Comments On: Every Voice Does Not Deserve a Microphone by Paul Constant http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/12/05/every-voice-does-not-deserve-a-microphone Comments On: Every Voice Does Not Deserve a Microphone by Paul Constant en-us Copyright 2013 The Stranger. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, The Stranger readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact The Stranger. webmaster@thestranger.com (The Stranger Webmaster) Wed, 22 May 2013 00:00:01 -0700 Wed, 22 May 2013 00:15:00 -0700 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss <![CDATA[Re: Every Voice Does Not Deserve a Microphone]]> Posted by Science Schmience!]]> Fri, 07 Dec 2012 13:05:10 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Every Voice Does Not Deserve a Microphone]]>
But yes, the concept of equal time should be weighted by the reliability and reputability of the source. Even Wikipedia does that.
Posted by DRF]]> Fri, 07 Dec 2012 11:50:50 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Every Voice Does Not Deserve a Microphone]]> Posted by Cottoneyed]]> Thu, 06 Dec 2012 17:09:34 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Every Voice Does Not Deserve a Microphone]]> http://www.breadandbutterscience.com/Wea…

Morano is right: There are hundreds of peer-reviewed papers that cast doubt on the current alarmism.
Posted by dbeyat45]]> Thu, 06 Dec 2012 16:29:53 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Every Voice Does Not Deserve a Microphone]]>
Every generation gets fooled by the change the weather/climate scam. Look at andy griffith when klinger comes to town and puts a hex.... of weather. andy discovers they just have a short wave radio and hear the weather forecast never making it to the mayberry-ites. He sends klinger packing. We should do the same with gore and company.
Posted by fcukmaobama]]> Thu, 06 Dec 2012 16:08:17 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Every Voice Does Not Deserve a Microphone]]>
Every generation gets fooled by the change the weather/climate scam. Look at andy griffith when klinger comes to town and puts a hex.... of weather. andy discovers they just have a short wave radio and hear the weather forecast never making it to the mayberry-ites. He sends klinger packing. We should do the same with gore and company.
Posted by fcukmaobama]]> Thu, 06 Dec 2012 16:06:09 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Every Voice Does Not Deserve a Microphone]]>
Then there's the "appeal to authority" argument, when it should be clear to all that it's "authority" which is being questione so that is a non-starter. There is no shortage of credible scientists who are skeptics, whether the total number is more or less than their opponents hardly matters. Science isn't determined by a vote count.

Morano says there's been no warming for the past 16 years. NOAA and scientists at other organizations agree. There have been vigorous arguments about whether one recent year is warmer than another, but it turns out that the difference in temperature betwixt the two years invariably involves a few hundredths of a degree. By the time one collects temperature data across an entire planet for one year the only thing you can be sure of is that .. it ain't accurate to hundredths of a degree. Two thermometers, one just a foot or two above another can give a much bigger difference than a few hundredths of a degree! (and how many do you think can even measure to an accuracy of hundredths of a degree?)

There were hundreds of peer reviewed studies showing that the Medieval Warming Period was as warm,likely warmer than it is now. Along came Michael Mann, supported with lots of bucks from the UN, and already in control of many of the periodicals covering climate science, and claims that the MWP was merely a regional phenomenon. How many people know that hundreds MORE peer-reviewed studies have shown up since Mann's hockey stick study which continue to show that the MWP was global, not regional, and as warm,likely warmer than now? If one wants to argue about a scientific consensus, it would in this example, not be favoring Mann's claim. (Also, these peer-reviewed studies were conducted in 40+ different countries, scientific investigations carried out basically across the globe. Mann's data, on the other hand, was much more limited. Then there's the fact that his "study" was rebutted, both because of the data he used, and the process he used to arrive at his conclusions.

Now we have the silliness of claiming every hurricane, tornado, or drought is proof that co2 (because it has increased, and man's activities are causing at least some of that increase) has caused the "climate change". Even NASA's Hansen, a zealot, runs away from that claim.

Do any of the people who visit this site understand that ALL the computer models predicting catastrophic global warming assume that water vapor is the real culprit? Their models assume that the temperature increase brought on by co2 increase brings on a positive feedback from water vapor which, in response, increases the temperature 2 to 3 times more than the temp increase brought on by co2. NOBODY understands feedback, neither all the possible feedbacks or whether the net result in this case is positive or negative. In fact, there are scientists who argue that cloud cover (that would be water vapor) actually provides a negative feedback. Ironically,the computer models inadvertently verify this because their projections are always too high. Neither have the climate yet dealt with what more recent satellite data shows - that when the earth is warmer, more heat escapes to space!

The US has spent on the order of 100 billion dollars, all in support of studies claiming anthropogenic global warming, and there is still no evidence supporting that claim. Hardly a nickel of our government expenditures (same goes for some other governments) is allocated to investigating whether man's activities and/or increasing co2 have anything to do with our current warming.

