Dmitch
New
Richard Feyman wasn't a rocket engineer, but he got involved after the Challenger disaster, and most people think he made a pretty decisive contribution. However, if you want a climate scientist, here you go:
I think the video starts part way through, so please rewind to hear it all.
If the conventional climate scientists were to debate with some of these guys (if they dare) I think the outcome would be amazing.
Please actually listen to these videos.
Almost everything we discuss on Skeptiko involves doubt about science. For example, scientists will tell you that there is no afterlife, that alternate medicine is junk, that ψ phenomena are not real, etc. Most of us recognise that some pretty sloppy, biassed thinking went into those conclusions. This isn't something restricted to consciousness-related issues, unfortunately it has gradually corrupted modern science over the last 50 years or so. I myself got a PhD in chemistry (a very long time ago) and went on to do post doctoral research. I then gave up and switched to software development. Part of the reason for that was related to this very issue of careless/biassed research. By now the internet groans with evidence that a great deal of science has become sloppy and corrupt.
Why does this happen? Probably mainly because science has become institutionalised. This is one thing Ivar Giaever pointed out - the American Physical Society should have reflected its members views - every one a scientist of some standing - and not made a collective decision for them.
Institutions like to pull in money, and if they pull in money from organisations concerned about possible climate dangers, they will bias their output accordingly. The same thing goes on in research done by or on behalf of pharmaceutical companies, and again for the same reason - money.
I had simply assumed that the Global Warming issue was real, but not very interesting. Then in 2009 I woke up to the news that WikiLeaks had hosted a collection of emails between scientists at the Climate Research Unit in the UK and several other institutions around the world. Why on earth would WikiLeaks - famed for its exposure of major banking scandals, torture in Iraq, etc etc - take an interest in a few emails between scientists? I am not a climate scientist, nor am I any longer a scientist of any sort, but I know enough to point people to those who do know and are brave enough to risk their careers to tell the truth.
David
The last comment will be first. I call your Wiki Leaks story which was dubbed Climategate a 2009 half truth twisted into a confabulated conspiracy theory by Right wing bloggers, talk radio and Fox News right before an important world conference on climate change in Copenhagen. Was it true? In the ten years that have past, its pretty clear. It was a misinformation campaign with the clear purpose to misinform the public.
Using the argument that science disallows that which it cant physically measure has no merit. When thats precisely what science is doing with the geophysics of climate forecasting. There's nothing in what the climate is doing today which negates what science said ten yrs ago. In fact the hypothesis is correct in what it predicts.
I contend you have no interest in finding whats true. You now have your identity tied to an iconoclast agenda.
Science on the climate is beyond providing proof in the ten years since this smear campaign was initiated.
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warmi...misinformation-stolen-emails-climategate.html
Heres what The American Geophysical Union had to say.
The American Geophysical Union issued a statement that they found "it offensive that these emails were obtained by illegal cyber attacks and they are being exploited to distort the scientific debate about the urgent issue of climate change". They reaffirmed their 2007 position statement on climate change "based on the large body of scientific evidence that Earth's climate is warming and that human activity is a contributing factor. Nothing in the University of East Anglia hacked e-mails represents a significant challenge to that body of scientific evidence."[76]
The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) reaffirmed its position on global warming and "expressed grave concerns that the illegal release of private emails stolen from the University of East Anglia should not cause policy-makers and the public to become confused about the scientific basis of global climate change. Scientific integrity demands robust, independent peer review, however, and AAAS therefore emphasised that investigations are appropriate whenever significant questions are raised regarding the transparency and rigour of the scientific method, the peer-review process, or the responsibility of individual scientists. The responsible institutions are mounting such investigations." Alan I. Leshner, CEO of the AAAS and executive publisher of the journal Science, said: "AAAS takes issues of scientific integrity very seriously. It is fair and appropriate to pursue answers to any allegations of impropriety. It’s important to remember, though, that the reality of climate change is based on a century of robust and well-validated science."[77]
Last edited: