If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slate)   Kansas anti-science bill that would have cast doubt on global warming fails to make it through state legislature--but only because its sponsors were too incompetent to meet filing deadline   (slate.com) divider line 180
    More: Stupid, Kansas, state legislature, global warming, Fields of science, lawmakers  
•       •       •

1789 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Mar 2013 at 7:54 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



180 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-03-09 05:23:53 PM
To be fair, the use of a calendar was considered witchcraft at one point.
 
2013-03-09 05:29:44 PM
Kansas state legislature did something right?

Um, okay... Hurray for Kansas!

*reads article*

 ...this bill died due to missing a deadline for filing.

Gonna take have to take half a point off there.
 
2013-03-09 05:42:29 PM
whew, that was a close one.  For a minute there I was afraid our students would have to be exposed to Republican propaganda like "critical thinking", and schools would be forced to teach science objectively.
 
2013-03-09 05:56:05 PM

serial_crusher: whew, that was a close one.  For a minute there I was afraid our students would have to be exposed to Republican propaganda like "critical thinking", and schools would be forced to teach science objectively.


Cue Teach the Controversy pics.
 
2013-03-09 06:10:43 PM
This thread needs a summoning card.
 
2013-03-09 06:29:47 PM
well, if they had adopted the time cube calender none of this would have happened.
 
2013-03-09 06:43:14 PM
The GOP incompetence buys some time, anyway.
 
2013-03-09 07:25:00 PM
Shouldn't have used Huntsman's staffers.
 
2013-03-09 07:44:52 PM
It still baffles me that, in this day and age and in this first-world country, there can be people who are "anti-science."
 
2013-03-09 07:57:09 PM

serial_crusher: whew, that was a close one.  For a minute there I was afraid our students would have to be exposed to Republican propaganda like "critical thinking", and schools would be forced to teach science objectively.


... I'll put you down as "possible double-sarcasm."
 
2013-03-09 08:01:57 PM
Ironic tag taking stupid tag out for dinner.
 
2013-03-09 08:05:01 PM
I'm imagining a poli sci major intern who became disillusioned with the party 'forgetting' to file.
 
2013-03-09 08:06:21 PM

Skail: It still baffles me that, in this day and age and in this first-world country, there can be people who are "anti-science."


Brownback is doing his level best to turn Kansas into a third world country: a rich person's paradise (aside from the vermin, weather, and neighbors) and make the poor, working class, and middle class fund it.
 
2013-03-09 08:08:35 PM

Skail: It still baffles me that, in this day and age and in this first-world country, there can be people who are "anti-science."


It scares them. Some of the disciplines take years of effort to be adequate in. The higher maths? Sorry, you keep going up or you stop.
 
2013-03-09 08:08:47 PM
Let's get this out of the way right now.

farm1.static.flickr.com
 
2013-03-09 08:11:06 PM
To make it more interesting, there's this.   A study published in the journal Nature Climate Change shows the more science-literate a person is, the more they doubt global warming.

I assume this is what the scientists who conducted the study look like:
cdn2.planetminecraft.com
 
2013-03-09 08:12:15 PM

serial_crusher: whew, that was a close one.  For a minute there I was afraid our students would have to be exposed to Republican propaganda like "critical thinking", and schools would be forced to teach science objectively.


"science" being the important word there.
 
2013-03-09 08:12:45 PM

2wolves: Skail: It still baffles me that, in this day and age and in this first-world country, there can be people who are "anti-science."

It scares them. Some of the disciplines take years of effort to be adequate in. The higher maths? Sorry, you keep going up or you stop.


In Brownbackistan, higher maths equate to 1+1=2 (future slaves do not need to count, only their overseers need to learn how to count).
 
2013-03-09 08:14:08 PM
Hoist with their own petard.
 
2013-03-09 08:14:29 PM

SilentStrider: This thread needs a summoning card.


These new trolls are lacking compared to Bevets.
 
2013-03-09 08:15:06 PM

Skail: It still baffles me that, in this day and age and in this first-world country, there can be people who are "anti-science."


Even better when they use science to try to discredit science.
 
2013-03-09 08:20:27 PM
Most of them probably also think the Earth is 5000 years old so deadlines are tough to meet thanks to their conversion table. A 60 day deadline you say? We'll get back to you in 9 million years.
 
2013-03-09 08:22:56 PM

GilRuiz1: To make it more interesting, there's this.   A study published in the journal Nature Climate Change shows the more science-literate a person is, the more they doubt global warming.

I assume this is what the scientists who conducted the study look like:


From the article "A study just published online in the journal Nature Climate Change suggests that the answer to both questions is no. Indeed, as members of the public become more science literate and numerate, the study found, individuals belonging to opposing cultural groups become even more divided on the risks that climate change poses."

No, it means idiology trumps education. If you're a republican you doubt the climate research no matter how much science you understand.
 
2013-03-09 08:24:02 PM

Ishkur: Skail: It still baffles me that, in this day and age and in this first-world country, there can be people who are "anti-science."

Even better when they use science to try to discredit science.


Wait, wait, how can that be allowed?
 
2013-03-09 08:24:14 PM
fark Brownback and fark all the inbred morons who voted for that piece of shiat.

/rockchalk
 
2013-03-09 08:27:57 PM

Close2TheEdge: Let's get this out of the way right now.

[farm1.static.flickr.com image 288x401]


I'm not sure he still frequents fark.  Regardless though, we shall soldier on without his enlightening discourse.
 
2013-03-09 08:29:07 PM

you are a puppet: Most of them probably also think the Earth is 5000 years old so deadlines are tough to meet thanks to their conversion table. A 60 day deadline you say? We'll get back to you in 9 million years.


I believe the critical failing of conservatives and fundamentalists is a basic lack of imagination.

Sea's aren't boiling today, and North America is no longer covered in a mile of ice, and they can't imagine that that could ever change.

They aren't poor, can get the morning off to go vote in short lines, and have never experienced racial profiling from a police officer, therefore those things are just liberal fantasies.

They believe in a God powerful enough to create life, the universe, and everything in the year 4004 BC.  They believe that if you took Barry's time machine back to 4005 BC all you'd see is a formless void.  They cannot imagine a God powerful enough to create a universe in media res.  It's like believing that nothing happened in the Star Wars story before Vader's star destoyer shot up the princess's ship over Tattoine - despite the fact that the opening crawl is there in plain English.

They believe that limiting information on contraception will prevent their children from having sex, lacking the imagination to remember how they acted at 17.
 
2013-03-09 08:32:39 PM

inglixthemad: SilentStrider: This thread needs a summoning card.

These new trolls are lacking compared to Bevets.


What, lacking wasting ten years doing the same bullshiat?
 
2013-03-09 08:33:46 PM
Kansas: Too stupid to be stupid.
 
2013-03-09 08:36:30 PM
Deadlines are only a theory. Teach the controversy!
 
2013-03-09 08:37:13 PM

GilRuiz1: more science-literate a person is, the more they doubt global warming


Well the more science-literate somebody is, the more they should doubt thing in general and rely upon evidence. Scientists tend to be more skeptical as the methodology of science relies heavily on doubt and re-analysis.
 
2013-03-09 08:40:14 PM
I thought Global Warming was good now, preventing and ice age.

Yay Industrialization!
 
2013-03-09 08:40:41 PM

quatchi: Kansas state legislature did something right?

Um, okay... Hurray for Kansas!

*reads article*

 ...this bill died due to missing a deadline for filing.

Gonna take have to take half a point off there.


the Kansas senate did kill the anti strip club law Friday.  So they occasionally do do something right.
 
2013-03-09 08:43:57 PM

atomic-age: Skail: It still baffles me that, in this day and age and in this first-world country, there can be people who are "anti-science."

Brownback is doing his level best to turn Kansas into a third world country: a rich person's paradise (aside from the vermin, weather, and neighbors) and make the poor, working class, and middle class fund it.


i47.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-09 08:48:58 PM
I still think sometimes about what trouble we'd still be in if the Bush-Cheney were even vaguely as competent in matters of government and getting their shiat done as they were at lying, stealing stuff, and 'catapulting the propaganda'.
 
2013-03-09 08:49:49 PM

serial_crusher: whew, that was a close one.  For a minute there I was afraid our students would have to be exposed to Republican propaganda like "critical thinking", and schools would be forced to teach science objectively.


Legally forcing teachers to explain that 90% of scientists agree with climate change would have been wonderful, I agree.
 
2013-03-09 08:53:42 PM

PsiChick: serial_crusher: whew, that was a close one.  For a minute there I was afraid our students would have to be exposed to Republican propaganda like "critical thinking", and schools would be forced to teach science objectively.

Legally forcing teachers to explain that 90% of scientists agree with climate change would have been wonderful, I agree.


More like 98%, but I'm sure that fact wouldn't be part of the curriculum.
 
2013-03-09 08:56:25 PM

GilRuiz1: To make it more interesting, there's this.   A study published in the journal Nature Climate Change shows the more science-literate a person is, the more they doubt global warming.


Looking at the charts in the actual study (charts are free, article isn't) it looks like the real message is that opinions on global warming are almost uncorrelated with science education, except that somehow "Hierarchical individualists" (read: authoritarian conservatives) seem to get stupider as they get smarter.

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n10/full/nclimate1547.html

www.nature.com

www.nature.com
 
2013-03-09 08:56:54 PM
Part of me wants to feel sorry for Kansans, but they keep electing complete idiots to lead them by huge margins of victory. So basically, they have no one to blame but themselves.
 
2013-03-09 08:58:05 PM
Interesting that people who are "anti-science" and "anti-critical thinking" seem to be so incompetent in so many areas requiring logical thought.
 
2013-03-09 09:00:12 PM

PsiChick: serial_crusher: whew, that was a close one.  For a minute there I was afraid our students would have to be exposed to Republican propaganda like "critical thinking", and schools would be forced to teach science objectively.

Legally forcing teachers to explain that 90% of scientists agree with climate change would have been wonderful, I agree.


OK, kids.  It's time for our legislatively-mandated class on critical thinking in science.  So here's the data:

95% of scientists agree that man-made global warming - or at least man-made climate change - is a real thing.  The other 5% of air-quotes "scientists" /close air quotes - are uniformly engineers and not actually researchers, or geologists who know less about the climate than the weather girl with the inflated ballons in her chest that swell / collapse as the barometric pressure changes - and are all paid directly by oil companies anyway.  This is akin to a drug mule arrested with 15 condoms of blow lodged in his anus telling you that crack is cool.

There is no evidence for 'intelligent design'.  None at all.  More people have sex in the champagne room than have ever found evidence of creationism.  At most creationism can poke temporary and eventually filled holes in the theory of evolution.  Which is akin to saying that because a piece of fruit is not red, it must be an orange.
 
2013-03-09 09:06:53 PM

Karac: PsiChick: serial_crusher: whew, that was a close one.  For a minute there I was afraid our students would have to be exposed to Republican propaganda like "critical thinking", and schools would be forced to teach science objectively.

Legally forcing teachers to explain that 90% of scientists agree with climate change would have been wonderful, I agree.

OK, kids.  It's time for our legislatively-mandated class on critical thinking in science.  So here's the data:

95% of scientists agree that man-made global warming - or at least man-made climate change - is a real thing.  The other 5% of air-quotes "scientists" /close air quotes - are uniformly engineers and not actually researchers, or geologists who know less about the climate than the weather girl with the inflated ballons in her chest that swell / collapse as the barometric pressure changes - and are all paid directly by oil companies anyway.  This is akin to a drug mule arrested with 15 condoms of blow lodged in his anus telling you that crack is cool.

There is no evidence for 'intelligent design'.  None at all.  More people have sex in the champagne room than have ever found evidence of creationism.  At most creationism can poke temporary and eventually filled holes in the theory of evolution.  Which is akin to saying that because a piece of fruit is not red, it must be an orange.


...Well, I had a slightly lower number, but I was  agreeing with you...
 
2013-03-09 09:07:50 PM

WTF Indeed: To be fair, the use of a calendar was considered witchcraft at one point.


True. The count of days led to some messy human sacrifices in Mesoamerica. No wonder Republicans don't like math.
 
2013-03-09 09:12:22 PM

The Dog Ate My Homework: Part of me wants to feel sorry for Kansans, but they keep electing complete idiots to lead them by huge margins of victory. So basically, they have no one to blame but themselves.


On top of that the stupidity is impacting my state's (Missouri) legislature.

Kansas is digging itself a huge hole by slashing revenues, so in their infinite wisdom, Missouri Republicans want to cut taxes/make them more regressive, in order to compete with Kansas. You know, make it more 'business friendly' while slashing spending that actually helps Missourians.

In a race to the bottom with Brownbackistan, nobody wins.
 
2013-03-09 09:18:11 PM

fenianfark: The Dog Ate My Homework: Part of me wants to feel sorry for Kansans, but they keep electing complete idiots to lead them by huge margins of victory. So basically, they have no one to blame but themselves.

On top of that the stupidity is impacting my state's (Missouri) legislature.

Kansas is digging itself a huge hole by slashing revenues, so in their infinite wisdom, Missouri Republicans want to cut taxes/make them more regressive, in order to compete with Kansas. You know, make it more 'business friendly' while slashing spending that actually helps Missourians.

In a race to the bottom with Brownbackistan, nobody wins.


That sound you hear is thousands of Kansans fleeing to Colorado.

fark Brownback, fark Fred Phelps. Those two rotten farks work night and day to make the state look bad and be worse.
 
2013-03-09 09:19:38 PM
I wonder if there was some sort of a field of .. . I dunno. . knowledge? That could describe the passage of time in such a way that people could predict when something was due.

But nah, that'd be heresy.
 
2013-03-09 09:23:02 PM

quatchi: serial_crusher: whew, that was a close one.  For a minute there I was afraid our students would have to be exposed to Republican propaganda like "critical thinking", and schools would be forced to teach science objectively.

Cue Teach the Controversy pics.


