Tagged: Drill Baby Drill!
February 9, 2015 at 1:38 pm #6472
Also pettifoggers, because Jesus and freedom.February 9, 2015 at 1:45 pm #6473
Investigative journalists at Popular Technology looked into precisely which papers were classified within Cook’s asserted 97 percent. The investigative journalists found Cook and his colleagues strikingly classified papers by such prominent, vigorous skeptics as Willie Soon, Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir Shaviv, Nils-Axel Morner and Alan Carlin as supporting the 97-percent consensus.
In the much touted report of “consensus” among scientists, global warming SKEPTICS were included in the consensus.
That strikes me as being a little dishonest. No…a LOT dishonest.
Why do they need to resort to snookering if they’ve got the goods?
I actually am not a “denier.” Not yet. I’m not a climate changer or a denier, though my skepticism lies with the changers at this time because of some of their shennanigans of playing with numbers, the elitits involved in the movement for their personal gain, and because so many of them are on the wrong side of other issues.February 9, 2015 at 1:52 pm #6474Deane JohnsonParticipant
“Why do they need to resort to snookering if they’ve got the goods?”
My question exactly. Why do the proponents of global warming need to falsify things? Why do they need to hide things, why do they need to falsify data?
Isn’t it true that if you’re right, you’re right?February 9, 2015 at 2:13 pm #6476
To manufacture their misleading asserted consensus, Cook and his colleagues also misclassified various papers as taking “no position” on human-caused global warming. When Cook and his colleagues determined a paper took no position on the issue, they simply pretended, for the purpose of their 97-percent claim, that the paper did not exist.
Morner, a sea level scientist, told Popular Technology that Cook classifying one of his papers as “no position” was “Certainly not correct and certainly misleading. The paper is strongly against AGW [anthropogenic global warming], and documents its absence in the sea level observational facts. Also, it invalidates the mode of sea level handling by the IPCC.”February 9, 2015 at 2:24 pm #6479
Once again, it’s very hard to find reputable scientists who recommend the GOP policy vision.
“Because they are on the wrong side of so many issues…”
Yeah, we get it. Fail.February 9, 2015 at 2:38 pm #6480
I just found one for you. He was included as a “changer.” No wonder they’re hard to find.February 9, 2015 at 3:03 pm #6482
There are more. And that’s fine. Seriously.
Science doesn’t have absolutes. Do you understand that?
We have degrees of confidence. Sometimes they are low, we have competing ideas, or we’ve not yet formulated any meaningful ideas. They may center in on a few competing consensuses too, or they might be divergent, just as they may be convergent, or we don’t know, so we continue the science.
And we always continue the science, because we only understand. We don’t know, and every new understanding takes us closer to knowing, and confidence can improve.
When there is divergence, the competing ideas fight one another. It’s expected to see one prevail, or a new idea fall out of the fight, with both abandoned in favor of the new one.
But we continue the science, because we want confidence in our understanding.
Low confidence understanding is still understanding, but it’s just not very useful.
High confidence understanding is the fodder for engineering, technology, medicine and all the good science brings us.
There are not presently any ideas that are competing with the ideas of climate change and environmental science and it’s recommendations overall in a material way –and by that I mean that are building confidence in that direction on par with the confidence we have established so far.
Outliers are perfectly ordinary and expected! Science questions everything! Having outliers, people who are challenging is necessary!
In fact, here’s a nice one:
A pretty interesting take on the ongoing attempts to resolve Quantum Gravity Theory. Essentially, they are presenting the idea that there was no big bang and that the universe has always existed.
Neat huh? (And very hard to wrap our minds around)
On that note, I’ve never been a big fan of the Big Bang theory and somewhere deep down have always thought the universe was cyclic or infinite, with the physics of light photons bringing us only enough to observe and learn, but never enough to know. Maybe, I’ve a bit of Thomas Paine in me, “I believe in one Universe only” kind of thing, but that’s all just me.
Multiverses, what came before our universe, etc… all seem a perfect mess, though creationists might be bolstered by some initial event theory, I’ve never really signed on to any of it, though I appreciate the understanding we’ve gained from our attempts to get at the basic nature of things.
And this is all just fine. We may well get some new science and new understanding out of this competing idea, so onward! Hope the authors produce something good.
Back to the topic at hand:
In general, we are seeing CONVERGENCE on environmental issues. Causes and effects are being studied and the growing consensus is we really do need to modify our behavior in how we treat the planet, if we desire positive outcomes.
There can, will, must be those people who challenge that idea, and we need them to do that. It’s expected and encouraged. One never knows what questions may lead to new science and with that new and ideally improved understanding.
