Muslim carolers
It is not often that I get to combine the topics of "Muslim Carolers" and "Global Warming" but the link leads to a delightful article by Anthony Watts about attending AGU15. It has some good stories on both of those topics (and some insights on demonization as well).
For those who have expressed interest in 'why I do not think the Muslim religion per se is irredeemably awful' and asked me to write up my rational: I am working on a post on that topic. I have had the draft in process for about a month, and it will be a bit longer until it is done. Patience.
Jan
For those who have expressed interest in 'why I do not think the Muslim religion per se is irredeemably awful' and asked me to write up my rational: I am working on a post on that topic. I have had the draft in process for about a month, and it will be a bit longer until it is done. Patience.
Jan
Check out his website and read what he has to say. You may find that "Current scientific understanding" isn't what the progressives want you to believe.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/
I must say that I loved posting a thread with this title.
Jan
I will tentatively assume that you at least agree that one should be able to debate a scientific question with logic and data (both of which, I think, are on the side of humans having a minimal influence on global temps). There should be no 'consensus' that stifles science and promotes a political agenda.
You also probably noted that the article made a strong point against pigeonholing people due to labels. One of the things I like about Watts and Ridley is that each of them is willing to discuss (as opposed to argue) their opinions with 'the other side'. The assertion that something is accurate because the majority of people endorse it is not scientific and is a great conversation stopper.
Jan
This is the argument of those whose agenda disagrees with current science. We see it with non-political things like ESP and extraterrestrials visiting earth. The evidence shows they do not happen, but people who want to believe say we shouldn't stifle the debate. There is no debate. They've been studied and the answer is they do not exist. We're always open to extraordinary evidence, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
We see this same thing with claims that GMOs are dangerous or that alternative medicine has a place alongside so-called "Western" scientific medicine. It's also like creationists, I'm sorry "inteligent design proponents", who want to "teach the controversy." There is no controversy. Stating that fact doesn't make one domatic or close-minded.
It's the exact same thing with this issue of unwillingless to accept climate change. It's not surprising since what the evidence is showing is so undesireable, potentially having an effect on trillions of dollars of economic activity. Almost no one wants it to be true. Despite the political pressure of what we all wish were true, the evidence points to something inconvenient. I can completely understand disagreement about how to deal with the evidence, but I don't get the denial of the scientific evidence. My only model for it is people facing a dreadful disease turning to alternative medicine. But climate change isn't that scary. I'm confident we'll adapt.
You are trying to make false linkages between Global Warming skeptics and flat-Earthers and then decrying the AGW movement because AGW == flat-Earth. This is poor logic.
I am quite willing to discuss evidence with people who disagree on the interpretation thereof. When someone says that skepticism and argument is not possible, then they are not talking science, but religion. I had expected better of you than that.
Have fun with your GW religion.
Jan
I consider myself to be a skeptic. I am open to evidence that overturns existing scientific understanding. That is not the same as rejecting science. I accpet the science. In that statement is the possibility of new evidence.
But even the IPCC which is built around promoting climate change doesn't have a single prediction. It has a wide range of predictions based on variable possible responses of a complex system to an increase in CO2 capturing more heat.
So since you are so confident in the correctness of the theory -- which theory are you confident in? What do you expect the temperature increase to be over the next century? Even without throwing into question what is, essentially based on computer models rather than actual experimental science there is still a wide range of predictions that very from mildly beneficial to seriously detrimental.
What do you expect to happen?
It's actually because an increase in average temperature may involve increases in some regions and decreases in others.
"What do you expect the temperature increase to be over the next century? "
I'm outside my area of expertise, but my understanding is global average temperature will increase 1C over the next century due to the natural cycle of glacial minima/maxima. Human activities will at least double that, maybe more. .
IMHO we need to learn how to engineer the climate, how to manipulate/influence the natural cycle of glaciation. We discovered greenhouse gases affect climate, so I think we ought to be able to find similar things to influence the enviornment on purpose. The world won't support billions of people living affluent lives without some geo-engineering, IMHO.
Science is about skepticism theories need to be tested. Especially ones upon which trillions are going to be spent and which will affect our economy. People are dying today in cold winters, partially because of the high costs of 'green' energy. This is serious stuff.
Every aspect of the theory needs to be aggressively challenged -- because that's how you do science. And that goes even to the level of wanting to know the transformations between raw temperature readings and the adjusted values that go into the reported 'global temperature'.
Instead of open an careful debate, we are told that the debate is over and that only crackpots disagree with the theory -- and, if a respected scientist disagrees, he becomes labeled a crackpot. A self fulfilling prophecy.
This isn't being treated as science, it is being treated as politics -- or in many cases as a religion with tests of religious faith.
I agree we have to be open to new evidence, but that doesn't mean constantly looking for any way to make the answer what we wish it were. This is like someone saying, "but if you're not a medical expert how do you know there's not a homeopathic treatment for cancer. This is serious life and death stuff, so we have to keep investigating homeopathy." I reject that. The evidence on these things is so overwhelming. We don't have to keep asking the same question.
I imagine some scientific surprise will come in one of these areas I mentioned. It could even be in our favor, some unexpected cure for cancer, maybe even that AGW isn't an issue or is easily balanced by some other human activity. No matter how much I wish they were true, though, I wait for the science to show it.
I agree there's huge politics in AGW because as you as say there's trillions of dollars of economic activity affected and everyone wishes it weren't true. Despite all the obvious political pressure to deny it, the evidence is still overwhelming.
However, the fact that raw data has been fabricated and destroyed is evidence.
The outcome of computer projections based on built-in fallacies is not evidence.
What is evidence is the spending of a trillion dollars a year on propaganda. It buys those working in the area of non-science known as 'climate science' and works up rage in the political class who engage in virtue signalling, -that is, letting others know how much they are willing for others to be taxed to satisfy their own holiness.
Calls for suppression of dissent, jailing of dissenters, witch-hunts and dismissal of scientists are evidence.
I do look forward to what you put together on the Muslim religion. :)
Those carolers are actually smiling.
It could be evidence of the reformation in Islam so badly needed.
I still think that " the Muslim religion per se is irredeemably awful' ",
but individuals need to be judged as individuals.
Now if that reformation is happening, and pending your post, I may need to remove the word 'irredeemably'.