Global Warming & Evolution: WHO are The Scientists?

[TheJPRD]

I prepared this article for the website, WeThePeopleNation.com, in early 2012. I'm posting the article here, for it applies to "Global Warming", presently a sub-topic on a thread here at HOP. My article also includes commentary on 'Evolution", but readers can just skip over that part if they wish.

Democrats Against Science​

20 February 2012​

By JPRD “We The People Nation”​

​

In November of 2011, The New York Times published an article by op-ed columnist, Paul Krugman. The article was titled “Republicans Against Science”. In his article, Krugman quotes then GOP candidate, John Huntsman, as saying that the Republican Party is becoming the “anti-science party”. The claim that Republicans are “anti-science” has since become an integral part of the Democrat attacks leveled against Republicans. An accusation, however, is not necessarily a fact! One would think that those claiming to be “pro-science” would use it themselves when criticizing others, and when forming their own opinions on the issues of the day. What would an objective analysis conclude about the Democrat accusation?

Mr. Krugman addresses two examples in his article that he says represent the Republican anti-science bias. He implies that many Republicans doubt that “global-warming” is real, and that many Republicans have doubts about the theory of Evolution. Comments on those issues by then GOP candidate Rick Perry were especially “vile” according to Krugman. “Vile” isn’t a scientific term, but Krugman feels it applies to those disagreeing with him. Perry had suggested that some “scientists” were being driven more by monetary interests than by the interest of good science. Krugman says, “Mr. Perry and those who think like him know what they want to believe, and their response to anyone who contradicts them is to start a witch hunt.” An objective, comprehensive, and scientific assessment of these important issues, would more accurately conclude that it’s Democrats like Krugman who are anti-scientific witch hunters, not Republicans.

The global-warming issue is a complex and multifaceted one. Rick Perry grossly oversimplified those complexities in his comments. Paul Krugman grossly oversimplified those complexities in his article! There are many relevant questions needing to be answered by the scientific research on the subject: (1) Is the earth warming? (2) If so, is such warming a new occurrence in the earth’s history, or does it reflect natural trends that have and will always exist? (3) If present warming reflects natural, historical trends, do those trends reflect the entire scope of the present warming, or only part of it? (4) If the increasing temperature exceeds what the earth’s historical trends have been, by how much does it exceed what is expected to occur naturally? (5) If there is a difference between historical expectations and what we’re experiencing, what variables are causing the difference? (6) What impact on warming does each variable represent? (7) If human activity is proven to be a major contributor to warming, what steps can be taken by humans to reverse the warming? (8) What impact will each step have on the warming? (9) Will the results of taking those steps leave the earth “safe”? (10) Define what is “safe”? (11) How much money will each step cost to implement? (12) If steps are taken to reverse the effect of one or more variables, will those steps impact other variables in ways that are undesirable?

Mr. Krugman and those “scientists” friendly to his claim tell us that global-warming is caused by human beings. They tell us what we must do to reverse the warming. Unless Krugman and his “scientific experts” can answer every one of the aforementioned questions, their claim that human activity is responsible for the warming, that the warming endangers our survival, and that it can be reversed by taking the steps they demand is nothing more than a wild guess! Wild guesses are not science! Those Democrats demanding that trillions of dollars be spent to reverse a trend that may or may not exist, may or may not be human-caused, and may or may not be reversible for any amount of money, are not scientific! Democrat demands to take actions that might well bankrupt our nation while accomplishing nothing worthwhile are not only un-scientific, they're insane. It’s the Republicans who demand comprehensive and objective answers to these questions who are pro-science, not their wild-guessing, Democrat critics! The Democrats are sticking to Mr. Obama’s demand that immediate action is vital on everything he wants to do. Taking immediate action to address a problem that they can’t even identify and quantify properly is not scientific!

