Gospel Grammar . . . T. Boone Pickens and Al Gore
Old adage: When you have nothing to say, be quiet.
My adage: When you have nothing to say, quote Eugene Peterson.
“The gospel pulls us into community. One of the immediate changes that the gospel makes is grammatical: we instead of I; our instead of my; us instead of me.”
- – - -
What’s happening? I heard T. Boone Pickens this morning on “The Today Show” saying that he’s in about 95% agreement with Al Gore.
Here’s what we know:
1. The environment is being effected. You don’t have to be a true-blue global warming person to agree with this. Pollution: bad.
2. Dependence on foreign oil can’t be good for the country.
3. Dependence on oil can’t ultimately be good for the country. You don’t have to be a true “Peak Oil” person (by the way, googling “Peak Oil” is not for the faint of heart) to agree here either. There is a limited amount of the stuff. It’s not like reforestation. You don’t take a barrel and plant a barrel. There is oil because of processes from millions of years ago. Everyone ultimately believes in “peak oil” (lower case to separate us from those who think WaterWorld is ahead). We know that it isn’t renewable. More drilling will not change this fact: there is a limited supply. This limited supply may be our problem or the problem of our great, great grandchildren.
Wow. I didn’t know I wasn’t really an independent because I happen to like Reagan. I didn’t know I was uninformed because I listed Maher and Coulter as links even though they are on completely different sides of the aisle and my list is nonexhaustive and also includes 60 minutes, CNN (BIG GW alarmists with their Planet Earth show), Jon Stewart, and John Stossel. I didn’t realize I went looking for information on Global Warming by simply cherry picking. I thought I got my RSS to include everything I could on the subject…and have read and seen lots of information not included in my blog including many books and movies (I own An Inconvenient Truth–my favorite part is the digitally created ice glaciers from the hit comedy The Day After Tomorrow which are fictitious pictures).
Oh wait…ignore what I just said. I am an independent…not an Independent. I think for myself and that’s where I get my viewpoints after extensive research on my own. I don’t parrot talking points like Obama or Gore or McCain or Limbaugh or anyone else. I like Reagan…so what? I wish we had another Reagan right now. I voted for Clinton and Ralph Nader consecutively. As Libertarian John Stossel says, “Give Me A Break!”
Mark,
Thanks for the personal attack. The liberal philosophy of debate. If you can’t prove it with facts, insult the other person. I am 32 about to turn 33…just like Jesus. And that’s a joke for the media matters crowd.
RealClimate.org describes the consensus of climate scientists. They argue very well why non-scientists, scientisits in other fields, and a few poorly practicing climate scientists err in their criticisms of the consensus.
If you find the consensus to be false (i.e. if you deny that the experts are in consensus), then you are ignorant of the facts. The people at RealClimate.org can help you with that.
If you find the consensus to be flawed (i.e., if you deny that the experts have a right reading on reality), then you are likely ignorant of mounds of data, well-attested theories, and overwhelming expert opinion. The people at RealClimate.org can help you with that, too.
The slightest reflection would reveal that opinions on a flat earth don’t bear on the present question. The slightest genuine curiosity would reveal that science is not what we commonly refer to as “educated guessing.” It is hard for me to give you the benefit of the doubt here, because you appear to have given no effort. You rest smug, unmoved by those who, by their great labors, have acquired expertise on the question. Yours is invincible ignorance.
Ideally, a forum such as this would be for those who seek dialogue and learning. You can and should do better if you are involved here.
Jeff W
I wonder where you get that realclimate is somehow above and beyond the skeptics and other scientists. If you search for it, you can see the bias that realclimate has.
I can create consensus too and say there is consensus that CO2 is not a pollutant and it doesn’t affect climate.
I like these sites for my information. They present the truth by real scientists.
co2science.org
junkscience.com
demanddebate.com
Ideally, a forum such as this would be for those who seek dialogue and learning. You can and should do better by reading these sites if you are involved here. By you closing the debate by calling my expertise invincible ignorance shuts out dialogue by those who seek learning.
