James Hansen’s Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic

[wolram]

What is going on

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=1a5e6e32-802a-23ad-40ed-ecd53cd3d320

 

[wolram]

So are scientists dropping AGW or distancing them selves from it, is $trillion to much to gamble with?

 

[Andre]

Before all, science should be about science, the art of finding out how things really work, and not pursuing political goals.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

...We have just received a request from an Italian scientist, and a Czech scientist to join the 650 dissenting scientists report...

Recall that I already posted a link showing that there are more scientists than this who refute evolution theory.

Is everyone jumping on the creationist bandwagon as well?

 

[drankin]

Recall that I already posted a link showing that there are more scientists than this who refute evolution theory.

So, maybe we shouldn't be listening to all these scientists because a bunch of other scientists from an unrelated field refute evolution?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

So, maybe we shouldn't be listening to all these scientists because a bunch of other scientists from an unrelated field refute evolution?

I would say that 650 scientists amount to nothing more than a fringe element.

I can probably find 650 scientists who think ET is visiting us as well.

 

[wolram]

Before all, science should be about science, the art of finding out how things really work, and not pursuing political goals.

Andre, who would gain from AGW, i guess now the political ball is rolling it will be hard to stop it, it has all ways seemed to me that politicians do not need facts.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Andre, who would gain from AGW...

Who stands to gain by arguing against it? Could it be big oil?

 

[drankin]

I would say that 650 scientists amount to nothing more than a fringe element.

I can probably find 650 scientists who think ET is visiting us as well.

I guess we need to compare the scientist counts. How many are for and against. And what constitutes as a "fringe".

 

[The Dagda]

Everyone knows all scientists who support AGW are only in it to jump on the band wagon so they can get grants and funding from new age hippies et al. Besides I heard someone say they were all idiots who have no idea what they are talking about, I think it might of been the Chairman of Exxon before he was launched into space?

In all seriousness skepticism is what science is about, so who cares about the doubters, they are only there to either destroy or make the theory stronger by failing, that is after all science?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I guess we need to compare the scientist counts. How many are for and against. And what constitutes as a "fringe".

Are scientists who refute evolution theory fringe, or mainstream? What about ET believers?

Show me a crackpot group that doesn't claim a few scientists. Woud you like to talk about magnet therapy?

 

[drankin]

Who stands to gain by arguing against it? Could it be big oil?

It could be big oil. And on the otherside, big government (taxes). But that's not the point. Comes down to data interpretation so far as I can see.

 

[drankin]

Are scientists who refute evolution theory fringe, or mainstream?

I don't know and I don't care, it's not the topic.

 

[Andre]

anybody bothered to google for Enron + kyoto?

 

[cristo]

I don't know and I don't care, it's not the topic.

Indeed.

I would agree that you certainly can't compare numbers in one field with numbers in a completely different field, without giving any data on the relative size of the communities.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I don't know and I don't care, it's not the topic.

It sure is; it speaks to the issue of consensus vs fringe.

 

[The Dagda]

It sure is; it speaks to the issue of consensus vs fringe.

I think Bohmian mechanics vs quantum mechanics with the Copenhagen interpretation would be a better analogy, then you can ignore all the fundamentalists.

I think the issue of expertise is a good one, I'm far more likely to take a scientist in the field seriously than I am a geologist or a physicist even.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Indeed.

I would agree that you certainly can't compare numbers in one field with numbers in a completely different field, without giving any data on the relative size of the communities.

The "650 scientists" were cited in the link from the op. And as I said, I already linked a story about scientists who refute evolution in a thread in P&WA. IIRC, they claim over 700 scientists, so clearly they have the upper hand compared to this group. :uhh:

Excuse me, you said relative size. How many scientists work in related fields? I would say that AGW is a much broader subject.

 

[wolram]

anybody bothered to google for Enron + kyoto?

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3388

I see, heck i would never make a good crook.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3388

I see, heck i would never make a good crook.

That is a political organization that has an agenda, not a scientific one.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Andre, how much revenue does your country receive from North Sea oil?

 

[LowlyPion]

Just because more people voted to put Bush in office doesn't make him or them right any more than a bunch of "supposed" scientists "voting" on the issue of global warming.

It's not a vote. The only real vote is the evidence and what it reveals.

The rest is opinion derived from imperfect perspectives and motives and foundational faith - interpretational accuracy in matters that effect livelihood and grant funding and even touch matters of religion, I'd say is dubiously quantifiable.

 

[LowlyPion]

As to the original post, that headline is from the Republican Minority reporting through their page on the Senate EPW Web site.

That put's it a hair less reactionary than citing Rush Limbaugh.

 

[seycyrus]

Remember, the current view on AGW is supposedly supported by a "consensus" of scientists. That's why the relative size of a dissenting group could be important.

 

[The Dagda]

Remember, the current view on AGW is supposedly supported by a "consensus" of scientists. That's why the relative size of a dissenting group could be important.