The question of “evolution” is as complex or more-so than “global warming”. Mr. Krugman seems to think that a belief in God is unscientific. Many Republicans believe that God and evolution are not mutually exclusive. Anyone claiming that God can be proven to be a myth is anti-science, not those with open, scientific minds on the subject! Although Darwin didn’t create the term himself, he agreed that the concept of “survival of the fittest” was a generally accurate term to describe his theory. Evolution holds that the fittest and most adaptable of species will prosper and survive. Those who are incapable of adapting and overcoming will cease to exist. Why is it then, that Democrats do everything within their power to ensure the survival of the most unfit and un-adaptable within society? In the world of evolution, those who can’t survive without the largess of their successful and adaptable brothers and sisters would go the way of the dinosaurs. Darwinism is by nature a “Capitalistic” theory. Those who believe in evolution should have been on the front line in denying bailouts to failing banks and failing car manufacturers. Those who say that Darwinism is a scientific fact, should be at the forefront in demanding that government spending be cut, our budget balanced, and our future prosperity secured. They should be screaming from the rooftops to Americans, “Adapt and Survive”! Instead, those anti-science Democrats are telling us to accept their “free” gifts, don’t question their “science”, give them your votes, and quietly devolve.

As the November election gets closer, Republican candidates must prepare to counter the oversimplified and unscientific attacks that Democrats will level against them. For too long now, Democrats have successfully placed Republicans in a position of trying to prove they are not what Democrats accuse them of being. This year, Republicans must address the Democrat attacks with accurate counter-attacks of their own. It is the Democrats who cling to illogical, anti-science positions, not Republicans!

 

[Lagboltz]

There is a lot of miscellany in your essay. A vilification of Krugman, a list of questions on global warming science, a vilification of Obama, comments on evolution, ending with suggestions for R's concerning the election.

I try to shy away from bipartisan aspersions. Evolution arguments are all over this and other forums and generally go nowhere.

As far as I'm concerned, your 12 questions on global warming have largely been already covered by the IPCC. Points 9-11 involving safeness and cost are less scientific and can be answered by various governments with input from science as more is known about the trends.

 

[TheJPRD]

There is a lot of miscellany in your essay. A vilification of Krugman, a list of questions on global warming science, a vilification of Obama, comments on evolution, ending with suggestions for R's concerning the election.

Somewhere now there's a stupid leftist sitting in his mommy's basement, and saying to himself, "Oh wow man, TheJPRD asked some questions, but we liberals are still right cause Lagboltz told us they're just miscellany, vilifying, and he says that TheJPRD doesn't like Obama either. TheJPRD must be wrong because of those great arguments Lagbolz made." Good God, Lag, you made NO arguments and provided NO support for your claims!

You're not being very objective. My article was IN RESPONSE to a Krugman op-ed that attacked and vilified Republicans, calling us "vile" and "unscientific"! My article simply replied to Krugman in a manner similar to his own. Unlike Krugman, I replied with facts, not oversimplified accusations. My comment about Obama in the article was true. You think that by me saying that his legislative tactic is "get it done now, right now, don't hold up the legislation, and don't worry about the details" is a vilification of him???? It's a FACT. Simply telling us that it isn't..... doesn't change the truth!

The list of questions I asked MUST be answered if global-warming is to be addressed in a meaningful way. If you read my article and understood it, you should recognize that I was not saying that global-warming is a fictititious concept. I said that the research needed to identify its causes, its dangers, solutions, costs, and the effects of proposed solutions is ABSENT in the global-warming dialogogue. My statements are FACTS!

Democrats typically attack Conservative Republicans in the same manner used by Krugman. When one us responds in-kind and much more convincingly, Democrats accuse us of vilifying them! Sounds like you're telling me that we Conservatives should sit quietly and allow vicious political attacks against us to go unanswered??? Silence implies Agreement, and I did not agree with Krugman!

I try to shy away from bipartisan aspersions. Evolution arguments are all over this and other forums and generally go nowhere.

If you try to shy away from "(bi)partisan aspersions", you're doing a poor job of it in this reply! You imply that I've stated nothing of importance in my article, and that it's a vilification of Krugman and Obama. Krugman was oversimplifying GOP beliefs, vilifying us, and outright lying in his article. In return, I expressed the real questions needing to be answered in the global-warming debate, and the hypocritical and unscientic "logic" of the Democrat left. You should have also noted that I did NOT attack the theory of "evolution". I believe it was General Seneca who said it best here, when he stated that it's just as unscientific to say that God's non-existence can be proved as it is to claim that His existence can be proved! My entire article was objective, factual, based on scientific reasoning, and upon the project-management BOK!

As far as I'm concerned, your 12 questions on global warming have largely been already covered by the IPCC. Points 9-11 involving safeness and cost are less scientific and can be answered by various governments with input from science as more is known about the trends.

