Ocasio-Cortez floats 70 percent tax on the super wealthy to fund Green New Deal

[bubbabgone]

Regardless of their academic and scientific background, climatologists SPECIALIZE in studying the climate and are way more familiar with its related scientific bibliography.
I find it interesting that you make the claim that all these scientists and scientific bodies and academies which support the theory of the anthropogenic global warming make a "political argument" when in fact you revealed to us that one of the reasons you do not believe in such anthropogenic global warming theories is because they divert resources needed to address other problems which is a Prima facie political argument!

Is the IPCC a political body?

 

[pamak]

No. I do not believe the scientists make a political argument when they stick to science, but they are political when they shift to advocacy.
I suggest you review the CV's of Shaviv and Svensmark (also a physicist) before you offer any more uninformed comments about who is familiar with what.

Talking about anthropogenic global warming is not equivalent to advocacy.
Reviewing the background of the people you named will not reveal anything. I am not saying that they are not legit as physicists. I am saying that I (as a non-expert mechanical engineer) have ZERO reason to take their word over those of the 97% of the scientists who specialize in climatology or over all the statements of academic and scientific bodies which issued statements in support of the anthropogenic global warming and have many members who are already Nobel Laureates.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

No it isn't. Source: the vast majority of scientists all around the globe. If you truly believe cosmic rays and the sun are the cause of climate change, you are willfully ignorant.

Quite right, and it isn't gasoline that makes your car run either - it's all those "internals" that get "combusted" in your "internal combustion" engine. I mean, if it was gasoline then they'd call it a "gasoline combustion" engine.

Right?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Because there's really very little evidence for the "consensus" position and proposed remedies will drain resources from addressing actual problems. And btw, the solar/GCR flux climate theory is not just the province of oddballs.

There is a possibility that there might be a bit of truth in "I am fine with the use of the word "consensus " to describe the the 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists who believe that Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities." PROVIDED that one inserts the words "changes in the" between the words "believe that" and the words "Climate-warning trends".

 

[pamak]

Is the IPCC a political body?

I did not bring a statement by the IPCC (which is a political body) to support my argument. I posted a long list which included statements from dozens of academies and scientific bodies . If you try to imply that all such bodies have more political connections than the republicans or conservative radio and TV commentators who froth about the liberal green energy conspiracy, I cannot take your argument as a serious one.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

The issue I have is with your statement that such factors (sun ,GCR) should be considered as the main cause of the global warming.

Do you know what would happen to the Earth's average global temperature if the Sun were to suddenly blink out?

Do you know what would happen to the Earth's average global temperature if the Sun were to suddenly go nova?

Of course the SOURCE of the heat that determines the Earth's average global temperature has absolutely no major effect on what the Earth's average clobal temperature is because the only thing that determines what the Earth's average global temperature is is the RETENTION of that heat.

 

[pamak]

Do you know what would happen to the Earth's average global temperature if the Sun were to suddenly blink out?

Do you know what would happen to the Earth's average global temperature if the Sun were to suddenly go nova?

Of course the SOURCE of the heat that determines the Earth's average global temperature has absolutely no major effect on what the Earth's average clobal temperature is because the only thing that determines what the Earth's average global temperature is is the RETENTION of that heat.

Since the Sun has never blinked and has not become nova, such phenomena are not relevant to the claim that the sun is the main cause of the global warming.
Also, since I am not an expert I do not want to start a discussion that oversimplifies things about chaotic systems related to the climate. Recall that just a small tilt of the Earth and small variations of its distance from the sun during its annual orbit is enough to change the average temperature in a place during summer and winter times.

 

[pamak]

Quite right, and it isn't gasoline that makes your car run either - it's all those "internals" that get "combusted" in your "internal combustion" engine. I mean, if it was gasoline then they'd call it a "gasoline combustion" engine.

Right?

Not a good analogy.

A better example is hearing an expert telling you that your car engine is overheated because you have an issue with your coolant, and then hear a response.."But..but.... the gas is the main source of heat in my engine. It must be the fault of the last gas station which I used to fill my tank"

 

[Jack Hays]

Talking about anthropogenic global warming is not equivalent to advocacy.
Reviewing the background of the people you named will not reveal anything. I am not saying that they are not legit as physicists. I am saying that I (as a non-expert mechanical engineer) have ZERO reason to take their word over those of the 97% of the scientists who specialize in climatology or over all the statements of academic and scientific bodies which issued statements in support of the anthropogenic global warming and have many members who are already Nobel Laureates.

Then don't take their word for it. I am indifferent to your view.
I suggest, nonetheless, that you acquaint yourself with their work.

 

[pamak]

Then don't take their word for it. I am indifferent to your view.
I suggest, nonetheless, that you acquaint yourself with their work.

