OK folks, the scientist to attack personally today is Scott Armstrong.?
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/...
The global warming hype is a religion. What do ya'll say, "All hail the models"
I'll ask this again later to make sure this is read by more people.
Answer:
Well, from reading the previous answers,I am guessing that about 1/2 the people that answered so far didn't bother to read the article. They already have their minds made up, and you're not going to change them. One of them even turned it into a bible v. science debate. Tell me, who is being closed minded now? I have believed from the beginning that Al Gore is just feeding into a culture of fear that makes scared people throw money at a non-existent problem. Have you read the Michael Chrighton book "Fear?" Now, I know it is fiction, but the philosophy depicted in his book seems incredibly relevant at this juncture.
Global warming is real and dangerous (and I don't need to see the Gore movie to know that). If you want real proof go to the arctic and talk to the Inuit - They know better than any scientist - In fact the scientific community is just starting to catch up with what they have been saying for decades.
Small problem. He's not a scientist. If one man's opinion is that important, I'll see your "Professor of Marketing" at a business school and raise you Stephen Hawking.
http://www.hawking.org.uk/text/about/abo...
I win.
Oh! Get a life.
Hmm, who knows more about the environment, people who make observations and use reason to deduce cause and effect, or people who read the bible and believe it to be true because.um, well I don't really know why they think so.
I'll go with the scientists because, well, IT'S THIER JOB!
Well- I'm a scientist, let's not get out of hand here.
Yeah- the globe is warming but why do we have the arrogance to believe that we are the main cause of this?
DO you know that the surface of Mars is also getting hotter? Please don't tell me that it's our pollution travailing through space that is effecting Mars. How will Al SNore answer that question?
LOL-
The Inuit only know what they've seen in their lifetimes and heard about the lifetimes of recent relatives. Unless they have scientists among them they know very little about the globe as a whole. This stupid debate will go on forever to no end. I don't doubt the globe is warming and there's a possibility we have something to do with it. It's also perfectly reasonable to think that the earth is simply following a natural cycle that it would follow with or without us and this is part of it. It may not be good for us or some indigenous group living on a coastline somewhere but nothing has been proved. The only thing that ever gets proved in this type of science is that the results almost always favor the side of the argument who's money funded the research otherwise they wouldn't get the money to do what they do. You show me an unbiased report one way or another with proof and I'll show you a flying pig.
Yes, Al's movie is a convenient lie, calculated to make a large bundle of money for him and to put the 'commoners' (like you and me) in their place...i.e., living in grass huts and pulling plows with mules.all to support the regal lifestyle that the 'elites' have made for themselves with our tax money.
We may have contributed to global warming a tiny bit, but it's not a sufficient enough claim to say it's all of our fault. It is a natural phenomenon that occurs every I don't know 40,000 years or so. Yes an ice age and we are about due for one actually. The earth likes to reset itself you could say. Global warming might be an important issue right now, but there is nothing we can do to make it stop, or go faster, slow down, etc..You could ask Al Gore apparently if you have any future questions about it. I know I get all of my science knowledge and backround from him. (haha yeah right give me a break). Michael Moore is another biased deutchbag. Sorry I got on a roll here.
Well, he's right.
The conclusions drawn from suspect data are laughable. The global warmists remind me of the nube at the racetrack who wins his first couple of times out--he's got it all figured out.
Yawn.
What you post here is not a question at all, just a general spew aimed at showing how right you are. So you have your opinion, that's great. But why coach it as a question?
He is not an environmental scientist, but he is a forecaster that knows the processes involved in forecasting. He seems to like the idea of using facts instead of theories in his forecasts. I would bet he has a good chance of winning the wager. The economist seems to be talking about the price fluctuation of metals determined by supply and demand. If the demand for a product increases and the supply is limited, the price usually increases because people are willing to pay more to get it.
The inuit aren't stupid. They know that if they help hype the damage to their environment, they are likely to get more hand outs. Having been raised in South Dakota, I see hand outs as the best way to make native populations loose all self respect and harms them greatly in the long run so I really don't like Northeast liberals (for the most part) using Inuit as pawns in their global warming farse.
First off, he's not a scientist. From the very beginning of the article:
"Scott Armstrong is professor of marketing at the Wharton Business School"
So this guy fancies himself some kind of forecasting expert. He doesn't look at the science itself - he looks at the methods climate scientists are using to make forecasts. That's a bit of a problem when you don't understand the underlying science. I hope Al Gore takes his bet and his money. Some specific flaws with his analysis:
‘One of the principles is that agreement amongst experts is actually not a very good measure of accuracy. This is especially true if experts are working closely together, and towards a certain goal, as they do in the IPCC.'
The IPCC scientists work together analyzing studies that have been performed by hundreds of scientists - seperately! They're not all getting together and performing one giant study. That Armstrong doesn't even understand how the IPCC works doesn't bode well for him.
'Another principle of forecasting is that when there is uncertainty, your forecasts should be conservative, you should hedge your bets a little bit. The IPCC and others do exactly the opposite: despite their uncertainty, the fact that they don’t know for certain what will happen, they are radical in their predictions of warming and destruction and so on.’
Wrong again. The IPCC forecasts are conservative because they don't take most feedbacks into account (because they're very difficult to model). We know feedbacks are going to increase global warming (some studies have estimated by 30%), so their predictions are absolutely not radical. Oh-for-two, Armstrong.
'he and Green point to various headlines that have appeared in the New York Times over the past 80 years.'
The New York Times is not a scientific paper! The media sensationalized global cooling while the scientific community was not worried about it. That's strike 3 for not knowing your history and looking at an unscientific source.
Not that Al Gore needs any more money, but he'd be smart to take the bet from this guy who clearly doesn't know what he's talking about.
By the way, notice I didn't attack Armstrong personally.
The answers post by the user, for information only, FunQA.com does not guarantee the right.
More Questions and Answers: