Physics Nobel Resigns over group claim that the science is "incontrovertible"

[nomb]

From: Ivar Giaever < mailto:[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 3:42 PM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: I resign from APS

Dear Ms. Kirby

Thank you for your letter inquiring about my membership. I did not renew it because I can not live with the statement below:

"Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.
The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.
If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now."

In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period.

Best regards,
Ivar Giaever
Nobel Laureate 1973 (Physics)

===================================================


Aas for me...

I'm not going to stop being environmentally pro-active and doing all I can - But Dr. Giaever is %100 correct and science has jumped the shark by it's claim to have supplanted the Pope of old and become the new infallible voice of God.

Tell me you, and you alone, know the answer and cannot be wrong - and I'll call you an emperor without clothes who holds sway through fear and intimidation ... afraid of new knowledge that would embarrass your faith in the new God you created.

[truebrit71]

1. Sounds to me like he's a bit of an idiot...

..have him get back to us when Florida is under-water and ask him if it's incontrovertible then?

[DrunkenBoat]

144. Nobel Laureate 1973 (Physics)

[fascisthunter]

160. yeah... and an idiot for being disengenous

the evidence IS INCONTROVERSIAL as there has been nothing to disprove the evidence. The rets has been purposefully spun... the argument he created is a fucking red herring.

[Drew Richards]

193. yeah in 1973 for semi conductors so what...he has ZERO expertise in climatology

The Nobel Prize in Physics 1973 was divided, one half jointly to Leo Esaki and Ivar Giaever "for their experimental discoveries regarding tunneling phenomena in semiconductors and superconductors, respectively" and the other half to Brian David Josephson "for his theoretical predictions of the properties of a supercurrent through a tunnel barrier, in particular those phenomena which are generally known as the Josephson effects".

[nomb]

201. But his peers in his group do?

[immoderate]

235. The word incontrovertible is incompatible with science. Nonetheless...

It's certainly "overwhelming, extremely robust, not contradicted by any known data," and all but incontrovertible. The evidence is that it has not yet been "controverted" although attempts have been made. But it's only the strict semantics of science that don't permit such absolute statements.

--imm

[nomb]

236. Nothing to disagree with here. It's an important principle worth defending even when inconvenient.

n't

[Drew Richards]

239. You are really really missing the point...the guy contradicts himself in his own letter...

He objects to the statement that:

**************************************************************
The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.
**************************************************************

**********************************************************************************************************************
Then in his own words agrees that there was some global warming no matter how insignificant ~288.0 to ~288.8...Kelvin
**********************************************************************************************************************

I'm sorry but if it is not incontrovertible and you disagree then why are you then agreeing that global warming is factually occurring from 288.0 to 288.8?

Perhaps you don't like absolutes in science and using the wording of incontrovertible....that is fine, I don't either, but stating absolutes in science are an invitation to vigorous scientific study and investigation to prove any hypothesis... not crying I quit because I don't like your language...

What his motives are, are anyone's guess.
I surely don't know.

[nomb]

244. You've misread it, it reads:

"The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true)..."

I am not qualified to comment on the science he refers to, nor will I try. My support for him begins - and ends - with his opposition to the absolute closing of the scientific mind formally by a professional organization.

[Name removed]

268. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[nomb]

269. "The Claim" "How can you?" "which, if true" these say he did not contradict himself and you misread

[immoderate]

234. He always worked for GE. They build oil fired generators.

He's a mechanical engineer, apparently good at that. Got his Nobel for tunneling in superconductors. No research on climate whatsoever.

Took his show on the road through visiting professorships. Wound up as Emeritus at Rensselaer, which is nearly a subsidiary of GE.

IMO, he's a company guy.


--imm

[hlthe2b]

247. Winning Nobel prize often gives license for provocation...

When Dr. Henry Heimlich (based on research by a 1927 Nobel Prize winner, Julius Wagner-Jauregg) came out in favor of infecting Lyme Disease victims as well as AIDS patients with active malaria infection (a historically last ditch effort for neurosyphilis in the pre-antibiotic era) as a means to incite the immune system--well let's just say he left most of the medical profession saying WTF? "If Heimlich is really doing this, he should be put in jail." Mark Harrington, executive director of Treatment Action Group, an AIDS research advocacy organization (Reuters) In fact, his attempts to push this stance led his own physician son, Peter to denounce him as a "fraud."

In fact, what he was recommending was based on an absence of science. Controlled studies of malariotherapy for neurosyphilis never were done; Changes in serologic status generally did not correlate with clinical improvement, suggesting that malariotherapy had minimal, if any, effect on the underlying spirochetal infection. Malariotherapy for syphilis was discontinued when penicillin and other effective antibiotics became available. As to the use of similar for AIDS, the denunciation was swift and vehement, including from his own physican son, who denounced his father as a fraud: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2007/06/dr_heimlichs_ne/

So, no, I don't give this 1973 winner any more cred than apparently does the more current scientific community. :eyes:

[Honeycombe8]

181. Notice: OP did not cite the source he's quoting.

I suspect it's http://www.climatedepot.com/a/12797/Exclusive-Nobel-PrizeWinning-Physicist-Who-Endorsed-Obama-Dissents-Resigns-from-American-Physical-Society-Over-Groups-Promotion-of-ManMade-Global-Warming, which is a right wing site.

It could be some other site, but when I googled parts of the post to look for the quote source, that's what I got.

Interesting, huh?

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[nomb]

3. Can you clarify something here that you said...

You point to a concern that " if they hemmed and hawed about fucking p values the rest of his merry fucking crew would shout "the science isn't settled! teach the controversy!" all the fucking louder."

I take from this that the concern is not the science, but the politics?

We should bend the science (by stating categorically that a single generation of scientists who created the field have solved the science and no one may question it?) in order to advance a political agenda that we would both agree on... i.e.: Environmental awareness and responsible living are the right thing to do for us, the planet and our children?

[enki23]

5. my concern is the science, the politics, and very much the policy

and nobody is talking about "bending the science" but you.

[n2doc]

4. He is 82

And sounds like he has been nuts (at least on this subject) for a while


From Wikipedia

According to The Wall Street Journal, Giaever has described man-made global warming as a "new religion,"<8> with references to a report released by the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (minority), led by Jim Inhofe, in March 2009.<9> The report states that Giaever has said "I am a skeptic… Global warming has become a new religion."<9><10>
In a featured story in Norway's largest newspaper, Aftenposten, 26 June 2011, Giaever stated, "It is amazing how stable temperature has been over the last 150 years."<11>
On 13 September 2011 Giaever resigned from the American Physical Society over its official position that "the evidence is incontrovertible."<12>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivar_Giaever

Just because you are good in one area of science doesn't mean you are good in others. Physicists and engineers are especially prone to thinking that they are experts in everything.

[pintobean]

23. How is his age relevant?

[bhikkhu]

30. Awhile after relativity had replaced the older notions -

after Einstein's "Special Theory" paper was published, and Eddington made the measurement of the deflection of light that agreed with its predictions - I don't recall who asked or who answered the question, but someone asked what the change to the new way of thinking was like among scientists, whether it was the paper that did it or the experimental evidence. The answer was neither - its wasn't so much that anyone changed their minds, but that the "old guard" died off eventually and all the younger scientists entering the field naturally "got" relativity.

Perhaps its agism, but its hardly controversial that the older you get the less likely it is you'll change your mind about anything. In '73 the state of the science was very barely developed, and physics is a different kind of science. I could imagine all sorts of reasons for the guy to speak as he has, none of which amount to much of anything in the current era.

[Odin2005]

262. Also, after 1920 Einstein himself was a has-been who hated Quantum Mechanics the rest of his life...

...because it went against his philosophical views.

[bhikkhu]

272. Yes, that's one of the best examples

...and his determination to disprove quantum mechanics is one of the more interesting episodes in science history. To his credit, he was always intellectually quite honest about it, and always ready to abandon an approach that didn't work.

[n2doc]

32. If you have to ask that question then I doubt you would understand the answer n/t

[pintobean]

37. See reply #7

That's why I asked.

Thank you for your concern. Bless your heart.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

139. because fluid intelligence drops rapidly after a certain age.

[MineralMan]

6. A Physics laureate from 1973 is not necessarily competent

to comment on climatology. We do not know his credentials in climatology, but I suspect they do not exist. Merely being a scientist in one discipline does not magically impart expertise in another discipline. Indeed, the opposite is true in most cases.

[nomb]

11. If you believe this, then you would support his action. Reason:

He has resigned from his group of scientists that are his peers in his field.

If he is not qualified to make such a determination - then it follows that his group (of which he is a leading member who has received numerous awards from it) is also not qualified to make the counter-claim as to the science being incontrovertible.

If the group is qualified - then the science is not incontrovertible when members of the group disagree with the findings.


It's a simple exercise in logical reasoning.

[MineralMan]

50. I don't care what this man did with regard to his group of scientists.

He is a physicist, not a climatologist. Climatology is not his discipline. He may do as he please with regard to membership in any organization. That is evidence of nothing but his resignation from that membership.

[DrunkenBoat]

147. It imparts much more expertise than the average non-scientist commenter.

Posters at DU have "expertise" but this guy is a moron? What?

[fascisthunter]

163. such as yourself..? Care to dispute evidence of over 90% of global Climatologists?

no.... neither did he. FAIL.

It's pathetic to see people twist science for political and economic reasons... it's pathetic and crazy.

[DrunkenBoat]

168. who are *you*? what's *your* expertise? nastiness doesn't move me.

[fascisthunter]

175. blah blah blah... I'm a poster like you... now refute the evidence

can't do it huh. Wanna know why? Because NO ONE ELSE IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY COULD EITHER. Glad I made that clear for you and other readers. Good night chumly.

[DrunkenBoat]

179. I've taken no position at all on global warming here. The only position i've taken is that a nobel

laureate in physics has more competence to evaluate claims about it than the average DU poster. Including & perhaps especially nasty people. I don't talk to bullies. Byeee.

[MineralMan]

255. Where did I call him a "moron?" I did not. I said he was out of

his field with this. Please do not put words in my mouth.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[nomb]

8. You move now to burn me for my heresy? How appropriate. I agree with policy, just not ...

I don't agree with science making the claim of infallibility.

No mortal has such perfectness, and no committee either.

I'll keep my open mind thank you very much.

[izquierdista]

15. Maybe you don't understand "incontrovertible"

It's NOT the 0.25% increase in a hard-to-measure number. (Hard because you need to average over a LOT of measurements.) It's because many, many, many, many, many measurements in geology, biology, chemistry, and botany all point in the same direction. Put together, the disparate measurements and observations paint a picture that is compelling to the point of being "incontrovertible".

But I'll give the old physicist a pass. Having no subject matter expertise in the above areas, his utterance is valid as Pat Robertson's on the subject.

[nomb]

18. If he has no expertise, then what of his peer group from which he resigned due to their claim?

How valid is their utterance?

[izquierdista]

27. Physicists can learn

Not all of them are completely incompetent when asked to balance a chemical equation or make an inference about a population dynamic. I'll bet some of those APS members are out there right now, studying and quantifying how glaciers are retreating, modeling weather patterns with computers, and adding to the science of how the planet is warming. Maybe it was this subgroup of the APS that prodded the organization into looking at the picture and getting them to declare it incontrovertible.

What's clear is that this solid-state physicist has quit learning, and can't put the pieces together.

[nomb]

44. You only allow for these scientists to "learn" the party line, can they learn otherwise or question?

Is learning an exploration or is it the rote memorization of a party position?

[izquierdista]

70. No, they can learn all they want

About astrology, flogiston, phrenology, homeopathy, it's good to see how various disciplines organize their thoughts. But when you go on like those thoughts are correct, don't get upset that people laugh at you.

[pintobean]

24. Do you think that's funny?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ageism

[izquierdista]

28. It's sad, really.

Hope I never get that senile.

[dionysus]

9. so, you're throwing your lot in with the deniers? okay.

[pintobean]

12. Giaever claims he is a skeptic

not a denier.

[nomb]

13. How does doubt about the infallibility of science become denial?

Seriously?

[backscatter712]

10. Don't know if you've been watching Gore's special on climate change on Current TV yesterday, but...

You realize this sort of thing fits right into the right-wings strategy to fight us on climate change issues.

It's exactly the same strategy used by the tobacco companies to fight anti-smoking and health regulations. Create seeds of doubt in the eyes of the public. Have actors dressed up as doctors passing out smokes, saying "They'll make you feel better" (that nicotine buzz, y'know) and finding little nitpicks in the scientific research to obsess over to block things like warning labels, or making the tobacco companies pay for all the deaths they're responsible for after lying to the public for decades..

Now they're finding ways to nitpick the global warming research. Never mind that when you look at the body of research as a whole, and take into account any flaws in the research, the data and conclusions come straight to one conclusion, with 99.9999% certainty, that global climate change is reality, that it's caused by humans, specifically by emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses, and that the effects on the planet have already caused significant damage, and can kill or impoverish billions of people.

But oh-no, FAUX News has to focus on the one old crank who's field of study is not in climatology or meteorology and conclude that his senile rantings put the entire field of global climate change, with decades of peer-reviewed research by thousands of scientists, into doubt!

FEAR!!! UNCERTAINTY!!! DOUBT!!!

The Koch Brothers thank the OP - after all, those pesky smart people and their scientific research can't be allowed to put their billions of dollars of income at risk...

[JoePhilly]

16. Absolutely correct ... its the Tobacco wars , and the fight over Evolution, all over again.

The work to misrepresent and exploit any gap in the science.

They do this, as they also demand you believe that Mary, mother of Jesus, was a virgin. They see no gap in the science there.

[truebrit71]

21. Saw that too...wish I could say I was shocked...but you know...

...

[NashVegas]

22. It's An Unfortunate Circumstance That Scientists Are Being Forced to Choose Sides

.... and the gentleman who wrote the above letter has been on GE's payroll since the 1950s - it's safe to say where his heart is.

It's understandable to me, why scientists who leave room for doubt would be upset by any one of their associations taking a hardline stance on the issue. As new information emerges, many theories eventually are misproven.

It's those few "scientists" who put their political idealogy and affiliations ahead of their own honor who have created this situation. A shame they can't all fall into a black hole.

[Blue_Tires]

124. Not to mention the fact that big oil has a blank check

for any scientist on the record willing to cross over to the dark side (which is why you see the same 4-5 people quoted or interviewed when the media want to give 'equal' coverage to the opposition)

[bemildred]

14. He is quite correct, of course.

But as you see, we require certainty, we can get cranky and nervous without it.

[SidDithers]

17. From his Wiki page...

According to The Wall Street Journal, Giaever has described man-made global warming as a "new religion,"<8> with references to a report released by the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (minority), led by Jim Inhofe, in March 2009.<9> The report states that Giaever has said "I am a skeptic… Global warming has become a new religion."<9><10>

Jim Inhofe!!! :rofl:

Sid

[Rex]

45. Good find!

Well that shows us where the guy is really coming from! Inhofe...might as well have an endorsement from Satan.

[Fumesucker]

19. I think this might be an application of a corollary of Clarke's first law..

"When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong."

[patrice]

20. Even those of us who support your last sentence whole-heartedly in ANY context, e.g. DU, know that

in some situations it is NECESSARY to draw a line and act as though the discourse is no longer 50:50 and is at least 49 or > : 51 or < because practical functionality REQUIRES positions that motivate action.

[Bandit]

25. Who is making a claim "alone"?

I can tell you completely for a fact that two plus two equals four.....Am I an emperor with no clothes?

[nomb]

29. And some would say

quite rightly that:

“Does 2 + 2 = 4? No! Because two cats plus two sausages is what? Two cats. Two drops of water plus two drops of water? One drop of water.”


Science is not infallible. That itself is a basic fundamental tenet of science. Always an open mind.

[Bandit]

80. How ridiculous

You are adding other elements to what I said..I said the numbers 2+2=4...That is empirical...I said nothing about cats or sausages....you did...There are certain things that are not debatable....Science works every single day to determine the best way forward and what to base conclusion upon.....Because of science we know there are molocules, unrefutable, we know there are atoms, unrefutable, we know there are tides and what causes them, unrefutable, we know the earth revolves around the sun, unrefutable....These are not up for debate, as they have been proved by science...

[nomb]

90. No, I took your open generalization and tested it's utility as an incontrovertible truth.

[Hosnon]

159. I don't think most scientists would refer to those claims as "unrefutable".

Validated to such a high degree that any attempt to refute them is a waste of resources? Yes.

But scientists don't "know" anything, none of us do. Certainty is the realm of religion.

[The Genealogist]

138. That would be 2 + 2 - 2 = 2

Try again

[onpatrol98]

237. I get your meaning, nomb...

I do believe in man made global warming. But, I understand that when we begin to say "no further discussion necessary", it has ceased to become science and it has instead become an acceptable religion.

And, unfortunately, there are flaws in the way we publish and share information. Offer the right grants and publish the right peer reviewed articles, and show disdain for other points of view and any new young scientists quickly discover that if they want to continue to be published, earn tenure, grants, acceptance, academic and research positions, they need to dance to the current tune. Scientific discovery isn't nearly as pure as it used to be...if it ever was pure.

But, we do need to be environmentally conscious. I fear that as we poo poo Nobel Prize winning physicists for daring not to agree, we may very well win a few battles but lose the war of saving the planet. If no one is allowed to challenge the research of global warming for fear of being ostracized, the one time an insignificant, but truly flawed piece of research is disproved, people will claim all of the science is worthless.

If we're to raise a nation of scientists, we have to allow discourse. I think in the end, the evidence will continue to be overwhelming. So, there's nothing to fear from the challenges. They should eventually strengthen our position, and not weaken them unless we're wrong.

[Johonny]

26. believe in science not scientists

Scientist can have all sorts of opinions and bias. The scientific facts of climate change are such that it is extremely highly probable that humans have affected the environment in a way to increase the global temperature and that continued activity will further increase the temperature. This increase in temperature will severely change climate on the planet. In that little paragraph the person offers no evidence to suggest this is not likely.

[Dreamer Tatum]

31. Some of these replies are disgusting

He's old. He's stupid. Being a Nobel laureate in Physics doesn't make him a climatologist.

Yet if he hadn't missed a bootclick, you'd wallop any naysayers with his Nobel prize and
would assert that his Physics expertise does sort of make him an expert on matters like, oh,
OUR PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT.

Jesus. If global warming was as open and shut, as settled science as most seem to think it is,
we wouldn't need researchers any more than we would need them to tell us not to stare at the sun.

Flame away - I'm sure I've blasphemed.

[truebrit71]

33. So you think that global warming ISN'T happening?

I just want to be clear on where you stand before commenting further..

[Dreamer Tatum]

34. RIGHT ON CUE.

I think it is far from clear that global warming is entirely manmade, though it is clear that warming is taking place.

[Viking12]

40. but that's not what the APS staement says

Like Giaever, you're arguing against a strawman. The APS statement that "Global warming is occurring" is incontrovertible. You admit you agree that "it is clear that warming is taking place."

[truebrit71]

46. Exactly. The argument isn't whether it is solely man-made or not, but whether it is occurring or not

...and the proof that it IS occurring, is incontrovertible...

You are free to argue until the cows come home about what specific precentage of warming is due to man's activity (hint, 93 million tons of shit going into the atmosphere per day would suggest that it is a very high percentage) and how much is due to the earth's natural cycle, but that is nothing more than re-arranging the deck-chairs on the Titanic if you ignore the absolute evidence that the global climate change is real.

[Dreamer Tatum]

53. The sun coming up in the east is also incontrovertible. What are you DOING about it?

See?

Great: global warming IS occurring. You've earned a cookie.

Now, what percent is manmade, and can anything be done about it? UNCLEAR. NOT INCONTROVERTIBLE. SUBJECT TO DEBATE. STUDY REQUIRED.

[nomb]

59. The sun does not so much come up in the east, as the east is what we call the direction from which

The sun does not so much come up in the east, as the east is what we call the direction from which the sun rises.


And if you think I'm fucking with you, you are wrong. The distinction found in my observation is critical and deeply relevant if we were to make this an area of study.

[Dreamer Tatum]

61. Exhibit A of why these arguments are stupid. nt

[Viking12]

60. Still trying to knock that strawman over, eh? you clearly agree with the APS statement.

Maybe you should go back to 5th grade and wok on your reading comprehension skills. BTW, The sun doesn't rise, the earth rotates.

[Dreamer Tatum]

65. Exhibit B. nt

[NashVegas]

79. Go Up Three Lines

"Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes."

Again - it is unfortunate that politics is forcing scientific professionals to choose sides in a scientific argument, when scientific knowledge is, itself, fluid.

[Viking12]

125. ..and that has what to do with the price of tea in China or the present discussion

[NashVegas]

241. Obfuscate Much?

[nomb]

35. "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!" - Monty Python.

[LanternWaste]

36. I don't believe in gravity, either...

I don't believe in the theory of gravity, either. I think those who do also wear no clothes and place to much faith in falling down.

You and I on the other hand, without such inconvenient dogmas such as objective frameworks, and analyzing data to reach a conclusion, will walk off the 1000' cliff together, hand in hand, secure in our disbelief of clothing, emperors and embarrassment.

[nomb]

39. What a remarkably simplistic example of false equivalency. Try a little harder, you can wrap your

... you can wrap your noggin around the subtle and nuanced idea that is the basis for all science.

