Bill Nye’s Embarrassing Face-off with Tucker Carlson on Climate Change

Tags 

Good for Tucker Carlson. 

Good for Tucker Carlson.  Very seldom are Global Warming followers required to give evidence for their views.  Very seldom are they asked the hard questions for Man-Made Global Warming. 

PS – Happy Texas Independence Day!  March 2, 1836. 

David R. Brumbelow

Nye is sort of a lightweight,

Nye is sort of a lightweight, a celebrity rather than a scientist. Asking him to defend global warming is akin to asking Matt Damon to testify in congress on sex trafficking. In other words, how he performed in that interview is no reflection whatsoever on the veracity of global warming.

I confess to not at all understanding why conservative Christians have such angst with global warming.

Angst with global warming

....is probably not the issue at hand for the most part.  My concern is that every proposed "solution" to a climatological crisis by groups like the IPCC involves giving more power to government--the guys that gave us Love Canal, Lake Baikal, and a host of environmental disasters around the Warsaw Pact nations and the world.  It's like solving problems with automotive design by firing guys at Toyota and hiring the old engineering staff from Yugo.

Also worth noting is that Nye is really probably a better spokesman for the science than we'd guess, though I'd grant that as a mechanical engineer, his "certificates" really don't convey any more authority than my own EE degrees and ASQ certifications and the like.  The reason he's an excellent spokesman for the science is that over the years, the science has been politicized, and Nye is at his heart a politician, not a scientist.  

To wit, when climatologists argue "consensus", that's politics, not science.  When they refuse to share data, that's politics, not science.  When they have misplaced climate monitoring stations (70% of them by some estimates) to expose them to greater heat and replace known good data with known bad data (buoy ocean measurements with shipborne measurements), that's politics, not science.

Nye is an especially good spokesman for the theory given that while he claims to believe emissions are going to irreparably harm the earth, he maintains two homes and spends a lot of time flying around on private jets.  Again, politics, not science.  Scientists often have heard about an application called "WebEx" that allows a person to share data with another without using a plane ticket.

Maybe we should call him "Bill Nye the political hack."  It would at least be more accurate.  But again, he's a great spokesman for the consensus view in climatology along with guys like Al Gore. 

And for reference, I'm not totally opposed to the consensus view.  I've looked at absorption spectra myself, and the greenhouse effect can be real.  I'd actually support a tax on fossil fuels to encourage them to be used efficiently.  But that said, there are simply too many games being played in climatology to take them seriously.

GregH wrote:

GregH wrote:

I confess to not at all understanding why conservative Christians have such angst with global warming.

 

My beef is that this has become a religion to most scientist and has stopped becoming science.  It also points to the liberal progressive ideology that is increasingly becoming prevalent.  That is that 1) science is dominate over everything, and 2) if you don't believe what I believe is right, you will be attacked with extreme ferocity.

Case in point, is Judith Curry.  She is regarded as a pre-eminent climatologist, and as soon as she began questioning the climate models she was branded a heretic and shunned by the scientific community.  Even though she believes in climate change, has been on the international advisory committees around this, as soon as she begins to question that science is most likely over-emphasizing the human impact, she is booted off everything.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/i-was-tossed-out-of-the-tribe-climate...

 

 

More on Nye

It's worth noting that whenever Nye is confronted by someone who knows how to debate and use evidence well, he gets thrashed.   For example, after he debated Ken Ham, I read columns by secularists lamenting the fact that Nye clearly wasn't the smartest guy in the room.  My kids saw part of it and noted that Nye wasn't even trying to present evidence or arguments. 

Which is really weird--as an engineer, he ought to be able to use logic and evidence, and he's even got a few patents.  The heat flow and thermodynamics he learned in school ought to serve him well in understanding climatology in particular.  But for whatever reason, when he gets on his soapbox, he seems to think that the rules of logic and evidence don't apply to him, perhaps because he's gotten away with grandstanding in most of the venues he visits for so long.  And so whenever he "gets in the ring with a real boxer", he ends up (metaphorically) looking at the lights and a jailbird counting to him.  

For my undergrad degree in

For my undergrad degree in Political Science, I took 2 classes in communism. Classic communist tactics: Re-education camps (required "sensitivity" training), public shaming/shunning, marginalize/eliminate opponents, and "We're doing this for the good of the people".

Wally Morris

Charity Baptist Church

Huntington, IN

amomentofcharity.blogspot.com

Interpretation of Evidence

I'm not a science guy. I've never liked it. I'm reading a lengthly, technical book about the Bible and geology right now, written by old-earth Christian scientists with earned PhD's in geology. They wrote their book specifically to counter young-earth literature. There is a lot of technical stuff in there. I ordered Snelling's massive two-volume geology text via inter-library loan, and plan to read that next, to compare arguments. The OEC guys have good arguments. I'm sure Snelling does, too. For me, this is a fun journey, because I'm convinced the Scripture is clear on a six-day creation.

Basically, I think AiG has it right to say that it really comes down to how you interpret the evidence. What are your presuppositions going in? This colors how you interpret things. Christians need to recognize that (and many do - thanks AiG). But, secularists (like Nye) need to be willing to admit their own bias at the beginning - and account for it when they make arguments.

I say that to say this - we can throw competing facts at each other all day long. I don't have the time, training or desire to delve that far into the weeds on climate change or geology. I want to be reasonably informed, read a responsible book or two pro and con, and move on.

The best thing somebody can do going in is be honest about their presuppositions. We need more Christians, like Mark Smith, who have advanced training in the various sciences. We need people with God-centered worldviews to be out there, studying these issues and bringing a God-honoring mindset to the table to interpret this evidence for churches.

TylerR is a former Pastor. He lives with his family in Olympia, WA. He blogs here.

Climate change - Yes, Global warming - No

Global warming is a crock.  there is much evidence that, in fact, the earth is cooling (e.g. Antarctica).  There is some evidence that the earth is entering what is called a 'solar minimum' wherein overall the temperature is down but this causes unusual patterns in certain areas.    

Dr. Paul Henebury

I am Founder/ President of Telos Theological Ministries, and teach at

Sometimes I wonder if the

Sometimes I wonder if the heavy emphasis today on climate and warming is related to the climate changes and "warming" described in Revelation - If perhaps this is connected to the development of global political and economic structures which will be used by the antichrist during the tremendous climate judgments described in Revelation.

Wally Morris

Charity Baptist Church

Huntington, IN

amomentofcharity.blogspot.com

Climate change, global warming, and the greenhouse effect

It's probably a stretch to call the whole enterprise a "crock".  I've been watching it from a distance for a while, and here are a couple of basics.

The "greenhouse effect" is a misnamed description of the fact that certain gases absorb and reflect energy from solar and other radiation differently than others.  It's misnamed because a greenhouse actually works by preventing hot air from diffusing into cool air, and has little to do with whether the air or dirt inside absorbs sunlight differently from the dirt or air outside.  It is very real--any chemistry professor will be able to show you graphs that show how, say, carbon dioxide or methane operates differently from nitrogen.  For that matter, a bit of "google-fu" will get you graphs online.

The difference between "greenhouse effect" and "global warming" or "climate change" is that global warming requires that the net effect of extra gases of certain types is positive, and this is the trillion dollar question; is this true?  Does the earth have negative feedback that puts carbon dioxide and water vapor into growing plants primarily, or does the increased atmospheric warmth release more carbon dioxide (etc..) into the atmosphere to cause positive feedback?  At this point, most models overestimate warming significantly, so the "consensus" appears to be that it's a lot worse than the data shows.

"Climate change" (vs. "global warming") is an adaptation climatologists have made to this fact--the results are not monotonic as they used to predict, so they change the theory somewhat to allow for wider variance in climate.  This is not illegitimate, but it can be a political dodge at times.

A point where I clearly agree with Paul is that if we don't know how positive or negative the feedback is, we simultaneously do not know whether our emissions are going to be a smaller, or larger, driver of climate than what's going on with our planet and that yellow ball in the sky.   But that does leave us with a point for action; if we see tropical plants preserved in North Dakota coal, and if we see evidence of glaciers into northern Indiana, neither caused by my pickup truck's emissions, we would infer that we might do well to be able to cope with a climate that is somewhat warmer or colder than the one we enjoy now.

And at that point, we would refer to Wally's poly-sci education and ask ourselves which governmental policies allow this--and we would avoid those that allow mental patients to freeze to death at hospitals in the tropics.  In other words, we'd avoid those that the IPCC endorses.

WallyMorris wrote:

WallyMorris wrote:

For my undergrad degree in Political Science, I took 2 classes in communism. Classic communist tactics: Re-education camps (required "sensitivity" training), public shaming/shunning, marginalize/eliminate opponents, and "We're doing this for the good of the people".

And of course, this never happens in a church Wink

GregH

In a church? NEVER . . . !

TylerR is a former Pastor. He lives with his family in Olympia, WA. He blogs here.

I wonder if anyone else

I wonder if anyone else notices what is going on here. It is typical for sure, especially when you stick fundamentalists in a postmodern environment. 

We have a guy claiming conspiracy theory and hinting that scientists are communists. We have a theologian who boldly and dogmatically calls global warming "crock" even while there are oh thousands of scientists that study global warming for a living that disagree with him.

With their bias against anything new, a fundamentalist armed with a few articles he reads on the internet is a dangerous thing.

As for me, I am going to side with the experts, not believing them unequivocally, but at least giving them the benefit of the doubt and certainly more credence than armchair scientists. 

Leftist ideology

"Step on the grass and shoot a deer (during hunting season of course); it's a disposable planet"  John Piper in "Future Grace".