Incidentally, the general notion that our current warming began about the time our industrial revolution came along is also dubious. Our current warming did not begin at the end of the Little Ice Age (generally identified as in the 1800s). That end date is arbitrary and not relevant in any event. Our current warming began when the LIA started warming; that would begin at its lowest temperature which is (according to Dr. Evans, Aussie climatologist) around 1630, some 200 years before our industrial revolution. That's 200 years of natural warming before co2 began increasing. But, there's more... co2 would have had to increase for decades before it could possibly have had any impact on climate, perhaps even a century or two. That's 300 years of natural warming before co2 began increasing. Could just be a coincidence.

Whether we are having some impact on our climate is certainly a possibility. Practically anything is possible, but there is not one iota of evidence. EVERYTHING points in another direction, and can best be summed up with a simple question. Why would anyone be so naive as to believe that a UN based organization, with the title (and specific mission) called "The International Panel on Climate Change"(IPCC) would do a study of climate research (supposedly performed by others) and come away with the conclusion that "it's just mother nature at work".?
Posted by GoFigure]]> Thu, 06 Dec 2012 12:56:00 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Every Voice Does Not Deserve a Microphone]]>
However, I am still wondering what medieval human caused activity produced the warming that allowed the Vikings to settle Greenland.....but they must have solved the problem as the glaciers came back and drove them out.

As a reformed geologist I am more worried about the coming ice age as we have reached or 10,000 cycle - maybe climate change is just the precursor...
Posted by rocksandstuff]]> Thu, 06 Dec 2012 12:51:27 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Every Voice Does Not Deserve a Microphone]]>
Then there's the "appeal to authority" argument, when it should be clear to all that it's "authority" which is being questioned. There are shortage of credible scientists who are skeptics, whether more or less than their opponents hardly matters. Science isn't determined by a vote count.

Morano says there's been no warming for the past 16 years. NOAA and scientists at other organizations agree. There are arguments about whether one recent year is warmer than another, but it turns out that the difference in temperature betwixt the two is a few hundredths of a degree. By the time one collects temperature data across an entire planet for one year the only thing you can be sure of is that .. it ain't accurate to hundredths of a degree. (Two thermometers, one just a foot or two above the other can give you a much bigger difference than a few hundredths of a degree!

There were hundreds of peer reviewed studies showing that the Medieval Warming Period was as warm,likely warmer than it is now. Along came Mann, supported with lots of bucks from the UN, and already in control of many of the periodicals covering climate science, and claims the MWP was merely a regional phenomenon. How many people know that hundreds MORE peer-reviewed studies have shown up since Mann's hockey stick which continue to show that the MWP was global, not regional, and as warm,likely warmer than now? (If one were to argue about a consensus, it would in this example, not be favoring Mann's claim. (Also, these peer-reviewed studies were conducted in 40+ different countries, basically a scientific investigation in most parts of the globe. Mann, on the other hand was much more limited. Then there's the fact that his "study" was rebutted, both because of the data he used, and the process he used to arrive at his conclusions.

Now we have the silliness of claiming every hurricane, tornado, or drought is proof that co2 (because it has increased, and man's activities are causing at least some of that increase) has caused the "climate change". Even NASA's Hansen, a zealot, says that's crazy.

Do any of the people on this site understand that ALL the computer models predicting catastrophic global warming assume that water vapor is the real culprit? Their models assume that the temperature increase brought on by co2 increase brings on a positive feedback from water vapor which, in response, increases the temperature 2 to 3 times more than the temp increase brought on by the co2 increase. NOBODY understands feedback, neither all the possible feedbacks or whether the net result is positive or negative. In fact, there are scientists who argue that cloud cover (that would be water vapor) actually provide a negative feedback, and the computer models inadvertently verify this because their projections are always too high. The climate models have not yet dealt with the more recent satellite data which shows that when the earth is warmer, more heat escapes to space!

The US has spent on the order of 100 billion dollars, all in support of studies claiming anthropogenic global warming, and there is still no evidence supporting that hypothesis. Hardly a nickel of our government (same goes for some other governments) is allocated to investigating whether man's activities and/or increasing co2 have anything to do with our current warming.

Incidentally, the general notion that our current warming began about the time our industrial revolution came along is also bogus. Our current warming did not begin at the end of the Little Ice Age (generally identified as in the 1800s). That end date is arbitrary and not relevant. Our current warming began when the LIA started warming; that would begin at its lowest temperature which is (according to Dr. Evans, Aussie climatologist) around 1630, some 200 years before our industrial revolution. That's 200 years of natural warming before co2 began increasing. But, there's more... co2 would have had to increase for decades before it could possibly have had any impact on climate, perhaps even centuries. That's 300 years of natural warming before co2 began increasing.