There is no absolute limit to knowledge.

[Viking12]

41. Ironic.

[LanternWaste]

93. More for the sake of humor, less for the sake of equivalency...

More for the sake of humor, less for the sake of equivalency.

The implication though, that science is itself the equivalent of the emperor without clothing is just as funny, just as absurd, and will, I'm certain, receive all the consideration and merit it is both due and worth...

[stockholmer]

89. Gravity is a Law, not a Theory, please go back and learn some basic scientific nomenclature

}(

[LanternWaste]

118. Cool. A law I don't believe...

Cool. A law I don't believe... :P

[Viking12]

129. Fail. The a re numerous theories of gravity, Newton's, Relativity, Quantum mechanics

[hatrack]

38. Lousy argument, false framing by Dr. Giaver, I'm afraid.

To begin with, he's falsely attributing the fact that "both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period" solely to that warming trend.

There's nothing in his note about vaccinations, or other advances in medical technology, or improvements in agricultural production, or the discovery and exploitation of massive fossil fuel reserves that made the progress of the last 150 years possible. No, no, it's all about the 0.8C increase in global temperature - that's what's improved the lot of human beings.

"How can you measure the temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?" Dunno . . . how can you measure the temperature of an entire sphere for an entire year? Maybe if scientists used satellites and balloons and ground-based weather stations . . . oh wait, they already do.

Beyond that, science is never "incontrovertible" - all you have to do as a practitioner is to disprove the evidence. I guess he didn't have time to include a discussion of how he's disproved the evidence of warming, unless of course he didn't.

[nomb]

43. "science is never "incontrovertible"" - then you fully agree with his basis for resignation.

That was why he resigned - in protest to his group's claim that science was incontrovertible.


You concur.

[truebrit71]

49. But the group never made that claim. They said the EVIDENCE of global warming was incontrovertible..

..nothing to do with science being incontrovertible or otherwise..

[hatrack]

51. Exactly so - and thanks!

"The evidence is incontrovertible: global warming is occurring."

This is not the same as:

"The science is incontrovertible."

or

"Science is incontrovertible."

As I said above, he's free to refute the evidence, unless he chose not to, or could not.

[nomb]

52. He objects to "evidence of global warming is incontrovertible" He's against closing scientific minds

He wishes to allow room for scientific inquiry.


Hardly a revolutionary idea.

[truebrit71]

66. The evidence IS incontrovertible...that has nothing to do with scientific minds...

...being open, closed or otherwise...

[hatrack]

229. As I said above, he is welcome to refute said evidence of global warming.

Either he can't, or he chose not to in his response.

So, he can engage in some scientific inquiry, or he can have a big steaming mug of STFU, one or the other.

[backscatter712]

57. He's perfectly free to find some research supporting his claims.

If he doesn't think global climate change is well-supported by the evidence, he's more than welcome to present evidence that shows otherwise. I'm sure his fellow scientists will be more than happy to give it rigorous peer-review.

[Viking12]

42. ...and 47,000 scientists remain members. What's your point?

[Swede]

47. He's no rocket surgeon,that's for sure.

nt

[FarLeftFist]

48. It's funny how the deniers have less evidence of it NOT happening than scientists have that it is.

America, STOP LISTENING TO THE DUMBEST AMONG US!

[nomb]

56. How does support for academic inquiry or doubt about absolutism in thought become denial?

I take it as a position of first principles. And I'll still support climate laws.


BUT I WILL NEVER SUPPORT DEFUNDING OR INTIMIDATION IN ACADEMIA.


Same reasons I support the ACLU, principle.

[Viking12]

63. it becomes denial when you continue to repeat the same dumbass talking point

That has no relevance to the actual APS statement.

http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2007/05/crank_howto.php

[truebrit71]

68. Yup. They never said the science was incontrovertible, but rather the EVIDENCE of it...

...that is a HUGE distinction that somehow is being completely overlooked...

[FarLeftFist]

64. Because there is extremely little doubt, 98% of climate scientists agree.

While I'm open for questioning everything I think his above statement is a little absurd being there is a treasure trove of data proving him almost fully wrong.

[InvisibleTouch]

54. Good riddance to him. n/t

[BOG PERSON]

55. thanks. now i feel a lot better about the president's anti-environmentalism

[nomb]

67. Public policy and moral responsibility are a world removed from scientific inquiry. It's the

It's the politicization of science, the academic intransigence, the smug certainty and internal recriminations within the academic community that are at issue.

Two issues. Both of immense importance.

[Nye Bevan]

58. He is of course correct. "Incontrovertible" means a 100% probability.

It is very likely that greenhouse gases are causing global warming, but it is not absolutely certain with 100% probability. The probability *is* high enough, however, that given the potential catastrophic outcome, we should certainly reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

[Viking12]

62. Strawman #62. That's not what the APS Statement says...

[truebrit71]

69. That is NOT what they said....

....FFS, read what they actually said!!!! :banghead:

[nomb]

71. He objects to "evidence of global warming is incontrovertible" He's against closing scientific minds

He wishes to allow room for scientific inquiry.


Hardly a revolutionary idea.



"In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years"


So, 000.8 Kelvin over 150 years is a fact of our existence beyond dispute? From question raised to answer carved in stone for all time in a single generation?

[truebrit71]

75. He objects to a statement that was never actually made...

..Brilliant!!!

The evidence is incontrovertible. The scientific inquiry as to the hows and whys of it occurring go on...the fact that the planet is warming is just that, a fact.

[distantearlywarning]

72. I am a scientist, and I believe, based on evidence, that global warming is likely occurring

But I also think that Ivar Giaever is 100% correct. It is irresponsible to claim that any <deleted due to nitpicking> evidence is ever "incontrovertible". In fact, that's the difference between science and religion - religion thinks it knows The Ultimate Truth, and science knows that The Truth might change next week depending on new research (and that's a good thing).

[truebrit71]

73. Please highlight in the statement where the APS said the SCIENTIFIC evidence was incontrovertible...

..it's okay...I'll wait...

[distantearlywarning]

77. I'll tell you what - I'll remove the word "scientific" from my post

in order to make it more consistent with the objectionable statement, and continue to stand behind it.

[truebrit71]

81. It isn't "nit-picking" to accurately quote what was stated..

..so, to be clear, you think that global warming 'may' be real, but you're not sure, is that correct?

[distantearlywarning]

85. Yes, that's precisely it.

And if you asked me about gravity, or the shape of the planet, or any other scientific conclusion of the last 1000 years, I would give you the same answer. I think global warming, and gravity, and any other well-supported theory you happen to name is probably 'real', GIVEN THE EVIDENCE THAT IS AVAILABLE RIGHT NOW. And I reserve the right to change my mind tomorrow if new evidence arises. That is what makes me a scientist rather than a religionist.

[nomb]

82. The writer is voicing agreement with Dr. Giaever, you're simply throwing smoke with a red herring

Dr. Giaever took the position that the APS statement was an overstep.

Your reading of the APS statement is a lawerly parsing of what most take as the plain language communication.

This is not a discussion regarding contract law.

[truebrit71]

94. Zero parsing involved. Simply reading what was written.

The plain language communication is that the APS never said a damned thing about the scientific evidence being incontrovertible, because science never is, but he injected that inference to suit his own bias into the debate.

You can argue up and down about what is causing global climate change, what you cannot deny is that it is actually happening. THAT is what the APS statement said, but he was the one that chose to bend it to suit his own personal agenda.

No contract law needed, just basic comprehension skills and an abscence of intellectual dishonesty..

[nomb]

98. Have any of his peers agreed w/ your statement that he lacks intellectual honesty RE: APS statement?

Or is your interpretation unique?

[truebrit71]

100. He is building a strawman. That by definition is intellectual dishonesty.

He is objecting to something the APS never said in order to inject his own biases on the topic. You don't think that is being intellectually dishonest?

[nomb]

110. But no one from APS agrees w/ you that he misread the statement/misunderstands his group's position?

[truebrit71]

128. ???

I think you posted this in the wrong place..??

[distantearlywarning]

95. Exactly.

:-)

This poster clearly has no idea what he/she is actually arguing about.

[truebrit71]

97. I'll make it easy for both of you...two guys are standing in a windowless dark room.

They can argue about why it is dark, does the light switch not work, is the light bulb burnt out, did someone forget to pay the electricity bill, was there a power cut?

What they can't argue about is the FACT that they are standing in a windowless dark room.

THAT is what APS said in their statement. Nothing more, nothing less.

[distantearlywarning]

101. Not true.

Anything is possible. It's possible that when the lights go out, anyone standing in the dark is transported to another dimension and is therefore no longer in the dark room.

Of course, the evidence for that hypothesis is currently extremely poor, but perhaps some quantum physicist 150 years from today will write a dissertation suggesting that the absence of light causes changes in the time-space continuum which facilitate the transport of matter to the planet Zarkon.

[truebrit71]

108. Thanks for missing the point.

Have a nice day! :hi:

[distantearlywarning]

112. I am not missing the point.

You don't understand what the scientist in question (or your detractors here) are actually arguing about.

[truebrit71]

119. Yes I do. The problem is the scientist in question (and his supporters here) are arguing about...

..something that wasn't even said.

I gave you a simple analogy that demonstrated the fallacy of the strawman argument presented by the scientist, and supported by you, and rather than agree that it was accurate (that would have meant admitting that you too had mis-read the original statement by APS) you decided to try and get cute with all sorts of other hypothetical bullshit.

You must know by now if you read what the statement actually said, that his response was inaccurate because he was arguing against something that wasn't even said, and you have painted yourself into a corner by continuing to support it.

Personally I care not one whit whether you care to admit you read it wrong or not, but please feel free to continue defending the strawman to your heart's content.

Have a nice day!

[nomb]

120. But no one from APS agrees w/ you that he misread the statement/misunderstands his group's position?

[truebrit71]

126. How the fuck would I know???!!!!!!

Who cares? That's not the fucking point!!!!!

[distantearlywarning]

140. What you're missing is that the "hypothetical bullshit" is the only important part of the discussion

I was trying to be funny when I mentioned the planet Zarkon, but all joking aside, the question of whether or not anything you believe about the world (that belief being labeled as facts, evidence, scientific evidence, hypotheses, theories, or whatever other words you, the APA, the scientist in question, or anyone else cares to use while making statements about your beliefs about science and scientific findings) can said to be "incontrovertible" is an extremely important one. This question underlines the difference between scientific thinking and religious thinking.

From the statement above, the APA states: "The evidence is incontrovertible."

