Part 8 - sock-puppet calls it like he sees it, Dave sticks to the science.

Never say never folks.  They went another round and it's a text book example of the two different debate styles in action.  I think "debate incompatibility" could also describe what went down.  This time I kept my comments and additions to a minimum since there's not much to add.  Though there is a lot to think about.

Please consider that AL is absolutely certain of what he knows.  He is sincere to the bone, so much so that all attempts to confront what he knows to be the 'truth' is seen as a hostile act.   If entire communities of independent experts spread over the globe and generations develop an understanding that's contrary to his core Truth, he can't help but blame it on some hostile conspiracy.  It makes no sense to him that his understanding could be wrong.

On the other side, we have people for whom the pursuit of better understanding and new discoveries is the goal.  Self-skepticism and a willingness to subject one's own convictions to the toughest tests and then allowing the evidence to direct what one trusts or rejects is the order of the day.  

If one's pet theory, or one's understanding, turns out to be wrong, one learns from those mistakes and moves forward, hurt feelings be damned.  

Unfortunately your climate science uni-directional skeptics aren't built like that. 

They don't have the imagination nor desire to look beyond their own limited socio-economic/political perceptions, they don't care about the world out there, only the one in their heads.  Crack that nut and you'll deserve a Nobel Prize.

What makes this round so fascinating is that Dave managed to never sink to AL's level.
Instead he took the time to review and comment on the 30 peer-reviewed papers AL cut and pasted and tossed at Dave as though they were self-evident proof that the MWP was no different than today's warming.  And the ending is classic.  

I don't know who Dave is, but I like his style and depth of understanding, it would be very cool if others (of like capability and disposition) might be inspired by his example of standing up the peddlers of scientific nonsense.

______________________________________________________________

AL to Dave Smith Jesus, you're a big joke.

You don't even realize the stupidity to reference IPCC's political nonsense, when it's the validity of that very thing we are discussing?

It's exactly like in a discussion about gods existence with a religious nut, and the idiot starts referring to the bible to prove it's real and that god exists. 

But thank you for pointing out exactly what I said in my previous post: You totally indoctrinated and don't have a clue about the science outside of what the IPCC feed you. 

What Motivate$ Scientists?

I've been looking forward to sharing this short video for a while.  Enjoy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_WLArrksB4

Published on Aug 24, 2015  |  UQx Denial101x Making Sense of Climate Science Denial

Prof Alley gets passionate about the motivation of scientists. 

Climate change is real, so why the controversy and debate? 

Learn to make sense of the science and to respond to climate change denial in Denial101x, a MOOC from UQx and edX.

To register and learn more: http://edx.org/understanding-climate-denial

______________________________________________

18:20  Richard Alley:  We scientists do know where our funding comes from. We try to do research, which is responding to the desires of our funding agencies. If the government says, we, as the federal government, would like to know about x, we try to do the research to tell them. Just in terms of total money, if one were to compare, the biggest corporations tend to be fossil fuel things. Often they are not poor. Our impression as scientist is that if we were really, really interested in money, there would probably be other ways to do it.  

The structure of science—think for a minute about Newton and Einstein. Suppose that Einstein had stood up and said, "I have worked very hard. I have discovered that Newton got everything right and I have nothing to add." Would anyone ever know who Einstein was? 

Scientists, at some level, have to have a little bit of ego. The job description is very clear; It is learn what nobody else knows.

If you look at that and say, "All I want to do is cheer for other people," you're probably not going into that field. If you go in that field, there is a little bit of ego to learn what nobody else knows.  We've all got it however well we've tamped it down.  

The idea that we wouldn't want to be Einstein—if we could overturn global warming, if we could prove that CO2 was not a greenhouse gas, if we could prove that we can burn all we want and not worry about it, how exciting would that be? How wonderful? How many prizes? How many people would invite me out to give talks if I could prove that you didn't have to worry about this? 

Is there any possibility that tens of thousands of scientist, there isn't one of them that's got the ego to do that? It's absurd. It's absolutely, unequivocally absurd. We're people. We've got it in us, the way people do.

The fact is that nature pushes us to the reality that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it's real. …

____________________________

Here's a look at the basic science lesson 

that our profits-obsessed right-wing crowd refuses to understand

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yu39RlT4FTA

George Morrison