This is how millions of people are fooled into believing the AGW crap.

[SwimExpert]

Just because something is "science" does not mean it is good science.

Here’s a dirty little science secret: If you measure a large number of things about a small number of people, you are almost guaranteed to get a “statistically significant” result.

I Fooled Millions Into Thinking Chocolate Helps Weight Loss. Here s How.

 

[Crick]

Why don't you explain how that applies to the climate science conducted worldwide over the last 30 years or so?

 

[SwimExpert]

Why don't you explain how that applies to the climate science conducted worldwide over the last 30 years or so?

I already did. You're just too obtuse to comprehend it between bong hits.

 

[Pogo]

Well this thread is going well....

 

[Old Rocks]

Just how is the measurement of worldwide retreat of glaciers, Arctic ice, and the continental icecaps by hundreds of scientists from around the world measuring a large number of things about a small number of people? Just about as stupid of an anology as I have ever seen.

 

[Crick]

Why don't you explain how that applies to the climate science conducted worldwide over the last 30 years or so?

I already did. You're just too obtuse to comprehend it between bong hits.

You lie. You did no such thing.

 

[Porker]

Just because something is "science" does not mean it is good science.

Here’s a dirty little science secret: If you measure a large number of things about a small number of people, you are almost guaranteed to get a “statistically significant” result.

I Fooled Millions Into Thinking Chocolate Helps Weight Loss. Here s How.

All I had to do was pay attention to the climate for the past 50 years or so. First there was the "new ice age" which didn't happen then there was this goofy gorebal warming shit which also didn't happen...and NEVER WILL happen unless GOD wants it to happen. All the lying ass "science" in the world can't change what's already disgraced these lying sumbitches.

 

[Old Rocks]

Now ol' Pig, there never was a consensus on a 'new ice age'.

What 1970s science said about global cooling

A new paper exposing the myth of 70s global cooling
Over time, William Connelly has been steadily documenting 70s research predicting global cooling. It's a rich resource but as he admits, could be more accessible. Now he has collaborated with Thomas Peterson and John Fleck to publish The Myth of the 1970's Global Cooling Scientific Consensus, due to be published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.

The paper surveys climate studies from 1965 to 1979 (and in a refreshing change to other similar surveys, lists all the papers). They find very few papers (7 in total) predict global cooling. This isn't surprising. What surprises is that even in the 1970s, on the back of 3 decades of cooling, more papers (42 in total) predict global warming due to CO2 than cooling.

Figure 1: Number of papers classified as predicting future global cooling (blue) or warming (red). In no year were there more global cooling papers than global warming papers.

So in fact, the large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than climate science predicting cooling, the opposite is the case. Most interesting about Peterson's paper is not the debunking of an already well debunked skeptic argument but a succinct history of climate science over the 20th century, describing how scientists from different fields gradually pieced together their diverse findings into a more unified picture of how climate operates. A must read paper.

 

[Porker]

Now ol' Pig, there never was a consensus on a 'new ice age'.

You goddamned right there wasn't just like there is NO consensus on gorebal warming.

 

[Old Rocks]

Every single Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has policy statements that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. Yes, there is a scientific consensus that AGW is real. There is not a consensus on the reality among the uneducated and willfully ignorant. Those that believe in the 'Way thing oughter be', rather than the way things really are.

 

[skookerasbil]

Every single Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has policy statements that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. Yes, there is a scientific consensus that AGW is real. There is not a consensus on the reality among the uneducated and willfully ignorant. Those that believe in the 'Way thing oughter be', rather than the way things really are.

But the consensus is rigged. In 2015, that's not even conjecture anymore. Too, plenty of evidence suggests that in no way is it a present danger. The numbers don't add up.

And Ray.....for years in here, you were posting up stuff from Dr Curry all the time. Then............when she had an opinion that didn't conform with the alarmist approach, you threw her under the bus!! C'mon!!!

Judith Curry The Global Warming Statistical Meltdown - WSJ

 

[Crick]

Why don't you explain how that applies to the climate science conducted worldwide over the last 30 years or so?

I already did. You're just too obtuse to comprehend it between bong hits.

You lie. You did no such thing.

