Would the Non-Deniers Take Einstein Seriously part 1?

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&...

“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/newsite...

“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.”

I think it is reasonable and appropriate to give preference and greater consideration to the view of experts in the field. This does not mean that non-experts never have anything useful to contribute... but, statistically if nothing else, experts are more *likely* to know what they're talking about.

To a great extent, I think it's a burden-of-proof thing. We, reasonably and appropriately, assume that people who are experts know what they're talking about in a particular field (that's kind of the definition of "expert"), and thus generally assume that if essentially everyone in the field agrees, they're probably right, or at least close enough to right that we should treat their conclusions as true. If someone is not an expert in the field, however, they need to demonstrate that they know what the bleep they're talking about before we should feel any particular obligation to pay attention.

Now, if someone *can* so demonstrate, as Einstein manifestly could, we should pay attention to them. But if they can't, as with the typical "skeptical" scientist, we can safely ignore them.

In real science the theory or hypothesis should be taken purely on merit, peer review should take note of medicine and all reviews should be done on a double blind basis, with the reviewer not knowing the scientist or the source, then only the material involved would count.

Why are you always picking fights with "non-deniers"?

Who do you think you are? Sagebrush? Maxx? Why do you act like those guys?

Perhaps you are talking about realists who respond to people like Maxx and Sagebrush talking as if Al Gore was the realists' guru. When did Al Gore even claim to be a scientist? When did Al Gore say that we should listen to him rather than the experts?

Okay, so you submitted a paper and it got rejected, now you’re all bitter and twisted about it and taking it out on everyone else. It also appears to be clouding your judgement as yet again you are falsely claiming that “he said this…”, “she said that…”.

Quote: “but no one gave me a straight answer”. Translation: “but no one gave me the answer I wanted”.

From my perspective, and as I have said many times over (although you appear oblivious to this, or are just plain lying), everyone should be taken seriously if they have a valid point to make, irrespective of their background, profession, social status etc; so yes, I would have taken Einstein seriously irrespective of his credentials (or lack thereof).

No. These nitpickers complain more about grammar and spelling than they do about facts and logic. Success means nothing to them. Case in point, their gurus, such as Hansen and Holdren, haven't predicted anything accurately yet. Yet Einstein accurately predicted many things. He made mistakes, but who doesn't. His record is 100% better that Hansen, Jones, Holdren, Mann and a host of other greenies. Greenies are agenda driven. They only take seriously those who have the same agenda.

They live the lie and the truth is not in them.

This is not a question. Please ask, "Is peer-review helping or hindering scientific advancement?". Then, for followup, add your major points. When you get answers that you urgently feel a need to respond to, respond with facts and not opinion. We got it that you do not like the system as it is now. But you agreed to ask questions, not get chatty. This is the wrong place for a blog, or a rant.

You can do like the Creationist that keeps asking why atheists accept Relativity without proof... and ask the same question over again each week.

[EDIT:

"pegminer"... Do not waste your time responding to an obvious rant. Pearls before swine and all that. If they can learn the rules, and follow them, then their question will stay long enough for your effort to mean something.

Do not hate that the question is deleted because it is not a question. Hate that the asker lied when they agreed to the rules, and violated them. Just report offenders, because they did not care about your feelings. They felt their feelings were more important than your answers.

]