NationStates Jolt Archive

http://************/23nzld

The Weather Channel’s most prominent climatologist is advocating that broadcast meteorologists be stripped of their scientific certification if they express skepticism about predictions of manmade catastrophic global warming. This latest call to silence skeptics follows a year (2006) in which skeptics were compared to "Holocaust Deniers" and Nuremberg-style war crimes trials were advocated by several climate alarmists.

The Weather Channel’s (TWC) Heidi Cullen, who hosts the weekly global warming program "The Climate Code," is advocating that the American Meteorological Society (AMS) revoke their "Seal of Approval" for any television weatherman who expresses skepticism that human activity is creating a climate catastrophe.

The heretics MUST be brought in to think right! Renounce your blasphemy or suffer the concequences!

Where's one of those "Not this shit again" images when you need it? :rolleyes:

* waiting for Nazz to say that Reaganodia is really someone else *

If only there was precedent for stripping people who suck at the science they have a degree in of that degree. But there isn't, so this won't happen.

http://www.funny-world-records.com/bicycle-start.jpg

http://************/23nzld



The heretics MUST be brought in to think right! Renounce your blasphemy or suffer the concequences!

Oh for heavens sake. This call is one of the most stupidest things I have ever heard.

Oh for heavens sake. This call is one of the most stupidest things I have ever heard.No it's not. If a meteorologist disagrees with AMS on scientific findings, then why should AMS give them a seal of approval?

No it's not. If a meteorologist disagrees with AMS on scientific findings, then why should AMS give them a seal of approval?

Probably because science does not require dogmatic adherence to a particular belief set. No wait, yes it does. Carry on then.

Probably because science does not require dogmatic adherence to a particular belief set. No wait, yes it does. Carry on then.That makes no sense whatsoever.

http://************/23nzld



The heretics MUST be brought in to think right! Renounce your blasphemy or suffer the concequences!

This reminds me of the SOuth Park episode where they show that the people who think abolishing religion will end war are idiots.

That was way too funny. "Their answer to the great question is wrong!"

Probably because science does not require dogmatic adherence to a particular belief set. No wait, yes it does. Carry on then.

That makes no sense whatsoever.

Actually, it makes complete sense.

Where's one of those "Not this shit again" images when you need it? :rolleyes:

Right here. ;)

http://limewoody.wordpress.com/files/2006/04/aw_jeez_not_this_shit_again2.jpg

No it's not. If a meteorologist disagrees with AMS on scientific findings, then why should AMS give them a seal of approval?

Why should they have to remove anything at all just because they disagree with AMS? I was part of the Student AMS at one point and I disagree with Man made global warming.

The point of the the AMS is to spread information from all points of view. Seems to me that the AMS would rather stick with a theory that has evidence both for and against it and listen soley to the evidence for it instead of actually listening to all povs that we call science.

That makes no sense whatsoever.

Not without context, no. However, if I were to point out that science is commonly believed to not be dogmatic and exclusionary like religion (and that it would ideally be free of both dogmatism and exclusionary tactics), and that such a move by the AMS is stifling an opposing view in the interests of orthodox scientific belief, which is both dogmatic and exclusionary, then it might make more sense.

would any of you consider it improper to relieve a priest of his position if he no longer believed in god?

Would you find it discriminatory to refuse to hire a paleontologist who was a young earth creationist?

Is it unreasonable to fire a dentists who doesn't know how to fill a cavity?

Frankly, meteorologists who don't believe in global warming SHOULD be fired, not because of a blanket "they don't believe in global warming" but rather because anyone who is trained in the science of understanding weather patterns and climate change who still doesn't believe the overwhelming evidence of global warming is, frankly, incompetant in his profession.

Why should they have to remove anything at all just because they disagree with AMS? I was part of the Student AMS at one point and I disagree with Man made global warming.

The point of the the AMS is to spread information from all points of view. Seems to me that the AMS would rather stick with a theory that has evidence both for and against it and listen soley to the evidence for it instead of actually listening to all povs that we call science.AMS has also made a statement that there is convincing evidence that global warming is man-made. Why should they accredit someone that isn't convinced by convincing evidence?

http://************/23nzld



The heretics MUST be brought in to think right! Renounce your blasphemy or suffer the concequences!

That's ridiculous. Sure, climate change is obviously real to anyone who understands some science and basic common sense, but that doens't mean scientists need to act like religious nutjobs. Idiotic. If anyone should be stripped of his credentials it's him.

...but wait, that would be censoring free speech. Okay, nevermind. Let him ramble on. So long as we don't actually listen to him, it's fine.

Not without context, no. However, if I were to point out that science is commonly believed to not be dogmatic and exclusionary like religion (and that it would ideally be free of both dogmatism and exclusionary tactics), and that such a move by the AMS is stifling an opposing view in the interests of orthodox scientific belief, which is both dogmatic and exclusionary, then it might make more sense.Why should the stifling of an unscientific view be unscientific?

That's ridiculous. Sure, climate change is obviously real to anyone who understands some science and basic common sense, but that doens't mean scientists need to act like religious nutjobs. Idiotic. If anyone should be stripped of his credentials it's him.

...but wait, that would be censoring free speech. Okay, nevermind. Let him ramble on. So long as we don't actually listen to him, it's fine.Why don't you read what she said herself instead of letting some skeptic's blog do it for you?
http://climate.weather.com/blog/9_11396.html

would any of you consider it improper to relieve a priest of his position if he no longer believed in god?

Would you find it discriminatory to refuse to hire a paleontologist who was a young earth creationist?

Is it unreasonable to fire a dentists who doesn't know how to fill a cavity?

Frankly, meteorologists who don't believe in global warming SHOULD be fired, not because of a blanket "they don't believe in global warming" but rather because anyone who is trained in the science of understanding weather patterns and climate change who still doesn't believe the overwhelming evidence of global warming is, frankly, incompetant in his profession.

Ladies and Gentlemen we have a winner.

would any of you consider it improper to relieve a priest of his position if he no longer believed in god?

That's religion, not science. Run along.

Is it unreasonable to fire a dentists who doesn't know how to fill a cavity?

That's job skills, not beliefs. Again, run along.

Frankly, meteorologists who don't believe in global warming SHOULD be fired, not because of a blanket "they don't believe in global warming" but rather because anyone who is trained in the science of understanding weather patterns and climate change who still doesn't believe the overwhelming evidence of global warming is, frankly, incompetant in his profession.

Isn't part of science questioning what's "accepted fact"?

AMS has also made a statement that there is convincing evidence that global warming is man-made. Why should they accredit someone that isn't convinced by convincing evidence?

Why should the stifling of an unscientific view be unscientific?

Hmmm...let's see. Is questioning what is considered "scientific fact" not something that should be encouraged? Hell, if it weren't, wouldn't we still be thinking Earth is flat and that the sun orbits it? Those were both "facts" at one time, and those espousing contrary opinions were stifled (Galileo, anyone?) but later proven right.

would any of you consider it improper to relieve a priest of his position if he no longer believed in god?

No. That's because belief in God is necessary to fulfilling his duties.

Would you find it discriminatory to refuse to hire a paleontologist who was a young earth creationist?

Yes. A belief in evolution is hardly necessary to work in paleontology or even evolutionary biology. One can understand a discipline quite well without agreeing with the common conclusions held by other members of that discipline.

Is it unreasonable to fire a dentists who doesn't know how to fill a cavity?

No, because it's necessary to fulfill his duties.

Frankly, meteorologists who don't believe in global warming SHOULD be fired, not because of a blanket "they don't believe in global warming" but rather because anyone who is trained in the science of understanding weather patterns and climate change who still doesn't believe the overwhelming evidence of global warming is, frankly, incompetant in his profession.

You might as well tell someone they are incompetent in theology because they don't agree with the teleological argument for God's existence. Silly.

Frankly, meteorologists who don't believe in global warming SHOULD be fired, not because of a blanket "they don't believe in global warming" but rather because anyone who is trained in the science of understanding weather patterns and climate change who still doesn't believe the overwhelming evidence of global warming is, frankly, incompetant in his profession.

They aren't talking about stripping the "seal of approval" for those who disagree with Global Warming. Even I know that Global Warming exists because we are coming out of a mini Ice Age. What they want to do is strip it from those who disagree with MAN MADE Global Warming. That I do not support.

Ladies and Gentlemen we have an ignoramus.

Fixed for accuracy.

Hmmm...let's see. Is questioning what is considered "scientific fact" not something that should be encouraged? Hell, if it weren't, wouldn't we still be thinking Earth is flat and that the sun orbits it? Those were both "facts" at one time, and those espousing contrary opinions were stifled (Galileo, anyone?) but later proven right.Questioning scientific fact should be encouraged so long as it's motivated by a desire to refine knowledge and not by a desire to keep receiving funds from the coal industry.

Hmmm...let's see. Is questioning what is considered "scientific fact" not something that should be encouraged? Hell, if it weren't, wouldn't we still be thinking Earth is flat and that the sun orbits it? Those were both "facts" at one time, and those espousing contrary opinions were stifled (Galileo, anyone?) but later proven right.
That's a red herring. We're not talking about "believing" in something as much as we're talking about understanding the mechanism by which something occurs, and if you're so incompetent that you don't understand that basic science, then you don't deserve accreditation. There's plenty of room for debate in the area of how much effect humans are having on the climate, but the science behind the fact that there is an effect is about as solid as the science that behind evolution.

AMS has also made a statement that there is convincing evidence that global warming is man-made. Why should they accredit someone that isn't convinced by convincing evidence?

Any evidence can be convincing. All a Prosecutor has to do is provide convincing proof that the defendent is guilty. The Defense has to disuade said proof to get his client off.

This is why Man-made global warming theory is a touchy subject. Evidence goes both ways and one thing I'm surprised that the AMS has not figured out is that it was vastly warmer in the Middle Ages than it is today. I would like them to explain that.

Hence why I strongly disapprove of this and if my Atmosphere professor tries to ram this down my throat, i'm going to call him on it.

Questioning scientific fact should be encouraged so long as it's motivated by a desire to refine knowledge and not by a desire to keep receiving funds from the coal industry.

Ah, okay. So it's the "evil business" schtick again. :rolleyes:

Fixed for accuracy.

Wrong. You fail.

They aren't talking about stripping the "seal of approval" for those who disagree with Global Warming. Even I know that Global Warming exists because we are coming out of a mini Ice Age. What they want to do is strip it from those who disagree with MAN MADE Global Warming. That I do not support.Because you disagree with man-made global warming or because AMS shouldn't be allowed to reprimand those that contradict it?

Why should the stifling of an unscientific view be unscientific?

Because good science seeks to falsify claims, not stifle them. Falsifying claims is good clean scientific fun. Stifling other viewpoints is petty schoolyard politics.

Isn't part of science questioning what's "accepted fact"?

Yes it is.

Hmmm...let's see. Is questioning what is considered "scientific fact" not something that should be encouraged? Hell, if it weren't, wouldn't we still be thinking Earth is flat and that the sun orbits it? Those were both "facts" at one time, and those espousing contrary opinions were stifled (Galileo, anyone?) but later proven right.

Hear hear. Well said Cluichstan.