Pastor Mike Harding

And a guy indulging appeal to authority fallacies...

GregH wrote:

I wonder if anyone else notices what is going on here. It is typical for sure, especially when you stick fundamentalists in a postmodern environment. 

We have a guy claiming conspiracy theory and hinting that scientists are communists. We have a theologian who boldly and dogmatically calls global warming "crock" even while there are oh thousands of scientists that study global warming for a living that disagree with him.

With their bias against anything new, a fundamentalist armed with a few articles they read on the internet is a dangerous thing.

As for me, I am going to side with the experts, not believing them unequivocally, but at least giving them the benefit of the doubt and certainly more credence than armchair scientists. 

Again, that's the "appeal to authority" fallacy, and the most interesting thing about it is that the subject of this thread is not among the recognized authorities, but is rather a spokesman, so something of an irrelevant point to boot.  Note also that you're indulging appeal to popularity ("thousands of scientists...that disagree with him") and indulging a couple of ad hominem attacks like "armchair scientists", "conspiracy theory", and "bias against anything new."  

With a record like that, Greg, I'd caution you against making the accusation that others are anti-intellectual, and I'd encourage you to take a good look at the data as well.  I and others have provided some very testable references to the history of recent climatology which, if true, cast doubt on whether it's being practiced as science or politics.  Check us out on this--use your google-fu.

I don't know where Greg H is

I don't know where Greg H is coming from. He totally misreads my comments and makes assumptions about me, never having met me. My point is very simple: The tactics used by many in today's globalist culture are very similar to the tactics used by communists to "educate" and control people and what people think. As far as "armchair scientists": I am not a scientist and never claimed to be. In college (secular, Univ of Georgia), I did take geology, botany, and anthropology. I am not commenting as such on the science. I am commenting on the tactics.Seems to me Greg H is twisting my comments into a Fundamentalists V The World scenario. That's not the case at all. Greh H's comments are way out of line.

Wally Morris

Charity Baptist Church

Huntington, IN

amomentofcharity.blogspot.com

GregH

You wrote:

With their bias against anything new, a fundamentalist armed with a few articles he reads on the internet is a dangerous thing

That was certainly a quotable moment! But, to be sure, everybody can be guilty of this issue. I'm sure some folks commenting here have a whole lot more informed opinion they could offer on this issue, if they chose to.

Regardless of where a Christian stands on a particular issue, I believe Christians ought to be committed to truth. That means believers have a responsibility to fairly and accurately represent the other side, and an obligation to do a reasonable amount of credible and substantive research before venturing uninformed speculation.

I decided the time has come for me to do just that with, for example, the OEC vs. YEC conundrum. Hence, I am reading a 500-pg. geology text written by OEC Christian geologists . . .

TylerR is a former Pastor. He lives with his family in Olympia, WA. He blogs here.

Wally

I get what you're saying about tactics. The very video subject of this thread shows the bullying tactics of "consensus" and "settled science." I think Carlson did an outstanding job. I wonder if he studied under Van Til . . . !? Smile

TylerR is a former Pastor. He lives with his family in Olympia, WA. He blogs here.

My understanding is that we

My understanding is that we have a whole lot more Christians in the science depts than in the Humanities. 

Remember that postmodernism and modern intersectionality didn't start in the science depts; they started in the English depts (well, for postmodernism, I believe it was "architecture," more specifically; but it got to English quickly enough).

Bert Perry wrote:

Bert Perry wrote:

 

GregH wrote:

 

I wonder if anyone else notices what is going on here. It is typical for sure, especially when you stick fundamentalists in a postmodern environment. 

We have a guy claiming conspiracy theory and hinting that scientists are communists. We have a theologian who boldly and dogmatically calls global warming "crock" even while there are oh thousands of scientists that study global warming for a living that disagree with him.

With their bias against anything new, a fundamentalist armed with a few articles they read on the internet is a dangerous thing.

As for me, I am going to side with the experts, not believing them unequivocally, but at least giving them the benefit of the doubt and certainly more credence than armchair scientists. 

 

 

Again, that's the "appeal to authority" fallacy, and the most interesting thing about it is that the subject of this thread is not among the recognized authorities, but is rather a spokesman, so something of an irrelevant point to boot.  Note also that you're indulging appeal to popularity ("thousands of scientists...that disagree with him") and indulging a couple of ad hominem attacks like "armchair scientists", "conspiracy theory", and "bias against anything new."  

With a record like that, Greg, I'd caution you against making the accusation that others are anti-intellectual, and I'd encourage you to take a good look at the data as well.  I and others have provided some very testable references to the history of recent climatology which, if true, cast doubt on whether it's being practiced as science or politics.  Check us out on this--use your google-fu.

