FORA.tv

Watch, Shout, Share

A REALLY Inconvenient Truth: Dan Miller

The Berkeley Cybersalon
Rate It
55,365 Views
  • Info
  • Bio
  • Full Program
  • Highlights
  • Transcript
  • Download
  • More
Page 9 of 10 « First 78 9 10
blainedeyoung Avatar
blainedeyoung
Posts: 4
Posted: 01.07.10, 01:54 AM
I agree that global mental health is an issue worth looking at. For instance, some people actually believe these are worthwhile remarks.

People can't walk on water. You know it. That story's not true. Deal with it.

I'm not sure what you're getting at saying the earth intelligently designed, but I completely agree that we need to understand it better. We need to learn to control it. God's not going to. Belief is irrelevant. Talking about myths in situations like this is counter-productive.
Permalink
morrison33 Avatar
morrison33
Posts: 4
Posted: 02.27.10, 04:33 PM
It is incredibly hard to argue anything on lectures about climate talk. The many many lectures like this one are thoroughly unscientific, on both camps skeptic or not, that it just not worth wasting time watching them. The way climate scientist are behaving is despicable and bring shame to all other practicing scientist of other disciplines. Among many MANY things to object about the way climate science is being handled, I will mention just one, which I think is very important: the hostile attitude to a different point of view. That is the quintessential rule that should never ever be broken, no matter what! That is the reason, me thinks, that, even if the science is good and we should do something about it, nothing will happen and, eventually, will result in great damage to the credibility of science.
Permalink
ClimateCriminal Avatar
ClimateCriminal
Posts: 16
Posted: 02.28.10, 12:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by morrison33
It is incredibly hard to argue anything on lectures about climate talk. The many many lectures like this one are thoroughly unscientific, on both camps skeptic or not, that it just not worth wasting time watching them.
Show your claim is true!
Like your other claims, you would appear to making claims that are in stark contrast with the truth. You must show that this video does not represent the science. ARIT, does show what the science says. In-fact one could argue that this is already out of date, and that in some respects [sea-level rise], the consequences may be more severe.

Many scientists are extremely concerned about the consequences of climate change.

Environmental Change Institute International Climate Conference - Implications of a global climate change of 4+ degrees for people, ecosystems and the earth-system.
www.eci.ox.ac.uk/4degrees/index.php

Your claim is unsupported by evidence. All such claims must treated as bogus until proven otherwise. - Cite your evidence!
Permalink
ClimateCriminal Avatar
ClimateCriminal
Posts: 16
Posted: 02.28.10, 12:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by morrison33
The way climate scientist are behaving is despicable and bring shame to all other practicing scientist of other disciplines.
Show your claim is true! Like your other claims, you would appear to making more claims that are in stark contrast with the truth.

What do you have to say about these scientists' behaviour:
a) Patrick Michaels when he lied to congress in 1998 about James Hansen's 1988 testimony? - decsribed as 'fraud, pure and simple'
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006...ure_and_si.php

b) Baliunas and Soon's appalling 2003 paper? How the peer-review process was subverted -
http://tinyurl.com/364hzr
and
why it's flawed http://tinyurl.com/yklnsfy by twelve prominent climate scientists a number were authors of the works cited by BS2003!

c) Douglass et al. 2007 – shown to be seriously flawed, but never corrected. One of the paper’s authors claimed that it represented an “inconvenient truth”, and proved that “Nature, not humans, rules the climate”. This is an absurd and unwarranted claim, as *Singer* knew. ii

d) The OISM paper [pseudo-science] - dissected and debunked here - http://tinyurl.com/6l3g6p

e) Fred Seitz' and this - http://tinyurl.com/Seitz-Dishonesty

f) The Great Global Warming Swindle – dissected and debunked here - http://tinyurl.com/y9e8l5g

g) Seitz; Singer; Christy; Michaels; Baliunas; Soon have all been linked to the fossil-fuel funded Denial Industry. - http://tinyurl.com/wxd7x

Your claim is unsupported by evidence. All such claims must treated as bogus until proven otherwise. - Cite your evidence!
Permalink
ClimateCriminal Avatar
ClimateCriminal
Posts: 16
Posted: 02.28.10, 12:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by morrison33
Among many MANY things to object about the way climate science is being handled, I will mention just one, which I think is very important: the hostile attitude to a different point of view. That is the quintessential rule that should never ever be broken, no matter what! That is the reason, me thinks, that, even if the science is good and we should do something about it, nothing will happen and, eventually, will result in great damage to the credibility of science.
Show your claim is true! Like your other claims, you would appear to making more claims that are in stark contrast with the truth.
Scientists argue all the time about the science. Your so-called 'different point of view', is the propensity of pseudo-sceptics** to lie; invent data; cherry-pick; deceive; dissemble about the science [see earlier examples] and make bogus allegations of dishonesty against working scientists. It is hardly surprising that this behaviour is treated with hostility, but of course, what the pseudo-sceptics say isn't science!