Ah, okay. So it's the "evil business" schtick again. :rolleyes:Usually is. I find it interesting that most skeptics are either elected by a virulently skeptical constituency or receive funds from someone that would lose much if global warming were accepted by policymakers and relevant legislation were passed.

Why don't you read what she said herself instead of letting some skeptic's blog do it for you?
http://climate.weather.com/blog/9_11396.html

It's still ridiculous. No one should have their credentials removed because they don't believe in a popular scientific theory. Climate change is definitely occurring, but just because some say it isn't doesn't mean they lose their jobs over it. As I said, reacting in such a manner would make scientists look like religious nutjobs, and I would like to think scientists are more logical than that.

Doesn't matter. Won't happen. Let's play the violin while riding a bicycle backwards.

Read the statement againThat's not even her statement. Read her statement. (http://climate.weather.com/blog/9_11396.html)
There is much conflicting evidence that Human Activity is causing climate change. Natural cyclical weather patterns, increased solar activity, and other natural causes are a more likely explanation.Not according to the AMS. And she's advocating the AMS strip its seal of approval for people who disagree with it.

Because you disagree with man-made global warming or because AMS shouldn't be allowed to reprimand those that contradict it?

Yes.

would any of you consider it improper to relieve a priest of his position if he no longer believed in god?

Would you find it discriminatory to refuse to hire a paleontologist who was a young earth creationist?

Is it unreasonable to fire a dentists who doesn't know how to fill a cavity?

Frankly, meteorologists who don't believe in global warming SHOULD be fired, not because of a blanket "they don't believe in global warming" but rather because anyone who is trained in the science of understanding weather patterns and climate change who still doesn't believe the overwhelming evidence of global warming is, frankly, incompetant in his profession.

Read the statement again

Heidi Cullen, who hosts the weekly global warming program "The Climate Code," is advocating that the American Meteorological Society (AMS) revoke their "Seal of Approval" for any television weatherman who expresses skepticism that human activity is creating a climate catastrophe.


There is much conflicting evidence that Human Activity is causing climate change. Natural cyclical weather patterns, increased solar activity, and other natural causes are a more likely explanation.

That's religion, not science. Run along.

No, that's a job, which has certain requiremets.


That's job skills, not beliefs. Again, run along.

Yes, job skills. Frankly I hold that any meterorologist who doesn't believe in man made global warming lacks the necessary skills to do his job. Were there too many big words for you to understand that?

Hmmm...let's see. Is questioning what is considered "scientific fact" not something that should be encouraged? Hell, if it weren't, wouldn't we still be thinking Earth is flat and that the sun orbits it? Those were both "facts" at one time, and those espousing contrary opinions were stifled (Galileo, anyone?) but later proven right.

The difference being those folks actually followed scientific method. They observed evidence without preconceived notions, analyzed it, and came up with conclusions. They did not plug their ears, shut their eyes and yell "I DONT BELIEVE YOU AND YOU CAN'T MAKE ME LA LA LA LA LA" Vigorous, consistant, TESTING of what is considered fact is to be encouraged.

Refusing to see the nose in front of your face because you don't like what it looks like is not, and should never be, and is the intellectual equivalent of belief in the tooth fairy.

But, however, if you find you need that level of comfort, be my guest. Just don't apply for any jobs that require you to critically analyze the weather.

Read the statement again



There is much conflicting evidence that Human Activity is causing climate change. Natural cyclical weather patterns, increased solar activity, and other natural causes are a more likely explanation.

Oh... you've gone to far. Silly, person. But you're entitled to have as many wrong opinions as your tiny heart desires.

Read the statement again



There is much conflicting evidence that Human Activity is causing climate change. Natural cyclical weather patterns, increased solar activity, and other natural causes are a more likely explanation.

By saying "global warming" I of course meant man made global warming.

And your "more likely explanations" are frankly bull

It's still ridiculous. No one should have their credentials removed because they don't believe in a popular scientific theory. Climate change is definitely occurring, but just because some say it isn't doesn't mean they lose their jobs over it. As I said, reacting in such a manner would make scientists look like religious nutjobs, and I would like to think scientists are more logical than that.

Well said Kyronea.

*snipped for insanity*

Your adherance to a set of beliefs has blinded you to how science actually works. Run along, child.

That's not even her statement. Read her statement. (http://climate.weather.com/blog/9_11396.html)
Not according to the AMS. And she's advocating the AMS strip its seal of approval for people who disagree with it.

I'd back her up over the AMS and if they want to strip her of it, then she should sue them and I will support her lawsuit.

Oh... you've gone to far. Silly, person. But you're entitled to have as many wrong opinions as your tiny heart desires.

And your double blind, fully accepted and accredited proof is....?

"Because Al Gore said so" is not a valid answer

And your double blind, fully accepted and accredited proof is....?
"There is convincing evidence that since the industrial revolution, human activities, resulting in increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases and other trace constituents in the atmosphere, have become a major agent of climate change." -AMS

As for those that have been reading what people say she said, this is what she really said:
I'd like to take that suggestion a step further. If a meteorologist has an AMS Seal of Approval, which is used to confer legitimacy to TV meteorologists, then meteorologists have a responsibility to truly educate themselves on the science of global warming.Not an unreasonable demand.

And your double blind, fully accepted and accredited proof is....?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbmlN24nsi4

This is why Man-made global warming theory is a touchy subject. Evidence goes both ways and one thing I'm surprised that the AMS has not figured out is that it was vastly warmer in the Middle Ages than it is today. I would like them to explain that.

Hence why I strongly disapprove of this and if my Atmosphere professor tries to ram this down my throat, i'm going to call him on it.

To which he will probably say something to the effect of 'It was initially believed that the temperature changes were global. However, this view has been questioned; the 2001 IPCC report summarises this research, saying "…current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this time frame, and the conventional terms of 'Little Ice Age' and 'Medieval Warm Period' appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries'


meaning the whole "warmer in the middle ages" wasn't really a global phenominon and therefore really doesn't help refute claims on global climate change.

Any evidence can be convincing. All a Prosecutor has to do is provide convincing proof that the defendent is guilty. The Defense has to disuade said proof to get his client off.

This is why Man-made global warming theory is a touchy subject. Evidence goes both ways and one thing I'm surprised that the AMS has not figured out is that it was vastly warmer in the Middle Ages than it is today. I would like them to explain that.

Hence why I strongly disapprove of this and if my Atmosphere professor tries to ram this down my throat, i'm going to call him on it.
I am going to call you on this. The middle ages were not "vastly warmer" then today. If you look at this graph of the last 1000 years you can see that it is warmer now then it was in the middle ages.

http://www.classzone.com/books/earth_science/terc/content/investigations/esu501/images/esu501_p4_temp_c.gif

http://www.classzone.com/books/earth_science/terc/content/investigations/esu501/images/esu501_p4_temp_c.gif

The simple fact is, science need not entertain every damned fool notion to come out of the pipe. It need not entertain the belief that the world is in fact on the back of a giant turtle. It need not entertain the belief that the stars are small, coin shaped objects affixed to the heavens a few hundred feet above our heads. It need not entertain the belief in zero point energy. It need not entertain the idea of a young earth. It need not entertain the belief that crystals can cure. And in addition, it need not entertain the idea that mankind is not capable of bringing about, and actually causing, climate change.

Science, frankly, need not entertain every ludicrous claim, unfounded statement, and crackpot belief that comes out. And yes, it is true, that every now and then, the “crackpots” were right, and those of us who believe in science have suffered no end of smug, misplaced satisfaction as a result. For indeed today’s self named “skeptics” (who I will continue to refer to as crackpots) find it necessary to sit back in their chairs, declare their misbelieve, and when dismissed as the blind, ignorant fools that they are, chime loudly “would you say that to Galileo? He was called a crackpot and he was right too”. The fact of the matter is though, Galileo, rather than calling these foolish prognosticators his comrades, would probably sooner have spit in their face. He would have likely had less respect for them than I do. Galileo did not sit on the sides. Galileo did not look at popular belief, declare it wrong, then call it a day. Galileo tested, experimented, went through painstaking methods to collect data and then, ONLY THEN when he had enough data to examine, examined it, and made his discoveries.

So I have a little statement for all the crackpots who call themselves “people of science" out there. Don’t you dare invoke the name of Galileo. Don’t sit back, don your skeptics hat and back in the glory of the fact that a skeptic, once, a man far smarter than you, once got it right. Don’t simply sit back and decry, and insist on your own righteousness in the name of Galileo. Your methods weren’t good enough for Galileo, they shouldn’t be good enough for you and they sure as HELL aren’t good enough for me.

Science need not entertain every foolish notion. And if you wish for yours to be considered with any more weight than that, then stop invoking the name of Galileo and actually do what he managed to do, and what you are so far failing to do. Do what honest, true science compels you to do. Prove me wrong. I’ll be waiting.

I am going to call you on this. The middle ages were not "vastly warmer" then today. If you look at this graph of the last 1000 years you can see that it is warmer now then it was in the middle ages.

http://www.classzone.com/books/earth_science/terc/content/investigations/esu501/images/esu501_p4_temp_c.gif

http://www.classzone.com/books/earth_science/terc/content/investigations/esu501/images/esu501_p4_temp_c.gif

Actually, they were vastly warmer than it was today. Now do you have actual scientific evidence?

*snip*

Do you even know what happened to Galileo because of his beliefs?

Actually, they were vastly warmer than it was today. Now do you have actual scientific evidence?Why don't you back your statement up first?

Well said Kyronea.

Don't take that the wrong way though. I know for a fact that climate change is caused by human interference with the climate through our actions. I also know that if we don't start doing something soon the effects could possibly be catastrophic. I just don't think that someone should be stripped of their credentials because they said one thing or another. That's censoring free speech, and we just can't do that.

Do you even know what happened to Galileo because of his beliefs?He got his accreditation removed? No... people did much worse to him. Things which no one is advocating.

A belief in evolution is hardly necessary to work in paleontology or even evolutionary biology.
False. As the saying goes, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution". If one does not believe in evolution, the very foundation of biology and palaeontology, then one cannot be reasonably expected to work on them. It's like how someone who doesn't believe that matter is made out of atoms can't reasonably work in chemistry.

Actually, they were vastly warmer than it was today. Now do you have actual scientific evidence?

Do you? Because you're the one making the assertion, and thus have to back it up.

Do you even know what happened to Galileo because of his beliefs?

none of which changes a damn thing I said, does it?

*snipped again for insanity*

So anyone who disagrees with your "scientific" beliefs is a crackpot? Interesting. Must be nice to have such an open mind.

Cool news:

"A newly formed coalition of leading evangelicals and scientists is garnering the attention of the political, science, and faith communities for its ability to overcome long-held differences and unite in one voice to speak about the global environment.

“By standing together, we’re saying as evangelicals that science can be an ally in helping us understand what Creation is telling us about itself and indirectly about its Maker,” said the Rev. Rich Cizik, vice president for government affairs of the National Association of Evangelicals.

The coalition – which began with talks between Cizik and Eric Chivian, Nobel laureate and director of the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School – released the statement “Urgent Call to Action” signed by 28 evangelical and scientific leaders."
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070118/25243_'Latte-Sippers,_Bible-Thumpers'_Tackle_Climate_Change.htm

Do you even know what happened to Galileo because of his beliefs?

He was censored by the Church, as his position had evidence for it, unlike the Church's position.

So, for you to invoke Galileo, you first have to have evidence, and the people against you have to not have evidence. Which is kind of the opposite of reality, so no invoking Galileo for you, Corny.

So anyone who disagrees with your "scientific" beliefs is a crackpot?

You mean "anyone who disagrees with propositions that have overwhelming evidentiary support without offering a single shred of solid evidence to back up their claims is a crackpot?"

Yes, I think that's a very fair definition of one.

Which, again, isn't the same thing as what you said but...I know, I know, big words.

False. As the saying goes, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution". If one does not believe in evolution, the very foundation of biology and palaeontology, then one cannot be reasonably expected to work on them. It's like how someone who doesn't believe that matter is made out of atoms can't reasonably work in chemistry.

Oh? So you can't be expected to work in astrology effectively despite not believing it? Personally, I don't doubt my capability to be very good at astrology despite thinking it's nonsense.

I've known atheists with a fine grasp of theology, so I don't think a lack of belief is inhibiting them in understanding the concepts and processes involved and even doing very well in theological studies.

So anyone who disagrees with your "scientific" beliefs is a crackpot? Interesting. Must be nice to have such an open mind.
And anyone that disagrees with yours is conveniently labelled insane? Must be nice to have such an open mind.

He was censored by the Church, as his position had evidence for it, unlike the Church's position.

So, for you to invoke Galileo, you first have to have evidence, and the people against you have to not have evidence. Which is kind of the opposite of reality, so no invoking Galileo for you, Corny.

Actually, he was censored by the Church because he insulted the Pope in his work. Silly thing to be censored for, yes, but it had nothing to do with the evidence for either position.

Oh? So you can't be expected to work in astrology effectively despite not believing it? Personally, I don't doubt my capability to be very good at astrology despite thinking it's nonsense.

I've known atheists with a fine grasp of theology, so I don't think a lack of belief is inhibiting them in understanding the concepts and processes involved and even doing very well in theological studies.The only problem with the two examples you're citing is that they aren't natural sciences and thus have no relevance to this debate.

Oh? So you can't be expected to work in astrology effectively despite not believing it? Personally, I don't doubt my capability to be very good at astrology despite thinking it's nonsense.

If you doubted astrology by what methods would you make predictions? Even though I doubt astrology too, you supporting your argument by going "I could be an astrologer even if I don't believe in it, I'd just make shit up" does not bode well for your claim that one who does not believe in evolution can be a competant biologist. "making shit up" does not bode well in most professions.

I've known atheists with a fine grasp of theology, so I don't think a lack of belief is inhibiting them in understanding the concepts and processes involved and even doing very well in theological studies.

but if you do not believe, how can you predict? You seem to think science is all memorization, no implementation.

Do you? Because you're the one making the assertion, and thus have to back it up.

Um maybe because it is a known fact that everyone involved in this debate should know it. I'm not going to look up the facts for you in this case if you are that stupid.

Um maybe because it is a known fact that everyone involved in this debate should know it. I'm not going to look up the facts for you in this case if you are that stupid.

so far two people have quoted sources disputing it. "known fact" my ass.

Actually, they were vastly warmer than it was today. Now do you have actual scientific evidence?

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/070.htm

none of which changes a damn thing I said, does it?

Actually it does.

You mean "anyone who disagrees with propositions that have overwhelming evidentiary support without offering a single shred of solid evidence to back up their claims is a crackpot?"

Yes, I think that's a very fair definition of one.

Which, again, isn't the same thing as what you said but...I know, I know, big words.

Yeah...big words make my head hurt. :rolleyes:

It's a corruption of what I said, and you know that very well. But then, I can't really expect any more of you, now, can I?

Oh? So you can't be expected to work in astrology effectively despite not believing it? Personally, I don't doubt my capability to be very good at astrology despite thinking it's nonsense.

I've known atheists with a fine grasp of theology, so I don't think a lack of belief is inhibiting them in understanding the concepts and processes involved and even doing very well in theological studies.

Hell, I'm an agnostic myself, yet I took a test to become a Presbyterian minister and passed it easily. You don't have to believe the dogma to understand it.

And anyone that disagrees with yours is conveniently labelled insane? Must be nice to have such an open mind.

When you rant like that? Yes, you're going to be labelled as insane. My mind is open. Yours, however, appears to be blinded by the typical anti-business -- hell, anti-people -- shite that pervades the internet. It's old. It's tired. Get over it.

He was censored by the Church, as his position had evidence for it, unlike the Church's position.

So, for you to invoke Galileo, you first have to have evidence, and the people against you have to not have evidence. Which is kind of the opposite of reality, so no invoking Galileo for you, Corny.

Try again monsouir.

Actually it does.

how?

The only problem with the two examples you're citing is that they aren't natural sciences and thus have no relevance to this debate.

WHAT?!?

When you rant like that? Yes, you're going to be labelled as insane. My mind is open. Yours, however, appears to be blinded by the typical anti-business -- hell, anti-people -- shite that pervades the internet. It's old. It's tired. Get over it.Physician, heal thyself. :rolleyes:

Yeah...big words make my head hurt.

Acceptance is, as they say, the first step towards recovery.

WHAT?!?Neither Astrology nor Theology are natural sciences. The way they function isn't the same as fields such as Biology, Chemistry, or Astronomy.

Physician, heal thyself. :rolleyes:

Pathetic jab really. You should probably try arguing points, though.

Oh, wait...you can't -- not without resorting to ridiculous rhetoric.

so far two people have quoted sources disputing it. "known fact" my ass.

And others on this board posted articles debunking man made global warming. As I continously pointed out, there is evidence both for and against it. To say one side is right over the other is stupid.

I love clicking links.

Here is the link from the OP:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=32abc0b0-802a-23ad-440a-88824bb8e528
This is one blog in a series hosted by the Minority Ranking Member for the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs

This is a blog written by Marc Morano. Who is Marc Morano?

Here:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Marc_Morano
Marc Morano is communications director for the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Morano works under Senator James Inhofe, majority chairman of the committee.

Morano is a former journalist with Cybercast News Service (owned by Media Research Center). CNS and Morano were the first source in May 2004 of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth claims against John Kerry in the 2004 presidential election [1] and in January 2006 of similar smears against Vietnam war veteran John Murtha.

Morano was "previously known as Rush Limbaugh's 'Man in Washington,' as reporter and producer for the Rush Limbaugh Television Show, as well as a former correspondent and producer for American Investigator, the nationally syndicated TV newsmagazine." [2]

I would not consider him to be an unbiased source. But the cool thing is that we do not have to listen to him.

We have the words of Heidi Cullen herself, the climatologist mentioned in his blog.
http://climate.weather.com/blog/9_11396.html

I'd like to take that suggestion a step further. If a meteorologist has an AMS Seal of Approval, which is used to confer legitimacy to TV meteorologists, then meteorologists have a responsibility to truly educate themselves on the science of global warming. (One good resource if you don't have a lot of time is the Pew Center's Climate Change 101.)

Meteorologists are among the few people trained in the sciences who are permitted regular access to our living rooms. And in that sense, they owe it to their audience to distinguish between solid, peer-reviewed science and junk political controversy. If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval. Clearly, the AMS doesn't agree that global warming can be blamed on cyclical weather patterns. It's like allowing a meteorologist to go on-air and say that hurricanes rotate clockwise and tsunamis are caused by the weather. It's not a political statement...it's just an incorrect statement.

She is saying that the AMS should not give their seal of approval to those who do not understand the science of climate change.

She is not talking about removing any certification from anyone, or not allowing them to work, or even stifling dissent. She is saying that the AMS should not approve of those who do not understand and support the AMS position on anthropogenic climate change.

How unevil.

It's amazing how much more intelligently you can discuss an issue when you have the facts.

Pathetic jab really. You should probably try arguing points, though.

Oh, wait...you can't -- not without resorting to ridiculous rhetoric.

arguing to a brick only remains satisfying for so long.

The only problem with the two examples you're citing is that they aren't natural sciences and thus have no relevance to this debate.

I don't think that harms the analogy at all, but since you asked so nicely, I'll provide an example.

Let's say I'm a Buddhist. I believe that all of the reality we experience is illusion, including of course all scientific experience. I also happen to enjoy physics and appreciate its precision and clarity of explanation. Does being a Buddhist prevent me from being an effective scientist?

And others on this board posted articles debunking man made global warming. As I continously pointed out, there is evidence both for and against it. To say one side is right over the other is stupid.

not one of which has actually been peer reviewed and accepted in the scientific community without its core points being refuted.

not one of which has actually been peer reviewed and accepted in the scientific community without its core points being refuted.

Oh brother :rolleyes:

Uh...?

not a single article I personally have seen "debunking" man made climate change that was posted here was worth the electrons it took to display it on my screen

And others on this board posted articles debunking man made global warming. As I continously pointed out, there is evidence both for and against it. To say one side is right over the other is stupid.

Having a similiar amount of sources does not equal an equal amount of evidence. There is nothing stupid about accepting evidence that is more compelling and more scientifically sound. Not doing so, because you just 'don't feel it's true' would be, however.

not one of which has actually been peer reviewed and accepted in the scientific community without its core points being refuted.

Uh...?

Acceptance is, as they say, the first step towards recovery.

Smug. Nice. You win the thread. :rolleyes:

And others on this board posted articles debunking man made global warming. As I continously pointed out, there is evidence both for and against it. To say one side is right over the other is stupid.

Yahtzee!

That's all I was saying -- not that one side or another is right, but that it should be open to debate. The dogmatic simpletons on either side of the fence need to learn a bit about how science actually works.

arguing to a brick only remains satisfying for so long.

You're completely correct, for a change. I'm done arguing with you, brick.

Smug. Nice. You win the thread. :rolleyes:

Hey! Now THAT'S progress! You know, it shows a real depth of maturity to be able to just admit that your position is completely untenable, and move on. Good job!

Yahtzee!

That's all I was saying -- not that one side or another is right, but that it should be open to debate. The dogmatic simpletons on either side of the fence need to learn a bit about how science actually works.

I agree with you 100%

Hey! Now THAT'S progress! You know, it shows a real depth of maturity to be able to just admit that your position is completely untenable, and move on. Good job!

You realize that he was being sarcastic, hence the rolleye icon?

You realize that he was being sarcastic, hence the rolleye icon?


Quoted for irony.

Pathetic jab really. You should probably try arguing points, though.

Oh, wait...you can't -- not without resorting to ridiculous rhetoric.I could quote what you replied to, but it would start getting silly. I'll quote you instead:
http://limewoody.wordpress.com/files/2006/04/aw_jeez_not_this_shit_again2.jpg
That's religion, not science. Run along.

That's job skills, not beliefs. Again, run along.

Isn't part of science questioning what's "accepted fact"?

