Global Warming: "Pseudoscientific Fraud"

[Jeff Lebowski]

Just fyi

http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion..._climate_dogma

SU now linking anti-science rants from right-wing newspapers.



FYI: that editorial is full of junk science and outright lies.

[YOhio]

SU now linking anti-science rants from right-wing newspapers.



FYI: that editorial is full of junk science and outright lies.

Uncle Ted quietly deletes a drafted post with Fox News link.

[byu71]

SU now linking anti-science rants from right-wing newspapers.



FYI: that editorial is full of junk science and outright lies.

Wouldn't surprise me the the right-wing newspapers are full of outright lies and junk science. Why should they be any different than the left-wing newspapers. I wonder if the public were going to be hammered with lies and junk which source of the lies and junk are more prevalent? Those newspapers that lean right or those that lean left.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Wouldn't surprise me the the right-wing newspapers are full of outright lies and junk science. Why should they be any different than the left-wing newspapers. I wonder if the public were going to be hammered with lies and junk which source of the lies and junk are more prevalent? Those newspapers that lean right or those that lean left.

Depends on the topic. In general, the right is far more anti-science these days, but there are issues where the left is anti-science (the anti-vaccine movement for example).

[imanihonjin]

Hyperbole? And what logical fallacy am I employing here?

It is a simple, easily verified fact that the overwhelming majority of climate scientists believe human-produced greenhouse gases are altering the climate. Here is a nice summary of polls and public statements by all of the major relevant scientific organizations on the topic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change

I linked it before, but it appears you are joining the discussion late.

See you are already starting to walk back the hyperbole by changing "almost all" to the overwhelming majority. There have been a number of reports debunking the 97% number and several of the other studies. But hey you posted a wiki link so I guess it has to be true, right?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestay...sensus-claims/

[Topper]

There is not a scientific v obsess on what should and can be done.

However policy wonks act argue that the concern of science about causation proves science has a full fledged cure.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[byu71]

Depends on the topic. In general, the right is far more anti-science these days, but there are issues where the left is anti-science (the anti-vaccine movement for example).

I am more concerned about both of them spewing lies. The anti-science thing doesn't concern me because as I have seen the argument on this, it reminds me of those who accuse someone of being racist if they disagree with Obama.

[imanihonjin]

This is what we're talking about we complain about mixing policy and science. Your opinion is interesting when you are talking about policy considerations. Your opinion isn't when you're discussing the level of human impact. Stop mentioning it and stick to the politics.
And yes, just about anyone would consider 97% "almost all".

This is where you lose all credibility for being only interested in science and fact when you claim that 97% is even a real number representing what you think it does. Check it out, it doesn't. I haven't really jumped in the debate on the policy side or the science side other than to point JL's reliance on logical fallacies, hyperbole, and sustaining some notion that correlation = causation. I have said nothing of human impact other than point out that the example used say nothing of human impact.

[Jeff Lebowski]

See you are already starting to walk back the hyperbole by changing "almost all" to the overwhelming majority. There have been a number of reports debunking the 97% number and several of the other studies. But hey you posted a wiki link so I guess it has to be true, right?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestay...sensus-claims/

lol. I am not walking anything back. I stand by my original statement. There is no difference between "almost all" and "overwhelming majority".

The 97% number is one of many different metrics. And the wiki article includes official statements from all of the major scientific organizations. Feel free to ignore that if you like.

[imanihonjin]

From the wiki summary:



97% might be conservative. Whoops. There I go being hyperbolic again.

Yeah, perhaps you out to get your "scientific facts" from something other than wiki. This 97% number has been debunked in so many different ways it really is incredible that a person who respects science and fact would continue to propagate such a distorted number and almost as incredible that such a person would do so by continually citing a wiki study. Seriously, you also have the guts to do this kind of BS and then intimate that others who disagree with you are 9/11 truthers, and big foot believers?

[imanihonjin]

SU now linking anti-science rants from right-wing newspapers.



FYI: that editorial is full of junk science and outright lies.

Says the guy linking to wiki.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Yeah, perhaps you out to get your "scientific facts" from something other than wiki. This 97% number has been debunked in so many different ways it really is incredible that a person who respects science and fact would continue to propagate such a distorted number and almost as incredible that such a person would do so by continually citing a wiki study. Seriously, you also have the guts to do this kind of BS and then intimate that others who disagree with you are 9/11 truthers, and big foot believers?

Classic anti-science tactic. You will nitpick the 97% number (as if being off by a few percentage points would really make a difference) and then pretend that you have blown up the whole lie. I see you conveniently ignore the official statements in that article by all of the scientific organizations (and other surveys of publications). Do you think those were forged? Should be easy to prove if so.

[SCcoug]

Says the guy linking to wiki.

What's wrong with wikipedia?

[imanihonjin]

lol. I am not walking anything back. I stand by my original statement. There is no difference between "almost all" and "overwhelming majority".

The 97% number is one of many different metrics. And the wiki article includes official statements from all of the major scientific organizations. Feel free to ignore that if you like.

All mentions of 97% in the wiki:

In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. 97% of the scientists surveyed agreed that global temperatures had increased during the past 100 years;

no 97% saying that the earth is warming is not the same as saying that 97% believe that global warming is "largely human-caused".

(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and

This gets closer but it merely states that the researchers merely support the tenets that ACC exists no that the change we are seeing is "largely human-caused"....they may very well believe that but that is not what the conclusion even states.

Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

This is the paper that has been debunked and which it is quite telling that such a believer in true science would continue to rely upon. Nor does the conclusion state that the climate change we are seeing is "largely man-made".

So yes, some serious hyperbole.

[imanihonjin]

Classic anti-science tactic. You will nitpick the 97% number (as if being off by a few percentage points would really make a difference) and then pretend that you have blown up the whole lie. I see you conveniently ignore the official statements in that article by all of the scientific organizations (and other surveys of publications). Do you think those were forged? Should be easy to prove if so.

Wait, now you are playing science is the victim? I thought that science was merely about facts and tangible evidence and not so much about driving policy. This study has been debunked, yet you a science guy will claim that because it is off a little doesn't mean the whole thing should be thrown out. What complete crap. The very fact that they skewed the numbers to promote their point invalidates the whole study. It is meaningless to extrapolate from an article that to believe that man does cause some global warming = man is solely or to your point largely responsible for climate change. Two very different things.