Scientists discover that climate-change skeptics are bozos

[butters]

well if david attenborough tells me there's global warming as i'm watching the fastest glacier calving some mahoosive berg, i believe him.

and now the whales are making waves that knock their prey off floes. clever little butchering swimmymammals!

 

[mercury14]

Whether you like it or not, there's been some rotten, shonky science passed off as "peer reviewed" in the field of climatology. It's no stretch to label that garbage, "pal reviewed."




Read these:

"Caspar and the Jesus Paper"
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html

"The Yamal Implosion"
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/9/29/the-yamal-implosion.html

Just more evidence that you don't think science is real. You see it as a conspiracy.

If you're being consistent you'll also denounce evolutionary genetics research. You know, unless the panel is a bunch of bible-thumpin' creationists they they're biased.

 

[CandiCame]

Just checking in to make sure that this thread is still crazy.

 

[trysail]

Whether you like it or not, there's been some rotten, shonky science passed off in the field of climatology. It's no stretch to label that garbage "pal reviewed."




Read these:

"Caspar and the Jesus Paper"
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html

"The Yamal Implosion"
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/9/29/the-yamal-implosion.html

Just more evidence that you don't think science is real. You see it as a conspiracy.

If you're being consistent you'll also denounce evolutionary genetics research. You know, unless the panel is a bunch of bible-thumpin' creationists they they're biased.

It's truly amazing. Somehow you always manage to add 2+2 and come up with 5.


I cannot fathom your illogic; it is beyond comprehension. Very clearly, you either didn't read the articles or you didn't comprehend them. If you did, you'd understand that somebody put their finger on the scales.

 

[mercury14]

It's truly amazing. Somehow you always manage to add 2+2 and come up with 5.


I cannot fathom your illogic; it is beyond comprehension. Very clearly, you either didn't read the articles or you didn't comprehend them. If you did, you'd understand that somebody put their finger on the scales.

Illogical?

How illogical was your post where you said you consider basic research outside the realm of science? When Perg and I asked you to explain, you pretended like nobody ever posed the question. We asked over and over but you just keep running.

Why?

 

[trysail]

Illogical?

How illogical was your post where you said you consider basic research outside the realm of science? When Perg and I asked you to explain, you pretended like nobody ever posed the question. We asked over and over but you just keep running.

Why?

You have a very serious reading comprehension problem.

...your post where you said you consider basic research outside the realm of science?

I have no interest whatsoever in colloquy with people who either can't read or who intentionally construct straw men.


This means you.

 

[mercury14]

What we can believe is science done in accord with the scientific method; that means: evidence and reproducibility. It does not mean computer models.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/science_method.png​

I missed that post earlier. Trysail, what other huge swathes of science are primarily computer-modeled or not reproducible? Do you routinely castigate them, too? Cuz it seems to me that could get problematic pretty fast.

So you're saying it's not science unless it's an experiment?

No research is possible without an experiment that's reproduce-able?

Not even basic or pure research?

Eh?

5 characters

 

[Peregrinator]

The most consistent voice is probably 4est, but Trysail has also made the claim by proxy, iirc.

We have a serious reading comprehension problem around here.


F'rinstance, someone needs to find my citation of "chaotic systems."












Signing off; it's time to go whup some folk who think they know how to play tennis.

...or I was mistaken about Trysail. Hence the "iirc."

 

[trysail]

Eh?

5 characters

Your words, not mine.

 

[Peregrinator]

Your words, not mine.

What? He quoted you.

 

[trysail]

So you're saying it's not science unless it's an experiment?

No research is possible without an experiment that's reproduce-able?

Not even basic or pure research?

What? He quoted you.

I don't think so. Those are his words, not mine.

 

[Peregrinator]

I don't think so. Those are his words, not mine.

What we can believe is science done in accord with the scientific method; that means: evidence and reproducibility. It does not mean computer models.



Maybe you need to explain this, then, or at least answer my question about it.

 

[trysail]

What we can believe is science done in accord with the scientific method; that means: evidence and reproducibility. It does not mean computer models.



Maybe you need to explain this, then, or at least answer my question about it.

We're going in circles, perg, and I don't have much patience for doing that.
http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=38967057&postcount=232


I've spent a lot of my life attempting to comprehend computer models and building them. If you don't understand what's "under the hood" you will have absolutely no idea what is being spit out. In order to understand the things you've got to get into the guts of 'em. Climatology does not fully understand the climate system in the first place. Obviously, you can't accurately model what you don't understand. Throwing a bunch of programmers at it isn't going to improve that fundamental underlying lack of understanding. It doesn't bother me in the least that Freeman Dyson happens to agree with me.


As Jo Nova [accurately and correctly] put it, "a model is a glorified opinion."

 

[Peregrinator]

We're going in circles, perg, and I don't have much patience for doing that.
http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=38967057&postcount=232


I've spent a lot of my life attempting to comprehend computer models and building them. If you don't understand what's "under the hood" you will have absolutely no idea what is being spit out. In order to understand the things you've got to get into the guts of 'em. Climatology does not fully understand the climate system in the first place. Obviously, you can't accurately model what you don't understand. Throwing a bunch of programmers at it isn't going to improve that fundamental underlying lack of understanding. It doesn't bother me in the least that Freeman Dyson happens to agree with me.


As Jo Nova [accurately and correctly] put it, "a model is a glorified opinion."

I get this much. I asked you what other branches of science you dismiss as "glorified opinions." There's a whole bunch of them that are almost exclusively computer-modeled.

 

[mercury14]

I get this much. I asked you what other branches of science you dismiss as "glorified opinions." There's a whole bunch of them that are almost exclusively computer-modeled.

Perg, he will not give you a straight answer, ever. His premise on global warming essentially boils down to climatology being literally impossible to even attempt, and therefore not science. It's a myth to him, dismissible as opinion. If he ever admits that computer-modeled sciences of any sort are possible and quite meaningful then his position on AGW will collapse like a house of cards.

Climatology does not fully understand the climate system in the first place. Obviously, you can't accurately model what you don't understand. Throwing a bunch of programmers at it isn't going to improve that fundamental underlying lack of understanding.

Look at him flail around with nonsensical, wholly contemptuous comments like this. Implying that climatology is essentially just a bunch of "programmers"? Also he's suggesting that unless the climate is 100% understood that no climatology is possible? And of course he's already on record stating that pure or basic research "isn't something we can believe".

These are nonscientific, misinformed, and unintellectual comments.

I understand that you might like this guy, but he's just going to keep arguing with you no matter how many times you point out his set of failed basic premises.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Please stop "Gish Galloping." Even if I have time, there's nothing more boring than combing through a thousand words to find all the nonsense that needs to be refuted. It's much easier for you to post a hundred sentences like "Atmospheric water droplets have nothing to do with it" and then move on to the next straw man. Because what you did with that one sentence is 1) assign to the AGW side, the side of science, a position no one holds and then act as though they do hold it, so you could sarcastically act like they don't hold it.

Ya see? It took me a whole paragraph just to reply to that one specious sentence.

I'm not interested.

Here's mention of water droplets in the atmosphere:

http://coelho.mota.googlepages.com/RadiationBudget.pdf

http://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm

http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175/JCLI3799.1

http://maths.ucd.ie/met/msc/ClimSyn/heldsode00.pdf

http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/knutti08natgeo.pdf

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/0702872104v1.pdf

And here's a pretty screen grab just for you, of the Crock Of The Week video specifically addressing your claim:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v649/Peregrinator/H2OForcing.jpg

Watch the video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAtD9aZYXAs&feature=player_embedded


Want to take this point by point, or are you going to keep carpet bombing?

And thank you for the kind words. I think you, too, are genuine. I just think it's a little too important to you that AGW be proven wrong, and you're willing to go to some extreme rhetorical lengths in order to achieve that. Maybe the best example is your insistence that peer review is nonsense. If that's the case, how do you choose what to believe? You can't individually vet every single scientific study that's published every day. So how do you decide?

*chuckle*

Thank you Lovelynice for the recap of the catechisms...

Remember Alvin Toffler (Future Shock, I still keep a copy around for shits and giggles)? Maybe you aren't old enough. Rachel Carson?

I think what we have here is the remnants of the good times syndrome. People just seem to need some fear in their lives and when none is apparent, they invent it out of whole cloth, which, btw, is why Steven King live so much larger than you or I (pity, we're such good fellows). Shit like the planet is dying and doomed seems to be born out of and springs forth during times of plenty, but just like all those before, when bad time pop up, they die sudden deaths; Jimmah! Carter killed off the last big movement.