Hmmm...let's see. Is questioning what is considered "scientific fact" not something that should be encouraged? Hell, if it weren't, wouldn't we still be thinking Earth is flat and that the sun orbits it? Those were both "facts" at one time, and those espousing contrary opinions were stifled (Galileo, anyone?) but later proven right.
Ladies and Gentlemen we have an ignoramus.Fixed for accuracy.
Ah, okay. So it's the "evil business" schtick again. :rolleyes:
*snipped for insanity*Your adherance to a set of beliefs has blinded you to how science actually works. Run along, child.
*snipped again for insanity*So anyone who disagrees with your "scientific" beliefs is a crackpot? Interesting. Must be nice to have such an open mind.
Yeah...big words make my head hurt. :rolleyes:

It's a corruption of what I said, and you know that very well. But then, I can't really expect any more of you, now, can I?

Hell, I'm an agnostic myself, yet I took a test to become a Presbyterian minister and passed it easily. You don't have to believe the dogma to understand it.

When you rant like that? Yes, you're going to be labelled as insane. My mind is open. Yours, however, appears to be blinded by the typical anti-business -- hell, anti-people -- shite that pervades the internet. It's old. It's tired. Get over it.
WHAT?!?

This is all you've said up to this point. Apart from one or two points, your entire contribution to this debate has been name-calling and ridiculing. So, basically: shut up or grow up.

You realize that he was being sarcastic, hence the rolleye icon?

Awwwww....and I was sincerely filled with such hope that he was actually maturing as a poster. Now I'm sad, and crave chocolate icecream.

You're completely correct, for a change. I'm done arguing with you, brick.

if you were half as smart as you thought you were you'd be able to come up with your own material. Though for what it's worth I haven't seen any actual arguing from you. Smug asshattery yes, but nothing actually coming close to a debate.

So please don't say you've been "arguing" with me, you haven't come within 100 miles of anything resembling an argument. You've just rained spittle into the wind, as usual, and since you've offered me nothing of actual substance, I feel no need to return anything to you, and will just continue to point out your idiocy and laugh, at my leisure.

http://************/23nzld



The heretics MUST be brought in to think right! Renounce your blasphemy or suffer the concequences!

I'm so sick of seeing his shit from both the left and the right. You can't define a movement by it's extremes.

Quoted for irony.

Por lo menos alguien inteligente me entiende...

I'm so sick of seeing his shit from both the left and the right. You can't define a movement by it's extremes.

QFT

I don't think that harms the analogy at all, but since you asked so nicely, I'll provide an example.

Let's say I'm a Buddhist. I believe that all of the reality we experience is illusion, including of course all scientific experience. I also happen to enjoy physics and appreciate its precision and clarity of explanation. Does being a Buddhist prevent me from being an effective scientist?Depends on whether or not you use buddhism to cop out on an exam by saying: "Since everything is an illusion, my answer would be meaningless."

QFT

Yeah, every once in a while I say something good. :)

If you doubted astrology by what methods would you make predictions? Even though I doubt astrology too, you supporting your argument by going "I could be an astrologer even if I don't believe in it, I'd just make shit up" does not bode well for your claim that one who does not believe in evolution can be a competant biologist. "making shit up" does not bode well in most professions.

It bodes just fine for my claim that there is no necessary connection between belief in the accepted truths of a field and efficacy in that field, and you bringing up characteristics of astrology irrelevant to the analogy doesn't work as a red herring on me.

but if you do not believe, how can you predict? You seem to think science is all memorization, no implementation.

Not at all. Science seeks to understand the underlying principles governing natural phenomena. It has little to do with either memorization or implementation, and much more with observation and experimentation.

Also, I have no trouble predicting that objects will fall to the earth at a constant acceleration despite the fact that I don't believe they are actually falling.

Por lo menos alguien inteligente me entiende...

:p

Yeah, every once in a while I say something good. :)

Yes you do.

*hands you a cookie*

Depends on whether or not you use buddhism to cop out on an exam by saying: "Since everything is an illusion, my answer would be meaningless."

Let's say I'm not one of the very rare Buddhists who would do such a thing. Then obviously, it's quite possible for me to be an effective scientist without genuinely believing in the ultimate truth of its findings.

Let's say I'm not one of the very rare Buddhists who would do such a thing. Then obviously, it's quite possible for me to be an effective scientist without genuinely believing in the ultimate truth of its findings.Again, the relevance of something like that to this topic is questionable.

Por lo menos alguien inteligente me entiende...

Funny haha

At least somebody intelligent he/she understands me

Let's say I'm not one of the very rare Buddhists who would do such a thing. Then obviously, it's quite possible for me to be an effective scientist without genuinely believing in the ultimate truth of its findings.

Whether you're a good scientist will be apparent rather quickly through your work, regardless of your religion. Having said that, if you are so religious that your religion causes you to reject settled science then it will prevent you from being a good scientist.

http://************/23nzld



The heretics MUST be brought in to think right! Renounce your blasphemy or suffer the concequences!

most TV weathermen/women don't know shit about the science of weather, many are merely tv personalities/reporters with no formal training so who cares what they think.

Yes. A belief in evolution is hardly necessary to work in paleontology or even evolutionary biology. One can understand a discipline quite well without agreeing with the common conclusions held by other members of that discipline.

This reasoning does not work in this context. Paleontologists seek to study the development of life on the planet, typically working with prehistoric samples.

Since a young earth creationists believes a large chunk of the subject matter being studied are "fakes planted to test the faithful" (dinosaur bones), he cannot be expected to rely on the knowledge in that discipline since it would conflict with his faith.

Similarities can be drawn from other examples such as expecting an Amish to work as an engineer in a silicon wafer plant and do a good job or perhaps a Muslim to be a pig farmer.

In short, if their stated faiths are so incompatible with the profession, it is reasonable to deny them from joining merely from the fact that they would do a terrible job at it.

Funny haha
Hey, don't blame me that your sarcasm metre only works some of the time.

Hey, don't blame me that your sarcasm metre only works some of the time.

Meh. I have other things on my mind.

She is saying that the AMS should not give their seal of approval to those who do not understand the science of climate change.

She is not talking about removing any certification from anyone, or not allowing them to work, or even stifling dissent. She is saying that the AMS should not approve of those who do not understand and support the AMS position on anthropogenic climate change.

How unevil.

It's amazing how much more intelligently you can discuss an issue when you have the facts.
...oh dear. Now I feel stupid. Well...so much for that. My apologies for my confusion.

Meh. I have other things on my mind.

Really? I've seen passing little evidence of that.

Again, the relevance of something like that to this topic is questionable.

So question it. Show its irrelevance. I have time.

Nice fun descussion let have some figure.

CO2 has increaced from 280 to 370 ish parts per billion since the 1800, Global average tempuratures have not been recorded so high. Picture
http://www.heatisonline.org/mann.jpg

...You cannot denie its getting hotter, but a climate is an averarage but hoe do you average somthing thats constantly changing?

In the 1750's and 1850's the their was a cold piriod, medievil times their was a warm piriod.

I'm not analysing these figurs and coming to conclusions for you... but debate is logical rashional and healthy to ostisies somone who dosn't agree with the norm just weakens your argument!

Your adherance to a set of beliefs has blinded you to how science actually works. Run along, child.

Your constant personal attacks rather than cogent debating points has painted your position as sub par. Given that the archetype of such behavior tends towards aggressive degradation of opposition rather than meaningful arguments, I suspect that you will continue to make noisy, but ultimately worthless, vituperations.

So question it. Show its irrelevance. I have time.Very well: How does being a person that believes all we see is an illusion yet still enjoying physics relate to a discussion on whether people who disagree with the AMS on science should be allowed to remain accredited or receive accreditation from the AMS?

Whether you're a good scientist will be apparent rather quickly through your work, regardless of your religion.

Very much agreed.

Having said that, if you are so religious that your religion causes you to reject settled science then it will prevent you from being a good scientist.

So being a good scientist does in fact entail believing in current scientific findings, not simply in understanding the principles of science and utilizing them? I guess I was wrong about the open-ness to questioning in science.

This reasoning does not work in this context. Paleontologists seek to study the development of life on the planet, typically working with prehistoric samples.

Since a young earth creationists believes a large chunk of the subject matter being studied are "fakes planted to test the faithful" (dinosaur bones), he cannot be expected to rely on the knowledge in that discipline since it would conflict with his faith.

Similarities can be drawn from other examples such as expecting an Amish to work as an engineer in a silicon wafer plant and do a good job or perhaps a Muslim to be a pig farmer.

In short, if their stated faiths are so incompatible with the profession, it is reasonable to deny them from joining merely from the fact that they would do a terrible job at it.

A fair point. A person can't be expected to function effectively in a field if their beliefs are antithetical to it (rather than merely skeptical or different as in the case of our meteorologist and the Buddhist physicist I mentioned).

Very much agreed.



So being a good scientist does in fact entail believing in current scientific findings, not simply in understanding the principles of science and utilizing them? I guess I was wrong about the open-ness to questioning in science.


I said "settled science." If you do not believe that energy is never created or destroyed then you are not going to be a good scientist. If you do not believe that most matter is made up of molecules which are in turn made up of atoms which are in turn made up of protons, nuetrons and electrons then you are not going to be a good scientist. If you doubt climate change models then you can make your own, valid models and publish your experiments, data and methods but if you claim in your work that infrared radiation is not absorbed by carbon than you are not going to get published and you will not be doing good science.

And others on this board posted articles debunking man made global warming.

this has never happened. it is impossible to 'debunk' something that actually is the case.

Very well: How does being a person that believes all we see is an illusion yet still enjoying physics relate to a discussion on whether people who disagree with the AMS on science should be allowed to remain accredited or receive accreditation from the AMS?

The AMS is an organization of scientists. Scientists are supposed to be open to questioning, and to disprove those who disagree with them (rather than removing them from an organization's accreditation because they do not believe as the other members of the organization do).

The AMS is removing that accreditation from another member of their scientific discipline because he does not agree with the conclusions held by the larger membership on a particular scientific matter.

The reason used by those who are supporting that decision by the AMS is that he needs to believe in the truth of accepted science to do his job as a scientist properly. That is, because he ultimately disagrees with established science, he does not warrant recognition as a scientist by other scientists.

The Buddhist physicist is a good counter-example to this because it provides a believable instance in which a person who ultimately disagrees with all sorts of claims that a scientific community accepts can still be quite effective as a scientist.

The primary problem with the reason used by the supporters of the AMS's decision is that it posits that being a scientist means agreeing with other scientists. I've never seen any definition of science or of a scientist that would indicate agreement with other scientists is necessary to being recognized by the scientific community as a scientist.

On the other hand, as Non Aligned States demonstrated, holding beliefs antithetical to (rather than merely different from) the accepted principles of a scientific community can indeed seriously impair one's efficacy as a scientist.

Unfortunately, a meterologist who's skeptical of accepted conclusions about global climate change is hardly an example of a person who holds a position antithetical to the practice of the science in which he is engaged. The meteorologist simply does not agree with the conclusions of other scientists.

There may be some other good reason for the decision of the AMS, but the meteorologist's lack of agreement with the rest of the community on global climate change is not it.

No it's not. If a meteorologist disagrees with AMS on scientific findings, then why should AMS give them a seal of approval?

Because that's science! Skepticism is part of science. Possibly the most important part. Where would the science be today without healthy doses of skepticism in the face of scientific consensus?

this has never happened. it is impossible to 'debunk' something that actually is the case.