I would like to add, though I'm sure that quatchi understands this, that this bill was not in the name of teaching critical thinking. It was in the name of giving teachers the ability to teach unscientific lies instead of the scientific method.
 
2013-03-09 09:32:43 PM
Nothing that the GOP does "casts doubt on global warming". It may cast derp, but not doubt.
 
2013-03-09 09:41:42 PM

cubic_spleen: Nothing that the GOP does "casts doubt on global warming". It may cast derp, but not doubt.


I don't know. Pretty much everything the GOP does casts doubt on the entire concept of "human knowledge" if you ask me...
 
2013-03-09 09:45:20 PM

quatchi: Cue Teach the Controversy pics.


i50.tinypic.com
i47.tinypic.com
i50.tinypic.com
i49.tinypic.com
i48.tinypic.com
i46.tinypic.com
i47.tinypic.com
i46.tinypic.com
i48.tinypic.com
i50.tinypic.com
i48.tinypic.com
i46.tinypic.com
i48.tinypic.com
i47.tinypic.com
i45.tinypic.com
i47.tinypic.com
i45.tinypic.com
i47.tinypic.com
 
2013-03-09 09:48:44 PM

Selena Luna: It was in the name of giving teachers the ability to teach unscientific lies instead of the scientific method.


In this case specifically pseudo-scientific propaganda perpetuated and paid for by various big energy concerns meant to muddy the waters in the debate over how best to react to AGW.

On odd days they try much the same thing with Creationism pushed by the fundamentalist lobby.

Sad that the only thing that stopped it from becoming law was incompetence rather than intelligence still I'll take a victory for common sense where ever I can find it.

bmongar: the Kansas senate did kill the anti strip club law Friday.  So they occasionally do do something right.


See, like that right there. Small favors, all that.
 
2013-03-09 09:52:36 PM

Peki: I wonder if there was some sort of a field of .. . I dunno. . knowledge? That could describe the passage of time in such a way that people could predict when something was due.

But nah, that'd be heresy.


You mean Psychohistory?
 
2013-03-09 09:52:57 PM

encyclopediaplushuman: quatchi: Cue Teach the Controversy pics.

[i50.tinypic.com image 450x450]
[i47.tinypic.com image 400x400]
[i50.tinypic.com image 568x397]
[i49.tinypic.com image 440x440]
[i48.tinypic.com image 400x300]
[i46.tinypic.com image 450x450]
[i47.tinypic.com image 450x450]
[i46.tinypic.com image 450x450]
[i48.tinypic.com image 440x440]
[i50.tinypic.com image 440x440]
[i48.tinypic.com image 280x280]
[i46.tinypic.com image 260x260]
[i48.tinypic.com image 450x450]
[i47.tinypic.com image 300x300]
[i45.tinypic.com image 450x449]
[i47.tinypic.com image 450x450]
[i45.tinypic.com image 440x440]
[i47.tinypic.com image 850x478]


Holy crap, man, you collected the whole set.

I thought I'd seen all of those but apparently I'd missed a couple. GJ!

/*Right-click yoink*
 
2013-03-09 09:59:57 PM
The whole man-made global warming "debate" sure brings out the mentally challenged, doesn't it?

Just noticing.
 
2013-03-09 10:04:40 PM

quatchi: Holy crap, man, you collected the whole set.

I thought I'd seen all of those but apparently I'd missed a couple. GJ!

/*Right-click yoink*


And they're all rehosted on tinypic as well so they'll also be here for a while.

Have a nice day.

i47.tinypic.com
/yay
 
2013-03-09 10:23:40 PM

quatchi: *Right-click yoink*


Love that band.
 
2013-03-09 10:44:34 PM

encyclopediaplushuman: quatchi: Holy crap, man, you collected the whole set.

I thought I'd seen all of those but apparently I'd missed a couple. GJ!

/*Right-click yoink*

And they're all rehosted on tinypic as well so they'll also be here for a while.

Have a nice day.

[i47.tinypic.com image 320x320]
/yay


LOUDER.

(And by that, I mean "awesome and I am saving all of those").
 
2013-03-09 10:48:39 PM
 
2013-03-09 11:07:29 PM

dookdookdook: GilRuiz1: To make it more interesting, there's this.   A study published in the journal Nature Climate Change shows the more science-literate a person is, the more they doubt global warming.

Looking at the charts in the actual study (charts are free, article isn't) it looks like the real message is that opinions on global warming are almost uncorrelated with science education, except that somehow "Hierarchical individualists" (read: authoritarian conservatives) seem to get stupider as they get smarter.

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n10/full/nclimate1547.html


You ever read Philip Tetlock's Expert Political Opinion?

He shows that the best predictors of future events were people who piece together a lot of different facts and ideas, rather than believing firmly in one big idea. In fact, this correlation was stronger than knowledge on the subject of the prediction, so you can be better off asking one of the former group who studies politics on a totally different continent than one of the latter who's supposed to be an expert.
 
2013-03-09 11:45:27 PM

encyclopediaplushuman: And they're all rehosted on tinypic as well so they'll also be here for a while.


And the T-shirts are still for sale....

/not my gig, just like the designs
 
2013-03-09 11:45:27 PM

Skirl Hutsenreiter: He shows that the best predictors of future events were people who piece together a lot of different facts and ideas, rather than believing firmly in one big idea. In fact, this correlation was stronger than knowledge on the subject of the prediction, so you can be better off asking one of the former group who studies politics on a totally different continent than one of the latter who's supposed to be an expert.


So instead of listening to actual scientists, I should really be asking the people who happened to score well on the 4th-grade-level science quiz the surveyor gave them because they have been relatively uncorrupted by actual research and objective facts?

Yeah, I'll get on that.
 
2013-03-09 11:57:17 PM

abb3w: encyclopediaplushuman: And they're all rehosted on tinypic as well so they'll also be here for a while.

And the T-shirts are still for sale....

/not my gig, just like the designs


I'm actually wearing one right now.

/getting a kick, etc.
 
2013-03-10 12:02:53 AM

Skail: It still baffles me that, in this day and age and in this first-world country, there can be people who are "anti-science."


Jenny McCarthy is the poster child for stupid science. what she pushes is about as anti science as you can get.

Jessica Simpson OTOH is just dumb as a brick. see her chicken of the sea comment.

but both these people are held up as folks to be emulated. or farked, can't remember.
 
2013-03-10 12:05:34 AM
They pass these types of bills so that they can pass these other bills.

Brownback pushing to repeal corporate farming regulations.
 
2013-03-10 12:12:00 AM

dookdookdook: So instead of listening to actual scientists, I should really be asking the people who happened to score well on the 4th-grade-level science quiz the surveyor gave them because they have been relatively uncorrupted by actual research and objective facts?


Not so much. More that you should try and see whether the prediction is coming from a "fox" who knows many things, or a "hedgehog" who only knows one big thing.

There's some of each on both sides in the climate change, but the distribution seems uneven.
 
2013-03-10 12:19:58 AM

GilRuiz1: To make it more interesting, there's this.   A study published in the journal Nature Climate Change shows the more science-literate a person is, the more they doubt global warming.

I assume this is what the scientists who conducted the study look like:
[cdn2.planetminecraft.com image 256x256]


Well, considering that science is largely about not believing something until it is soundly demonstrated, many tests have shown empirical evidence to back up a claim, and then continuing to doubt and ask questions, it doesn't surprise me.
 
2013-03-10 12:26:55 AM

abb3w: There's some of each on both sides in the climate change


So in this (slightly idiotic) metaphor, are the climate scientists with actual education and in-depth knowledge of the problem foxes or hedgehogs?

Because they are the only people whose opinions I give half a fark about.
 
2013-03-10 12:28:18 AM

WTF Indeed: To be fair, the use of a calendar was considered witchcraft at one point.


So now, finding any flaw in agw is the sane as witchcraft?
 
2013-03-10 12:53:50 AM
Wouldn't want to spoil Kansas's reputation as the land of back-assward, corn-shucking hicks, now would we?
 
2013-03-10 12:54:34 AM
Am I the only one that realizes this was the plan? Introduce some legislation to rouse the rabble, then next time you go fundraising you say "We need to try again, we almost passed it last time."

It why they never really get their way. If they got their way it's all over and they wind up in a position of weakness.
 
2013-03-10 01:02:48 AM

GilRuiz1: study published in the journal Nature Climate Change


actually this is what they said

"A study just published online in the journalNature Climate Changesuggests that the answer to both questions is no. Indeed, as members of the public become more science literate and numerate, the study found, individuals belonging to opposing cultural groups become even more divided on the risks that climate change poses."

and  what it means is that the more someone knew about science, the more likely you were to make those facts fit what they thought their peers did about the subject. it  did not suggest the smarter you are in science the less likely you believe in global warming.

Troll-face, indeed.
 
2013-03-10 01:13:57 AM

serial_crusher: whew, that was a close one.  For a minute there I was afraid our students would have to be exposed to Republican propaganda like "critical thinking", and schools would be forced to teach science objectively.


That's bordering on some PocketNinja-level absurdity trolling right there.

+1, would read again.
 
2013-03-10 01:46:52 AM
Marking the first time in history science was saved by bureaucracy.
 
2013-03-10 01:52:56 AM

Alicious: They pass these types of bills so that they can pass these other bills.

Brownback pushing to repeal corporate farming regulations.


Heh.  Curious to how they can sell that to the counties / locals.  There's no feasible way you can dress that up as not screwing over the local communities.
 
2013-03-10 01:52:59 AM
To clarify, saying that this bill died because it "missed a filing deadline" is technically correct, but it implies that there was something to file (such as a committee report) that was not filed for some reason; this bill (Kansas HB2306) died because it was never heard by the committee it was referred to, which is a common way for bills to die in state legislatures and Congress. TFA's author is assuming that this bill was crushed by the bureaucracy of the Kansas Legislature when all that happened was that the chair of the Kansas House Standing Committee on Education (and whoever else is involved in setting the committee's agenda) correctly recognized that this bill wasn't worth the committee's time, and moved on.
 
2013-03-10 03:05:27 AM

bill_01915: GilRuiz1: To make it more interesting, there's this.   A study published in the journal Nature Climate Change shows the more science-literate a person is, the more they doubt global warming.

I assume this is what the scientists who conducted the study look like:

From the article "A study just published online in the journal Nature Climate Change suggests that the answer to both questions is no. Indeed, as members of the public become more science literate and numerate, the study found, individuals belonging to opposing cultural groups become even more divided on the risks that climate change poses."

No, it means idiology trumps education. If you're a republican you doubt the climate research no matter how much science you understand.


It also means that current scientific theory points to global climate change, not global warming...
 
2013-03-10 03:24:36 AM

dookdookdook: Skirl Hutsenreiter: He shows that the best predictors of future events were people who piece together a lot of different facts and ideas, rather than believing firmly in one big idea. In fact, this correlation was stronger than knowledge on the subject of the prediction, so you can be better off asking one of the former group who studies politics on a totally different continent than one of the latter who's supposed to be an expert.

So instead of listening to actual scientists, I should really be asking the people who happened to score well on the 4th-grade-level science quiz the surveyor gave them because they have been relatively uncorrupted by actual research and objective facts?

Yeah, I'll get on that.


You need to re-read what you responded to, because your reply didn't address the point at all.

Either that, or you're just constructing easily knocked-over straw men, in which case carry on.
 
2013-03-10 04:07:22 AM

Animatronik: WTF Indeed: To be fair, the use of a calendar was considered witchcraft at one point.

So now, finding any flaw in agw is the sane as witchcraft?


Of course not; witchcraft isn't actually real. It would be similar to believing in witchcraft, though.
 
2013-03-10 10:12:38 AM

PsiChick: serial_crusher: whew, that was a close one.  For a minute there I was afraid our students would have to be exposed to Republican propaganda like "critical thinking", and schools would be forced to teach science objectively.

Legally forcing teachers to explain that 90% of scientists agree with climate change would have been wonderful, I agree.


See, this is what scares me about the "anti-science" debate.  It's well and good to tell the general public that we need to make policy changes to address global warming, and that we know global warming is our fault because 90% of scientists who study it say that it is.  Because the general public doesn't have the time to keep up with science.
But, you seem to be suggesting that we limit our teaching in schools to that same thing.  "ok science class, the world's getting hotter and its our fault because 90% of scientists said so.  end of lesson, next topic."  So then you've created the echo chamber the Republicans are worried about.  Future generations of scientists agreeing on a conclusion not because they understand the science that led to that conclusion, but because they've been told everybody else agrees with that conclusion.

Selena Luna: It was in the name of giving teachers the ability to teach unscientific lies instead of the scientific method.


If that's the case they did a hell of a bad job of wording the thing.  I think they're under the actual impression that science will be on their side if they can just kill off the perceived echo chamber and get people doing actual science again.
"The legislature encourages the teaching of such scientific controversies to be made in an objective manner in which both the strengths and weaknesses of such scientific theory or hypothesis are covered."
That's step 5 on the sceintific method flowchart.  "analyze results and draw conclusions".
www.sciencebuddies.org
 
2013-03-10 10:18:27 AM

Karac: lacking the imagination to remember how they acted at 17.


I like to remind my colleagues at the school I teach at that they were almost all from the "Sex, drugs, and rock and roll" generation.
 
2013-03-10 10:51:15 AM

serial_crusher: If that's the case they did a hell of a bad job of wording the thing. I think they're under the actual impression that science will be on their side if they can just kill off the perceived echo chamber and get people doing actual science again.
"The legislature encourages the teaching of such scientific controversies to be made in an objective manner in which both the strengths and weaknesses of such scientific theory or hypothesis are covered."
That's step 5 on the sceintific method flowchart. "analyze results and draw conclusions".


Well, it isn't 90%.

Actually, there is more controversy about dark matter  than there is about AGW.  Here is a pie chart...

media.treehugger.com
 
2013-03-10 10:53:01 AM

dookdookdook: Skirl Hutsenreiter: He shows that the best predictors of future events were people who piece together a lot of different facts and ideas, rather than believing firmly in one big idea. In fact, this correlation was stronger than knowledge on the subject of the prediction, so you can be better off asking one of the former group who studies politics on a totally different continent than one of the latter who's supposed to be an expert.

So instead of listening to actual scientists, I should really be asking the people who happened to score well on the 4th-grade-level science quiz the surveyor gave them because they have been relatively uncorrupted by actual research and objective facts?

Yeah, I'll get on that.


You're awesome at reading comprehension, you know that?
 
2013-03-10 11:06:36 AM
I'll not be an ass and expand on the point:

They were all professional political experts being asked about politics. And the best predictors were people who didn't dogmatically hold one to one thesis and specialized in the area in question. It's just that their colleagues in that area who did hold one firm on one big idea (e.g., multiethnic countries always disintegrate under ethnic tension eventually) were worse than a random political scientist who didn't suffer this handicap.

Notice how your 4th grade quiz didn't come into it at all? Funny, that.

The most interesting thing was how staggeringly bad even the good predictors still were. So to do even worse - the bad dogmatic predictors as a group underperformed undergraduates and random guessing.
 
2013-03-10 11:22:37 AM

cereal_cruncher: whew, that was a close one.  For a minute there I was afraid our students would have to be exposed to Republican propaganda like "critical thinking", and schools would be forced to teach science objectively.


I'm glad you put quotations on "critical thinking".
 
2013-03-10 11:47:43 AM

dookdookdook: GilRuiz1: To make it more interesting, there's this.   A study published in the journal Nature Climate Change shows the more science-literate a person is, the more they doubt global warming.

Looking at the charts in the actual study (charts are free, article isn't) it looks like the real message is that opinions on global warming are almost uncorrelated with science education, except that somehow "Hierarchical individualists" (read: authoritarian conservatives) seem to get stupider as they get smarter.

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n10/full/nclimate1547.html

[www.nature.com image 417x200]

[www.nature.com image 511x200]


Terms like "egalitarian communitarianist" and "hierarchical individualist" are the spookiest thing about

bill_01915: PsiChick: serial_crusher: whew, that was a close one.  For a minute there I was afraid our students would have to be exposed to Republican propaganda like "critical thinking", and schools would be forced to teach science objectively.

Legally forcing teachers to explain that 90% of scientists agree with climate change would have been wonderful, I agree.

More like 98%, but I'm sure that fact wouldn't be part of the curriculum.


citation please
 
2013-03-10 11:56:09 AM

Skirl Hutsenreiter: dookdookdook: GilRuiz1: To make it more interesting, there's this.   A study published in the journal Nature Climate Change shows the more science-literate a person is, the more they doubt global warming.

Looking at the charts in the actual study (charts are free, article isn't) it looks like the real message is that opinions on global warming are almost uncorrelated with science education, except that somehow "Hierarchical individualists" (read: authoritarian conservatives) seem to get stupider as they get smarter.

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n10/full/nclimate1547.html

You ever read Philip Tetlock's Expert Political Opinion?

He shows that the best predictors of future events were people who piece together a lot of different facts and ideas, rather than believing firmly in one big idea. In fact, this correlation was stronger than knowledge on the subject of the prediction, so you can be better off asking one of the former group who studies politics on a totally different continent than one of the latter who's supposed to be an expert.


Remind me of the predictions that have been made by climatologists, and how many of them turned out to be true.
 
2013-03-10 12:00:01 PM

maddogdelta: serial_crusher: If that's the case they did a hell of a bad job of wording the thing. I think they're under the actual impression that science will be on their side if they can just kill off the perceived echo chamber and get people doing actual science again.
"The legislature encourages the teaching of such scientific controversies to be made in an objective manner in which both the strengths and weaknesses of such scientific theory or hypothesis are covered."
That's step 5 on the sceintific method flowchart. "analyze results and draw conclusions".

Well, it isn't 90%.

Actually, there is more controversy about dark matter  than there is about AGW.  Here is a pie chart...

[media.treehugger.com image 492x476]


If that pie chart is true (which I doubt) then it would serve as absolute proof that the peer review process has become corrupt. Because in no field of science, no matter how well established, would you get a ratio so extreme.
 
2013-03-10 12:17:52 PM

THE GREAT NAME: absolute proof that the peer review process has become corrupt. Because in no field of science, no matter how well established, would you get a ratio so extreme.


Really? Try arguing against evolution. Or, for that matter, gravity.

Go ahead... jump off a building and shout as loud as you can "I don't believe in gravity". See how well that works for you...
 
2013-03-10 12:38:44 PM

Skail: It still baffles me that, in this day and age and in this first-world country, there can be people who are "anti-science."


gop logic

science=liberals=socialist=communists=facists=dictators
::
Sceintist are dictators.

and that is only half a joke.   The fact is, the #1 thing the GOP stands for is opposing anything liberal, and since liberals embrace sceince...  well...
 
2013-03-10 12:40:47 PM

quatchi: serial_crusher: whew, that was a close one.  For a minute there I was afraid our students would have to be exposed to Republican propaganda like "critical thinking", and schools would be forced to teach science objectively.

Cue Teach the Controversy pics.


You're welcome to be anti-science all you want, but keep that shiat out of our farking schools.
 
2013-03-10 12:54:19 PM
You're splitting hairs.  If you asked "Does gravity exist?" you would get that ratio.  But if you ask "What is gravity?"  you would get a far different looking pie chart.
Because this topic has become so politicized, all arguments have suffered in terms of credibility.  At this point, a pie chart that shows that an overwhelming number of peer-reviewed articles says one thing so it must be true is no different than a pie chart that shows an overwhelming number of Iranian clerics say one thing so it must be true.
I blame the militant environmentalists that took a hard line on anyone that didn't agree with them, that fudged their numbers, or monetarily capitalized on the subject as much as I blame the religious groups.
Good science should speak for itself.
Go back and start over and this time leave Gore and The Weather Channel and anyone that stands to gain from a specific outcome out of your efforts.
 
2013-03-10 01:23:48 PM

GilRuiz1: To make it more interesting, there's this.   A study published in the journal Nature Climate Change shows the more science-literate a person is, the more they doubt global warming.

I assume this is what the scientists who conducted the study look like:
[cdn2.planetminecraft.com image 256x256]


Either you cannot read or you used the wrong link, because nothing in the article indicated that the study concluded that people with above average scientific literacy have a greater tendency to doubt global warming.

FTFA - "What this study shows is that people with high science and math comprehension can think their way to conclusions that are better for them as individuals but are not necessarily better for society."

So people are more likely to cling to their beliefs instead of facts. Furthermore, people that are a bit better at quantitative thinking and posses above-average knowledge regarding science will STILL cling to their beliefs instead of established scientific facts that have been accepted by the majority of scientists investigating climate change. What is the old adage, sometimes knowing half of the truth can be more dangerous than knowing nothing at all?
 
2013-03-10 01:38:03 PM

Farty McPooPants: You're splitting hairs.  If you asked "Does gravity exist?" you would get that ratio.  But if you ask "What is gravity?"  you would get a far different looking pie chart.
Because this topic has become so politicized, all arguments have suffered in terms of credibility.  At this point, a pie chart that shows that an overwhelming number of peer-reviewed articles says one thing so it must be true is no different than a pie chart that shows an overwhelming number of Iranian clerics say one thing so it must be true.
I blame the militant environmentalists that took a hard line on anyone that didn't agree with them, that fudged their numbers, or monetarily capitalized on the subject as much as I blame the religious groups.
Good science should speak for itself.
Go back and start over and this time leave Gore and The Weather Channel and anyone that stands to gain from a specific outcome out of your efforts.


Right, both sides are bad and it's the scientists fault that the far right political party in the US is full of crap on this.
 
2013-03-10 02:45:54 PM
serial_crusher: PsiChick: serial_crusher: whew, that was a close one.  For a minute there I was afraid our students would have to be exposed to Republican propaganda like "critical thinking", and schools would be forced to teach science objectively.

Legally forcing teachers to explain that 90% of scientists agree with climate change would have been wonderful, I agree.

See, this is what scares me about the "anti-science" debate.  It's well and good to tell the general public that we need to make policy changes to address global warming, and that we know global warming is our fault because 90% of scientists who study it say that it is.  Because the general public doesn't have the time to keep up with science.
But, you seem to be suggesting that we limit our teaching in schools to that same thing.  "ok science class, the world's getting hotter and its our fault because 90% of scientists said so.  end of lesson, next topic."  So then you've created the echo chamber the Republicans are worried about.  Future generations of scientists agreeing on a conclusion not because they understand the science that led to that conclusion, but because they've been told everybody else agrees with that conclusion.


You've never worked with high school students, have you? You  could do that, yes...except A) the students will give no farks whatsoever, B) half of the students  won't understand what you're talking about, and C) the prior two are for an AP science class; in a  normal class, or, worse, an at-risk class, you need that time to catch up on other things, like Newton's laws of physics.

That's the big problem with this bill. When you tell kids there's a controversy, or act like there's a controversy, they hear 'this is not accurate', because all students already know their teachers lie (for example, your average high schooler will not know what communism is, because every teacher studiously avoids mentioning the subject--I had to outright ask one of my teachers to get an answer). You're wasting time. The students don't need to hear that there's 'controversy' around something that is, scientifically, on equal footing with Newton's Third Law, because there  are other topics they need to explore, and there's only so many hours in a day. For quite a few kids, this is their last shot at education, especially in high-risk areas. Simplification is not creating an echo chamber; it's giving them a chance at a full, rounded education.

/CSS: In my HS, someone tried your theory--a long-winded explanation of why people thought evolution worked, treating the student like a fellow scientist. And I was the only person in that class who understood it, because everyone else just BS'd their way through the test. To this day I still can't entirely explain what that guy was on about, either; the only thing I got out of it was 'evolution: animals have DNA, the best DNA is most likely to reproduce, therefore species adapt, pretty much anyone with a brain agrees'. That's about all a high schooler gives a shiat about, and that's what's going to work.
 
2013-03-10 05:06:00 PM

Old enough to know better: Wouldn't want to spoil Kansas's reputation as the land of back-assward, corn-shucking hicks, now would we?


Corn is Nebraska. Kansas is wheat. Please don't get your back-assward hicks mixed up.
 
2013-03-10 06:26:06 PM

serial_crusher: If that's the case they did a hell of a bad job of wording the thing. I think they're under the actual impression that science will be on their side if they can just kill off the perceived echo chamber and get people doing actual science again.
"The legislature encourages the teaching of such scientific controversies to be made in an objective manner in which both the strengths and weaknesses of such scientific theory or hypothesis are covered."
That's step 5 on the sceintific method flowchart. "analyze results and draw conclusions".


Nope. High school students should be taught what the scientific consensus is, if there is one. For anthropogenic global warming, there is one. Doesn't mean we know to a mathematical certainty. But we know well enough that we can tell kids what we think and move on to the next topic. This bill is pure conservative propaganda horsesh*t, and that's all.
 
2013-03-10 06:29:44 PM

maddogdelta: THE GREAT NAME: absolute proof that the peer review process has become corrupt. Because in no field of science, no matter how well established, would you get a ratio so extreme.

Really? Try arguing against evolution. Or, for that matter, gravity.

Go ahead... jump off a building and shout as loud as you can "I don't believe in gravity". See how well that works for you...


Why would I want to do that?
 
2013-03-10 06:32:59 PM

Farty McPooPants: Go back and start over and this time leave Gore and The Weather Channel and anyone that stands to gain from a specific outcome out of your efforts.


Interesting that you mention that.  Do you know who benefits from climate change denial?

The same people who put lots of CO2 into the atmosphere.  Coal and Oil companies.   Do you know which industries funded all of the entire "climate change denial" movement?  Did you know that the consulting companies they hired were the same groups that tobacco companies founded to muddy the links between smoking and lung cancer?

Of course not. You're a denialist and you like to hide behind your "teach the controversy" bullshiat.
 
2013-03-10 06:36:54 PM

wiredroach: serial_crusher: If that's the case they did a hell of a bad job of wording the thing. I think they're under the actual impression that science will be on their side if they can just kill off the perceived echo chamber and get people doing actual science again.
"The legislature encourages the teaching of such scientific controversies to be made in an objective manner in which both the strengths and weaknesses of such scientific theory or hypothesis are covered."
That's step 5 on the sceintific method flowchart. "analyze results and draw conclusions".

Nope. High school students should be taught what the scientific consensus is, if there is one. For anthropogenic global warming, there is one. Doesn't mean we know to a mathematical certainty. But we know well enough that we can tell kids what we think and move on to the next topic. This bill is pure conservative propaganda horsesh*t, and that's all.


Wrong. They should be taught established science. Climate change theory has not made any correct predictions yet and is therefore not established science.

Your "consensus" is just a political phenomenon. It only exists if you cherry pick the people you call "climate scientists". And even then, most of that group don't agree with the massive positive feedbacks that IPCC forecasts (which have all turned out to be false) rely on.
 
2013-03-10 06:42:14 PM

THE GREAT NAME: wiredroach: serial_crusher: If that's the case they did a hell of a bad job of wording the thing. I think they're under the actual impression that science will be on their side if they can just kill off the perceived echo chamber and get people doing actual science again.
"The legislature encourages the teaching of such scientific controversies to be made in an objective manner in which both the strengths and weaknesses of such scientific theory or hypothesis are covered."
That's step 5 on the sceintific method flowchart. "analyze results and draw conclusions".

Nope. High school students should be taught what the scientific consensus is, if there is one. For anthropogenic global warming, there is one. Doesn't mean we know to a mathematical certainty. But we know well enough that we can tell kids what we think and move on to the next topic. This bill is pure conservative propaganda horsesh*t, and that's all.

Wrong. They should be taught established science. Climate change theory has not made any correct predictions yet and is therefore not established science.

