Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
I'm very interested in the response to this video. This speaker seems extremely compelling to me:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCy_UOjEir0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCy_UOjEir0
Global Warming
- Thread starter Joe Bagadonuts
- Start date
So what did the other 35 Nobel-winning speakers on this topic say?
Did you find any of them compelling?
Did you find any of them compelling?
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
I'm willing to watch or read them if you post links.
You already know what they said. Be honest.
https://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/07/06/3677180/nobel-laureates-climate-change-action-plan/
This is a classic example of cherry-picking. The video title ignores that he's the lone dissenter on the issue and 35 of his peers all went the other direction.
I read an article on this topic some time ago (I'm having problems finding it now). Part of the issue is that there a handful of people so smart and self-assured that they believe mankind will eventually figure out the solution to any problem that faces us. As a result, they aren't worried about climate change because that's a problem that can be solved another day.
Who? Joe Bagadonuts? He is a Fox Newser? I don't believe it.
b_line
Well-Known Member
35 of your colleagues do!
hey. . . . Siro is not a Nobel laureate. And those 35 Kicky alleges do "believe" in global warming are idiots who don't understand science, it seems. For a scientist, even a "Nobel Prize" scientist, to espouse a conclusion as a personal belief, must be properly understood as not speaking as a scientist but as a personal advocate of an interpretation of data, or of a belief somehow derived from some "Science".
Science is a method of investigation. It invokes stuff like a hypothesis, seeks results related to the hypothesis, and seeks to communicate those results in a manner susceptible to question and debate, even of verification by subsequent researchers.
Some religious folks invoke science to substantiate their beliefs, and evidently some scientists respond to political influence to get funding.
Probably can't expect Kicky to see the distinction, since I bet he is so fond of his politics he wouldn't object to a judge declaring global warming deniers criminals worthy of incarceration.
A lot of people lose their objectivity in the glory of some pet belief.
A scientist who will discard objectivity in announcing a political conclusion as justified by science is in the same boat.
The OP link is an excellent example of someone with a firm grasp of what science is, and is not.
I actually couldn't figure out what b_line meant by my "colleagues". He can't mean the scientists, since they're not Fox News watchers. I honestly have no idea. I'm sure it is related to some Jazzfanz drama that I would totally get if I was aware of it. But I rarely keep track of this site's politics.
b_line
Well-Known Member
You haven't changed the fact that I believe climate change is happening. The reason I believe it: science!
b_line
Well-Known Member
I was inferring that you could find 35 other people who believe jobag watches fox news. And also kind of inferring that thus scientist must be joking like you were. No scientist can actually not think climate change is a thing.
I wasn't joking tho. I'd be surprised if Joe watched Fox News. He seems like a reasonable guy to me.
Either way, it is difficult to argue that the climate isn't changing. The evidence is very strong. I don't know why many in the pro-capitalism crowd naturally gravitate toward the denialist camp.
But there is a lot of sensationalism on the other side as well. Global warming is as bad a global nuclear war? lol. We don't even know how the patterns will actually change, and over how long. Talk about drama queens.
At least that's not the most melodramatic example I've seen from liberals. In that show Newsroom, they had a scene where a scientist rants about how this is the end of life on Earth, and that nothing can be done about it.