I've yet to see answers to my questions 9-11, nor to any of my other questions with the exception of #1. If you have those answers, please be kind enough to provide them. Recognize, however, that answers to questions 9-11 are meaingless without answers to my other questions.

The Legislature took FAST action in the 1960's in response to Rachel Carson's book, The Silent Spring. Her book convinced many simple-minded legislators that DDT was an impending danger, so our government virtually banned it. It was many years later, after the deaths of millions throughout the world from malaria, that we discovered that the claims in Carson's book were oversimplified, and in some cases were outright wrong! This is an example of "rushing-through legislation before unerstanding the implications"! Millions of people died because fast and unjustified actions were taken!

It appears to me that you're telling us "don't look at that man behind the curtain! There's nothing going on back there." I want to look behind the curtain, and so should anyone wanting to actually define and solve the global-warming problem.

 

[dogtowner]

So its a baited field intentionally. Ok.

 

[Lagboltz]

Somewhere now there's a stupid leftist sitting in his mommy's basement, and saying to himself, "Oh wow man, ....... etc,

You are right in your note that I used "bipartisan" when I should have used "partisan." When you start off the first paragraph with insults, it seems that you want a verbal brawl, and you should understand that I'm not going to get involved at that level of name calling.

I already gave you two sites that have considered the scientific questions you posed. There is no point in me personally going further into that again as I did with a different person here. I will just use the logically fallacy of "appealing to authority" of the IPCC scientists.

However there are a few things you should know about scientific analysis and modeling of processes that are too difficult to compute accurately. If you are objective and want to understand the limits of a problem, you solve the problem using best case simplifying assumptions and then solve it using worse case simplifying assumptions. These two outcomes give you error bars which, for example, appear on a graph. If you can realistically assign probabilities and importance factors, these give weights to the variables and lead to a statistical distribution of the probability of validity of your final results. The standard deviation of the distribution would then provide the limits of error.

If you can demonstrate that the IPCC scientists did not do that kind of analysis, then I would agree that your questions have not been addressed. However I doubt that they would stray from that standard operating procedure.

 

[TheJPRD]

Lagboltz: After writing all of my response to you, I may have gained an additional insight upon which we might agree. I suggest you read my last paragraph first, recognizing that all that went before it led to the modified position I embraced in the final paragraph.

You are right in your note that I used "bipartisan" when I should have used "partisan." When you start off the first paragraph with insults, it seems that you want a verbal brawl, and you should understand that I'm not going to get involved at that level of name calling.

I was not insulting you in my first paragraph, Lag. I was insulting an imaginary idiot who might eventually read your comments about my article, and feel that they detracted from its accuracy. I also did not call you a "name".

I already gave you two sites that have considered the scientific questions you posed. There is no point in me personally going further into that again as I did with a different person here. I will just use the logically fallacy of "appealing to authority" of the IPCC scientists.

As you believe that the IPCC is the "authority" on this issue, I'll let you know that I have visited their site on numerous occasions. I did so again today to make sure I didn't miss anything. I did miss a few things, but nothing that detracts from what I said. You'll recall my question #10, "Define what is safe"? In other words, "What levels of warming and CO2 emissions do climate-change advocates believe must be achieved to ensure that humanity survives and continues to prosper?" The IPCC's "answer" to that question is what I told you it was. From their Report of the IPCC's Working Group II titled "Impacts Adaptation and Vulnerability" Chapter 19.1, they state, "The ultimate goal for stabilizing GHG concentrations is to avoid dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. The question of what is dangerous is one that the authors of this chapter cannot answer. Danger is a function of the degree to which effects are negative and the degree to which those effects are unacceptable. The latter is a value judgment." Unless and until such "value judgement" is clearly defined and clearly communicated to the American public, the future well-being of Americans is threatend by trillion-dollar spending aimed at achieving a goal that hasn't yet been poperly defined.

However there are a few things you should know about scientific analysis and modeling of processes that are too difficult to compute accurately. If you are objective and want to understand the limits of a problem, you solve the problem using best case simplifying assumptions and then solve it using worse case simplifying assumptions. These two outcomes give you error bars which, for example, appear on a graph. If you can realistically assign probabilities and importance factors, these give weights to the variables and lead to a statistical distribution of the probability of validity of your final results. The standard deviation of the distribution would then provide the limits of error.