I am not surprised you took offense Bert because you are one of the ones I would be referring to. You consider yourself an expert in basically everything. You are quick to tell Mark Smith he is wrong on science, quick to correct any theologian on theology, quick to correct any musician on music. You can talk about fallacies all you want. Anyone can hide behind pointing out perceived fallacies to cover up for the fact that they just flat out are not a subject matter expert and should probably be a bit more humble and less dogmatic.

To be blunt, I would rather be guilty of the "appeal to authority" fallacy than the "listen to any self-proclaimed expert who has read some blogs" fallacy. Not that the first is really a fallacy. Next time you need a surgery, go read a blog or get your aunt to do it. Me? I will go to a trained surgeon.

You talk about data. Are you really REALLY under the impression that you, an untrained scientist, have a grasp of all the data and can understand it better than climate scientists? So you Bert, are ready to toss the conclusions of people who actually interpret this data for a living because you think you, an armchair scientist, know more than all of them? 

Honestly, it is just absurd. I would love for you Bert Perry to just say one time "I am not sure about that."

TylerR wrote:

TylerR wrote:

You wrote:

With their bias against anything new, a fundamentalist armed with a few articles he reads on the internet is a dangerous thing

That was certainly a quotable moment! But, to be sure, everybody can be guilty of this issue. I'm sure some folks commenting here have a whole lot more informed opinion they could offer on this issue, if they chose to.

Regardless of where a Christian stands on a particular issue, I believe Christians ought to be committed to truth. That means believers have a responsibility to fairly and accurately represent the other side, and an obligation to do a reasonable amount of credible and substantive research before venturing uninformed speculation.

I decided the time has come for me to do just that with, for example, the OEC vs. YEC conundrum. Hence, I am reading a 500-pg. geology text written by OEC Christian geologists . . .

I applaud you for reading the OEC book even though you may disagree going in. I could not agree more: Christians should be committed to the truth and that does mean some uncomfortable research. The OEC position is of interest to me. There are roughly 40 fairly credible scientific dating methods for example that point to an earth older than 6000 years. Does that mean OEC is right? No, but it does mean that a Christian committed to truth has to wrestle with that data. Hopefully, they do it in a credible and honest way but their record is not so good. 

Credible Criticisms?

GregH:

The OEC advocates who wrote this geology book look at a lot of creationist literature from ICR (e.g. Genesis Flood, and other materials - both older and more modern) and accuse YEC folks of making straw-man arguments and framing matters very selectively and simplistically as "red meat" for their YEC base. That worries me. I hunted around for a while for a YEC geology text that I can be fairly certain takes an honest, credible look at the evidence and goes into the level of detail this OEC text does. Snelling's work seems to be the best substantive thing out there. We;ll see.

To wrench this back on topic, I'll say this - a Christian needs to be discerning with the materials he uses to evaluate an issue. If you're imbibing hyper-partisan propaganda, then you aren't learning anything - you're being indoctrinated. This is why, for example, a good Seminary forces you to read perspectives from intelligent, committed and articulate people who disagree with you! On climate change, this FoxNews video is funny, but it isn't substantive. AiG's blog is often informative, but it isn't substantive. ICR's Acts & Facts is a step closer to substantive, but I worry about them, sometimes. Be willing to branch out and read credible folks you really disagree with.

TylerR is a former Pastor. He lives with his family in Olympia, WA. He blogs here.

On that uncertainty....

Well, one could look here, or here, if you want to find places where I admit uncertainty, Greg.  And if I looked further on this forum, I'd certainly find more.  Like here, or here, or here, or here, or here.  And wow--I notice you were in on those discussions.  Glad you noticed!

It is also interesting to me, Greg, that when it's an authority that matters to you, then we should appeal to that authority, but when it's an authority that you're not particularly hot on--say the fallacies of informal logic--then the same principle doesn't hold.    Awfully convenient for you.  

But that said, appeal to authority is still a basic logical fallacy, and any argument that uses it is fallacious and useless.  The conclusion might be correct by the broken clock phenomenon, but that's about as much hope as one can have with such an argument.  At least the guy in his underwear in the basement quoting random stuff off the Internet has a chance of a valid argument.

For my part, I'm going to stick with actual data--facts like that IPCC climatologists are appealing to consensus, refusing to share their data, are manipulating data and throwing out good data for bad, and a whole lot more--to conclude that the climatological fraternity has a disturbing degree of politics involved in their operation, and therefore I ought to pay attention to what motives government-appointed-and-funded scientists might have in their work.

Look Greg,

My comment about global warming being a crock is based on a little study and reflection; probably as much as your opinion.  If you want to believe the majority of "experts" then do so, but be consistent.  Follow the 'experts' on the age of the earth and the non-reality of the global flood.  Follow them on neo-Darwinism too.  But don't think that a short statement in a combox entitles you to brand me or others as some species of obscurantists.  As C.S. Lewis once said, one does not arrive at truth by counting noses.