Whether we are having some impact on our climate is always a possibility. Practically anything is possible, but there is not one iota of evidence. EVERYTHING points in another direction, and can best be summed up with a simple question. Why would anyone be so naive as to believe that a UN based organization "The International Panel on Climate Change"(IPCC) would do a study of climate research (supposedly performed under contract by others) and come away with the conclusion that "it's just mother nature at work".?
Posted by GoFigure]]> Thu, 06 Dec 2012 12:31:28 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Every Voice Does Not Deserve a Microphone]]> Posted by discoDan]]> Thu, 06 Dec 2012 12:04:50 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Every Voice Does Not Deserve a Microphone]]> Posted by NaySayerNow]]> Thu, 06 Dec 2012 11:47:10 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Every Voice Does Not Deserve a Microphone]]> Posted by anon1256]]> Thu, 06 Dec 2012 08:21:24 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Every Voice Does Not Deserve a Microphone]]> And how often does that happen, Jerry Brown being "the sane one" in the room?

Pierce Morgan said right at the end, there are thousands of climate scientist who would disagree with Mark Morano. So how come the only one you can find willing to talk is Bill Nye the batchelor of Engineering Guy?

But the main question is who the hell died and made you people the speech Gestapo?
Posted by papertiger]]> Thu, 06 Dec 2012 07:04:20 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Every Voice Does Not Deserve a Microphone]]>
Global Warming On CNN -- Morgan to Morano: 'How do you explain that we're getting so many of these freakish weather patterns...?'

'You're looking at anecdotal evidence,' Morano shot back, before taking a shot at Nye: 'This is now the level of your daily horoscope. Basically global warmists like Bill Nye say [AGW] will cause many bad weather events & guess what? Bad weather events happen all the time so people look & they say look, there's more proof, there's a bad weather event.'


http://climatedepot.com/

Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe]]> Wed, 05 Dec 2012 23:33:03 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Every Voice Does Not Deserve a Microphone]]> Posted by anon1256]]> Wed, 05 Dec 2012 22:41:15 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Every Voice Does Not Deserve a Microphone]]> Posted by watchout5]]> Wed, 05 Dec 2012 22:37:55 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Every Voice Does Not Deserve a Microphone]]> Catherwood:

You're an evolutionary biologist?

@8 Seriously. I had a completely different image in mind (How the heck do you strap a dildo onto a committee, anyway?), and was very disappointed


http://www.thestranger.com/slog/archives…

@23

It's like having a debate between a fireman and an equestrian show jumper on the best bulbs to plant during winter and saying the fireman is more qualified because he has a union card.

Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe]]> Wed, 05 Dec 2012 22:16:09 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Every Voice Does Not Deserve a Microphone]]> am an evolutionary biologist, and believe me, paleontology is not a "subset or branch" of my discipline. Sheesh.
Posted by Catherwood]]> Wed, 05 Dec 2012 21:19:51 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Every Voice Does Not Deserve a Microphone]]> Posted by floater]]> Wed, 05 Dec 2012 21:18:29 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Every Voice Does Not Deserve a Microphone]]>
However, the claimed expertise of Climatology would be a giant superset of many disciplines.


Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe]]> Wed, 05 Dec 2012 20:33:46 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Every Voice Does Not Deserve a Microphone]]> @20: Most major universities don't have departments of paleontology either, but are you going to claim that fossils aren't real?
Geosciences tend to just get lumped into geology.
Posted by venomlash]]> Wed, 05 Dec 2012 18:01:36 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Every Voice Does Not Deserve a Microphone]]>
I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ts0XG6qDI…

Seriously, I challenge the entire notion of a "Climate Expert".

First of all there are almost no doctorates given in "Climatology", nor are there departments of same at any accredited major university.

There is atmospheric science, but that is a far, far cry from being able to forecast weather a century or millennium hence. There is the computer modelling and that in and of itself requires expertise in math, science, programming, statistics.

Even if a person is learned in some aspect of these sciences and arts, one has to be of supreme hubris to be able to firmly state what the weather is going to be like in 2112.

Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe]]> Wed, 05 Dec 2012 17:08:22 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Every Voice Does Not Deserve a Microphone]]> Posted by COMTE]]> Wed, 05 Dec 2012 16:06:52 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Every Voice Does Not Deserve a Microphone]]> That eminent Climatologist, Bill Nye:

He studied mechanical engineering at Cornell Universityand graduated with a Bachelor of Science in 1977.


Yep, he has all the accolades needed...35 year old knowledge as a Mechie.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Nye
Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe]]> Wed, 05 Dec 2012 15:49:01 -0800 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: Every Voice Does Not Deserve a Microphone]]>
But what really struck me about his schmucky schtick was how the climate change deniers have now seamlessly gone from denying that climate change is happening to acknowledging, "Duh, it's getting hotter, but you're nuts to think it has anything to do with human activity or that government could do anything to curtail it."

So they were totally full of shit back when they were denying climate change, and now we're supposed to just conveniently forget their past BS and suddenly start believing them.
Posted by cressona]]> Wed, 05 Dec 2012 15:48:52 -0800 The Stranger