Scientists discover that climate-change skeptics are bozos

[Peregrinator]

I would like to congratulate Sonny on his never-ending thread.

I thought the same thing when I first posted in it. It was like "I know I shouldn't do this. I know I shouldn't do this. I know I shouldn't do this. I know I shouldn't do this."

Couldn't help it. Rampant willful partisan blinkered pig-ignorance is like heroin to me.

 

[KRCummings]

I would like to congratulate Sonny on his never-ending thread.

Beats the hell out of that "Words that end in E" thread over in the Playground. I still can't get over that. Words than end in motherfucking E. Not only did someone start that thread but dozens of people posted in it.

 

[trysail]

What we like is science and the scientific method.


So what if temperatures have risen by 0.6° C. in a century ? The fact of the matter is that nobody knows why. A hypothesis is nothing more than that— a hypothesis.


John Cook doesn't know why. Gavin Schmidt doesn't know why. James Hansen doesn't know why. Michael Mann doesn't know why. What you've got is science by exception— "We can't figure out what is causing the change, therefore it must be CO2." That isn't science; it's guessing.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

New climate study deals blow to skeptics
By Matthew Knight, CNN

London (CNN) -- An independent study of global temperature records has reaffirmed previous conclusions by climate scientists that global warming is real.

The new analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project examined 1.6 billion temperature reports from 15 data archives stretching back over 200 years in an effort to address scientific concerns raised by climate skeptics about the data used to inform reports published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Dummies to "Berkeley!" in 5...4...

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/10/21/world/americas/climate-study-warming-real/

This has been up for 16 minutes now and not one rw talking point posted. The dittohead echochamber must be hungover today.

Oh we do so love our strawman arguments.

No one can deny actual measured temperature fluctuations.

One can have an honest debate about causality and political motive...

Perg. Grow up or openly embrace your social liberalism. The OP clown brings out your worst qualities...

A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States...,
John P. Holdren
White House Office of Science and Technology Director

 

[Peregrinator]

What we like is science and the scientific method.


So what if temperatures have risen by 0.6° C. in a century ? The fact of the matter is that nobody knows why. A hypothesis is nothing more than that— a hypothesis.


John Cook doesn't know why. Gavin Schmidt doesn't know why. James Hansen doesn't know why. Michael Mann doesnt' know why.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php It's all there. All the science you can eat. Follow the links to the primary literature. See the science being done. Method and all.

 

[Sonny Limatina]

Beats the hell out of that "Words that end in E" thread over in the Playground. I still can't get over that. Words than end in motherfucking E. Not only did someone start that thread but dozens of people posted in it.

Wall-E.

 

[Disgustipated]

I thought the same thing when I first posted in it. It was like "I know I shouldn't do this. I know I shouldn't do this. I know I shouldn't do this. I know I shouldn't do this."



Couldn't help it. Rampant willful partisan blinkered pig-ignorance is like heroin to me.

As soon as I saw you posted, I knew it would take off.

Beats the hell out of that "Words that end in E" thread over in the Playground. I still can't get over that. Words than end in motherfucking E. Not only did someone start that thread but dozens of people posted in it.

Lit is boring enough not to post in those threads!

What we like is science and the scientific method.


So what if temperatures have risen by 0.6° C. in a century ? The fact of the matter is that nobody knows why. A hypothesis is nothing more than that— a hypothesis.


John Cook doesn't know why. Gavin Schmidt doesn't know why. James Hansen doesn't know why. Michael Mann doesnt' know why.

....^^^^ and then we knew he would chime in.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php It's all there. All the science you can eat. Follow the links to the primary literature. See the science being done. Method and all.

You might as well just C&P this every time you feel compelled to post in this thread. srsly.

 

[Peregrinator]

Oh we do so love our strawman arguments.


Perg. Grow up or openly embrace your social liberalism. The OP clown brings out your worst qualities...

Oh, holy shit. You're the king of the straw man argument.

Grow up or openly embrace your anarchism.

You anarchists think that all government regulations are a pernicious power grab.


See what I did there?

How about this one?

Climate is a chaotic system. Give me the software and I'll prove it.

Clever, innit?

 

[Peregrinator]

As soon as I saw you posted, I knew it would take off.



Lit is boring enough not to post in those threads!



....^^^^ and then we knew he would chime in.



You might as well just C&P this every time you feel compelled to post in this thread. srsly.

I continue to be amused by the way the dogmatic nuh-uh crowd completely ignores it and posts the same tired talking points over and over. My current favorite red flag point is any version of "Global warming or climate change or whatever it's called these days." Invariably, this is in the first paragraph of a c&p posted by some ignorant fool who believes the bullshit that some mysterious cabal of enviropinkos somehow influenced the world to change the name. Never mind the Luntz Memo, or the fact that anyone with half a brain has always known that global warming and cooling are what drive climate change.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Yes, you are a clever, clever man...




:nods:

 

[trysail]

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php It's all there. All the science you can eat. Follow the links to the primary literature. See the science being done. Method and all.

Horseshit. It isn't science.


False Equivalence:
If you need to FOIA somebody to get his raw data and statistical methodology, you're dealing with a snake-oil salesman, not a scientist.

Scientific evidence for the theory that human emissions of carbon dioxide are the main cause of global warming needs to be:
1. Empirical - That which we can see, hear, record, or write down. A measurement of some sort. An observation of the natural world.
2. Related to CAUSE and EFFECT. That means evidence that shows that our extra carbon caused most of the recent warming. Not just evidence that the world has got warmer (which could be due to some other reason).
3. Evidence that shows carbon dioxide has a major role, that doubling the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide would cause, say, 2 – 10 degrees of warming. If doubling carbon only causes 0.5 degrees of warming, who cares?

It doesn’t matter how many associations, unions, or Nobel-Prize-winning Saints believe in a theory. If they claim there is evidence, by thousands of scientists in peer reviewed papers, then it should easy for them to provide it. The problem is, all those thousands of papers are either not empirical, not related to the cause of the warming, or do not show carbon has a major role.

When we talk about the “Major Role”, we’re talking about Feedbacks. Nobody who is anybody believes doubling carbon dioxide on it’s own will warm us by much more than one degree C. The Pachuri-Gore-Hansen Team ($$) believe this warming will then cause changes in other factors (like humidity) which will then cause much more warming.

The history of humanity is full of people who were absolutely dead-set sure, and completely wrong. Climate models are not evidence: they are imperfect “simulations” of the climate, not the climate itself. Our global atmosphere is a messy algorithm, with oceans, clouds, rain, water vapor, solar wind, magnetic fields, forests, ice-cover, glaciers, volcanoes, heat from below, and moving dust clouds of soot. It’s just not possible to simulate the real atmosphere without making assumptions, estimates or decisions on which parts to simplify or omit. Since all those things rely on the opinions of the modelers, no matter how well intentioned or educated they are, a model is a glorified opinion.
-Joanne Nova
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/01/is-there-any-evidence/

 

[Peregrinator]

Horseshit. It isn't science.


False Equivalence:
If you need to FOIA somebody to get his raw data and statistical methodology, you're dealing with a snake-oil salesman, not a scientist.

Every single study done ever on the climate isn't science? You know that how? You've read and debunked every single one of them somehow? When are you going to publish? Pray, post the debunking of all the links I just linked you to. I'm dying to see how you can tear down decades of the most heavily reviewed and microscoped scientific literature in history.

That's one person in one instance. Guess that makes all presidents criminals, all lawyers liars, all accountants deceitful, all car salesmen dishonest, all physicians incompetent, all clowns boring, all scientists frauds, all priests rapists, etc, etc, etc.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Carried over from another thread...

...

The other part is a slander. There are no anti-enviro Republicans. There are Republicans with valid questions about the Science and all your ad hominem is not the way to win over any friends, but but sure as hell will influence enemies.

I question the Science you embrace.

That does not make me a denier, a skeptic, a hater of Science, an anti-intellectual, and a hater of "Education." It makes me open-minded and heedful of Ike's admonition about the marriage of government and military and its parallel, the marriage of government and Science. I fell for this crap once in the 70s and the world did not fucking freeze over in a New Ice Age.

It is an old adage that you get what you pay for. If you pay for alarmism in order to gain the system for your personal prejudices, then you are going to get alarmism. If you want to end the age of fossil fuels, you will justify a lie with the good. This story is as old as man...

 

[KingOrfeo]

Wait, there are seriously people who dont know about climate change?

No, but there are people who seriously think they know about anthropogenic climate change, and that it does not exist.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Every single study done ever on the climate isn't science? You know that how? You've read and debunked every single one of them somehow? When are you going to publish? Pray, post the debunking of all the links I just linked you to. I'm dying to see how you can tear down decades of the most heavily reviewed and microscoped scientific literature in history.

That's one person in one instance. Guess that makes all presidents criminals, all lawyers liars, all accountants deceitful, all car salesmen dishonest, all physicians incompetent, all clowns boring, all scientists frauds, all priests rapists, etc, etc, etc.

It's all Science.

The question is, is it valid science, is it political science, and in diffy-Qing all aspects other than CO2, is it indeed, CORRECT science...

Again, the oceans are not frozen, but Science was in agreement in 1970, at least politically because it fell into that Leftist myth that man is an inherent danger to the planet, not its greatest triumph.

A_J's corollary #7, “To the New Age Liberal, the past is an indictment, the present is unjust, and the future will be perfect if and only if they establish the rules and cultural norms for current society.”

That goes for knowledge too.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

No, but there are people who seriously think they know about anthropogenic climate change, and that it does not exist.

That is a straw man argument.

We all insist that climate changes.

What we do not agree on is the nature of the natural pattern and whether or not man can 1). determine its optimal temperature, 2). turn the thermostat up or down and 3). will all future advancement in technology and even life itself be jeopardized by a wrong political conclusion, of which we can see, are almost always wrong because politics is as firmly removed from Science as Religion is.

 

[trysail]

Crichton (R.I.P.) knew exactly what was going on.

...Here is again the IPCC chart of predictions for 2100. As you see, they range from a low of 1.5 degrees to a high of 6 degrees. That is a 400% variation. It's fine in academic research. Now let's transfer this to the real world.

In the real world, a 400% uncertainty is so great that nobody acts on it. Ever.

-Michael Crichton, M.D.
THE CASE FOR SKEPTICISM ON GLOBAL WARMING
January 25, 2005
National Press Club, Washington DC​

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/commentaries/crichton_3.pdf p.39.

 

[Peregrinator]

Sort of double-ish post.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

A year ago, all the "SCIENCE" said salt was bad and politicians (e.g., NYC Mayor Bloomberg) were acting on it, but a study released this year says, wait just a second, that is a wrong conclusion...

Would you then say they are salt-deniers or would you agree that perhaps we rushed to judgement on too few studies, or studies peer-reviewed by fellow saltists?



What I find disquieting in this Science is the CERTITUDE.

Religion is CERTITUDE because you have to choose to believe.

 

[Peregrinator]

No, they weren't.

See here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediate.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/1970s_papers.gif

The science is relatively easy to understand. It's the propaganda war that's murky. There's not a single molecule of evidence that "politicians pay scientists for pre-determined studies." That's sheer right-wing echo-chamber nonsense.

Here's a list of links to the common "skeptic" arguments and what the science actually says. Each entry has links to the primary supporting literature. It's instructive to the open minded to take a look at this every time you read or see yet another skeptic spouting off about how it's all a scam. It's further instructive to post them here and watch people ignore them, as Karen just did a couple posts above.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Carried over from another thread...

It's all Science.

The question is, is it valid science, is it political science, and in diffy-Qing all aspects other than CO2, is it indeed, CORRECT science...

Again, the oceans are not frozen, but Science was in agreement in 1970, at least politically because it fell into that Leftist myth that man is an inherent danger to the planet, not its greatest triumph.

A_J's corollary #7, “To the New Age Liberal, the past is an indictment, the present is unjust, and the future will be perfect if and only if they establish the rules and cultural norms for current society.”

That goes for knowledge too.

Unbelievable.

 

[Peregrinator]

A year ago, all the "SCIENCE" said salt was bad and politicians (e.g., NYC Mayor Bloomberg) were acting on it, but a study released this year says, wait just a second, that is a wrong conclusion...

Would you then say they are salt-deniers or would you agree that perhaps we rushed to judgement on too few studies, or studies peer-reviewed by fellow saltists?



What I find disquieting in this Science is the CERTITUDE.

Religion is CERTITUDE because you have to choose to believe.

False equivalence.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Unbelievable.

That's exactly how I feel about your CERTITUDE knowing from past conversations your educational background.

"As the 20th century drew to a close, the connection between hard scientific fact and public policy became increasingly elastic. In part this was possible because of the complacency of the scientific profession; in part because of the lack of good science education among the public; in part because of the rise of specialized advocacy groups which have been enormously effective in getting publicity and shaping policy; and in great part because of the decline of the media as an independent assessor of fact."
Michael Crichton, 2003 lecture at Caltech "Aliens Cause Global Warming."

First, the public does not, by and large, see a heating planet. Average global temperatures over the last decade have, in fact, cooled. Some of us recall the media-driven worry in the 1970s over a new ice age — a dubious conclusion based on data from many of the same supposedly cool past decades that are now reinvented as warm to provide a case for decades-long patterns of dangerous planet heating.

These controversies could be adjudicated through substantive debate, but instead politically correct hysteria again has followed. “Good” informed people — like those who adhered to every doctrine of the medieval church — “know” the planet is heating up, thanks to the greed of carbon-based industry. “Bad” heretics challenge official environmental dogma and exegesis. In such an anti-empirical age, if the “truther” Van Jones had not been there, ready for Obama to tap as green czar, he would have had to be invented.

Even skeptics are surprised at just how cynical some global-warming “scientists” have been in their efforts to stifle dissent and fudge unwelcome data.

Recently, for example, computer hackers released confidential communications from a leading global-warming research institute in the United Kingdom — the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit — that gave the game away.

In their private e-mail correspondence, these “scientists,” like clerics squabbling over religious schisms, scheme to explain away and cover up unpleasant evidence. They dream of injuring heretics; they connive to get more money for their own pet projects; and they are terrified that increasingly the data seem to support public doubts — and therefore must be subjected to unscientific, but morally superior, efforts to undo unsettling results.
Victor Davis Hanson

 

[trysail]

Science is increasingly being manipulated by those who try to use it to justify political choices based on their ethical preferences, and who are willing to act to suppress evidence of conflict between those preferences and the underlying reality. This problem is clearly seen in two policy domains, healthcare and climate policy. In the area of climate policy, recent revelations of emails from the government-sponsored Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia reveal a pattern of data suppression, manipulation of results, and efforts to intimidate journal editors to suppress contradictory studies and indicate that scientific misconduct has been used intentionally to manipulate a social consensus to support the researchers’ advocacy of addressing a problem that may or may not exist.

-George H. Avery
Purdue University
World Medical and Science Policy
http://www.psocommons.org/wmhp/vol2/iss4/art3/​

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

False equivalence.

How so?

It goes to the nature of pop science and how quickly a politician will latch on to it in order to have a cause and an issue to champion.

And, as we all know, every championed issue requires some regulation and regulation requires some more taxes and experts who will declare the morality of the issue and the realness of it free of an unfixed jury...

Vinny Gambini: Let me show you something.
[he holds up a playing card, with the face toward Billy]
Vinny Gambini: He's going to show you the bricks. He'll show you they got straight sides. He'll show you how they got the right shape. He'll show them to you in a very special way, so that they appear to have everything a brick should have. But there's one thing he's not gonna show you.
[turns the card, so that its edge is toward Billy]
Vinny Gambini: When you look at the bricks from the right angle, they're as thin as this playing card. His whole case is an illusion, a magic trick. It has to be an illusion, 'cause you're innocent. Nobody - I mean nobody - pulls the wool over the eyes of a Gambini, especially this one. Give me a chance, one chance. Let me question the first witness. If after that point, you don't think that I'm the best man for the job, fire me then and there. I'll leave quietly, no grudges. All I ask is for that one chance. I think you should give it to me.

 

[Peregrinator]

Crichton (R.I.P.) knew exactly what was going on.

The reality is that the most prominent pseudo-sceptical scientists are doing the opposite: gathering together to provide apparent respectability to front organisations that are designed to spread confusion.

This is the message from Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming.

Authors Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway, backed up by documents obtained in the course of tobacco litigation, show that not only was greenhouse denial using the same misinformation techniques as the tobacco industry, but that it was often the same groups and the same people. These anti-science activities hide behind names such as “Friends of Science”.

<snip>

One of the scams used in Heaven + Earth is to plot graphs on different scales to claim that different data averaging gives different trends.

This device was used in Michael Crichton’s novel State of Fear as a simple fictional example of how to fool a gullible jury, though it also seemed to fool many gullible readers.



http://www.skepticalscience.com/rog...-change-sceptics-spread-doubt-and-denial.html