Ed Begley Jr. gets it perfectly right here.
.
.
What makes me laugh about the position held by climate change deniers is their claim that global warming is a hoax which somehow has hundreds of thousands of scientists and government officials from around the world working in unison to fool an entire world’s population. The thought process does not get any dumber than this and demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of how the scientific process operates.
As Begley points out, science is all about peer review. No organization polices itself with more rigor and honesty than the scientific community. If a scientist gets it wrong, then you can bet your last dollar that his ideas will be ripped to shreds by other scientists. This is what they do. This is what science does. There is no tolerance for error or conjecture which cannot be supported by scientific fact and/or experiment. To think that a million scientists would choose to deceive the world on climate change is the thinking of fools.
One last point on the dolt’s idiotic rage about the government walking into his home and forcing him to stop using incandescent lightbulbs. As someone noted, did this guy complain when the government outlawed lead in paint or asbestos in homes? Did he shout out, “I don’t want the government telling me I can’t paint my baby’s room with lead paint. Stay out of my house!”
To wrap this up, let me quote myself from a previous post.
Climate change deniers work hard to make it appear that there is a real debate going on within the scientific community on whether or not man has had a significant impact on global warming. There is no such debate beyond the propaganda one hears from conservatives on Fox and elsewhere. The real debate concerns itself with the mechanisms which drive global warming and not on whether it exists or on whether man has had a detrimental effect on climate change.
Unless one is a qualified scientist, all we can do is take a look at who is saying what. On one side we have the UN’s International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) composed of the world’s leading scientists. We have the top scientific institutions from EVERY industrialized nation in the world all on the same page. We have the disciplines of climatology, geology, chemistry, physics, etc. all working independently and coming to basically the same conclusion: man is a major cause of global warming. We have a ton of peer-reviewed articles published in the leading scientific journals to back up their claims.
On the other side we have a handful of scientists (literally, a handful), conservative politicians and industry people who discount the case for global warming. A large number of the denier’s scientists have been shown to be on the Exxon payroll and Exxon itself has spent millions on lobbyists and propaganda campaigns to create the illusion of a scientific debate. There are no peer-reviewed scientific studies to which the deniers can point to to back up their fraudulent claims. This is a faux debate.
___
To receive email notifications of new posts from MarioPiperniDotCom, click on Subscribe.
.
 |
What part did “Science” play in the ’70’s when we were going to be destroyed by Global Cooling? Is there absolutely no chance the Science and/or Scientists could be wrong? Again?
And yes, I do believe the Earth is warming. I just don’t think there is too much man can do about it.
The lead paint/asbestos comparison to Incandescent bulbs is not fair. Lead and Asbestos are harmful to our health. Light Bubs aren’t. If anything, the NEW bulbs pose environmental and health difficulties because they contain mercury.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kate-kelly/green-light-bulbs-have-me_b_261953.html
Follow the money. If you can point out that deniers take money from Exxon, be aware that scientists get their funding from governments. Governments regulate. If there wasn’t a crisis, politicians couldn’t write laws (thus justifing their existance) and scientists couldn’t get funding.
Both sides of the debate are after money. Exxon wants profits, the government wants taxes (via cap-and-trade). At least with Exxon I can refuse to buy their products.
Tommy, with all due respect, your statement tells me that you do not understand the scientific process.
I don’t understand why the prospect of standing in your yard and watching the electric meter run backwards doesn’t appeal to more people.
Tennessean, with all due respect, you have no idea what you’re talking about. You ask what part did science play in the 70s Global Cooling debate?
Answer: everything.
“Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth’s surface and atmosphere along with a posited commencement of glaciation. This hypothesis never had significant scientific support, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of press reports that did not accurately reflect the scientific understanding of ice age cycles, and a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s. General scientific opinion is that the Earth has not durably cooled, but undergone global warming throughout the 20th century.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
Global cooling was simply a hypothesis put out by some scientists. It was quickly enough shown to be untrue by…are you ready?…by scientists…but not before Time (or Newsweek) published a global cooling story which took hold. This is what I meant by science policing itself. Untruths or hypothesis not supported by fact or scientific experiment are quickly thrown out.
You heard this story on Fox. It’s one of the stories deniers use to try to make their idiotic case. You fell for it in the same way most sheep blindly follow whatever it is sheep follow.
Mario, I write software as a hobby. I know how to think logically. I remember when the debate was over how soon the next glacier would hit us. I believe the current debate is motivated by politics and money.
Having said that, I also believe in recycling and conservation. I practice both as personal choices because of an awareness grounded it education.
Ok, Tommy, then please answer me this. Do you think that hundreds of thousands of scientists from every industrialized country in the world have conspired to pull off this “hoax” for the simple reason of pulling in government grants? Do you honestly believe that?
And in the event that your answer is no, do you then believe that the world’s entire scientific community could be so wrong on global warming?
I dunno Mario, call me cynical if you want, but yes, I think hundreds of “scientists” have worked to push their ideas of ecology on the world. I believe that there are thousands of additional scientists who have kept quiet to get along.