The people on the left are scared to death of God. It threatens everything. We, on the other hand, recognize our greatness, who we are, our potential, our ambition, our desire, comes from God, and as part of our Creation, this natural yearning to be free and to practice liberty. That is how we think this country came to be great. It is how we think this country will continue to be great and good. RUSH LIMBAUGH, MARCH 18, 2008
Big Mike, the invincible ignorance I was addressing is Tim’s, but you seem to exhibit it, too.
There is very little skepticism toward climate science; as I stated above, the phenomenon of opposition to this science is, in fact, denialism. RealClimate.org is “above and beyond” the denial community because it is operated by experts who have overcome ignorance through hard, disciplined work.
The people touted by CO2Science.org are not climate scientists, save, ostensibly, Donald Baker. The web site is funded by Exxon and conducts policy debate along lines that Exxon’s owners would like. It doesn’t perform science education.
JunkScience.com is a for-profit web site run by a single non-expert. The scientific material that I’ve seen on the web site is very bad and not peer-reviewed; it’s easily debunked by the experts.
DemandDebate.com is not a science web site.
Big Mike, these sites do not “present the truth by real scientists” by any reasonable assessment of their content.
I have not “closed the debate”; you need to recognize that your affinity for this language is shared by other denialists of all varieties who refuse to recognize true expertise. Despite your assertion, I do not believe that you have any expertise in this matter. I will continue to depend for leadership in this matter on those who can reasonably defend their claims of expertise.
Indeed, why should I let your assertion of expertise strike me as anything but laughably silly? Why do you bring that to this venue? Do you serve anyone but yourself by saying that? It is this feature of invincible ignorance — “I, myself, am an expert, despite the learned protestations of others” — that is staggeringly disheartening to me. In the context of Christian faith, it bespeaks, in its great prevalence, a terrible cultural obstacle to humility.
Jeff W
Sort of on topic, check out this Popular Mechanics article about portable nuclear power. Jose Reyes is the head of the nuclear engineering dept. at Oregon State. He’s also a member of the Circle Church of Christ in Corvallis, OR.
Portable Nuclear Power
RealClimate.org may describe the consensus of climate scientists, but it is in no way a consensus among all climate scientists. This is what we’ve been trying to say. It is the consensus of one side of the debate, which also happens to be an increasingly debunked viewpoint.
So Jeff W., what are you doing to save the planet?
“There is very little skepticism toward climate science; as I stated above, the phenomenon of opposition to this science is, in fact, denialism.” –Jeff W.
This is not true. There is a LOT of skepticism. I see and read about it all the time.
…what my brother Tim said…
There is skepticism toward Global Warming™, Jeff. We’ve already proven it. Just saying otherwise doesn’t make it so. No scientific website is “above and beyond” the denial community, because all science is up for debate, ALWAYS. Were the flat earth people above and beyond denial? That was the consensus among scientists before they were disproved.
And enough with the “invincible ignorance” and “denialist”, because it just doesn’t stick. I do not believe you have any expertise in this matter either, but that does not give me the right to name-call or insult. Let’s try to keep things civil and Christ-like.
You guys have already moved beyond “civil and Christ-like.” But keep it up; it’s entertaining. Especially your hilarious positions, Tim and Mike.
These aren’t “my” positions. These are the positions of 31,000+ scientists 9,000+ with phD’s who have signed a petition to say they do not agree with the so-called consensus. Where have Tim & I not been civil or Christ-like besides calling Al Gore a moron which I apologized for waaaay up at the beginning?
What I find amusing is that everytime Al Gore is confronted with his hypocrisy, for example having a 10,000 sq. foot house, he says something like, “I’m not perfect.” Who wouuld have thought! He defended his electricity use by saying he had all these solar panels, etc. and his use went way up from last year.
Mark, I would appreciate you telling me how I have been uncivil or un-Christ-like so that I may modify my behavior, as opposed to asking someone if they are 3 years old, casting judgment upon others I don’t know, and providing no constructive information to the conversation whatsoever.
