nah, you’ve just seen demonstations and models of what happens. You haven’t actually been in an observatory and saw the numbers of where the sun is and then the planet being observed and how relates to the planet and then to where we are on the earth.

Models are easy, but that’s not actual science. I could put a globe of jupiter in the middle of the solar system. Would you know that jupiter wasn’t in the middle of the solar system from any actual numbers of angle and distance that you’ve taken? Or have you seen saturn in a telescope and checked out that it should really be where astronomers said it would be if the sun was at the center of the solar system?

Models isn’t the same as a raw data of what is happening. It’s like having a statue of somebody. You might claim that that person did great things and is worthy of having a statue. that does not prove they actually did any of the good things they were supposed to have done.

That’s the resistance of getting people to spend billions of dollars on something that is so remote from them. If people have never taken a carbon dioxide reading and really measured that it’s 385 ppm or have never actually seen an ice core of 500 thousand years ago and have
a carbon dioxide reading taken from it.

We would be nuts to think that someone would spend billions of dollars and have others be willing to forgo billions of dollars of lost income without some more hands on to what the science is all about.

All we’ve got is words. (pictures and movies)

All the science museums, schools and state fairs should amybe have a carbon dioxide meter so people can actually see the numbers. It’s to remote from their lives.

What does the alarmist climatologist have that the indifferent reguluar person does not have? The regular person has never had a carbon dioxide meter in their hands. The regular person has never seen a core sample up close. A regular person has never been to a climate conference. A regular person has never seen the discussion on what wording should be used to be more effective in writing a paper.

And then billions of dollars should be spent and billions of dollars of potentical income given up from something that they have not even had the measuring device of in their hands?

http://www.realclimate.org/ index.php/ archives/ 2007/ 05/ start-here/

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html

Imagining your congressional hearing with the impressionable minds watching… what happens when the Republican members of congress repeatedly ask the question “Dr. Climatescience, you state in your paper that thusinsuch is likely… can you in fact PROVE that thusinsuch is true?” To which Dr. Climatescience would try to explain statistical analysis, confidence intervals and the nuances of science, putting said impressionable, yet attention deficitted, mind into a stupor only to be reengaged when Congressman Bloviate interrupts loudly and forces the scientist to admit that no absolute proof is available.

Then when Mailorder-Dr. Denier is testifying, he gets pummeled with similar questions, but has the luxury of replying quite calmly and politely… “No, I’m not at all claiming that this proves AGW isn’t happening, but it does raise doubts. Even Dr. Climatescience admits that his models are incomplete. At this point we can’t PROVE the science one way or the other. That’s precisely the problem and why it would be dangerous to harm the economy until we have done more research.”

Unfortunately, I don’t think there is going to be a smoking gun as there has been in other situations such as tobacco that totally discredit the unscientific biased side. After all, with only one earth, we don’t have any smoking gun statistics about outcomes when societies increase atmospheric CO2 faster than has ever happened naturally.

“There are some largish gaps in my understanding of AGW. For the moment I’m willing to take those matters on trust (see the meta-reason A, above) but I would like to ask on this blog and in other places. The problem is that the whole discussion has become so polarized that there is a risk of even simple questions being taken the wrong way. Maybe I ought to read Joe’s book, first.”

Ed,

Not meaning to be jumping to conclusions about your own education and extent of scientific study, but most people will have to accept that they will always have large gaps in their understanding of climate science. There is a reason climate science is done by full-time professionals that have gotten graduate degrees in the field.

I believe a fairly major part of the problem resulting in lack of action on climate change is that the general public expects to be personally convinced that the science is correct with each new development. Unfortunately most peoples’ concept of what that means is probably along the lines of a court of law rather than science. They feel that they must be convinced “beyond reasonable doubt” that humans are guilty. Without a heck of a lot of study in climate science, one would unlikely have the knowledge to make a truly valid scientific judgment. As such, the deniers seem to have an easy time sowing seeds of “doubt” and framing the public policy debate within the erroneous context that the general population is capable of making a scientific assessment between “reasonable doubt” on the one hand verse “definitive proof” on the other.