Your "consensus" is just a political phenomenon. It only exists if you cherry pick the people you call "climate scientists". And even then, most of that group don't agree with the massive positive feedbacks that IPCC forecasts (which have all turned out to be false) rely on.


Have a glance at maddogdelta's chart above. It's accurate. That's what consensus looks like.
 
2013-03-10 06:43:02 PM

maddogdelta: Farty McPooPants: Go back and start over and this time leave Gore and The Weather Channel and anyone that stands to gain from a specific outcome out of your efforts.

Interesting that you mention that.  Do you know who benefits from climate change denial?

The same people who put lots of CO2 into the atmosphere.  Coal and Oil companies.   Do you know which industries funded all of the entire "climate change denial" movement?  Did you know that the consulting companies they hired were the same groups that tobacco companies founded to muddy the links between smoking and lung cancer?


Wrong. The energy companies have greenwashed themselves and are profiting from government subsidies and propoganda (brainwashing) of the people into spending $$$ on stupid eco crap.

The sceptical movement receives very little funding compared to the alarmist movement.

Of course not. You're a denialist and you like to hide behind your "teach the controversy" bullshiat.

You're an alarmist and and you hide behind lies you saw on the TV. Pathetic.
 
2013-03-10 06:46:37 PM

wiredroach: THE GREAT NAME: wiredroach: serial_crusher: If that's the case they did a hell of a bad job of wording the thing. I think they're under the actual impression that science will be on their side if they can just kill off the perceived echo chamber and get people doing actual science again.
"The legislature encourages the teaching of such scientific controversies to be made in an objective manner in which both the strengths and weaknesses of such scientific theory or hypothesis are covered."
That's step 5 on the sceintific method flowchart. "analyze results and draw conclusions".

Nope. High school students should be taught what the scientific consensus is, if there is one. For anthropogenic global warming, there is one. Doesn't mean we know to a mathematical certainty. But we know well enough that we can tell kids what we think and move on to the next topic. This bill is pure conservative propaganda horsesh*t, and that's all.

Wrong. They should be taught established science. Climate change theory has not made any correct predictions yet and is therefore not established science.

Your "consensus" is just a political phenomenon. It only exists if you cherry pick the people you call "climate scientists". And even then, most of that group don't agree with the massive positive feedbacks that IPCC forecasts (which have all turned out to be false) rely on.

Have a glance at maddogdelta's chart above. It's accurate. That's what consensus looks like.


I tried to check his sources, but he did not provide them. I assume you have checked on the source, the methodology used etc, before confidently stating that it's "accurate".

Otherwise you'd look a bit of a twat.
 
2013-03-10 06:50:22 PM

THE GREAT NAME: I tried to check his sources, but he did not provide them. I assume you have checked on the source, the methodology used etc, before confidently stating that it's "accurate".

Otherwise you'd look a bit of a twat.


The methodology is something called "math." You don't seem to understand science, mate.
 
2013-03-10 07:12:28 PM

THE GREAT NAME: The sceptical movement receives very little funding compared to the alarmist movement.


Orly?

Do you know how I know you aren't a skeptic?

And... have a nice read...

Or you can read this

Or you can watch the movie...

I know.. these are all "lefty left" sources, the kind that published Mitt Romney's 47 percent speech, or that caused a whole bunch of companies to run away from ALEC and what they were doing....  None of my links are Faux nooz.  But they have one thing in common. They base their statements on verifiable facts. Which is what a skeptic does.  Skeptics don't just listen to the Tobacco oil companies and agree that smoking doesn't cause cancer coal doesn't contribute to global warming.  They look at the research.

Even one of the last phd's on the Koch bros payroll changed his mind
 
2013-03-10 09:36:35 PM

THE GREAT NAME: wiredroach: THE GREAT NAME: wiredroach: serial_crusher: If that's the case they did a hell of a bad job of wording the thing. I think they're under the actual impression that science will be on their side if they can just kill off the perceived echo chamber and get people doing actual science again.
"The legislature encourages the teaching of such scientific controversies to be made in an objective manner in which both the strengths and weaknesses of such scientific theory or hypothesis are covered."
That's step 5 on the sceintific method flowchart. "analyze results and draw conclusions".

Nope. High school students should be taught what the scientific consensus is, if there is one. For anthropogenic global warming, there is one. Doesn't mean we know to a mathematical certainty. But we know well enough that we can tell kids what we think and move on to the next topic. This bill is pure conservative propaganda horsesh*t, and that's all.

Wrong. They should be taught established science. Climate change theory has not made any correct predictions yet and is therefore not established science.

Your "consensus" is just a political phenomenon. It only exists if you cherry pick the people you call "climate scientists". And even then, most of that group don't agree with the massive positive feedbacks that IPCC forecasts (which have all turned out to be false) rely on.

Have a glance at maddogdelta's chart above. It's accurate. That's what consensus looks like.

I tried to check his sources, but he did not provide them. I assume you have checked on the source, the methodology used etc, before confidently stating that it's "accurate".

Otherwise you'd look a bit of a twat.


wiredroach: THE GREAT NAME: I tried to check his sources, but he did not provide them. I assume you have checked on the source, the methodology used etc, before confidently stating that it's "accurate".

Otherwise you'd look a bit of a twat.

The methodology is something called "math." You don't seem to understand science, mate.



Now, now. Providing the source for a claim isn't a bad thing, especially when such a graphic does not provide much information, and may rely one some measure of subjectivity. It's from here, and you can check the method used for yourself. It does look pretty solid, BTW.
 
2013-03-11 04:51:25 AM

wiredroach: THE GREAT NAME: I tried to check his sources, but he did not provide them. I assume you have checked on the source, the methodology used etc, before confidently stating that it's "accurate".

Otherwise you'd look a bit of a twat.

The methodology is something called "math." You don't seem to understand science, mate.


So you checked which journals they looked in, how they categorised an article as "about climate change", how they decided which articles were "against" etc? For all you know, they might use criteria that defines NAME's own comments on Fark as supporting climate change, because NAME accepts that the climate is warmer now than in 1978.

You have a lot to learn about misleading statistics, young man.
 
2013-03-11 04:56:15 AM

Damnhippyfreak: THE GREAT NAME: wiredroach: THE GREAT NAME: wiredroach: serial_crusher: If that's the case they did a hell of a bad job of wording the thing. I think they're under the actual impression that science will be on their side if they can just kill off the perceived echo chamber and get people doing actual science again.
"The legislature encourages the teaching of such scientific controversies to be made in an objective manner in which both the strengths and weaknesses of such scientific theory or hypothesis are covered."
That's step 5 on the sceintific method flowchart. "analyze results and draw conclusions".

Nope. High school students should be taught what the scientific consensus is, if there is one. For anthropogenic global warming, there is one. Doesn't mean we know to a mathematical certainty. But we know well enough that we can tell kids what we think and move on to the next topic. This bill is pure conservative propaganda horsesh*t, and that's all.

Wrong. They should be taught established science. Climate change theory has not made any correct predictions yet and is therefore not established science.

Your "consensus" is just a political phenomenon. It only exists if you cherry pick the people you call "climate scientists". And even then, most of that group don't agree with the massive positive feedbacks that IPCC forecasts (which have all turned out to be false) rely on.

Have a glance at maddogdelta's chart above. It's accurate. That's what consensus looks like.

I tried to check his sources, but he did not provide them. I assume you have checked on the source, the methodology used etc, before confidently stating that it's "accurate".

Otherwise you'd look a bit of a twat.

wiredroach: THE GREAT NAME: I tried to check his sources, but he did not provide them. I assume you have checked on the source, the methodology used etc, before confidently stating that it's "accurate".

Otherwise you'd look a bit of a twat.

The methodology is something called "math." You ...


Damnhippyfreak: wiredroach: THE GREAT NAME: I tried to check his sources, but he did not provide them. I assume you have checked on the source, the methodology used etc, before confidently stating that it's "accurate".

Otherwise you'd look a bit of a twat.

The methodology is something called "math." You don't seem to understand science, mate.


Now, now. Providing the source for a claim isn't a bad thing, especially when such a graphic does not provide much information, and may rely one some measure of subjectivity. It's from here, and you can check the method used for yourself. It does look pretty solid, BTW.


As I suspected their methodology would place NAME's comments supporting climate change, because of the narrow criterion they devised for an article to reject it. Just a trick with numbers. The reality is that the science is far from settled.
 
2013-03-11 05:01:48 AM

maddogdelta: THE GREAT NAME: The sceptical movement receives very little funding compared to the alarmist movement.

Orly?

Do you know how I know you aren't a skeptic?

And... have a nice read...

Or you can read this

Or you can watch the movie...

I know.. these are all "lefty left" sources, the kind that published Mitt Romney's 47 percent speech, or that caused a whole bunch of companies to run away from ALEC and what they were doing....  None of my links are Faux nooz.  But they have one thing in common. They base their statements on verifiable facts. Which is what a skeptic does.  Skeptics don't just listen to the Tobacco oil companies and agree that smoking doesn't cause cancer coal doesn't contribute to global warming.  They look at the research.

Even one of the last phd's on the Koch bros payroll changed his mind


You are aware that in UK we call the Guardian the "Daily Mail of the left" and that its readership now only consists of a handful of the worst kind of hypocritical middle class "limousine liberal", and is dwindling to the point that the Guardian will go out of business soon. You are certainly right to warn that your sources are all "lefty left".

By the way, Muller was never a sceptic. That was just a trick to make his BEST study seem impartial. In fact that meta-study was just another whitewash and has been debunked. If you look at the trends, people are moving away from climate change religion and becoming more skeptical.
 
2013-03-11 08:09:13 AM

THE GREAT NAME: You are aware that in UK we call the Guardian the "Daily Mail of the left" and that its readership now only consists of a handful of the worst kind of hypocritical middle class "limousine liberal", and is dwindling to the point that the Guardian will go out of business soon. You are certainly right to warn that your sources are all "lefty left".

By the way, Muller was never a sceptic. That was just a trick to make his BEST study seem impartial. In fact that meta-study was just another whitewash and has been debunked. If you look at the trends, people are moving away from climate change religion and becoming more skeptical.


How has it been debunked?
 
2013-03-11 11:02:16 AM

maddogdelta: THE GREAT NAME: absolute proof that the peer review process has become corrupt. Because in no field of science, no matter how well established, would you get a ratio so extreme.

Really? Try arguing against evolution. Or, for that matter, gravity.

Go ahead... jump off a building and shout as loud as you can "I don't believe in gravity". See how well that works for you...


I like the argument form as a whole - "If virtually everyone that investigates something agrees something is true, that is proof it is false".
 
2013-03-11 11:14:40 AM

THE GREAT NAME: By the way, Muller was never a sceptic. That was just a trick to make his BEST study seem impartial. In fact that meta-study was just another whitewash and has been debunked. If you look at the trends, people are moving away from climate change religion and becoming more skeptical.


By all means, show me the studies which debunk climate change.

I'll wait.
 
2013-03-11 02:46:10 PM

THE GREAT NAME: Damnhippyfreak: wiredroach: THE GREAT NAME: I tried to check his sources, but he did not provide them. I assume you have checked on the source, the methodology used etc, before confidently stating that it's "accurate".

Otherwise you'd look a bit of a twat.

The methodology is something called "math." You don't seem to understand science, mate.


Now, now. Providing the source for a claim isn't a bad thing, especially when such a graphic does not provide much information, and may rely one some measure of subjectivity. It's from here, and you can check the method used for yourself. It does look pretty solid, BTW.

As I suspected their methodology would place NAME's comments supporting climate change, because of the narrow criterion they devised for an article to reject it. Just a trick with numbers. The reality is that the science is far from settled.



It depends on what part of the science you're talking about. In this case, keep in mind that 'rejecting' meant "an article had to clearly and explicitly state that the theory of global warming is false or, as happened in a few cases, that some other process better explains the observed warming". So what this should be telling us is that the basics are pretty much settled. Of course research is ongoing, but that does not mean, again, the basics are pretty solid.
 
2013-03-11 02:46:47 PM

Damnhippyfreak: Of course research is ongoing, but that does not mean, again, the basics aren't pretty solid.


That makes more sense.
 
2013-03-11 02:51:00 PM

THE GREAT NAME: maddogdelta: THE GREAT NAME: The sceptical movement receives very little funding compared to the alarmist movement.

Orly?

Do you know how I know you aren't a skeptic?

And... have a nice read...

Or you can read this

Or you can watch the movie...

I know.. these are all "lefty left" sources, the kind that published Mitt Romney's 47 percent speech, or that caused a whole bunch of companies to run away from ALEC and what they were doing....  None of my links are Faux nooz.  But they have one thing in common. They base their statements on verifiable facts. Which is what a skeptic does.  Skeptics don't just listen to the Tobacco oil companies and agree that smoking doesn't cause cancer coal doesn't contribute to global warming.  They look at the research.

Even one of the last phd's on the Koch bros payroll changed his mind

You are aware that in UK we call the Guardian the "Daily Mail of the left" and that its readership now only consists of a handful of the worst kind of hypocritical middle class "limousine liberal", and is dwindling to the point that the Guardian will go out of business soon. You are certainly right to warn that your sources are all "lefty left".

By the way, Muller was never a sceptic. That was just a trick to make his BEST study seem impartial. In fact that meta-study was just another whitewash and has been debunked. If you look at the trends, people are moving away from climate change religion and becoming more skeptical.



You're more than welcome to present evidence in some way that one or more of the BEST team research topics has been "debunked".

That aside, you may have some of your basic facts wrong.Muller, as part of the BEST team never performed a meta-study, and as part of the BEST team, brought forward several studies, not just one.
 
2013-03-11 02:57:51 PM

xria: maddogdelta: THE GREAT NAME: absolute proof that the peer review process has become corrupt. Because in no field of science, no matter how well established, would you get a ratio so extreme.

Really? Try arguing against evolution. Or, for that matter, gravity.

