Rush Limbaugh: Hurricanes are a liberal conspiracy for promoting climate change

[Mountain Man]

Tyson is speaking more about scientific methodology... which he is well qualified to do...than climate change as such. Although he believes the scientific consensus to be correct in this instance. He said he has no patience for those who, as he put it, "cherry pick" scientific studies according to their belief system”, which is what you do.

He went on: "It requires a whole system of people's research all leaning in the same direction, all pointing to the same consequences," he added. "That's what we have with climate change, as induced by human conduct."

Sorry, but he's not an "expert witness" here, he's just bowing down and worshiping at the feet of his god.

"Do not doubt The Consensus, thou scoffer!"

You want to talk about faith? There's your faith right there.

The fact is, "The Consensus" has been wrong about quite a lot of things throughout history, and there's good reason to think they're wrong about this. Yes, the scientific process tends to get it right eventually (often with a number of false steps along the way), but as Michael Crichton astutely observed, "The Consensus" is only invoked when the evidence is not strong enough in and of itself. Who says, "It is the consensus of scientists that the earth is round"? Nobody, because the evidence speaks for itself.

Why do you dispute the scientific consensus, especially when the consequences are so dire if correct?

Oh, so it doesn't matter what the evidence actually says if we presume "dire consequences", is that it?

"Why would you doubt The Consensus that the earth is flat when the consequences of sailing off the edge and into the abyss are so dire!"

Oh, and then there's this:

Source: Breitbart

Climate alarmists have finally admitted that they’ve got it wrong on global warming.

This is the inescapable conclusion of a landmark paper, published in Nature Geoscience, which finally admits that the computer models have overstated the impact of carbon dioxide on climate and that the planet is warming more slowly than predicted.

The paper – titled Emission budgets and pathways consistent with limiting warming to 1.5 °C – concedes that it is now almost impossible that the doomsday predictions made in the last IPCC Assessment Report of 1.5 degrees C warming above pre-industrial levels by 2022 will come true.

In order for that to happen, temperatures would have to rise by a massive 0.5 degrees C in five years.

Since global mean temperatures rarely rise by even as much as 0.25 degrees C in a decade, that would mean the planet would have to do 20 years’ worth of extreme warming in the space of the next five years.

This, the scientists admit, is next to impossible. Which means their “carbon budget” – the amount of CO2 they say is needed to increase global warming by a certain degree – is wrong. This in turn means that the computer models they’ve been using to scare the world with tales of man-made climate doom are wrong too.

One researcher – from the alarmist side of the argument, not the skeptical one – has described the paper’s conclusion as “breathtaking” in its implications.

He’s right. The scientists who’ve written this paper aren’t climate skeptics. They’re longstanding warmists, implacable foes of climate skeptics, and they’re also actually the people responsible for producing the IPCC’s carbon budget.

In other words, this represents the most massive climbdown from the alarmist camp.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...lobal-warming/

© Copyright Original Source

Of course the paper still tries to spin it as "We were wrong, but we're still totally right!" but it's a fairly damning indictment against "The Consensus". What it comes down to is that they were not just wrong but wildly wrong about man's ability to significantly affect the earth's climate. But give them another couple of decades; maybe they'll eventually get around to admitting that man's affect is, in fact, insignificant and nothing to worry about it.

[MaxVel]

Why do you dispute the scientific consensus,

Because that's precisely how science advances in knowledge - when someone disputes what has been the scientific consensus. Often they are wrong, but sometimes they are not. And disputing the consensus pushes real scientists (you know, the ones who are actually open-minded and willing to change their theories to better fit the data) to reassess the evidence and seek more evidence. Which is very healthy for science as a whole.

[Sea of red]

Kaku? true. But he just pontificates with so much arrogance. It really makes me want to gag. He is supposed to be a science "spokesperson" which you would think would entail making people actually like you and think of you as friendly, not some arrogant stuck up twit.

Kaku's attempt at time travel.

[Sea of red]

I pretty much can't stand any of the current crop of celebrity scientists that the Discovery and Science channel trot out on every single one of their shows. About the only one I like is Phil Plait. I know him through being a member of his old Bad Astronomy forum many years ago before he became "famous" - he seems to be a pretty nice guy and doesn't speak beyond what he knows. One that I particularly don't like is Michio Kaku. The arrogance of that guy really irks me. He is as bad as Tyson.

No, he's far worse.

Most celebrity scientists today are just too hyper, full of esoteric woo, and in love with themselves.

My influences were Carl Sagan, Steven Weinberg, Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking, Martin Reese, Stephen Gould, and Timothy Ferris. Now there where some guys that knew how to deduce complex scientific matters into simple explanations, without making absurd comparisons or misleading new age woo. They understood that people reading science books didn't need to have cartoonish caricatures, nor was it necessary to incorporate overly speculative science to make the subject matter interesting.

