Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Science creates understanding of a real world. (Score 1) 770

by owski (#47921537) Attached to: How Scientific Consensus Has Gotten a Bad Reputation

Yes, that's all correct except you're forgetting one thing. The 6 steps you went through account four about 1.2C warming of the earth per doubling of CO2, which is nothing to worry about. To get beyond that you need to add a lot of more steps to your 6, such as increasing water vapor increases heat trapping clouds.... etc. etc. etc.

That's where it's not so simple, and you really baffle me as how you haven't learned that is the steps 6 through 300 leads profit (armageddon) that others have problems with. Really, you seem to have a basic grasp of what's going on, how do you keep missing this simple fact?

Comment: Re:"Thus ends "Climategate." Hopefully." (Score 1) 497

by owski (#47419949) Attached to: Climate Change Skeptic Group Must Pay Damages To UVA, Michael Mann

The 97% is based on scientific polling of actual climate scientists. It is fair to say that about 19 out of 20 people actually doing research and publishing papers in the field of climatology have concluded that the buildup of greenhouse gas caused by human activity is becoming the driving force behind global warming.

It's fair to say that 77 out of 79 have concluded it, since that's the actual number of climate scientists surveyed for that figure.

Comment: Re:"Thus ends "Climategate." Hopefully." (Score 1) 497

by owski (#47419893) Attached to: Climate Change Skeptic Group Must Pay Damages To UVA, Michael Mann

You should really read the paper and not just the press release. This line in the press release hides a dirty little secret:

In analyzing responses by sub-groups, Doran found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.

Of the over 10,000 scientists contacted and the over 3,000 that replied they narrowed down the "climatologists who are active in research" to 79 individuals. The 97% figure represents just 77 people out of those 79.

And that's amazing when you consider that the survey had just 2 questions:

Q1: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”

Q2: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”

I'm amazed that anyone would answer no to either, particularly a "climatologist active in research".

Comment: Re:Modern Day Anti-Evolutionists (Score 1) 497

by owski (#47419689) Attached to: Climate Change Skeptic Group Must Pay Damages To UVA, Michael Mann

I think you missed his point. There has been much misinformation spread by activists supporting immediate action. "Spread" doesn't mean "in a peer reviewed research article" it means used as an argument in favor of certain actions or policies. This is true not only on all sides of the climate change debate, but pretty much whenever there's a political hot potato.

By limiting the meaning of "spreading misinformation" to only what you consider a true Scotsman of a scientific paper is completely missing why spreading misinformation is a problem.

Comment: Re:bollocks (Score 1) 678

by owski (#43657175) Attached to: US Senate Passes Internet Tax Bill 69 To 27

What? You think that money put in the bank doesn't just go in a vault and sit there collecting dust. Do you really think that rich people invest their money in ways that provide capital in order to grease the wheels of the economy in the same way that spending money does? I don't get it, sounds too complicated so I'll just go on believing that spending is the only thing that matters.

Comment: Re:Why are you behaving in the role of narcissist (Score 1) 181

by owski (#43489365) Attached to: Interviews: Ask Freeman Dyson What You Will

So are you planning on at least just stopping talking about climate change?

Why do I only ever hear this asked of certain non-climate-experts? It seems there's a correlation between opinions on climate change and worthiness to discuss the topic. For example, Tim Flannery is a biologist and Bill Nye is a mechanical engineer yet I never hear people ask them to stop talking about climate because of their lack of expertise.

You don't need to answer, it's a rhetorical question, I already know the answer.

Although the moon is smaller than the earth, it is farther away.