|
|
Post by nautonnier on Aug 15, 2009 13:54:05 GMT
I would find it more enlightening to know the educational backgrounds of skeptics and warmists than what their political beliefs are. Trouble is, I know I wouldn't believe some respondents. Some have already made claims I find difficult to believe considering their clear and total lack of understanding of the scientific method. I am not sure that 'educational background' is as important as the job or role of the person concerned. So sigurdur is a farmer - it is really important for a farmer to understand the longer term outlook for the next few years as the farm planning and the farmer's livelihood depends on it. People working in construction, on and in the sea and in aviation are continually planning for 'climate' expectations then they work with and are very aware of the power of nature. Therefore, these occupations have a hands-on respect for climate. Then you get people for whom climate is a academic exercise and everything they work with is based on papers from other people seeing climate as a academic exercise and peer reviewed by other theorists. There is nothing wrong with this approach but there is often a lack of innate validation and given a choice between a real world observation or a computer model or academic paper the observation tends to be disregarded. So we often see a post from someone like sigurdur worried about the crops not growing be answered by a global temperature graph to ' disprove' the on the ground observation that crops in the area are not growing as they should. Rather than trying to understand what is wrong with the metrics or hypothetical model's assumptions the academic will try to 'win' the point. This may be because academics are used to carrying out (sometimes voluble) arguments trying to 'falsify' the other case. But they really need to recognize that someone working in the field literally sometimes survives only if their observations are valid and they certainly do NOT see things as an academic discourse or defense of a thesis. Perhaps if some of the academics had their income or their tenure linked to the real world validitation of their papers and views, they might have a little more respect for observations from those in the real world. |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 15, 2009 14:05:05 GMT
I would find it more enlightening to know the educational backgrounds of skeptics and warmists than what their political beliefs are. Trouble is, I know I wouldn't believe some respondents. Some have already made claims I find difficult to believe considering their clear and total lack of understanding of the scientific method. I am not sure that 'educational background' is as important as the job or role of the person concerned. So sigurdur is a farmer - it is really important for a farmer to understand the longer term outlook for the next few years as the farm planning and the farmer's livelihood depends on it. People working in construction, on and in the sea and in aviation are continually planning for 'climate' expectations then they work with and are very aware of the power of nature. Therefore, these occupations have a hands-on respect for climate. Then you get people for whom climate is a academic exercise and everything they work with is based on papers from other people seeing climate as a academic exercise and peer reviewed by other theorists. There is nothing wrong with this approach but there is often a lack of innate validation and given a choice between a real world observation or a computer model or academic paper the observation tends to be disregarded. So we often see a post from someone like sigurdur worried about the crops not growing be answered by a global temperature graph to ' disprove' the on the ground observation that crops in the area are not growing as they should. Rather than trying to understand what is wrong with the metrics or hypothetical model's assumptions the academic will try to 'win' the point. This may be because academics are used to carrying out (sometimes voluble) arguments trying to 'falsify' the other case. But they really need to recognize that someone working in the field literally sometimes survives only if their observations are valid and they certainly do NOT see things as an academic discourse or defense of a thesis. Perhaps if some of the academics had their income or their tenure linked to the real world validitation of their papers and views, they might have a little more respect for observations from those in the real world. Excellent analysis sir. What has happened is I have gotten burnt by the predictions by the "experts", so I had to look at the science and learn the predictive value of forcasts. I have learned that even tho I am a layman, my gut and learning are as good as those "experts". That is when I went from believing in AGW, and being a member of the Flat Earth Society, to really examining the data, models, etc. I feel very lucky that the internet has provided a source of said data. I watch the worldwide circulation patters, the water vapor maps, jet stream placement, ENSO events, etc, as they all have a very strong short term and long term effect on my local climate, and because of said climate, my likely hood of maintaining my farming business. The more I have learned, the more I have come to understand how little scientists really know about long term climate and the forces behind it. Thank you all for putting up with me. This is a great forum to learn from as papers cited are deff worth reading and learning from. |
|
jtom
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 248
|
Post by jtom on Aug 15, 2009 14:23:22 GMT
Excellent point, and an aspect I should have covered in my post.
I should have expanded the pertinent info I would like to see from posters to include your points.
I was primarily thinking about some people who seem to lack the ability to comprehend research articles, not know the difference between observation and experimentation, not understand the true purpose and use of models, etc., and yet claim expertise in science.
Everyone can contribute important insight and differing points of view regardless of formal educational background. Common sense, and lack thereof, is spread out both in society in general and the science community, specifically. I've seen profoundness from some who have not had the opportunity of an education, as well as total nonsense spouted by inhabitants of ivory towers.
Finally, in a PREVIOUS 'crisis', I witnessed scientists, politicians, and special interest groups form a silent cabal. They perverted science and misled the public for their own purposes. Unfortunately, they pretty much got away with it. My extreme reluctance to buy into this 'crisis' stems from that as much as the research.