An appropriate scientific position is NO EVIDENCE OF ANYTHING IS EVER INCONTROVERTIBLE. Meaning, no evidence is ever 100% incapable of being contradicted or disputed; no evidence is ever 100% undeniable. The APA was in fact wrong to state that "the evidence is incontrovertible", and it is appropriate for any rational person to criticize such a statement for that reason. Which, IMO, Dr. Giaever in fact did; his statement regarding how members of the APA regard the fluidity of other scientific hypotheses such as those pertaining to changes in the mass of protons and the behavior of multi-verses certainly implies that his complaint stemmed from this issue. It is unfortunate that he later muddied what would have been such a clearly correct position by adding random unsupported bullshit about "human health and happiness" (and it is also obvious that, like some posters in this thread, he is letting his emotions cloud his judgment about science). Nevertheless, his primary contention is correct - the APA should never have made any statement about global warming evidence which used the word "incontrovertible".

And it is still possible that two men standing in a dark room are in fact on the Planet Zarkon and only believe that they are standing in a dark room. That's why everyone needs to keep doing research instead of stopping and declaring your findings "incontrovertible" when (and only when) they happen to match your current political outlook.

[Hosnon]

146. +1. nt.

[truebrit71]

153. Whatever.

You are rubber I am glue.

It was a straight forward example, in plain english that wound up demonstrating why you chose science instead of reading comprehension.

Have a nice day.

[Hosnon]

113. I think you're missing the point.

"Incontrovertible" is the problem. That means 100% true. The knowledge that you are in a windowless dark room is derived almost exclusively (if not exclusively) from your senses. You could be under the influence of a mind-altering substance, in a Matrix-style virtual world, or temporarily blind.

The point is that there is a chasm between "incontrovertible" and "nearly incontrovertible" (e.g., 100% vs. 99.999%).

And while it might be safe in the every-day world to claim that something is incontrovertible, it is not something any scientist should ever assert (on principle).

[distantearlywarning]

115. Thank you.

You said that better than I did.

[truebrit71]

123. Wrong.

Here is the updated example.

Two men, fully concious and alert, 100% narcotic and alcohol-free, fully awake in a non-hypnotic state are standing in a completley dark, windowless room, today, friday september 16, 2011. There are no aliens, there is no alternate universe, there are no time-travellers or little green men.

They can argue about how they got there, why they are there, why there is no light in the room, what they can't argue about is whether the room is dark or not.

[nomb]

133. You only argue that they cannot see light. Left unexplored are future efforts to see the light....

You argue only that no desire exists on your part to explore the possibility that light exists.

[truebrit71]

151. Whatever.

:banghead:

[Hosnon]

134. You're begging the question.

If a fact pattern includes a truth-statement that X is incontrovertible, then, yes, in that fact pattern, X is incontrovertible.

However, that fact pattern cannot and will not ever exist in the real world.

[nomb]

135. You argue that an absolute negative has been proved. It cannot be done.

[Nye Bevan]

74. +1

[truebrit71]

78. -1

The phrase "scientific" is not used by the APS in their statement. "The EVIDENCE is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring".

To disagree with this statement you need to prove that a) any of the evidence (you know, the FACTS - like, oh I dunno melting ice-caps, disappearing glaciers that sort of PHYSICAL EVIDENCE) is in fact wrong and b) that global warming is NOT actually occurring...

[distantearlywarning]

84. I am not disagreeing with the current evidence.

Nor do I disagree with the current general conclusion based on that evidence that the earth's temperature may be rising. I am not currently a global warming denier.

However, I ALWAYS keep an open mind about scientific conclusions in any field (including my own), and recognize that any scientific conclusion may change at any time in the future based on evidence that is currently not available to the scientists in that field. That's what makes me a scientist rather than a religionist.

[truebrit71]

96. "general conclusion" "temperature MAY be rising"...

..says all I need to know..thanks!

[distantearlywarning]

99. Dude, if you asked me about my own dissertation, I would likely use the word MAY

rather than IS. I'm not a global warming denier, I just don't agree with you (and those two things are not the same).

It's a serious, irrational mistake to assume you or anyone else knows the ABSOLUTE TRUTH about anything in the world. The best any of us can do is accumulate a substantial body of evidence and act on that until some other researcher accumulates more or better evidence. The climatologists have a pretty good body of evidence that the world's temperature is increasing. IMO, it's a good enough body of evidence that it would be reasonable to enact public policy about it. If I were in charge of the world, I would pass legislation based on that evidence.

But that evidence is not INCONTROVERTIBLE. No evidence is ever incontrovertible. Once people start thinking that way, their work becomes no longer science, but religion. (And there have been scientists in history who fell prey to that sort of thinking, because they became overly emotional or attached to their ideas and beliefs, and it rarely ended well.)

[nomb]

102. A +many for those too intimidated to speak. A clear distinction made, a reasoned voice.

It's an important distinction, a principle worth defending.

[truebrit71]

104. Okay, "dude", if I were to say that science was infallible, or incontrovertible, you'd have a point.

..but neither I, nor APS said that.

The evidence of global warming IS incontrovertible, or am i imagining the ice-caps melting, and the glaciers retreating?

[distantearlywarning]

111. The evidence of global warming is substantial, excellent, well-researched,

statistically significant, and probably a lot of other positive adjectives of the sort that we scientists like to add to our papers to make our findings sound awesome and publishable and worthy of being acted upon by policy makers.

But it is not INCONTROVERTIBLE. That word implies absolute, unchangeable truth.

From Dictionary.com: Incontrovertible - "incapable of being contradicted or disputed; undeniable"

There is NO scientific theory, hypothesis, or evidence in the world that should EVER have the word "incontrovertible" applied to it.

That word should be reserved for religion, and other matters of faith.

[truebrit71]

206. Not in disagreement. But they didn't say the SCIENTIFIC evidence was incontrovertible did they?

Therein lies the problem...

So faith/religion (ie belief without proof) is incontrovertible, or am I mis-understanding you?

[Nye Bevan]

105. A few posters here remind me of "we *know* That Saddam has WMDs".

That wasn't "incontrovertible ", either.

[truebrit71]

109. Epic, EPIC fail....

Let's try comparing apples to apples next time, yes?

[Hosnon]

114. +1. nt.

[fascisthunter]

103. -1... you never surprise me.... lol

do you watch Fox news daily?

[Nye Bevan]

198. I never watch network news. However, I do subscribe to "The Economist".

And I'm happy to brighten up your day by making you laugh out loud. :)

[bemildred]

106. +1. nt

[U4ikLefty]

202. Scientist for BP no doubt.

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[truebrit71]

83. Enjoy your short stay!

:hi:

[fascisthunter]

92. they out themselves with the hyperbole...

[fascisthunter]

86. Lol... yeah ok... you just have an Open Mind

yeah that's it.

[undeterred]

87. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), by Thomas Kuhn, is an analysis of the history of science. Its publication was a landmark event in the history, philosophy, and sociology of scientific knowledge and it triggered an ongoing worldwide assessment and reaction in — and beyond — those scholarly communities. In this work, Kuhn challenged the then prevailing view of progress in "normal science." Scientific progress had been seen primarily as a continuous increase in a set of accepted facts and theories.

Kuhn argued for an episodic model in which periods of such conceptual continuity in normal science were interrupted by periods of revolutionary science. During revolutions in science the discovery of anomalies leads to a whole new paradigm that changes the rules of the game and the "map" directing new research, asks new questions of old data, and moves beyond the puzzle-solving of normal science.<1> For example, Kuhn’s analysis of the Copernican Revolution emphasized that, in its beginning, it did not offer more accurate predictions of celestial events, such as planetary positions, than the Ptolemaic system, but instead appealed to some practitioners based on a promise of better, simpler, solutions that might be developed at some point in the future.

Kuhn called the core concepts of an ascendant revolution its “paradigms” and thereby launched this word into widespread analogical use in the second half of the 20th century. Kuhn’s insistence that a paradigm shift was a mélange of sociology, enthusiasm and scientific promise, but not a logically determinate procedure, caused an uproar in reaction to his work. Kuhn addressed concerns in the 1969 postscript to the second edition. For some commentators it introduced a realistic humanism into the core of science while for others the nobility of science was tarnished by Kuhn's introduction of an irrational element into the heart of its greatest achievements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions

[bemildred]

107. Yep, that's the one.

:thumbsup:

[undeterred]

136. People in non-scientific disciplines read this classic

but I'm not sure that its required reading if you are doing graduate study in science.

[bemildred]

142. I would suspect it could even get you in trouble.

Mostly I have seen it in philosophy discussions. Perhaps rightly so, in the practice of science, one must presuppose the virtue of the methods in use.

[undeterred]

88. Science is a series of paradigm shifts, not a set of facts and theories...

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), by Thomas Kuhn, is an analysis of the history of science. Its publication was a landmark event in the history, philosophy, and sociology of scientific knowledge and it triggered an ongoing worldwide assessment and reaction in — and beyond — those scholarly communities. In this work, Kuhn challenged the then prevailing view of progress in "normal science." Scientific progress had been seen primarily as a continuous increase in a set of accepted facts and theories.

Kuhn argued for an episodic model in which periods of such conceptual continuity in normal science were interrupted by periods of revolutionary science. During revolutions in science the discovery of anomalies leads to a whole new paradigm that changes the rules of the game and the "map" directing new research, asks new questions of old data, and moves beyond the puzzle-solving of normal science.<1> For example, Kuhn’s analysis of the Copernican Revolution emphasized that, in its beginning, it did not offer more accurate predictions of celestial events, such as planetary positions, than the Ptolemaic system, but instead appealed to some practitioners based on a promise of better, simpler, solutions that might be developed at some point in the future.

Kuhn called the core concepts of an ascendant revolution its “paradigms” and thereby launched this word into widespread analogical use in the second half of the 20th century. Kuhn’s insistence that a paradigm shift was a mélange of sociology, enthusiasm and scientific promise, but not a logically determinate procedure, caused an uproar in reaction to his work. Kuhn addressed concerns in the 1969 postscript to the second edition. For some commentators it introduced a realistic humanism into the core of science while for others the nobility of science was tarnished by Kuhn's introduction of an irrational element into the heart of its greatest achievements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions

[NashVegas]

243. That's Not Science, That's Politics

Where powerful people lay out a core set of beliefs.

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Nye Bevan]

116. You don't have to either be a proponent or a denier. It's not binary.

You can believe (as I do) that it is *likely* that greenhouse gases are causing global warming and should therefore be reduced, without believing it to be "incontrovertible".

[distantearlywarning]

121. Unfortunately, this topic has been reduced to a matter of religion on both sides of the aisle

The emotion about it on this thread is exactly like the emotion you see from the right-wingers who are absolutely convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that global warming is a total fabrication.

[truebrit71]

166. What a bunch of bullshit...

Sorry matey, but religion is based on the belief of facts not in evidence, glaciers melting and polar bears drowning because the arctic ice cap is disappearing is most definitely a fact in evidence..

