Quote:
Originally Posted by Polynikes
Hey, jack.
I disagree. In order to feel as "sure" about GW as you apparently do, you must have faith. Faith that your global warming crowd is sticking to the science. Faith that they aren't driven by an agenda.
If you don't have faith, how else can one explain you refusing to vet their methods? Or, taking their word for it regarding alternate viewpoints.
If it isn't faith, then I shudder to imagine what one would call it.
... and so forth
|
Yes, poly, I have faith in science’s ability to help us understand the characteristics and causes of issues like GW/GCC. And I did vet the methods used re: the temperature reconstruction.
This is a great summary of the science involved.
But the “hockey stick” issues relative to MBH98 PCA analysis is a minuscule piece of the GW/GCC issue, and yet you are fixated on it and cling to outdated arguments re: the controversy. All of the concerns expressed by Wegman have been addressed, but the echo chamber keeps reverberating ... keep posting that echo, poly.
The fact remains that sudden global warming has been confirmed many times over, using several methodologies outside of the MBH PCA effort, and by scientists around the world. There’s virtually no argument about whether or not GW is occurring – it is. That’s not the opinion of 42 insular scientists; it’s the judgment of thousands of scientists around the globe.
Your “bad method + good result = good science” parrot comment is also BS as mistakes and/or sub-optimal methods are corrected going forward – this happens all of the time in science. … there are no such correcting devices concerning SoF product except for by the author himself.
I agree with parts of your “what now?” comment, including high-yield renewables, oil for blood, and mining. The WWF international commission approach is a bit odd, but we do need global participation with rules etched in trade agreements. I’d add a carbon tax, remove corporate subsidies and actions/methods such as “feebates” and placing huge incentive-driven emphasis on efficiency improvements re: every aspect of our lives.
The bizarre comedy part is witnessing your self-congratulating claims about being open-minded and that your continued "listening to both sides” when clearly that’s not the case … and then you inappropriately berate others. That is Hypocrisy.
My not choosing to read SoF isn’t hypocrisy, poly, when trusted GCC science experts point out a list of misrepresentations of GCC science which contributed to the author’s conclusions, and by extension, his readers. It’s no different than not wasting money and time at a movie when a trusted reviewer has panned it and given details as to why.
My assertion that mistakes/shortcomings in Mann’s work, or that of any scientist, should be corrected, implications reassessed, and lessons-learned adjustments applied going forward, couldn’t be further from hypocrisy. I direct that kind of assessment and action professionally all of the time.
It’s not open-minded to demonize Mann and charge him with dishonesty in support of an agenda when Wegman himself makes a point to discount that. Of course the front-groups ignore that part of Wegan’s assessment, and instead create a distorting perception they in turn feed to the “followers”.
It’s not open-minded to link/parrot industry front groups and politicians whose language is clearly distorting and reeks of agenda … you are mentally in lock-step with them.
It’s not open-minded to assert the scientists value perks/recognition more than the science and pursuit of knowledge. (a view no doubt influenced, in part, by Crichton’s leap of logic equating GCC to eugenics study)
It’s not open-minded to lock into the dem/pub divide relative to scientific research and its implications. I can understand vested corporate interests protecting their advantaged status quo – I don’t understand what drives much of the pub electorate to fall-in-line behind those efforts. It’s pathetically dysfunctional. I, for example, wrote a letter to Levin, Durbin and the Energy Committee to express my displeasure re: implementing corn-based ethanol subsidies and legislation … the science itself isn’t political.
As I said, poly, we’re done. Feel free to engage GS.