Global Warming: "Pseudoscientific Fraud"

[Jeff Lebowski]

All mentions of 97% in the wiki:



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



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.



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.

You are making distinctions without a difference. And still ignoring the statements from the societies.

[Jeff Lebowski]

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.

Victim? WTH?

No, you posted a link showing that a few of the authors disagreed with the classification of some of the articles. That doesn't debunk the entire study. And that is only one of several similar analyses. And that in no way is the only way to gauge the depth of a consensus.

Listen, feel free to believe whatever you like. I am not really interested in debating it with you further. Have a nice day.

[imanihonjin]

You are making distinctions without a difference. And still ignoring the statements from the societies.

So wait....are you saying that stating that man caused some global warming = that the change we are seeing is largely human-caused.

I just want to get this on record.

[imanihonjin]

Victim? WTH?

No, you posted a link showing that a few of the authors disagreed with the classification of some of the articles. That doesn't debunk the entire study. And that is only one of several similar analyses. And that in no way is the only way to gauge the depth of a consensus.

Listen, feel free to believe whatever you like. I am not really interested in debating it with you further. Have a nice day.

Okay, you have a nice day too. I am sorry that a science guy like you would be so offended with actually backing up the statements that he made with, you know hard data rather than reliance on interpretations and extrapolations of studies that don't hold water. Next time you feel intellectually superior to another because of what you think you may know about science, just remember that your support for your conclusions came from linking to a wiki article.

[Northwestcoug]

What's wrong with wikipedia?

Not a lot of for most things. I used to be anti-Wikipedia, more philosophically than anything. It bothered me that almost anyone could change an article. But more often than not, there's a lot of good balanced information there.

[SeattleUte]

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

This type of "scientific analysis" is why there's no dissent. Lebowski is always comfortably in the herd, isn't he.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Okay, you have a nice day too. I am sorry that a science guy like you would be so offended with actually backing up the statements that he made with, you know hard data rather than reliance on interpretations and extrapolations of studies that don't hold water. Next time you feel intellectually superior to another because of what you think you may know about science, just remember that your support for your conclusions came from linking to a wiki article.

If you think the foundation of my opinion and expertise on the topic is that wiki article then it is clear that you are being deliberately obtuse and any discussion with you is a waste of my time.

[Jeff Lebowski]

This type of "scientific analysis" is why there's no dissent. Lebowski is always comfortably in the herd, isn't he.

WTH? I am an active Mormon!

[SeattleUte]

WTH? I am an active Mormon!

You're a progressive Mormon. The ultimate herdster.

[imanihonjin]

If you think the foundation of my opinion and expertise on the topic is that wiki article then it is clear that you are being deliberately obtuse and any discussion with you is a waste of my time.

When did I claim or assert that it was the foundation of your opinion. I only pointed out that it is interesting that you attack/ridicule others for being 9/11 truther and bigfoot believer types for disagreeing with you and yet you point to a wiki article as your first point of reference. I also pointed out that you used hyperbole in stating that almost all scientists agree that climate change is largely man-made. I may very well be obtuse but I do find it interesting that one who is such an ardent supporter of science and fact would find it a waste of time to support his decision with actual fact.

I still would like to get it on the record that you believe that man has contributed to some global warming = the climate change we are seeing is largely man-made.

[Jeff Lebowski]

You're a progressive Mormon. The ultimate herdster.

In case you haven't noticed, most of that herd left the corral!

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Some more global warming denier nonsense from Fox News:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...professor.html

Hold on, I'm sorry. It's the Daily Mail in the UK, which from what I can gather is the equivalent of the NY Daily News or NY Post. The same story was on the front page of the Times of London, above the fold. The Times of London is another Fox News outlet except it endorsed the Labour Party in 2001 and 2005 and it's the moderate prestige newspaper compared to the right-leaning Telegraph.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/scienc...cle4091344.ece

Shockingly it appears as if a lot of the scientists involved with global warming research don't appear to have those pure, scientific bloodhound, only want to find out the truth motives like JL has pointed out about 25 times now. Who knew that an orthodoxy could develop within a cloistered community whose livelihood depends on the existence of a condition (and that livelihood only improves with more alarmism and hysteria over it). I'm really surprised that the gatekeepers over these journals don't care to publish articles that could reduce their research funding. JL has told us repeatedly that these guys have conquered human weakness and they're purely altruistically motivated to find the truth and nothing but.

What have some of you been saying? -- "if the research is any good, then let your peers look at it and it will be published." You're a rube if you believe this. In order to be published it has to be one part research and one part moving the argument forward in the preferred direction. This scientist was the same guy from the Spiegel interview that had his life threatened when he joined up with a climate change skeptic outfit of economists in the UK. He wasn't some scrub, he was formerly the director over Germany's main climate research outfit. He's not even arguing against the existence of AGW, he's focusing on the particulars and why climate researchers have been so hilariously wrong with their predictions (again, 98% of the time). A BYU religion professor in the 1970s during the Wilkinson regime writing an article about Joseph Smith sticking his face in a hat while translating the BoM and committing polyandry with ten different women wouldn't receive the treatment this guy's been receiving. I presume such a BYU professor wouldn't have been receiving death threats.

If you don't vote a certain way, you're tossed out of the community. Since 97% of the people in the Soviet Union (including the Baltic States and Georgia who must have absolutely loved that Russian yolk) voted for the Communist Party that must mean that there was a broad consensus of people that loved the Soviet rule.

Apparently, being wrong 98% of the time is the litmus test employed to join the 97%.

[Blueintheface]

I foresee a cherry picking response...

[Color Me Badd Fan]

I foresee a cherry picking response...

We're not talking about Newtons laws here. We're not dealing with a theory. We're dealing with an area of science where they're wrong 98% of the time with their predictions, which means thus far their research has produced almost zero predictive value. On top of that, some of them have been caught withholding some of their data because it cuts against their overarching goals. It's crazy not to question what the hell is going on when dire warning after dire warning is issued and they don't come to pass.

If we were talking about a scientific law or theory, I'd feel more comfortable with that 97% figure. But given the total lack of any predictive reliability exhibited by these guys, the 97% figure should raise an enormous red flag. As I mentioned above, a broad consensus has also been reached in other unsavory ventures like the outcome of "elections" in the Soviet Union or North Korea. Orthodoxies love to cleanse their ranks of dissent. Strangely enough, I'd feel better with an 80% consensus. 97% is Saddam Hussein territory.

I remember a video my high school biology teacher showed our class on evolution. Part of the video showed these religious nuts who went to the extreme of fabricating fossils to prove that men existed alongside dinosaurs (they created fake fossils that showed human footprints next to dinosaur footprints). Which side has been fudging the data and at times withholding it? Which side massages the data, findings and predictions to create hysteria?

[Jeff Lebowski]

I foresee a cherry picking response...

Foresee or foresaw?

Somewhere Topper is pumping his fist. He is no longer the nuttiest poster in this thread.