of science that enjoys a 98% consensus view ?

Theory of gravity, no
theory of evolution, no
cosmology, no
plate tectonics, no

I'm not sure as I've not investigated each and every theory but I'd be really surprised if anyone could demonstrate a scientific theory that has a higher level of acceptance.

and so the powers that benefit from "causing" the pollution thats responsible for climate shift take there argument to the public rather than the scientific community, hoping, to deceive that public since there not able to deceive the scientific community. In our present political climate ( sorry had to ) even the least informed have the same say as the most informed, so truth vs lies doesn't really mater, as long as you can convince the majority of people of something, you can continue poisoning the world, regardless of the consequences.

the reality is, the truth isn't important in politics, whats important is the majority opinion, and so we have an effort to gain that majority. And its possible that senility or psychosis aside, thats what some few here are involved in.

Its a grim reality but once again
one that deserves to be addressed
regardless of the painful implications.

Some of our members could be paid hacks who's intent is to deceive the readers concerning the science of climate shift.

its not language we should avoid, its a conversation that apparently required before we can move forward with the topic at hand. Are there paid hacks among us who are deceptively presenting arguments designed to distract from a rational conversation concerning climate shift ?

 

Boston loves that strawman. Nobody says CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas. But Boston claims they do, so he can knock it down and win a round. Sounds like a broken record.
And I'm not a paid hack. Are YOU?

"the reality is, the truth isn't important in politics, whats important is the majority opinion, and so we have an effort to gain that majority. And its possible that senility of psychosis aside, thats what some few here are involved in. " quoting Boston

Ah. Thankyou.
You admit truth isn't important to you. It is to ME! You admit your's is a political agenda. You admit you think this is YOUR soapbox to gain a majority.
Exactly what I have said, all of that, way back when. I'm the opposition pal! I'm the other point of view. Or at least A different point of view. Probably are others.
If you don't want other opinions to have freedom of speech? There is places in the world that don't have freedom of speech. I'm sure you'd be happy there, as long as you only toed the government line. Bon Voyage!

 

The real question that comes to the forefront is very simple.

Is it rational to dismiss climate science or is it representative of some form of known psychosis.

When data is clearly showing a rising trend, yet some few insist there is a falling trend, what other response is there, but to question the mental competence of those incapable of seeing the obvious. Denial is a well known and understood psychosis, its accepted as a state of mind in which the patient refuses to accept reality and instead replaces reality with an imaginary delusion that allows the patient to remain in a state of comfort free from the truth of his/her situation be it a group circumstance or an individual one. The simple reality is that the state of denial necessary to insist that the data presented represents cooling instead of warming is simply beyond any level of rational thought; and instead borders on what might be best described as, insanity.



The question remains

anyone else having a hard time seeing he rising trend ????????

 

If the graph above stops at 2005 or 2006, has it been done to 2012 yet?

 

Isn't 2012 a little premature?

Surely what Boston put up a few posts back is good enough????

 

This is actually crap, and I speak as an authority as I have a High Distinction in History & Philosophy of Science as part of one of my degrees.

Nothing, anywhere, ever, has ever been proven. This is not how things work.

What happens is, you move from a set of observations (data) to a hypothesis explaining how this data occurs, to a set of experiments where the aim is to FALSIFY the hypothesis (note, falsify, not prove it true) and if you cannot falsify the hypothesis, you *tentatively* accept it as a theory which explains the data. Note the emphasis on 'tentative' because this is a really important bit.

ANY SINGLE EVENT can invalidate that theory and render it invalid. The theory is only as good as its ability to explain observations and predict what happens. If it can't explain observations, it's inadequate. If it can't predict, it's inadequate.

Science advances by incremental changes (data) leading to paradigm shifts.

Newtonian physics is a subset of Einsteinian physics. It is a superset of Newtonian physics as it caters for all of what Newtonian physics explained plus a whole bunch of stuff that Newtonian physics couldn't explain.

So it goes.

Therefore no theory, ever, can be proven. It can only be judged on its ability to explain and predict. If it fails even once, it's inadequate.

So please stop asking scientists to prove something. It can't be done.

PDW

 

I KNOW and I AGREE! Thanks for helping making my POINT!

So, since they CAN'T prove AGW, scientists (actually only a few climatologists) should stop thinking they have a 'CAUSE' to dismantle industrialized civilization and they should get out of POLITICS! And ALL the alarmists should stop thinking the theory is 'CAUSE' to tear it all down!

"We hold these truths self evident, that all men are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable RIGHTS"
WILL NOT be rewritten in MY lifetime as:
"We hold as a self evident truth, anthropogenic CO2 drives cataclysmic global climate warming."
THAT psuedo-science INSANITY, is what I'M FIGHTING!
I'm fighting the current hysteria and stupid desire to elevate a science theory to the status of "self evident truth"!
A 'truth' with a political agenda!

(PDW I wrote the same things You did, about the scientific method, a dozen or so pages of posts back. You wrote it better. AND your credentials are much superior. Thanks!)