[G_j]

117. 99% of climatologists agree global warming is manmade

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1550334


&
Giaever has described man-made global warming as a "new religion,"

[Blue_Tires]

131. I've noted that "new religion" meme crafted as well

Even the OP clumsily makes his wild-assed comparison of the scientific community with the power of the Vatican in middle Europe...

[G_j]

137. i suppose he thinks climatology is a religion.. nt

[truebrit71]

213. Yup....

Thinly disguised at best...

[Cestode]

253. Climate change occurs with or without us.

Certainly our activities are causing some change but to say that climate change is entirely man made is retarded. I suppose we were responsible for the melting of the glaciers during the last ice age also.

Stupid.

[G_j]

254. are you a climatologist?

just wondering what your response has to with the article I posted.. :shrug:

[dawg]

122. This is dumb.

The fact that he used Kelvin, in order to make the change look as small as possible, shows that he is disingenuous.

Scientists can't do a lot of things perfectly. But they can read a damn thermometer.

The world has been getting warmer since the industrial revolution. Enough measurements have been taken, that it is more than fair to call it "incontrovertible".

We can argue all day long about why, but the data points are what they are.

[G_j]

127. +100

[truebrit71]

130. Thank you , thank you, thank you...

....man oh man, there are some in this thread that have just painted themselves into a corner and don't know how to back down gracefully...

[distantearlywarning]

143. Indeed.

;-)

[nomb]

145. That would be you.

"....man oh man, there are some in this thread that have just painted themselves into a corner and don't know how to back down gracefully...?


You've argued that a Nobel Prize winner in Physics did not understand his groups statement or position - without supporting that claim with a member of the group's statement of such. You're ability to speak for the group, it's leadership or interpret the thoughts and positions of the group or of the Nobelist are at best, debatable.


You then proceeded to argue at length that you could prove an absolute negative, in this case the absence of light in a closed room using unquantified random human eyesight as the light measuring device. If it could not be seen, it did not exist? Incontrovertibly?


You've misunderstood the point of contention, it was not "climate" - it was regarding the absolutism of claims to be infallible.

[distantearlywarning]

149. "You've misunderstood the point of contention."

Some rooms have dimmer lights than others. ;)

[truebrit71]

156. Wrong. I'll try again.

Your guy argued a point that simply hadn't been made. You thought it would be a good idea to post this on the internet to prove that there was still doubt about global climate change. When a group of people on that same website then pointed out that both you and the scientist you were supporting were arguing over a point that wasn't in the original statement you try and get all cute and pull the "Back off man, I'm a scientist" card...

Well, sorry friend but whether you are the one building the strawman, or just supporting it, you are STILL wrong.

If the statement had said what you and the GW-Denier CLAIM it said I would agree with you...but telling me that the glaciers increased rate of retreat, and the increase loss in density and area of the icecaps is NOT incontrovertible evidence of global climate warming is just ridiculous.

[nomb]

162. You're losing it there friend.

"Back off man, I'm a scientist" card. ???

I never claimed to have experience or expertise in regards to the scientific method, nor did I claim to be professionally trained as a scientist. If I had, it would have been germane, relevant and useful to the discussion at hand.

And neither I, nor the Nobelist, made any claim that telling me that the glaciers increased rate of retreat, and the increase loss in density and area of the icecaps is NOT incontrovertible evidence of global climate warming is just ridiculous.


You are, at this point, arguing with the chandeliers.

[truebrit71]

169. The other (one) person in this thread has claimed to be a scientist...

..hence my attempt at humour by injecting a line from 'Ghostbusters'...

Glaciers and ice-caps disappearing is part of the evidence that global warming is real. Hiding behind the strawman of a doddering old climate-deniers's last gasp to appear relevent is just plain silly.

He argued about scientific evidence. APS said nothing at all about scientific evidence. Ergo he is using a strawman.

Feel free to defend his argument.

[nomb]

176. Your argument is a straw man - no one from the group claims he misunderstood or misread the position

Only you, and you alone, claim this unique interpretation of the group, the Nobelist, the statement and the resignation.

Right now the world is considering this as it exists - not the distortion you peddle in which your personal parsing carves out the unique strawman that the Nobelist's letter to his peers was all just a "misunderstanding".

[truebrit71]

183. I'm the only one that thinks he misread it, or misunderstood it..

...or is being dishonest because of his own agenda?

I think you need to re-read the response in this thread again.

In the statement the APS made, do they write that the scientfic evidence was incontrovertible, yes or no? Simple question.

[nomb]

199. So you argue the APS claim NON-scientific evidence is incontrovertible?

Sorry for missing this earlier....another poster pointed it out, but now you repeat the claim?

[truebrit71]

Please answer my question.

Did the APS statement use the phrase "The scientific evidence is incontrovertible"? Yes or no.

Very, very simple question.

[nomb]

207. Sherlock, are you really pressing that APS said 'incontrovertibility of nonscientific evidence?'

Really?

What's your point? Non-scientific evidence is superior? The APS supports the incontrovertible evidence of the NON-scientific evidence? Honestly? Are you considering your positions fully before you hit "send"?

The APS either refers to scientific evidence or non-scientific evidence when they say "incontrovertible evidence".

The difference? One is unsupported by the basic tenets of science and the other...surprise, also unsupported by the basic foundational tenets of science.


Which wrong are you trying to be here? Wrong or embarrassingly wrong?

[truebrit71]

210. Just. Answer.The.Question.

Did the APS statement say "the scientific evidence is incontrovertible"? Yes or no.

Oh, and which dig are you going to stick with 'Sherlock' or 'Perry Mason'.

Just answer the question.

[nomb]

211. I am stunned beyond belief that you think the APS based their finding of "incontrovertible" on NON..

...on NON-Scientific evidence.


Get a grip there friend. Think about this for a second.


Come to terms with your error, it's not the end of the world - and you need not jump off this plank of your own creation. Just walk away, it's only an artificial construct, a meritless debating point not worth pursuing.

[truebrit71]

212. So you won't answer the question then?

No you can read my mind and tell what my beliefs are?

I believe that you have spent a great deal of time trying to be cute and amusing whilst skipping over the crux of the matter at hand.

I believe I have had enough of your ducking and weaving and obsfucation.

I believe you should answer the question.

[nomb]

214. You may be 2 stops short of Dagenham there mate. Your premise is clear, flawed and embarrassing.

Think about it.

Your construction requires that the ASP based a determination that the evidence is incontrovertible on non-scientific evidence.

To what end? What is your point?

Why don't you just tell us? DID the ASP make a finding of incontrovertibility on scientific or NON-scientific evidence?

Just tell us your finding of fact.

[truebrit71]

215. So that's a no then.

Fair enough.

I'm done wasting my time.

[nomb]

216. OK. I'll bite. The APS made their determination on NON-scientific evidence? Hence, it's OK?.

Hence it's OK to be absolute? Is that your point?

[JHB]

265. Posted in wrong place

text removed to post it where intended

[truebrit71]

205. Dupe

.

[distantearlywarning]

184. I am in fact a scientist.

I am not, however, a climatologist, so I am currently willing to accept my fellow (climate) scientists' evidence on the matter of global warming, so long as they don't use words like "incontrovertible" to describe it.

It is my assumption that this evidence I am accepting from the APA is in fact 'scientific' (meaning: acquired via research which used data gathering techniques associated with the scientific method), although it is true that they do not place the word 'scientific' in front of the word 'evidence' in their statement. If you don't mind, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt about that one.

However, if it is the case that their evidence is not in fact 'scientific' in origin, then I would argue that it is even more irresponsible for the APA to claim that said evidence is 'incontrovertible'.

[NashVegas]

246. And I'm Merely a Wordsmith

and a woman with an understanding of what went down in the late 1970s, when scientists came out and said, "hey, you know those cramps you complain about? It's not all in your head." And I'm also someone who was reading alternative press in the 1980s who saw the same thing again in 2002 when Health said, "oh, gee, HRT increases the chance of reproductive organ cancers," after 10-15 years of ridiculing sources who pointed out the link, prior to that study.

What we're seeing with Climate Change deniers is, they're simply acting in ways the scientific establishment has ALWAYS acted when there was a lack of incontrovertible proof. And if you think about it, that sea change in thinking (or paradigm, as used above) always seems to occur when scientists' capitalist benefactors find a way to make money by allowing the change.

Even now, the same thing is still happening with GMO, even as evidence increases GMO crops are bad juju. I have faith that incontrovertible evidence will be found, I just hope it happens before its too late.

When Exxon Mobile finds a way to make gobs of money w/out fossil fuels, when factories find a way to make products that's cheaper than belching out chemicals into the atmosphere, when mining interests find a way to make money that doesn't destroy the Earth, this argument will be over.

Until then, it's a fucking shame these men and women are losing all honor, just as it's a shame that concerned scientists have been forced to draw a line in the sand.

[Hosnon]

178. Our point can be succinctly summed up as this:

Scientists should not claim that anything is incontrovertible because humans cannot have that degree of a posteriori knowledge. It's simply not possible.

That does not mean that the evidence supporting climate change isn't reliable and overwhelming. I think the evidence is and I also think climate change is occurring. But it is simply not, and never will be, incontrovertible.

ETA: I should add (and probably should have added earlier) that I do think this particular scientist is using this very real point about the limits of scientific knowledge as a political weapon.

[distantearlywarning]

186. *grin*

"ETA: I should add (and probably should have added earlier) that I do think this particular scientist is using this very real point about the limits of scientific knowledge as a political weapon."

I actually do also. I just think it can occasionally be funny to poke a stick through the bars of the internet cage housing the scientifically illiterate. :evilgrin:

[nomb]

203. Of course he is. But, like the ACLU, you gotta defend the principle.

[Peace Patriot]

132. While "incontrovertible" is a poor choice of words...

--should have been "overwhelming"--I find this Nobel winner's reaction extreme and too emotional. For instance, saying that "both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period'," is an emotional and social values judgement that cannot be proved and the opposite could easily be argued (given the massive wars, massive dislocations, horrors of industrial/urban life inflicted on workers and the poor, massive air and water pollution, massive loss of forests and biodiversity, etc.--not to mention the ovens of Auschwitz, the stadiums of Chile, the purges and mass death of slave labor in Stalinist Russia, the bombing of Cambodia, the bombing of Baghdad, the CIA torture dungeons around the globe, thousands of trade unionists and others slaughtered in Colombia, etc., etc., etc.). I am not harking back to a mythical pastoral paradise of the past, just sayin': it's very arguable that industrialization and corporate rule have "definitely" "improved" human health and happiness.

Also, I think that the far rightwing shills for corporate/war profiteer rule are so "religious" in their utterly stupid assertion that massive man-made pollutants are not affecting anything, and they are such a grave threat to our society in so many ways--being empowered, as they are, by those profiting from the looting of the planet (and the looting and destruction of democratic government)--that it has pushed scientists to the limits of tolerance. If they make bad word choices, like "incontrovertible," we should give them some slack.

Even if 99% of scientists agree that the evidence is overwhelming--as to human-caused global warming and climate change (indeed, climate disaster)--it is still not "incontrovertible," because nothing in science is "incontrovertible." Every fact and hypothesis can and should be challenged, and God knows (ahem) that many a scientific fact and hypothesis has been proven wrong (or proven not quite right). In science, that doubt must always remain. The Universe is too big and too baffling to say that we know anything for certain and forever.

The horrible irony is that corporate/war profiteer rulers USE this scientific principle (doubt) to their profit advantage, by providing a platform for political numbskulls and evildoers to prevent regulation of their polluting industries and to prevent our governments from taking the measures necessary to slow or reverse the catastrophic melting of the polar ice caps and other grave impacts. The truth is that it doesn't matter whether these impacts are man-made, or partially man-made, or not man-made. They MUST be addressed. If we are doing ANYTHING that MIGHT BE contributing to these catastrophes, we must stop doing it. And whatever we can do to mitigate human and critter suffering--to PLAN FOR more hurricanes, tornados, temperature changes, food source losses, rising sea levels, etc.--we should do. But the propaganda that these obvious changes should be ignored has been compounded by the very same corporate/war profiteer rulers in their determination to destroy democratic government altogether. These same forces are looting and destroying our ability to deal with these problems!

So I have no sympathy whatever for those who use the "religious" argument to slander scientists who are trying to alert us to this huge problem. If they choose a wrong word now and then, or seem too fervent in their alarms, it is understandable in view of the potential consequences of human inaction on this matter: loss of the planet.

And that is not my prediction; it is the prediction of the World Wildlife Fund: At present levels of pollution and consumption, we have less than 50 years to the death of the planet. That's what they said. Verbatim. DEATH of the planet.

If that is not reason for a few ill-chosen words or passionate advocacy that we DO something NOW, I don't know what is.

[distantearlywarning]

148. Dear truebrit

THIS is the argument you should have been making upthread in response to your detractors. Read and learn, and perhaps you'll do better in your next internet flamewar. :-)

[nomb]

150. I had a similar reaction

A good strong argument on the whole that allows for a framework for debate. Good defensible points and a focus on the pin-head wherein the angels dance.


Not perfect, a good deal of prose in there that the red herring artists love so well, but a clear point of agreement with which to rebuild and strengthen alliances between those that are absolutists on CC and those who support progressive public policy while keeping an open mind on all science, however inconvenient.


Bedfellows, not enemies.

[truebrit71]

173. So quoting the statement verbatim is now a red-herring?

Good to know.

[nomb]

177. Clarify please. I do not know what you are talking about.

[distantearlywarning]

187. It's ok. He no longer knows what he's talking about either. :-)

[truebrit71]

195. Yup, that whole 'reading comprehension' thing is so difficult...

...like, you know, when you respond to imaginery quotes and stuff, for sure...:eyes:

[Nye Bevan]

200. Agreed. *Not* "incontrovertible". Thanks. (nt)

[Name removed]

141. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mainegreen]

152. Typical physisict. Claiming expert knowledge in fields not his own.

Annoyingly common with very bright physicists.

"I understand the laws of nature at a basic level, ergo I'm an expert at everything!"

I read an article somewhere lately that had an interesting take on this very topic. I think it was on ars technica.

[nomb]

154. If you believe this, then you would support his action. Reason:

He has resigned from his group of scientists that are his peers in his field.

If he is not qualified to make such a determination - then it follows that his group (of which he is a leading member who has received numerous awards from it) is also not qualified to make the counter-claim as to the science being incontrovertible.

If the group is qualified - then the science is not incontrovertible when members of the group disagree with the findings.


It's a simple exercise in logical reasoning.

[mainegreen]

157. Very seductive logic. But there's a flaw in it.

Even his group of peers is not really qualified to evaluate the evidence themselves, they are certainly qualified to accept the findings of a group of peers who are qualified to evaluate the evidence.

That's how science has worked ever since there was too much to know for anyone to be an expert in everything.

But if he wants to quit, great. He's just looks stupid doing it.

[nomb]

164. You argue they are qualified to determine that an area outside their expertise is incontrovertible??

Why? How?

[Honeycombe8]

189. I suspect you agree with that scientist's position, since you are arguing it so steadfastly and

earnestly. Not at all in an objective way.

For instance, I don't hear you asking the very basic question: What was the APS statement based on?

Certainly it occurred to you that some group of scientists came up with a strongly worded statement based on SOMETHING. Right? Since you're a "fair and balanced" objective person....right? And since, as you say, YOU are an environmentalist.

Was it because the science does show that it is incontrovertible?
Was it because 99% of the scientists studying the issue made that decision and crafted the statement?
Was it because one of the scientists' high school kids put together something for them over the Christmas holidays, and they just went with that, 'cause they didn't have time to look it over?

There are laws of physics that are incontrovertible, I believe. Now, I'm no physicist, but correct me if I'm wrong: the law of gravity on earth is incontrovertible. Right? Gravity hasn't been tested all over the earth, right? They do tests, studies, apply old and knew knowledge, gather data, make deductions...ergo....there is a law of gravity that applies to the entire globe. We can't see it or smell it. We can only experience it.

I don't know for sure if there is global warming. I'm pretty sure, though. I mean...I have eyes and a human body that can feel the changes in heat. I've seen the changes in climate pile up during the last decade...record heat in places, record cold in places, record floods, record tornadoes, record numbers of hurricanes in certain areas. There's no doubt about it.

The only argument is TO WHAT EXTENT man's activities have contributed to it. There is no argument that man's activities HAVE contributed to it...(if A is caused by B, and humans emit B, ipso facto, it's a contributing cause).

If you were really concerned about the environment, though, as you say you are, you would know this right off the bat: THE REAL ISSUE IS...WHAT HAPPENS IF ONE SCIENTIST IS WRONG IN THINKING THAT MAN'S ACTIVITIES CONTRIBUTE? And...WHAT HAPPENS IF ANOTHER SCIENTIST IS WRONG IN THINKING THAT MAN'S ACTIVITIES HAVE NOT CONTRIBUTED?

The answer is clear, and you would know it, if you were really an environmentalist, as you claim. In the latter case, if we go on acting as if man's activities do NOT contribute to it, and we're wrong, THE RESULTS COULD BE CATASTROPHIC and cause much suffering (or property damage, whichever matters to you most). In the former case...if we act as if our activities DO contribute to it, but we're wrong, the earth's environmental conditions would actually improve, even if we didn't contribute to the problem.

So...on which platform do you stand?

[nomb]

204. You argue for the debasement of science to further a political objective. Never accept this.

The angel on the head of the pin is the absolutism found in the determination, specifically the word "incontrovertible".

Nothing more.

You have my vote, but I won't give up my rational open-minded soul.

[Honeycombe8]

220. My statements were/are rational. And I quoted from a team of scientists. Your OP was irrational

and not objective.

Just wanted you to know that someone knows what you're doing.

Interesting that you quoted from a right wing site, and also, that you didn't question anything...anything at all...that the person anti-global warming stated. Irrational and unscientific.

My post, if you will read it (which I'm sure you didn't), is based in science, and asks questions about both sides of the equation.

That's how environmentalists usually approach this and other science issues. They consider both sides. Unlike what you have done.

For instance, you don't even try to address the question: What if the scientist you like is wrong, and man DOES contribute to global warming? Versus...what if the other (majority) scientists are wrong, and man does NOT contribute to global warming/climate change? The result in the former case could result in catastrophe, while resting your case on the latter could only help the climate change situation in the long run, and certainly do no damage to the environment.

That's the point, really. Which environmentalists know. What happens if one side is wrong vs. the other?

You've been caught.

[distantearlywarning]

222. The 'incontrovertible' law of gravity

In the late 17th century, Isaac Newton proposed that gravity was a 'force' operating on objects such as planets.

His hypotheses were accepted as just-about-as-close-as-any-scientist-ever-gets-to-incontrovertible fact by almost everyone until the results of a 1915 experiment based on Albert Einstein's Theory of Relativity suggested that gravity would be more accurately thought of as spacetime curvature rather than 'force'.

What a shame it would have been if Einstein had decided Newton's conclusions about gravity were incontrovertible and never bothered to do any more thinking or research about the subject.

(And personally, I doubt that we are done changing and retheorizing the 'incontrovertible' law of gravity. The next Einstein might have been born in a hospital somewhere on planet Earth this morning, all set to change our thinking about gravity again 50 years from now.)

[Lucian]

155. It goes to show that Nobel Laureates can be idiots.

[stockholmer]

167. as can the Nobel Committee itself ie, Obama 'Empiric War Expander In Chief"'s Peace Prize

[DrunkenBoat]

172. nobel peace prize has nothing to do with the other nobels, i think.

[stockholmer]

197. it's a separate committee, but still it's also the biggest, most prestigious of all the Nobel prizes

Shame shame on my Norwegian neighbors for besmirching it so.

[nomb]

208. Populist maybe, but debatable as to prestigious. At least in my lifetime.

I'm awed by the hard science awards, medicine, etc.... Beyond that I merely make note of them.

[Blue_In_AK]

158. Oh, it's warmer, all right.

Just look a pictures of Portage Glacier. It's virtually disappeared.

Portage Glacier 1914


Portage Glacier 1950


Portage Glacier 2002


Portage Glacier 2004




Are we not to believe our own eyes?

[truebrit71]

161. According to some in this thread that may, or may not, have something to do..

..with the current "theory" that the planet is getting warmer...My own personal opinion is that the reason the glacier has retreated like that is because the local wildlife have taken to drinking copious amounts of Gin and Tonic, and the demand for ice forced them to hack away at the most readily available source of ice...

[Blue_In_AK]

170. Yeah, you're probably right.

Funny you would mention that. On some of the glacier cruises out of Prince William Sound they do put glacier ice in the drinks that are served. It's very, very cold, and with its density, it takes a long time to melt.

Which would seem to indicate that it really IS getting warmer for this much very dense ice to disappear in a century.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

165. WHEW!

I feel healthier & happier already.

[Rex]

171. So.

BFD...life goes on! :eyes:

And in other news...no one gave a shit!

[Honeycombe8]

174. What's your source for this news bit? nt

[saras]

180. This is a REALLY BASIC confusion

The statement "the current global warming is largely a consequence of reversible human actions" is NOT a scientific statement. It is a popular-language summary of tens of thousands of scientific findings.