Like the infallibility of the Bible. :)

Because that's science! Skepticism is part of science. Possibly the most important part. Where would the science be today without healthy doses of skepticism in the face of scientific consensus?

scientific skepticism doesn't involve just saying 'nuh-uh'. global warming denialism does. maybe if they would do some actual science research and try to have it actually published in actual science journals, they could be taken seriously. but that doesn't happen.

Popular science (the scientific opinions held by the masses) generally has much more in common with religion than science.

Since laypeople largely lack the training or aptitude to understand the science, their acceptance of that science is necessarily baseless. What Global Warming has done is made this really obvious by having the scientific comunity cater to those laypeople's tendency to follow blindly any opinion widely held.

One of the big problems with controversial scientific topics is that the "skeptics" seem to be under the guise that a couple of guys decided to do an experiment, recorded the results, and then everyone just agreed with it afterwards with no further testing whatsoever...which isn't the case...

"hey jim, look at this... it seems that the earth's undergoing a period of climate change."

"should we investigate why?"

"nah, let's just say that it's only been increasing because of industrial CO2 emissions and get it published. we all know how easy that is, right? after all, our global evil anti-corporate conspiracy will make sure it gets published anyhow."

"of course; it's not as if our data will be re-analyzed, investigated, tested for various variables, revised, and re-anaylzed, et al."

scientific skepticism doesn't involve just saying 'nuh-uh'. global warming denialism does. maybe if they would do some actual science research and try to have it actually published in actual science journals, they could be taken seriously. but that doesn't happen.
You're presupposing a lack of bias in the scientific journals.

But, it doesn't matter. Popular opinion is not influenced by scientific journals.

Like the infallibility of the Bible. :)

Read what I said earlier about Galileo, then recognize that if global warming skeptics want to be treatedon the same level as Galileo, they need to act like him first.

Wrong. You fail.

I think I'm beginning to see your teaching/grading style.

Seriously, for all you talk about open-mindedness, you sure don't practice it when it goes against your opinions.

I think I'm beginning to see your teaching/grading style.

Seriously, for all you talk about open-mindedness, you sure don't practice it when it goes against your opinions.

Except science really is about facts, and not opinions. Your opinion can be wrong. People need to understand the difference.

By saying "global warming" I of course meant man made global warming.

And your "more likely explanations" are frankly bull

If Global Warming is occurring, then why is the Middle East having the coldest winter on record? It freaking snowed in Jerusalem when I was there.

If Global Warming is occurring, then why is the Middle East having the coldest winter on record? It freaking snowed in Jerusalem when I was there.

Because climate change doesn't mean an end to fluctuations in temperature. It means that global average temperatures will rise. If global warming isn't happening then why was 2006 the warmest year recorded globally beating out 2005? Why did 2005 beat 2004 as the warmest year? Why did 2004 beat 2003 as the warmest year? In fact, why have the 11 warmest years in recorded history all happen in the last 14 years?

The AMS is an organization of scientists. Scientists are supposed to be open to questioning, and to disprove those who disagree with them (rather than removing them from an organization's accreditation because they do not believe as the other members of the organization do).

The AMS is removing that accreditation from another member of their scientific discipline because he does not agree with the conclusions held by the larger membership on a particular scientific matter.So, basically, since they have been disproven, they no longer deserve accreditation.

The reason used by those who are supporting that decision by the AMS is that he needs to believe in the truth of accepted science to do his job as a scientist properly. That is, because he ultimately disagrees with established science, he does not warrant recognition as a scientist by other scientists.What are you talking about? The AMS hasn't decided anything yet.

The Buddhist physicist is a good counter-example to this because it provides a believable instance in which a person who ultimately disagrees with all sorts of claims that a scientific community accepts can still be quite effective as a scientist.No, it isn't. If the buddhist denies the veracity of the claims of the scientific community in his scientific work on grounds that he believes it is all an illusion, then he is a bad scientist. If, on the other hand, he did not deny the veracity even if he disagrees with them, then he's not comparable to a global warming skeptic.

The primary problem with the reason used by the supporters of the AMS's decision is that it posits that being a scientist means agreeing with other scientists. I've never seen any definition of science or of a scientist that would indicate agreement with other scientists is necessary to being recognized by the scientific community as a scientist.The problem is that there is no such decision. You're making this up.

On the other hand, as Non Aligned States demonstrated, holding beliefs antithetical to (rather than merely different from) the accepted principles of a scientific community can indeed seriously impair one's efficacy as a scientist.

Unfortunately, a meterologist who's skeptical of accepted conclusions about global climate change is hardly an example of a person who holds a position antithetical to the practice of the science in which he is engaged. The meteorologist simply does not agree with the conclusions of other scientists.If you do the science right, there is precious little indication that accelerated global warming and climate change are not man made phenomena. So, yes, you would have to ignore the bulk of scientific evidence and thus not work very scientifically if you came to the conclusion that global warming was not man made.

There may be some other good reason for the decision of the AMS, but the meteorologist's lack of agreement with the rest of the community on global climate change is not it.Such as coming to the conclusion that global warming isn't man made when the bulk of evidence shows the contrary?

...The AMS is removing that accreditation from another member of their scientific discipline because he does not agree with the conclusions held by the larger membership on a particular scientific matter...

This is not the scenario. The AMS has not removed accreditation from anyone. Meteorologists are not being punished for not believing anything.

Heidi Cullen suggested that meteorologists who do not agree with the AMS policy on climate change should not receive the AMS Seal of Approval. Her words here:
http://climate.weather.com/blog/9_11396.html

That's it.

Marc Morano, more on him here:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Marc_Morano
wrote a blog about it that confused the debate.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=32abc0b0-802a-23ad-440a-88824bb8e528
Unfortunately, it was this one chosen by the OP.

scientific skepticism doesn't involve just saying 'nuh-uh'. global warming denialism does. maybe if they would do some actual science research and try to have it actually published in actual science journals, they could be taken seriously. but that doesn't happen.

I like you. You're silly. :)

If Global Warming is occurring, then why is the Middle East having the coldest winter on record? It freaking snowed in Jerusalem when I was there.It's not called local warming. Hint hint.

If Global Warming is occurring, then why is the Middle East having the coldest winter on record? It freaking snowed in Jerusalem when I was there.

Hell Froze Over. :)

If Global Warming is occurring, then why is the Middle East having the coldest winter on record? It freaking snowed in Jerusalem when I was there.

And two weeks ago it was 72 degrees in boston. So wht?

And others on this board posted articles debunking man made global warming. As I continously pointed out, there is evidence both for and against it. To say one side is right over the other is stupid.

Actually, there's huge fucking reams of evidence in favor of the theory that humans are causing climate change, and there's energy industry backed bullshit opposed to it. No matter where you place the fulcrum, you can't make that balance. To claim that humans are not affecting the climate is to deny reality--not that you've ever had a problem with that, mind you.

would any of you consider it improper to relieve a priest of his position if he no longer believed in god?

Would you find it discriminatory to refuse to hire a paleontologist who was a young earth creationist?

Is it unreasonable to fire a dentists who doesn't know how to fill a cavity?

Frankly, meteorologists who don't believe in global warming SHOULD be fired, not because of a blanket "they don't believe in global warming" but rather because anyone who is trained in the science of understanding weather patterns and climate change who still doesn't believe the overwhelming evidence of global warming is, frankly, incompetant in his profession.

there have been athiestic priests i believe, u can still do a priests job without their beliefs

yes it certainly is discrimination, they CAN still do the job of a paleontologist even tho they dont belief the same thing

lol i dont really believe in science, but i still got an A in physics chemistry n biology at A level

This is not the scenario. The AMS has not removed accreditation from anyone. Meteorologists are not being punished for not believing anything.

Heidi Cullen suggested that meteorologists who do not agree with the AMS policy on climate change should not receive the AMS Seal of Approval. Her words here:
http://climate.weather.com/blog/9_11396.html

That's it.

Marc Morano, more on him here:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Marc_Morano
wrote a blog about it that confused the debate.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=32abc0b0-802a-23ad-440a-88824bb8e528
Unfortunately, it was this one chosen by the OP.

Ah, thank you. I'm glad to see that it is not the policy of the AMS to remove accreditation from someone simply because they disagree with their conclusions.

I think I'm beginning to see your teaching/grading style.

Seriously, for all you talk about open-mindedness, you sure don't practice it when it goes against your opinions.

Except science really is about facts, and not opinions. Your opinion can be wrong. People need to understand the difference.

And fortunately for my students, the subjects I teach don't really deal so much in facts as they do in opinion and interpretation. As long as they can back up their arguments about the meanings in poems and plays, they can have them, even if I don't see it the same way.

But if I were teaching, say, chemistry, then it wouldn't matter how deeply felt a student's belief was that there are, say, 6 electrons in the inner shell of an atom, that belief is wrong, and the student would fail if he or she insisted on holding it.

I know you won't actually see the difference, IDF, but I felt it was important to make the point all the same. For you, it seems fact and opinion are interchangeable, but for those of us in the rational world, there's a massive difference between the two.

Science is not a democracy. Scientific fact is not based on a vote. However, it is clear now that science has become an orthodoxy where you must acknowledge "consensus science" rather than do your own research and from your own opinions

Questioning scientific fact should be encouraged so long as it's motivated by a desire to refine knowledge and not by a desire to keep receiving funds from the coal industry.

As opposed to receiving government funding on the incoming doomsday? Bad news sells, and if researchers want more money they're going to say everything is going to hell in a handbasket.

there have been athiestic priests i believe, u can still do a priests job without their beliefs

yes it certainly is discrimination, they CAN still do the job of a paleontologist even tho they dont belief the same thing

lol i dont really believe in science, but i still got an A in physics chemistry n biology at A level

And I will repeat what I said before. You seem to believe that science is simply memorization and not implementation. No, you can NOT be a paleontologist and yet believe in a young earth. Science is about examining evidence and making predictions based on that evidence. If you don't believe in the evidence, you can not use it to predict.

If I see an insane sociopath pointing a gun at me, I can predict I might just get shot in the face. If however I am under the erronious impression that the gun is in fact a lollipop, I will reach an entirely different, and entirely wrong conclusion.

And in fact if every time I see a gun my brain instead shows me a lollipop, I am remarkably incapable of being a police officer.

Science is about analyzing evidence to form predictions based on that evidence. Paleontology as a science is based on the evidence indicating that the earth is billions and billions of years old, and dinosaurs were here millions and millions of years ago. A palentologist who believe that dinosaurs, and man, were created, at the same time, 6000 years ago, on a tuesday, does not subscribe to the fundamental principles of paleontology. A palentologist who does not believe in the facts behind palentology can not make any predictions, or evaluations that are of any use to to the discipline. A paleontologist is required as part of his job to make predictions and evaluation based on evidence, one who believes counter to the evidence can not do that.


And in the real world...you know that thing after A levels, when you are unable to do your job description, you should not have your job.

And if a metorologist doesn't believe that man can, and is, creating climate change, then that meterologist is ignorant of the science behind his profession. As such, he can not accurately and adequatly perform his profession. And as such, he does not deserve to be part of it.

It's not called local warming. Hint hint.

Its also not realy referd to seriously as global warming anymore apart from by scaremoungerers trying to make headlines, Its climate change. As many parts of the world will get cooler and drier while some are getting hotter and wetter.

Actually, there's huge fucking reams of evidence in favor of the theory that humans are causing climate change, and there's energy industry backed bullshit opposed to it. No matter where you place the fulcrum, you can't make that balance. To claim that humans are not affecting the climate is to deny reality--not that you've ever had a problem with that, mind you.

We are acelorating the process maybe, but look at the earths past, If it were a 100 story building we'd be a layer of paint on the cealing of the top floor. The climate has osselated so much within the eaths 4.6 billion years of which we can get climate data for only 400,000 of them from current Ice cores, we are a faactor yes but not the all encompasing cause.

Its also not realy referd to seriously as global warming anymore apart from by scaremoungerers trying to make headlines, Its climate change. As many parts of the world will get cooler and drier while some are getting hotter and wetter.

The fundamental idea about climate is that it's always hot somewhere. It's always cold somewhere. It'll always be raining and dry and snowing and desert somewhere.

However the theory behind global warming is that the average global temperature is rising, and will rise, as a result of the actions of humans. AVERAGE global temperature.

And as such "global warming" is a perfectly accurate phrase.

I came up with an example talking to someone, in response to those who are arguing with me about how you can be a scientist without believing in the science. The idea of "you don't have to believe it to study it". This is true.

For example, let us take Das Kapital, by Marx. You can diagree with marx and read his book. You can memorize all of it. You can sudy marx while at the same time disagreeing with every single argument and belief he had. You can read Marx without ever actually believing in Marx.

You will however be a very shitty Marxist.

As such you can study paleontology without every believing in the science behind paleontology.

It will however make you a very shitty paleontologist.

And you can study meteorology without every believing in the science behind meteorology, with the result that you will indeed be a very shitty metorologist. And people who don't do their job well really shouldn't be getting approval for their job performance, should they?

As opposed to receiving government funding on the incoming doomsday? From this government?

Its also not realy referd to seriously as global warming anymore apart from by scaremoungerers trying to make headlines, Its climate change. As many parts of the world will get cooler and drier while some are getting hotter and wetter.Global warming is a phenomenon that has been around for quite some time. It's part of the reason why the earth is habitable. The reason it isn't referred to as much anymore is because the debate has shifted from whether it exists to whether humans can affect it. Climate change is the symptom of accelerated global warming.

And if a metorologist doesn't believe that man can, and is, creating climate change, then that meterologist is ignorant of the science behind his profession. As such, he can not accurately and adequatly perform his profession. And as such, he does not deserve to be part of it.Yet if the opinion is instead that man simply isn't having that effect, but that other factors explains the observations, then the person is fully capable of being a scientist. One making an ass out of himself, sure, but a scientist no less.

As long as people use the relevant methodology & aren't trying to fake their findings, what they're doing is just fine.

So, basically, since they have been disproven, they no longer deserve accreditation.

I'm sorry, but you seem to have mistaken "disproven" in this case for "eveyone else in the community thinking he's silly for being skeptical".

No, it isn't. If the buddhist denies the veracity of the claims of the scientific community in his scientific work on grounds that he believes it is all an illusion, then he is a bad scientist. If, on the other hand, he did not deny the veracity even if he disagrees with them, then he's not comparable to a global warming skeptic.

A global warming skeptic denies the veracity of global warming claims on the basis that all meteorological study is an illusion? And here I thought they were just saying they don't believe the evidence indicates what the rest of the community thinks it indicates.

If you do the science right, there is precious little indication that accelerated global warming and climate change are not man made phenomena. So, yes, you would have to ignore the bulk of scientific evidence and thus not work very scientifically if you came to the conclusion that global warming was not man made

Excuse me? Because there is precious little evidence for an opposing claim, the claim should be accepted and skeptics regarded as unscientific?

A lesser degree of evidence for an opposing claim does not make the claim scientific, nor does it make skepticism regarding the claim unscientific.

Such as coming to the conclusion that global warming isn't man made when the bulk of evidence shows the contrary?

Since when do global warming skeptics come to that conclusion? They're skeptics, not deniers.

Yet if the opinion is instead that man simply isn't having that effect, but that other factors explains the observations, then the person is fully capable of being a scientist. One making an ass out of himself, sure, but a scientist no less.

As long as people use the relevant methodology & aren't trying to fake their findings, what they're doing is just fine.

personally I find of "studies" to suggest that climate change is natural to be...spurious at best, I don't find them supported, I don't find them aquately encompasing, and I don't find them convincing.

That being said, if a scientist wishes to challenge commonly accepted norms and applis valid, consistant, objective methodology properly following the scientific method and comes up with an opposing, properly documented, properly analyzed and properly supported hypothesis which is disprovable and verifiable, more power to him.

If they want to close their eyes plug their ears and scream "I'M NOT LISTENING NAH NAH NAH NAH NAH!" then no.

The fundamental idea about climate is that it's always hot somewhere. It's always cold somewhere. It'll always be raining and dry and snowing and desert somewhere.

However the theory behind global warming is that the average global temperature is rising, and will rise, as a result of the actions of humans. AVERAGE global temperature.

And as such "global warming" is a perfectly accurate phrase.

Many models point to cooling events ocourring in western europe, the UK. As the ice of the polar ice caps melt they releace lage quantiys of less dence non saline water into the sea forcing the warm but saline gulf stream (the warm ocean current which accounts for the temperate climate of the UK) to sink, thefore cooling the british isles. The fact is the climatic system is more complex than your imagining, many achademics advance with caution as their are any numbre of possiblities.

Global warming is an unsuatable tearm.

And I will repeat what I said before. You seem to believe that science is simply memorization and not implementation. No, you can NOT be a paleontologist and yet believe in a young earth. Science is about examining evidence and making predictions based on that evidence. If you don't believe in the evidence, you can not use it to predict.


i think science is memorization and implementation, neither of which require belief, and yes you can believe in a young earth yet act as tho what paleontologists say is true, what you believe and what you act on are VERY different things

e.g a meteorologist may not believe in weather yet still make precise predictions on what he sees as imaginary, a bit like predicting how a story will end (wivout thinking about who wrote it) you dont believe it will actually happen but IF it is true you kno how its gonna go

oh and a police officer who saw lollipops instead of guns just has to stop people wiv lollipops rather than people wiv guns, he still duz his job fine

its like if you saw red as green and green as red (no blurring just a perfect switch) then you would be a perfectly acceptable military pilot or ne other job that requires 20 20 vision

A global warming skeptic denies the veracity of global warming claims on the basis that all meteorological study is an illusion? And here I thought they were just saying they don't believe the evidence indicates what the rest of the community thinks it indicates.

And, in my opinion, any meteorologist who, at this point still does not believe it and still remain skepticism is either so willfully ignorant or so totally inept at the science of his profession that he does not deserve t be part of it.

i think science is memorization and implementation, neither of which require belief, and yes you can believe in a young earth yet act as tho what paleontologists say is true, what you believe and what you act on are VERY different things

In theory, if one say...believes in young earth, how will he make predictions based on evidence he believes to be false?

ie.g a meteorologist may not believe in weather yet still make precise predictions on what he sees as imaginary,

making predictions based on fictitious reality is the antithesis of science.

In theory, if one say...believes in young earth, how will he make predictions based on evidence he believes to be false?

like this, there's a meteor 10 minutes from earth, heading straight for earth, its has enuf mass and velocity to destroy earth, therefore earth will be destroyed in 10 minutes

i dont believe any of that, yet somehow i made the prediction fine

making predictions based on fictitious reality is the antithesis of science.

yet sooo many scientists have done it

for example planck had to start making crap up to explain black body radiation, and he started the ball rolling on quantum mechanics

many scientific discoveries are accidents or come from people delibaretly going against evidence

ever heard of the saying "if we split up we cover more ground" the more thinkers off in different directions the better

personally I find of "studies" to suggest that climate change is natural to be...spurious at best, I don't find them supported, I don't find them aquately encompasing, and I don't find them convincing.

You've seen studies that say the current warming trend is natural? I've never seen one. I just hear people on message boards, talk radio shows and blogs claim it is. I've never actually seen a skeptic create a climate model or a data compilation or anything.

And, in my opinion, any meteorologist who, at this point still does not believe it and still remain skepticism is either so willfully ignorant or so totally inept at the science of his profession that he does not deserve t be part of it.

Does anyone know of an actual meteorologist who is a skeptic? I don't know of any. I know of a few statisticians and some lawyers and congressmen, but no meteorologists.

this has never happened. it is impossible to 'debunk' something that actually is the case.

No one disputes Global Warming. What is in dispute is mans involvement with it. That has not been and probably will never be settled.

like this, there's a meteor 10 minutes from earth, heading straight for earth, its has enuf mass and velocity to destroy earth, therefore earth will be destroyed in 10 minutes



oh and a police officer who saw lollipops instead of guns just has to stop people wiv lollipops rather than people wiv guns, he still duz his job fine





In the name of the Holy Garden Gnomes...if you can manage to spell 'velocity', spell 'enough' and 'does' properly.

like this, there's a meteor 10 minutes from earth, heading straight for earth, its has enuf mass and velocity to destroy earth, therefore earth will be destroyed in 10 minutes

i dont believe any of that, yet somehow i made the prediction fine

Thats a nub point, It means nothing, Your just letting your imagination run wilde then typing it!

The qestion really is scince or religion. Can the scintific comunity ostrasise a person whos theorys differ yet can provide evedence... It has been proved glaciers are not shrinking [by selecting a sample of glaciers and estimating their dencity]. Bjorn Lomborg, The skeptical Environmentalist proved forests are are not shrinking. Can we ostrasise him for that ?

scientific skepticism doesn't involve just saying 'nuh-uh'. global warming denialism does. maybe if they would do some actual science research and try to have it actually published in actual science journals, they could be taken seriously. but that doesn't happen.

So who is denying global warming? This meteorologist (the one the AMS is trying to decredit) has not done so.

like this, there's a meteor 10 minutes from earth, heading straight for earth, its has enuf mass and velocity to destroy earth, therefore earth will be destroyed in 10 minutes

i dont believe any of that, yet somehow i made the prediction fine

Yet you believe in meteors, you believe in the formula for determining kinetic energy based on mass and velocity, and you believe in earth, therefore your analogy is false.

To be more proper, you would have to not believe in meteors.

I think I'm beginning to see your teaching/grading style.

Seriously, for all you talk about open-mindedness, you sure don't practice it when it goes against your opinions.

That's a true statement.

So who is denying global warming? This meteorologist (the one the AMS is trying to decredit) has not done so.

Deniing the human part in causing global warming..

Actually, there's huge fucking reams of evidence in favor of the theory that humans are causing climate change, and there's energy industry backed bullshit opposed to it. No matter where you place the fulcrum, you can't make that balance. To claim that humans are not affecting the climate is to deny reality--not that you've ever had a problem with that, mind you.

Did not say that there wasn't but there is enough doubt that to say that Global Warming is caused by man is incorrect just as it is incorrect to say that it isn't caused by man. No one side is correct in this matter.

Its also not realy referd to seriously as global warming anymore apart from by scaremoungerers trying to make headlines, Its climate change. As many parts of the world will get cooler and drier while some are getting hotter and wetter.

Climate change happens.