Though annoying forum participants too recently out of high school debate club will shout “appeal to authority”, the only truly valid defense of one’s belief in AGW and current predictions of problems is to cite the very extensive body of peer reviewed research that has stood the scrutiny of the scientific community.

Q: “There has recently been a surge in people running for school boards in order to influence the teaching (or non-teaching) of evolution or creationism. What are your thoughts on the teaching of these two subjects in public schools?”

A: “I have no designs on either issue, as neither is part of my platform. But I do believe in balance, and if one subject is taught, the opposing view should also get attention. Ultimately, parents should discuss religion with their children, as it is a personal choice. The debate over creationism versus evolution goes back decades, and is now part of our American History. A student needs to know that history to make an intelligent choice about how they view religion.”

That seems clear enough.

There is a difference in being open-minded and empty headed. I don’t want to spend time explaining it, but most can figure it out.

3 subjects of scientific (and other) study.

First)
Hypothesis 1) Everything revolves around the earth (geocentric.)

Hypothesis 2) Everything in solar system revolves around the sun (heliocentric)

Second)
Hypothesis 1) The 9/11/ 2001 attacks were aided by explosive charges put into the world trade center, into world trade center building 7 and a different smaller plane hit the pentagon, and explosive charges aided the pentagon damage instead of one of the hijacked airliners. Include all the other hypotheses from the ‘9/11 Search for Truthers.’

Hypothesis 2) 4 airliners hijacked by people from the middle east, mostly from Saudi Arabia, flew the airliners into buildings and the ground and damage unaided by explosives set by the U.S. government.

Third)
Hypothesis 1) Global warming (AGW) caused by accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Hypothesis 2) Huge mistakes and conspiracies by major scientific organizations about AGW. People who haven’t studied it much and come from political views on the subject know more than people who have spent their lives in science.

Most can see where this is going.

How many people have actually seen the science of First study, Hypothesis 1) and 2.) Very few. I see the sun rise in the morning, it goes across the sky and the sun sets. The sun goes around the earth. The stars go around the earth. The moon goes around the earth, just takes more time. The planets go around the earth, just wander a little and back up once in a while, but they eventually find their way and continue on their way around the earth.

Copernicus had a hypothesis about heliocentric. Galileo had observations about Jupiter and the moons going around it, but didn’t prove heliocentric. It was left to the mathematician Kepler to prove heliocentric. But how many have studied Kepler and the math on heliocentric. I haven’t. But the scientists have.

Now the ‘9/11 Search for Truthers’ are just weird. I’ll leave that for later.

Now I haven’t gone thru all the AGW data, charts and information about it. But other scientists have. Heliocentric and AGW are both true using the scientific method. Each I don’t have direct data study, but other scientists in the peer review process have.

So having an open mind and not an empty head, I have concluded that First Study, Hypothesis 2) Heliocentric is true is closer to Third Study, Hypothesis 1) AGW is true.

Then I will say that First Study, Hypothesis 1) Geocentric, just taking things by how they look and insufficient study is like Third Study 2) Hypothesis 2) Huge mistakes and conspiracies in science on the global warming problem.

My other conclusion is that those who continue to claim that all skeptical thought has to be open minded thought and never empty headed thought I give to a third category.

That being the Second Study, Hypothesis 1) conspiracy of government in the 9/11 tragedy to be related to the Third Study, Hypothesis 2) Huge mistakes and conspiracies in sciences of global warming.

So the ‘9/11 Search for Truthers’ I put into the same category as the skeptical AGW or I just call the skeptical AGWer’s as ‘Climate Search for Truthers.’ Or even shorter, ‘Climate Truthers.’

Summary,
Heliocentric solar system like AGW.

Geocentric solar system like AGW huge mistake.

‘9/11 Search for Truthers’ like ‘Climate Search for Truther.’

It’s Saturday night and I was out drinking. I hope it’s not all screwed up, but that’s my take on things.

“I find reference to Anthony Watts as a truly laughable joke as he was a local TV weather-walrus and promoter of bizzare christian fundie philosophy.”

In short he’s a nutcase. He also appears to censor out any comments that disagree with him as there are none that I could find on his blog. (hint, hint)

I’d appreciate direct rebuttals to those points, with links to the peer reviewed studies that support those rebuttals.

Thanks.