I'm A Climate Scientist!

Okay, so I do a lot of work in CC policy; I’m not a climate scientist. But this video has me dusting off my Earth and Environmental Science minor and bouncing off the walls.

The awesome that is: I’m a Climate Scientist!
(YouTube link; NSFW language)

The greenhouse effect is just a theory, sucker!
Yeah so is gravity—float away mutherfuckerrrr!

Who’s a climate scientist?!

Oh that was wonderful.

I noticed at least one “Science: It works, bitches” shirt in there.

Excepting science’s very rich history of being wrong. I mean seriously wrong about many things. Next time you’re sick, bleed yourself. What phase of it’s epicycle is Mars in now? Your gay son? Serious mental problem. And of course, light travels on particles within the aether. Just ask Newton. If you can pull mankind’s greatest mind away from his alchemy table.

But this time they’re 100 percent correct. Uh huh.

Excuse me for being – as any brave thinker is – skeptical. Even scientists used to be that way.

My T-shirt would read “Science: We’ll Get It Right Eventually, No Misogynistic Insult”

So, how do we know when they’ve got it right, babydoll?

After more than 60 years of investigating, yes they are correct on this one.

And you would had a valid point if it wasn’t for the fact that denialists use misleading info to tell others that there is a big controversy nowadays.

A brave thinker would check if his thinking has been shaped by very powerful interests that would like to see only Fear Uncertainty and Doubt stopping efforts to do something about this.

You are 50 years late, and you are not even wrong on this one.

But I don’t deny it. And never said I did. I think it’s likely true.

I was commenting on what I feel is a hateful arrogance on the side that believes it.

“Science: It works, bitches.”

But it doesn’t always work.

Deny that.

There’s no point in being mean to someone who doubts. They could be right. Climate patterns? On a 4 billion year old planet? Come on. You can’t be THAT sure.

Science is the work of humans.

It has blessed us with many wonderful things. Brought us out of caves. Out of fear of night. Voyager is headed for the stars. Science has literally raised people from the dead. And – to reference Einstein – gave us the zipper.

But it’s been wrong before. Lots of times.

It’s the work and days of self-aware, dexterous primates.

So it will always be flawed.

Be kind. Don’t call people ugly names.

Is that a rant against science or a rant against the language? If the former, take it to another thread. If the latter, I highly doubt the statement is meant to be misogynist. It’s a joke. I think you’re being a little oversensitive.

The point of that remark (which comes from this XKCD comic) is that in this world of extraordinary anti-intellectualism, it is worth emphatically stating that science provides the best (actually, only) set of working tools for understanding reality that we have. The superstition and myths that so many people rely on instead only work accidentally and rarely.

Science does work.

It’s not science’s fault that humans are flawed and make mistakes.

That was a truly awesome video, that addresses a real problem in our time - junk science, and media giving equal weight to the opinions of some schmoe and someone who has studied a problem for decades and is actually well-informed about the problem (and peer-reviewed, as well!). No, all opinions are NOT created equally! When someone who has worked as a climate scientist for 30 years says something, his opinion on AGW DOES carry more weight than, say, mine.

So, what you’re saying, Lethal Babydoll, is that something that gets it right eventually, by admitting past mistakes, is worse than the competing systems which, when they’re wrong, stay wrong forever?

Are you Bill O’Rilley?

“You can’t deny that!”, yes one can, for practical purposes. As we will see, your examples do fit the levels where one can say that the overwhelming evidence is against the opinion you have there.

“Could be right” in science means that the ones opposed to the current consensus should bring evidence and research to rebuke the current evidence in support to AGW.

As it happens, one element supporting the current consensus was the evidence found in paleoclimatology.

Can’t deny that. :slight_smile:

Yes, but you are ignoring the march of time, can you name an example of an item scientists first overwhelmingly thought about it one way, then a “Galileo” came to overturn the consensus and then later after decades of experiments showing that the “Galileo” was right, ** then suddenly come to say that the new consensus was wrong?** Because that is what deniers think it happened to AGW (This last bit has not taken place, it happened only in the imagination of climate change deniers, whoever is giving you information they are omitting the fact that **more **scientists are agreeing that this is a problem.

Most scientists up to the 1950’s thought that human CO2 emissions would be dealt by natural sinks, during the 40’s scientists like Calendar and Plass found evidence that humans were beginning to overwhelm the carbon cycle and how CO2 absorbs and releases heath into the atmosphere; then scientists began to change the old consensus that we should not worry about the levels of CO2 and other warming gases.

That is about the only item that I would agree with you, still one can not think nice thoughts about the merchants of doubt, really, getting paid to mislead people is not something one should respect.

Hence videos like the ones in the OP.

How do you feel about Merchants of Panic? If government funding for climate research dries up, a lot of people in the video are going to end up in jobs that involve wearing paper hats and asking people if the they want fries with that?

You mean like the guy of the Gaia hypothesis? Scientists do consider him an alarmist indeed, real science predicts 3 to 4 C degrees increase by the end of the century, not enough to end civilization, but bad enough to cause mayhem, (and knowing how humans reacted to crop failures recently, the future is bound to be bad thanks to unpreparedness caused by the current crop of politicians (usually Republicans) that deny that there is a problem.

Not likely, and that is because the problem is getting worse, governments will and do demand more research now to figure out what regions of the earth will be the most affected, when and how bad they will be.

It is the funding of the “researchers” on your side that you need to worry about, as Wegman and other deniers have turn out to had produced lousy research to support denialist points.

In every case you cite, what has proved science wrong was science.

Do you really think that if the Republicans in the House cut off the funding for their research, that some other government will pick up the slack.

It isn’t my side. I’m a luke-warmer, not a denier. My problem is with people who exaggerate the immediate effects of global warming to drum up support for policies that make no economic sense.

BTW, making a rap video has never increased my estimate of anyone’s intelligence and usually lowers it.

That’s just plain prejudice on your part.

I was afraid that they would do indeed make witch hunt investigations against the climate scientists, but it seems that in the end Republicans just fooled also their base, they have contented themselves on trying to increase the FUD in the hearings, but on the latest one the scientist that was supposed to show the evidence of how good people from Watts Up with that and other critics were up for a rude awakening; Richard Muller, I think, had to remember that he was under oath, and so he undermined guys like Anthony Watts by reporting that: the agreement his new team got with the warming observed by past researchers was amazingly close, and the problems with the climate stations do not lead one to declare that warming was exaggerated, in other words, just what researchers told guys like Watts many times in the past.

So, yes, they may try to cut funding, but that will betray to any thinking Independent that Republicans are not only willing to commit political suicide, they would like to take all of us with them.

I can see a straw man, most of the serious research reports that the effects will be cumulative, and get worse the longer we do nothing.

The point is that even reporters like James Burke in the 90’s tried with serious documentaries and nothing much changed, it is way past the time to put climate change deniers in the same column as creationists and anti-vaccine people. They do deserve worse words than the maker of the video came with.

“We’ll get it right eventually” is synonymous with “It works.”

It isn’t clear that what you are saying is actually contradicting what I said, that a lot of climate scientists are worried about losing their jobs.


Note that these people are actual climate scientists, but my worst ire is for the people who were pushing cap-and-trade last year, when a actual climate scientist like James Hansen was opposing it in favor of a carbon tax and getting slimed by Joe Romm for it.