[Vision2020] Scientific Consensus: Global Warming: Skepticism &Replicatability

Sat Oct 20 12:56:14 PDT 2007

Gary --

You apparently believe in the invalidity of modern scientific consensus.

Since that's the case, contact me off-line. I have a cold fusion
powered aetheric perpetual motion machine for sale--cheap.

-- ACS

On 10/20/07, g. crabtree <jampot at roadrunner.com> wrote:
>
>
> It would be much easier to swallow some of the Gospel According To Moffett
> with regard to global warming were it not for a few minor points.
>
> A. Scientists are people who have been wrong about things like this in the
> past. I won't bore you with the global cooling story or the rubric of
> accepting predictions 50 years out when the weather cant be accurately
> predicted for next week. Suffice it to say many past predictions for global
> catastrophe have not come to pass.
>
> B. Scientists are people who by their very nature are among the worst of the
> herd type animals. They go to the same schools, learn the same concepts from
> the same instructors. They want to be respected by their peers and their
> mentors and you don't achieve this by going against the accepted consensus
> of the day. Look where the Nobel prize went this year for goodness sake.
>
> C. Scientists are people and people lie. Mr. Schwallers post provided fine
> examples of this phenomena. Another fine example would be a certain Nobel
> prize winning movie.
>
> D. Scientists are people and people like to be in the spotlight. The
> spotlight shines brightest on those who proclaim gloom and doom. There isn't
> much attention for those who express the notion that things will most likely
> sort themselves out. Anyone from the "it'll be OK" crowd get a letter from
> Oslo?
>
> E. Scientists are people who want to be taken seriously. One of the easiest
> ways to achieve this is to make serious predictions. I predict that the sea
> will rise up so high that dead polar bears will be washing up in Washtucna.
> Where's my check for $1.8 mil?
>
> I don't know if human induced global warming is a reality or not. I do know
> that accepting every word that falls from the mouth of a scientist as a
> divine message from on high is probably not a great idea. I mean really, I'm
> guessing that most of the folks on this list know a scientist or two. I'm
> related to a few. I wouldn't modify my day based on their predictions. Why
> would I drastically alter my life based on their prognostication skills?
>
> I know this comes across as being all medieval and anti-science and all but,
> enough with the endless doomsday carping that we have been subjected to for
> the past few years. We have heard you. Endless repetition is not a solution.
> How about if the eggheads get together with the real heroes of the
> information age, the engineers and come up with something that more closely
> resembles a solution. (I mean a real solution. Not the walk, ride a bike,
> and car pool eye wash) I'd rather listen to a few years of here's the plan,
> guys, then anymore repetitions of here's the problem.
>
> g
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ted Moffett
> To: lfalen ; J Ford
> Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
> Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2007 2:07 AM
> Subject: [Vision2020] Scientific Consensus: Global Warming: Skepticism
> &Replicatability
>
>
>
> All-
>
> One of the main road blocks that must be addressed to solve the global
> warming crisis, is the large number of people who, for one reason or
> another, do not accept that there is an overwhelming scientific consensus
> that significant action is necessary to prevent substantive negative
> impacts.  The choices these people make as consumers, in lifestyle, and as
> voters, are hampering efforts to mitigate this crisis.  They would rather
> not bother to study the science, or only choose to believe the small
> minority of scientists who insist the consensus is in error.  Or maybe they
> don't believe the scientific community or the scientific method is to be
> trusted, or is reliable.  Or for many, even if they fully acknowledge the
> problem, they are too dependent on their current lifestyle to make the
> changes required to transition away from a fossil fuel/energy dependent way
> of living.
>
> For those who insist they do not believe the scientific consensus, the
> hundreds of scientists who have spent years of their life studying this
> issue, and have emphatically concluded that human emissions are dangerously
> warming the planet, it appears that reasoning with a brick wall might be
> more rewarding... At least the bricks will not respond in a manner that
> insults a person's intelligence.
>
> Studying the minority views of the scientists who reject the scientific
> consensus that human emissions are dangerously warming the planet is
> necessary to continue to test the veracity of the consensus.  Indeed, as
> this process of skepticism on this issue continues, the self corrective
> mechanism of replicatability of findings by other scientists, perhaps the
> most fundamental principle of the scientific method, to insure that the
> science on this issue is not corrupt, fabricated, politically biased, etc.,
> the consensus that human emissions are dangerously warming the planet has
> only increased.  And the claim that human induced global warming will not
> have drastic consequences is more and more an incredible position.
>
> At the bottom of the PDF document at the first link below are approximately
> 70 published papers on climate science that support the conclusions on the
> science of climate change in the Stern Report.  No doubt Al Gore and other
> environmental loonies have conspired with these scientists in political
> subversion to spread socialism and other dastardly nefarious plots, in a
> vast global cabal to undermine the free market system, using global warming
> as a boogeyman to scare the bejezzus out of the naive gullible hoi polloi.
>
> And I've fallen for it!
>
> Chapter 1: The science of climate change:
>
> http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/3/6/Chapter_1_The_Science_of_Climate_Change.pdf
>
> Stern Review on the economics of climate change:
>
> http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/stern_review_report.cfm
>
> --------------
> Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
>
> On 10/19/07, lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com> wrote:
> > Ted
> > I don't think that you should so easily dismiss George Willl's comments.
> He is just a journalist and a lay person on global waming but  Lomberg whow
> he sites is a scientist and his statements should be taken seriously. Global
> warming has plusses an minuses as Will pointed out. Not everything is
> negative. Glogal warming by itself may be a benefit overall. What problems
> there are are better solved by the free market system(with some government
> guide lines) not draconian government regulation which would stifle the
> economy. This is not to say we should not be concerned about air pollution.
> It is a problem and measures should be taken to curtail it. There has
> already been some improvement in this area.  As an example, in the 1960"s
> you could smell PFI in Moscow. Now you can hardly ever smell it from just
> acrose the river.  Efforts to find cleaner fuel should be continued.
> > Roger
>
> -----------------
> Ok, I'm going to bite on this one.
>
> As much as I really hate the nay-sayers regarding the "global warming"
> -so-called-issue, I'd like to ask this:
>
> IF the ice caps are melting as quickly as is being stated, (a) doesn't this
> put more water into the atmospher, i.e., through evaporation; (b) doesn't
> this mean there will be more water to fall as rain; (c) the areas that are
> experiencing drought right now - won't they in fact see an increase in water
> through rain and/or the swelling of rivers, creeks, water-ways; (d) what are
> the pro/cons of using ocean water, processing it and putting it into pipes
> as un-salted water for communities in need?  I see adds where a company is
> saying they "capture" billions of gallons of water a year for use - in what
> way?
>
> And no, I really don't care to get into it about the "global warming"
> alarmists.  I'm just asking the above questions.
>
> Thank you.
>
> J  :]
>
>
>
>  ________________________________
>
>
> =======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
>
> =======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>