For those of you who want to take a dispassionate view of the issue: Here is an excerpt from Pat Bedard's column in fall of 2006:

Here's a dumb question:

Where was Pat Bedard's article on water vapor published?
Funny that you didn't mention it was published in *CAR & DRIVER*.

LOL

- Is Pat Bedard a climatologist?
- Does Pat Bedard hold any science credentials regarding climate, weather, atmosphere?
- Does Pat Bedard have any meteorological expertise whatsoever?
- Does Pat Bedard have any practical climate-related research experience?
- Does Pat Bedard even have any scientific expertise whatsoever regarding the nature of WATER VAPOR and its effect on the climate?


Pat Bedard is a race car driver and writer for Car & Driver magazine.
Pat Robertson is a TV evangelist who believes that 9/11 was an act of God's vengeance against the USA (funny, Osama bin Laden thinks the same thing).




This is a science forum, right?
So why are people citing people who AREN'T scientists, let alone climatologists, regarding global warming?

Should we limit who can speak with credibility about the science of global warming?
OF COURSE WE SHOULD!!! It's science!

Why is this any different than the nature of quarks, or string theory, the effects of super-massive black holes on galaxies, quantum mechanics, or predictions regarding the life cycles and evolutions of stars or rates of star formation, or interpretations of Hubble Deep Field imagery...
...or interpretation of SETI radio data?

We should also limit who can speak with credibility about what gaussians and triplets detected during SETI@home crunching could be, shouldn't we?

The SETI team decided that candidate Radio source SHGb02+14a was NOT of artificial, intelligent origin. So if Pat Robertson says they're wrong on his TV show and Pat Bedard writes an article making his own conclusions regarding SHGb02+14a in "Car & Driver" calling the SETI team liars, I guess we should hold their conclusions to be equally valid, right?

This thread is populated essentially with people using layman "common sense" and citing non-scientists to make conclusions or present so-called "facts" about a SCIENTIFIC issue.

The degree to which human activity influences global warming may be an open issue for many in the scientific community, but those who can credibly dispute popular opinion or what the media presents as a "consensus" can ONLY do so using science.

Science is NOT the same thing as "common sense", and climatologists know more about the climate than Pat Robertson or Pat Bedard or YOU or ME.

I encourage you to read up on scientific, peer-reviewed research published in scientific journals by climatologists who dispute popular notions regarding climate change and the alleged "consensus" in the scientific community.

Comments made by Pat Robertson or an article by Pat Bedard or common sense deductions on an internet forum aren't the same thing as peer-reviewed scientific research.

You guys DO realize that, right?


For the record, I think debate within the scientific community regarding climate change is a good thing. That's the nature of science. It's self-correcting. If better evidence contradicts previous conclusions and better data is collected using ever-improving techniques, then bad data is thrown out, models are changed. That's how science works. That's great to see in action.

But it isn't great to see people in the 21st century citing laypersons with no personal scientific expertise regarding the subject matter or making "common sense" conclusions regarding the data themselves, as if their common sense is more valid than scientific, peer-reviewed research.

I can only imagine that a general lack of interest in hard science and math education among the general public and a persistent brain drain in the USA of researchers leaving to work in other countries is probably at the root of why Americans still seem to believe that common sense can work better than the scientific process.

Anybody can quote a fact, but anybody can CLAIM information as "fact" when their statements do not need to be backed up by their own research and are not subject to rigorous scientific scrutiny and peer review.
That's what Pat Robertson, Pat Bedard, and many in this thread have done; disregarded the scientific process in favor of personal opinion and layperson common sense.

That's the only thing I find unsettling about public perceptions regarding global warming; that the scientific process can be bypassed in favor of personal sentiment, whether it's teenagers listening to Al Gore and celebrities who aren't scientists speaking at a televised concert or making a thread about what Pat Robertson said on his TV show.

This shouldn't be about making the scientific process irrelevant.
There are plenty of scientists with expertise in the field of climatology who DISPUTE popular notions regarding climate change and have published their own research in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
What Pat Robertson says on his TV show does NOT hold the same weight as what they say in scientific journals; by claiming that, you're a doing a disservice to the scientific process and making the debate messier than it already is. That's what happens when a scientific issue becomes tainted by political bias.

I've always thought the internet and the unimaginable wealth of data available to people these days would benefit public knowledge and make the average citizen better able to make informed conclusions.

But I've seen how terribly, terribly wrong that is.
All the internet has done is to provide people with a searchable database of what anyone can claim as "fact", a database of "facts" that any layperson with any particular bias can cite to back up ANY common sense conclusion on ANY side of ANY issue to give that conclusion an air of authority. It can now be done on ANY side of any issue and anyone and everyone with political bias can do it to convince people of their own versions of the "truth".

I suppose "truthyness" is indeed the best single word to sum up the effect that the internet has had on the public at large.

We've all become "experts" whose opinions are JUST AS VALID as anyone else's just as long as we regurgitate someone else's regurgitated "facts". After all, now any assumption or opinion by any layperson can be "backed up".

Taurus, You make an Excellent point. Your exceptions have been noted. From now on I will take my cues on Global Warming from noted Climatologist, Albert Gore Jr.

Best Regards,

Bill Rothamel

Taurus, You make an Excellent point. Your exceptions have been noted. From now on I will take my cues on Global Warming from noted Climatologist, Albert Gore Jr.

Al Gore is no more of a climate expert than Pat Bedard.

I wouldn't ask a politician or a former race car driver to tell me whether or not a radio signal detected on Seti@Home is from ET, so why in the heck would you? It should have absolutely zero to do with your voting preferences or your degree of interest in automobiles, right?

Is this concept too difficult to understand?

Global Warming alarmists use a popular ultra-leftwing politician as their spokesman and the scientists who have valid concerns and data of their own are undermined because their proponents in the public at large cite morons like Pat Robertson. They're not doing the scientific process any favors.

As long as this remains a political mud-slinging contest, science itself loses.

[quote]Taurus, You make an Excellent point. Your exceptions have been noted. From now on I will take my cues on Global Warming from noted Climatologist, Albert Gore Jr.

Al Gore is no more of a climate expert than Pat Bedard.

I wouldn't ask a politician or a former race car driver to tell me whether or not a radio signal detected on Seti@Home is from ET, so why in the heck would you? It should have absolutely zero to do with your voting preferences or your degree of interest in automobiles, right?

Is this concept too difficult to understand?

Global Warming alarmists use a popular ultra-leftwing politician as their spokesman and the scientists who have valid concerns and data of their own are undermined because their proponents in the public at large cite morons like Pat Robertson. They're not doing the scientific process any favors.

As long as this remains a political mud-slinging contest, science itself loses.[/quote

Agreed

It appears that DADDIO is taking the Global Warming warnings more to heart.

---