So you can point to these things and try to manufacture some competing idea, cast doubt, and so forth.
But it really isn’t meaningful, unless you take science seriously and understand how it works, what it means, etc…
To do otherwise makes you look, well… stupid.
I write “The Stupid Party That Thinks You Are Stupid” for a reason, case in point right here.
And fuck it… Here’s another reality.
We’ve got the best case ideas out there. Then we’ve got what is possible politically. Those are rarely one and the same. In between those lies progress. If we consistently do what is possible and practical, we get the benefit of it. None of that is optimal, but it is an improvement, and we are now back to the basic liberal idea of simply wanting to make it better.
Which most of us do. And when we are rational about it, we tend to get some of the better done so that we experience better and we point to that as to how and why it makes sense to focus on the better together so that we get more better, not just the minimally possible better.
You fuckers treat this all as some threat. I have no real idea why, though I’ve put my ideas here many times.
Does it really hurt to be wrong? Is it really that painful to work with others in rational ways for our common good?
Must we always and near constantly see every single thing framed with bat shit nuts ideas, just because?February 9, 2015 at 3:58 pm #6490edselehrParticipant
Nine out of ten doctors recommend using Colgate toothpaste, but one didn’t, so Colgate must be be completely ineffective, an absolute sham, and just another way to dupe people into giving Al Gore money.
Also, because Colgate may not be as good as they say, it’s best to just not brush at all rather than acknowledge the existence of tooth decay. And mankind must think pretty highly of itself to think it can have any effect on dental health.February 9, 2015 at 4:09 pm #6491
Totally.February 9, 2015 at 8:20 pm #6500skepticalParticipant
Teeth of Al Gore haters:February 9, 2015 at 8:35 pm #6501
From the 11 994 papers, 32.6 per cent endorsed AGW, 66.4 per cent stated no position on AGW, 0.7 per cent rejected AGW and in 0.3 per cent of papers, the authors said the cause of global warming was uncertain.
So they fiddled with the 32.6% that endorsed AGW, but ignored twice that amount who had no position, and used papers only from within that 32.6% to get their 97% “consensus” implying that it was 97% of the almost 12,000 papers.
But they’re lying to us.February 9, 2015 at 8:46 pm #6503
Of those who stated no position, how did their findings compare to those who did state a position?
It is common for a scientist to simply publish findings.
Given the very serious politics surrounding this issue, doing that makes a fair amount of sense. They don’t want the whackjob phone calls, letters, and such.
Or, maybe they just wanted to publish their findings.
What you aren’t bringing to the table is any material support for the idea of doing nothing.
Given your hilarious assertions on the other thread, “could be factual right”, and so could unicorns.February 9, 2015 at 9:25 pm #6504HerbSpectator
“When future generations look back on the “global warming scare” of the past 30 years, they will be shocked to learn that the official temperature records were systematically ‘adjusted’ to show the earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified.”
First warming…then cooling…then warming…aw let’s just cover all the bases and say changing….
Remember libs: the sky is falling.
Up is down and down is up.February 9, 2015 at 10:20 pm #6512
Do we have to go through this every year?
Over the weekend, another editor pointed me to this piece in The Telegraph in which columnist Christopher Booker calls scientists’ handling of the temperature data “the biggest science scandal ever.” The same piece also appeared in a discussion today and was sent in via the reader-feedback form. So, it seemed worth looking into.
Doing so caused a bit of a flashback—to January 2013, specifically. That was the last time that the previous year had been declared the warmest on record, an event that apparently prompts some people to question whether we can trust the temperature records at all.
The culprit that time was Fox News, but the issue was the same: the raw data from temperature measurements around the world aren’t just dumped into global temperature reconstructions as-is. Instead, they’re processed first. To the more conspiracy minded, you can replace “processed” with “fraudulently manipulated to make it look warmer.”
Why do they have to be processed at all? Because almost none of the records are continuous. Weather stations have moved, they’ve changed the time of day where the temperature-of-record is taken, and they’ve replaced old thermometers with more modern equipment. All of these events create discontinuities in the record of each location, and the processing is used to get things into alignment, creating a single, unified record.
So calm down. It’s not a scandal.
And, their methods are public, people can review them, perform their own analysis, whatever. No secrets here.
Just a dummy.
More on this dummy Booker:February 10, 2015 at 12:17 pm #6551
Btw Hrrb, you did do this last year too.
Do you have anything else, or is this yet another ham fisted drive by followed by yet more silence?
I’ll bet you have done this near a thousand times. High hundreds for sure.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.