Your "Science" does not account for Human Action any more than Toffler's did. His big mistake was to hold technology constant, like your temperature graph which assumes nothing will change, not technology, or even the success of your crusade...

Oh, crystal ball...

You see the problem with that? No. I didn't think so, probably because the movement assumes it will get the complete largess of the plundered funds in order to study the outcome of no hew energy paradigm, sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

On the upside, we're in bad times and increasingly very real and present dangers take people's minds off their hobbies of danger and saving the house becomes more important than saving the planet, so for another generation, Socialism in the name of Gaia, will be put on the back burner.

I think VDH (NRO) puts this well, so I will leave you with Eine Kleine 'Doomsday' Musak...

So what happened to the global-warming craze?

Corruption within the climate-change industry explains some of the sudden turnoff. “Climategate” — the unauthorized 2009 release of private e-mails from the Climatic Research Unit in the United Kingdom — revealed that many of the world’s top climate scientists were knee-deep in manipulating scientific evidence to support preconceived conclusions and personal agendas. Shrill warnings about everything from melting Himalayan glaciers to shrinking polar-bear populations turned out not always to be supported by scientific facts.

Unfortunately, during the last three years “green” has also become synonymous with Solyndra-style crony capitalism. Commonsense ideas like more windmills, solar panels, retro-fitted houses, and electric cars have all been in the news lately. But the common themes were depressingly similar: few jobs created and little competitively priced energy produced, but plenty of political donors who landed hundreds of millions of dollars in low-interest loans from the government.

Of course, it didn’t help that the world’s most prominent green spokesman, Nobel laureate Al Gore, made tens of millions of dollars from his own advocacy. And he adopted a lifestyle of jet travel and energy-hungry homes at odds with his pleas for everyone else to cut back.

But even without the corruption and hypocrisy, sincere advocates of the theory of man-made global warming themselves overreached. At news that the planet had not heated up at all during the last ten years, “global warming” gave way to “climate change” — as if to warn the public that unseasonable cold or wet weather was just as man-caused as were the old specters of drought and scorching temperatures.

Then, when “climate change” was still not enough to frighten the public into action, yet a third term followed: “climate chaos.” Suddenly some “green experts” claimed that even more terrifying disasters — from periodic hurricanes and tornadoes to volcanoes and earthquakes — could for the first time be attributed to the burning of fossil fuels. At that point, serially changing the name of the problem suggested to many that there might not be such a problem after all.

Current hard times also explain the demise of global-warming advocacy. With high unemployment and near-nonexistent economic growth, Americans do not want to shut down generating plants or pay new surcharges on their power bills. Most people worry first about having any car that runs — not whether it’s a more expensive green hybrid model.

Over the last half-century, Americans have agreed that smoky plants and polluting industries needed to be cleaned up. But when the green movement began to classify clean-burning heat as a pollutant, it began to lose the cash-strapped public.

While the Obama administration was subsidizing failed or inefficient green industries, radical breakthroughs in domestic fossil-fuel exploration and recovery — especially horizontal drilling and fracking — have vastly increased the known American reserves of gas and oil. Modern efficient engines have meant that both can be consumed with little, if any, pollution — at a time when a struggling U.S. economy is paying nearly half-a-trillion dollars for imported fossil fuels. The public apparently would prefer developing more of our own gas, oil, shale, tar sands, and coal as an alternative to going broke by either importing more fuels from abroad or subsidizing more inefficient windmills and solar panels at home.

We simply don’t know positively whether recent human activity has caused the planet to warm up to dangerous levels. But we do know that those who insist it has are sometimes disingenuous, often profit-minded, and nearly always impractical.

People, in the end, will vote with their wallets, not your ability to scare their pants off (ala Steven King, see! I was going to warp that up nice and neat all along ) so that it's easier to steal their wallet.

So, I think I'm about done here. I see no real Science, just religion.

I hate religion, which is why I hate Ron Paul too; his acolytes are total wacadoodles...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Perg, he will not give you a straight answer, ever. His premise on global warming essentially boils down to climatology being literally impossible to even attempt, and therefore not science. It's a myth to him, dismissible as opinion. If he ever admits that computer-modeled sciences of any sort are possible and quite meaningful then his position on AGW will collapse like a house of cards.




Look at him flail around with nonsensical, wholly contemptuous comments like this. Implying that climatology is essentially just a bunch of "programmers"? Also he's suggesting that unless the climate is 100% understood that no climatology is possible? And of course he's already on record stating that pure or basic research "isn't something we can believe".