I am far more a 'sceptic' of the people promoting GW than I am the science.
|
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Aug 15, 2009 18:18:24 GMT
Excellent point, and an aspect I should have covered in my post. I should have expanded the pertinent info I would like to see from posters to include your points. I was primarily thinking about some people who seem to lack the ability to comprehend research articles, not know the difference between observation and experimentation, not understand the true purpose and use of models, etc., and yet claim expertise in science. Everyone can contribute important insight and differing points of view regardless of formal educational background. Common sense, and lack thereof, is spread out both in society in general and the science community, specifically. I've seen profoundness from some who have not had the opportunity of an education, as well as total nonsense spouted by inhabitants of ivory towers. Finally, in a PREVIOUS 'crisis', I witnessed scientists, politicians, and special interest groups form a silent cabal. They perverted science and misled the public for their own purposes. Unfortunately, they pretty much got away with it. My extreme reluctance to buy into this 'crisis' stems from that as much as the research. I am far more a 'sceptic' of the people promoting GW than I am the science. PDO was discovered by fishermen, not "climatologists" or even oceanographers, so your points are well placed. |
|
|
|
Post by walterdnes on Aug 16, 2009 5:18:43 GMT
I would find it more enlightening to know the educational backgrounds of skeptics and warmists than what their political beliefs are. Dr. Jim Hansen, keeper of the GISS records, and AGW activist extrordinaire www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/jhansen.htmlEducation: * B.A., Physics and Mathematics, 1963, University of Iowa * M.S., Astronomy, 1965, University of Iowa * Ph.D., Physics, 1967, University of Iowa Dr Rajendra K Pachauri, Chairman of the IPCC www.climatescience.gov/Library/bios/pachauri.htmCommencing his career with the Diesel Locomotive Works, Varanasi, where he held several managerial positions, Dr Pachauri joined the North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA, where he obtained an MS in Industrial Engineering in 1972, a PhD in Industrial Engineering and a PhD in Economics, and also served as Assistant Professor (August 1974 -- May 1975) and Visiting Faculty Member (Summer 1976 and 1977) in the Department of Economics and Business. Al Gore www.washingtontimes.com/news/2000/mar/25/20000325-011032-8259r/www.neatorama.com/2006/09/07/famous-divinity-school-dropouts/B.A. at Harvard. He dropped out of Vanderbilt TWICE, divinity and law school. I have just as much, if not more, education about climate/weather as the three of them put together. And so do most of the people on this forum. |
|
troed
New Member
Posts: 6
|
Post by troed on Aug 16, 2009 9:10:04 GMT
As a Swede, I object strongly to this thread. It seems to have been started by a citizen of the USA, who is under the mistaken impression that the USA is the center of the universe. (thx to the Canadian whom I shamelessly copied and edited the above from) Some of your "hot" political issues in the US are pretty much laughed at elsewhere. I'd be happy to join in on a study on whether being well acquainted with the scientific method is more or less likely to make you believe that the "science is settled" or not though  As far as I know, a good scientist is always skeptic. |
|
|
|
Post by stranger on Aug 16, 2009 17:01:36 GMT
I tend to agree with Troed. Too many of the "issues" are US-centric.
But for what it's worth, I am "anti-gun control" because each of the 22,309 gun control laws have resulted in more violent crime - and it is a trivial matter to demonstrate that the increase is proportional to the severity of the law and the rigididity of enforcement. Google "Chief Inspector Colin Greenwood" for more.
Abortion? Depends on the circumstances. Rape and incest, yes; social factors, maybe; but definitely not for either eugenics or population control.
Death penalty? Dead people do not harm other people, and for some violent individuals that is the only way to get them to stop hurting people.
Ozone depletion theory? Which one? Some have been debunked, some are struggling, some seem to have some basis. Of course, all of the debunked ones still have their strident supporters, like AGW.
Pro States Rights? Any US history book will demonstrate that the country was set up that way - and the consequences of ignoring states rights have been disastrous. A 180 here would probably be better for everyone - except a newly unemployed group of former bureaucrats.
Anti separation? How did that get in here? Theocracy is a failed scheme of government. By all means keep theology out of legislation.
Gay rights? God made them and God does not make mistakes. Their rights end at the end of my nose; or "don't hit on me and I won't hit you."
Welfare entitlement? Even Europe is getting away from entitlements. You have a natural entitlement to what you have earned, less a tithe for the widows and orphans who CANNOT help themselves and the common defense, and a bit for infrastructure.
Flat tax? Flat taxes return more revenue for both the State and the taxpayer. But flat taxes shrink bureaucracies. So unless you are one of the political class what's to dislike?
US Military actions? Which ones? D-Day - or the Katrina cleanup?
