Scientists discover that climate-change skeptics are bozos

Pretty sure you just said a couple pages ago that pure and basic scientific research isn't science. You never recovered from that whopper as far as I'm concerned.


You really ought to address your reading comprehension problem with some remedial work.


 



You really ought to address your reading comprehension problem with some remedial work.




What exactly is the take-home message from this?


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




You just said we can't believe science that falls into the realm of basic research. ;) Such as mapping the human genome. Researching heredity. Astrophysics. Or climate science. Or protein permutation calculations.

A neurologist who studies the workings of the brain? According to what you just said we can't believe in that mumbo jumbo...
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Last edited:
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.


He'll just dodge your question, as he did when I asked the same thing a few pages back.
 
Pretty sure you're way over your limit of Judith Curry references.

Judith Curry is a very gifted individual with an extensive CV...yet she isn't saying climate change isn't happening.

http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/onlinepapers.html

Specifically she isn't saying AGW isn't happening.





Just noting that Judith's name is on the each of the four papers that BerkeleyEarth has out for peer review, right now.
 
How can breathable air, clean water and a climate that sustains life even be a political issue. I honestly do not get it. Can't we all just get along?
 
Pretty sure you shouldn't be using the American Thinker as your source for science. :rolleyes:

You are also pretty damned sure that I should not be using it for economics, but there is one problem with that attitude, American Thinker has been a lot closer to reality than Turbo TIMMAH! and friends...

Detailed weather records from 20,000 years ago...

Was that Barney Rubble's job?
 
As long as we're bashing religiosity and the right...

All the trappings of religion are there.

Original sin: Mankind is responsible for these prophesied disasters, especially those slobs who live on suburban cul-de-sacs and drive their SUVs to strip malls and tacky chain restaurants.

The need for atonement and repentance: We must impose a carbon tax or cap-and-trade system, which will increase the cost of everything and stunt economic growth.

Ritual: from the annual Earth Day to weekly recycling.

Indulgences, like those Martin Luther railed against: private jet-fliers like Al Gore and sitcom heiress Laurie David can buy carbon offsets to compensate for their carbon-emitting sins.

Corporate elitists, like General Electric’s Jeff Immelt, profess to share this faith, just as cynical Venetian merchants and prim Victorian bankers gave lip service to the religious enthusiasms of their days. Bad for business not to. And if you’re clever, you can figure out how to make money off it.

Believers in this religion have flocked to conferences in Rio de Janeiro, Kyoto, and Copenhagen, just as Catholic bishops flocked to councils in Constance, Ferrara, and Trent, to codify dogma and set new rules.

But like the Millerites, the global-warming clergy has preached apocalyptic doom — and is now facing an increasingly skeptical public. The idea that we can be so completely certain of climate change 70 to 90 years hence that we must inflict serious economic damage on ourselves in the meantime seems increasingly absurd.

If carbon emissions were the only thing affecting climate, the global-warming alarmists would be right. But it’s obvious that climate is affected by many things, many not yet fully understood, and it is implausible that SUVs will affect it more than variations in the enormous energy produced by the sun.

Skepticism has been increased by the actions of believers. Passage of the House cap-and-trade bill in June 2009 focused politicians and voters on the costs of the global-warming religion. And disclosure of the Climategate e-mails in November 2009 showed how the clerisy was willing to distort evidence and suppress dissenting views in the interest of propagation of the faith.

We have seen how the United Nations agency whose authority we are supposed to respect took an item from an environmental activist group predicting that the Himalayan glaciers would melt in 2350 and predicted that the melting would take place in 2035. No sensible society would stake its economic future on the word of folks capable of such an error.

In recent years, we have seen how negative to 2 percent growth hurts many, many people, as compared to what happens with 3 to 7 percent growth. So we’re much less willing to adopt policies that will slow down growth not just for a few years but for the indefinite future.

Media, university, and corporate elites still profess belief in global-warming alarmism, but moves toward policies limiting carbon emissions have fizzled out, here and abroad. It looks like we’ll dodge the fate of the Millerites, the children’s crusaders, and the Mahdi’s cavalrymen.
Michael Barone, NRO
 
I think Barone plagiarized an old thread of mine.

Ishmael

There are parallel evolutions.

This one is pretty obvious. When you reject Christianity, it does not mean you don't replace it with something else like Gaia (although Islam seems to be getting right popular with the Left any more)...

;) ;) :)
 
There are parallel evolutions.

This one is pretty obvious. When you reject Christianity, it does not mean you don't replace it with something else like Gaia (although Islam seems to be getting right popular with the Left any more)...

;) ;) :)

It's a compulsion on the part of most of humanity to believe in something. Science has been associated with the 'church' for most of recorded history. The use of simple engines and principles of physics to produce seeming miracles. The Greeks and Romans made use of such devices in their temples. It's probable that the Egyptians did as well.

And it's not just the rejection of Christianity, it's the rejection of all religious (mystical?) beliefs and replacing it with science, no matter how flawed or ill formed or conjectural. For the layman many of these theories are just as mystical as the Christian Resurrection model of belief. For the practitioners these theories are just a path to power.