Go ahead... jump off a building and shout as loud as you can "I don't believe in gravity". See how well that works for you...

I like the argument form as a whole - "If virtually everyone that investigates something agrees something is true, that is proof it is false".


If that's how you understood my comment, you need to work on your reading comprehension. Even in fields such as evolution and gravity, there is debate. And I'm not taking about crackpots or creationists, I'm talking about real science that tries to question accepted norms. That's how science works - or at least did work, until it got politicised. And, at the risk of repeating myself, if this legitimate dissent stops making it through peer reveiw, then the peer reveiw process is corrupt.

Anyway, having seen the methodology behind the graph, it's obviously been contrived to obtain the desired result, as with so much politically funded pro-alarmist propoganda.
 
2013-03-11 03:04:13 PM

maddogdelta: THE GREAT NAME: By the way, Muller was never a sceptic. That was just a trick to make his BEST study seem impartial. In fact that meta-study was just another whitewash and has been debunked. If you look at the trends, people are moving away from climate change religion and becoming more skeptical.

By all means, show me the studies which debunk climate change.

I'll wait.

Damnhippyfreak: THE GREAT NAME: maddogdelta: THE GREAT NAME: The sceptical movement receives very little funding compared to the alarmist movement.

Orly?

Do you know how I know you aren't a skeptic?

And... have a nice read...

Or you can read this

Or you can watch the movie...

I know.. these are all "lefty left" sources, the kind that published Mitt Romney's 47 percent speech, or that caused a whole bunch of companies to run away from ALEC and what they were doing....  None of my links are Faux nooz.  But they have one thing in common. They base their statements on verifiable facts. Which is what a skeptic does.  Skeptics don't just listen to the Tobacco oil companies and agree that smoking doesn't cause cancer coal doesn't contribute to global warming.  They look at the research.

Even one of the last phd's on the Koch bros payroll changed his mind

You are aware that in UK we call the Guardian the "Daily Mail of the left" and that its readership now only consists of a handful of the worst kind of hypocritical middle class "limousine liberal", and is dwindling to the point that the Guardian will go out of business soon. You are certainly right to warn that your sources are all "lefty left".

By the way, Muller was never a sceptic. That was just a trick to make his BEST study seem impartial. In fact that meta-study was just another whitewash and has been debunked. If you look at the trends, people are moving away from climate change religion and becoming more skeptical.


You're more than welcome to present evidence in some way that one or more of the BEST team research topics has been "debunked".

That aside, you may have some of your basic facts wrong.Muller, as part of the BEST team never performed a meta-study, and as part of the BEST team, brought forward several studies, not just one.


It's all at http://wattsupwiththat.com/. Have a read... there's more detail on there than I can reproduce here, but luckily its a free site and has as much detail as you want. Don't worry that it's not peer-reveiwed, you are obviously knowledgable enough to make up your own mind.
 
2013-03-11 03:09:16 PM

THE GREAT NAME: It's all at http://wattsupwiththat.com/. Have a read... there's more detail on there than I can reproduce here, but luckily its a free site and has as much detail as you want. Don't worry that it's not peer-reveiwed, you are obviously knowledgable enough to make up your own mind.


You really think people aren't aware of Anthony Watts?

http://wottsupwiththat.com/
 
2013-03-11 03:10:20 PM

THE GREAT NAME: xria: maddogdelta: THE GREAT NAME: absolute proof that the peer review process has become corrupt. Because in no field of science, no matter how well established, would you get a ratio so extreme.

Really? Try arguing against evolution. Or, for that matter, gravity.

Go ahead... jump off a building and shout as loud as you can "I don't believe in gravity". See how well that works for you...

I like the argument form as a whole - "If virtually everyone that investigates something agrees something is true, that is proof it is false".

If that's how you understood my comment, you need to work on your reading comprehension. Even in fields such as evolution and gravity, there is debate. And I'm not taking about crackpots or creationists, I'm talking about real science that tries to question accepted norms. That's how science works - or at least did work, until it got politicised. And, at the risk of repeating myself, if this legitimate dissent stops making it through peer reveiw, then the peer reveiw process is corrupt.

Anyway, having seen the methodology behind the graph, it's obviously been contrived to obtain the desired result, as with so much politically funded pro-alarmist propoganda.


What's your reasoning here? The methods were clearly documented - what contrivance are you talking about?
 
2013-03-11 03:12:14 PM

THE GREAT NAME: Damnhippyfreak: THE GREAT NAME: maddogdelta: THE GREAT NAME: The sceptical movement receives very little funding compared to the alarmist movement.

Orly?

Do you know how I know you aren't a skeptic?

And... have a nice read...

Or you can read this

Or you can watch the movie...

I know.. these are all "lefty left" sources, the kind that published Mitt Romney's 47 percent speech, or that caused a whole bunch of companies to run away from ALEC and what they were doing....  None of my links are Faux nooz.  But they have one thing in common. They base their statements on verifiable facts. Which is what a skeptic does.  Skeptics don't just listen to the Tobacco oil companies and agree that smoking doesn't cause cancer coal doesn't contribute to global warming.  They look at the research.

Even one of the last phd's on the Koch bros payroll changed his mind

You are aware that in UK we call the Guardian the "Daily Mail of the left" and that its readership now only consists of a handful of the worst kind of hypocritical middle class "limousine liberal", and is dwindling to the point that the Guardian will go out of business soon. You are certainly right to warn that your sources are all "lefty left".

By the way, Muller was never a sceptic. That was just a trick to make his BEST study seem impartial. In fact that meta-study was just another whitewash and has been debunked. If you look at the trends, people are moving away from climate change religion and becoming more skeptical.


You're more than welcome to present evidence in some way that one or more of the BEST team research topics has been "debunked".

That aside, you may have some of your basic facts wrong.Muller, as part of the BEST team never performed a meta-study, and as part of the BEST team, brought forward several studies, not just one.

It's all at http://wattsupwiththat.com/. Have a read... there's more detail on there than I can reproduce here, but luckily its a free site and has as much detail as you wa ...


Hm. I don't think just pointing someone to a site that talks about a lot of things qualifies as proof of a specific point. You've made a very specific claim - what's the specific evidence you're basing this on?
 
2013-03-11 03:21:51 PM

THE GREAT NAME: It's all at http://wattsupwiththat.com/. Have a read... there's more detail on there than I can reproduce here, but luckily its a free site and has as much detail as you want. Don't worry that it's not peer-reveiwed, you are obviously knowledgable enough to make up your own mind.


"And, I'm prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong. I'm taking this bold step because the method has promise."

What Watts said about BEST and Muller. But then again you can't exactly trust a dumbass creationist with a blog.
 
2013-03-11 03:49:18 PM

Halli: THE GREAT NAME: It's all at http://wattsupwiththat.com/. Have a read... there's more detail on there than I can reproduce here, but luckily its a free site and has as much detail as you want. Don't worry that it's not peer-reveiwed, you are obviously knowledgable enough to make up your own mind.

"And, I'm prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong. I'm taking this bold step because the method has promise."

What Watts said about BEST and Muller. But then again you can't exactly trust a dumbass creationist with a blog.


BEST didn't prove Watts wrong. That's the point. He was willing to be proven wrong, but BEST had major flaws, particularly in how they used population density to try and discount the urban heat island effect. It's all been covered.
 
2013-03-11 03:59:13 PM

THE GREAT NAME: BEST didn't prove Watts wrong. That's the point. He was willing to be proven wrong, but BEST had major flaws, particularly in how they used population density to try and discount the urban heat island effect. It's all been covered.


Whining about it doesn't make you right.

http://wottsupwiththat.com/2011/10/21/the-berkeley-earth-surface-tem pe rature-project-puts-pr-before-peer-review/
 
2013-03-11 04:07:43 PM

THE GREAT NAME: Halli: THE GREAT NAME: It's all at http://wattsupwiththat.com/. Have a read... there's more detail on there than I can reproduce here, but luckily its a free site and has as much detail as you want. Don't worry that it's not peer-reveiwed, you are obviously knowledgable enough to make up your own mind.

"And, I'm prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong. I'm taking this bold step because the method has promise."

What Watts said about BEST and Muller. But then again you can't exactly trust a dumbass creationist with a blog.

BEST didn't prove Watts wrong. That's the point. He was willing to be proven wrong, but BEST had major flaws, particularly in how they used population density to try and discount the urban heat island effect. It's all been covered.


[citation needed]
 
2013-03-11 04:07:58 PM

snarfyboy: THE GREAT NAME: It's all at http://wattsupwiththat.com/. Have a read... there's more detail on there than I can reproduce here, but luckily its a free site and has as much detail as you want. Don't worry that it's not peer-reveiwed, you are obviously knowledgable enough to make up your own mind.

You really think people aren't aware of Anthony Watts?

http://wottsupwiththat.com/


Okay, let's see. To avoid accusations of cherry-picking I'll take the latest article from your site. The key paragraph is as follows:

WOTTS: "Still, snow this Christmas in North America puts the lie to British climate scientist Dr David Viner's speculation that snowfall in Britain will be rare at some unspecified time in the future, doesn't it? "

From the article on WATTS to which they refer,

"This is a perfect time to recall climate researcher Dr. David Viner's famous missive from back in the year 2000:
However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".

Now, firstly, to pick hairs about the difference between UK and USA is simply churlish - remember the debate is about GLOBAL warming. Secondly, It is March 2013 in the UK and snowing as I type this. Thirdly, 2013 is more than "a few years" after 2000.

Your site is trying, but as far as I can see, failing. The reality is that climatists have been making predictions about global warming for some time, and they ALL turned out wrong. WATTS is on the right track. You and WOTTS are not.

Fun extra fact: the UK's meteorological office, funded to the tune of hundreds of millions by a government that supports climate alarmism, has overestimated the long-term temperature forecast in 11 out of the last 12 years. Guess how much by on average? That's right, the exact amount of warming predicted by everybody's favourite unscientific political propaganda organisation, the IPCC.

No matter what you think the "reasons" (oer perhaps "excuses") might be for the stabilisation that has occurred over the last 15 years, NONE of the so-called "experts" in the so-called "consensus" has EVER been able to use their "settled science" to make a SINGLE accurate prediction.
 
2013-03-11 04:18:07 PM

snarfyboy: THE GREAT NAME: BEST didn't prove Watts wrong. That's the point. He was willing to be proven wrong, but BEST had major flaws, particularly in how they used population density to try and discount the urban heat island effect. It's all been covered.

Whining about it doesn't make you right.

http://wottsupwiththat.com/2011/10/21/the-berkeley-earth-surface-tem pe rature-project-puts-pr-before-peer-review/


Interesting article. Seems to be a series of paragraphs roughly of the form:

Did you know he said "<quotation>"???!?!??!!! <sarcastic and childish riposte>!!??!??!?!?

Really, he just wants us to know how amazed he is that Watts does not share his opinions. Fair enough. But I've read two of his artcles so far, and to be honest, there just isn't any real content.

Oh, and a BSc in geology does not an expert make. Sorry.
 
2013-03-11 04:20:59 PM

THE GREAT NAME: snarfyboy: THE GREAT NAME: It's all at http://wattsupwiththat.com/. Have a read... there's more detail on there than I can reproduce here, but luckily its a free site and has as much detail as you want. Don't worry that it's not peer-reveiwed, you are obviously knowledgable enough to make up your own mind.

You really think people aren't aware of Anthony Watts?

http://wottsupwiththat.com/

Okay, let's see. To avoid accusations of cherry-picking I'll take the latest article from your site. The key paragraph is as follows:

WOTTS: "Still, snow this Christmas in North America puts the lie to British climate scientist Dr David Viner's speculation that snowfall in Britain will be rare at some unspecified time in the future, doesn't it? "

From the article on WATTS to which they refer,

"This is a perfect time to recall climate researcher Dr. David Viner's famous missive from back in the year 2000:
However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".

Now, firstly, to pick hairs about the difference between UK and USA is simply churlish - remember the debate is about GLOBAL warming. Secondly, It is March 2013 in the UK and snowing as I type this. Thirdly, 2013 is more than "a few years" after 2000.

Your site is trying, but as far as I can see, failing. The reality is that climatists have been making predictions about global warming for some time, and they ALL turned out wrong. WATTS is on the right track. You and WOTTS are not.


[citation needed]


THE GREAT NAME: Fun extra fact: the UK's meteorological office, funded to the tune of hundreds of millions by a government that supports climate alarmism, has overestimated the long-term temperature forecast in 11 out of the last 12 years. Guess how much by on average? That's right, the exact amount of warming predicted by everybody's favourite unscientific political propaganda organisation, the IPCC.


[citation needed]


THE GREAT NAME: No matter what you think the "reasons" (oer perhaps "excuses") might be for the stabilisation that has occurred over the last 15 years, NONE of the so-called "experts" in the so-called "consensus" has EVER been able to use their "settled science" to make a SINGLE accurate prediction.


[citation needed]

Throwing out there more unsupported accusations doesn't somehow prove the validity of previous ones. I suggest you start following this guy's advice:

THE GREAT NAME: I tried to check his sources, but he did not provide them. I assume you have checked on the source, the methodology used etc, before confidently stating that it's "accurate".

Otherwise you'd look a bit of a twat.

 
2013-03-11 04:26:49 PM

THE GREAT NAME: Really, he just wants us to know how amazed he is that Watts does not share his opinions. Fair enough. But I've read two of his artcles so far, and to be honest, there just isn't any real content.


Except you know, for all those links that prove why Watts is wrong that are provided.  I notice you didn't mention them, but instead chose to deliver an attack on the poster.  Interesting.

Perhaps I should go through Watts site and count the number of childish remarks he makes.  Clearly that will disprove everything on his site, right?
 
2013-03-11 04:28:27 PM

THE GREAT NAME: Oh, and a BSc in geology does not an expert make. Sorry.


Neither does being a weatherman.
 
2013-03-11 04:32:03 PM
Damnhippyfreak:

[citation needed]
[citation needed]
[citation needed]


Here's the MET office one
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2012/02/met-office-global-fore ca sts-to.shtml

The other two were claims in the negative, i.e. that a successful prediction has not occurred. In this instance, the nature of the scientific method puts the onus on you to cite such an example. After all, if I said that no successful predictions have come from, say general relativity (or any other part of genuinely settled science), you would find many examples very easily.
 
2013-03-11 04:37:39 PM

snarfyboy: THE GREAT NAME: Really, he just wants us to know how amazed he is that Watts does not share his opinions. Fair enough. But I've read two of his artcles so far, and to be honest, there just isn't any real content.

Except you know, for all those links that prove why Watts is wrong that are provided.  I notice you didn't mention them, but instead chose to deliver an attack on the poster.  Interesting.


Now, now. I used the most recent article, and the one explicitly cited to me, and fonld them both silly and vacuous. I gave the site a chance.

I know some of the comments on WATTS are silly, but hey, thats what you get on the internet. The actual articles really attempt to get to the bottom of things. You should try reading them in the true spirit of scepticism.
 
2013-03-11 04:40:49 PM

snarfyboy: THE GREAT NAME: Oh, and a BSc in geology does not an expert make. Sorry.

Neither does being a weatherman.


You sure about that?

Remember, if the met office had *not* folded politically-motivated propoganda into their predictions, they would have been impressively accurate. That might be the most interesting thing about it - that the AGW agenda has let us to down-play the accuracy of weather forecasting, just so as to smoke-screen the innaccuracy of their predictions on climate.
 
2013-03-11 04:43:07 PM

THE GREAT NAME: I know some of the comments on WATTS are silly, but hey, thats what you get on the internet. The actual articles really attempt to get to the bottom of things. You should try reading them in the true spirit of scepticism.


Seems like you are talking out both sides of your mouth then. "When my guy does it, it's okay!"

I notice you still have addresses all the articles that were cited.  Very telling indeed.

I know who understands skepticism here, and it's not you.
 
2013-03-11 04:49:47 PM

THE GREAT NAME: You sure about that?


Absolutely.  Especially one that didn't graduate.  If you are going to imply that credentials are necessary for "my guy" to be trustworthy, then the same most hold true for "your guy".
 
2013-03-11 04:49:50 PM

snarfyboy: THE GREAT NAME: I know some of the comments on WATTS are silly, but hey, thats what you get on the internet. The actual articles really attempt to get to the bottom of things. You should try reading them in the true spirit of scepticism.

Seems like you are talking out both sides of your mouth then. "When my guy does it, it's okay!"


Your guy has vacuous trolling in the artcles. My guy has it in some of the comments (and I believe he deletes the worst comments whether pro- or anti-). I do not "double-talk". I leave that to those whoose opinions have escalated to the level of religion.

I know who understands skepticism here, and it's not you.

Just to be clear, I love science, and have no truck with rubbish like creationism (for example). I accepted the need for scepticism long before the "global warming" thing even became an issue. I have seen "science as religion"-type thinking in people (usually second-rate minds) for a long time, and never agreed with it, because without scepticism science is nothing, and (again) I love science.
 
2013-03-11 04:51:47 PM

snarfyboy: THE GREAT NAME: You sure about that?

Absolutely.  Especially one that didn't graduate.  If you are going to imply that credentials are necessary for "my guy" to be trustworthy, then the same most hold true for "your guy".


Meh. the WOTTS guy went into IT. He fixes PCs for a living. You know, turn it off and on again type stuff.
 
2013-03-11 04:53:27 PM

THE GREAT NAME: Your guy has vacuous trolling in the artcles. My guy has it in some of the comments (and I believe he deletes the worst comments whether pro- or anti-). I do not "double-talk". I leave that to those whoose opinions have escalated to the level of religion.


Confirmation bias.  You are favoring your guy because he's on your side. The both can be childish.  I just have a thick enough skin to see through that.

Regardless, as I said, the point is moot.  The points he makes and the articles he cites are what is important, and that you haven't addressed them once is very telling.

Also, you don't understand what the word trolling means.
 
2013-03-11 04:54:28 PM

THE GREAT NAME: Meh. the WOTTS guy went into IT. He fixes PCs for a living. You know, turn it off and on again type stuff.


Meh, yours is blogger that dropped out of college.
 
2013-03-11 04:58:07 PM

snarfyboy: THE GREAT NAME: Your guy has vacuous trolling in the artcles. My guy has it in some of the comments (and I believe he deletes the worst comments whether pro- or anti-). I do not "double-talk". I leave that to those whoose opinions have escalated to the level of religion.

Confirmation bias.  You are favoring your guy because he's on your side. The both can be childish.  I just have a thick enough skin to see through that.

Regardless, as I said, the point is moot.  The points he makes and the articles he cites are what is important, and that you haven't addressed them once is very telling.

Also, you don't understand what the word trolling means.


Again, I gave your guy a chance and saw that he's just trolling. There really is a big difference in attitude on the two sites. What you are doing here is called "false equivilance". Same thing lefies used to do before the fall of the Berlin wall (... and no, I won't give a citation for that).

Anyway I have to go out now, into the snow that isn't supposed to be there. Let's pick this up in the next Climate thread.
 
2013-03-11 05:01:45 PM

THE GREAT NAME: BEST didn't prove Watts wrong. That's the point. He was willing to be proven wrong, but BEST had major flaws, particularly in how they used population density to try and discount the urban heat island effect. It's all been covered.


I'm sure it has.
 
2013-03-11 05:07:24 PM

THE GREAT NAME: Again, I gave your guy a chance and saw that he's just trolling. There really is a big difference in attitude on the two sites. What you are doing here is called "false equivilance". Same thing lefies used to do before the fall of the Berlin wall (... and no, I won't give a citation for that).



But no, I am not using false equivalence, except as a means to point out they irony of your so-called arguments.  I don't care what the qualifications of either are.  I am concerned with the content of the information they supply. You were the one that brought up qualifications, I simply pointed that you are throwing rocks at glass houses if you are going to be defending Anthony Watts using that tactic.

In short, you feel it's okay to hold people you disagree with you to one standard, but not the ones you disagree with.  This brings in the subject of you being susceptible to confirmation bias - hardly a quality someone that professes to love science should have.
 
2013-03-11 07:45:31 PM

THE GREAT NAME: Damnhippyfreak:

[citation needed]
[citation needed]
[citation needed]

Here's the MET office one
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2012/02/met-office-global-fore ca sts-to.shtml


Thanks for taking the time to back up this one claim, at least. However, this evidence isn't quite strong in this case. From your linked article:

"In all these years, the discrepancy between observed temperatures and the forecast are within the stated margin of error."

In other words, your claim that:

THE GREAT NAME: the UK's meteorological office, funded to the tune of hundreds of millions by a government that supports climate alarmism, has overestimated the long-term temperature forecast in 11 out of the last 12 years.


Isn't quite true. Note that this also does not support the second part of your claim:

THE GREAT NAME: Guess how much by on average? That's right, the exact amount of warming predicted by everybody's favourite unscientific political propaganda organisation, the IPCC.


THE GREAT NAME: The other two were claims in the negative, i.e. that a successful prediction has not occurred. In this instance, the nature of the scientific method puts the onus on you to cite such an example. After all, if I said that no successful predictions have come from, say general relativity (or any other part of genuinely settled science), you would find many examples very easily.


Fair enough. One paper that comes to mind was as interesting review last year (Rahmstorf et al. 2012) which includes this:

i47.tinypic.com
Figure 1. Observed annual global temperature, unadjusted (pink) and adjusted for short-term variations due to solar variability, volcanoes and ENSO (red) as in Foster and Rahmstorf (2011). 12-months running averages are shown as well as linear trend lines, and compared to the scenarios of the IPCC (blue range and lines from the third assessment, green from the fourth assessment report). Projections are aligned in the graph so that they start (in 1990 and 2000, respectively) on the linear trend line of the (adjusted) observational data.

A fairly good prediction, it appears.
 
2013-03-11 07:47:26 PM

THE GREAT NAME: snarfyboy: THE GREAT NAME: Your guy has vacuous trolling in the artcles. My guy has it in some of the comments (and I believe he deletes the worst comments whether pro- or anti-). I do not "double-talk". I leave that to those whoose opinions have escalated to the level of religion.

Confirmation bias.  You are favoring your guy because he's on your side. The both can be childish.  I just have a thick enough skin to see through that.

Regardless, as I said, the point is moot.  The points he makes and the articles he cites are what is important, and that you haven't addressed them once is very telling.

Also, you don't understand what the word trolling means.

Again, I gave your guy a chance and saw that he's just trolling. There really is a big difference in attitude on the two sites. What you are doing here is called "false equivilance". Same thing lefies used to do before the fall of the Berlin wall (... and no, I won't give a citation for that).

Anyway I have to go out now, into the snow that isn't supposed to be there. Let's pick this up in the next Climate thread.



Hopefully you'll be a bit better at supporting your arguments in the future. You've done a remarkably poor job here.
 
2013-03-12 05:01:18 AM

Damnhippyfreak: THE GREAT NAME: Damnhippyfreak:

From your linked article (

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2012/02/met-office-global-for eca sts-to.shtml):

"In all these years, the discrepancy between observed temperatures and the forecast are within the stated margin of error."

In other words, your claim that:

THE GREAT NAME: the UK's meteorological office, funded to the tune of hundreds of millions by a government that supports climate alarmism, has overestimated the long-term temperature forecast in 11 out of the last 12 years.

Isn't quite true.


Absolutely true, and supported by the article. In the bit you didn't quote, "it is the 11th year out of the last 12 when the Met Office global temperature forecast has been too warm.  ". You have told a direct lie about the contents of a citation provided by me, presumably in a bid to fool the casual reader. All further responses by you to my comments will be linked to this one, to allow the casual reader to know who the liars are on Fark.
 
2013-03-12 05:03:19 AM

Damnhippyfreak: THE GREAT NAME: snarfyboy: THE GREAT NAME: Your guy has vacuous trolling in the artcles. My guy has it in some of the comments (and I believe he deletes the worst comments whether pro- or anti-). I do not "double-talk". I leave that to those whoose opinions have escalated to the level of religion.

Confirmation bias.  You are favoring your guy because he's on your side. The both can be childish.  I just have a thick enough skin to see through that.

Regardless, as I said, the point is moot.  The points he makes and the articles he cites are what is important, and that you haven't addressed them once is very telling.

Also, you don't understand what the word trolling means.

Again, I gave your guy a chance and saw that he's just trolling. There really is a big difference in attitude on the two sites. What you are doing here is called "false equivilance". Same thing lefies used to do before the fall of the Berlin wall (... and no, I won't give a citation for that).

Anyway I have to go out now, into the snow that isn't supposed to be there. Let's pick this up in the next Climate thread.


Hopefully you'll be a bit better at supporting your arguments in the future. You've done a remarkably poor job here.


At least I've avoided outright lies.

http://www.fark.com/comments/7634697/82988317#c82988317
 
2013-03-12 06:07:02 AM

snarfyboy: In short, you feel it's okay to hold people you disagree with you to one standard, but not the ones you disagree with.


I disagree, I agree that he holds the people he disagrees with to one standard, but disagree and think that it is the one that he agrees with that he doesn't hold to the same standard.
 
2013-03-12 08:21:38 AM

xria: snarfyboy: In short, you feel it's okay to hold people you disagree with you to one standard, but not the ones you disagree with.

I disagree, I agree that he holds the people he disagrees with to one standard, but disagree and think that it is the one that he agrees with that he doesn't hold to the same standard.



Yeah, right after I posted it, I realized that sentence was poorly constructed. I meant he was holding them to different standards.
 
2013-03-12 03:09:55 PM

snarfyboy: xria: snarfyboy: In short, you feel it's okay to hold people you disagree with you to one standard, but not the ones you disagree with.

I disagree, I agree that he holds the people he disagrees with to one standard, but disagree and think that it is the one that he agrees with that he doesn't hold to the same standard.


Yeah, right after I posted it, I realized that sentence was poorly constructed. I meant he was holding them to different standards.


Again. false equivalence. I read everything critically, and draw my conclusions from evaluating what I read. You, on the other hand, just seem to go by the amount of bulk. And since 95% plus of the money funding this work is coming from the pro-AGW vested interests, you'll always win on bulk. In fact, what you think is democracy in the scientific community is really more like aristocracy.
 
2013-03-12 03:16:02 PM

THE GREAT NAME: Again. false equivalence. I read everything critically, and draw my conclusions from evaluating what I read.


I see no evidence of this.  You have yet to address a single article he cited.

THE GREAT NAME: You, on the other hand, just seem to go by the amount of bulk.


I see you have added mind reading to your abilities.  For your information I don't really read either of those sites.  I prefer something more professional with cites to original literature.

THE GREAT NAME: And since 95% plus of the money funding this work is coming from the pro-AGW vested interests,


[Citation Needed]

THE GREAT NAME: In fact, what you think is democracy in the scientific community is really more like aristocracy.


The line of typical conspiracy theorist.
 
2013-03-12 03:39:25 PM

snarfyboy: THE GREAT NAME: Again. false equivalence. I read everything critically, and draw my conclusions from evaluating what I read.

I see no evidence of this.  You have yet to address a single article he cited.


I have addressed two. You seem to be having trouble with your memory. Why not re-read the thread?

THE GREAT NAME: You, on the other hand, just seem to go by the amount of bulk.

I see you have added mind reading to your abilities.  For your information I don't really read either of those sites.  I prefer something more professional with cites to original literature.


You're obviously young. You don't yet realise how easily you can be read (from your actions).

THE GREAT NAME: And since 95% plus of the money funding this work is coming from the pro-AGW vested interests,

[Citation Needed]


Governments that wish to raise taxes, government-funded bodies like IPCC, massive NGOs (WWF budget over $200 million, Greenpeace not far behind) and of course big energy, which has been greenwashed. It's all there.

THE GREAT NAME: In fact, what you think is democracy in the scientific community is really more like aristocracy.

The line of typical conspiracy theorist.


You should be concerned about the debasement of science.
 
2013-03-12 03:48:51 PM

THE GREAT NAME: You should be concerned about the debasement of science.


I am. Climate science denial is some of the worst debasement of the scientific method I have ever seen, right after creationism.
 
2013-03-12 03:53:25 PM

snarfyboy: THE GREAT NAME: You should be concerned about the debasement of science.

I am. Climate science denial is some of the worst debasement of the scientific method I have ever seen, right after creationism.


I think we can agree that creationism is a nasty trick, and nothing to do with science.

But climate alarmism also shows the hallmarks of being a nasty trick. Every aspect of it reeks of propoganda. Human beings can claim to be scientists and they can claim to be doing science. But that don't make it true.
 
2013-03-12 04:09:08 PM

THE GREAT NAME: snarfyboy: THE GREAT NAME: You should be concerned about the debasement of science.

I am. Climate science denial is some of the worst debasement of the scientific method I have ever seen, right after creationism.

I think we can agree that creationism is a nasty trick, and nothing to do with science.

But climate alarmism also shows the hallmarks of being a nasty trick. Every aspect of it reeks of propoganda. Human beings can claim to be scientists and they can claim to be doing science. But that don't make it true.



I suggest focusing more on the science and evidence itself rather than the human beings involved, one way or another.

For instance, you have a backlog in this thread of unsupported claims as well as at least one falsified one - which you so far have ignored. If you wish to make the discussion about science and evidence, I suggest you start doing so yourself.
 
2013-03-12 04:12:45 PM

THE GREAT NAME: But climate alarmism also shows the hallmarks of being a nasty trick. Every aspect of it reeks of propoganda. Human beings can claim to be scientists and they can claim to be doing science. But that don't make it true.


This is what the creationists think about themselves.  You've just picked a different side of the same coin.  Whether you like it or not, climate science is put through the rigors of the scientific method just as evolution is. Peer reviews, repetition of results, etc.

Are you familiar with Occam's Razor?  Maybe you need this graphic:

whowhatwhy.com

and then get back to me about your conspiracy theory of "nasty tricks" by "psuedo scientists".
 
2013-03-12 04:16:01 PM

THE GREAT NAME: Damnhippyfreak: THE GREAT NAME: Damnhippyfreak:

From your linked article (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2012/02/met-office-global-for eca sts-to.shtml):

"In all these years, the discrepancy between observed temperatures and the forecast are within the stated margin of error."

In other words, your claim that:

THE GREAT NAME: the UK's meteorological office, funded to the tune of hundreds of millions by a government that supports climate alarmism, has overestimated the long-term temperature forecast in 11 out of the last 12 years.

Isn't quite true.

Absolutely true, and supported by the article. In the bit you didn't quote, "it is the 11th year out of the last 12 when the Met Office global temperature forecast has been too warm.  ". You have told a direct lie about the contents of a citation provided by me, presumably in a bid to fool the casual reader. All further responses by you to my comments will be linked to this one, to allow the casual reader to know who the liars are on Fark.



You're avoiding the argument.

I'm not sure you understand what the implications of a margin of error in this context is. If one predicts, say, a value of 10 plus or minus 5, it is not somehow an overestimation when the real value turns out to be 8. Again, the discrepancy was within the margin of error.
 
2013-03-12 04:17:50 PM

Damnhippyfreak: THE GREAT NAME: snarfyboy: THE GREAT NAME: You should be concerned about the debasement of science.

I am. Climate science denial is some of the worst debasement of the scientific method I have ever seen, right after creationism.

I think we can agree that creationism is a nasty trick, and nothing to do with science.

But climate alarmism also shows the hallmarks of being a nasty trick. Every aspect of it reeks of propoganda. Human beings can claim to be scientists and they can claim to be doing science. But that don't make it true.


I suggest focusing more on the science and evidence itself rather than the human beings involved, one way or another.


Both must be appraised - because science has to be scientific, but it is ultimately done by human beings.

For instance, you have a backlog in this thread of unsupported claims as well as at least one falsified one - which you so far have ignored. If you wish to make the discussion about science and evidence, I suggest you start doing so yourself.

So have you. You just keep trying to shift the burden of proof. It was sort-of working until I caught you lying about a citation I provided.
 
2013-03-12 04:19:34 PM

snarfyboy: THE GREAT NAME: But climate alarmism also shows the hallmarks of being a nasty trick. Every aspect of it reeks of propoganda. Human beings can claim to be scientists and they can claim to be doing science. But that don't make it true.

This is what the creationists think about themselves.  You've just picked a different side of the same coin.  Whether you like it or not, climate science is put through the rigors of the scientific method just as evolution is. Peer reviews, repetition of results, etc.


You obviously haven't seen the climate-gate emails.

Are you familiar with Occam's Razor?  Maybe you need this graphic:

[whowhatwhy.com image 600x800]

and then get back to me about your conspiracy theory of "nasty tricks" by "psuedo scientists".


Your picture is nothing but propoganda.
 
2013-03-12 04:21:30 PM

THE GREAT NAME: Damnhippyfreak: THE GREAT NAME: snarfyboy: THE GREAT NAME: Your guy has vacuous trolling in the artcles. My guy has it in some of the comments (and I believe he deletes the worst comments whether pro- or anti-). I do not "double-talk". I leave that to those whoose opinions have escalated to the level of religion.

Confirmation bias.  You are favoring your guy because he's on your side. The both can be childish.  I just have a thick enough skin to see through that.

Regardless, as I said, the point is moot.  The points he makes and the articles he cites are what is important, and that you haven't addressed them once is very telling.

Also, you don't understand what the word trolling means.

Again, I gave your guy a chance and saw that he's just trolling. There really is a big difference in attitude on the two sites. What you are doing here is called "false equivilance". Same thing lefies used to do before the fall of the Berlin wall (... and no, I won't give a citation for that).

Anyway I have to go out now, into the snow that isn't supposed to be there. Let's pick this up in the next Climate thread.


Hopefully you'll be a bit better at supporting your arguments in the future. You've done a remarkably poor job here.

At least I've avoided outright lies.

http://www.fark.com/comments/7634697/82988317#c82988317



You stating that something is a lie does not make it so. I've stated my reasoning, and you've ignored it.
 
2013-03-12 04:21:38 PM

Damnhippyfreak: THE GREAT NAME: Damnhippyfreak: THE GREAT NAME: Damnhippyfreak:

From your linked article (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2012/02/met-office-global-for eca sts-to.shtml):

"In all these years, the discrepancy between observed temperatures and the forecast are within the stated margin of error."

In other words, your claim that:

THE GREAT NAME: the UK's meteorological office, funded to the tune of hundreds of millions by a government that supports climate alarmism, has overestimated the long-term temperature forecast in 11 out of the last 12 years.

Isn't quite true.

Absolutely true, and supported by the article. In the bit you didn't quote, "it is the 11th year out of the last 12 when the Met Office global temperature forecast has been too warm.  ". You have told a direct lie about the contents of a citation provided by me, presumably in a bid to fool the casual reader. All further responses by you to my comments will be linked to this one, to allow the casual reader to know who the liars are on Fark.


You're avoiding the argument.


No, you're trying to reframe the argument. The point I made has nothing to do with error margins. If the MET office forecasts were unbiassed, you would expect approx 50/50 betweeen estimating over versus under. They went over eleven out of twelve times. That's in the order of 100:1 probability.
 
2013-03-12 04:23:12 PM

Damnhippyfreak: THE GREAT NAME: Damnhippyfreak: THE GREAT NAME: snarfyboy: THE GREAT NAME: Your guy has vacuous trolling in the artcles. My guy has it in some of the comments (and I believe he deletes the worst comments whether pro- or anti-). I do not "double-talk". I leave that to those whoose opinions have escalated to the level of religion.

Confirmation bias.  You are favoring your guy because he's on your side. The both can be childish.  I just have a thick enough skin to see through that.

Regardless, as I said, the point is moot.  The points he makes and the articles he cites are what is important, and that you haven't addressed them once is very telling.

Also, you don't understand what the word trolling means.

Again, I gave your guy a chance and saw that he's just trolling. There really is a big difference in attitude on the two sites. What you are doing here is called "false equivilance". Same thing lefies used to do before the fall of the Berlin wall (... and no, I won't give a citation for that).

Anyway I have to go out now, into the snow that isn't supposed to be there. Let's pick this up in the next Climate thread.


Hopefully you'll be a bit better at supporting your arguments in the future. You've done a remarkably poor job here.

At least I've avoided outright lies.

http://www.fark.com/comments/7634697/82988317#c82988317


You stating that something is a lie does not make it so. I've stated my reasoning, and you've ignored it.


No, you told a specific lie. You claimed that my source did not support my claim when it does, virtually word-for-word. You think you can change the debate to one of error margins. But is is not and was not about that. You don't get to change the debate willy-nilly.
 
2013-03-12 04:25:00 PM

THE GREAT NAME: Your picture is nothing but propoganda.


So... you got nuthin' then.  I see.
 
2013-03-12 04:26:23 PM

THE GREAT NAME: Damnhippyfreak: THE GREAT NAME: snarfyboy: THE GREAT NAME: You should be concerned about the debasement of science.

I am. Climate science denial is some of the worst debasement of the scientific method I have ever seen, right after creationism.

I think we can agree that creationism is a nasty trick, and nothing to do with science.

But climate alarmism also shows the hallmarks of being a nasty trick. Every aspect of it reeks of propoganda. Human beings can claim to be scientists and they can claim to be doing science. But that don't make it true.


I suggest focusing more on the science and evidence itself rather than the human beings involved, one way or another.

Both must be appraised - because science has to be scientific, but it is ultimately done by human beings.


Fair enough, but from what we've seen in this thread, you're very much focusing on the latter.

THE GREAT NAME: For instance, you have a backlog in this thread of unsupported claims as well as at least one falsified one - which you so far have ignored. If you wish to make the discussion about science and evidence, I suggest you start doing so yourself.

So have you. You just keep trying to shift the burden of proof. It was sort-of working until I caught you lying about a citation I provided.


Which I then responded to, and presented evidence about - which you then ignored. I don't believe there is a claim that I've made that I haven't backed up. You most definitely cannot same the same.

In addition, that you've ignored (or perhaps did not understand) a line of reasoning I've presented does not somehow mean I've lied.
 
2013-03-12 04:29:30 PM

snarfyboy: THE GREAT NAME: Your picture is nothing but propoganda.

So... you got nuthin' then.  I see.


It doesn't require a response. It's just suggestion, persuasive only to the gullibe, or those already converted. Seriously, unless you have something better to offer than muttering about Occam's razor and posting silly diagrams, I feel no need to respond beyond pointing out the obvious, which I did.

If anyone else is even still reading this, which I doubt, you're doing *nothing* to persuade anyone. Naturally, if you want your suggestive but misleading picture to feel like "victory" go ahead. But it says noting and means nothing.
 
2013-03-12 04:32:32 PM

Damnhippyfreak: THE GREAT NAME: Damnhippyfreak: THE GREAT NAME: snarfyboy: THE GREAT NAME: You should be concerned about the debasement of science.

I am. Climate science denial is some of the worst debasement of the scientific method I have ever seen, right after creationism.

I think we can agree that creationism is a nasty trick, and nothing to do with science.

But climate alarmism also shows the hallmarks of being a nasty trick. Every aspect of it reeks of propoganda. Human beings can claim to be scientists and they can claim to be doing science. But that don't make it true.


I suggest focusing more on the science and evidence itself rather than the human beings involved, one way or another.

Both must be appraised - because science has to be scientific, but it is ultimately done by human beings.

Fair enough, but from what we've seen in this thread, you're very much focusing on the latter.


That's just the way the thread went. In earlier climatology threads, I've discussed the relavence of chaos theory in some detail. Look me up if you like.

THE GREAT NAME: For instance, you have a backlog in this thread of unsupported claims as well as at least one falsified one - which you so far have ignored. If you wish to make the discussion about science and evidence, I suggest you start doing so yourself.

So have you. You just keep trying to shift the burden of proof. It was sort-of working until I caught you lying about a citation I provided.

Which I then responded to, and presented evidence about - which you then ignored. I don't believe there is a claim that I've made that I haven't backed up. You most definitely cannot same the same.

In addition, that you've ignored (or perhaps did not understand) a line of reasoning I've presented does not somehow mean I've lied.


Err, no, you did lie. http://www.fark.com/comments/7634697/82988317#c82988317  points out the lie. It's black and white.
 
2013-03-12 04:33:34 PM

THE GREAT NAME: Damnhippyfreak: THE GREAT NAME: Damnhippyfreak: THE GREAT NAME: snarfyboy: THE GREAT NAME: Your guy has vacuous trolling in the artcles. My guy has it in some of the comments (and I believe he deletes the worst comments whether pro- or anti-). I do not "double-talk". I leave that to those whoose opinions have escalated to the level of religion.

Confirmation bias.  You are favoring your guy because he's on your side. The both can be childish.  I just have a thick enough skin to see through that.

Regardless, as I said, the point is moot.  The points he makes and the articles he cites are what is important, and that you haven't addressed them once is very telling.

Also, you don't understand what the word trolling means.

Again, I gave your guy a chance and saw that he's just trolling. There really is a big difference in attitude on the two sites. What you are doing here is called "false equivilance". Same thing lefies used to do before the fall of the Berlin wall (... and no, I won't give a citation for that).

Anyway I have to go out now, into the snow that isn't supposed to be there. Let's pick this up in the next Climate thread.


Hopefully you'll be a bit better at supporting your arguments in the future. You've done a remarkably poor job here.

At least I've avoided outright lies.

http://www.fark.com/comments/7634697/82988317#c82988317


You stating that something is a lie does not make it so. I've stated my reasoning, and you've ignored it.