Fact is, the majority of 'experts' know which side their bread is buttered.  Still, there are eminent naysayers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming 

You might cast an eye over this paper too: http://www.bibleframework.com/uploads/articles/2016-Sin-Deception-and-the-Corruption-of-Science.pdf 

Dr. Paul Henebury

I am Founder/ President of Telos Theological Ministries, and teach at

Illustration of appeal to authority

Here on SI, we have guys with at least their MDIV coming at fundamental theology from Reformed/Calvinistic, Arminian, "convergent", historic fundamental, FBFI, and I think even what many would call a "hyper-fundamental" perspective.  So when discussing a topic where these groups are known to disagree--many of them theologically important--who is our authority?

It gets even messier, of course, when we bring in our "outside theologians" like Thom Rainer, Johnny Mac, and a host of others.  One can quickly see that appeal to authority--any genetic fallacy really--really degenerates any discussion to the level of a high school student council election.

No insult intended to high school student councils, of course.

Bert Perry wrote:

Bert Perry wrote:

Well, one could look here, or here, if you want to find places where I admit uncertainty, Greg.  And if I looked further on this forum, I'd certainly find more.  Like here, or here, or here, or here, or here.  And wow--I notice you were in on those discussions.  Glad you noticed!

It is also interesting to me, Greg, that when it's an authority that matters to you, then we should appeal to that authority, but when it's an authority that you're not particularly hot on--say the fallacies of informal logic--then the same principle doesn't hold.    Awfully convenient for you.  

But that said, appeal to authority is still a basic logical fallacy, and any argument that uses it is fallacious and useless.  The conclusion might be correct by the broken clock phenomenon, but that's about as much hope as one can have with such an argument.  At least the guy in his underwear in the basement quoting random stuff off the Internet has a chance of a valid argument.

For my part, I'm going to stick with actual data--facts like that IPCC climatologists are appealing to consensus, refusing to share their data, are manipulating data and throwing out good data for bad, and a whole lot more--to conclude that the climatological fraternity has a disturbing degree of politics involved in their operation, and therefore I ought to pay attention to what motives government-appointed-and-funded scientists might have in their work.

There are some who do not even know what they do not know...

You are just a bit too influenced by postmoderism and essentially think all ideas are pretty much equal. You think that reading a few articles about global warming puts you on a plane where you can tell thousands of climate scientists that they are wrong when they have forgotten more about the topic than you will ever know. And when all else fails, you bring up logical fallacies like a crooked NBA official might call fouls to keep the underdog in the game. 

To an expert, armchair experts are just yapping little dogs that are annoying and making a lot of useless noise. If a climate scientist actually was reading this, I can only imagine her amusement.

Again, it is not the fact that people don't believe in global warming that bothers me. It is just this crazy dogmatism when even top scholars in the field admit they don't know for sure. It is this idea that everyone is an expert in everything after they read a few blogs. It is the ongoing devaluation of the expert.  

GregH

You used a generic feminine pronoun! You . . . you . . . liberal! Smile

TylerR is a former Pastor. He lives with his family in Olympia, WA. He blogs here.

TylerR wrote:

TylerR wrote:

You used a generic feminine pronoun! You . . . you . . . liberal! Smile

Yes, I have started doing that to make up for my first 40 years where I defaulted to male. Hopefully, I will catch up before I die because I believe in equality Smile

Ayup

Greg,I think I'll apply your method of thinking to you.  If I, with two degrees in engineering (often called "applied science", which it is), am unqualified to discuss matters of science coherently, how much more is a music major unqualified?  For that matter, the music major really doesn't even get the logical basis for action that an engineer does.  

Certainly he would not know the basis on how to describe postmodernism, and we would even infer that when he makes accusations like "not admitting uncertainty", he would even be unqualified to do so.  Let him alone with his keyboard and scales, and he'll be fine, but let's not intimidate him with real issues.

Of course, by doing so, I would find myself on the bad side of Scripture, which addresses the fallacy of appeal to authority brilliantly by pointing out that "unlearned men" like the Disciples had rhetoric that ran circles around that of the "learned" Pharisees, Sadducees, and Greek philosophers. Scripture also deals with silly personal attacks by pointing out that when, say, a person falsely accuses a man of being "postmodern" or "not admitting uncertainty", that this constitutes slander and evil speaking.

I'll close with a reference to your "appeal to authority" regarding a surgeon.  In choosing a surgeon, his certification is not what you look at.  You look at his record, the evidence he knows his trade, or else you risk being on the table with Kermit Gosnell looking at you.

Bert Perry wrote:

Bert Perry wrote:

Greg,I think I'll apply your method of thinking to you.  If I, with two degrees in engineering (often called "applied science", which it is), am unqualified to discuss matters of science coherently, how much more is a music major unqualified?  For that matter, the music major really doesn't even get the logical basis for action that an engineer does.  