No response? An admission of guilt and an apology perhaps? After all, this is your thread. I'd think you'd be somewhat obliged to show us "how millions of people are fooled into believing the agw crap". So far, all you have shown us is how a number of lazy publishers and incompetent editors were fooled into believing chocolate helps people lose weight. The last time I checked, neither chocolate, nor weight loss nor extrapolation from inadequate samples are issues that come up in climate research. So... we're still waiting.

 

[Crick]

Now ol' Pig, there never was a consensus on a 'new ice age'.

You goddamned right there wasn't just like there is NO consensus on gorebal warming.

It would not be difficult to add blinders to your pig avatar. I mean, for the sake of accuracy and all.

 

[SwimExpert]

Just how is the measurement of worldwide retreat of glaciers, Arctic ice, and the continental icecaps by hundreds of scientists from around the world measuring a large number of things about a small number of people? Just about as stupid of an anology as I have ever seen.

Actually, you made a stupid analogy by not making an analogy at all. I never said it's a small number of people. It's a small sampling.

Our measurements of climate activity span a very small time frame. And a good part of it is based on relatively inaccurate measurements. From this small sampling of less than 150 years, we are drawing extrapolations and conclusions about trends and activity that span tens of thousands, sometimes millions of years.

 

[SwimExpert]

Every single Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has policy statements that AGW is real

Well then, it's settled. It's in the policy statement. Research incompatible with policy need not be pursued or published.

 

[jc456]

Just how is the measurement of worldwide retreat of glaciers, Arctic ice, and the continental icecaps by hundreds of scientists from around the world measuring a large number of things about a small number of people? Just about as stupid of an anology as I have ever seen.

well again old socks you post your bullshit again. hey, bullshit post, isn't so. hahahahahahaha

 

[jc456]

Just because something is "science" does not mean it is good science.

Here’s a dirty little science secret: If you measure a large number of things about a small number of people, you are almost guaranteed to get a “statistically significant” result.

I Fooled Millions Into Thinking Chocolate Helps Weight Loss. Here s How.

All I had to do was pay attention to the climate for the past 50 years or so. First there was the "new ice age" which didn't happen then there was this goofy gorebal warming shit which also didn't happen...and NEVER WILL happen unless GOD wants it to happen. All the lying ass "science" in the world can't change what's already disgraced these lying sumbitches.

but they can all cross their fingers, legs and toes and hope and wish, and wish and hope and then repeat all that over and over and end up saying..............DOH!!!!!

 

[jc456]

Every single Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has policy statements that AGW is real

Well then, it's settled. It's in the policy statement. Research incompatible with policy need not be pursued or published.

no proof, no evidence, nothing. Yet, as long as the money keeps coming in, it is what it is.

 

[SwimExpert]

No response?

Impatient much? Were you under the false premise that I live on USMB 24/7? I think I understand the problem, you can't break free of your instant gratification addiction. Which is one of the defining characteristics of the AGW crowd. If the temperature goes up a tenth of a degree it must be a major climactic event! No need to wait to see what happens over the next 1000 years, let's just make outlandish conclusions because the temperature went up a tenth of a degree and you want results now!

 

[jc456]

Now ol' Pig, there never was a consensus on a 'new ice age'.

What 1970s science said about global cooling

A new paper exposing the myth of 70s global cooling
Over time, William Connelly has been steadily documenting 70s research predicting global cooling. It's a rich resource but as he admits, could be more accessible. Now he has collaborated with Thomas Peterson and John Fleck to publish The Myth of the 1970's Global Cooling Scientific Consensus, due to be published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.

The paper surveys climate studies from 1965 to 1979 (and in a refreshing change to other similar surveys, lists all the papers). They find very few papers (7 in total) predict global cooling. This isn't surprising. What surprises is that even in the 1970s, on the back of 3 decades of cooling, more papers (42 in total) predict global warming due to CO2 than cooling.

Figure 1: Number of papers classified as predicting future global cooling (blue) or warming (red). In no year were there more global cooling papers than global warming papers.

So in fact, the large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than climate science predicting cooling, the opposite is the case. Most interesting about Peterson's paper is not the debunking of an already well debunked skeptic argument but a succinct history of climate science over the 20th century, describing how scientists from different fields gradually pieced together their diverse findings into a more unified picture of how climate operates. A must read paper.

Boy, a lot of work for something you all claim didn't happen. Hmmmmmmmmmmm