Geologists On Global Climate Change

[Liminal]

I'm not a scientist, how would I know bogus research if saw it?

Can you read?

Yes, I can spell and count too.

Then read my previous post.

Since you put it that way I'll try extra hard to comply with your requests.

See that you do!

Aye aye sir.

 

[Ernie S.]

Assistant Professors of Economics Fuhai Hong and Xiaojian Zhao — accept it as a given that the media and the science establishment routinely exaggerate the issue of climate change. However, unlike the majority of their academic colleagues — who flatly deny that any such problem exists — they go a step further and actively endorse a policy of dishonesty as a way to force through desired policy objectives.

The abstract of their paper notes:

It appears that news media and some pro-environmental organizations have the tendency to accentuate or even exaggerate the damage caused by climate change. This article provides a rationale for this tendency by using a modified International Environmental Agreement (IEA) model with asymmetric information. We find that the information manipulation has an instrumental value, as it ex post induces more countries to participate in an IEA, which will eventually enhance global welfare. From the ex ante perspective, however, the impact that manipulating information has on the level of participation in an IEA and on welfare is ambiguous.

LINK

More opinions, we can sure use more of those.

An admission that the data is fudged on purpose is an opinion????

Objection Your Honor, concludes facts not in evidence.

Then I was correct to assume that you can't read.

 

[mamooth]

There's really no point in presenting facts and logic to the hardcore deniers. Such conspiracy cultists weren't reasoned into their beliefs, so they can't be reasoned out of them.

Deniers embrace denialism for the emotional comfort it gives them, the warm fuzzy feeling of belonging to a cult that gives them all the answers and removes any need to think. To get such creatures of emotion to leave their cult, we have to make it emotionally painful for them to remain, and we do that through laughter and mockery.

 

[Ernie S.]

We deny AGW because there is no AGW. It's as simple as that.

 

[Liminal]

Assistant Professors of Economics Fuhai Hong and Xiaojian Zhao — accept it as a given that the media and the science establishment routinely exaggerate the issue of climate change. However, unlike the majority of their academic colleagues — who flatly deny that any such problem exists — they go a step further and actively endorse a policy of dishonesty as a way to force through desired policy objectives.

The abstract of their paper notes:

It appears that news media and some pro-environmental organizations have the tendency to accentuate or even exaggerate the damage caused by climate change. This article provides a rationale for this tendency by using a modified International Environmental Agreement (IEA) model with asymmetric information. We find that the information manipulation has an instrumental value, as it ex post induces more countries to participate in an IEA, which will eventually enhance global welfare. From the ex ante perspective, however, the impact that manipulating information has on the level of participation in an IEA and on welfare is ambiguous.

LINK

More opinions, we can sure use more of those.

An admission that the data is fudged on purpose is an opinion????

Objection Your Honor, concludes facts not in evidence.

Then I was correct to assume that you can't read.

That's actually not a problem since all your posts read like a comic book.

 

[Liminal]

We deny AGW because there is no AGW. It's as simple as that.

I'm sure it's just that simple.

 

[Old Rocks]

Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has policy statement that state that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. In the meantime, Ernie has obese junkies on the AM radio, fake British Lords, and undegreed ex-TV weathermen.

Problem is, it is not just weather records that are being presented. We have the thawing of the arctic, the shrinking North Polar Ice Cap, the Ice Caps of Greenland and Antarctica losing billions of tons of ice per year, and almost all of our alpine glaciers in rapid retreat. GHGs in the atmosphere are at a level unseen for millions of years. But the deniars just continue to state that nothing is happening.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

AGW is the science of pointing at the Weather Channel and yelling, MANMADE GLOBAL WARMING!!!!"

 

[Liminal]

AGW is the science of pointing at the Weather Channel and yelling, MANMADE GLOBAL WARMING!!!!"

If they were smart they'd invest in mountain top real estate.

Antarctic ice shelves are melting dramatically study finds Environment The Guardian

 

[Ernie S.]

We deny AGW because there is no AGW. It's as simple as that.

I'm sure it's just that simple.