We are acelorating the process maybe, but look at the earths past, If it were a 100 story building we'd be a layer of paint on the cealing of the top floor. The climate has osselated so much within the eaths 4.6 billion years of which we can get climate data for only 400,000 of them from current Ice cores, we are a faactor yes but not the all encompasing cause.

THANK YOU!!!!

personally I find of "studies" to suggest that climate change is natural to be...spurious at best, I don't find them supported, I don't find them aquately encompasing, and I don't find them convincing.

Then you are a damn fool for Climate Changes have always and will always occur. You are a climate change denier.

Thats a nub point, It means nothing, Your just letting your imagination run wilde then typing it!

The qestion really is scince or religion. Can the scintific comunity ostrasise a person whos theorys differ yet can provide evedence... It has been proved glaciers are not shrinking [by selecting a sample of glaciers and estimating their dencity]. Bjorn Lomborg, The skeptical Environmentalist proved forests are are not shrinking. Can we ostrasise him for that ?

omfg! it's not a nub point! I DONT BELIEVE IN METEORS, EARTH, VELOCITY ETC. YET I CAN STILL USE THEM TO PREDICT METEORS

so this shows how a meteoroligist can use theories that he's skeptical about

In the name of the Holy Garden Gnomes...if you can manage to spell 'velocity', spell 'enough' and 'does' properly.

yul jus av 2 aksept tat i is mor pro dan u!

It's not a religion unless it involves a set of spiritual principles, esp. concerning divine beings, souls, morality and the afterlife.

And, in my opinion, any meteorologist who, at this point still does not believe it and still remain skepticism is either so willfully ignorant or so totally inept at the science of his profession that he does not deserve t be part of it.

Why don't you actually grow up? I've studied Meteorology. It is not clear cut whatsoever as you are trying to think it is. I'm a skeptic of Man-Made global warming however, if I was still persuing meteorology (and I do plan on getting my degree somewhere down the line) I would still remain a skeptic and still be the best meteorologist I can be.

So why don't you stop bashing those of us who are skeptic?

Many models point to cooling events ocourring in western europe, the UK.
<Snip>
Global warming is an unsuatable tearm.You're confusing cause & effect.

Global warming describes the increased W/m**2 of the atmosphere & resulting increase of the global mean temperature. Climate change describes the likely outcomes of this, within a given timeframe.

There's a reason for the name. And unlike someone claimed elsewhere in this thread, people aren't abandoning it. Calling it 'climate change' is nonsensible.

Yet you believe in meteors, you believe in the formula for determining kinetic energy based on mass and velocity, and you believe in earth, therefore your analogy is false.

To be more proper, you would have to not believe in meteors.

the whole point of that was that i didnt believe in mass velocity earth etc. yet i can follow other peoples trails of thought

like since im an atheist i can still follow theists thought trails and give them guidance on their beliefs

Why don't you actually grow up? I've studied Meteorology. It is not clear cut whatsoever as you are trying to think it is. I'm a skeptic of Man-Made global warming however, if I was still persuing meteorology (and I do plan on getting my degree somewhere down the line) I would still remain a skeptic and still be the best meteorologist I can be.

So why don't you stop bashing those of us who are skeptic?

He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you




you've been warned:D

Deniing the human part in causing global warming..

She's a skeptic which is not necessarily denying it.

She claims to be a skeptic. She is denying it. Read.

I have numerous times. She's a skeptic. I say it is being caused by something else myself. That does not make me a denyer but a skeptic. It has not been proven that it is being caused by man. I'm doubting that we are having a massive effect on it as people here are claiming. That does not mean I am denying it. It means I'm a skeptic.

You read.

We are acelorating the process maybe, but look at the earths past, If it were a 100 story building we'd be a layer of paint on the cealing of the top floor. The climate has osselated so much within the eaths 4.6 billion years of which we can get climate data for only 400,000 of them from current Ice cores, we are a faactor yes but not the all encompasing cause.

Complete and utter bullshit. We can get far more than 400k years from ice cores, and those aren't the only methods we have to determine past temperatures. We know the global average temperatures as far back as the Mesozoic, at least.

She's a skeptic which is not necessarily denying it.

She claims to be a skeptic. She is denying it. Read.

Did not say that there wasn't but there is enough doubt that to say that Global Warming is caused by man is incorrect just as it is incorrect to say that it isn't caused by man. No one side is correct in this matter.Wrong. Using a wide range of methods, we don't just know when the atmosphere had X properties, we can also - especially with recent changes as is relevant in regards to global warming - determine with something near dead certainty, what the sources of those changes are. Unless you have major problems accepting the validity of isotope counting (and that's just one of many methods), there's no basis for disputing the anthropogenic aspect.

Your confusing me with somone who dosn't have lectures on it day in day out, not one professor one doctor one lecturer calls it global warming, unless to make the point that it should be reffered to as climate change.

Where the hell do you go?

Your confusing me with somone who dosn't have lectures on it day in day out, not one professor one doctor one lecturer calls it global warming, unless to make the point that it should be reffered to as climate change.I'm wondering just where the hell you are. It's the exact opposite here.

You're confusing cause & effect.

Global warming describes the increased W/m**2 of the atmosphere & resulting increase of the global mean temperature. Climate change describes the likely outcomes of this, within a given timeframe.

There's a reason for the name. And unlike someone claimed elsewhere in this thread, people aren't abandoning it. Calling it 'climate change' is nonsensible.


Your confusing me with somone who dosn't have lectures on it day in day out, not one professor one doctor one lecturer calls it global warming, unless to make the point that it should be reffered to as climate change.

Complete and utter bullshit. We can get far more than 400k years from ice cores, and those aren't the only methods we have to determine past temperatures. We know the global average temperatures as far back as the Mesozoic, at least.

Aproxomatly look back a few pages I put a graph on which shows past climate the accuracy is questionable.

The vostock Ice core gose back 400 ky, their is another recent drilling which gose back futher but the final finding have not yet been published. Beyond that your talking sediments... and the acuracy on thats like the acuracy on an AK,

I'm wondering just where the hell you are. It's the exact opposite here.

Well at least we've proved the dissagreements within one area of study, and can then say oppinions differ. It would make little scence for proffessors to start burning each other at the stake now wouldn't it =p

Well at least we've proved the dissagreements within one area of study, and can then say oppinions differ. It would make little scence for proffessors to start burning each other at the stake now wouldn't it =pHeh, true enough. I still think your profs are muddying the waters though, for obvious reasons. I'll back you on the icecore samples though.

Are you aware that the AK series contains some of the most accurate assault rifles around? Probably not.Having fired an AK47, I can't say I'm convinced. Then again, perhaps the thing was crooked.... Because surely it wasn't me.

Aproxomatly look back a few pages I put a graph on which shows past climate the accuracy is questionable.

The vostock Ice core gose back 400 ky, their is another recent drilling which gose back futher but the final finding have not yet been published. Beyond that your talking sediments... and the acuracy on thats like the acuracy on an AK,

Are you aware that the AK series contains some of the most accurate assault rifles around? Probably not.

However they also made some shockers.. It's all just a matter of opinion you can't prove somthing till its been thouraly attact by the sceptics. "muddying the water or teaching rather than telling?

If I say climate change and then say the globe is currently warming, then go into the numarous differing theorys of future changes and effect. I'm giving a balnced opinionion.

Global warming is shocking scary and somwhat emotive. Compeling even, It makes up your mind for you. Like religion..

Having fired an AK47, I can't say I'm convinced. Then again, perhaps the thing was crooked.... Because surely it wasn't me.

Assault rifles have never been particularly accurate. The AK-74 is rather accurate, though, if I remember correctly.

So who is denying global warming? This meteorologist (the one the AMS is trying to decredit) has not done so.

Which meteorologist is this? The AMS is not trying to "decredit" (is that a word?) anyone, as far as I know.

Why should the stifling of an unscientific view be unscientific?

Disagreeing with global warming is not unscientific. Global warming does not have enough credible evidence to support it. In fact, the hottest year of the 20th century was 1936. British naval records show that the 19th century had hotter temparatures than the present. I would say that anyone who believes in global warming without allowing for other possibilities is being unscientific.

Global warming does not have enough credible evidence to support it.
Thousands upon thousands of scientific papers? All evidence around? Reality itself? Yeah, that's like nothing.

Actually, there's huge fucking reams of evidence in favor of the theory that humans are causing climate change, and there's energy industry backed bullshit opposed to it.
If you want to refute the studies, refute their research, not their funding. Their funding is irrelevant.

Who funds the pro-warming studies?

If you want to refute the studies, refute their research, not their funding. Their funding is irrelevant.

Who funds the pro-warming studies?

Can you please post some of their research? I can't find any. :confused: I've looked for global warming skeptic research but there doesn't seem to be any.

People who have nothing to gain. In some cases, people who have stuff to lose.
Wrong. People who have a lot to gain. Gain through publicity and the hampering and elimination of competition that would normally make the alternatives offered not as profitable and therefore not as "worth it". Also, how could anyone lose when siding with the more popular position?

Who funds the pro-warming studies?

People who have nothing to gain. In some cases, people who have stuff to lose.

Thousands upon thousands of scientific papers? All evidence around? Reality itself? Yeah, that's like nothing.

Along time ago, it was universally accepted that the earth was flat and was the center of the solar system.

Can you please post some of their research? I can't find any. :confused: I've looked for global warming skeptic research but there doesn't seem to be any.

hey, astroturf websites are legitimate places to publish scientific research. and it's a widely believed fact that saying 'nuh-uh' counts as empirical data against something.

how could anyone lose when siding with the more popular position?

because there are no inherent benefits to mere argeement

Along time ago, it was universally accepted that the earth was flat and was the center of the solar system.

It was never universally accepted that the earth was flat. Anyone with eyes and a functioning brain could tell that it was spherical. And no one ever had any evidence that the earth was the center of the solar system. Comparing those to global warming is completely absurd.

Also, how could anyone lose when siding with the more popular position?

The government? I mean, it's not like some of their major supporters are in the fossil fuels industry.

Along time ago, it was universally accepted that the earth was flat and was the center of the solar system.

I'll restate what I said before:

The simple fact is, science need not entertain every damned fool notion to come out of the pipe. It need not entertain the belief that the world is in fact on the back of a giant turtle. It need not entertain the belief that the stars are small, coin shaped objects affixed to the heavens a few hundred feet above our heads. It need not entertain the belief in zero point energy. It need not entertain the idea of a young earth. It need not entertain the belief that crystals can cure. And in addition, it need not entertain the idea that mankind is not capable of bringing about, and actually causing, climate change.

Science, frankly, need not entertain every ludicrous claim, unfounded statement, and crackpot belief that comes out. And yes, it is true, that every now and then, the “crackpots” were right, and those of us who believe in science have suffered no end of smug, misplaced satisfaction as a result. For indeed today’s self named “skeptics” (who I will continue to refer to as crackpots) find it necessary to sit back in their chairs, declare their misbelieve, and when dismissed as the blind, ignorant fools that they are, chime loudly “would you say that to Galileo? He was called a crackpot and he was right too”. The fact of the matter is though, Galileo, rather than calling these foolish prognosticators his comrades, would probably sooner have spit in their face. He would have likely had less respect for them than I do. Galileo did not sit on the sides. Galileo did not look at popular belief, declare it wrong, then call it a day. Galileo tested, experimented, went through painstaking methods to collect data and then, ONLY THEN when he had enough data to examine, examined it, and made his discoveries.