Hmmm…I think I will civilly move away from this “discussion” that Mark wants to have.
OK, so some here are clearly opposed to using Global Warming as a rationale for caring for the environment. Admittedly, as a result of the GW hysteria has come quite a lot of profit to be made on “green” products galore. No one here, to my knowledge, is saying we all need to become more consumerist in response to GW.
There have also come some innovative, simple, easy-to-implement ideas and products that will contribute to a healthier planet. More people are parking the car and taking the bike. The local food movement is bigger than ever. Inner cities are seeing a rise in farmer’s markets and community gardens. Normal folks seem to be thinking before they consume, travel, etc.
Is this really a bad thing? Shouldn’t these practices attract followers of Jesus, regardless of whether or not we believe the science behind global warming? Are the skeptics here simply saying that they don’t want tax dollars spent on global warming research or solutions? Basically, what’s the GW skeptic argument here?
Aside from those questions, here’s my big question:
Why are so many folks (conservatives, mostly) so impassioned against global warming?
(I can see why folks on the other side are impassioned … the end of the world is coming)
Wasn’t this post about T. Boone Pickens?
A few years back, a WaPo columnist addressed the alleged “scientific disagreement” regarding human contribution to global warming, basically attributing it to “a few noisy skeptics — most of whom are not even scientists” — who have “generated a lot of chatter in the mass media.”
Here’s the link.
Again, I’m not standing in support of “Global Warming TM” here, which is the free market’s answer to public consensus. (ironically, many of those who lead these multinational brands are GW skeptics themselves, but proceed to produce and market green products because there’s $ to be made … if that ain’t hypocrisy…)
I’m just asking for a little intellectual honesty and civility in conversation. Most of us (perhaps all) are not scientists, and the fact is, all of the scientific academies and organizations that matter are in consensus.
I still maintain that as Christians, we should do everything we can to take care of the Earth, whether or not human-caused GW is true. Personally, I believe it is.
Steve, Jr., aren’t we all against global warming? We don’t want it! I’m glad you are here to discuss.
You’re right in that some good ideas have been shared in how to conserve energy and money. I’m very much for these things. It’s when people worship the creation instead of the Creator that I become impassioned, just as those who worship governments or potential presidential candidates, etc. And the end of the world will come when God says it comes, not because we keep driving SUV’s.
Steve Jr., you asked:
—–
Why are so many folks (conservatives, mostly) so impassioned against global warming? (I can see why folks on the other side are impassioned … the end of the world is coming)
—–
1. qb is not persuaded by the science. The “evidence” simply does not compel qb to conclude that WE are the cause of whatever warming may have been taking place up until about a decade ago. The models used to forecast climate are at least as fraught with hypersimplifications and dubious scientific assumptions as the short-term models we use to predict weather two weeks out, which ought to tell us something important.
2. The remedies set forth for a “problem” whose evidence is not compelling would almost certainly force the federal government to arrogate to itself powers that the people of the U. S. have not granted it, thus extending and reinforcing the anticonstitutional trends that the Warren Court began putting into motion. Of particular concern to qb are the implicit “takings” of privately owned property that occur by dint of hyperaggressive environmental regulation. Such regulatory proposals – Kyoto’s potential implementation among them – are transparent vehicles for coerced redistribution but do not appear likely to achieve anything close to what the proponents predict.
3. The most visible proponents of anthropogenic global warming are shrill, smug, and self-righteous way out of proportion to the degree of certainty that would ordinarily be commensurate with the quality of the scientific evidence they cite to bolster their case.
Other than that, though, no reason.
qb
“the fact is, all of the scientific academies and organizations that matter are in consensus.”
That’s an untrue loaded statement. The ones that matter? So the IPCC matters even though there is only a small percentage of them that are scientists? But a group like planetgore doesn’t matter because they are skeptics and the Big Enviros don’t want their voice heard?