Ecology is a good thing, I support it wholeheartedly both in ideology and practice. But there are people on this planet who feel that mankind’s urges need to be controlled. They live their lives on a mission of controlling every aspect of our lives. I tend to resist those attempts at control. I believe people are basically good, and that people will make responsible decisions when given all the facts.
Tommy, two points.
a) It’s not hundreds or even thousands of scientists. It’s about the ENTIRE world’s scientific community essentially on the same page.
b) This is not about ecology. It’s about trying to save a planet and the 7 billion people who live on it…and that’s not an exaggeration.
@Tommy Pane
That’s quite a conspiracy theory you got there Tommy; that the whole of the scientific community says one climate change is happening and is real and you think some of the scientists just aren’t speaking their mind because they are what? scared? The argument just doesn’t make sense Tommy
I’ve never claimed to be perfect Janine.
I think that fear of losing one’s source of funding is a real threat to many scientists. When they’re faced with the choice of a) losing their funding, or b) staying quiet about questionable conclusions relating to what they see as a positive movement, most scientists will choose to just go alone.
And Mario, “It’s about trying to save a planet and the 7 billion people who live on it…and that’s not an exaggeration.” A little dramatic don’t you think? We can’t control the economy, a completely man made environment. You think we can control the planet’s climate?
Again, don’t get me wrong here. I’m all for lowering our dependence on carbon fuels, but lets just do it. Build more nukes and get electic cars on the road. Why cap-and-trade the hell out of everyone, unless it’s just for the money.
Tommy, the key word in my statement is trying to save the planet. If we listen to conservatives and fail to even acknowledge that humans play a detrimental role in furthering global warming, than what hope is there?
Tommy, we can’t control the economy without proper regulation.
I think it’s egotistical to think that we could save the planet. Whatever role humans did play in affecting climate change over the last 100 years or so, could be corrected with nukes and electric cars.
In my opinion, problem solving is the act of finding out what causes the problem, and then fixing the cause. If car fumes and coal fired generators contribute so much to global warming, change to nukes and let the Tesla Motors guys loose. My office faces a major freeway with about 50,000 cars a day passing within 150 yards of my window. If all I heard was the hum of tires on the pavement, I would be one happy camper.
Now, have liberals played any role in stopping new nukes from being built?
Mario says, “You heard this story on Fox.”
Dammit Mario! NO!!!!!!! I ran across this information once while researching the internet trying to find sources to support the fact that a growing cadre of Scientists are not so sure of the “Science” behind Global Warming anymore.
You need to understand that many of us are just as curious and thirst for knowledge just as you do. I rarely, if ever, and PAR-FRICKIN-TICULARLY when commenting here, refer to Fox as a source.
I don’t mean to bust your pre-conceived bubble, but if I’m looking for proof it’s daylight outside, and the first source I come across is Fox saying, “IT’S DAYLIGHT OUTSIDE”, I’ll spend as much time as I need looking for another source.
So if it makes you feel any smarter, any better, any more superior to dismiss anyone that disagrees with you as being indoctrinated by Fox News, that’s your prerogative. But I think it speaks more to your insecurity about your own thoughts than any deficiency of anyone else.
And I HAVE researched it and I DO have an idea what I’m talking about. I am more inclined to believe the many Scientists who are now questioning the Science behind Mankind’s effect on Global Warming. You choose to believe the other side.
Here’s a start. There is more. And I didn’t see Fox mentioned:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
Of course you did not address the point I made. You brought up the Global Cooling thing from the 70s as if you were stating some grand fact about how wrong science could be. I pointed out clearly that the entire cooling phenomena was never accepted by the scientific community and it was quickly dismissed…by scientists.
You made a comment. I destroyed it. You now avoid admitting your error and run off on a tangent about Fox. Cool.
Part 2.
The list of scientists you link to is a joke. That was exactly the point I was making in the post. Of course there are some scientists who are either global warming deniers or who just don’t believe that man contributes to GW. You can find scientists who don’t believe in evolution or just about anything else. That doesn’t mean a thing. If you could compile a list of scientists who do believe in GW, it would run into the tens of thousands unlike your list of 100 or so.
I’m not going to dissect the list of scientists but I will say something about the first guy on the list…the guru that Glenn Beck and others love having on their show. Tim Ball, a former professor of geography from Canada. Ball has been shown to be on the payroll of the oil and gas industry. They cover his bills as he runs around giving speeches. Ball is a fraud.
http://www.desmogblog.com/dr-tim-ball-the-lie-that-just-wont-die
Here’s the bottom line. Neither you nor I are scientists (I’m assuming you’re not). Therefore if we’re to take sides on this issue, it can only be based on the quality and merits of the people who are making the arguments since neither one of us can do anything with the actual data.
On one side, you have a handful of scientists like Tim Ball, none of which has any peer-reviewed papers on climate change and many of which are on the take from corporations like Exxon.
