What makes you choose to believe a scientist like Jim Hansen (believer) and dismiss a scientist like Dr. William Gray (skeptic) or the other way around?
Why do you believe one over the other?
Wouldn%26#039;t the correct scientific position for conflicting data be to withhold belief until the pro position could be proven independantly?
Why do you choose to ignore data that refutes the position of man made global warming, and isn%26#039;t this just a subjective bias that the scientific method seeks to filter out?
For me, it%26#039;s not a matter of who, but what.
Believers are correct on one point - that most skeptics, myself included, care about the AGW theory only or primarily because it is used as a pretext to limit our lifestyles.
One%26#039;s own liberty is a perfectly valid reason for us to be interested.
Certainly most Jews in Germany in the 1920s and 1930s cared about prevailing Germany views on cultural anthropology primarily because those views influenced government policy.
Because this is my interest, I am not interested in an academic sense in the question - I have only a passing interest in the cause of the 20th century warming, if it is not SUVs and power plants.
What matters to me is that, if the theory that it was SUVs and power plants is going to be used as a pretext to raise my taxes, then they%26#039;d darn well better prove that theory.
They have yet to do so.
It%26#039;s not a matter of believing one scientist over another independently of the data and physical laws. In general, though, Hansen has spent more of his career studying the climate and the planet as a system, while Gray has concentrated on studying hurricanes. I respect Gray%26#039;s work on hurricanes, although his seasonal forecasts are mostly hocus pocus. In point of fact I have passed on seeing Hansen speak several times, while I have seen Gray speak, so I don%26#039;t think I%26#039;m ignoring or dismissing him at all.
It%26#039;s not just Hansen and Gray, though. The great majority of climate scientists believe a convincing case has been made for man-made global warming. If there is evidence to the contrary it needs to be examined and understood, just like evidence in favor of it.
I don%26#039;t have the faintest idea what you mean when you say %26quot;proven independently,%26quot; there are many many independent indicators all pointing to the truth of global warming. The %26quot;conflicting data%26quot; that you speak of is in short supply.
If it were just an academic argument we could wait decades or centuries even for more evidence, if we chose. Unfortunately this is the planet we live on, so if we wait too long there may be unintended and possibly dire consequences.
I fall into the disbelieve category, and I got there by looking at the science and the critiques of the papers by other scientists and decided that those who believe in global warming were not using the math or the science correctly.
Also the fact that most politicians believe in GW. The majority of politicians are not scientists and have no background in science, so I tend not to listen to them.
I believe Hansen and the other super majority of scientists (and 98% of climatologists) because they have a better argument. I don%26#039;t believe the minority of scientists (and the 2% of climatologists) because it appears the main argument of the contrarians is %26quot;...we have no consistent alternate theory to explain Global Warming...
...except we are sure of one thing, man didn%26#039;t do it.%26quot;
I%26#039;ve studied engineering and a range of sciences for 35 years. Every bit of empirical evidence we have says that over-population and over-consumption, hubris and recklessness by man is having a negative effect on other living things, the biosphere and the planet. We are recklessly and rapidly destroying things that can never be replaced on a global scale.
Why should global warming be any different? How can it possibly be benign for us to pump hundreds of millions of years of stored carbon into the atmosphere in the space of hundreds of years?
It not a subjective bias to accept what you can see with your own eyes. It is a subjective bias to absolve mankind in the face of the overwhelming evidence.
Why do you choose to ignore the evidence that has been shown over and over, in many different disciplines, from multiple independent researchers around the world, for going on 60 years now?
That is the real question and it clearly shows where your bias lies.
You%26#039;re right. The correct scientific position would be to with-hold support for either position can be sufficiently proved.
The problem is people like Al Gore, Hansen, and pretty much the entire Congress, who have decided the debate is over and are prepared to destroy our economy (what%26#039;s left of it) and turn our country into a third world country based on a couple of computer models and a number of suppositions that have since been proved to be false.
So at this point you have to act pro-actively, select the one that you feel is the most likely to be true, and try to prevent the other side from doing irreparable damage to the country, and the planet.
Also, if you can cite one example of the US Government monkeying with nature that has worked, and not actually made things worse (think Yellowstone), and I will be amazed.
Remember to look at the strings that are attached to anyone who tells you that he is right, and everyone else should be destroyed.
Because every skeptic has his own theory to explain it.
If one of them says it%26#039;s the sun, another says it%26#039;s PDO, another says UHI, another says it%26#039;s the Gulf Stream, another says galactic cosmic rays...it doesn%26#039;t really sound like a very convincing group to me. It sounds, rather, like they%26#039;re just grasping at anything they can find that is not anthropogenic in nature.
It would be one thing if believers were arguing X and skeptics arguing Y. But the believers are arguing X and the skeptics are arguing Y, Z, alpha, 0 and %26#039;non-conclusive%26#039; all at the same time.
I mean there is nothing wrong with a variety of theories, but when people use the arguments of several contradictory theories and pretend like their combination results in a stronger argument--well that%26#039;s just not very scientific.
All the facts aren%26#039;t in. And will they ever be?
I believe history shows that many scientists have a theory and then try to prove it. Some tend to disallow facts opposing their theories.
Kind of like, believing a certain person is guilty and ignoring the evidence they might be innocent.
Being long in the tooth, I don%26#039;t expect to see any dramatic changes due to global warming of man%26#039;s origin.
Good scientists shouldn%26#039;t believe in anything that isn%26#039;t proven and something like AGW is definately not proven. They should keep their minds open as new evidence is presented. Unfortunately there are too many scientists that have made their minds up and only look at that information that confirms their preconcieved ideas or so it seems to me.
I personally do not believe in man made global warming. You ask why I can ignore all of the data. The answer is simple. All of the data is very biased. Al Gore%26#039;s movie pretty much sums up all of the bias and lies about global warming. I believe that humans are having a negative impact on the earth but are not causing global warming.
Scientists aren%26#039;t believers and they should be skeptical by nature. I realize you meant the words only to define their position but it also demonstrates why the believer can%26#039;t be a scientist. That is a religious term and it applies perfectly to Hansen and most believers.
Hansen is an Astronomer that studied and modeled the atmosphere of Venus, he loved his research so much that he is attempting to superimpose the physics of the Venusian atmosphere on the Earths climate system. That is not good science in my book.
I tend to believe Mr Hansen because hes a climatologist and the vast majority of scientists and climatologists back up what he is saying.
William Gray is a scientist. Hansen is a political hack.
That%26#039;s why I give what Gray says careful thought, and now dismiss Hansen.
%0D%0A
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment