For the AGW Faithers

[Meister]

I think we need to study this global warming stuff..

Just like we need more proof that cigarettes cause cancer.....you can't be to safe

This wasn't your brightest post, RW

 

[Midnight Marauder]

oddly unconcerned by the efforts of SOME other folks with an agenda to falsify or conceal the actual data relative to the alleged AGW stuff.

Yes.... They are oddly unconcerned.

Because as I said before that struck a nerve with Maggie, which made her blow a seal and leave in a huff -- they really have zero actual respect for science. Because it's absolute, with no grey areas.

They detest anything that truly doesn't have a grey area.

 

[Darkwind]

If ANY Member of "the Faith" (i.e., the former scientists who now practice the Religion of AGW) were to even begin to TRY to make the old AGW argument, to do so in a scientific way, they would HAVE to rely on DATA. This raises some questions, wouldn't you say?

Question:

WHAT data would they now rely upon?

Question:

Why?

Question:

Is the data reliable?

Question:

How do you know the data is reliable?

Question:

What is the contrary data?

Question:

Do we have access to that contrary data?

Question:

If not, why not?

Question:

If we don't have access to ALL the data, can we perform "good science?"

Question:

In all honesty, as a scientist, wouldn't you agree that without good, reliable and complete data being shared and disseminated freely in an unaltered form, no valid scientific conclusions can be reached?




Of course, it is a clear possibility that I MIGHT be leaving a "few" questions out....


(Disclaimer: This post of mine is lifted from another thread. I thought it might serve as a springboard in its own thread.)

Well, I hear that there is a new chapter/verse in the Book of Gore.

The fact that all the data is compromised and the peer review process didn't exist does not "Disprove" global warming.

Of course, that particular gospel fails in that no one needs to disprove global warming. The Scientists have to PROVE global warming....

Which means your questions are very pertinent.

 

[Si modo]

If ANY Member of "the Faith" (i.e., the former scientists who now practice the Religion of AGW) were to even begin to TRY to make the old AGW argument, to do so in a scientific way, they would HAVE to rely on DATA. This raises some questions, wouldn't you say?

Question:

WHAT data would they now rely upon?

Question:

Why?

Question:

Is the data reliable?

Question:

How do you know the data is reliable?

Question:

What is the contrary data?

Question:

Do we have access to that contrary data?

Question:

If not, why not?

Question:

If we don't have access to ALL the data, can we perform "good science?"

Question:

In all honesty, as a scientist, wouldn't you agree that without good, reliable and complete data being shared and disseminated freely in an unaltered form, no valid scientific conclusions can be reached?




Of course, it is a clear possibility that I MIGHT be leaving a "few" questions out....


(Disclaimer: This post of mine is lifted from another thread. I thought it might serve as a springboard in its own thread.)

Well, I hear that there is a new chapter/verse in the Book of Gore.

The fact that all the data is compromised and the peer review process didn't exist does not "Disprove" global warming.

Of course, that particular gospel fails in that no one needs to disprove global warming. The Scientists have to PROVE global warming....

Which means your questions are very pertinent.

I must be a stickler about this because I value accuracy. That makes me one with a stick up my butt, to some, obviously. I just value honesty, accuracy, and information. Science does not prove anything. Science only supports scientific theories and those theories stand as valid until they are falsified.

To be a scientific theory, the theory must be falsifiable. Many of the predictive models, the ones forecasting doom and destruction, for instance, are non-falsifiable. Thus, they were never even scientific from the start, although they were supported. Supporting non-falsifiable theories is no great scientific feat.

Also, a theory only has to be falsified once - with valid science - to need modification. Even before this apparent scandal, most of the models that actually were scientific, have been falsified. Somehow that science doesn't make it into the general press, though.

 

[Darkwind]

Conservation, cleaner energy sources, ending dependence on oil, etc., are all good ideas even if there is absolutely no global warming, hell, even if the earth is cooling they're good ideas.

I agree. All noble causes. But not at the expense of our economy.

What are the motives of the global warming deniers? To promote disinterest in environmentally responsible, energy-wise initiatives? Apparently. What else could be their motives.

Incorrect. All this time and you still don't understand the reason for opposition to the GW Religion? Are you deliberately obtuse?

Environmentalism was around long before global warming was even a topic. And our country is better for its successes. Conservatives only want to stand in the way of further successes.

Once again, you simply are being obtuse ore are incapable of understanding the issue.

Stick with the cleaning of our water and soil where the pollution is obvious and measurable progress can be made WITHOUT destroying our economy.

Oh, wait. You didn't understand that part to begin with.

 

[Darkwind]

If ANY Member of "the Faith" (i.e., the former scientists who now practice the Religion of AGW) were to even begin to TRY to make the old AGW argument, to do so in a scientific way, they would HAVE to rely on DATA. This raises some questions, wouldn't you say?

Question:

WHAT data would they now rely upon?

Question:

Why?

Question:

Is the data reliable?

Question:

How do you know the data is reliable?

Question:

What is the contrary data?

Question:

Do we have access to that contrary data?

Question:

If not, why not?

Question:

If we don't have access to ALL the data, can we perform "good science?"

Question:

In all honesty, as a scientist, wouldn't you agree that without good, reliable and complete data being shared and disseminated freely in an unaltered form, no valid scientific conclusions can be reached?




Of course, it is a clear possibility that I MIGHT be leaving a "few" questions out....


(Disclaimer: This post of mine is lifted from another thread. I thought it might serve as a springboard in its own thread.)

Well, I hear that there is a new chapter/verse in the Book of Gore.

The fact that all the data is compromised and the peer review process didn't exist does not "Disprove" global warming.

Of course, that particular gospel fails in that no one needs to disprove global warming. The Scientists have to PROVE global warming....

Which means your questions are very pertinent.

I must be a stickler about this. Science does not prove anything. Science only supports scientific theories and those theories stand as valid until they are falsified.

To be a scientific theory, the theory must be falsifiable. Many of the predictive models, the ones forecasting doom and destruction, for instance, are non-falsifiable. Thus, they were never even scientific from the start, although they were supported. Supporting non-falsifiable theories is no great scientific feat.

Also, a theory only has to be falsified once - with valid science - to need modification. Even before this apparent scandal, most of the models that actually were scientific, have been falsified. Somehow that science doesn't make it into the general press, though.

Actually, no.

In order to justify the re-arrangement of the economies of entire countries, the data and theory MUST and I mean ABSOLUTELY MUST prove that the threat is real. Not some theory.

I postulate that liberalism and those who support peer reviewed religion are mentally ill. Shall we then just throw everyone who supports the theory in a mental institute until it is proven false?

 

[Si modo]

Well, I hear that there is a new chapter/verse in the Book of Gore.

The fact that all the data is compromised and the peer review process didn't exist does not "Disprove" global warming.

Of course, that particular gospel fails in that no one needs to disprove global warming. The Scientists have to PROVE global warming....

Which means your questions are very pertinent.

I must be a stickler about this. Science does not prove anything. Science only supports scientific theories and those theories stand as valid until they are falsified.

To be a scientific theory, the theory must be falsifiable. Many of the predictive models, the ones forecasting doom and destruction, for instance, are non-falsifiable. Thus, they were never even scientific from the start, although they were supported. Supporting non-falsifiable theories is no great scientific feat.

Also, a theory only has to be falsified once - with valid science - to need modification. Even before this apparent scandal, most of the models that actually were scientific, have been falsified. Somehow that science doesn't make it into the general press, though.

Actually, no. ....

Actually, yes. In science, that is definitely the case.

.... In order to justify the re-arrangement of the economies of entire countries, the data and theory MUST and I mean ABSOLUTELY MUST prove that the threat is real. Not some theory. ....

Now, this is concerning policy. I don't mix the two. Policy can be based on science, but policy is not science and science is not policy. That's what has been the fundamental problem with all of this - the science got soiled with politics and conflated with politics.

.... I postulate that liberalism and those who support peer reviewed religion are mentally ill. ....

Science runs on peer-review. It is how scientific knowledge is exchanged. It cannot be given such a black eye by those with agendas that are based on something other than science.

.... Shall we then just throw everyone who supports the theory in a mental institute until it is prove false?

Sooooooo, are you talking science or policy now? I'll guess science. If the theory is scientific and it has been supported with valid science and it has been properly peer-reviewed, no. No one should be tossed in a mental hospital for doing science with integrity.

 

[Darkwind]

There seems to be something else about this little rule that bothers Me.

Who made that up that a theory was valid until proven otherwise?

Scientists?

How convenient that is. It gets them off the hook, doesn't it?

I mean, they can postulate any theory they want, and then just sit back while others try to prove them wrong. Must come in handy when they want billions in research grants from the taxpayer.

How is it that they can make up data, postulate a theory (really just a pet project to make themselves money) and then when they are caught say that it really doesn't disprove our theory?

Explain to Me how that happens?

 

[Darkwind]

I must be a stickler about this. Science does not prove anything. Science only supports scientific theories and those theories stand as valid until they are falsified.

To be a scientific theory, the theory must be falsifiable. Many of the predictive models, the ones forecasting doom and destruction, for instance, are non-falsifiable. Thus, they were never even scientific from the start, although they were supported. Supporting non-falsifiable theories is no great scientific feat.

Also, a theory only has to be falsified once - with valid science - to need modification. Even before this apparent scandal, most of the models that actually were scientific, have been falsified. Somehow that science doesn't make it into the general press, though.

Actually, no. ....

Actually, yes. In science, that is definitely the case.

Now, this is concerning policy. I don't mix the two. Policy can be based on science, but policy is not science and science is not policy. That's what has been the fundamental problem with all of this - the science got soiled with politics and conflated with politics.

.... I postulate that liberalism and those who support peer reviewed religion are mentally ill. ....

Science runs on peer-review. It is how scientific knowledge is exchanged. It cannot be given such a black eye by those with agendas that are based on something other than science.

.... Shall we then just throw everyone who supports the theory in a mental institute until it is prove false?

Sooooooo, are you talking science or policy now? I'll guess science. If the theory is scientific and it has been supported with valid science and it has been properly peer-reviewed, no. No one should be tossed in a mental hospital for doing science with integrity.

I'm going to answer just the last part of your reply as that is the real heart of the mater.

The theory is NOT scientific and it HAS NO data to support it. Therefore it is NOT valid science. They disproved their own theory by falsifying the information upon which it was based.

There simply is no theory here that can be supported by science. It does not need to be disproved.

By the way. I think you already know My position on the alleged 'peer review' process that this shit has undergone. It turns out to be pure politics. So much for peer reviewed.

 

[Si modo]

There seems to be something else about this little rule that bothers Me.

Who made that up that a theory was valid until proven otherwise?

Scientists? ....

Some and some brilliant philosophers such as Karl Popper.

.... How convenient that is. It gets them off the hook, doesn't it? ....

Not at all. The logic of scientific discovery is crystal clear, rigorous, and robust.

.... I mean, they can postulate any theory they want, and then just sit back while others try to prove them wrong. Must come in handy when they want billions in research grants from the taxpayer. ....

No, they don't just make up shit and sit back. They first must have a falsifiable theory (or hypothesis) and demonstrate its falsifiability. Then they must support that with good science.

.... How is it that they can make up data, ....

THAT, my friend, is where these 'scientists' have (allegedly) betrayed their integrity. No, you cannot make up data. You cannot manipulate data in a biased manner. You cannot eliminate data unless there is a statistical or other valid reason, to do so. And, you cannot manipulate the peer-review process that determines the scientific integrity of the work.

.... postulate a theory (really just a pet project to make themselves money) and then when they are caught say that it really doesn't disprove our theory? ....