Certainly he would not know the basis on how to describe postmodernism, and we would even infer that when he makes accusations like "not admitting uncertainty", he would even be unqualified to do so.  Let him alone with his keyboard and scales, and he'll be fine, but let's not intimidate him with real issues.

Of course, by doing so, I would find myself on the bad side of Scripture, which addresses the fallacy of appeal to authority brilliantly by pointing out that "unlearned men" like the Disciples had rhetoric that ran circles around that of the "learned" Pharisees, Sadducees, and Greek philosophers. Scripture also deals with silly personal attacks by pointing out that when, say, a person falsely accuses a man of being "postmodern" or "not admitting uncertainty", that this constitutes slander and evil speaking.

I'll close with a reference to your "appeal to authority" regarding a surgeon.  In choosing a surgeon, his certification is not what you look at.  You look at his record, the evidence he knows his trade, or else you risk being on the table with Kermit Gosnell looking at you.

Strawman alert: I did not say you were unqualified to discuss science. I said that you are not qualified to be dogmatic on climate science. 

In regards to your continual argumentation about experts and authority, I would just say that you are just being consistent about who you are. You really do believe that armed with a few facts, your opinions are just as valuable as someone who is immersed in the subject. Basically in your world, because you were an engineer, you are on par with experts in the field of science. Same goes for any number of other areas such as business, music, theology, etc where you have a thimble full of experience. Sorry, but I just disagree with that. 

You are indeed postmodern in this way though I will stipulate that such thinking existed before post modernism too. And no, saying so is not slander. 

I strongly doubt man-made

I strongly doubt man-made global warming / climate change, except in fairly limited ways.  Why? 

1.  As a kid in school I was taught global cooling by the same type experts. 

2.  Experts can be wrong for multiple reasons. 

Quick example, look up Dr. Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis; an amazing story.  He saved a lot of lives before the experts destroyed him. 

3.  Climate goes in cycles. 

4.  The global warming / climate change experts are almost never held accountable, or asked the hard questions. 

5.  A meteorologist said he cannot accurately predict the weather for the next two weeks, much less for the next hundred years. 

And I could go on. 

Why not just deal with pollution on an honest basis, rather than ginning up a crisis? 

From my view, two great sources of information about Climate Change: 

http://cornwallalliance.org/

https://www.amazon.com/Great-Global-Warming-Blunder-Scientists/dp/159403...

Roy W. Spencer is a former senior NASA climatologist. 

David R. Brumbelow

On the limits of expertise

One way of phrasing the matter is that there is no amount of supposed expertise that can rescue bad logic or bad data.  Garbage in, garbage out, and one does not need to understand every nuance of a branch of knowledge to comment on it.  If it was required, then nobody in that area could comment, since research on this scale is generally done by teams with varying expertise, just like engineering projects in companies.  One expert sets up the experiment, another does the measurement tools, another does the statistical analysis, etc..

And really, Greg's assertion that the invocation of the rules of logic is like a "corrupt" game official calling fouls to keep a game close is just nonsense, especially when it comes to the variants of genetic fallacies.  They are not like disputable holding or pass interference calls, but rather more like flagrant fouls punished by 15 yards and loss of down, and then expulsion from the game.  If the flag is not thrown on these, the game quickly becomes a brawl.

To wit, the insults we've seen flying on this very thread, generally not grounded in fact.  It reminds me (again) of one of Mike Royko's best columns (IMO at least), where he notes that a lot of what is said online would never be said in a bar or a coffee shop, because a very real fight would break out.

Another way of phrasing this is that if the supposed "experts" are using garbage logic or data--something that is very clear from the hundreds/thousands of newspaper and magazine articles I've read on the subject in the past 20 years or so--then maybe we ought to question whether these guys are really that expert, or whether their position is an example of "Rabbit's Thesis."

Bert Perry wrote:

Bert Perry wrote:

One way of phrasing the matter is that there is no amount of supposed expertise that can rescue bad logic or bad data.  Garbage in, garbage out, and one does not need to understand every nuance of a branch of knowledge to comment on it.  If it was required, then nobody in that area could comment, since research on this scale is generally done by teams with varying expertise, just like engineering projects in companies.  One expert sets up the experiment, another does the measurement tools, another does the statistical analysis, etc..

And really, Greg's assertion that the invocation of the rules of logic is like a "corrupt" game official calling fouls to keep a game close is just nonsense, especially when it comes to the variants of genetic fallacies.  They are not like disputable holding or pass interference calls, but rather more like flagrant fouls punished by 15 yards and loss of down, and then expulsion from the game.  If the flag is not thrown on these, the game quickly becomes a brawl.

To wit, the insults we've seen flying on this very thread, generally not grounded in fact.  It reminds me (again) of one of Mike Royko's best columns (IMO at least), where he notes that a lot of what is said online would never be said in a bar or a coffee shop, because a very real fight would break out.