Scientific models are no different than Financial and Engineering models except for the data entered into them. I freely admit that I'm not a scientist. I also admit that I am a highly-experienced Financial, Engineering, and Policy analyst, and I've personally built innumerable mathematical models myself. Additionally, I used virtually every risk-assessment and distribution methodology while doing so. Concepts like "probability" aren't foreign to me. I have additional and extensive experience in "Project Management", and I accepted the responsibility for the success, failure, and cost-effectiveness of the projects and programs I oversaw. In accepting those responsibilities, I required the Private and Governmental Executives who assigned me those responsibilities to provide clear and unequivocal Goals, Objectives, Budgets, and all required Assumptions beforehand. It doesn't appear to me that the IPCC has done the same with those persons directing them!

If you can demonstrate that the IPCC scientists did not do that kind of analysis, then I would agree that your questions have not been addressed. However I doubt that they would stray from that standard operating procedure.

I'm beginning to believe you may be right about most of the scientists who are involved with the IPCC. They may very well have stayed true to their SOP. I'm beginning to form the opinion that their one failure may be their failure to demand the necessary ground-rules and assumptions from the Leaders who drive their work. To communicate the complexities of global-warming to the general public, the answer to all of the questions I asked are necessary. IF each of those answers were provided to the public in understandable terms, the debate on "global-warming" should become a much less fractious one. You mentioned in your first response to this thread, "Points 9-11 involving safeness and cost are less scientific and can be answered by various governments." You may have hit the nail on the head with that comment. The answers to my questions are VITAL prior to spending trillions of taxpayer dollars on mitigation projects. It may well be that it's our world leaders who are failing to accept their responsibilities on this issue, not the scientists. My guess as to the motive of those leaders is their desire to avoid answers that could easily cause worldwide panic and possibly wars!

 

[steveox]

Why should we Belierve Al Gore in the first place? First he uses his private jet,Then he runs up his electric bill,,And he sells his TV Company to Al Jazzeria.

 

[dogtowner]

Why should we Belierve Al Gore in the first place? First he uses his private jet,Then he runs up his electric bill,,And he sells his TV Company to Al Jazzeria.

because he is manbearpig silly !

 

[Cruella]

because he is manbearpig silly !

Greg Gutfeld just said that because "oil is good for massages"

 

[steveox]

^^^manbearpig^^^

 

[Lagboltz]

Lagboltz: After writing all of my response to you, I may have gained an additional insight upon which we might agree. I suggest you read my last paragraph first, recognizing that all that went before it led to the modified position I embraced in the final paragraph.

I was not insulting you in my first paragraph, Lag. I was insulting an imaginary idiot who might eventually read your comments about my article, and feel that they detracted from its accuracy. I also did not call you a "name".

As you believe that the IPCC is the "authority" on this issue, I'll let you know that I have visited their site on numerous occasions. I did so again today to make sure I didn't miss anything. I did miss a few things, but nothing that detracts from what I said. You'll recall my question #10, "Define what is safe"? In other words, "What levels of warming and CO2 emissions do climate-change advocates believe must be achieved to ensure that humanity survives and continues to prosper?" The IPCC's "answer" to that question is what I told you it was. From their Report of the IPCC's Working Group II titled "Impacts Adaptation and Vulnerability" Chapter 19.1, they state, "The ultimate goal for stabilizing GHG concentrations is to avoid dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. The question of what is dangerous is one that the authors of this chapter cannot answer. Danger is a function of the degree to which effects are negative and the degree to which those effects are unacceptable. The latter is a value judgment." Unless and until such "value judgement" is clearly defined and clearly communicated to the American public, the future well-being of Americans is threatend by trillion-dollar spending aimed at achieving a goal that hasn't yet been poperly defined.

Scientific models are no different than Financial and Engineering models except for the data entered into them. I freely admit that I'm not a scientist. I also admit that I am a highly-experienced Financial, Engineering, and Policy analyst, and I've personally built innumerable mathematical models myself. Additionally, I used virtually every risk-assessment and distribution methodology while doing so. Concepts like "probability" aren't foreign to me. I have additional and extensive experience in "Project Management", and I accepted the responsibility for the success, failure, and cost-effectiveness of the projects and programs I oversaw. In accepting those responsibilities, I required the Private and Governmental Executives who assigned me those responsibilities to provide clear and unequivocal Goals, Objectives, Budgets, and all required Assumptions beforehand. It doesn't appear to me that the IPCC has done the same with those persons directing them!

