How Scientists Got Climate Change So Wrong

[Cow Poke]

CP - you probably should be. Because I certainly am not going to lay down and let you blame me for a mistake you made.

OK, ya got me --- how am I blaming you for a mistake I made?

[Teallaura]

OK, ya got me --- how am I blaming you for a mistake I made?

You posted in Nat Sci.

[Teallaura]

That's the thing that gets me. We know the greenhouse effect exists on Earth and other planets, because we've measured it there. We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas both because physics demands it and because we've measured that too. But somehow people seem to think scientists are in some way biased for expecting that adding a known greenhouse gas to the atmosphere would actually cause it to behave as a greenhouse gas.

Eggs. They are high in cholesterol. They must cause heart disease.

Until they don't.

No, wait, they do.

Er, no, they're actually good for you.

But wait...






And that mess was based on actual studies, not computer modelling. A given isolated fact is not a definitive projection of outcome.

Scientists have mortgages like the rest of us - and we've seen how well that turns out when science meets politics. It's far more amazing to me that anyone takes science in polity seriously at all.

[oxmixmudd]

So, you would refuse to heed solid data that shows the effect of greenhouse gasses on temperature because the complexity of a living being might have created conflicting data on which foods are best for a human being over a lifetime?

[Cow Poke]

You posted in Nat Sci.

Well, yeah, while...

A) failing to worship at the altar of the climate science gods
2) failing to be totally consumed with daily spewings forth of all manner of criticisms and railings against the Orange One.

[One Bad Pig]

It is a jab, a specific sort of sarcastic criticism, of those in the anti-climate change community that try to cast aspersions on the science of climate change over what is generally presented as the climate science community exaggerating the effects of AGW. What the author is doing is pointing out that in some cases that same scientific community underestimated those same effects -significantly so. What this sort of criticism does is bring into stark focus both the dangers of large corporations and other special interest groups funding misinformation at the expense of the long term well being of all of us and the ignorance of those that due to their fears and anti-science biases willingly accept that same misinformation over the careful research of legitimate scientific organizations.

And it bears mentioning that you are actually perverting the focus of the article, which is NOT to be critical of the science and scientists, but the political and corporate forces that have made their voices harder to hear and trust and forced them to be wary of speaking loudly about the data in the true direction it leads - especially when that data shows things are capable of going bad quickly.

I am well aware of the focus of the article, Jim. We're talking about the title. I will concede that the title may well be from the editor rather than the author, and so my comments may have been misplaced in that regard.

Juvenal is on record as being highly disparaging of headlines which do not accurately reflect the content of the associated article, but perhaps the Grey Lady gets a pass.

[oxmixmudd]

Well, yeah, while...

A) failing to worship at the altar of the climate science gods
2) failing to be totally consumed with daily spewings forth of all manner of criticisms and railings against the Orange One.

3B) failing to think logically or carefully.

[oxmixmudd]

I am well aware of the focus of the article, Jim. We're talking about the title. I will concede that the title may well be from the editor rather than the author, and so my comments may have been misplaced in that regard.

Juvenal is on record as being highly disparaging of headlines which do not accurately reflect the content of the associated article, but perhaps the Grey Lady gets a pass.

In the post I replied to, you were also talking about the content of the article:

[the title sic]Doesn't appear to be a pun, either; the author seems to genuinely think its[AGW sic] affects have been vastly underestimated by scientists.

And that statement, the one in bold and italic, and discussing the content of the article as it relates to the title, is the target of the portion of my reply listed below for clarity:

And it bears mentioning that you are actually perverting the focus of the article [in the above sic], which is NOT to be critical of the science and scientists, but the political and corporate forces that have made their voices harder to hear and trust and forced them to be wary of speaking loudly about the data in the true direction it leads - especially when that data shows things are capable of going bad quickly.

[Cow Poke]

3B) failing to think logically or carefully.

Yes, I think you are, because you have pretty much alienated everybody here who calls Jesus Lord, and you have allied yourself with everybody here who is an enemy of the cross, and would stab you in the back in heartbeat if you ever tried to share Jesus with them.

And some of your little emotional eruptions have been far from logical or careful, Jim.

[One Bad Pig]

In the post I replied to, you were also talking about the content of the article:



And that statement, the one in bold and italic, and discussing the content of the article as it relates to the title, is the target of the portion of my reply listed below for clarity:

When talking about A, while B may be true, that B is true does not necessarily negate the point of A. This is a valid point whether you happen to like me or not. If you're just spoiling for another point of contention, I'll bow out. Thanks.