[Tassman]

He's pretty good when he sticks to his area of expertise but he wants to portray himself as some sort of polymath and that leads him into making some stupid statements. His whole take concerning Giordano Bruno in Cosmos was almost painful to watch. He wanted to make Christians look ignorant but only succeeded in making himself look that way.

But the Christians were wrong in their condemnation of Copernican theory and its extension by Bruno. Bruno was tried for heresy by the Roman Inquisition on charges of denying several core Catholic doctrines. The Church was doing then what many Evangelicals do today, i.e. erroneously subordinating scientific knowledge and scientific experiment to religious presuppositions.

[Tassman]

Sorry, but he's not an "expert witness" here, he's just bowing down and worshiping at the feet of his god.

"Do not doubt The Consensus, thou scoffer!"

You want to talk about faith? There's your faith right there.

The fact is, "The Consensus" has been wrong about quite a lot of things throughout history, and there's good reason to think they're wrong about this. Yes, the scientific process tends to get it right eventually (often with a number of false steps along the way), but as Michael Crichton astutely observed, "The Consensus" is only invoked when the evidence is not strong enough in and of itself. Who says, "It is the consensus of scientists that the earth is round"? Nobody, because the evidence speaks for itself.


Oh, so it doesn't matter what the evidence actually says if we presume "dire consequences", is that it?

"Why would you doubt The Consensus that the earth is flat when the consequences of sailing off the edge and into the abyss are so dire!"

Oh, and then there's this:

Source: Breitbart

Climate alarmists have finally admitted that they’ve got it wrong on global warming.

This is the inescapable conclusion of a landmark paper, published in Nature Geoscience, which finally admits that the computer models have overstated the impact of carbon dioxide on climate and that the planet is warming more slowly than predicted.

The paper – titled Emission budgets and pathways consistent with limiting warming to 1.5 °C – concedes that it is now almost impossible that the doomsday predictions made in the last IPCC Assessment Report of 1.5 degrees C warming above pre-industrial levels by 2022 will come true.

In order for that to happen, temperatures would have to rise by a massive 0.5 degrees C in five years.

Since global mean temperatures rarely rise by even as much as 0.25 degrees C in a decade, that would mean the planet would have to do 20 years’ worth of extreme warming in the space of the next five years.

This, the scientists admit, is next to impossible. Which means their “carbon budget” – the amount of CO2 they say is needed to increase global warming by a certain degree – is wrong. This in turn means that the computer models they’ve been using to scare the world with tales of man-made climate doom are wrong too.

One researcher – from the alarmist side of the argument, not the skeptical one – has described the paper’s conclusion as “breathtaking” in its implications.

He’s right. The scientists who’ve written this paper aren’t climate skeptics. They’re longstanding warmists, implacable foes of climate skeptics, and they’re also actually the people responsible for producing the IPCC’s carbon budget.

In other words, this represents the most massive climbdown from the alarmist camp..

© Copyright Original Source

Source: Breitbart

Oh right! Your bible Breitbart is known for its coverage of science.

As per Evolution, Climate Change is beyond debate. I suggest you educate yourself.

https://climate.nasa.gov/

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...lobal-warming/

© Copyright Original Source

Of course the paper still tries to spin it as "We were wrong, but we're still totally right!" but it's a fairly damning indictment against "The Consensus". What it comes down to is that they were not just wrong but wildly wrong about man's ability to significantly affect the earth's climate. But give them another couple of decades; maybe they'll eventually get around to admitting that man's affect is, in fact, insignificant and nothing to worry about it

...and if they're not wrong?

[Sea of red]

Neil Dumbass Tyson is an astrophysicist. He's as qualified to speak about the earth's climate as Dawkins is to speak about theology.

Usually when one majors in physics or astronomy at a university they are introduced to other sciences along the way. This is particularly the case when an astronomy major focuses more on planetary science research, as opposed to cosmology and the physics of the universe -- or 'astrophysics' if you like. Learning about the atmospheres of Venus and Mars naturally introduces you to studies done on the Earths atmosphere and climate related research. Open up any standard astronomy textbook and you'll find some pages covering man made climate change, and the evidence supporting it, so it's not like the topics are complete unrelated -- there is a lot of overlap actually.

Many climate researchers actually have pure physics degrees, or even mathematics backgrounds. So it's a safe assumption that while Tyson might not be as well versed as a researcher, he has surely read up on the scientific literature at the professional level, and understands it as well as guys like myself, Lenny, and Sylas.

[Sea of red]

Because that's precisely how science advances in knowledge - when someone disputes what has been the scientific consensus. Often they are wrong, but sometimes they are not. And disputing the consensus pushes real scientists (you know, the ones who are actually open-minded and willing to change their theories to better fit the data) to reassess the evidence and seek more evidence. Which is very healthy for science as a whole.

Perfectly fine, but until they win the court of opinion of their peers, they should not be treated as equals in the public discussion either. They most prove their ideas like every other scientist had too, instead of playing politics.

