the worlds smartest man disagrees with global warming
- Thread starter Yoga Face
- Start date
I disagree with Dyson. But I do listen to informed bright people. If that makes me idiotic then I guess I am an idiot.
Suzuki says such people should be thrown in jail
Its interesting that you bring up confirmation bias.
Every source I post includes direct references to peer assessed, published works. Either through the IPCC (linked earlier), which references the best work in the field available at the time, to scepticalscience.com (which includes a basic, intermediate and advanced explanation, all with links to supporting work). There are good explanations, with links to the science available at NASA, AAAS.org and other legit sites. The common element being that every claim made is backed up with science and direct links to the works, reviews and data.
Now contrast that with say a post from Judith Curry. Those are opinion pieces from what is rapidly becoming an ex-scientist as she moves away from doing science and moves into lobbying for the fuel industry. "I do receive some funding from the fossil fuel industry." She hasn't published a legit or respected article for over 15 years now on climate change. She makes outrageous claims and has nothing to back them up. I know, I've read her some of her claims and criticisms of those claims.
The reason why I posted you a direct link to the IPCC is because that is a major reference source, though they are always a couple years behind the latest research. Someone who suffers from confirmation bias would refuse to read contrary opinions, like the work of the IPCC. Someone who suffers from confirmation bias cannot read those papers and review them or criticize them in their own words.
If you'd like a challenge to see which of us really suffers from confirmation bias, I'd challenge you to defend a few claims by Judith Curry in your own words, to counter arguments I can make in my own words, with your own understanding of why you think she is right while pretty much all of science isn't.
Fair?
I'm no fan of Cruz - I thought it was interesting because the Sierra Club spokesman kept repeating consensus, consensus and was unwilling to say that if the data contradicted his statement that he would retract it.
Sounds like religious faith to me.
So it should be easy for you to come up with the answer - but you have refused to do so. What percentage of climate change is due to human activity?
I believe in climate change, I believe the temperature has been rising for two centuries or perhaps a bit more.
I don't know what percentage of the change is due to human activity and have yet to see any convincing evidence.
I have also yet to see convincing evidence that a 0.5 to 1 degree change over a century will result in a catastrophic environmental disaster. In fact it is probably good news for Canadian farmers.
I'm not Judith Curry, I don't agree with everything she says or has said. I don't even follow her work to any degree. If you want to debate her - be my guest. I have no interest.
Are you willing to answer the question or not?
As far as the IPCC goes - it sounds like it is as corrupt as the rest of the UN.
http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=55387187-4d06-446f-9f4f-c2397d155a32
Other expert reviewers at the IPCC, and scientists elsewhere around the globe, share Dr. Gray's alarm at the conduct of the IPCC. An effort by academics is now underway to reform this UN organization, and have it follow established scientific norms. Dr. Gray was asked to endorse this reform effort, but he refused, saying: "The IPCC is fundamentally corrupt. The only 'reform' I could envisage would be its abolition."
BTW, despite Dyson's claims 2015 was by far the warmest year on record.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/20/us/noaa-2015-warmest-year/index.html
0.9 C above sure isn't a statistical ties with the previous high.
NOAA data: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/summary-info/global/201512
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/20/us/noaa-2015-warmest-year/index.html
0.9 C above sure isn't a statistical ties with the previous high.
NOAA data: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/summary-info/global/201512
I have met Suzuki in an elevator in the Eaton center (small world)
said hello and he responded nicely ( he was with his daughter)
he seemed like a real guy but a close friend told me they had asked Suzuki to come to rally in Windsor and his fees were so much they could not afford him
this is the same guy who thinks those who disagree with him should be imprisoned
Suzuki has gotten rich from GW propoganda
I gave you the links to the IPCC reports that contain the information you are looking for.
Why are you refusing to read them to find out the information you say you want?
We've already hit 1ºC of change, with lots of damage reported through extreme weather events and crop failure.
Then stop posting her work here.
If you don't think its legit, keep it out of here.
I'm interested in exposing your own confirmation bias.
You really won't read an IPCC report to get the information you want, will you?
You sound quite a bit like moviefan.
Make some ridiculous accusation and then when its been shown to be nonsense you just move on to a new ridiculous claim.
You accuse me of confirmation bias but are unwilling to expose yourself to reports, like the IPCC reports, that contradict your views.
You push Judith Curry's words, then instead of defending her you just move on to attacks against Suzuki.
Meanwhile the planet had a record warm year.
With 15 of the 16 warmest years happening this century.
" wouldn't it sound bait and switch , if Global warming was a scam " ?
All my middle school , I have crammed it in every second course I took . And now I'm like " It better be a thing " ?