Technically, they are correct. It does not disprove their theory. What it DOES do, though, is show that their theory was never supported with good science. Thus, the conclusion is that the theory is not valid. The principles of scientific discovery are quite thorough.

.... Explain to Me how that happens?

I hope I just did, but do ask. This is an important topic.

A plus is that more folks will become aware of the principles of scientific discovery, and that's one good thing that may come of this mess.

 

[Darkwind]

There seems to be something else about this little rule that bothers Me.

Who made that up that a theory was valid until proven otherwise?

Scientists? ....

Some and some brilliant philosophers such as Karl Popper.

.... How convenient that is. It gets them off the hook, doesn't it? ....

Not at all. The logic of scientific discovery is crystal clear, rigorous, and robust.

No, they don't just make up shit and sit back. They first must have a falsifiable theory (or hypothesis) and demonstrate its falsifiability. Then they must support that with good science.

THAT, my friend, is where these 'scientists' have (allegedly) betrayed their integrity. No, you cannot make up date. You cannot manipulate data in a biased manner. You cannot eliminate data unless there is a statistical or other valid reason, to do so. And, you cannot manipulate the peer-review process that determines the scientific integrity of the work.

.... postulate a theory (really just a pet project to make themselves money) and then when they are caught say that it really doesn't disprove our theory? ....

Technically they are correct. It does not disprove their theory. What it DOES do, though, is show that their theory was never supported with good science. Thus, the conclusion is that the theory is not valid. The principles of scientific discovery are quite thorough.

.... Explain to Me how that happens?

I hope I just did, but do ask. This is an important topic.

A plus is that more folks will become aware of the principles of scientific discovery, and that's one good thing that may come of this mess.

Given all your replies, none of which really support any form of valid logic when it comes to validation, proves that the Global Warming theory is based upon any kind of real science.

After all, one must first have valid data upon which to create a theory to begin with.

I therefore conclude that AGW is a religion. One that is an even bigger threat to liberty and freedom then Islam.

 

[Si modo]

Actually, no. ....

Actually, yes. In science, that is definitely the case.

Now, this is concerning policy. I don't mix the two. Policy can be based on science, but policy is not science and science is not policy. That's what has been the fundamental problem with all of this - the science got soiled with politics and conflated with politics.

Science runs on peer-review. It is how scientific knowledge is exchanged. It cannot be given such a black eye by those with agendas that are based on something other than science.

.... Shall we then just throw everyone who supports the theory in a mental institute until it is prove false?

Sooooooo, are you talking science or policy now? I'll guess science. If the theory is scientific and it has been supported with valid science and it has been properly peer-reviewed, no. No one should be tossed in a mental hospital for doing science with integrity.

I'm going to answer just the last part of your reply as that is the real heart of the mater.

The theory is NOT scientific and it HAS NO data to support it. Therefore it is NOT valid science. They disproved their own theory by falsifying the information upon which it was based.

There simply is no theory here that can be supported by science. It does not need to be disproved.

By the way. I think you already know My position on the alleged 'peer review' process that this shit has undergone. It turns out to be pure politics. So much for peer reviewed.

You've touched on another problem with the predictive nature of climate science. Before this mess, most of the models were shown to be non-falsifiable, thus non-scientific. That did not get publicized, though, and I was not surprised.

To read a good analysis of that issue, you may want to look at some of climatologist Roger Pielke's work. It's a good read and I recommend it.

 

[Si modo]

There seems to be something else about this little rule that bothers Me.

Who made that up that a theory was valid until proven otherwise?

Scientists? ....

Some and some brilliant philosophers such as Karl Popper.

Not at all. The logic of scientific discovery is crystal clear, rigorous, and robust.

No, they don't just make up shit and sit back. They first must have a falsifiable theory (or hypothesis) and demonstrate its falsifiability. Then they must support that with good science.