[MaxVel]

Perfectly fine, but until they win the court of opinion of their peers, they should not be treated as equals in the public discussion either. They most prove their ideas like every other scientist had too, instead of playing politics.

Agree. My problem with climate science is that I feel that both sides are playing politics.
Maybe that's just part of the nature of the issue - climate changes are going to affect us all, as are solutions (if any), so it's going to be political. Other areas of science are perhaps as immediate to the broader public, so controversy there is less inclined to be politicised.

[Sea of red]

Agree. My problem with climate science is that I feel that both sides are playing politics.
Maybe that's just part of the nature of the issue - climate changes are going to affect us all, as are solutions (if any), so it's going to be political. Other areas of science are perhaps as immediate to the broader public, so controversy there is less inclined to be politicised.

Precisely. Public interest in black hole physics is not exactly high, so things like information loss are not controversies that can be politicized. Climate change OTOH, is something that effects public policy in a multitude of ways, so it's a given that some scientists are going to be involved in those discussions. Like it or not, though the consensus view that man is the driving force behind the recent warming is the one that has to be the default, as it's overwhelming supported by almost all working Earth scientists. Those who are skeptics that wish to overturn the science itself should settle the issue on the scientific battlefield, not the court of public opinion -- where people can't make heads or tails of the underlying science anyways. That's what every other scientist that overturned a consensus did, and they should be no exception to that histroical standard.

[MaxVel]

Precisely. Public interest in black hole physics is not exactly high, so things like information loss are not controversies that can be politicized. Climate change OTOH, is something that effects public policy in a multitude of ways, so it's a given that some scientists are going to be involved in those discussions. Like it or not, though the consensus view that man is the driving force behind the recent warming is the one that has to be the default, as it's overwhelming supported by almost all working Earth scientists.

Yep.

Those who are skeptics that wish to overturn the science itself should settle the issue on the scientific battlefield, not the court of public opinion -- where people can't make heads or tails of the underlying science anyways. That's what every other scientist that overturned a consensus did, and they should be no exception to that histroical standard.

Yeah, except that the problem we have is that it's not solely the skeptics who drag this into the court of public opinion. For example, calling dissenting voices 'deniers' is rhetoric and labelling that attempts to divert from the issue to the (supposed) character of the dissenters.

Secondly, the prevailing (political) view of the science makes it hard for dissenting views to be fairly heard; and tempts scientists to lean to the consensus view. Scientists are people, and few people can be completely objective, especially when their personal interests are concerned.

[Sea of red]

Yeah, except that the problem we have is that it's not solely the skeptics who drag this into the court of public opinion. For example, calling dissenting voices 'deniers' is rhetoric and labelling that attempts to divert from the issue to the (supposed) character of the dissenters.

As someone that's followed the issue closely, I can say both sides have their jerks. There's a case to be made that some of the predictions of current climate modeling simulations are wrong, or not supported by the evidence -- some might call it alarmism. That have I have no problem with and I agree we must research those issues further. But those that seriously question whether the recent warming is the result of an increased greenhouse effect brought on by humans are just shills out for a money grab. It's really only the same three or four guys every time: Lindzen, Spencer, Christy, and one or two others I've probably forgotten.

Secondly, the prevailing (political) view of the science makes it hard for dissenting views to be fairly heard; and tempts scientists to lean to the consensus view. Scientists are people, and few people can be completely objective, especially when their personal interests are concerned.

I'm afraid that's simply human nature we're countering here. All we can do is make our best judgements and try to inform ourselves.

[rogue06]

But the Christians were wrong in their condemnation of Copernican theory and its extension by Bruno. Bruno was tried for heresy by the Roman Inquisition on charges of denying several core Catholic doctrines. The Church was doing then what many Evangelicals do today, i.e. erroneously subordinating scientific knowledge and scientific experiment to religious presuppositions.

Those charges of heresy had little or nothing to do with Bruno's remarks about the nature of the universe or anything to do with science as some today try to make it out to be.

[Mountain Man]

Oh right! Your bible Breitbart is known for its coverage of science.

As per Evolution, Climate Change is beyond debate. I suggest you educate yourself.

https://climate.nasa.gov/


...and if they're not wrong?

Insisting that a hypothesis "is beyond debate" is unscientific. I thought you were a believer in the scientific process?

But I do like how you try to subtly shift the burden of proof. Does that work for religious debates, too? "What if Christians aren't wrong?" Are you convinced now?

[Mountain Man]

Agree. My problem with climate science is that I feel that both sides are playing politics.
Maybe that's just part of the nature of the issue - climate changes are going to affect us all, as are solutions (if any), so it's going to be political. Other areas of science are perhaps as immediate to the broader public, so controversy there is less inclined to be politicised.

The problem is that for one side, the solutions are almost entirely political, like the Paris agreement which was designed to kneecap the US to make it easier for other countries to compete with us economically. It has nothing to do with saving the planet.