• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Albert Einstein Would Likely Have Been a Climate Skeptic

Albert Einstein Would Likely Have Been a Climate Skeptic
Click to expand...

i doubt it. Einstein was a scientist.
 
Jack Hays said:
Sadly, I suspect Einstein would have considered "climate scientist" as presently used to be an oxymoron.
Click to expand...

Einstein was a theoretical physicist. Taking known information and modelling it to predict outcomes was exactly what he did.
 
Jack Hays said:
But he was not a groupthink-driven "consensus" drone.
Click to expand...

He may have disagreed with the idea of the consensus being relevant to the science, but that's not the same as disagreeing with the science itself. We could, like Einstein, perform a gedankenexperiment, where we take the fact that many brilliant physicists, like the late Stephen Hawking, have no issue with the science, to show that a brilliant physicist like Einstein would share the same opinion.
 
spud_meister said:
He may have disagreed with the idea of the consensus being relevant to the science, but that's not the same as disagreeing with the science itself. We could, like Einstein, perform a gedankenexperiment, where we take the fact that many brilliant physicists, like the late Stephen Hawking, have no issue with the science, to show that a brilliant physicist like Einstein would share the same opinion.
Click to expand...

Brilliant physicists like Henrik Svensmark and Nir Shaviv have issues with the science. Einstein would be, IMHO, uncaring about the views of others.
 
Jack Hays said:
But he was not a groupthink-driven "consensus" drone.
Click to expand...

By that logic, he would have disagreed with the ideas of gravity, a nonflat earth, and the earth rotating around the sun...
 
Jack Hays said:
The historian's work is the same.
Click to expand...

No, it really isn’t. Figuring some ones opinions based on their words and actions in relation to that opinion is completely different from extrapolation based on words unrelated to the issue.
 
Redress said:
By that logic, he would have disagreed with the ideas of gravity, a nonflat earth, and the earth rotating around the sun...
Click to expand...

Not at all. To be unbound by consensus is not the same as being reflexively contrarian. But the claim that "consensus" by itself should win the debate would, IMHO, strike Einstein as ludicrous.
 
Redress said:
No, it really isn’t. Figuring some ones opinions based on their words and actions in relation to that opinion is completely different from extrapolation based on words unrelated to the issue.
Click to expand...

It happens all the time.
 
Jack Hays said:
Not at all. To be unbound by consensus is not the same as being reflexively contrarian. But the claim that "consensus" by itself should win the debate would, IMHO, strike Einstein as ludicrous.
Click to expand...

But that is exactly how you are interpreting it.
 
Redress said:
But that is exactly how you are interpreting it.
Click to expand...

No, not at all. The climate science claim that "consensus" is a persuasive argument is what I think would put him off, and his words support that.
 
Jack Hays said:
Brilliant physicists like Henrik Svensmark and Nir Shaviv have issues with the science. Einstein would be, IMHO, uncaring about the views of others.
Click to expand...

Svensmark and Shaviv are pushing their own theories. Einstein, as you quoted in the OP, would care about the opinion of just one fellow scientist, if they could disprove him.
 
spud_meister said:
Svensmark and Shaviv are pushing their own theories. Einstein, as you quoted in the OP, would care about the opinion of just one fellow scientist, if they could disprove him.
Click to expand...

My point is that he would be unimpressed by "consensus." And yes, one would be enough to disprove.
 
Jack Hays said:
My point is that he would be unimpressed by "consensus." And yes, one would be enough to disprove.
Click to expand...

Yet being unimpressed with the consensus is not the same as being a "climate skeptic", as per your title.
 
The consensus argument is used by many who do not know and cannot describe what the
collection of Scientist are in agreement with.
If you read the consensus statements, most could be satisfied by CO2 forcing alone.
But CO2 forcing alone is of little threat to civilization.
I have been reading a Friend of the court brief answering the Judges tutorial questions,
http://1ggye33lc4653z56mp34pl6t.wpe...s/2018/03/Tutorial-Professor-Presentation.pdf
The Scientists produce 4 main points.
1. The climate is always changing; changes like those of the past half-century
are common in the geologic record, driven by powerful natural phenomena

2. Human influences on the climate are a small (1%) perturbation to natural
energy flows

3. It is not possible to tell how much of the modest recent warming can be
ascribed to human influences

4. There have been no detrimental changes observed in the most salient
climate variables and today’s projections of future changes are highly uncertain
Click to expand...
Strangely enough, based on the criteria of the consensus, these scientist could be counted as part of the consensus.
 
spud_meister said:
Yet being unimpressed with the consensus is not the same as being a "climate skeptic", as per your title.
Click to expand...

The author believes he would have been a skeptic, as do I. The failure of climate models is not something he would have missed, and as previously posted, the "consensus" claim would have struck him as ludicrous.
 
JacksinPA said:
Did you take any science courses in school? Ever been in a greenhouse on a clear summer day?
Click to expand...

So no cogent reply was made from you here. :roll:

I used to run a greenhouse for a while growing plants and building plant terrariums back in the mid 1980's, your ignorance is obvious anyway since the atmosphere doesn't have a roof on it which is freaking obvious.

Real greenhouse on the planets surface retards or prevents convection, which is why it gets hot in it. It is obvious that you don't understand what a Greenhouse really is.

From Home and Garden

How Does a Greenhouse Work?

By Wendy Connick

Providing Heat

"Greenhouses are warmer than the great outdoors because all that sunlight coming in through the clear glass or plastic walls turns into heat when it hits a solid surface, such as the ground or the plants inside the greenhouse. Light is really a form of energy, which is why plants can use it to fuel photosynthesis.

3. The trapped heat warms the air inside the greenhouse and because a greenhouse is relatively air-tight, the warmer air stays inside, raising the entire building's temperature. This is the same effect that you've no doubt experienced when getting into a car after it's been sitting in a sunny parking space for a few hours."

LINK
 
When people use the term skeptic related to climate science, they should understand what scientist might be skeptical of.
There are really two distinct parts of the concept know as AGW.
The first part (which almost no one is skeptical of) is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas,
and that doubling it's level will cause some energy imbalance and some warming.
Ranges of 2XCO2 energy imbalance are between 3.44 and 3.71 Wm-2, with forcing warming about 1.1 C.
The second part of the concept is that the AGW proponents believe that the forcing warming will be amplified
through various feedbacks to produce between modest to life changing warming.
It is the second portion that would be both of concern, and the most likely that most scientists would be skeptical of.
A quick google search of "scientist skeptical of global warming",
shows scientist like Richard Lindzen, Fred Singer, and John Christy, yet if you look at the what these scientist say and write,
I do not think a single one of them says that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.
So their being labeled "skeptics" is not related to accepting the actual science that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
What these so called skeptics are skeptical of, is the second portion of the AGW concept which is much more speculative.
The question in this thread is would past Scientist be skeptical of the idea that forcing warming from added CO2,
would be amplified to cause additional warming several times greater than the input warming?
I would have to say, YES, as skepticism in science is almost part of the job description.
I would add that that skepticism would be well placed, as the data does not support high level of amplified feedbacks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom