Yet another scientist, this one a Nobel winner, says Obama is dead wrong about climate change

a reply to: ketsuko

Well I'd say from the literary style and subject matter, it'd be disingenuous of anyone to accuse Ketsuko of doing such a thing.

Aside from the fact that Ketsuko is an admirable member, however much we may disagree at times...
She is unique to the board.

But I will not push you good sir.
Have a good evening, both of you.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

OK. I have a few questions for you.

First, what conclusions have you drawn from this research? If not definitive, then which direction do you lean towards?

Second, have you found any definitive examples of disinformation?

Third, does the technocracy/funding mechanism of current research facilities diminish pure, objective research?

Next, how much does PC modify the field in general?

I have more but that'll do...LOL

a reply to: nwtrucker

I just posted my opinion on the issue at the bottom of the last page:

Also I should make my opinion on this issue clear. I think that when a topic is this convoluted we shouldn't be making regulations and policies based around such unclear science. We should be worrying more about things such as oil leaks, overfishing, toxic waste dumps, nuclear disasters, hardcore deforestation, etc. Those things really change our climate in a tangible and observable way. Global warming is only one specific type of climate change and not even experts can agree that it's actually happening or that it poses a real problem for us. Global warming is nothing but a distraction from the real critical issues this Earth is facing, we should be paying attention to the magicians other hand, not the one he is waving around all the time.

Third, does the technocracy/funding mechanism of current research facilities diminish pure, objective research?

Yes of course it does. The government prefers to fund scientists which will produce the conclusions they are looking for. The scientists who go against the grain are ostracised, have their funding cut, and called denialists. The government then implements carbon taxes and other things that impact consumers and the price of electricity. It has already happened here in Australia, our electricity prices have sky-rocketed and yet our factories are still pumping out as much pollution as they always have, the cost was just passed onto consumers.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Thanks. A bit tired and missed it.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Dwight Eisenhower had words to this effect. While everyone remembers this part of a notable speech:

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

They tend to forget the immediate next part:

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present
• and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientifictechnological elite.

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system -- ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.

Mr. Ketsuko

a reply to: Gothmog

I found this gem upon continuing the article at:

www.climatedepot.com...

This man actually said (I assume it's taken from the video of his 'talk':

“So far we have left the world in better shape than when we arrived, and this will continue with one exception — we have to stop wasting huge, I mean huge amounts of money on global warming. We have to do that or that may take us backwards. People think that is sustainable but it is not sustainable.

Read more: www.climatedepot.com... 3fSGD5ewT

Methinks some cookies have been lost.

a reply to: FyreByrd

I agree with him. The War on Carbon has the potential to become another monetary sinkhole like the War on Poverty, or the War on Drugs.

Mr. Ketsuko

a reply to: ketsuko

Worse than either one....

I live in a place that was once a vast inland sea - the evidence of sea fossils are everywhere you dig. I live in a place that was once a tropical swamp and dinosaurs roamed freely - yet only their fossilized bones are now found. I live in a place once covered by a mile of thick ice - the evidence is carved out of and strewn about the land. This same place is presently in a struggle between forest and prairie - each side gaining ground against the other depending on rainfall. The climate has changed in this lands past - dramatically and catastrophically over the longer haul. Humans were not around to cause any of these shifts of nature in the distant past that I'm aware of. It's just a plain fact that the planets climate has and will again change in your local. Just how fast these changes can occur is something we have yet to understand. Perhaps these shifts can happen much faster than initially speculated. Just look at all the ancient abandoned cities around the globe. Some drastic changes in climate appears to be a major factor in their decline and loss of population in a relatively short time span.

This is from the website of those people who invited him!

While in general terms, Giaever’s discourse can be considered reasonable, the employment of such arguments on a topic with such potentially devastating consequences for human life has been strongly criticized and is not shared by the great majority of scientists. Earth science experts have criticized him on the grounds that Giaever was employing arguments that had long been debunked in the scientific debate on climate change and that he did not know the field well enough to understand the data he is trying to interpret. It has been recently shown that there is an overwhelming consensus among climate scientists that global warming of unprecedented speed is occurring and that it is caused by human activities. A survey showed than more than 97% of peer-reviewed papers addressing climate change between 1991 and 2011 endorse this view. This consensus is based on a series of common principles and practices that constitute a scientific discipline, of which Giaever has no direct knowledge for he has never worked seriously on it.
Moreover, the debate on climate change has always had strong political and economic implications, for most scientists are requiring the implementation of immediate international policies in order to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases, regarded as centrally responsible for the rapid global warming. Any criticism and doubt rose against the scientific consensus is often interpreted as a possible motivation to delay or interrupt action most scientists consider as necessary. In this sense, the view of authoritative scientists, experts in other fields, is often considered among the most dangerous rhetorical weapons to create doubts in the uninformed population.
Giaever’s position is mainly motivated by his strong and long-lasting belief in the power of technological advancements to create the best condition for the thriving of humanity. Only through such technological advancements, his argument goes, human beings have been able, and will be able, to overcome the possible destructive forces of nature. This belief has characterized his career at the boundary between research in theoretical physics and application in engineering and biophysics.

(My emphasises)

Source

This person has a Nobel prize (for his works in superconductivity) and has no actual knowledge in climate research/science.

If you want to believe him, do so. But it will be wrong.

a reply to: ManFromEurope

But he spent like a day on Google...

Pretty sure that is all it takes.

a reply to: Sremmos80

Another participent of the Youtube University, you think?
I like those. They are funny.

originally posted by: grimpachi

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: grimpachi

Good point. Ill-informed...or an objective assessment based on scientific analysis?

