re: Nobel Winner to Obama on Global Warming: 'Mr. President, You're Wrong'

quote:

---

Which I think played a significant role in Trump's victory. Like someone pointed out they "cried wolf" too much, and trying to portray Romney as some bigot and bully was a perfect example.

---

Bingo. When your evidence of racism consists of nothing but "well, he's different!" it quits mattering. If you go 9 on Mitt, don't be surprised when going 10 on Trump doesn't work. Bill Maher nailed it when he admitted to that a couple weeks ago.

Same thing with climate change. "OK, we were serious before but THIS time we're super serious."

quote:

---

So even if they are correct about the warming and its negative effects in the future, they've comprised they're going to be taken less seriously because of their history.

---

Pretty much. The main proponents the public sees are politicians and celebrities. As we saw this election, John Q. Public doesn't trust/like that group.

Al Gore won a Nobel for his work on climate change, but his predictions were not just wrong but pantently false. So how do you discredit a Nobel prize winner in another discipline who is at least a scientist versus Al I need an finger in my arse Gore

quote:

---

Good point. I remember reading that data used by climate scientists included sea Temps collected by the English navy in the 1800's where the collection method was to hurl a bucket over the side of the ship and haul up the water sample with a rope. Temp taken minutes later on deck. Super accurate, right?

---

And while I think this highlights obvious flaws on their arguments, especially their bravado, I dislike that we've resorted to countering it with the same level of bravado in the opposite direction.

Science is an inherently self-correcting process and relies on alternative hypotheses, even if they are only subtly different. Neither side seems to be practicing much science anymore, at least those who are given a voice.

quote:

---

He just doesn't know how to read a chart. He doesn't understand what that chart is pointing out, or that it does NOT matter what "30 year period" you start from, the measurements RELATIVE to that period reflects the same conclusion. He's using his ignorance in understanding that chart as his argument for it being wrong. You cannot reasonably engage with someone like this.

---

I'm 100% MAGA. My point in posting that chart is because the science is against the Republican party line, and it's getting to the point that people look foolish for dismissing it outright. Its going to have to accept it at some point. I hope the GOP puts aside the painful politics of it at some point and faces the likelihood that they are on the wrong side of some pretty solid nonpartisan science.

quote:

---

I dislike that we've resorted to countering it with the same level of bravado in the opposite direction.

---

So you've heard both sides claim "the science is settled"?

Because I've not heard that from both sides.

quote:

---

They use multiple ice core samples from around the globe and compare isotopes, which have been shown to be linearly accurate across all testing.

---

I'm not question whether they are valid, I'm questioning their precision and reliability as it relates to arguments and precision that rely on a high levels of precision.

In other words, I'm not arguing that they discredit the theory, I'm arguing that they create uncertainty in the extent of the theory--causation and prediction in particular.

For example, one could see that humans have gotten faster on the 100 meter dash by comparing times from Olympic games across the last century.

However, if I was going to make precise predictions about the trend, the hand-timed clocks that measured 1/5th of a second in the early would have substantially more error than the fully automatic timing that can measure to <1/100th of a second.

quote:

---

when he's going head-to-head (contrarily) with a huge number of other very, very bright folks who actually live in the realm of climate science; you have to take pause.

---

Climate Alarmists have been wrong about virtually everything

The 1975 Newsweek article entitled “The Cooling World,” which claimed Earth’s temperature had been plunging for decades due to humanity’s activities, opens as follows:

There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production — with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas — parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia — where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteor­ologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually.

The article quotes dire statistics from the National Academy of Sciences, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, Columbia University, and the University of Wisconsin Madison to indicate how dire the global cooling was, and would be.

Among the top global-cooling theorists were Obama’s current “science czar” John Holdren and Paul Ehrlich, the author of Population Bomb, which predicted mass starvation worldwide. In the 1971 textbook Global Ecology, the duo warned that overpopulation and pollution would produce a new ice age, claiming that human activities are “said to be responsible for the present world cooling trend.” The pair fingered “jet exhausts” and “man-made changes in the reflectivity of the earth’s surface through urbanization, deforestation, and the enlargement of deserts” as potential triggers for his new ice age. They worried that the man-made cooling might produce an “outward slumping in the Antarctic ice cap” and “generate a tidal wave of proportions unprecedented in recorded history.” Holdren predicted that a billion people would die in “carbon-dioxide induced famines” as part of a new “Ice Age” by the year 2020.

quote:

---

Science shouldn't have a "side", but isn't that inherently the problem?

---

For sure. But I don't mind hypotheses that fall on one side of some (probably imaginary) divide or the other.

So naturally scientists will be on one side of the other, but both "sides" should be searching for the objective truth, wherever it lies.

Instead they are only searching for information that supports their side. That's not science.

Obama winning the Nobel prize was the equivalent of Kaitlyn Jenner winning an espy or whatever stupid fricking award "it" won