Quite. Prove otherwise with empirical experimentation. No computer models, no fudged data. Let's see that, then we can talk. Lest you forget, there has been no warming (the "W" in AGW) in quite a while.

 

[westwall]

The Geological Society of America concurs with the scientific evidence.
The Geological Society of America - Position Statement on Climate Change

Big deal. Appeals to authority are logic fails. They are pandering to the grant givers.

 

[Old Rocks]

So, all the geologists in every nation around the world are pandering to grant givers. Except, of course, noble Walleyes who is fighting the good fight for the right.

What a load of crap. Only a tiny minority of scientists are now denying the effects of the man created GHGs. Men like Lindzen and Singer that willingly whored their credentials to the tobacco companies and are now doing so for the energy companies.

What Walleyes is claiming is that there is some international organization handing out big grants to anybody that will lie about global warming. But not naming the organization. Or are you claiming that all the governments of the world are in on a conspiracy to convince us of the danger of a changing climate? What would be the reason for that? Gonna pull the big "COMMIE" boogyman out of the closet, Walleyes?

The AGU, GSA, the Royal Society, and all the scientific organizations involved in Physics and Chemistry state in no uncertain terms that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. Yes, that is authority. Far more so than some fellow claiming a Phd in Geology on a right wing message board, and then often showing a decided lack of knowledge concerning that discipline.

 

[IanC]

the bureaucratic panels that produce these statements are often at odds with the rank and file.

several years ago we had an argument over the executive board of the APS (?). the president used his authority to make stunning selections of non scientists in many important areas of governance. executive statements are more about political correctness than the opinions of the members.

 

[Old Rocks]

Really, Ian? You know that there was only one scientific society that was forced to change it's statement concerning global warming. You want me to put the history of that here?

 

[Liminal]

We deny AGW because there is no AGW. It's as simple as that.

I'm sure it's just that simple.

Quite. Prove otherwise with empirical experimentation. No computer models, no fudged data. Let's see that, then we can talk. Lest you forget, there has been no warming (the "W" in AGW) in quite a while.

No doubt we can rely on your vast wealth of knowledge and experience to interpret the data. Right professor? In much the same way as a German Shepherd understands calculus.

 

[Liminal]

The Geological Society of America concurs with the scientific evidence.
The Geological Society of America - Position Statement on Climate Change

Big deal. Appeals to authority are logic fails. They are pandering to the grant givers.

Why it s so tricky for geologists to think about climate change.

 

[IanC]

the bureaucratic panels that produce these statements are often at odds with the rank and file.

several years ago we had an argument over the executive board of the APS (?). the president used his authority to make stunning selections of non scientists in many important areas of governance. executive statements are more about political correctness than the opinions of the members.

I was wrong, it was the AGU. he put Chris Mooney on the Board of executives. a psychotic anti-Republican than makes rdean look sane by comparison. and he has no science credentials, which apparently doesnt matter if you're on the warmers' side

 

[Manonthestreet]

If he couldn't ID bogus research if he saw it.....how can he take a position at all..... No doubt his position is we should do as we are told.

 

[Ernie S.]

We deny AGW because there is no AGW. It's as simple as that.

I'm sure it's just that simple.

Quite. Prove otherwise with empirical experimentation. No computer models, no fudged data. Let's see that, then we can talk. Lest you forget, there has been no warming (the "W" in AGW) in quite a while.

No doubt we can rely on your vast wealth of knowledge and experience to interpret the data. Right professor? In much the same way as a German Shepherd understands calculus.

Deflection..... Why is it that you AWG cultists can't answer a question except with an ad hom?

 

[Liminal]

We deny AGW because there is no AGW. It's as simple as that.

I'm sure it's just that simple.

Quite. Prove otherwise with empirical experimentation. No computer models, no fudged data. Let's see that, then we can talk. Lest you forget, there has been no warming (the "W" in AGW) in quite a while.

No doubt we can rely on your vast wealth of knowledge and experience to interpret the data. Right professor? In much the same way as a German Shepherd understands calculus.

Deflection..... Why is it that you AWG cultists can't answer a question except with an ad hom?

Feel free to explain how you would know the difference between empirical data and bogus information. What would you base that on?