We have to take into account 3 things

• Bias on both sides
• Qualifications of those who deny/accept it
• Funding by who?

which all boils down to ulterior motive, in science we can resort to authority but I think it's better to resort to more rigorously examined authority. In the case of AGW we have that I think. It doesn't mean they are right, it just means they have better cards in their hand atm.

 

[wolram]

Remember, the current view on AGW is supposedly supported by a "consensus" of scientists. That's why the relative size of a dissenting group could be important.

Yes, and do we know which scientists took part in the census and if they were politically impartial, to my mind this debate needs freshening up.

 

[seycyrus]

... In the case of AGW we have that I think.

I don't think we do.

After sifting through evidence including a fair amount of information gathered from this forum, I am less convinced than I once was.

As to the "consensus"... I am certain about that. There *never* was a consensus. Maybe a consensus of people who already believed...

I still remember the uproar at the APS social policy meeting several years back when the statement reporting the "consensus" was read out loud.

 

[The Dagda]

I don't think we do.

After sifting through evidence including a fair amount of information gathered from this forum, I am less convinced than I once was.

As to the "consensus"... I am certain about that. There *never* was a consensus. Maybe a consensus of people who already believed...

I still remember the uproar at the APS social policy meeting several years back when the statement reporting the "consensus" was read out loud.

Evidence from where and whom and were they specialists in the field can I ask? Even the IPCC was anti global warming until the early 90's, what made them change their minds do you think? Funding? political agendas?

Anyone who basis his opinion on a forums evidence is sadly neglecting to look into it themselves, if all you are getting is the contrary opinion then you aren't getting anything balanced.

It would be nice to think that those who shout the loudest and most ardently for or against are right by default of persistence, but then we have Gore and Bush. And we don't want to go there.

 

[Evo]

Are scientists who refute evolution theory fringe, or mainstream? What about ET believers?

Show me a crackpot group that doesn't claim a few scientists. Woud you like to talk about magnet therapy?

You are dragging this thread off topic with irrelevant posts.

The scientists in the OP are using valid science and are talking about the problems with methods and data. Flaws in the modules used have been proven. Flaws in the methodolgy have been proven - flaws with how the data was used, included, or omitted has been proven.

Please remain on topic.

 

[Andre]

Evidence from where and whom and were they specialists in the field can I ask? Even the IPCC was anti global warming until the early 90's, what made them change their minds do you think? Funding? political agendas?

well The IPCC was

established in 1988 by two United Nations Organizations, the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme to assess “the scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change.”...

The First Assessment Report (FAR), completed in 1990, played an important role in establishing the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee for the UNFCCC which provides the overall policy framework for addressing the climate change issue. In its scientific findings the FAR concluded:

“Anthropogenic climate change will persist for many centuries.”

The bold part may suggest that the conclusions were already clear before the research was done

 

[seycyrus]

Evidence from where and whom and were they specialists in the field can I ask? Even the IPCC was anti global warming until the early 90's, what made them change their minds do you think? Funding? political agendas?

First off, I'm not going to list my sources.

They were anti-GW until the early 90's!? Did the data from the last 10,000 years change all of a sudden then? Yes, I think that funding linked to political agendas could very well have something to do with their change in stance.

Anyone who basis his opinion on a forums evidence is sadly neglecting to look into it themselves, if all you are getting is the contrary opinion then you aren't getting anything balanced.

I think I made it clear that this forum was not the sole source of my information.

The moderators on this site do a good job on insisting that arguments stated are supported and referenced. Especially when it come to GW, imho.

It would be nice to think that those who shout the loudest and most ardently for or against are right by default of persistence, but then we have Gore and Bush...

No, then we would have the current global warming argument situation.

 

[chemisttree]

Recall that I already posted a link showing that there are more scientists than this who refute evolution theory.

I can't find it. Could you repost it here?

 

[LowlyPion]

Remember, the current view on AGW is supposedly supported by a "consensus" of scientists. That's why the relative size of a dissenting group could be important.

Unfortunately there is no criteria for voting. And who's counting the votes anyway? Norm Coleman?

The whole idea of votes is itself silly.

It's where is the preponderance of the science? And while I think not all of the evidence is compelling there is certainly reason for consideration of the fossil record and further study given the blossoming population and demands for energy and its consequences.

 

[Evo]

I believe that the truth lies somewhere in between. I don't agree with the gloom and doom alarmists, and I don't agree that humans aren't responsible for pollution. For me, the question of what human agriculture, building, deforestation, and fuel burning are doing remains to be accurately answered, but should continue to be studied, realistically.

 

[LowlyPion]

I believe that the truth lies somewhere in between. I don't agree with the gloom and doom alarmists, and I don't agree that humans aren't responsible for pollution. For me, the question of what human agriculture, building, deforestation, and fuel burning are doing remains to be accurately answered, but should continue to be studied, realistically.

Except of course that the issue is highly politicized as evidenced by the initial citation of this thread from the Republican Minority view dramatizing someone's opinion who once - more than 15 years ago - laid claim to be Hansen's supervisor even though he had no authority to actually review Hansen's performance.