Do you think calling the best scientists "stooges" and claiming "no proof of global warming" is credible?

Question

Some of the arguments made here seem simply incredible to me. People have called those who support mainstream global warming theory "stooges". And claim that there is "no proof" of global warming.

The National Academy of Sciences is 1800 of the US best scientists, who are selected by their peers.

Does anybody think they're ignorant? Or that they would support science with "no proof"?

In their statements that global warming is mostly caused by us, they are supported by EVERY majow scientific organization in the world.

Do you think those who support mainstream global warming theory are "stooges"? Do you think scientists in general are stupid or dishonest?

Answer 1

Stupid a little strong but dishonest ,I think so. The CO2 is not there to support GW. If CO2 is up to 300 ppm. What percent is that of our air.

Answer 2

You know what's funny?  A lot of the people making the argument against global warming believe in God lol

Answer 3

it would be laughable

except that it seems to be influencing some people who would rather not think we have to change, or think of the problems of people beyond their own cosy lives, here on t'internet and to a lesser extent in real life.

its the same mode of attack as the evolution denyers use, and the only one they can use in the absence of any evidence.

sling enough mud...

Answer 4

Keep in mind most of the folks that do this type of thing probably flunked High School science...

And they learned their tactics from talk radio.  Oh yes, we only wish that weren't true!

Answer 5

Actually Bob I emailed a climatologist last evening this person is no ones fool.  I was surprised to receive a response from him and he said disputing  AGW  is not good for ones career. IPCC has made ups its mind and will have nothing to do with a scientist that may in fact have evidence that would dispute AGW,  this is not science this is politics.  He is greatly concerned because the data is not has conclusive as some would say.

The reason I chose him because to stand up against a movement  is foolish however the individual could in fact be right.   Why are we not allowed to hear all sides and make a informed decision?

The debate here has become at times more name calling and foolish people threatening to kill if you do not believe what they believe.   That does not persuade, it polarizes and not a good forum for real and serious debate.

I do not believe all scientist are stooges however they are human and as humans it take more courage to stand alone then to sit with the crowd.

Answer 6

That is the only way for the deniers to re-direct the argument.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0103/p09s0...

Answer 7

If "stooges" means that scientists have a sense of humor, I sure hope so.

I hope that they're willing to move forward with "no proof of global warming" as well.  Science offers theories, such as gravity.  We fly in airplanes assuming that the theory of gravity is well enough understood to trust our lives to.

As for climate change theory, the warming is very well documented, the preponderence of evidence points to mankind as the primary driver (by the exact same mechanism shown to cause natural warming in the past), scientists' confidence level is in the 95-99.9% range, the stakes are extremely high (survival of most species on the planet, including humans is at risk), and the cost of mitigation is extremely low ($100/year to offset a person's total GHG emissions, which is far less than one month of health insurance and less than two months of auto insurance, both far less likely events).

Theories in science are open for disproving.  If warming weren't occuring, that would be extremely easy to show (no one has).  If there was another primary cause than mankind's GHG emissions, there would be a unified group of scientists backing and researching that plausible alternate theory (with tons of oil, coal and auto industry funding).  There is no such alternate theory (although non-scientific rumors and consipracy theories abound, since they're extremely cheap for lobbyists to throw out and they're surprisingly effective).

The argument that science should offer "proof" is a dishonest one, created by the propaganda pros whose job it is to delay understanding and action on this issue.  It sounds reasonable, but delay will only dramatically increase food costs (it is already making travel to third world countries very dangerous due to riots) and ti will ultimately threaten our survival.  Like auto, health, homeowners and business insurance, we need to invest a small sum to prevent having to pay a much higher price a few years down the road.  We don't have or need "proof" that we each will get sick or in a car crash before we buy insurance against those events.  

It would be even more stupid to skip global warming insurance (mitigation steps) since the odds of serious consequences are much higher and the cost will be life as we know it.  We shouldn't be so gullible as to fall for the poorly thought out "but we don't have proof" argument, because it's totally irrelevant.  We have more than enough evidence, and we have a very short window of time in which we can prevent the worst outcome.  That's why scientists insist that we must act now.

Only 6% of the American population doesn't believe in global warming.  A few of them may be very vocal, even belligerent, thinking that if they deny something enough times or with enough drama that gives them more credibility.  They're irrelevant.  