The ones that tend to not matter are the ones who are touted as experts by the Big Enviros until they disagree and then are quickly denounced.
This is the kind of stuff Al Gore does that has created this shamble of a scientific debate. Because Fr. Al said it, it must be true. I love that groups are starting to publicly print and report their skepticism because of the overwhelming evidence against anthropomorphic Global WarmingTM and the MSM ignores it.
IPCC = “InterGOVERNMENTAL Panel on Climate Change. Its a government organization, not a scientific one.” –Professor Richard Lindzen (M.I.T. & Member of IPCC)
Remember the Koyoto “treaty”? It was hailed as the last great hope to halt global warming. Gore asked Tom Wigley of the National Center for Science Research, “What if all the developed nations would comply with the emission requirment”? The answer was that at BEST the temperature would decrease 7/100 of a degree Celsius over a period of 50 years. How much would it cost the U.S.? 50 TRILLION!
BML – I said official academies and scientific organizations, not blogs. PlanetGore is a blog. A blog, not a “group.” And a decidedly conservative one at that. PG doesn’t do science or study science, they just link to articles that support their position. So no, PlanetGore doesn’t matter.
We could probably go back and forth for years arguing the validity (or invalidity) of scientists we’ve never met, but I’m not sure it’s helpful to anyone or to this conversation.
What if we lived like anthropomorphic GW were true?
(I mean personally, not leaning on big government to fix it)
Lets rename this site “TGIF” The comemts on Friday the 18th are brilliant.Best I’ve run across. Site is great. However, several of
you people are nuts. Peak oils is a joke, Creationism is for morons(ever been to the Grand a Canyon, It’s over 70 million years old), but then again nobody is perfect. Since 2003 (or before) the earths temperature is colder by .6th of a degree.Check it out. Pollution will kill us all before the oil runs out or the earth heats up. Drill, build wind mills and necular plast and eat an environmentist. TCE and PCE,PBC’s, mtbe and all the hydrocarbon contamination we create are killing many thousands of peoples nervous systems every year and the EPA is a Fraud as are most environmental consultans. 450,000 superfund site and they clean a couple every year an keep adding more new ones. Oboma is an empty suit and there no such thing as a good muslim( unless he expresses outrage at the extremests)and this web site is outstanding….VV
I forgot to mention that the comments about the retard, Al Gore, are right on target.I listen to WABC radio and Rush,Sean, and Mark are telling it like its. If you don’t like what they say don’t listen, just get used to reading the Koran. If you think that all of America is like the South Side of Chicago and needs fixen , join the Obommania idioticy.
PlanetGore is only one example…not written by one author…but one of them is Chris Horner who has written an excellent book called The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming. PlanetGore is not “just” a blog. Isn’t RealScience just a blog? If we lived like GW was true is the mantra of people wanting us to not use our minds and think for ourselves. And doesn’t Big Environment only lean on articles that support their theories. The consensus is only in the minds of those that agree and link to articles they think are true…right? Let’s agree to not be lemmings.
“I’ve often heard it said that there is a consensus of thousands of scientists on the global warming issue, that humans are causing a catastrophic change to the climate system. Well, I am one scientist – and there are many – that simply think that is not true.” –John Christy (Lead author IPCC)
“The problem we are faced with is that the meteorological establishment and the global warming lobby research bodies which receive large funding are now apparently so corrupted by the largesse they receive that the scientists in them have sold their integrity.”
- Piers Corbyn, Weather Action bulletin, December 2000
OK, BML — Let’s just have enough intellectual honesty to realize that both sides have propaganda machines behind them, lots of money, and scientists.
I don’t think I’m being a lemming just because I choose to make personal decisions that have a minimal impact on the planet. I’m against massive government intervention on this issue too … I think the most good will happen as millions of ordinary folks choose to live differently.
Curious, though: Several here have pointed to a fear of too much government meddling in the lives of Americans as being a main rationale for vehemently opposing anthropomorphic GW. What are some potential examples of this? I don’t disagree with you here … I just can’t think of any ways this might happen.
There seems to be consensus that morons in our solar system get a rush out of goring one another.
Baron, I don’t think that I owe you an explanation. I have given you a resource whereby you may learn about the issue. If you genuinely try to learn but find the web sites too confusing, disorganized, or unclear, then please come back to me for help; I would love to assist you where I can.
Do note, however, that a routine observation among those who study denialists is that denialists will very often refuse to avail themselves of material that explains why their opinions are in error. As a gesture of good faith and as an exercise in personal intellectual responsibility, please read the material yourself.
Tim and Big Mike, I think you do not understand how science works. You should investigate why your notions of “debate”, “skepticism”, and “consensus” (at least as I understand you to be using the terms) are deficient. Tim, your sense of the variety of opinion among climate scientists is wrong; read what the scientists at RealClimate.org have to say about this.
Big Mike, you also appealed to vast numbers of scientists who disagree with anthropogenic global warming. First, their opinion doesn’t matter nearly as much as the opinions of climate scientists; expertise in one field doesn’t grant expertise in another. This confusion, too, is the province of denialists of all stripes: they line up sympathetic supposed authorities, extol their academic credentials, and operate as if this substantiates any claims that the authorities wish to put forward. Paper credentials don’t substantiate opinions. Look, instead, to those who have relevant expertise, treat all the known observations, and reason well. By the mechanism of peer review, such people tend to do a very good job of corroborating each other.
This, in fact, is at the core of denialism: it is a rejection of science. The human discipline of science operates by human mechanisms in such a way that good (loosely read, “reality-based”) ideas are corroborated and bad ideas are discredited. Denialism rejects the process. Denialists put themselves above peer review. If they are blind to weaknesses in their positions, then those weaknesses go uncorrected. That is also why denialism is almost always fragmented: peer-reviewed science tends toward consensus, but undisciplined pseudo-science admits a host of inward-looking camps.
Science works by mutually reinforced intellectual discipline. Pseudo-science lacks this discipline and thereby lacks the explanatory and predictive power of the real thing.
Jeff W
Steve Jr.
I think we both have that intellectual honesty. We’ve each read and done our own research and come to different conclusions. I didn’t mean to say you were a lemming, just those that don’t think for themselves. Thanks for this healthy debate brother. I guess we’ll not agree on this until there is more evidence.
Jeff W.
LOL! Science is about trying to prove a hypothesis…not propaganda.
I do understand how science works. My major in college was Environmental Science before I changed it. Science is based on an educated guess (hypothesis), then testing that hypothesis, then conclusion. It is not the other way around, as the GW™ crowd has done. I may not be an expert on the subject, but I know how the process works.
“600 scientists from governments, academia, green groups and businesses”
Right there you have given everything away. Governments, academia, green groups, and businesses? These are the trustworthy sources with no alternative agenda? The denialists are those who are totally sold out to GW™. They accept no criticism, true scientific method (which also requires you to look at how things don’t work), and those that disagree with them are instantly discredited. You keep emphasizing climate scientists as if that website you champion is the exhaustive opinion of them. You’re right in that denialism is the rejection of science. The Global Warming™ people are the denialists. They deny their science is flawed.
Who do you think runs the wikipedia pages on Global Warming™?
Attempted corrections to Wikipedia page
32,000 deniers
Daniel Botkin’s opninion, president of the Center for the Study of the Environment and professor emeritus in the Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Marine Biology at the University of California, Santa Barbara
Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
Jeff and Steve, I appreciate you coming to share your views, and I will continue to read through what you’ve shared (yes, even the stuff I disagree with). I would encourage you to do the same, so that we may all understand that opposing viewpoints are good for us and in this case good for accurate science.
Now I know what I am! A denialist.
My brother considers himself a scientist, he has been published in several journals. He sounds just like Jeff W., on a different subject, however. He is hard to take, as is Jeff, IMHO.
Baron, I am an expert in a very few things, few of which are likely to interest you. I am an academic expert in even fewer things, even fewer of which are likely to interest you.
But, then, as you should have noticed from my writings, I have claimed no expertise for myself on this question.
I have directed you to some experts in the area of climate science and have passed on to you some good advice that other experts have given me about how to recognize expertise in science. I hope that you can make good use of this expertise (amazingly plenteous and available in our age), since mine is, I admit, of very little use.
Baron, your behavior looks very suspiciously like that of many others I’ve seen in the past who are not genuinely curious and are not amenable to instruction and correction. Your contrary claims above begin now to look dishonest. For my sake, God’s sake, and your sake, please engage the material I have shown you. You will otherwise waste my time with any further discussion.
Jeff W
I would like to suggest a book, written by Dr. Roy Spencer, Dr. Spencer is principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, formerly the senior scientist for climate studies at NASA. The book is: “CLIMATE CONFUSION: HOW GLOBAL WARMING HYSTERIA LEADS TO BAD SCIENCE,PANDERING POLITICIANS, AND MISGUIDED POLICIES THAT HURT THE POOR.
Dr. Spencer states that there has been no warming in the past 7-8 years and he thinks the problem may go away if we go another 5-10 years and don’t get any warming.
Dr. Spencer also states that climate models are missing physics that occur in the real atmosphere, and it is not being included. He thinks that they are both missing something and misinterpreting what they see when they look at the climate system. None of the models include the effects of sunspot cycles because they don’t know what to model.
Baron, search for “global warming mars” at RealClimate.org, read the most plainly pertinent post from 2005, and consider the comments on the post. This should should address your number 2 and 3.
I think that you know that web-search functionality exists and is powerful. Your failure to find and refusal to seek relevant information make it very hard to believe, then, that you are genuinely curious about this question.
My credentials are few and of little import. Seek climate-science experts.
Jeff W
Baron, that’s what I was saying too.
To me, it’s ironic that the one person pointing to the centrality of other planets’ climate change is laughing at the credibility of an astrophysicist who counters his position.
Irony is circuitous
Jeff W, you recently said, “I have claimed no expertise for myself on this question [of anthropogenic global warming].” Presumably, that lets you off the hook; you are thereby free to foist your certitude on the rest of us without having to assume any accountability for it. It is a clever posture, but a transparent one.
Let’s see if your statement is true, though. To wit:
1. You have discounted the professional opinions of a pretty sizable number of scientists, including climate scientists, physicists, and others, who find the evidence for anthropogenic global warming (AGW) something less than compelling.
2. Without any academic bona fides of your own, and without any apparent background of your own in any of the relevant sciences, you have decided that another group of scientists makes a compelling case for anthropogenic causation. (Fine; it’s a free country.)
3. You have asserted – with truly breathtaking self-confidence! – that those of us who are not enlightened enough to agree with you are mere “denialists.” (You have actually gone further than that, but that by itself makes the piont.)
You want us to believe that you are not claiming expertise in these matters, but your rhetoric and your approach – the combination of #1, #2, and #3 above – give you away. Your protestation is not credible.
—– WARNING —–
—– POINTY-HEADED ACADEMIC JARGON AHEAD – PROCEED AT YOUR OWN RISK —–
Incidentally, the scientific method normally calls for the statement of a null hypothesis, which to be valid must state a condition that can be logically negated by [empirical] evidence. As a consequence, the burden of proof lies not with the AGW skeptics, but with the proponents. Nobody could possibly “prove” that “humans are not responsible for global warming.” But we can, validly, require those who think the globe is warming, and that humans are responsible for that, to state their case, and then make our judgments as to whether or not they’ve met the standard of proof.
Is it *possible* that the globe is warming? Yes, given an appropriate time horizon.
Is it *possible* that humans are causing the globe to warm? Yes, it is possible. (qb would add, “…remotely,” but that’s beside the present piont and would probably just distract us.)
But according to the scientific method, the skeptics should not, cannot, and must not be required to prove that the answers to those questions are “no.” That’s not the way we scientists do business.
If you want to argue on the basis of the “precautionary principle” – that is, that we ought to formulate policy as if AGW were the truth, whether it is or not, just to be “safe” (a debatable piont in its own right) – go right ahead. You’d have great hordes of company among the Canadians and the Europeans. But you need to realize that arguing from that basis is a political posture, not a scientific one.
qb
Baron, the organizers of RealClimate.com invited Sigurdsson to contribute on a topic (astrophysics) in which they are conversant but lack expertise. They did so primarily to address those who are abusing the results in Sigurdsson’s field to malign the work that terrestrial climate scientists do.
Expertise in terrestrial climate doesn’t grant expertise in astrophysics. So climate scientists call on astrophysicists to test the astrophysical component of their work. The astrophysicists corroborate the theories at the intersection of their fields — a corroboration that they have offered before and now renew in the face of naysayers — and leave the climate scientists to work in the fields where the astrophysicists themselves lack expertise. Each humbly (and reasonably) submits to the expertise of the other.
The intersections between climate science and mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, marine biology, or human medicine are quite small inasmuch as they bear on the practice of climate science. Experts in those fields have little instruction to offer climate scientists and their opinions on climate science don’t carry much weight. But these are the very people who are lending their credentials to the Global Warming Petition Project that Big Mike referred to. Those with ostensibly greater capacity to instruct climate scientists who cooperate with this project do so in the face of a peer-review process (across the community notwithstanding poor practice at some of its institutions) that has rejected their objections, including the notorious paper of Robinson et al. that the GWPP lauds as their centerpiece of argumentation.
It is in that sense that I intended to argue for a merely peripheral voice for non-climate scientists. Where other scientific communities offer expertise, climate scientists should and do listen. But those most fit to tell us the state of climate science are the climate scientists. If the IEEE gives an unanswered challenge to the state of climate science on the basis of peer-reviewed electronic research, then all of us are worse off for the intransigence of the climate scientists. But the IEEE hasn’t done so. Only electrical engineers who defy peer review are offering (supposedly unanswered) challenges. To them I will not listen.
That nuance was missing from my previous writing. I apologize if you genuinely found it to be an obstacle to understanding my position.
Jeff W
Qb, I continue to contest that a sizable number of experts working within the scientific framework dispute AGW. As I have explained before, I rely on what I find to be the only scientific community that speaks on the issue, and they support AGW. I do assert that those who disagree with this scientific community are or are close to being denialists or pseudo-scientists with respect to climate.
I have no expertise on climate scientist. I have more than a passing familiarity with identifying pseudo-science; I’ve read lots on the topic and devoted much effort to it. I will gladly contemplate whether or not arguing what I have argued from such a position constitutes a dodge, as you believe.
Now concerning falsification: the scientific community recognizes that any AGW-falsifying hypothesis or data intepretation is a legitimate object of scientific interest. Indeed, climate scientists proceed by actively seeking such hypotheses and readings. The community finds, however, that no such challenge has arisen that the present theory of climate doesn’t address successfully. No credible challenge is known.
Experts have, however, very credibly challenged all the popular “skeptic” suggestions for non-warming descriptions of earth’s climate and non-AGW explanations for a conceded warming. The defining characteristic of any type of denialism is failure of the deniers to accept the verdict of such challenges, and AGW “skepticism” has exhibited this characteristic in spades.
That doesn’t mean, as you have noted, that AGW is true. But no conceived challenge to AGW has survived inspection, while unsuccessful attempts at falsifying AGW mount. This is why AGW stands as a scientific theory.
Please note that I have offered no policy prescriptions on the basis of accepting AGW. But, as I assume you well know, all policy proposals on the basis of science are supported only by theories. That’s all science has to offer.
Jeff W
Baron, your latest statement concerning other planets marks you as a denialist: you have been offered countervailing evidence and arguments and you have refused them. About this, I can do nothing. If you want to want seek truth, you will have to make the effort of self-discipline.
Jeff W
What was that old adage, again?
Good one, Eddy!