The findings, individually, are NOT incontrovertible. Any particular study can be questioned, and perhaps flaws or limitations found. But the sociopolitical facts:
* There are tens of thousands of different findings, from different disciplines, supporting the above statement.
* Some have been questioned, even discarded, but only a trivial number compared to the total.
* Contradictory studies are few and far between
* A discouragingly large number of contradictory studies are riddled with systemic bias
* Systemic bias, typically a refusal to even study questionable subjects or hypotheses, so that no adverse data appears in the scientific record, is a much more common technique in science than lying about actual findings, which is quite risky. So many of the studies were done by people whose interest and bias was in NOT finding harmful effects that there's little or no room for a claim of bias in all this science.

In order to challenge the apparent truth of the statement, you would not only have to discredit the majority of existing studies, you would have to produce an equal number of new studies of the same questions that uncovered different data. Most non-scientists, and a surprisingly large number of scientists, vastly underestimate the amount of work done, and the amount of data generated, supporting scientific findings of consequence, as well as the interconnections between the data - ALL of which have to change if some major portion of the data proves to be defective.

Good luck.

[truebrit71]

185. Sorry but the REALLY BASIC confusion is in the 'not understanding what was written' part...

...Here's what the APS said "The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring".

Where is the word "science" or "scientific" in that sentence?

They aren't there, but that didn't prevent the old geezer from spewing his denial talking points.

If they HAD said "The scientific evidence is incontrovertible" I would agree with him (ironically) 100%. But they didn't say that, and he just used it as an excuse to kick up a fuss and try and further cloud the debate...

[Hosnon]

188. What evidence, in your opinion, were they referring to?

I agree with what appears to be the only actual scientist in this thread: if it isn't scientific evidence, it not only isn't incontrovertible in the philosophical sense, but it is possibly controvertible by a scientist using the scientific method to produce scientific evidence.

[truebrit71]

194. I have no idea...

..they could have been referring to many things, physical evidence, photographic evidence? I am sure they included many things in that statement...

[nomb]

209. Perry Mason, are you really pressing that APS said 'incontrovertibility of nonscientific evidence?'

Really?

What's your point? Non-scientific evidence is superior? The APS supports the incontrovertible evidence of the NON-scientific evidence? Honestly? Are you considering your positions fully before you hit "send"?

The APS either refers to scientific evidence or non-scientific evidence when they say "incontrovertible evidence".

The difference? One is unsupported by the basic tenets of science and the other...surprise, also unsupported by the basic foundational tenets of science.


Which wrong are you trying to be here? Wrong or embarrassingly wrong?

[distantearlywarning]

217. He can't answer this question because he actually has no idea what he's arguing about anymore

I and everyone else reading these posts know exactly what you're trying to ask him, but he has no clue what the topic of the conversation even is anymore. :rofl: He's just mad as hell and not going to take it anymore! So he can't walk away and save the shred of dignity he has left.

Honestly, this thread has some of the funniest shit I've seen at a DU flamewar in a long time.

[nomb]

218. I don't think he senses that I'm playing to the crowd. I should probably stop toying.

Oh well. :)


Have a wonderful weekend, DU!

[truebrit71]

219. Hey genius, look up thread #210..where I answered the same question only he chose the insult...

.."Sherlock" with that one...

I don't give a shit if you choose to throw your lot in with the intellectual dishonesty of the OP and the doddering old fuck-wit that started off this whole cray train...

Bottom line, you continue to back a strawman, which is your perogative...

[nomb]

221. Here's #210 linked & quoted.. No "answer" to be found.....

Did the APS statement say "the scientific evidence is incontrovertible"? Yes or no.

Oh, and which dig are you going to stick with 'Sherlock' or 'Perry Mason'.

Just answer the question.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1950257&mesg_id=1952638


No "answer" found there.

[truebrit71]

224. Was I talking to you?

A) You still owe me a clear answer to a very, very simple question.

B) It most certainly was the answer (as in 'response') to the previous comment.

You really do have difficulty went it comes to reading comprehension don't you?

My apologies. I had no idea you were so challeneged.

Have a nice weekend! :hi:

[nomb]

225. So any response on your part constitutes an answer, but my responses on-topic are not? And only ...

... and only you may authorize the timing and placement of communication on DU?


Your "question", ludicrous as it may be, has been answered many times. Here it is again:

The APS either refers to scientific evidence or non-scientific evidence when they say "incontrovertible evidence".

The difference? One is unsupported by the basic tenets of science and the other...surprise, also unsupported by the basic foundational tenets of science.

Which is it? Did the APS base their determination of "incontrovertible evidence" on scientific evidence or non-scientific evidence?

[truebrit71]

226. One last time: Did the APS in their statement say "The scientific evidence is incontrovertible"?

Yes
Or
No.

THAT is the question that hasn't been answered by you ONCE.

Thank you and g'night!!

[nomb]

227. You say APS put their prestige on line to say non-science evidence is incontrovertible. Why?

The APS either refers to scientific evidence or non-scientific evidence when they say "incontrovertible evidence".

The difference? One is unsupported by the basic tenets of science and the other...surprise, also unsupported by the basic foundational tenets of science.


There are only two possibilities, nothing changes no matter which is chosen.


Choose one.

[distantearlywarning]

228. Ok, I'll link and post to #210, since it apparently has to come from the "right" person

"Did the APS statement say "the scientific evidence is incontrovertible"? Yes or no.

Oh, and which dig are you going to stick with 'Sherlock' or 'Perry Mason'.

Just answer the question."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

1) The APS statement said, and I quote verbatim, "The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring."

2) I thought both were pretty funny, although I might have gone with 'Einstein' instead.

3) I've lost track of what question this statement might refer to. Were we were discussing the Planet Zarkon? In which case, I can incontrovertibly say yes, it does in fact exist, somewhere in the 8th dimension. If you engage in flamewars on DU while sitting in a dark room, you may find yourself there someday.

[Honeycombe8]

182. "THE EXISTENCE OF GRAVITY IS INCONTROVERTIBLE." Did someone measure and

test for gravity at every place across the earth this past year? If not, then how can someone say that it's incontrovertible that it exists across the earth?

I'm wondering if that physicist receives funding for projects from corporations. Just curious.

I'm also curious to know what the APS's statement was based on. The OP's post sure doesn't include a "fair and balanced" treatment of the subject, and give the answers to those questions about basic facts of the situation.

[fascisthunter]

190. .

[A-Schwarzenegger]

191. "I am Norwegian, should I really worry about a little bit of warming?"

:*

[stockholmer]

192. I have never in my life seen an issue where so many of the leading lights ON BOTH SIDES are so

utterly despicable people. Whether is some multinational hydra of a corporation playing both sides of the fence,(think Exxon), some manipulative banking consortium that intends to run all the horrid exemption-laden cap and trade credits through their lucre-siphoning machine (think Rothschild), to some arrogant, hypocritical rock star or politician flying around in private jets to a 'green symposium', some self-righteous, bloviating ex-politician who's family made a fortune off of oil, and now has the largest carbon credit trading firm (Al Gore), to some moronic, knee-jerk drill baby drill bastard Tea Bagger, to cranks like anti-warmist Lord Monckton, to many data 'massaging' scientists such as the Climategate crew, I say sod the lot of them. Too, too many agendas, some so convoluted they are like a gordian knot.

I have little doubt that man is adding to the CO2 emissions, and these are probably raising the global temperatures a bit, but the prescriptions I see laid out so far are a giant vertical wealth transfer from the lower and middle classes up to the neo-Pharaohs and their global gophers of support.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This paper gives me hope for the future, maybe someone with integrity can use this template to save our humanity.

http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/JDEnPolicyPt1.pdf

http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/DJEnPolicyPt2.pdf

---------------------------------------------------------

Study: By 2030, world can run on renewables

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-20029784-54.html

[Nye Bevan]

231. Agreed. Too much binary thinking (nt)

[Quezacoatl]

196. So as I understand it

every other scientist in this group believes the global warming statement except him.

Or at least agrees enough to remain.

[Zoeisright]

223. And your science degree is from .......... ???

Don't have one?

Thought so.

Buh bye.

[Owl]

230. Good riddance to him. n/t

[sudopod]

232. Linus Pauling believed plenty of weird things

and he had two. Believing weird things doesn't make one not a genius, and being a genius doesn't make one right.

[Motown_Johnny]

233. Not just incontrovertible but it is physically impossible for this to not be true

We know what the effects of changing the chemical composition of our atmosphere in the manner that is now occurring. It can be reproduced in the lab. We also have ice core samples containing atmosphere samples from the past. We can match these up with the fossil record which indicates the temperature of the planet at that time using the types of plants growing at that time.

There can be no doubt that increasing the carbon dioxide in our atmosphere will increase the temperature of the planet.

Incontrovertible is an understatement.


Comparing applied physics to theoretical physics is dishonest. Yes, it is fine to speculate on how the mass of a proton may change or how the multi-verse might behave, that is theoretical. Measuring the effects of the chemical change in our atmosphere is applied.

[LeftyMom]

238. "Science has jumped the shark"?

I've read some stupid shit on the internet, but that just might take the biscuit.

[nomb]

240. by it's claim to have supplanted the Pope of old and become the new infallible voice of God.

Tell me you, and you alone, know the answer and cannot be wrong - and I'll call you an emperor without clothes who holds sway through fear and intimidation ... afraid of new knowledge that would embarrass your faith in the new God you created.

I don't agree with science making the claim of infallibility - and nor do the foundational tenets of modern science. No mortal has such perfectness, and no committee either.

I'll keep my open mind thank you very much.

[LeftyMom]

274. Are you high?

Seriously, that sounds like the sort of crap people go on about when they're baked.

[MadHound]

242. Well, I guess he joins the five percent group,

The five percent of the world's scientists who persist in disbelieving in climate change, despite the overwhelming mountains of evidence that show it exists and is caused by human activity.

As for you, well, you joined that group of disbelievers who like to fly in the face of science, those folks who don't believe in facts like evolution and a round earth.

You're just another anti-intellectual trying to drive this country, this world, into the ground.

[nomb]

245. Like the proverbial man with a hammer, you seem to see everything as a nail...

Nothing that I've written lends itself to your simplistic interpretation.

My support for him begins - and ends - with his opposition to the absolute closing of the scientific mind formally by a professional organization.

I don't agree with science making the claim of infallibility - and nor do the foundational tenets of modern science. No mortal has such perfectness, and no committee either.

I'll keep my open mind thank you very much. And I'll support the principle because intellectual honesty is something we should all stand for.

It is that valuable.

[MadHound]

256. Everything you've written lends itself as proof of what I stated.

Let me ask you something, have you ever engaged in science? Have you ever worked at a scientific facility, performed any sort of scientific task, solved any sort of scientific problem? I have, and frankly the screed Giaever wrote, and which you support, comes across as the rantings of one who is anti-science and anti-intellectualism.