The same people, about 5-6% of the population, claim that the Apollo lunar landing was a hoax.  Simply ignore them.

Answer 8

It's hard to agree with a group that is searching for the gene that makes black males violent.  Eugenics should have died out a century ago however groups like the NAS still keep life breathing into this bogus pseudo science because of racial bigotries.

If the NAS is researching one pseudo science like eugenics, why is it hard to assume that they aren't supporting other pseudo sciences like "global warming"?

Answer 9

I don't stoop to name calling (except one person who insulted me personally) as it is not a meaningful debate.  I disagree with you mostly Bob, but I agree with you on this point.  Insults, slogans and just blanket statements are not meaningful debate, and people who engage in such tactics lose their credibility no matter what side they are on, in my opinion.

Consensus does not equal fact.  I realize that that SOUNDS like a slogan, but it is true.  The National Academy of Sciences is mostly government supported scientists.  I work in industry.  I know hundreds of scientists but I don't know a single NAS scientist - they all work for the National Research Council and such.

Your sentence "selected by their peers" means something.  That is like saying that all the Cardinals in the Catholic church are Catholics, therefore Catholics have to be right, as there is a consensus.  They would not be where they are if they were not catholics.

There is a consensus among all the world's religious organizations that God exists.  That is not proof that God exists, or even evidence that God exists.  Do you think they are ignorant?  

I am a scientist myself, and I don't know how someone can make the argument that pro-global warming scientists (who almost all work directly or indirectly for governments) are unbiased, but then disregard the research of those of us who "deny" it by stating that we are biased due to our industrial connections.

Answer 10

Somehow they have the idea that being snarky and insulting, helps to 'win' a debate. They show a preference for insults, instead of intelligence.  That's all they have left.

Answer 11

Bob, do you know the difference between science and religion?

You're saying that if someone you assert is an authority believes something then you also believe it.

Also your often made claims about scientific organisations are just not correct.

Organisations that you refer to as scientific organisation are actually professional associations formed to further the interests of their own members.  They don't do any research.  

With the exception of NASA and the IPCC no scientific organisations like universities or research organisations have claimed that significant AGW is likely.

One of the worlds largest research organisations is Australia's CSIRO.  While they are happy to document the IPCC findings, you might want to check out the strongly worded disclaimer on their summary of climate change predictions.

Answer 12

When they decided to support the theory of AGW what was the vote count?

By the way isn't this the third time you have asked such a question?  If you were a skeptic you would have been reported for abuse.

Do honest scientist want to get rid of the MWP as Demming testified under oath to the Senate?

Answer 13

No they represent the cumulative knowledge of varying aspects of science and technology. Yes they have made poor decisions in the past. Some of their approaches to nuclear waste left most of the world flabbergasted. They now have help from independents who are correcting those  problems. Those where the good old days, where a blanketed generalization explained everything. I do think their standards have reached a higher level. One could say from skepticism, and technology.

Answer 14

I think they are looking to get paid.  People who have honestly come out to speak against global warming have been fired.  Global Warming pays.

Look up the medieval warming period.  Where glaciers are in Greenland that they're panicking over melting, Vikings had farms.

It's a cycle.  This year is cooler because the warming period is probably coming to an end.

They're not 'stooges' but they're not being honest because they're looking for their checks.

My humble opinion.

If the MWP is less than it is today (and they can only really speculate as there weren't advance measuring systems back then), then why is there ice and glacier in Greenland now where it was farming before?  Honestly how can there be -fact- when they can't even derive real measurements from back then?

Answer 15

Not in the least.  But really at this point, what other choice do the deniers have?

They can't continue to try and blame the Sun forever, when no scientific study and only one or two crackpot scientists support this argument.  They have zero scientific footing, so all they can do is engage in ad hominem attacks against the scientists.

The only chance the deniers have of being right is if both the scientific data and scientific consensus are wrong.  So they say the scientists are biased or stupid or say consensus doesn't prove anything and pretend the evidence doesn't exist.

Honestly, I can't even remember the last time a 'skeptic' made a valid scientific argument.  Back when guys like Tomcat and Ron C were around, at least we had some interesting scientific discussions.  They usually cherrypicked the data, but at least there was data being discussed.  Now all we get from the 'skeptics' are ridiculous conspiracy theories and childish ad hominem attacks.  I don't even bother to respond to most of them anymore.