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  
•       •       •

1794 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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 180 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report