Would the Non-Deniers Take Einstein Seriously part 1?
I've asked a similar question previously, but no one gave me a straight answer.
A common argument from Non-Deniers here is that people who are not professional climate scientists should not be taken seriously in climate science discussions...even if those people are in some scientific field.
I asked if someone who was not a professional physicist, but rather a clerk in a patent office, should have been taken seriously regarding strange physics claims.
One poster posted that I was referring to Einstein, and that I could not fool him. Perhaps I was being too subtle. I, of course expected people would understand that I was telling them they would have rejected Einstein. (I also just sent the guy an email saying I am a student in Bible College, which I presume he will take seriously)
A person highly respected on this board (who denies that dynamical systems are governed by differential equations) wrote:
"It would depend who that lowly clerk was. If it was someone like Einstein who was able to validate and demonstrate his claims, and was able to exhibit a deep comprehension of the subject amongst his peers, then that person should be taken seriously (whatever their profession)."
But his answer evades my question. That poster's view is that only professional climate scientists should be taken seriously about climate science. So he cannot now argue that Einstein who was not a professional physicist should have been taken seriously about Relativity.
Other answers included telling me that experts at journals would confirm that Einstein's "math" was correct, and then his theory would be taken seriously. The first noticeable thing about this is that the person does not understand what Relativity is. It is not a "math" theory. The math in Special Relativity (the Relativity Einstein published as a clerk) was basically high school math. So there was not much need to confirm it. Also interesting is that some of the math was actually wrong--he made careless errors. Many of the Non-Deniers here have claimed that poor typing should make someone not be taken seriously. So in that vein they should think that poor calculating should have made Einstein not been taken seriously. Of course these people will not be logically consistent.
CONTINED
pegminer2013-06-20T08:10:08Z
Favorite Answer
It looks like Part 2 is gone. I hate when questions that I have answered get deleted.
You need to remember that no science pioneer was ever qualified in the new science.
Einstein did not have a degree in Special or General Relativity, or even the photoelectric effect. Newton did not have a qualification in gravity, Galileo and Copernicus did not have degrees in helio-centricity. I think that none of their papers was peer-reviewed either.
Also, I have no training or qualifications in spying, intelligence or weapons systems. However, I got the answer about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction right while the combined intelligence services of the US and UK got it wrong. How could I know more than them? (No, it was not just a lucky guess. I chose to believe Hans Blix and his team. The governments wanted a different answer so ignored him.)
If Einstein had delusional opinions on climate physics I wouldn't take him seriously, just like Bohr didn't take Einstein's opinions on quantum mechanics seriously. See, it's not a question of credentials really, it's whether someone says things that are cognitively coherent and agree with basic physics. Here's an example, you skeptics on one hand claim climater is so sensitive that anything could be causing the warming over the last 50 years, but then in the same sentence claim that the radiative forcing from CO2, which is at least an order of magnitude larger than any of the natural forcings from climate variability, can't possibly be responsible. See the problem? How can anyone who isn't brain damaged take that position seriously?
A friend of mind commented that there is always space available on the train to Crazy Town. Would you know anything about that?
The issue isn't who proposes an idea or whether they are working in one field or another. The issue is basically 'put up, or shut up'. Science doesn't operate on ideas. It operates on whether your theory can explain the data and whether your theory is consistent with other theories that, themselves, have been based on data.
For example, you can propose that the sun is the cause of global warming all you want. That isn't scientific. That isn't anything more than an opinion. To step it into science what you need to do is develop a theory, show that that theory is consistent with what we know about the sun, demonstrate that that theory is consistent with what we know about the orbit of the planet, and use that theory to demonstrate a mechanism by which the planet could be warming, and finally show that that mechanism is consistent with the data.
If you don't believe that human emissions of CO2 are causing warming of our planet, then you must show that there is an alternative. You must show that the levels we pump into the atmosphere are not as large as claimed. You must show that there is a problem with the fluid dynamics equations being used to predict the rate of mixing in the atmosphere. You must show that there is a mechanism by which that CO2 is scrubbed from the atmosphere faster than we think. You must show that the laws of thermodynamics being applied in this situation are not valid and explain why. You must show that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas or at least explain why pumping it into the sky won't have the warming effect its properties suggest. And so on ...
Whoever does that is irrelevant. The problem for deniers and skeptics is this - it is not sufficient in science to provide an alternative explanation. You must also show why the alternatives are wrong. Deniers have failed to do that and have consistently tried to move the goal posts.
Twenty years ago, the world wasn't warming at all. It was a hoax or bad data or small regions examined or the heat-sink effect of cities or ... When it became increasingly difficult to deny the planet was warming, the position changed from 'it isn't warming' to 'it is warming but we're not responsible'. Then it changed from 'it is warming, and yes we admit the CO2 emitted must have an effect, but that effect is small compared to the natural 'cycle' or 'cause' we haven't yet identified.'
Now you don't even bother to have a general idea at all. All you do is harp on about some aspect as if it proves that global warming isn't happening (oh, the temperatures aren't rising as fast, oh the weather was cold, oh that glacier got LARGER). So thanks, but I'll not take any lessons on 'logical consistency' from deniers.
Understanding science is of course crucial to scientific discussions. Most anti-science deniers of the solid science of anthropogenic climate change here are very poorly informed about basic science, and more than a few of the regulars cannot handle fractions, percentages, or grasp the difference between mean and variation, let alone algebra, let alone differential equations.
Communicating in clear English is also important.
"Non-denier" is a strange word that begs definition (or swift abandonment). If I accept that the earth is round, or orbits the sun, does that make me a "non-denier"?
U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010: http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12782&page=1 “Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.” http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=12877 “Choices made now about carbon dioxide emissions reductions will affect climate change impacts experienced not just over the next few decades but also in coming centuries and millennia…Because CO2 in the atmosphere is long lived, it can effectively lock the Earth and future generations into a range of impacts, some of which could become very severe.” http://www.physics.fsu.edu/awards/NAS/ “The Academy membership is composed of approximately 2,100 members and 380 foreign associates, of whom nearly 200 have won Nobel Prizes. Members and foreign associates of the Academy are elected in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research; election to the Academy is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded a scientist or engineer.”