What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

climate change times are a changin'

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: climate change times are a changin'

GrinCDXX said:
So "real experts" on the subject don't come forward to agree with him. I wonder why that is...they must be shy. :p
Click to expand...

If my boss were a tyrant who brooked no dissent from the "official" party line, and threatened to blackball me from ever finding another job in my industry ever again, I'd probably be shy too....:(
 
Re: climate change times are a changin'

FreshFish said:
If my boss were a tyrant who brooked no dissent from the "official" party line, and threatened to blackball me from ever finding another job in my industry ever again, I'd probably be shy too....:(
Click to expand...

The size of your straw-man is tremendous. If a researcher's ideas are solid, predictive and better fit the data, they will eventually become noticed as long as you are tenacious and work your butt off.

You should read about Barry Marshall.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Marshall
 
Re: climate change times are a changin'

WisconsinWildcard said:
The size of your straw-man is tremendous. If a researcher's ideas are solid, predictive and better fit the data, they will eventually become noticed as long as you are tenacious and work your butt off.

You should read about Barry Marshall.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Marshall
Click to expand...

Likewise, he should read about William Shockley. People who do brilliant work in one field, even in one field of science, often start to feel like anything that pops into their heads must be brilliant, even things they know nothing about.

Nevertheless, large numbers of climate modelers and others who actually work on climate change — as Dyson does not — rolled their collective eyes at assertions they consider appallingly ill-informed. In his interview with Yale Environment 360, Dyson also makes numerous assertions of fact — from his claim that warming today is largely confined to the Arctic to his contention that human activities are not primarily responsible for rising global temperatures — that climate scientists say are flat-out wrong.

Many climate scientists were especially distressed that the Times gave his views such prominence. Even worse, when the profile’s author, Nicholas Dawidoff, was asked on NPR’s “On The Media” whether it mattered if Dyson was right or wrong in his views, Dawidoff answered, “Oh, absolutely not. I don’t care what he thinks. I have no investment in what he thinks. I’m just interested in how he thinks and the depth and the singularity of his point of view.”

This is, to put it bluntly, bizarre. It matters a great deal whether he’s right or wrong, given that his views have been trumpeted in such a prominent forum with essentially no challenge.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Re: climate change times are a changin'

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/08/brandon-smith-mars-climate-change_n_5568058.html

Holy balls...

Or better yet:

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/there-are-no-coal-mines-mars

Republican state Sen. Brandon Smith of Kentucky has a new theory on why climate change couldn’t possibly be slowly warming the earth’s temperature, resulting in legions of effects to the environment and its inhabitants.

The reason, according to alternative paper LEO Weekly, seems to be that since Mars and Earth have identical temperatures, Earth’s climate cannot possibly be the result of human activity.

“As you sit there in your chair with your data, we sit up here in ours with our data and our constituents and stuff behind us. I don’t want to get into the debate about climate change, but I will simply point out that I think in academia we all agree that the temperature on Mars is exactly as it is here. Nobody will dispute that,” said the senator in a video posted by the weekly publication. “Yet there are no coal mines on Mars. There are no factories on Mars that I’m aware of.”
Click to expand...
 
Re: climate change times are a changin'

ScoobyDoo said:
We apparently do not teach science in our schools or colleges anymore. Sad.

Just more clear evidence that Republicans do not believe in science.
Click to expand...

No, we do. But somehow a genetic mutation in coal country has apparently made them all allergic to it. Probably a result of black lung or something.

(Although, I should probably get off my high horse because I'm only a "recent convert" on the subject. *deep breath* Recent being defined as within the last year or so and "convert" as someone who isn't 100% convinced myself but realizes he doesn't know a **** thing about the subject and decided to defer to the experts as well as realizing that even if there ISN'T anthropogenic global warming that coal is a shtty and dying industry that could be replaced with a cleaner, higher tech, and modern industry that could be in line for a major boom in the next few decades. Although I would have never said anything as stupid as "It's not caused by coal or factories because there aren't humans or factories on Mars.)
 
Re: climate change times are a changin'

One unfortunate reality of modern politics is the right-left mutually reinforcing media echo chamber. The most extreme voices on either side broadcast the most outrageous statements of the other side as a way to define their opposition and attract attention to themselves.
Click to expand...


If the source of that quote were The New York Times, many folks reading it would nod in approval while others would roll their eyes. yet if the source of that quote were The Wall St. Journal, the nodders would be rolling their eyes while the eye-rollers would be nodding approvingly instead.

Yet, It is just as true a statement either way.*

and to me it describes much of our "debate" just perfectly. If you want to discredit Republicans, quote Sarah Palin, never mind that she is way out there on the fringe, and has no discernable relation with Republicans at all.

If you want to discredit Democrats, etc.




* yet for so many people, they won't decide whether they agree or disagree with something until they first know the source....really sad. :(
 
Re: climate change times are a changin'

FreshFish said:
If the source of that quote were The New York Times, many folks reading it would nod in approval while others would roll their eyes. yet if the source of that quote were The Wall St. Journal, the nodders would be rolling their eyes while the eye-rollers would be nodding approvingly instead.

Yet, It is just as true a statement either way.*

and to me it describes much of our "debate" just perfectly. If you want to discredit Republicans, quote Sarah Palin, never mind that she is way out there on the fringe, and has no discernable relation with Republicans at all.

If you want to discredit Democrats, etc.




* yet for so many people, they won't decide whether they agree or disagree with something until they first know the source....really sad. :(
Click to expand...

Very true. The real issue with this debate (on this forum) is not a single person has presented a reliable source, on either side. This is not a scientific discussion, nor can it be.

The source of the information is the primary literature, with its respective methods, references, etc. I think it is a safe assumption that few, if any of us, have ever read a manuscript in climate science. I think it is a far safer assumption to say that none of us are qualified to evaluate it. If we were, we would not be wasting our time on a hockey forum (I have a light month of clinical duties as I am studying for boards...that's my excuse). It is also a safe assumption that even the best "scientific journalist" misinterprets at best or plain misrepresents scientific knowledge. Judging from areas I have more expertise in, I will never trust a journalist to properly convey the context and limitations of the scientific papers they report on.

At a previous academic institution, I did read my fair share of "landmark" and "controversial" climate science papers. I did it mainly for a class but partly out of piqued interest. I think I can say I understood a fair bit (with plenty of background reading for every paper) but I was in no place to question their methodology. Now I am at an academic institution that is primarily medical, so my journal access to areas outside of biology is severely limited. I can read plenty of abstracts but that is as good as reading nothing at all. My time is also more limited.

I think the important discussion (which we all have in spurts) is the basis for the scientific method. How that is perceived by the general public and how we make policy based on scientific consensus.
 
Re: climate change times are a changin'

OK, I gots ta know. What is cF[Authentic] from? It looks like an OO destructor.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top