Another way of phrasing this is that if the supposed "experts" are using garbage logic or data--something that is very clear from the hundreds/thousands of newspaper and magazine articles I've read on the subject in the past 20 years or so--then maybe we ought to question whether these guys are really that expert, or whether their position is an example of "Rabbit's Thesis."

Bert, here is another way of putting it. If there is going to be a real debate on climate warming, it requires more than just not breaking rules of logic. It requires knowledge and expertise of the subject (of which you have neither in any substantial way). My point here is that I am going to discard your attempts to explain away global warming because in fact, you know a tiny amount of the data and very little about how to interpret it and yes, will give more credence to those that actually do know something of what they are talking about. If you don't get why I am not going to accept your dismissal of climate change when you are not qualified to speak on the issue, I really can't help you. You are too steeped in your worldview to even see the problem. 

So you go ahead and read your "hundreds/thousands of newspaper and magazine articles." Regardless, you are not qualified to speak dogmatically on this. Nor are you qualified to proclaim the true experts are actually non-experts. Sorry to be blunt but that is the way it is. 

Dang...

...you're speaking pretty dogmatically for someone with no expertise, Greg.   Pot meet kettle?

Seriously, you're living proof of what I just noted.  Lacking a valid response to my argument, you're insulting me, and you've insulted others in this thread, too.  Like I said, when we ignore the rules of logic, we end up with a brawl, and we hence infer that these rules are part of logic, and of Scripture, for a reason.

Bert Perry wrote:

Bert Perry wrote:

...you're speaking pretty dogmatically for someone with no expertise, Greg.   Pot meet kettle?

Seriously, you're living proof of what I just noted.  Lacking a valid response to my argument, you're insulting me, and you've insulted others in this thread, too.  Like I said, when we ignore the rules of logic, we end up with a brawl, and we hence infer that these rules are part of logic, and of Scripture, for a reason.

No insult intended. It all comes down to this: you think that people that read magazines and newspapers about climate science can go to toe to toe with climate scientists. I don't. Same for music, theology, business and pretty much all the other areas you consider yourself an expert in.

 

Nye's Credentials

When Bill Nye says, "Those of US in the scientific community" I am amused.

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

Word picture

Here is a great example of the "expertise" of the IPCC; a photoshopped "flooded house" used as an illustration in a report from 2008.  But of course, if someone doesn't have a Ph.D. in climatology, one is absolutely not qualified to go "toe to toe" with the experts, is he?  Certainly he's not qualified to remember hot summer days and wonder if climate monitoring stations over pavement and near heat sources might be rigging the data.  When the flawed stations are removed from the sample, the overall warming trend is drastically reduced.

It was not for no reason that Deming said "In God we Trust; all others must provide data."  It is my hope and prayer that the climatological community learns this before they are utterly discredited, and they're getting pretty close already.

Bert Perry wrote:

Bert Perry wrote:

Here is a great example of the "expertise" of the IPCC; a photoshopped "flooded house" used as an illustration in a report from 2008.  But of course, if someone doesn't have a Ph.D. in climatology, one is absolutely not qualified to go "toe to toe" with the experts, is he?  Certainly he's not qualified to remember hot summer days and wonder if climate monitoring stations over pavement and near heat sources might be rigging the data.  When the flawed stations are removed from the sample, the overall warming trend is drastically reduced.

It was not for no reason that Deming said "In God we Trust; all others must provide data."  It is my hope and prayer that the climatological community learns this before they are utterly discredited, and they're getting pretty close already.

Right, so it never occurred to the climate scientists what you have pointed out about pavement and heat sources. You really need to give these people a call and help them. Maybe after you help the Family Christian bookstores recover from bankruptcy since you understand their situation better than they do too.

And you do this all after just reading magazines and newspaper articles. Imagine how effective you might be if you actually saw the data or maybe even helped create the data...

 

GregH wrote:In regards to

GregH wrote:
In regards to your continual argumentation about experts and authority, I would just say that you are just being consistent about who you are. You really do believe that armed with a few facts, your opinions are just as valuable as someone who is immersed in the subject.
At least Bert tries to bring in a few facts, a few resources, a few papers, a few web sites into the discussion. You, you just appeal to the experts and majority opinion, as well as attack those who disagree with you on this thread, without presenting any actual data or evidence whatsoever.

-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University

Maybe try reading the links, Greg

GregH wrote:

 

Bert Perry wrote:

 

Here is a great example of the "expertise" of the IPCC; a photoshopped "flooded house" used as an illustration in a report from 2008.  But of course, if someone doesn't have a Ph.D. in climatology, one is absolutely not qualified to go "toe to toe" with the experts, is he?  Certainly he's not qualified to remember hot summer days and wonder if climate monitoring stations over pavement and near heat sources might be rigging the data.  When the flawed stations are removed from the sample, the overall warming trend is drastically reduced.