These are nonscientific, misinformed, and unintellectual comments.

I understand that you might like this guy, but he's just going to keep arguing with you no matter how many times you point out his set of failed basic premises.

The models sprung forth from Gaia's head after Paul Bunyan took a Lizzy Borden-style axe to her kopfschmerzen??

They are no more correct than the models you tout from the guys who had to be bailed out because they missed the housing bubble, even though that was their area of "expertise."

8% unemployment with just a mere trillion dollars in debt...

And yet you ad hominem?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I get this much. I asked you what other branches of science you dismiss as "glorified opinions." There's a whole bunch of them that are almost exclusively computer-modeled.

And a lot of them are "glorified opinions" unless they are based upon non-chaotic systems.

You can model medicine, for example, because its chemistry is a known non-chaotic system (once you get past the underpinnings of DNA and evolution), same for say, examining warhead yields.

But, as we have patiently pointed out to you before, good luck with those hurricane models, and that's just weather, but still a chaotic (that means, you know recursive or analog-type) system. They're always getting better but they're still not right, they still have to be tweaked on the fly...

Those models are what they are, heavily diffy-Qed guesses because the problems and interactions are too complex and too poorly understood to properly model. My educated opinion is that the newest models being touted now will have to be tweaked five years out, or less, especially if world-wide Social orders undergo the easy to forecast economic collapse they currently fight to stave off and the changes it will make in human activity.

Now, please feel free to post more links that refute everything I say...

I might be back.

 

[Ishmael]

One would hope that the gravy train that the researchers, and selective 'green' industries, have been riding will run out of steam. Although that probably won't occur until the various political vested interests are run out of office.

Aside from the fact that they have absolutely NO proofs that AGW exists, or ever existed for that matter, economic conditions are such that it is unlikely that they will receive any substantial support in the future, at least near term (5 years or so). At least this respite will allow other researchers without an agenda to catch up.

As if the exposure of the cabal of AGW evangelists and the continual searching for a label that will catch on, they are also resorting to the argument, "Well, what if we're right." In that the science is immature there is always that possibility. And if they wait long enough it will become a certainty (in about 3 billion years).

For the sake of discussion what are the consequences of they're being right? More arable land will be opened for grain production and, most likely, yields will increase (plants LOVE CO2). Population centers may begin to shift northwards as well. Some areas of the globe might experience adverse effects. Certain coastal cities may have to shift inland. The notion that at some point in the future the current New York City being under 20 feet of water bothers me no more than the contemplation Old Port Royale being underwater today. Besides, think of the boon that will be to the construction industry. Beyond the fact that the climate changed, and it's ALWAYS changing, most of the critical requirements for life will actually have been for the better.

And two can play the 'what if' game. What if they're wrong? The foremost effect is that we'll have pissed away untold trillions in national treasure and economic activity for no reason at all. But there's an even more dire potential consequence of they're being wrong. We are reaching the temperature apex for the current interglacial. If the temperature starts to swing the other direction, and it most certainly will, it's only a matter of time, and we've done everything in our power to hasten that swing, the effects on life will be profound. Mass starvation is going to be the rule. Those that don't starve will be killed in the wars that MUST follow for control of arable lands. The industrialized nations in the temperate zones are going to be fighting each other for land in the equatorial zones, the only zones that will remain habitable. The diversity of life will plummet with species going extinct at a rate unimaginable today. The 'what if' game is a sword with two edges.

Ishmael

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

One would hope that the gravy train that the researchers, and selective 'green' industries, have been riding will run out of steam. Although that probably won't occur until the various political vested interests are run out of office.

Aside from the fact that they have absolutely NO proofs that AGW exists, or ever existed for that matter, economic conditions are such that it is unlikely that they will receive any substantial support in the future, at least near term (5 years or so). At least this respite will allow other researchers without an agenda to catch up.

As if the exposure of the cabal of AGW evangelists and the continual searching for a label that will catch on, they are also resorting to the argument, "Well, what if we're right." In that the science is immature there is always that possibility. And if they wait long enough it will become a certainty (in about 3 billion years).

For the sake of discussion what are the consequences of they're being right? More arable land will be opened for grain production and, most likely, yields will increase (plants LOVE CO2). Population centers may begin to shift northwards as well. Some areas of the globe might experience adverse effects. Certain coastal cities may have to shift inland. The notion that at some point in the future the current New York City being under 20 feet of water bothers me no more than the contemplation Old Port Royale being underwater today. Besides, think of the boon that will be to the construction industry. Beyond the fact that the climate changed, and it's ALWAYS changing, most of the critical requirements for life will actually have been for the better.

