This exchange made me LOL

Actually I believe in global warming. I just think Michael Mann is a prick and a horrible spokesman for that cause.

---

---

"In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Towers. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." T Durden

Hey, the pickled herring has come out to play. Look everybody.

---

---

"In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Towers. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." T Durden

No, but Hillary does.

Why? Because it agrees with you? Of course, the fact that you actually read Teen Vogue tells me a lot about who you are so I'm glad you posted.

Mann is an asshole. He's the ultimate warmist, the evangelical leader of the cult. Not surprising you worship him.

Off your medication???

I have no dog in this fight, I just don't get the point of the debate. Who would be a better spokesman? George Clooney?


Frankly, I didn't see any problems with the 5 minute intro I watched.

-Here's my qualifications (generally appropriate for these kinds of hearings. This wasn't a dinner party or a night out with the guys).
-97% (or whatever high number) of scientists support the science of AGW, yet this panel consists of 3 diners and one supporter.
-My science has been unfairly attacked (true)


The article paints him out to be a hypocrite on that last point. I don't know the ins and outs of what he has said in the past, but there's a difference between calling actual science illegitimate and illegitimate science illegitimate.


Again, I don't know anything about the guy and don't really care. He could be exposed to be a fraud, cheating on his wife, and a pedophile tomorrow and it wouldn't make any difference. he doesn't own AGW science.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

Pretty much anybody but him. Just kidding, Veganerd is a horrible person on this topic to, so not him either. If I were to guess, somebody with credibility in the field, like him, who doesn't come across as an arrogant prick. With 97% of world scientist in consensus, there has to be somebody who can make a compelling argument to the everyday person. I thought Bill Nye was on a roll for a while. The Bill Nye thing was just ridiculous. Somebody like him is more compelling than Mann and the fact that he can be compelling, especially to younger audiences, is why he must be destroyed. Two problem with him though. He was a very vocal supporter of not just Obama's climate policy, but Obama in general. That works against his credibility then the other problem is he went from a lovable kids show guy to grump old man.

The problem with the debate is that you either have known nothing hypocrite celebrities who want you to sacrifice while they don't, socially stunted (I have a better word but it isn't allowed here) scientist who suck at talking to people or convincing the masses they are right because they come off as robots, arrogant pricks, or simply not compelling. Then on the other side, the scientist seem to be paid for by big interest. So even though, the majority of people fall somewhere in between and are willing to do something about climate change, assuming the cost out of pocket isn't to great, and their sacrifice WILL work and not be a matter of faith, there isn't any high profile expert that represents this view and can communicate it.

What I do know is the next 4-8 years will not be sympathetic to climate scientist who cannot make a compelling argument, so they better start trying. Their funding will depend on that.

---

---

"In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Towers. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." T Durden

Whoa, Beakman, of Beakman's world is gay. I would have never guessed that (pink). Show was like Bill Nye, so I looked it up to see whatever happened to it.

---

---

"In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Towers. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." T Durden

I used to work in a research center. Scientists were essentially judged on the merit of their science. Some of them were condescending assholes, others were just awkward, and some were decent people. None of it mattered, though, since you put posters of them up in your bedroom. You just wanted to know how the physical world worked and they were the ones who could tell you.

There is, however, a certain element that prefers people with orange skin, 3 piece suits, fancy hair, and big white teeth who sell you better memories or better abs in only 7 minutes. Fact don't matter to this element.

I don't agree with you, but I find it depressing that we live in such an idiocracy that these things matter.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

http://www.theverge.com/...epublicans-consensus

the fact of the mattet is you have misplaced anger here. its beyond absurd at this time to pretend that agw is not real. when unqualified deniers are constantly rejecting the scientific consensus, i see no reason for an expert in the field to take them seriously or show them much professional respect.

how much respect do you show to people who want to repeal the 2nd amendment? we all know how much contempt you have for them and thats just their opinion vs yours. global warming is not, an opinion, its a fact. you cant see how an expert in the field would get testy when an uneducated idiot tells them theyre wrong?

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

You guys are both right here. But TheForge has a valid point. A major problem with science communication is that many scientists (and probably the vast majority of really good scientists) are really crappy science communicators (especially when communicating with decision-makers or the general public), and terrible debaters (especially when debating those that hang their hats on unsupported science). So, solid scientists are shot down because they are not good at "defending" good science. Celebrities are great, compelling speakers, but they are shot down because they are not scientists and they don't generally live environmentally friendly lives. It's a tough business to be in.

I do not think that there ia anything wrong with detailibg credentials to evidence ones ability to speak to a particular issue from a position of strength

Its a little like the gary hall senior thread:

I suggesst you do this....

What do you know about swimming?

I swam at 3 oly's, my son won gold in sydney and i have a list of x medallists from the last y games

You dont know shit (i made the last bit up)

Verifying the credentials of those speaking before a inquiry (parlimentary, senate, government or public ) would be standard practice

its weird thst so many people want scientists to have 2 jobs. to do science, then teach everyone else about it.

i would argue that they are good enough at it to convince the majority, because obviously, the majoriry accept the science. its the deniers who insist they need to be more convincing. it seems like deniers do this as a way to not take responsibility for their own ignorance, or lies and to blame the scientists instead.

"its your fault i dont understand or believe you"

yet they fight against it and reject all evidence anyone presents. theres plenty of blame but most of it is rhe fault of deniers.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

I don't really think that's the issue. They just want something to complain about. When you've got a Phd and you're right, all they;ve got left is "he's an asshole." And then when he's not really an asshole, its, "well, there are much better people who could do a better job of selling this to the public."

And then when you get someone like Bill Nye, "Oh.....what are his credentials? He's a TV personality. He's not an expert in the field." Even when Tyson speaks we get, "Oh. He's an astro-physicist. What does he know?"

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

-
Well what is the deal with this bit that he was queried on?

http://www.climateaccountability.org/about.html

The whole article is based on the false equivelancy the a private individual efforts are equivelant to the governments.

---

“Read the transcript.”

As a guy who drove a prius and drives 60 min round trip each day to take 30 cars off the road equaling 2100 kms of driving I have a problem with 97 percent of scientists supporting global warming. Sounds more like an echochamber than science. We doctors used to tell post menopausal women that they should take estrogen based on "settled science" and then someone else came around and proved it all wrong. You can do a real world study on estrogen replacement. Climate change scientists got models that are too complex for anyone but climate change scientists to understand. Many scientists are political animals knowing which way the wind is blowing. Funding is very important. It also can be a very competitive environment. I know a guy who turned down a position at Harvard as he considered it a toxic environment to work. If I had time I would read books and try to figure out how much good science there is behind all this but I'm not ready to make the effort.

---

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

The theory of evolution sounds like an echo chamber, too. Would you be happier if the number was higher or lower?

Climate scientists don't agree on the effects, because yes, the models are complicated. Scientists also don't agree on many aspects of evolution.

But the lack on complete agreement of every aspect of a field of study is not the same as, "well, it may or may not be happening." Just about all of them agree that its happening, and the prognosis is mostly from bad to worse.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485