Oh right. He seems real knowledgeable on the subject. Afterall like he said;

I spent a day or so - half a day maybe on Google

He's right about it being like a religion, just look at your comment, you've taken something he said and twisted it to fit your agenda.

What he said was that he spent a half a day or a day looking at it on Google (i.e. to see what the arguments were) and he was shocked, he THEN became very interested in global warming and has no doubt spent a number of years researching it, since he first gave that lecture in 2012.

The truth though is that even if he had only spent 1 day researching it he'd still be miles ahead of you no matter how much you *think* you know - he's that much smarter than you or 99.9% of people who have an opinion on it.

a reply to: ManFromEurope

Why? because YOU say it will be wrong?

Your more qualified than he is?

Has not the whole scientific community not shown itself to be very wary of any data that is an anomaly to the now in vogue climatologist?

Does .8 degree rise in temperature not raise any doubts?

Saying he's wrong doesn't mean he's wrong any more than him saying it about the hype of climate change. This thread is full of 'believers', doubters and outright debunkers. At the least, there is sufficient data to question the conclusions.

Once again, not a single 'believer' has addressed the scientific data he shown/commented on.

Until you believers address that point, honestly and objectively, you will continue to receive skeptical rebuts. Both to your position, which may very well turn out to be correct, and to your integrity.

So far, it's nothing more than opinion Vs. opinion.

a reply to: ManFromEurope

A few thoughts to your post:

1) The 97% consensus is a fallacy, it has been debunked. To reference it means the writer has spent no time inquiring into its veracity and accepts it at face value. Science is not driven by consensus. Science is driven by observation, fact, and reproducibility. Aether, Bronotosaurus, spontaneous generation, and Earth as the center of the universe were once considered 'consensus' as well.

2) I fully agree with Dr. Giaver's stance on technology. Humanity will not prosper by stepping backwards.

3) The man writing this profile, Dr. Roberto Lalli, is injecting opinion into a biography. Poor form, this says more about Lalli than Giaver.

4) Please point out a computer model from a so-called "authoritative scientist" that has been correct in its trending. Remember that whole "observation, fact and reproducibility" from my #1? If they are experts then this should not be a problem.

Mr. Ketsuko

originally posted by: nwtrucker

Does .8 degree rise in temperature not raise any doubts?

Only your ability to understand physics , namely the amount of energy (heat) in a system is a function of temperature and mass

In addition your total lack of understanding of how 0.8 degrees affects flora and fauna. If it was so insignificant (as Gieaver implies) then plants and animals would be unaffected....they quite clearly are. Unless you are going to try and convince us that bumble bees (insect of the day affected by climate change) are in some kind of global conspiracy with Al Gore! Sheeesh!!!

originally posted by: ManFromEurope
This is from the website of those people who invited him!

While in general terms, Giaever’s discourse can be considered reasonable, the employment of such arguments on a topic with such potentially devastating consequences for human life has been strongly criticized and is not shared by the great majority of scientists. Earth science experts have criticized him on the grounds that Giaever was employing arguments that had long been debunked in the scientific debate on climate change and that he did not know the field well enough to understand the data he is trying to interpret. It has been recently shown that there is an overwhelming consensus among climate scientists that global warming of unprecedented speed is occurring and that it is caused by human activities. A survey showed than more than 97% of peer-reviewed papers addressing climate change between 1991 and 2011 endorse this view. This consensus is based on a series of common principles and practices that constitute a scientific discipline, of which Giaever has no direct knowledge for he has never worked seriously on it.
Moreover, the debate on climate change has always had strong political and economic implications, for most scientists are requiring the implementation of immediate international policies in order to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases, regarded as centrally responsible for the rapid global warming. Any criticism and doubt rose against the scientific consensus is often interpreted as a possible motivation to delay or interrupt action most scientists consider as necessary. In this sense, the view of authoritative scientists, experts in other fields, is often considered among the most dangerous rhetorical weapons to create doubts in the uninformed population.
Giaever’s position is mainly motivated by his strong and long-lasting belief in the power of technological advancements to create the best condition for the thriving of humanity. Only through such technological advancements, his argument goes, human beings have been able, and will be able, to overcome the possible destructive forces of nature. This belief has characterized his career at the boundary between research in theoretical physics and application in engineering and biophysics.

(My emphasises)

Source

This person has a Nobel prize (for his works in superconductivity) and has no actual knowledge in climate research/science.

If you want to believe him, do so. But it will be wrong.

You get my vote. Of course you will still get pelters from the deniers.

Why is it always that science deniers use quote mines and appeal to authority fallacies to try to disprove science? When have people's opinions on the matter ever mattered? All that matters is the evidence. I don't even CARE that he didn't win a Nobel Prize in climate science, because it's all irrelevant. The OP could have found the top guy in the climate science field disagreeing, and I STILL wouldn't care, because all that matters is the evidence. Quotes mining is just a red herring.

What about ice glaciers melting? Recently watched a VICE documentary in which a scientist, in antartica, explains how ice has been contually melting which will slowly increase sea level rise. I agree with the physicist in that climate change advocates can sometimes be extreme. Although, his short research on the subject does not mean that much in my opinion. Proper debates in the public eye would be the best. Instead of the left saying global warming is making the sky fall and the right outright denying its existence. A middle ground with debate needs to happen more, but you know.. That will never happen. The key to political control seems to lie in the constant struggle of duelality.

So if we add this new climate change denier to the list of other climate change deniers, how many does that make compared to the scientists - some of them Nobel prize winners, too - who do supposrt climate change? I'm thinking that the vast majority of scientists are still convinced that our climate is changing. However, I support this new scientist's right to form his own opinion.

a reply to: nwtrucker