On the other side, you have the top scientists from the top academies of science from every country in the world. You have the United Nations IPCC, of which the United States is a leading member. You literally have tens of thousands of scientists in academia from a multitude of disciplines all working independently and coming to similar conclusions after publishing thousands of peer-reviewed articles on climate change.
Those are your two sides. You, a non-scientist who has no understanding of the science of climate change (nor do I) make the decision to go with the Tim Balls of this world. Why? What do you base your decision on? It’s not the science. So what is it?
I’ll be so bold as to answer for you. You’re on the side of the deniers because of your politics. You hear your republican boys in Congress chanting that global warming is a hoax. You hear the idiots on Fox saying the same thing every second day and bing, bang, you’re now a global warming denier.
So, my friend, unless you tell me that you’re a scientist who has actually taken a look at the data and come to the conclusions you have, then you have nothing but your silly politics.
In my books, basing a decision of this sort because your political leaders tell you so and in the process ignore the true scientists who tell us something different…is just a really dumb way to approach important issues.
(I’m not proof-reading what I just wrote, so forgive me for spelling or grammatical errors.)
Mario, You may have taken it as stating “some grand fact”. That is not what it was. I asked you 3 questions. YOU, my friend, assumed it was some statement as this is a subject you are passionate about.
I DID take exception to your implication and subsequent dismissal of my “thoughts” as being simply something I repeated from Fox. That is what I addressed.
Why you went off on some tangent about “grand fact” is unclear to me.
However I notice you missed my tangent about the many scientists that question the mainstream science of global warming.
Mario, I know I can’t change your mind. I’m not trying to. I don’t really care. But I personally, Myself, Me, Mr. Tennessean am not convinced of the significance of mankind’s contribution to Global Warming, Climate Change or whatever the Word for it is today.
Based on my “personal” beliefs, I look for research, science or opinion to support my personal convictions. If I could find none, I would be forced to concede it must be true. But I can find support for my beliefs so I’m not convinced of the “complete consensus” of the scientific community.
Your speak of dismissing someone because they receive funding from a particular corporate concern I think has already been debunked by Tommy in earlier posts. There is an adequate amount of money on the side of your scientists. Actually, there’s a whole another economy vested in “Global Warming”. (Not to mention a few gazillion in tax dollars.) You shouldn’t deny that, as it does not do you credit.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb
“This blockbuster Senate report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies and original source materials as gathered from public statements, various news outlets, and websites in 2007. This new “consensus busters” report is poised to redefine the debate.”
Good point. Tens of thousands of the world’s top scientists have all conspired to pull off the greatest hoax in the history of mankind.
Why didn’t I think of that?
From Anomaly: Sooo, what’s going on with Sarah Palin? Anyone?
Tommy,
Conversely scientists who deny global warming may be on somebody’s payroll.
But if I need to put my money on something,it would be on the majority of world scientists who specialize on temperature changes,ocean movements,atmosphere ozone layers,fish migration,hurricane and eddy formations,CO2 emissions,north and south pole historical girations etc.etc..
This is the story of the boy that cried wolf and this time he is right.
Mario, I scanned over the information. Quickly. I may have missed it but I did not see a claim of “hoax”. If I did, or had, I would not agree with that particular point.
Jovial, that one goes round and round. Don’t think for one second that there isn’t a whole lot of money on both sides of this debate.
There is no debate on climate change just like there was no real debate back in the 70s on the dangers of smoking. It’s fabricated by big business, backed up by corrupt politicians and promoted by the media. The science is all on one side of this issue.
Takania, I’m not sure your statement is entirely accurate.
http://hatch.senate.gov/public/_files/USSenateEPWMinorityReport.pdf
The link TN provides is from the Republican Senate minority. It has 700 or so scientists globally who dissent over global warming. There are a number of reasons why this is meaningless. I’ll just provide one.
There are over 2,600,000 scientists in the U.S. alone. As the link at the bottom of this comment points out, even if that 700 were American scientists only (it’s not)…
“That means at least 99.98% of scientists either are on board with the global warming consensus or do not know of this report.”
When you throw in the millions of other scientists world wide, you can see why 700 is a meaningless number. It ends being something like 0.000001 percent of scientists disagree on global warming.
Hey, I have no doubt that 0.0000001 percent of the world’s population think the earth is flat.
I rest my case.
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-5738-St-Louis-Political-Buzz-Examiner~y2009m6d30-700-scientists-dissent-regarding-global-warmingbut-what-does-that-really-mean
Does your case “rest” on a less than honest effort?
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/three-things-you-absolutely-must-know-about-climategate/
“So what does this all mean? It does not mean that there is no warming trend or that mankind has not been responsible for at least some of the warming. To claim that as result of these documents is clearly a step too far. However, it is clear that at least one branch of climate science — paleoclimatology — has become hopelessly politicized to the point of engaging in unethical and possibly illegal behavior.
To the extent that paleoclimatology is an important part of the scientific case for action regarding global warming, urgent reassessments need to be made. In the meantime, all those responsible for political action on global warming should stop the process pending the results of inquiries, investigations, and any criminal proceedings. What cannot happen is the process carrying on as if nothing has happened.”