So I have a little statement for all the crackpots who call themselves “people of science" out there. Don’t you dare invoke the name of Galileo. Don’t sit back, don your skeptics hat and back in the glory of the fact that a skeptic, once, a man far smarter than you, once got it right. Don’t simply sit back and decry, and insist on your own righteousness in the name of Galileo. Your methods weren’t good enough for Galileo, they shouldn’t be good enough for you and they sure as HELL aren’t good enough for me.

Science need not entertain every foolish notion. And if you wish for yours to be considered with any more weight than that, then stop invoking the name of Galileo and actually do what he managed to do, and what you are so far failing to do. Do what honest, true science compels you to do. Prove me wrong. I’ll be waiting.

Which meteorologist is this? The AMS is not trying to "decredit" (is that a word?) anyone, as far as I know.

The one in question.

It was never universally accepted that the earth was flat. Anyone with eyes and a functioning brain could tell that it was spherical. And no one ever had any evidence that the earth was the center of the solar system. Comparing those to global warming is completely absurd.

Back then they didn't have the real tools to prove that it was or was not either.

Um maybe because it is a known fact that everyone involved in this debate should know it. I'm not going to look up the facts for you in this case if you are that stupid.

Okay, normally I don't wade in with epithets and outright denunciation, but to demand proof from your opponent and then post the above claptrap is so incredibly stupid, I can't begin to start shredding you for it. Show us a link, a book, a site, SOMETHING, or please stop posting.

Back then they didn't have the real tools to prove that it was or was not either.

And we have the tools and the evidence. Funny how that works.

Edit: And they had tools. They didn't have the historical records they would need if they were to properly use the tools.

Okay, normally I don't wade in with epithets and outright denunciation, but to demand proof from your opponent and then post the above claptrap is so incredibly stupid, I can't begin to start shredding you for it. Show us a link, a book, a site, SOMETHING, or please stop posting.

I'll post whenever I feel like.

Disagreeing with global warming is not unscientific. Global warming does not have enough credible evidence to support it. In fact, the hottest year of the 20th century was 1936. British naval records show that the 19th century had hotter temparatures than the present. I would say that anyone who believes in global warming without allowing for other possibilities is being unscientific.

Freak events one year on record, dose not compare to the sustaind warm epoch we are expirencing, increace in extream events, winds such as those battering western europe now should be a very infrequent event, tha fact that we had storms such as this only a few years ago.. Dening humans part in warmings one thing saying the climate is not currently entering a warm era is diffrent, Do you ever step outside your house?

And we have the tools and the evidence. Funny how that works.

Edit: And they had tools. They didn't have the historical records they would need if they were to properly use the tools.

One does not need historical records to know that we were not at the center of the Universe or of the solar system.

And, in my opinion, any meteorologist who, at this point still does not believe it and still remain skepticism is either so willfully ignorant or so totally inept at the science of his profession that he does not deserve t be part of it.

So we should exclude a scientist from the scientific community on the basis of your opinion regarding his views? Fascinating.

One does not need historical records to know that we were not at the center of the Universe or of the solar system.

At the time all they had was mathematics and the stars and planets visible to the naked eye. They needed historical records to get enough information as to the movements of the few bodies they observed to determine that the Earth was not at the center of the solar system or of the universe. Once telescopes were invented, they could track the paths of other bodies and thus have enough information to do the math.

No one disputes Global Warming. What is in dispute is mans involvement with it. That has not been and probably will never be settled.

Not to mention whether anything CAN be done, Whether anything SHOULD be done(which is a big question in my mind considering the damage ecoscience has done to the systems they've tried to save in the past) and the very accuracy of the future models they're generation for global warming. I'm also a little skeptical in how environmental scentists never show prediction models beyond a century ahead or so.

Not to mention whether anything CAN be done, Whether anything SHOULD be done(which is a big question in my mind considering the damage ecoscience has done to the systems they've tried to save in the past) and the very accuracy of the future models they're generation for global warming. I'm also a little skeptical in how environmental scentists never show prediction models beyond a century ahead or so.

There is that too.

So we should exclude a scientist from the scientific community on the basis of your opinion regarding his views? Fascinating.

Not t all. We should have exclude a scientist from the scientfic community until the scientist presents data to back up his assertion regarding his claims ad submits that data to peer review, and have his conclusions survive that process.

It just so happens that those whose views run counter to my opinion have, so far, entirely failed to do so. You may consider that opinion, if you wish. I do not.

And the simple fact is, science need not entertain every notion. In fact, it need not, and should not, entertain ANY notion, until those that promote it manage to back it up with something substantive. And until they do so, yes, they most certainly should be excluded from the scientific community, for they have done nothing to earn their place within it.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4480559399263937213&q=penn+and+teller+bullshit&hl=en

Not t all. We should have exclude a scientist from the scientfic community until the scientist presents data to back up his assertion regarding his claims ad submits that data to peer review, and have his conclusions survive that process.

I see. Rather than deciding which people may be part of the scientific community based on their agreement with you, the decision should be made based on the larger community's agreement with them. That's fine, I suppose. Religions tend to operate the same way, determining truth by consensus of the community, and excluding those who do not agree with them on major points.

And the simple fact is, science need not entertain every notion. In fact, it need not, and should not, entertain ANY notion, until those that promote it manage to back it up with something substantive.

I'm well aware that science need not entertain every notion. Very few methods of analysing and interpreting reality do feel that need. They are generally quite content to sit in comfort, confident that their approach to finding truth is the correct one.

And until they do so, yes, they most certainly should be excluded from the scientific community, for they have done nothing to earn their place within it.

Yet again you espouse the notion that being a scientist entails agreement with the community, that it is earned by doing what the community wants. I suppose I should give up my silly notion that the scientific communities are not dogmatic or exclusionary like religions. Thank you for deepening my understanding of science.

I see. Rather than deciding which people may be part of the scientific community based on their agreement with you, the decision should be made based on the larger community's agreement with them. That's fine, I suppose. Religions tend to operate the same way, determining truth by consensus of the community, and excluding those who do not agree with them on major points.That's funny. I could have sworn I read "back up his claims" in Arthais' point. It would basically mean that whoever wants to stir up controversy in the scientific community should have evidence to support it, such as Galileo or Harry Hess had.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4480559399263937213&q=penn+and+teller+bullshit&hl=en

Let me guess, that was the episode of Penn & Teller's Bullshit that was ripped to shreds the moment it aired for being hideously inaccurate and outright lies on several ocassions, and that destroyed every last ounce of credibility they had.

People who have nothing to gain. In some cases, people who have stuff to lose.
Nice generalisation. Care to actually list some funders?

Governments, incidentally, have quite a lot to gain. They gain control over their people, and governments like that.

Can you please post some of their research? I can't find any. :confused: I've looked for global warming skeptic research but there doesn't seem to be any.
Well, that's fair, because I can't find the pro-warming studies, either.

I can find innumerable studies that focus on specific parts of the climate (like carbon-cycle feedbacks, or sulfur aerosol forcing), but I can't find any that claim to put them all together.

Besides, the point of the sceptics is not that they have evidence that says you're wrong (though they occasionally do - see stratospheric warming), but that your evidence is insufficient to show that you are right.

The heretics MUST be brought in to think right! Renounce your blasphemy or suffer the concequences!
Other than your lingo, what has this got to do with religion?

Remember, while everyone has a right to their own opinion, everyone doesn't have a right to their own facts.

I'll post whenever I feel like.
Alright, just don't expect to be answered.

Governments, incidentally, have quite a lot to gain. They gain control over their people, and governments like that.
Is everything about taxes and government to you? :rolleyes:

I can see your argument. I really can.
All communities are dogmatic to a certain extent. Scientific communities are not immune from this. Scientific communities are also prone to the whims of fashion as well. For example, in the UK now, studying pure chemistry is becoming far less popular than other sciences like biochemistry and forensics. One could argue that forensics is becoming more fashionable because of the plethora of TV shows based around solving crimes with forensic science. One could also argue that the popularity of biochemistry is due to the massive increase in funding in that sector compared to chemistry.

But anyway, why is science dogmatic like this? Partially it's because of the nature of what you refer to as the "scientific community". This is made up of academia, other government institutions, and companies who do scientific research (pharmaceutical firms, for example). The dogmatic nature usually stems from parts of academia that are dominated by the older generation. Why? Because scientists, like every other human on the planet, have an ego, and don't like being proved wrong. I know, this is anathema to the first directive of scientific method - challenge accepted wisdom. But arrogance and the belief that one is right are part of human nature. It takes courage to admit defeat, courage to say the words "I don't know", and even more courage to say "I was wrong".

The scientific process works thus:
1. You make a lot of observations.
2. You formulate a hypothesis, based on your observations.
3. You devise experiments to test your hypothesis.
4. If your hypothesis turns out to be wrong, you start again with a different one. If it turns out to be right, you carry on doing experiments until you prove it wrong.
5. Once you've done all the possible experiments with the equipment you have , if you still haven't managed to disprove your hypothesis, it becomes a theory (note - this still doesn't mean that it is universally correct).
6. You report your findings to the "scientific community", who will then go and repeat your experiments to try and prove you wrong. They will also try and devise more experiments (as technology advances, so do experimental techniques) to prove you wrong. If nobody manages to disprove your theory, it becomes "generally accepted". Note - this still doesn't mean that it is universally correct.
7. If all the possible experiments have been done, then your theory becomes a Theorem (like Pythagoras' theorem in mathematics), or a Law, such as Newton's Law of Gravity. This rarely ever happens. There aren't many scientific Laws.

Theories come and theories go. For example, Einsteins theory of relativity still hasn't been proved - experiments are still being done today to try and understand the implications of his writings.

Now if you're comparing science to religion, ask yourself - does any religion apply the same level of scrutiny, experimentation and testing described above to any religious principle? I think you'll find the answer to be a big fat NO.

As for the accusation that scientific communities are "exclusionary" - well, of course they are! But what's your point?
The scientific community is exclusive in that only people who have gained sufficient qualifications in science are allowed within it. Does that make it discriminatory? Yes. Of course it does. But that's not a bad thing.

You might as well accuse a law firm of being "exclusive" and "discriminatory" for only employing qualified lawyers instead of random people off the street. Because that's basically the same argument.

Any fool cannot be a lawyer (except possibly a very bad one) or a scientist. But anyone with sufficient intelligence and capacity for hard work can become a qualified scientist - and therefore a part of the "scientific community".

Science is not Religion. Religion is not Science. Unless your name is James Lovelock, who's GAIA book is an elegant (but profoundly disturbing) combination of both.

That's funny. I could have sworn I read "back up his claims" in Arthais' point. It would basically mean that whoever wants to stir up controversy in the scientific community should have evidence to support it, such as Galileo or Harry Hess had.

Who decides when a claim has been supported with sufficient evidence? Arthais' posts have repeatedly implied that it is the community that makes that decision.

Is everything about taxes and government to you? :rolleyes:
It is to the government, which is really what matters, here.

The purpose of the government is to grow. That is all it cares about.