And two can play the 'what if' game. What if they're wrong? The foremost effect is that we'll have pissed away untold trillions in national treasure and economic activity for no reason at all. But there's an even more dire potential consequence of they're being wrong. We are reaching the temperature apex for the current interglacial. If the temperature starts to swing the other direction, and it most certainly will, it's only a matter of time, and we've done everything in our power to hasten that swing, the effects on life will be profound. Mass starvation is going to be the rule. Those that don't starve will be killed in the wars that MUST follow for control of arable lands. The industrialized nations in the temperate zones are going to be fighting each other for land in the equatorial zones, the only zones that will remain habitable. The diversity of life will plummet with species going extinct at a rate unimaginable today. The 'what if' game is a sword with two edges.

Ishmael

Luddite...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Luddites on the streets of Manhattan can demonize big oil, big food, and big pharma all day long. They can decry profit as if Satan himself invented the notion. Yet when the multinational firm GlaxoSmithKline announces, as it did last week, that it has come up with the first effective vaccine for malaria, you can bet that it would never have happened in the system they propose. And if the vaccine is successful, the company will have done more good for the world than a million marches about the evils of capitalism could ever hope to produce.

What irks Robinson, Matthews, and others like them is not that people do not accept "science," but that they won't accept the statist solutions tied to that science. Moreover, a Luddite opposes capitalism. A skeptic only asks questions.

David Harsanyi
http://reason.com/archives/2011/10/26/the-real-luddites

 

[phrodeau]

And a lot of them are "glorified opinions" unless they are based upon non-chaotic systems.

You can model medicine, for example, because its chemistry is a known non-chaotic system (once you get past the underpinnings of DNA and evolution), same for say, examining warhead yields.

But, as we have patiently pointed out to you before, good luck with those hurricane models, and that's just weather, but still a chaotic (that means, you know recursive or analog-type) system. They're always getting better but they're still not right, they still have to be tweaked on the fly...

Those models are what they are, heavily diffy-Qed guesses because the problems and interactions are too complex and too poorly understood to properly model. My educated opinion is that the newest models being touted now will have to be tweaked five years out, or less, especially if world-wide Social orders undergo the easy to forecast economic collapse they currently fight to stave off and the changes it will make in human activity.

Now, please feel free to post more links that refute everything I say...

I might be back.

Medicine is non-chaotic? The population responds to a medicine in a predictable way, with predictable variations in effectiveness and side effects?

 

[Peregrinator]

*chuckle*

Right. You say that climate scientists claim that "water droplets don't enter into it."

I post links to six studies and a video showing that the scientists DO include water droplets in their system.

You call me Lovelynice and *ishchuckle* at me.

I'm sorry you can't admit you're wrong. Is there any point in continuing? In the face of a fact, namely that AGW scientists DO include water droplets in their models, in direct refutation of a claim you made, your only response is to *chuckle*.

It won't matter what I say from now on. I can post links to Hansen saying "Water vapor is the most significant greenhouse gas" and you'll continue saying he never said it.

 

[Peregrinator]

Blah, blah, blah, same old empty, long-refuted bullshit

Ishmael

*chuckle*

Nice try Perg. I'm going to refute each and every single point that you posted, and I'm going to do it with data captured by many scientists that were out to support the whole AGW theory. Obviously this is going to take some time.


Ishmael

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=37990855&postcount=32

Put up or shut up, Ishmael. Post the data you promised or admit you can't back up any of your ideology-driven horseshit.

 

[Peregrinator]

And a lot of them are "glorified opinions" unless they are based upon non-chaotic systems.

You can model medicine, for example, because its chemistry is a known non-chaotic system (once you get past the underpinnings of DNA and evolution),

1) Climate is not a chaotic system.

2) Medicine might be. We sure as hell haven't sorted all the variables yet. This is why the term "idiosyncratic" exists. Also, "anaphylactoid."

Medicine is non-chaotic? The population responds to a medicine in a predictable way, with predictable variations in effectiveness and side effects?

Of course not. He arbitrarily assigns to things the status of "chaotic" or "non-chaotic" to fit it into whatever point he's trying to make.