THAT, my friend, is where these 'scientists' have (allegedly) betrayed their integrity. No, you cannot make up date. You cannot manipulate data in a biased manner. You cannot eliminate data unless there is a statistical or other valid reason, to do so. And, you cannot manipulate the peer-review process that determines the scientific integrity of the work.
Technically they are correct. It does not disprove their theory. What it DOES do, though, is show that their theory was never supported with good science. Thus, the conclusion is that the theory is not valid. The principles of scientific discovery are quite thorough.

.... Explain to Me how that happens?

I hope I just did, but do ask. This is an important topic.

A plus is that more folks will become aware of the principles of scientific discovery, and that's one good thing that may come of this mess.

Given all your replies, none of which really support any form of valid logic when it comes to validation, proves that the Global Warming theory is based upon any kind of real science.

After all, one must first have valid data upon which to create a theory to begin with.

I therefore conclude that AGW is a religion. One that is an even bigger threat to liberty and freedom then Islam.

Okie doke. Whatever you want to believe and whatever strawmen you want to argue with yourself. I know when I am banging my head on a wall.

 

[Chris]

If ANY Member of "the Faith" (i.e., the former scientists who now practice the Religion of AGW) were to even begin to TRY to make the old AGW argument, to do so in a scientific way, they would HAVE to rely on DATA. This raises some questions, wouldn't you say?

Question:

WHAT data would they now rely upon?

Question:

Why?

Question:

Is the data reliable?

Question:

How do you know the data is reliable?

Question:

What is the contrary data?

Question:

Do we have access to that contrary data?

Question:

If not, why not?

Question:

If we don't have access to ALL the data, can we perform "good science?"

Question:

In all honesty, as a scientist, wouldn't you agree that without good, reliable and complete data being shared and disseminated freely in an unaltered form, no valid scientific conclusions can be reached?




Of course, it is a clear possibility that I MIGHT be leaving a "few" questions out....


(Disclaimer: This post of mine is lifted from another thread. I thought it might serve as a springboard in its own thread.)

Very humorous post.

There is plenty of "data."

We have almost doubled atmospheric CO2 in the last 200 years.

CO2 levels are now at their highest levels ever recorded, and the Antarctic ice core record goes back 600,000 years.

The poles and the glaciers are melting.

Ocean temperatures are now at the highest levels ever recorded.

All this inspite of the fact that the Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years.

 

[Liability]

Too many on the left.

They use this ploy by choice.

They like to muddy the waters.

If a conservative expressses doubt about AGW, they pretend that conservatives favor pollution. Two utterly different matters, but not when they engage in deliberately false rhetoric.

I now speak for ALL Conservatives: I favor drinking clean water and breathing clean air and I like eating foods which are not contaminated by poisons. I thus FAVOR appropriate legislation to control, reduce and eradicate pollution to the extent reasonably possible consistent with our needs and actual scientific knowledge.

I do NOT, on that basis, favor pretending that we have any measurable impact on climate: and I oppose taking "measures" based on falsified science to "do" something pointless about climate at the expense of economic growth and our actual human needs. I absolutely oppose the misuse of science to obtain an ECONOMIC result -- especially one I deem purely socialist in nature.

Oh bull. Frankly, it's too many on the right who are attempting to muddy the waters. It's almost laughable that the political right accepts the fact that a series of e-mails seriously debunks scientific data accumulated over the decades, volumes of peer-reviewed publications on the topic, and the findings of thousands of scientists working independently within several different scientific bodies.

No Mags. What IS laughable is that so many on the left, including you and your ilk, try so foolishly and (of course) unpersuasively to deny the import of those e-mails. Again, since you would prefer to pretend otherwise, I'll just go ahead and restate the obvious:

They demonstrate that the SCIENCE got undermined by deliberate deception including but not limited to the concealment of data which would undercut the AGW "faith." And the ones doing that deliberate deception were the AGW Faithers to which you sheep on the left flock.

 

[Liability]

Sigh...I genuinely hate to see smart people buy into such horseshit. I expect it from Dud who thinks he's God's Gift to the Universe anyway, but not from you.

So much for "keeping it honest"

Mags cannot, by simple definiton, "keep it honest," for that requires that she have been honest in the first place.

