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
I'm willing to watch or read them if you post links.So what did the other 35 Nobel-winning speakers on this topic say?
Did you find any of them compelling?
I'm willing to watch or read them if you post links.
Big surprise that the guy who watches Fox News is posting on the internet about how he thinks global cooling is compelling.
Who? Joe Bagadonuts? He is a Fox Newser? I don't believe it.
35 of your colleagues do!
hey. . . . Siro is not a Nobel laureate.
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.
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.
You haven't changed the fact that I believe climate change is happening. The reason I believe it: science!
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".
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
I am being honest. I did not know anything about this conference. The article you linked to tells me what these other scientists believe, but not why. Did you watch the video in the OP? Is he twisting the facts? If so, how? The arguments he is making seem to make perfect sense. I was very surprised by this video and I would honestly like to hear his arguments refuted.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.
My interest is in knowing the truth. I rarely watch FOX News, but I'm not afraid to watch it either (except for Hannity because he is a biased hack who cannot be trusted). And no, I have no fears of global cooling.Big surprise that the guy who watches Fox News is posting on the internet about how he thinks global cooling is compelling.
I know very little (read: nothing) about climate change/global warming, and just watched the first five minutes of the video. I may watch more later, but his first couple objections (not including his issue with the word 'incontrovertible') were pretty ridiculous.The arguments he is making seem to make perfect sense. I was very surprised by this video and I would honestly like to hear his arguments refuted.
I hope you find time to watch more. I think that he ultimately does a good job of showing why the current amount of variation is insignificant.I know very little (read: nothing) about climate change/global warming, and just watched the first five minutes of the video. I may watch more later, but his first couple objections (not including his issue with the word 'incontrovertible') were pretty ridiculous.
1. A 0.3% fluctuation could be significant. How does that change in global average temperatures compare to historical fluctuations? What are the predicted/hypothesized effects of continued warming of that magnitude? How is pointing out local, seasonal temperature changes relevant?
2. So what if there are only 8 thermometers in Antarctica? Does that make the readings taken any less reliable or predictive of global trends? Why/why not?
Maybe he brings some harder hitting stuff to the table later on, but he opens up the discussion with some pretty weak arguments.
I am being honest. I did not know anything about this conference. The article you linked to tells me what these other scientists believe, but not why. Did you watch the video in the OP? Is he twisting the facts? If so, how? The arguments he is making seem to make perfect sense. I was very surprised by this video and I would honestly like to hear his arguments refuted.