USA Today: Could we be wrong about global warming?

that's fine except that you are dismissing all the evidence that someone could be an "expert" when they disagree with your opinion.

 

it seems like someone being a 38 year physicist/economist at the EPA(assuming papag was right in calling him that) would know a little bit about things effecting the environment. climate science certainly would seem to be related there.

 

Well, if he spent any of them here, we'd know he ain't no expert.

 

Even accepting the fact that the person at the EPA is an expert (whether they are or not) is pointless. There are many thousands of climate scientists who disagree with that position. While it is possible that the EPA economist could be right, the odds are incredibly slim. Yet people here seem willing to throw out every last bit of reason to prop that person up as an "expert" in order to support their statements.

How incredibly ironic..you call out barfo but not the others who dismiss the evidence by thousands of people who ARE experts...

 

barfo is dismissing the people as experts.

the others are acknowledging that the people are experts but disagree with their conclusions.

 

Bingo. It's not a debate when one side automatically dismisses anything that goes against their dogma by questioning the person presenting the data, and not the data itself. There are also many "climate scientists" (whatever that means) who question anthropogenic global warming, or even what impact man has on global warming. Calling them kooks, or questioning their credentials while accepting similarly credentialed people because they are on "your side" (not you, just an example), tells me that the science backing anthropogenic GW has some holes in it. The EPA "economist's" report, through meta-analysis, illustrates the weakness of the science that is recorded, yet instead of rebutting it with new science, or even pulling up the data and arguing against the "economists" conclusions, we simply get smears on the man's character, with zero knowledge of what he knows about climate science.

Weak sauce, IMO, and a sign of a very weak argument.

 

While I love the access to information you get out of the internet, there's no doubt the internet also spews a lot of crap too. Any idiot can make himself out to be an expert and a lot of times it's brutally hard to separate the signal from the noise. Throughout this thread, I've wished I'd done a better job keeping up with those NOAA scientists -- they lived this stuff everyday and knew the field inside and out.

I don't think Barfo's been out of line pointing out that it's tough to know who the real experts are purely by googling. (Cripes, is that really a controversial point to make?) Absent having direct knowledge of the field, then well-respected, peer-reviewed journals would be the best bet, but do any of us know which ones those are purely by the title? Near as I can tell, none of here on S2 are really experts on this stuff. And, we're not going to be come experts because of google or bing.

 

Which is why dismissing a person's data based on assumed credentials, yet accepting another person's data with assumed similar credentials, seems a bit agenda-driven.

When skepticism is shunned and skeptics are smeared, it isn't science. It's politics/agenda.

 

Lol. Politics? Agenda? In this thread? You're crazy.

Personally, I've taken everything said in this thread with a grain of salt. We're all hacks trying to act like we're experts.

 

Since when has skepticism, based on available scientific data that offers a counterpoint, been considered hackish in the field of science? It seems hackish to automatically dismiss the countering data without refuting it with data.

 

That's just it. You DON'T understand the articles you've posted. To be an effective skeptic, you actually have to understand the science. Heck, I'm even lumping myself in the hack category and I have a solid scientific background in a fairly relevant field. It takes a hardcore hack to not realize he's a hack.

As it is, you google articles, find one you like and accept it as gospel because it fits your political view. You deem someone an expert because their resume sounds relevant (if you knew the science, you'd know who the experts are because you'd have read their papers and appreciated the work of the best researchers.) I think it's hilarious anyone could actually be outraged that other people question the "expert" they found on google. Do you really know enough to get to that point?

To say that I've dismissed anything automatically is crap. I read those articles (or plot, as the case may be), considered them, and offered counterpoints. I've also gone so far as to say some of it is interesting and worth consideration. No automatic dismissals here. On the other hand, I think it's pretty fair to ask what's up with the automatic gospelization of those articles when you don't understand them.

 

So you're an admitted hack. You still can't explain/refute the temp v. CO2 graphs and the lack of correlation. I don't "google articles". I read articles. I see they don't match with the alarmism. I posted some in this thread.

Your answer?

Smear me and say I am "gospelizing" data that refutes your stance, and smear the scientists who compiled the data. Again, it's all agenda, and you are Exhibit A.

Skepticism based on new data isn't "gospelization" as a counterpoint. Immediately disregarding solid data that counters your beliefs? That is "gospelization".

I don't claim anything. You seem to be claiming an unprovable.

 

- Back to Refute? You don't understand the underlying science, but you apparently believe you do. Because of this, no one can ever refute anything. It's impossible. This thread is becoming proof of this. I've begun to hate the world "refute". (And yes, you are a HUGE hack . . . at least when it comes to global warming. The more you deny it the more your hack stature continues to grow.)

- No smeared scientists. I don't think I've smeared any scientists and I apologize if I have hurt a scientist's feelings. More than anything, I have called into question your idolatry of certain scientists (who just happen to mesh with your politics).

- All for skepticism. Science works best when there are opposing viewpoints. Scientists constantly test their own ideas. I have been skeptical of both sides of this issue. You have only been skeptical of the view you oppose for political and economic reasons. That's not skepticism. That's being an ideaologue.

- I'm not the one making wild claims. I see merit in both sides of the argument and think more research is needed. You say there is no correlation of CO2 to global warming and our policies should reflect this. I'd like to think I'm wrong about this, but you have not wavered once. Scientists are not prone to absolute statements, but politicos are.

 

You are the one dismissing science that contradicts the CO2 v. Temp causation. Again, smear the skeptic, but don't address the data.

It's a broken record, and your act is very old at this point. I didn't read the rest of your post because the first sentence was so absurd.

You may as well just take the barfo approach and dismiss things automatically based on assumed/perceived credentials.

Oh wait, you just did do that.

 

Hmmm. What years are we talking about? If the plot started with years when modern science (loosely, the start of the industrial age) started to improve healthcare, then I would expect a positive slope. The two would probably appear to have correlation because CO2 levels generally increased during that period.

Edit: I was mainly thinking CO2 emissions -- not sure if that will impact the point that you want to make.