** Genuine scientists are genuine sceptics. The self-styled skeptics are not genuine sceptics, but pseudo-sceptics. A sceptic has no bias or predetermined conclusion. They are persuaded by the evidence, wherever it leads. A pseudo-sceptic, demonstrates a bias, rejecting good science and accepting pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo without comment. It isn't surprising when it's perfectly clear that a number of the pseudo-sceptics are linked to the denial industry, and have a vested interest in acting as they do.

Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco's Tactics to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Science - http://tinyurl.com/wxd7x

Your claim is unsupported by evidence. All such claims must treated as bogus until proven otherwise. - Cite your evidence!

Now STFU, unless you can support these and future claims with reputable sources, which I doubt!
Permalink
morrison33 Avatar
morrison33
Posts: 4
Posted: 02.28.10, 01:36 AM
You reply is both funny and revealing. Since this is not the place, I will leave the funny bit out and focus on the revealing bit. I take it from your answer that you are on the side of the concerned about Global Warming? I suppose you would, then, be a representation of sorts of other people in your group (not a scientific representation but good enough for this I guess).
The very first thing that strikes me is how you have read my modest piece of writing. Quite typically for people in your group, you have read what you wanted to read from it, not actually what was written. You appear to have placed me on the sceptic group, though neither am I in any group nor do I say so anywhere.

You do give me many examples of climate scientist behaving badly, exactly what I was saying by the way, but you accuse me of "cherry picking" while you yourself pick the examples exclusively from the "sceptic group", ignoring in the mean time the very well publicised examples of bad and unscientific behaviour from the other, or in this case, your side! Just tell me, you find that rational behaviour in your part (I do not expect a real answer by the way - since you are very very much biased, I suspect you will read into this, AGAIN, what you want to read).

Please, try to make an effort to read things properly. I do not fall in either group, in fact, the idea of taking sides is a rather bizarre thing in science. I practice science, but not climate science, therefore I do not have the knowledge or the tools to examine the claims made by either camp. What I can say for sure though, is the very clear and obvious fact that the climate debate is a political one, not a scientific one. It is however being portrayed as a science debate and the scientist I know strive to be objective and certainly do not make ridiculous claims such as "what I say is true" or that "science is settled" because, as every elementary scientist knows, human powers of reasoning or really not great, not great atll...at least not good enough to warrant such claims.

One more thing, you say "STFU" - that is also very typical of your kind. I cannot say that for the other group though.

Have a good day
Permalink
ClimateCriminal Avatar
ClimateCriminal
Posts: 16
Posted: 02.28.10, 02:52 AM
The 'Science is settled' argument:
Like most denialists' arguments there is a seed of truth in this, but that 'seed' doesn't make the argument correct in its entirety. It's a straw-man and a lie!

New science is always uncertain, it's inherent in the scientific process, just like any field of human knowledge. Science is a continual process of challenging even established theories. But gradually, the soundest science emerges, because it has successfully survived all-comers, established theories often evolve during the process.

Established science would include the theory of gravity and the radiative physics of greenhouse gases, which were discovered 150 years ago and repeatedly confirmed, by new research.
Permalink
ClimateCriminal Avatar
ClimateCriminal
Posts: 16
Posted: 02.28.10, 03:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by morrison33
The way climate scientist are behaving is despicable and bring shame to all other practicing scientist of other disciplines.
I have seen this repeated before as a coded reference to the stolen CRU emails. And as has been repeatedly shown, these emails show anger and some things that shouldn't have been said were said, but the reality is that there's no evidence that anything actually reprehensible was done – the emails prove no actual malpractice / illegal, but these words have been spun by liars into a great deal of malign froth.
http://tinyurl.com/CRU-emails-debunked
http://tinyurl.com/ye25des
http://tinyurl.com/yeqqonr
Climatologists under pressure [Nature] - http://bit.ly/6Efa1s

I believe your implied claim to be objective is bogus as were your other vague unsubstantiated innuendo.