"Not fair " Huh
All my middle school , I have crammed it in every second course I took . And now I'm like " It better be a thing " ?
"Not fair " Huh
The world won't come to an end, and the human species probably won't come to an end either. But severe enough climate change over a long enough period could certainly end our civilization. Not in your lifetime or mine, but the chance is far from infinitesimal.
And as for a lack of data, we have LOTS of data, and we know we have made significant changes to the climate, and that we are the cause. There is no doubt about that.
Dyson has a point that it is harder to say whether the changes are good or bad, and that the predictions are likely wrong. But predicting that the future climate will be like the past climate, that nothing will change, is even MORE LIKELY WRONG.
Odds are that the future climate will be radically different from the current one, and odds are nobody's prediction is right.
But certainly we are having a dramatic effect, even if we are not smart enough to know what that effect will turn into.
Once again, when you make an argument, the onus is on you to back it up. Why you keep asking me to find your evidence for you is bizarre.
Who exactly are you to tell anyone what they can post here? If Curry has something to say that I think is worthwhile, I'll post it if I please.
What ridiculous accusation? You are sounding really delusional here. Suzuki is a hypocrite and taxpayer parasite fraud, he deserves to be exposed.
As far as the IPCC is concerned - there is plenty of evidence that there are serious problems with the corrupt dysfunctional UN organization.
Sorry as well that you have "aids outdoors". Hopefully, other scientists will find a cure.
You asked a question, I gave you a link where the answer is published and you accuse me of not answering your question.
Sorry dude, the answer is there, its just your confirmation bias that makes you refuse to look for it.
All you've done is confirm everything I've said about you.
Curry? You post something by her, I challenge you, you state you don't support her work and now say you are free to post what you like.
Again, all it confirms is that you post bullshit that supports your confirmation bias and you are totally unable to defend it.
Posting more nonsense, like this 'climategate' nonsense is just you pissing in the wind.
'Climategate' was investigated multiple times and every investigation verified that there was no climategate fraud, only illegal hacking of emails by deniers and/or lobbyists.
Here, since you don't read papers, at least watch this video.
Your post is a good illustration of an important point in this debate - Scientists are due deference for their application and understanding of scientific principles but are not due any deference for their application of logic or reasoning. Put another way, the conclusions drawn by scientists are subject to scrutiny both for their adherence to scientific principles (by other scientists) and for their adherence to general principles of reason and logic (by everyone).
Applying this to your post:
1. Where there is money/funding/scientific recognition to be had based on what the results of scientific research are, scientists will be attracted to produce the results which lead to the money/funding/recognition. It doesn't take a conspiracy for most people to behave in a similar way in response to similar stimuli/rewards. It's pretty clear that government funding, at the moment, is going to be provided to those who confirm the contention that humans are responsible for significant climate change. There appears to be no government funding for research supporting the opposite conclusion.
2. Is increased CO2 in the atmosphere a problem/serious problem? Certainly not because it could change the view from atop mountains (or because it might change the location of habitat for polar bears). Global warming could even improve the habitability of different parts of the planet and/or the productivity of farmland/forests/etc.
3. Of course humans can negatively affect their environment. We can poison our water supply or render formerly fertile soil infertile However, that doesn't mean that contributing CO2 to the atmosphere has negatively affected our environment, or that the human contribution of CO2 is the most significant contribution. Humans used to defecate wherever they felt like it. That "wasn't good for the environment". Yet, the ecosystem survived that, and countless other "abuses". Humans are still at the very beginning of understanding how the ecosystem works, what it can withstand/adapt to, and what difference human activity makes. This wasn't even a serious subject of study 50 years ago. It is premature for scientists to claim such certainty about such poorly understood subjects.
4. The course of human experience involves dangerous enterprise. Everything humans have ever learned involved taking dangerous chances, from lighting fires to splitting the atom. There is no way to insulate the human experience from risk. EVERYTHING might be dangerous. Therefore, that's an insufficient argument to convince large numbers of people to change their lives.
You may feel very certain of your conclusions, but you should be conscious of the fact that it is not just your scientific knowledge that is fueling your beliefs.
I couldn't get past this claim.
In order to make a claim this crazy you need to prove:
1) The Canadian government, including denier Stephen Harper's government, was actively funding scientific research based on the predetermined findings of research.
2) The US government funds research the same way, by posting the results they want and then funding those researchers who would come up with those results regardless of the evidence.
3) That the over 100 other countries that fund research cited by the IPCC also funds research this way.
4) Why over 100 countries governments over the last 30 years all want to prove that anthropogenic climate change is happening
When you start putting it all together, all the countries and all the different governments each country had, it really makes your claim look like wingnut crazy, conspiracy theory.
It really makes the 9/11 truther's look sane.
