Why Skeptics dont trust So called Experts

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200510/s1487477.htm
from JoeUser Forums

For the last 10 years or so, we have had a drumbeat of experts telling us that man is causing global warming.  And the point to different facts to support their theory.  Altho there is no empiracal evidence to support their theory that it is man doing the damage, they still do a drum beat waring of a world wide catastrophy, ignoring the fact that the biggest factor has always and is the Sun.

So this year, the experts found, what?  The Greenland Icepack is thickening!

Greenland's icecap has thickened slightly in recent years despite wide predictions of a thaw triggered by global warming, a team of scientists says.

So now maybe some sanity is returned to the debate, right?  You are naive!

However, they said that the thickening seemed consistent with theories of global warming, blamed by most experts on a build-up of heat-trapping gases from burning fossil fuels in power plants, factories and cars.

SO thickening ice packs are consistent with global warming?

Ok, then how do they then incorporate this scare into their new theory: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3922579.stm

Now, amid some of the most hostile conditions anywhere on the planet, Carl Boggild and his team have recorded falls as dramatic as 10 metres a year - in places the ice is dropping at a rate of one metre a month.

But the feeling of cold was ironic - it is the rise in air temperatures recorded here that is at least partly responsible for the sudden acceleration of the melting.

SO just 2 years ago, the global warming was causing a catastrophic melting of the Greenland ice sheet, but not it is causing another catastrophic thickening of the ice sheet?

It does not take an Einstein to realize that they dont know what the hell they are talking about.  But as new data becomes available, instead of asking "why", they merely shoehorn it into their pet theory.  Global Warming.

Any wonder most people are laughing at the scare mongers?  Just 30 years ago, we were headed for a new and catastrophic Ice Age (The Day After Tomorrow was 30 years too late).  Today it is Global Warming.  Tomorrow it will be Global Stabilization that will cause the destruction of the planet.

Yea right.

politics
9,990 views 28 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Let's see. Global warming is causing ice.  Global Warming is melting Ice.  I wonder if it is the cause of the Heart ache of psoriasis as well.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
Of course global warming is causing the ice to be thicker. Don't you put your ice trays in the oven to make ice?
SoundPackager - Customize the Windows sound scheme
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top

Of course global warming is causing the ice to be thicker. Don't you put your ice trays in the oven to make ice?

I put them on the patio.  I like Sun Ice Cubes.

Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
always remember, "An expert is just a man from out of town with a briefcase."
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
Ironically, your analysis falls directly in the realm of your previous article title, "Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics". You deliberately (assuming you understood the article) mislead your audience by associating short term effects (ice thickening) with long term predictions (ice melting) and triumphantly pointing out the discrepency.

Everyone, please RTFA and note that the statements within it are self-consistent.

Is this the best, most dramatic example for global warming? Hardly -- but neither is it the boondogle this thread is trying to portray it as.

This kind of deliberate, misdirection for political purposes towards science from people who should (and do) know better is one of the primary reasons I have such low hopes for science (and rational discourse) in North America.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
Actually, I did RTFA, oh Superior One (as I'm sure Dr Guy did). What you seem to have missed in your hurry to be critical, are the obvious contradictions between previous stories and "reports" which claimed that "global warming" was causing the ice to melt away, and their quick revision when they suddenly discover it's thickening.

Yes, they did say it fits their model, now that it's not happening the way they originally predicted. THAT is the point.

While nobody disputes that the average temps have risen a bit over the past years, it's the root cause and effect that is in contention. While the global warming scare is a wonderful means of getting research grants, the fact is most of the so-called research is pure bull.

Many less reactionary, and I suspect more honest, scientists contend that the warming is simply part of the natural cycles of the climate. After all, in geologic terms, the last Ice Age just ended, it's only natural that the climate should still be warming up.

Gloom and doom might make for nice research funding, but that's about it. You can choose to believe every little idea that some scientists choose to put forth, but some of us do actually think for ourselves and when something is obviously counter to common sense, we question it. To date there is absolutely no proof that "global warming" is anything more than the natural and normal rythms of our little planet's climate.

Is air pollution a problem? Yes, it is. We pump our far too many poisons and carbons into the air, mostly from driving fossil fuel powered vehicles. Does it need to be changed? Yep. Is it going to cause the climatic destruction of the planet? I doubt it. We'll more likely just poinson ourselves out of existance.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yes, they did say it fits their model, now that it's not happening the way they originally predicted. THAT is the point.


They're scientists, not prophets. The whole point of hypothesis is to make a blanket statement of what you think would happen, and then change your thinking based on whatever evidence comes in. I would have considered it most unlikely that it would have happened as they originally predicted.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
That's true, and I agree with you. Good science requires evaluation of facts and basing the hypothesis upon them. Bad science is making dire gloom and doom predictions based on wild guesses and baseless "conclusions" in the name of grants.

I believe that Dr Guy's whole point here is that people should take these "scientific" predictions with a large grain of salt.

In the end, they could well be right, but then again maybe they aren't. I just don't like sensasionalism in place of science.

Sorry if these posts aren't making good sense. I am a bit under the influence of Nyquil at the moment.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
I believe that Dr guy's whole point here is that people should take these "scientific" predictions with a large grain of salt.

In the end, they could well be right, but then again maybe they aren't. I just don't like sensasionalism in place of science.