I was not cherry-picking. I know of no evidence of improper behaviour by mainstream scientists. Yet again your use of innuendo. I believe my examples are representative and I could offer more, but they would be limited to pretty-well the same subset of individuals [for instance: Singer and Seitz have appently a long history in the tobacco denial industry, which was where the tactics of lies & innuendo were proved to works against scientific evidence] (google Fred Singer site:tobaccodocuments.org / google Fred Seitz site:tobaccodocuments.org). I'm aware of numerous accusations made against mainstream scientists which when traced-down are mere quote-mining; fabrication; and innuendo. And unlike you, I made substantiated claims that can be checked. Please show me where I am mistaken.

Your claims and innuendo is unsupported by evidence. All such claims & innuendo must treated as bogus and malicious until proven otherwise. - Cite your evidence!

But you didn't. You chickened-out!

Cluck! Cluck! Cluck! Cluck! Cluck! Cluck!
Permalink
morrison33 Avatar
morrison33
Posts: 4
Posted: 02.28.10, 04:51 AM
I guess your idea of proof is radically different from mine. I am not giving you links to websites because that is neither proof nor evidence but opinions...there is quite a big difference between them, you might want to check that.

By the way --> "Cluck! Cluck!!!"...you are quite entertaining , and probably around 16 years old if not younger.
Permalink
DannyAstro Avatar
DannyAstro
Posts: 15
Posted: 02.28.10, 09:27 AM
For those of you who would like detailed references for many items in my talk, a paper I co-authored has just be published:
http://www.tos.org/oceanography/issu...3-1_greene.pdf

Study Shows Emission Reductions Alone Are Unlikely to Avoid Dangerous Climate Change

Calls for Increased Geoengineering Research

March 1, 2010 (Ithaca, NY) -- Even if all man-made greenhouse gas emissions were stopped tomorrow and CO2 levels stabilized at today’s concentration, by the end of this century the global average temperature would increase by ~2.4ºC (~4.3ºF) above pre-industrial levels, which is significantly above the level which scientists and policy makers agree is a threshold for dangerous climate change, according to a new study published in the March issue of Oceanography Magazine. Of course, greenhouse gas emissions will not stop tomorrow, so the actual temperature increase will likely be significantly larger, resulting in potentially catastrophic impacts to society unless other steps are taken to reduce the Earth’s temperature.

The scientists also conclude that the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007 report likely underestimates the potential dangerous impacts that man-made climate change will have on society. Furthermore, while the oceans have slowed the amount of warming we would otherwise have seen for the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the ocean's thermal inertia will also slow the cooling we experience once we finally reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. This means that the temperature rise we see this century will be largely irreversible for the next thousand years.

The study, “A Very Inconvenient Truth,” by Charles H. Greene of Cornell University, D. James Baker of the William J. Clinton Foundation, and Daniel H. Miller of The Roda Group, concludes that because the risks of climate change cannot likely be mitigated solely by reducing greenhouse gas emissions, society should significantly expand research into so-called geoengineering solutions that are meant to either reduce the amount of solar energy that reaches the earth or removes and sequesters greenhouse gases that are already in the atmosphere. Geoengineering solutions must be in addition to, not replace, dramatic greenhouse gas reductions if society is to avoid the most dangerous impacts from climate change.

For the full report, see http://www.tos.org/oceanography/issu...3-1_greene.pdf
Permalink
Page 9 of 10 « First 78 9 10
Please log in or register to post a comment.
Advertisement

Related Programs

Green Buildings: Best Practices from Switzerland Green Buildings: Best Practices from Switzerland
00:00:00 min | 63 Views
Richard Chartres: Hope for a Greener World Richard Chartres: Hope for a Greener World
00:44:51 min | 1,902 Views
Stewart Brand: Rethinking Green Stewart Brand: Rethinking Green
01:33:38 min | 21,033 Views
J-REC: Closing Remarks J-REC: Closing Remarks
00:11:58 min | 213 Views
Willie Smits: Replenshing a Rainforest Willie Smits: Replenshing a Rainforest
00:21:55 min | 8,046 Views

Browse Programs by Tag

Arts Books Climate Change Conflict Credit Crunch Defense Democratization Economic Policy Education Election 2008 Emerging Markets Energy Entertainment Entrepreneurship Environment Film Food Globalization Health & Wellness Healthcare History Internet Investing Journalism Law Medicine Music Muslim World Natural Sciences New Media Personal Technology Philanthropy Religion Social Issues Social Sciences Sustainability Terrorism The Bailout U.S. Foreign Policy White House 2009

Advertisement