Ishmael
 
I concur...

I think an economic mess will be the cure for the common warming...

http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/rage-on-and-on-and-on/?singlepage=true

We need to see how education has been inflated and devalued like everything else around us in the name of altruistic "crusading."

:) Shit Happens!

The Founders recognized, and warned us, of the coalition of power that is created when church joins with state. And Eisenhower warned us of the Military-Industrial complex.

But most people just don't bother to run the other dangerous permutations and combinations that are possible. Such as the coalition of power than might be created when unproven science joins with the state. Or when a Government-Financial Sector complex is formed.

We would be wise in considering how the government interacts with ALL facets of life that are not entirely the proper province of government. And then to further consider how those interactions might be minimized.

Ishmael
 
Ooh! Ooh! This looks easy 'n' fun. Lemme try, too!








All the trappings of religion are there.

Original sin: Bloated, intrusive government is responsible for these prophesied disasters, especially those slobs who attempt to keep corporate profits from replacing clean air and water as the chief good in life.

The need for atonement and repentance: We must dismantle government to the point where it is irrelevant and the movement of money from one place to another is all that matters.

Ritual: from "Tea Parties to constant pandering and propagandizing.

Indulgences, like those Martin Luther railed against: Corporate CEO's can utterly fail to do the one thing they are expected to do, run a corporation profitably, and still be paid salaries equal to the GNP of moderate sized countries.

Corporate elitists, like General Electric’s Jeff Immelt, uniformly share this faith, just as cynical Venetian merchants and prim Victorian bankers gave lip service to the religious enthusiasms of their days. Bad for business not to. And you don't have to be especially clever to figure out how to make money off it.

Believers in this religion have flocked to conferences in Rio de Janeiro, Kyoto, and Copenhagen, just as Catholic bishops flocked to councils in Constance, Ferrara, and Trent, to codify dogma and set new rules.

But like the Millerites, the government is bad clergy has preached apocalyptic doom — and is now facing an increasingly skeptical public. The idea that we can be so completely certain of the complete death of the world economy in the meantime seems increasingly absurd.

If carbon emissions were the only thing affecting climate, the global-warming alarmists would be right. But it’s obvious that climate is affected by many things, many not yet fully understood, and it is implausible that SUVs will affect it more than variations in the enormous energy produced by the sun.
(I'm leaving this paragraph as written, because it indicates the author's utter, abject ignorance of the science. The sun is NOT the cause of recent warming. There's no one who still thinks it is. Not one single person with an iota of credibility. See: http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-advanced.htm )

Skepticism has been increased by the actions of believers. The continued claim that Ayn Rand had a clue, the constant whining in 2008 about how the US would become communist, the spittle-flinging defense of ridiculous corporate practice in the pursuit of the almighty dollar, the refrain that "greed is good" have shown the rest of the populace exactly where these true believers place their faith..

We have seen how the United Nations agency whose authority we are supposed to respect took an item from an environmental activist group predicting that the Himalayan glaciers would melt in 2350 and predicted that the melting would take place in 2035. No sensible society would stake its economic future on the word of folks capable of such an error.
(Another extremely, purposefully ignorant paragraph. The response from the scientists misquoted was immediate and rigorous in an attempt to fix the error.)

In recent years, we have seen how exploitative practices lead to an extreme dichotomy of wealth and destruction of natural areas combined with lagging cleanup efforts and further struggles to de-regulate on the principle that the mysterious and nebulous god called "the free market" will fix all ills and clean up all spills.

Extreme right-wing media, anti-education, and corporate shills still profess belief in economic alarmism, but moves toward policies supporting the greed-driven and rapacious principles of the past, based solely on the notion that material wealth is the sole or chief good of human life have been forestalled once again.
 
Yeah, those physicists over at CERN are a bunch of fucking idiots compared to all the people you talk to on line where anybody can be anything and expert at everything.

You just CHOOSE who to believe.

Skepticism in all things, is a very healthy state for (a) man and one helluva state for all mankind...

I think anyone who points to one single source and cause has a closed mind and is more than a little stupid.

And, the warming hasn't been all that significant, not compared to the demanded panic over the end of the world.

Everyone who disagrees with you is a moron. Do you not see how comically insane that makes you look?
 
has anyone said why if Anthro climate change is bullshit scientists keep insisting it's real. what's in it for them?
 
has anyone said why if Anthro climate change is bullshit scientists keep insisting it's real. what's in it for them?

Money, lots of money, and power. That's what it's all about.

Ishmael
 
has anyone said why if Anthro climate change is bullshit scientists keep insisting it's real. what's in it for them?

Money, lots of money, and power. That's what it's all about.

Ishmael

There you go, Kyb. The ultimate ad hominem. The scientists are lying--all of them, all over the world--and no one has been able to show how yet despite the intense scrutiny. It's a conspiracy of hundreds of climatologists supported by the mass media and most of the world's governments. This one is deeper and more populous than the Illuminati.

That, or the science really does say that human-produced CO2 is contributing to global warming.


Pick one.
 
Back
Top