It was not for no reason that Deming said "In God we Trust; all others must provide data."  It is my hope and prayer that the climatological community learns this before they are utterly discredited, and they're getting pretty close already.

 

Right, so it never occurred to the climate scientists what you have pointed out about pavement and heat sources. You really need to give these people a call and help them. Maybe after you help the Family Christian bookstores recover from bankruptcy since you understand their situation better than they do too.

And you do this all after just reading magazines and newspaper articles. Imagine how effective you might be if you actually saw the data or maybe even helped create the data...

Greg, if you actually would bother to read the references--people actually interested in getting to the truth do that--you would have learned that climatologists with the IPCC were indeed consulted for the Fox article, and that Anthony Watts responded by plotting the original IPCC data, the "corrected" data, and the data from climate stations that were correctly stationed.  The end result is that the "corrections" do not match the trends shown by the properly situated climate monitoring stations, which in turn replies that the "corrections" are incorrect--much smaller than the magnitude of the difference between poorly situated stations and properly situated.

It's worth noting as well that I have personally performed peer review of papers, and I have also personally created and evaluated numerical models of physical phenomena, even publishing a few of them.  Creating these models is, ahem, part of my job, and when models do not work, they are either modified or abandoned.  They are based on some of the same heat flow models used by climatologists, just on a different scale and with different materials.  Changing constants, more or less.  I know from experience what happens when the incoming data are bad--the results are as well.

Put mildly, exactly what you intend to achieve by suggesting engineers don't know how to analyze data is beyond me.  I might as well suggest concert pianists can't play a scale with equal logic and authority.

But to the topic, it is very telling to me that NOAA and the IPCC are not "raising Hell" over the improperly situated climate stations (they're not that expensive to replace), that the mismatch between models and measured data does not lead to a degree of humility on their part, and that bad actors (East Anglia, Michael Mann) in the brotherhood are not given the bum's rush.

Here are a couple of authorities, by the way, on your favorite tool of illogic:

Carl Sagan:  One of the great commandments of science is "Mistrust arguments from authority."  Too many such arguments have proved too painfully wrong.  Authorities must prove their contentions like everybody else.

Leonardo da Vinci:  Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using his intelligence; he is just using his memory.

Again, how many disasters of science--caloric, luminiferous aether, Aristotelian physics, geocentric astronomy, modern climatology, and more--need to happen before we hold scientists to the principle so well stated by Sagan, da Vinci, and Deming?  And for that matter, Greg, if you truly believe that ordinary people cannot go "toe to toe" with experts and discuss these matters, I plead with you to cancel your voter registration so you cannot possibly vote or stand on a jury.   Don't inflict your willful ignorance on your neighbors.

Another good picture of the perils of "appeal to authority" and groupthink; Hans Christian Anderson's The Emperor's New Clothes.  Think about it a moment; every authority in the kingdom said he looked great.  The little boy is coming for the IPCC in the same way he came for Family Christian bookstores.  

I know a hand full of climate scientist

None of them are the "big guns", but they are "experts" in the field. I have asked them this simple question, and they never answer. FYI all climate models are based off of measuring the temperature of the earth in the past. I ask them, if you were wrong about the temperature in say 1000 AD, how would you know? No response.

That to me is the major problem with using future climate models to claim catastrophic climate change. based on human activity

That's....embarrassing...

Mark_Smith wrote:

None of them are the "big guns", but they are "experts" in the field. I have asked them this simple question, and they never answer. FYI all climate models are based off of measuring the temperature of the earth in the past. I ask them, if you were wrong about the temperature in say 1000 AD, how would you know? No response.

That to me is the major problem with using future climate models to claim catastrophic climate change. based on human activity

Mark, if you're at all being fair to your acquaintances, and I have no reason to believe you're not, what you have just said is far more damning than anything I have noted.  If indeed someone reading a portion of climatology/etc., journals and contributing to them cannot provide a basic answer to such a question--I know I could, even as a skeptic not working in the field--then what has been confessed is that some portion of climatologists know "their corner" of the field and nothing else.  And if that is widespread--to be fair I'm pretty sure Mark's sample is not thousands of climatologists--that would explain a lot of what many here are noting out of the IPCC.  

To draw a comparison,  AIG and CRI have noted a number of bad arguments for Biblical creation, and they keep lists of them to help their constituents going back for decades.  Doesn't mean that they're perfect, but it does mean they keep their eye on the ball (to a degree) and admit when they--or their competition--screw up.  It's a hallmark of real science.

(for reference, the answer to Mark's question is that we have a number of measurements that we believe correlate to global temperatures at various times, and in the year 1000, we would have written histories, oxygen isotope measurements from ice cores, tree ring measurements, and more which would tend to indicate a certain range of temperatures is likely....and then you admit that there are certain assumptions for all of these)


▴ Top of page