I'm beginning to believe you may be right about most of the scientists who are involved with the IPCC. They may very well have stayed true to their SOP. I'm beginning to form the opinion that their one failure may be their failure to demand the necessary ground-rules and assumptions from the Leaders who drive their work. To communicate the complexities of global-warming to the general public, the answer to all of the questions I asked are necessary. IF each of those answers were provided to the public in understandable terms, the debate on "global-warming" should become a much less fractious one. You mentioned in your first response to this thread, "Points 9-11 involving safeness and cost are less scientific and can be answered by various governments." You may have hit the nail on the head with that comment. The answers to my questions are VITAL prior to spending trillions of taxpayer dollars on mitigation projects. It may well be that it's our world leaders who are failing to accept their responsibilities on this issue, not the scientists. My guess as to the motive of those leaders is their desire to avoid answers that could easily cause worldwide panic and possibly wars!

I wasn't insulted. I said you were making insults. It is dreary to go through a post with the same tired liberal or conservative rants. (Dawkinsrocks included)

There are several levels of understanding of global warming
1a) EEK we're all gonna die!
1b) It's a liberal commie hoax!
2a) Reading Time magazine
2b) Reading National review
3) Reading Wikipedia, or Scientific American
4) Reading original Science Journal Articles.

Number 4 is where you would find the detailed information you are interested in. Original journal articles are hard to come by on the web. You need to pay around 20 bucks for something sight unseen. I used to go to a large university library but I moved and one isn't readily available. I did find a few on the web and they seemed to be concerned about modeling the temperature of the full height of the atmosphere based largely on ground data, but enhanced by more sparse balloon or airplane, data.

I don't think much about the efficacy or cost because I think it will be 10 years before anything substantial would take place, and we will better know how serious it is turning out to be by then. Not that I think nobody should worry about it, it's just me.

 

[TheJPRD]

^ I haven't read any articles in the Science Journal, and I'd hate to buy a subscription to a journal, not knowing if it had the answers I sought. I do have a University nearby, and I'll check there as I can.

I'm going to toss out a few observations about "climate change" that are very frightening for the future of the USA. I am becoming convinced that:

1. The mitigation projects proposed by the IPCC will be paid-for in large measure by American taxpayers!
2. The effect of those mitigation projects will be virtually nil on the climate.
3. The US economy will be virtually destroyed during the process.
4. The US military will be reduced to an empty shell, and our citizens will be stripped of their rights to self-defense via gun-control laws.
5. Future world leaders will have to "join hands" in some manner to share power; i.e., "World Governance".
6. The "real"issue underlying climate-change politics is one of over-population (effecting climate, food availability, energy, etc).
7. Overpopulation cannot be reduced to the extent needed to reverse or moderate climate-change if the population is allowed to reproduce much longer.
8. A select group of elite world leaders will (in the future) unilaterally decide who will and who will not be allowed to survive.
9. America as we know it will not exist when the decision described in #8 is made.

These listed items would explain a lot of things that are happening in our country now. If the future of the earth is threatened, a World Government could not come to power if the USA remains the same nation we've all known and loved. Proceeding in the manner I described above would eliminate the possibility of nuclear war, and would ensure that world populations could be reduced easily by the elites in power without threatening their own existence. What is truly enlightening if the scenario I described comes to pass is.... it will be the least-productive, most lazy, and most vulnerable who will go first; like those persons who comprise much of the Democrat electorate these days.

 

[Hobo1]

Climate change is a very slow process. Scientists are working hard to learn more. This is not the Apocalypse. No need to tape plastic over your windows like people did after 9-11. In 10 years we will understand what really is happening. We will find a way to cure this problem where the cure is not worse than the disease. Give it time - nothing we can do now anyway.

 

[dogtowner]

Climate change is a very slow process. Scientists are working hard to learn more. This is not the Apocalypse. No need to tape plastic over your windows like people did after 9-11. In 10 years we will understand what really is happening. We will find a way to cure this problem where the cure is not worse than the disease. Give it time - nothing we can do now anyway.

yup.
CERN is doing dome interesting work on the subject

 

[steveox]

Global Warming is a bunch of hype. I think scientist should start expermenting chemicals could cool down the sun. Its the sun getting hotter. Mars is having global warming too so theres ur answer. Its not man,,Its he sun causing global warming.