I have no problem to read anybody's work including that of critics. I doubt though that I can REALLY acquaint myself with any work critical or supportive of the anthropogenic global warming beyond a superficial level since I do not have the relative educational background. I also suggest that you acquaint yourself with the work of the 97% of the climatologists who believe in the anthropogenic global warming, but then again, I doubt that you have the scientific background to really acquaint yourself with their work.

By the way, here are some modern scientists who kept confronting the "consensus" of the scientific community regarding Einstein's and other mainstream theories . Some of these critics even claimed that they were receiving warning by their supervisors about the prospects of their careers.

Louis Essen - Wikipedia

Louis Essen FRS[1] O.B.E. (6 September 1908 – 24 August 1997) was an English physicist whose most notable achievements were in the precise measurement of time and the determination of the speed of light. He was a critic of Albert Einstein's theory of relativity, particularly as it related to time dilation...

...In 1971 he published The Special Theory of Relativity: A Critical Analysis,[3] questioning Special relativity, which apparently was not appreciated by his employers. Essen said in 1978:[4]

No one has attempted to refute my arguments, but I was warned that if I persisted I was likely to spoil my career prospects.

[personal comment: The above information could easily be exploited by conspiracy theorists fantasizing some global (Jewish I guess) conspiracy to make us believe that Einstein was correct]

Petr Beckmann - Wikipedia

Petr Beckmann (November 13, 1924 – August 3, 1993) was a professor of electrical engineering who became a well-known advocate of libertarianism and nuclear power. Later in his life he challenged Albert Einstein's theory of relativity and other accepted theories in modern physics....

...He wrote more than 60 scientific papers and eight technical books. Dr. Beckmann spoke at International Society for Individual Liberty(ISIL)'s San Francisco Conference in 1990 where he received a standing ovation for his speech in which he attacked "sham environmentalists".[1]

Beckmann was also a frequent and colorful participant in Usenet debates. In them, he claimed to have debunked Albert Einstein's theory of special relativity in his book Einstein Plus Two as well as in a disputatious journal, Galilean Electrodynamics, which he also founded.

Tom Van Flandern - Wikipedia

Thomas C Van Flandern (June 26, 1940 – January 9, 2009) was an American astronomer and author specializing in celestial mechanics. Van Flandern had a career as a professional scientist, but was noted as an outspoken proponent of non-mainstream views related to astronomy, physics, and extra-terrestrial life[/


My point is that it is very normal to see a few odd balls with PHDs and real scientific credentials questioning even strongly established scientific theories which have been accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community.

 

[Jack Hays]

I have no problem to read anybody's work including that of critics. I doubt though that I can REALLY acquaint myself with any work critical or supportive of the anthropogenic global warming beyond a superficial level since I do not have the relative educational background. I also suggest that you acquaint yourself with the work go the 97% of the climatologists who believe in the anthropogenic global warming, but ben then, I doubt that you have the scientific background to really acquaint yourself with their work.

By the way, here are some modern scientists who kept confronting the "consensus" of the scientific community regarding Einstein's theories . Some of these critics even claimed that they were receiving warning by their supervisors. My point is that odd balls with PHDs are very common even when we talk about strongly established scientific theories. . . .

So what?
Btw: After emigrating to the US, Einstein worked at the Institute for Advanced Study, the same place where Shaviv was honored as an IBM Einstein Fellow. Hardly an odd ball.

 

[pamak]

So what?
Btw: After emigrating to the US, Einstein worked at the Institute for Advanced Study, the same place where Shaviv was honored as an IBM Einstein Fellow. Hardly an odd ball.

The odd ball remark has to do with their attempt to go against the mainstream. I did not question their credentials. And as you can see in the links I provided, these "odd balls" were legit and had titles and positions in recognized institutions. As I said, many times legitimate scientists are just tempted to challenge the mainstream because of their vanity and their ambition to prove that they are the next "Einstein" who will revolutionize physics.

 

[Lakryte]

". . . I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.

Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. . . ."

Michael Crichton
CalTech Michelin Lecture, 2003

That's all nice words. But the fact remains the vast majority of scientists around the world rejects your bogus claims. Climate change is real and caused by human beings. Just like the earth is round, not flat. Some things really are that clear. But keep sticking your head in the sand.

 

[Jack Hays]

The odd ball remark has to do with their attempt to go against the mainstream. I did not question their credentials. And as you can see in the links I provided, these "odd balls" were legit and had titles and positions in recognized institutions. As I said, many times legitimate scientists are just tempted to challenge the mainstream because of their vanity and their ambition to prove that they are the next "Einstein" who will revolutionize physics.

Are you familiar with The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn?