And she hasn't been.

 

[Annie]

Climategate reveals 'the most influential tree in the world' - Telegraph

Climategate reveals 'the most influential tree in the world'
Leaked emails from the Climatic Research Unit show how the world's weightiest climate data has been distorted, says Christopher Booker

By Christopher Booker
Published: 7:41PM GMT 05 Dec 2009Coming to light in recent days has been one of the most extraordinary scientific detective stories of our time, bizarrely centred on a single tree in Siberia dubbed "the most influential tree in the world". On this astonishing tale, it is no exaggeration to say, could hang in considerable part the future shape of our civilisation. Right at the heart of the sound and fury of "Climategate" – the emails leaked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in East Anglia – is one story of scientific chicanery, overlooked by the media, whose implications dwarf all the rest. If all those thousands of emails and other documents were leaked by an angry whistle-blower, as now seems likely, it was this story more than any other that he or she wanted the world to see....

 

[Liability]

If ANY Member of "the Faith" (i.e., the former scientists who now practice the Religion of AGW) were to even begin to TRY to make the old AGW argument, to do so in a scientific way, they would HAVE to rely on DATA. This raises some questions, wouldn't you say?

Question:

WHAT data would they now rely upon?

Question:

Why?

Question:

Is the data reliable?

Question:

How do you know the data is reliable?

Question:

What is the contrary data?

Question:

Do we have access to that contrary data?

Question:

If not, why not?

Question:

If we don't have access to ALL the data, can we perform "good science?"

Question:

In all honesty, as a scientist, wouldn't you agree that without good, reliable and complete data being shared and disseminated freely in an unaltered form, no valid scientific conclusions can be reached?




Of course, it is a clear possibility that I MIGHT be leaving a "few" questions out....


(Disclaimer: This post of mine is lifted from another thread. I thought it might serve as a springboard in its own thread.)

Very humorous post.

There is plenty of "data."

We have almost doubled atmospheric CO2 in the last 200 years.

CO2 levels are now at their highest levels ever recorded, and the Antarctic ice core record goes back 600,000 years.

The poles and the glaciers are melting.

Ocean temperatures are now at the highest levels ever recorded.

All this inspite of the fact that the Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years.

You first say there is some data. And THEN you offer isolated factoids.

Let's stipulate that CO2 in the atmosphere is higher than it has been in the past. (It's not true, but let's just make that a false "stipulation" for the sake of the discussion).

Let's also stipulate that Ice sheets in the North and South Poles (and related glaciers) are all melting. Again, it's not the truth, strictly speaking, but once again we will stipulate to that false "fact" for purposes of the discussion only.

And on the same basis, let's "stipulate" to the false claim that the oceans have never been warmer than they are right fucking now!

Now, let's get to it.

YOU PRETEND that such isolated factoids somehow "support," "show," "prove" or "demonstrate" the theory of AGW.

In THAT, you are simply full of shit. No ACTUAL scientific connection has ever been demonstrated for that "theory."

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

I will take this as admitting CO2 emissions are our best hope for warming the planet. We know this thanks to my oft quoted example of "little experiments", the CO2 rich atmosphere in the fish tank holding heat better than the "normal mix" atmosphere in an adjacent tank.

Sounds like you like to "oft quote" a lie or don't know how to conduct experiments .

How does warming cause a rise in atmospheric CO2? As the oceans warm, the solubility of CO2 in water falls (Martin 2005). This causes the oceans to give up more CO2, emitting it into the atmosphere. The exact mechanism of how the deep ocean gives up its CO2 is not fully understood but believed to be related to vertical ocean mixing (Toggweiler 1999).

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Very humorous post.

There is plenty of "data."

We have almost doubled atmospheric CO2 in the last 200 years.

CO2 levels are now at their highest levels ever recorded, and the Antarctic ice core record goes back 600,000 years.

The poles and the glaciers are melting.

Ocean temperatures are now at the highest levels ever recorded.

All this inspite of the fact that the Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years.

False