You state that the APS is closing its scientific mind, nothing could be further from the truth. Show me where, and how this has occurred.

Nor does science make the claim of infallibility. Again, you're making the assertion, let's see the proof.

Your mind isn't open, it is confused and befuddled by the machinations and mutterings of the anti-science crowd. You think that because the scientific community states definitively, after years and decades of research, that human activity is the cause of global climate change, that they closing their mind. You could make the same statement concerning the scientific community's position on gravity and evolution.

It is you, yes you, whose mind is closed. I ask you again, provide proof that climate change is caused by some other factor than human activity.

Let me guess, you're going to produce some pithy quote from The Great Global Warming Swindle. Please do, that piece of anti-science garbage has been disproven time and again. Or you are going to produce some clever quip from one of the many garbage spin offs from that program. Again, please do so, because the scientific community has examined each and every one of those bogus claims, tested them, and found them wanting. Papers have been published that refute them, experiments carried out that disprove them. That is the joy of science, that when the science of a matter is challenged, it can be, and will be tested. In the case of the no global climate change nutters, the science of their claims was tested, tested and found sadly wanting.

But hey, you are free to believe whatever you want, fairies, unicorns, no global climate change, whatever. Just don't expect for the rest of the reality based world to accept your beliefs. We won't, unless you provide real, credible, scientific proof. So it is time for you to do one of two things, either put up or shut up. Provide the proof of your claims, or admit that you're just spouting off bullshit. But of course you'll do like all the other global climate change disbelievers. You'll give out bluster and blather in copious amounts to try and cover up your lack of real proof.

[nomb]

258. Please support your fantasy tangent with even a single quote from me. Just a one.

[MadHound]

259. I already did, in my previous post.

But apparently reading comprehension is another area, besides science, that you are lacking in. But thanks for proving my point that you can't respond with real scientific evidence, just bluster and blather.

[nomb]

261. Please repeat it then. I find neither it, nor anything within "quote" marks. I've looked quite hard.

[MadHound]

264. No, I'm not going to be diverted into playing your cute little word games,

The cute little word games that you're so desperately trying to push in order to cover up the one single, simple fact: You can't provide any scientific evidence that refutes the well accepted theory of human activity causing global climate change.

Provide that sort of evidence, then we can engage in a semantics debate. But don't try and make this discussion about the merits of science into a semantics debate just because you are lacking in scientific evidence, proof and thought. Again, either put up or shut up, it's that simple.

[nomb]

275. Kafka would be proud. A Trial/Conviction w'o the accused allowed to see the words that hung him.

You: Everything you've written lends itself as proof of what I stated.

Me: Please support your fantasy tangent with even a single quote from me. Just a one.

You: I already did, in my previous post.

Me: Please repeat it then. I find neither it, nor anything within "quote" marks. I've looked quite hard.

You: No, I'm not going to be diverted into playing your cute little word games,

[MadHound]

276. Not only do you not understand science, but apparently you don't understand Kafka either

Again, let me ask you, where is your evidence that global climate change is not a man made phenomenon. I keep asking you this question, yet you keep trying diversionary tactics. Why can't you provide this evidence? Oh, yeah, that's right, never mind.

[nomb]

277. I never said that which you convicted me of, and you refuse to quote the words you use as "evidence"

I understand Kafka.

[MadHound]

278. Hello, still looking for your evidence that global climate change isn't man made

You're still trying to play semantic games instead. That tells me all I need to know.

[nomb]

279. Show me where I ever said any such thing. Or stop lying about what I said. Simple. Put up or shut-up

[MadHound]

280. Your OP certainly implies that very thing

Your support of Giaever is a clear giveaway.

But for clarity's sake, do you believe that global climate change is cause by human actions?

[nomb]

281. It said nothing of the kind - nor do ANY of the dozens of my posts. You lied, now you try to wiggle.

Disgusting behavior.

[MadHound]

282. So again, do you believe that global climate change is man made or not

Easy question, simple answer.

[nomb]

283. You lied about what I said and were caught-out, now it's the Spanish Inquisition?

[nomb]

284. Here are my words, taken from this page.

"You've misunderstood the point of contention, it was not "climate" - it was regarding the absolutism of claims to be infallible."

"How does support for academic inquiry or doubt about absolutism in thought become denial?
I take it as a position of first principles. And I'll still support climate laws."

"I'm not going to stop being environmentally pro-active and doing all I can"

"The angel on the head of the pin is the absolutism found in the determination, specifically the word "incontrovertible".
Nothing more.
You have my vote, but I won't give up my rational open-minded soul."


A reply in which I strongly agreed with a position expressed by another DU member who I felt made my point better than I had, and the link through to it :

Response to Reply #235:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1950257&mesg_id=1954561

A reply in which I strongly agreed with a position expressed by another DU member who I felt made my point better than I had, and the link through to it :

Response to Reply #99:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1950257&mesg_id=1951385

[MadHound]

285. So you're not going to answer a simple yes or no question

Do you believe that global climate change is man made? Simple question, requiring a basic yes or no answer. Stop dodging it and answer the question, it is that simple.

[MadHound]

273. Hmm, stunning silence

I guess that answers my question. You have no scientific proof or rational rebuttal.

[fascisthunter]

249. ding ding ding

[Chimichurri]

248. It's easy. He's 82 and paid for. Otherwise, why didn't he walk away in 2007 when the

statement was first made?

His better days are behind him so now he gets to be the Judith Miller of the flat-earth brigade and not have to worry about his finances.

The only scientists denouncing Climate Change have monetary incentives to do so.
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/British_Scientists_Tell_Exxon_To_Stop_Anti_Climate_Change_Campaign_999.html
"The Royal Society, Britain's premier group of scientists, has written to the British arm of energy giant ExxonMobil, demanding the company withdraw support for groups that attempt to undermine the consensus relating to climate change"

http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Talisman+university+play+down+links+skeptics/5418713/story.html
"Talisman Energy and other donors to "research" funds at the University of Calgary received tax receipts as a result of a public-relations campaign to cast doubt on global warming science"

http://money.cnn.com/2007/02/02/news/companies/exxon_science/index.htm
"Think tank offers scientists $10,000 to criticize UN study confirming global warming and placing blame on humans."

You breath the air and drink the water too. I do not understand why anyone would defend the interests of the very entities who are harming them.

[nomb]

250. His letter is a recent response to the APS President asking him to renew his membership.

[nomb]

251. I would not think an older tenured Nobel Prize winner would have any reason not to speak sincerely.

[Chimichurri]

252. Nice short talking points. Somewhere Frank Luntz is weeping with joy right now - but sorry,

the fact remains, had Ivar Giaever felt that strongly about it, he should have renounced his membership the moment that memo was penned back in 2007. To your second talking point:
"I would not think an older tenured Nobel Prize winner would have any reason not to speak sincerely." this is just an opinion and does nothing to support your argument.

[nomb]

257. You claim guy was $$$ for$, I pointed out that tenure, a Nobel and age argue for an Independent mind

My response was civil, succinct, on-topic, well-reasoned and germane.

It was also, if you recall, a response to your baseless character assassination of a tenured Nobel Laureate. The man gave a timely response to the APS President's recent request that he renew his membership. There is nothing in that indicating that he did not, as you personally demand of him, voice an immediate objection.

Feel free to substantiate and support your two straw men, they're looking a little unstuffed and forlorn lying on the floor right now.

[Odin2005]

260. Typical arrogant physicist who thinks he's smarter than scientists in other fields.

Just like Lord Kelvin who used Thermodynamics to "prove" that the Earth was only 20 million years old and so that the biologists and geologists had to be wrong (radioactivity was unknown back then, so he assumed Earth's internal heat to be primordial). Those biologists and geologists got the last laugh not too long before Kelvin's death.

[nomb]

263. If you believe this, then you would support his action. Reason:

He has resigned from his group of scientists that are his peers in his field.

If he is not qualified to make such a determination - then it follows that his group (of which he is a leading member who has received numerous awards from it) is also not qualified to make the counter-claim as to the science being incontrovertible.

If the group is qualified - then the science is not incontrovertible when members of the group disagree with the findings.

[Odin2005]

270. The organization is deferring to the judgment of the climatologists...

...in the name of solidarity between scientists against the LIES spewed by the fossil fuel industry and their paid hacks. Something I would accuse you of being were it not against forum rules, since it is well known that the industry pays hacks to spam message boards and blogs with crap.

[JHB]

266. Jeez, has anyone in this thread gone to the trouble of finding the actual policy statement?

http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm

The 2007 statement includes the sentence:

The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.

The April 2010 commentary on the 2007 statement clarifies:

The evidence for global temperature rise over the last century is compelling. However, the word "incontrovertible" in the first sentence of the second paragraph of the 2007 APS statement is rarely used in science because by its very nature science questions prevailing ideas. The observational data indicate a global surface warming of 0.74 °C (+/- 0.18 °C) since the late 19th century. (Source: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html )

Reasoning for the 2007 statement was given in THE BIOLOGICAL PHYSICIST, The Newsletter of the Division of Biological Physics of the American Physical Society, Vol. 7, No. 5 Dec. 2007 issue:

THE BIOLOGICAL PHYSICIST spoke by telephone with Dr. Robert Eisenstein, chair of the APS’s Panel on Public Affairs (POPA, http://www.aps.org/about/governance/committees/popa ), about the process of crafting the statement.

A year ago, Eisenstein said, POPA was asked to advise the APS Council on whether APS should sign on to the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) statement on climate change. They looked at the AAAS statement and “thought that it was too assumptive about what the future was going to hold.” POPA concluded that the APS needed to write its own statement rather than simply signing on to that of the AAAS.

The resulting APS statement revolves around the following points: (1) most scientists believe global warming is happening, and that this conclusion is data-driven; (2) most, but perhaps not all, scientists would say that this warming is driven by human activity, especially since 90% of the rise has occurred since 1900; and (3) there is major controversy about what the future holds. “Our understanding of what the future may bring depends on models,” says Eisenstein, “and many people feel that present-day models are not up to the job of making stable, reliable long-term predictions. That is why POPA felt it was important to endorse the statement that global warming is occurring, to endorse the position that this is likely due to human activity, and to encourage more study and significantly improved modeling as guidance to what further action would be appropriate.”

Once POPA had completed its draft, the panel submitted the statement to the APS Executive Board and Council. After careful consideration and some editing, the statement was approved.

http://www.aps.org/units/dbp/newsletters/upload/dec07.p...

Might I suggest denier outlets are making a bigger deal of this case than than it warrants just to feed it into their liberal-scientist-conspiracy narrative?

[Drew Richards]

267. Kinda like the TEA party whining that they are taxed too much even though they are at the lowest

tax rate in 30 years.

[Name removed]

271. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.