 

[Jack Hays]

That's all nice words. But the fact remains the vast majority of scientists around the world rejects your bogus claims. Climate change is real and caused by human beings. Just like the earth is round, not flat. Some things really are that clear. But keep sticking your head in the sand.

Just keep marching like a lemming.

 

[pamak]

Are you familiar with The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn?

Yes!

But I am not going to accept as a default position that just because somebody wants to challenge the scientific establishment that he is creating a paradigm shift which brings a new scientific revolution. The vast majority of such challenges fail to bring such results!

 

[bubbabgone]

I did not bring a statement by the IPCC (which is a political body) to support my argument. I posted a long list which included statements from dozens of academies and scientific bodies . If you try to imply that all such bodies have more political connections than the republicans or conservative radio and TV commentators who froth about the liberal green energy conspiracy, I cannot take your argument as a serious one.

Good ... I agree, the IPCC is a political body.
And those academics you mentioned are the ones nominated by world Government bodies to produce the reports for the IPCC whose acknowledged reason for being is to demonstrate the effect of human CO2 emissions.
Science in opposition will never appear because scientists who don't agree aren't allowed in.
So naturally Governments and media consider the IPCC to be their go-to source.
It's all very incestuous.

 

[bubbabgone]

That's all nice words. But the fact remains the vast majority of scientists around the world rejects your bogus claims. Climate change is real and caused by human beings. Just like the earth is round, not flat. Some things really are that clear. But keep sticking your head in the sand.

How do you know that?

 

[Lakryte]

Just keep marching like a lemming.

Just keep ignoring science.

 

[Lakryte]

How do you know that?

Because I read. If it is news to you that the vast majority of scientists agree that climate change is happening and human caused, then you've been under a rock for a loooong time.

 

[bubbabgone]

Because I read. If it is news to you that the vast majority of scientists agree that climate change is happening and human caused, then you've been under a rock for a loooong time.

No need to get snarky so soon.
What and where have you read that "the vast majority of scientists agree that climate change is happening and human caused"?
I've asked this of others and it always ends up with references to surveys and "because that's what they say".
Is that it?

 

[Lakryte]

No need to get snarky so soon.
What and where have you read that "the vast majority of scientists agree that climate change is happening and human caused"?
I've asked this of others and it always ends up with references to surveys and "because that's what they say".
Is that it?

It's not soon. I've been dealing with deniers for a looooong time. Please provide evidence that the majority of scientists do not believe climate change is human caused. I'll wait.

 

[pamak]

Good ... I agree, the IPCC is a political body.
And those academics you mentioned are the ones nominated by world Government bodies to produce the reports for the IPCC whose acknowledged reason for being is to demonstrate the effect of human CO2 emissions.
Science in opposition will never appear because scientists who don't agree aren't allowed in.
So naturally Governments and media consider the IPCC to be their go-to source.
It's all very incestuous.

Well, scientists who challenge the establishment will feel the consequences if they insist on a theory that is inferior according to the establishment. Notice again that I mentioned earlier the examples of legit modern scientists who tried to challenge Einstein's and other mainstream theories and who do mention the warnings they received from their supervisors about the implications of their criticism. But I do not see how one can interpreter the fact that the majority of the scientists all over the word support a specific theory. If things were politically motivated, then scientists would have been split way more. In politics, it is extremely difficult to achieve such "consensus " among different countries.

 

[pamak]

That's all nice words. But the fact remains the vast majority of scientists around the world rejects your bogus claims. Climate change is real and caused by human beings. Just like the earth is round, not flat. Some things really are that clear. But keep sticking your head in the sand.

I am mostly in agreement with you but I will separate the certainty regarding the fact that the earth is round from the theory of the anthropogenic climate change. I think, you can also see this difference in the words of the statement that is supported by the vast majority of climatologists who use the expression "very likely." Now, if someone asks the same people if they support the statement that the earth is round, they will not answer that this is "very likely" They will give a much more definite statement.

p.s. I use the term "round" in its vernacular meaning here, as most people use it to talk about the earth's shape even though technically one can have an objection about the accuracy of the chosen word.

In my time and country, the school of mechanical engineering was offering only courses directly linked to engineering. It was not like the case in the US where students even in the STEM field have to get certain units of general education not related to STEM. However, I did have the opportunity to attend some courses in Epistemology which I found veryyyy interesting. Even though epistemology was not directly related to my field, it did give a broad perspective about the philosophy and logic of acquiring knowledge in the scientific field. I think you may like exploring the subject to see how certainty about the "truth" is very rare in science.

 

[Jack Hays]

Yes!

But I am not going to accept as a default position that just because somebody wants to challenge the scientific establishment that he is creating a paradigm shift which brings a new scientific revolution. The vast majority of such challenges fail to bring such results!

Yes, but not this time.