Stranger
|
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Aug 16, 2009 23:34:13 GMT
I tend to agree with Troed. Too many of the "issues" are US-centric. But for what it's worth, I am "anti-gun control" because each of the 22,309 gun control laws have resulted in more violent crime - and it is a trivial matter to demonstrate that the increase is proportional to the severity of the law and the rigididity of enforcement. Google "Chief Inspector Colin Greenwood" for more. Abortion? Depends on the circumstances. Rape and incest, yes; social factors, maybe; but definitely not for either eugenics or population control. Death penalty? Dead people do not harm other people, and for some violent individuals that is the only way to get them to stop hurting people. Ozone depletion theory? Which one? Some have been debunked, some are struggling, some seem to have some basis. Of course, all of the debunked ones still have their strident supporters, like AGW. Pro States Rights? Any US history book will demonstrate that the country was set up that way - and the consequences of ignoring states rights have been disastrous. A 180 here would probably be better for everyone - except a newly unemployed group of former bureaucrats. Anti separation? How did that get in here? Theocracy is a failed scheme of government. By all means keep theology out of legislation. Gay rights? God made them and God does not make mistakes. Their rights end at the end of my nose; or "don't hit on me and I won't hit you." Welfare entitlement? Even Europe is getting away from entitlements. You have a natural entitlement to what you have earned, less a tithe for the widows and orphans who CANNOT help themselves and the common defense, and a bit for infrastructure. Flat tax? Flat taxes return more revenue for both the State and the taxpayer. But flat taxes shrink bureaucracies. So unless you are one of the political class what's to dislike? US Military actions? Which ones? D-Day - or the Katrina cleanup? Stranger To be fair about the Katrina clean up - once the US military - mainly National Guard - were given free rein by the politicians everything started working. It was the politicians that stopped things working - the Federal Authorities cannot move into a State unless requested by the Governor (apart from when there is an insurrection). However, once the Governor invites the Federal authorities to assist, the state's national guard come under the control of the Federal authorities - the then Governor of Louisiana did not want to lose that authority and would not allow the Federal authorities or even the Red Cross - to move in and assist. I have spoken to several military rescue groups that were extremely frustrated by the Louisiana politicians and some federal restrictions. |
|
mello
New Member
Posts: 4
|
Post by mello on Aug 17, 2009 13:09:49 GMT
I don't think of these issues as blanket pro/against (in everything there are various shades of gray), but for your exercise, I'll try to do that. I'm a skeptic of the AGW argument.
pro-gun rights
pro-abortion
pro-death penalty
anti-ozone depletion theory
pro-state's rights
pro-separation of church/state
pro-gay rights
pro-welfare entitlement
anti- flat income tax rate (I'll say anti in the typical way it's framed. A flat tax could work but there does need some redistribution at some point to place more burden on the highest incomes)
anti-US military actions
So I'd be an exception to your theory. I'm 6/4 liberal/conservative in your list and a skeptic, so I guess that's 6/5. You can probably guess neither of our political extremes really thrill me.
|
|
|
|
Post by stranger on Aug 17, 2009 20:27:09 GMT
I was 10 miles east of Katrina's eye - and deeply involved in the aftermath of Katrina. The mess in Louisiana seemed as much cupidity as incompetence.
The State's primary political party desperately wanted 250 billion in Federal emergency aid and did not care who got stomped on to get it. The TV networks seemed to go out of their way to assist in getting that "aid," when even a trivial amount of legwork would have disproven the garbage they were airing. In fact, all they had to do was tune to any of the Amateur Radio emergency nets to find out they were 100% wrong.
People were dying because of government inaction. But it was the State's inaction, not FEMA's. Things could have been done much better, had someone in authority had the will to get it done.
Compare the Katrina response to the Jindal Administrations 2008 hurricane response. Responders were stopped, given their marching orders, and found preparations for them to repair power lines or whatever were in place. One power crew told me they put twice as many miles of power line back in service in two thirds of the time last year because they knew what had to be done - and where the problems were.
Stranger
|
|
|
|
Post by cnlmustard on Aug 18, 2009 4:17:20 GMT
I particularly agree with the observations made about Katrina here, from my FIRST hand experiance. Well I think my theory has been show to be invalid so far, but I love looking at trends and correllations. Yes, that's right, I'm damm anal!  It still always dissapoints me that those who feel threatened by a topic, always will take the low road and question the character of the person they are in disagreemant with, or for even bringing up a subject! Go ahead, my skin is thick, do your worse. Political discussion is like that, some joker always has to start attacking you personnally for what you believe, and then the discussion is no fun anymore! My favorite debating strategy is "giving people enough rope to hang themselves with"! In the 90's People here used to go postal on me when I'd tell them I was voting for David Duke! ("Oh my Goooooooood!!!!!!!!!") I think guys like socold are very courageous with much stamina, they weather all the personal jabs and don't miss a beat. I think he's wrong on AGW, but that doesn't mean I'll belitte his character. It doesn't mean I want to date him either! ("Oh no, he's anti-gay!"  ) |
|
As far as I know, a good scientist is always skeptic.
)