True. I'd agree with that. I try and take everything someone who claims to be (or some news network claims to be) an expert with plenty of salt. The only people worth listening to I sometimes think are those who claim to be totally uninformed, because at least they're modest, if dishonest.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top

always remember, "An expert is just a man from out of town with a briefcase."

I was taught it was a nunknown drip under pressure.

Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top

Ironically, your analysis falls directly in the realm of your previous article title, "Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics". You deliberately (assuming you understood the article) mislead your audience by associating short term effects (ice thickening) with long term predictions (ice melting) and triumphantly pointing out the discrepency.

Uh, actually no.  YOu apparently did not read both linked articles. That is your shortcoming.  I predicted nothing, I reported what was said, being in diametrically opposed directions.  NOw why dont you read the articles and try to spin it your way.  But this is a very lame attempt to do so as I wrote neither of the linked articles.

Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top

Is air pollution a problem? Yes, it is. We pump our far too many poisons and carbons into the air, mostly from driving fossil fuel powered vehicles. Does it need to be changed? Yep. Is it going to cause the climatic destruction of the planet? I doubt it. We'll more likely just poinson ourselves out of existance.

Exactly.  Let's stop the histrionics and hoinestly deal with the problems we have.  Lying to scare people only works in the short term.  Because once the lie is exposed, it stops being an effective way to sway people.

Air Polution is a problem?  Let's deal with it and leaVe the chicken little crap to the mind numbed robots.

Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top

They're scientists, not prophets. The whole point of hypothesis is to make a blanket statement of what you think would happen, and then change your thinking based on whatever evidence comes in. I would have considered it most unlikely that it would have happened as they originally predicted.

Change 180 degrees?  That is being very disingenious!  SO if I say the Astros are going to win the series, that makes me a scientist because even if the opposite  happens, I can CYA

Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top

I believe that Dr Guy's whole point here is that people should take these "scientific" predictions with a large grain of salt.

It goes to the point. When you dont know what the hell you are talking about, keep your mouth shut so you dont appear stupid.  Instead, in order to alarm and frighten people, they have to blame everythiung, even opposite hypothesis, on Global Warming.  Never once having proven conclusively it is man made (a critical ingredient as if it is not us, there is nothing we can do.).

Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top

The only people worth listening to I sometimes think are those who claim to be totally uninformed, because at least they're modest, if dishonest.

I dont know.  I would suspect that there are many that can claim that with some honesty.

Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
I dont know. I would suspect that there are many that can claim that with some honesty.


Like me.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top

Like me.

I think your answers this time would tend to indicate otherwise.

Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
lways remember, "An expert is just a man from out of town with a briefcase."


No always remember this...."An ex is a has been and a spert is a drip".
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top

No always remember this...."An ex is a has been and a spert is a drip".

Being a mathematician, I can say with some authority and clarity of thought, that X is the Unknown!  Indeputably.

Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top

They're scientists, not prophets.


If they are scientists, they are supposed to come up with theories.

A theory attempts to explain what will happen based on being an explanation for what did happen.

If something else happens, something that the theory said would not happen, the theory turns out to be incorrect.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
Again, I call for everyone to RTFA and think about what they're saying:

"Greenland ice-melt 'speeding up'", July 28, 2004
- the margins (i.e., the outer edges) of the ice cap are rapidly retreating
- glaciers are visibly shrinking

"Greenland icecap thickens despite warming", October 21, 2005
- the icecap (i.e., the whole thing) is thickening -- especially at high altitudes (i.e., away from the margins)
- the erroneous assumption was that fast melting at the margins implies fast melting everywhere

A mathematician knows that these types of complex models are pathological depending on their initial and boundary conditions. None of this invalidates the warming models but the initial assumptions and data used to populate them.

These types of problems should be familiar to anyone with 3rd year physics or applied math background.
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
No always remember this...."An ex is a has been and a spert is a drip".

Being a mathematician, I can say with some authority and clarity of thought, that X is the Unknown! Indeputably.


Not always doc. Try ex-husband/wife....that's "not" an unknown ( you "know" how bad they are, that's why they're an ex). That's a has been! Speaking stricly from a mathamatical stand point, you are correct x is unkown and usually what you are trying to solve for.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
I have a cousin (no lie!) who is actually a bit of an environmental expert (he works for some research agency or another, and has published works on the subjects he's researched).

Some years back, he was involved in a study on how SOUTH AMERICAN RAINFORESTS contribute to global warming! Again, I'm not making this up!

So, there ya go, folks...let'c start hacking down them rainforests. Future generations will thank us.
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
Some years back, he was involved in a study on how SOUTH AMERICAN RAINFORESTS contribute to global warming! Again, I'm not making this up!

Wasn't the issue that cutting down and burning (i.e., slash and burn agriculture) was producing so much smoke as to contribute to the problem?
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top

"Greenland ice-melt 'speeding up'", July 28, 2004
- the margins (i.e., the outer edges) of the ice cap are rapidly retreating
- glaciers are visibly shrinking

"Greenland icecap thickens despite warming", October 21, 2005
- the icecap (i.e., the whole thing) is thickening -- especially at high altitudes (i.e., away from the margins)
- the erroneous assumption was that fast melting at the margins implies fast melting everywhere

Why is it so farking hard for you to RTFA.  That is what I said.  They are talking out of both sides of their mouth!

Next they will be claiming that global warming is causing the heartache of psoriasis!