No, you told a specific lie. You claimed that my source did not support my claim when it does, virtually word-for-word. You think you can change the debate to one of error margins. But is is not and was not about that. You don't get to change the debate willy-nilly.



And you don't get to change the facts. It remains a fact that the actual values fell within the margin of error associated with the predictions and therefore were not overestimated - a solid line of reasoning that you're continuing to ignore.

What may explain your perception here is that you appear to be taking the statement of the journalist whom you linked to on faith without critically thinking about what he said. That the person who wrote that article thinks it is true doesn't necessarily make it so, again, for the same reason outlined in the previous paragraph. In short, you're both wrong.
 
2013-03-12 04:37:17 PM

Damnhippyfreak: THE GREAT NAME: Damnhippyfreak: THE GREAT NAME: Damnhippyfreak: THE GREAT NAME: snarfyboy: THE GREAT NAME: Your guy has vacuous trolling in the artcles. My guy has it in some of the comments (and I believe he deletes the worst comments whether pro- or anti-). I do not "double-talk". I leave that to those whoose opinions have escalated to the level of religion.

Confirmation bias.  You are favoring your guy because he's on your side. The both can be childish.  I just have a thick enough skin to see through that.

Regardless, as I said, the point is moot.  The points he makes and the articles he cites are what is important, and that you haven't addressed them once is very telling.

Also, you don't understand what the word trolling means.

Again, I gave your guy a chance and saw that he's just trolling. There really is a big difference in attitude on the two sites. What you are doing here is called "false equivilance". Same thing lefies used to do before the fall of the Berlin wall (... and no, I won't give a citation for that).

Anyway I have to go out now, into the snow that isn't supposed to be there. Let's pick this up in the next Climate thread.


Hopefully you'll be a bit better at supporting your arguments in the future. You've done a remarkably poor job here.

At least I've avoided outright lies.

http://www.fark.com/comments/7634697/82988317#c82988317


You stating that something is a lie does not make it so. I've stated my reasoning, and you've ignored it.

No, you told a specific lie. You claimed that my source did not support my claim when it does, virtually word-for-word. You think you can change the debate to one of error margins. But is is not and was not about that. You don't get to change the debate willy-nilly.


And you don't get to change the facts. It remains a fact that the actual values fell within the margin of error associated with the predictions and therefore were not overestimated - a solid line of reasoning that you're continuing to ignore. ...


It is irrelevent that they fell within the error margins. Here's why: it is stistically signficant that out of 12 outcomes that should have been 50/50, 11 of them were overestimates. That was my original point, which you have failed to refute.

You also lied. See http://www.fark.com/comments/7634697/82988317#c82988317
 
2013-03-12 04:37:30 PM

THE GREAT NAME: Err, no, you did lie. http://www.fark.com/comments/7634697/82988317#c82988317  points out the lie. It's black and white.


Again, you simply stating so, without addressing in any way the argument presented or even outlining your reason for stating so does not make it true.

If this is your way of attempting to irrationally avoid an argument or the other unsupported or falsified claims you've made in this thread, you're doing a poor job of it.
 
2013-03-12 04:41:20 PM

Damnhippyfreak: THE GREAT NAME: Err, no, you did lie. http://www.fark.com/comments/7634697/82988317#c82988317  points out the lie. It's black and white.

Again, you simply stating so, without addressing in any way the argument presented or even outlining your reason for stating so does not make it true.

If this is your way of attempting to irrationally avoid an argument or the other unsupported or falsified claims you've made in this thread, you're doing a poor job of it.


Actually, I think I've done my job just fine here. You now sound like a ranting 15 year old, and frankly I have better things to do.
 
2013-03-12 04:41:28 PM

THE GREAT NAME: It doesn't require a response. It's just suggestion, persuasive only to the gullibe, or those already converted. Seriously, unless you have something better to offer than muttering about Occam's razor and posting silly diagrams, I feel no need to respond beyond pointing out the obvious, which I did.

If anyone else is even still reading this, which I doubt, you're doing *nothing* to persuade anyone. Naturally, if you want your suggestive but misleading picture to feel like "victory" go ahead. But it says noting and means nothing.


If it's so simple, please debunk it.  Be my guest. But so far your typical responses are "Nuh uh" & "I love science and you're gullible!"  Not exactly the scientific method, I must say.

For fun, I will leave you with some article from a site I do happen to trust.  I fully expect you to ignore the content and simply try to defame the authors.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/urban-heat-island-effect.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus. ht m
 
2013-03-12 04:51:19 PM

THE GREAT NAME: It is irrelevent that they fell within the error margins. Here's why: it is stistically signficant that out of 12 outcomes that should have been 50/50, 11 of them were overestimates. That was my original point, which you have failed to refute.

You also lied. See http://www.fark.com/comments/7634697/82988317#c82988317



In fact, it is the opposite of what you claim - true values that fall within a margin of error are not statistically significantly different from the predicted value by definition. What the margin of error means operationally is that you cannot differentiate between the predicted value and values within said margin of error (given the stated level of certainty, by convention 95%).

And, no, I didn't lie. Again, your failing to address an argument until now  (as well as a fundamental misunderstanding of statistics) does not somehow constitute a lie on my part.
 
2013-03-12 04:53:23 PM

THE GREAT NAME: Damnhippyfreak: THE GREAT NAME: Err, no, you did lie. http://www.fark.com/comments/7634697/82988317#c82988317  points out the lie. It's black and white.

Again, you simply stating so, without addressing in any way the argument presented or even outlining your reason for stating so does not make it true.

If this is your way of attempting to irrationally avoid an argument or the other unsupported or falsified claims you've made in this thread, you're doing a poor job of it.

Actually, I think I've done my job just fine here. You now sound like a ranting 15 year old, and frankly I have better things to do.



Unfortunately, you're proving me right, as your response is indistinguishable from you attempting yet again to avoid the argument presented as well as the other unsupported or falsified claims you've made in this thread. You've had plenty of opportunity to correct this, but have failed to do so.
 
2013-03-12 09:15:59 PM

THE GREAT NAME: If anyone else is even still reading this


I'm still reading this.

You are a god damn dumbass.
 
2013-03-12 09:17:40 PM

THE GREAT NAME: Your picture is nothing but propoganda.


And this is why.

Without any qualifiers, to dismiss something as "propaganda" is a meaningless assertion.

You need to elucidate your claim for it to mean anything. You have not done so.
 
2013-03-13 12:51:14 PM

dookdookdook: So in this (slightly idiotic) metaphor, are the climate scientists with actual education and in-depth knowledge of the problem foxes or hedgehogs?


The climate scientists accepting climate change appear to tend to be foxes; opponents generally appear to be hedgehogs, though there's more than a few non-scientists accepting climate change who also appear to be hedgehogs.

(I wasn't the one who came up with the metaphor. I encountered it via Nate Silver's recent book.)

THE GREAT NAME: citation please


Since no-one else seems to have provided it, (doi:10.1073/pnas.1003187107).

HTH, HAND.

imnotadoctor: Furthermore, people that are a bit better at quantitative thinking and posses above-average knowledge regarding science will STILL cling to their beliefs instead of established scientific facts that have been accepted by the majority of scientists investigating climate change.


And will have more tools for rationalizing their intransigence.
I think there's a couple studies on people's willingness to change their mind when findings contradict pre-existing belief being non-uniform over political orientation, as well; however, I'm not turning them up at the moment.
 
2013-03-13 03:36:11 PM

Damnhippyfreak: THE GREAT NAME: It is irrelevent that they fell within the error margins. Here's why: it is stistically signficant that out of 12 outcomes that should have been 50/50, 11 of them were overestimates. That was my original point, which you have failed to refute.

You also lied. See http://www.fark.com/comments/7634697/82988317#c82988317


In fact, it is the opposite of what you claim - true values that fall within a margin of error are not statistically significantly different from the predicted value by definition. What the margin of error means operationally is that you cannot differentiate between the predicted value and values within said margin of error (given the stated level of certainty, by convention 95%).


Absolute rubbish.
 
2013-03-13 03:36:54 PM

Damnhippyfreak: THE GREAT NAME: Damnhippyfreak: THE GREAT NAME: Err, no, you did lie. http://www.fark.com/comments/7634697/82988317#c82988317  points out the lie. It's black and white.

Again, you simply stating so, without addressing in any way the argument presented or even outlining your reason for stating so does not make it true.

If this is your way of attempting to irrationally avoid an argument or the other unsupported or falsified claims you've made in this thread, you're doing a poor job of it.

Actually, I think I've done my job just fine here. You now sound like a ranting 15 year old, and frankly I have better things to do.


Unfortunately, you're proving me right, as your response is indistinguishable from you attempting yet again to avoid the argument presented as well as the other unsupported or falsified claims you've made in this thread. You've had plenty of opportunity to correct this, but have failed to do so.


Still sounding pubescent.
 
2013-03-13 03:43:08 PM

Ishkur: THE GREAT NAME: Your picture is nothing but propoganda.

And this is why.

Without any qualifiers, to dismiss something as "propaganda" is a meaningless assertion.

You need to elucidate your claim for it to mean anything. You have not done so.


Look at it again Ishkur. It:

- Ignores the fact that big oil has been funding pro-AGW research for some time now
- Ignores the vested interests of "big green" (who builds the wind turbines, Ishkur?)
- Completely ignores government funding, subsidies, and other intervention, usually pro-AGW
- Underplays the financial resources of the activist NGOs (WWF annual budget $200 MILLION)
- Presents the reader with a false dichotomy and a loaded question
- And finally, provides NO information, cited or otherwise.

The last one is why I said "nothing but" propoganda.
 
2013-03-13 03:47:24 PM

abb3w: dookdookdook: So in this (slightly idiotic) metaphor, are the climate scientists with actual education and in-depth knowledge of the problem foxes or hedgehogs?

The climate scientists accepting climate change appear to tend to be foxes; opponents generally appear to be hedgehogs, though there's more than a few non-scientists accepting climate change who also appear to be hedgehogs.

(I wasn't the one who came up with the metaphor. I encountered it via Nate Silver's recent book.)

THE GREAT NAME: citation please

Since no-one else seems to have provided it, (doi:10.1073/pnas.1003187107).

HTH, HAND.

imnotadoctor: Furthermore, people that are a bit better at quantitative thinking and posses above-average knowledge regarding science will STILL cling to their beliefs instead of established scientific facts that have been accepted by the majority of scientists investigating climate change.

And will have more tools for rationalizing their intransigence.
I think there's a couple studies on people's willingness to change their mind when findings contradict pre-existing belief being non-uniform over political orientation, as well; however, I'm not turning them up at the moment.


Pro-AGW folks claim to be very concerned about what they sometimes call the greatest crisis ever to face mankind, and always demand immediate action. But show them evidence that they may have been wrong, and instead of being relieved that the crisis might not be so bad, or might not happen at all, they just get peevish and start ranting like a 15 year old, and their position just polarises more and more.

Rationalise that, Mr amateur psycologist person.
 
2013-03-13 03:50:07 PM

THE GREAT NAME: - Ignores the fact that big oil has been funding pro-AGW research for some time now
- Ignores the vested interests of "big green" (who builds the wind turbines, Ishkur?)
- Completely ignores government funding, subsidies, and other intervention, usually pro-AGW
- Underplays the financial resources of the activist NGOs (WWF annual budget $200 MILLION)
- Presents the reader with a false dichotomy and a loaded question
- And finally, provides NO information, cited or otherwise.


Please provide citations for all of these.
 
2013-03-13 03:53:16 PM

Ishkur: THE GREAT NAME: - Ignores the fact that big oil has been funding pro-AGW research for some time now
- Ignores the vested interests of "big green" (who builds the wind turbines, Ishkur?)
- Completely ignores government funding, subsidies, and other intervention, usually pro-AGW
- Underplays the financial resources of the activist NGOs (WWF annual budget $200 MILLION)
- Presents the reader with a false dichotomy and a loaded question
- And finally, provides NO information, cited or otherwise.

Please provide citations for all of these.


No,YOU choose one you want to dispute. I'm not doing all the work here.
 
2013-03-13 04:32:21 PM

THE GREAT NAME: No,YOU choose one you want to dispute. I'm not doing all the work here.


No, it's your assertion. You're supposed to justify it. If you don't want to, then don't make baseless claims. But just for shiats n giggles:

THE GREAT NAME: - Ignores the fact that big oil has been funding pro-AGW research for some time now


Such as?

THE GREAT NAME: - Ignores the vested interests of "big green" (who builds the wind turbines, Ishkur?)


This is a false equivalency argument. You are making the same mistake right-wing bloggers do when they assert that Citizens United levels the playing field because unions (which comprise less than 12% of the workforce) donate to the Democrat party are on par with corporations who donate to the Republicans.

They are not in even the most remote sense comparable. Oil companies contribute over $600 billion to GDP. Wind power contributes $3 billion. To suggest that clean energy companies are in any sense "Big Green" is making a gross overstatement about the power and scope of their influence.

In fact, if anything, clean energy programs have declined over the last year.

Ishkur: - Completely ignores government funding, subsidies, and other intervention, usually pro-AGW


Like what, Solyndra? Yes, what a $529 million clusterfark that was. You know oil companies receive about $52 billion/yr in subsidies and tax breaks, right?

THE GREAT NAME: - Underplays the financial resources of the activist NGOs (WWF annual budget $200 MILLION)


Actually, the WWF's annual budget is about $245 million. Most of it came from individual contributors. Only $41 million was donated by governments. Not sure how much of that was the US government. Is this what you're so afraid of? $41 million? ...the US spends $41 million just wiping its nose, I'd hardly consider that expenditure enough to break the back of the powerful oil lobby.

Ishkur: - Presents the reader with a false dichotomy and a loaded question


How so?

Ishkur: - And finally, provides NO information, cited or otherwise.


That's true, however neither have you.
 
Displayed 180 of 180 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report