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

[PredFan]

The "consensus" is meaningless at best and a lie at worst. There is no
Consensus because there are scientists who disagree. Even if there weren't, having a consensus is meaningless because having everyone agree with a thing, doesn't make it true. For example the consensus that there was a Big Bang may end up being wrong.

Most AGW believers don't actually know anything at all about science. They think that agreeing with scientists on AGW makes them intelligent. I like Cajun food but that doesn't make me Emeril LaGasse. They are also ignorant in history and human nature. They don't know the history of science so they think that scientists are always right. They are ignorant of human nature and don't realize that they are humans too and subject to the same human faults of greed, ambition, fraud, and fame.

AGW believers are really just poorly educated all around.

 

[flacaltenn]

Moderation Message:

Please remember -- Enviro is now a Zone 2 forum. EVERY post must have some relevence to the topic. A ROFL or a dancing banana is OK. But don't go out of your way on personal attacks if it doesn't fit the OP topic.

Thanks, FlaCalTenn

 

[Pogo]

The "consensus" is meaningless at best and a lie at worst. There is no
Consensus because there are scientists who disagree. Even if there weren't, having a consensus is meaningless because having everyone agree with a thing, doesn't make it true. For example the consensus that there was a Big Bang may end up being wrong.

Most AGW believers don't actually know anything at all about science. They think that agreeing with scientists on AGW makes them intelligent. I like Cajun food but that doesn't make me Emeril LaGasse. They are also ignorant in history and human nature. They don't know the history of science so they think that scientists are always right. They are ignorant of human nature and don't realize that they are humans too and subject to the same human faults of greed, ambition, fraud, and fame.

AGW believers are really just poorly educated all around.

Emeril Lagasse is Portuguese, not Cajun, and from Massachusetts, not Louisiana. So your attempted analogy is ironical in its ironicality.

Far more interesting to this observer is the, for lack of a better term, "AGW Deniers" who know about the same about science as you describe, yet somehow "know" it's all a giant hoax perpetuated by Al Gore from his Fortress of Solitude where he invented the Internet. That takes a special kind of arrogance.

 

[PredFan]

The "consensus" is meaningless at best and a lie at worst. There is no
Consensus because there are scientists who disagree. Even if there weren't, having a consensus is meaningless because having everyone agree with a thing, doesn't make it true. For example the consensus that there was a Big Bang may end up being wrong.

Most AGW believers don't actually know anything at all about science. They think that agreeing with scientists on AGW makes them intelligent. I like Cajun food but that doesn't make me Emeril LaGasse. They are also ignorant in history and human nature. They don't know the history of science so they think that scientists are always right. They are ignorant of human nature and don't realize that they are humans too and subject to the same human faults of greed, ambition, fraud, and fame.

AGW believers are really just poorly educated all around.

Emeril Lagasse is Portuguese, not Cajun, and from Massachusetts, not Louisiana. So your attempted analogy is ironical in its ironicality.

Far more interesting to this observer is the, for lack of a better term, "AGW Deniers" who know about the same about science as you describe, yet somehow "know" it's all a giant hoax perpetuated by Al Gore from his Fortress of Solitude where he invented the Internet. That takes a special kind of arrogance.

He cooks cajun food. Get it now dummy? Believing in AGW and thinking that makes you smart like a scientist, is the same as me thinking I'm Emeril Lagasse because I like Cajun food.
Do you know what an analogy is?

 

[SwimExpert]

Far more interesting to this observer is the, for lack of a better term, "AGW Deniers" who know about the same about science as you describe, yet somehow "know" it's all a giant hoax perpetuated by Al Gore from his Fortress of Solitude where he invented the Internet. That takes a special kind of arrogance.

There are just as many AGW believers who similarly lack any substantial understanding of science or scientific concepts, yet "know" it's pure truth. The fallacies of people who believe a proposition is not evidence against the proposition.

 

[SwimExpert]

For example the consensus that there was a Big Bang may end up being wrong.

Indeed, the BBT is starting to look like a relic of the past.

 

[Zander]

From the linked article in the OP

The call wasn’t a complete surprise. The year before, I had run a sting operation for Science on fee-charging open access journals, a fast-growing and lucrative new sector of the academic publishing business. To find out how many of those publishers are keeping their promise of doing rigorous peer review, I submitted ridiculously flawed papers and counted how many rejected them. (Answer: fewer than half.)

 

[HUGGY]

The "consensus" is meaningless at best and a lie at worst. There is no
Consensus because there are scientists who disagree. Even if there weren't, having a consensus is meaningless because having everyone agree with a thing, doesn't make it true. For example the consensus that there was a Big Bang may end up being wrong.

Most AGW believers don't actually know anything at all about science. They think that agreeing with scientists on AGW makes them intelligent. I like Cajun food but that doesn't make me Emeril LaGasse. They are also ignorant in history and human nature. They don't know the history of science so they think that scientists are always right. They are ignorant of human nature and don't realize that they are humans too and subject to the same human faults of greed, ambition, fraud, and fame.

AGW believers are really just poorly educated all around.

It is painfully true those which we used to view as scientists have been anointed as such by some pretty shaky organizations. There was a time that science had to pass muster by those that only sponsored the work. Then there were periods in history when the church took a heavy hand in deciding what was truth or not regardless of the information discovered. Leaders often leaned on the truth and bent it out of shape.

Fortunately for the human species these dark times mentioned are nearly totally in the past.

It does not matter what anyone BELIEVES who is not working to find the actual scientific data that confirms or denies AGW. What the bible supposes to suggest is worse than irrelevant. What the bible thumpers WANT you to believe is worse than dangerous.

What data that has been collected suggests that human activity could very well accelerate CO in the atmosphere. How much is still not fully understood. Just the fact that it can accumulate and be added to by our own hand makes it obvious that we should be prepared to reduce our participation in CO levels.

What boggles my mind is WHY anyone would be so against human beings doing what they can to prevent problems. Even if it happens gradually over a hundred years or so do we really want to flood most of Florida and other parts of the coasts of many parts of the globe?

What is the end game for you deniers? What are you trying to prove? If anything is it not prudent to err on the side of caution and not go kicking and screaming into the future putting band aids on just the property of the rich and let the water take over those places that can't afford to put dikes around tiny places where only the wealthy reside and own property?

 

[Zander]

There is nothing to prove Huggy. We were told by the AGW crowd that if CO2 concentrations ever got above 350 ppm the world was doomed!!

Well, CO2 concentrations are now well above 400 ppm and we have had no statistically significant warming in over 18 years.

The theory is a bust. I

I still support alternate energy sources. I love solar and have it on my house and have used it to heat my pool for over 25 years. I never pollute and I recycle.

I do those things voluntarily not because of some bullshit theory pimped by hypocrites who ride around in jets while exhorting the "little people" to make sacrifices.....

 

[HUGGY]

For example the consensus that there was a Big Bang may end up being wrong.

Indeed, the BBT is starting to look like a relic of the past.

According to whom? Was it posted on the day room bulletin board?

 

[Pogo]

The "consensus" is meaningless at best and a lie at worst. There is no
Consensus because there are scientists who disagree. Even if there weren't, having a consensus is meaningless because having everyone agree with a thing, doesn't make it true. For example the consensus that there was a Big Bang may end up being wrong.

Most AGW believers don't actually know anything at all about science. They think that agreeing with scientists on AGW makes them intelligent. I like Cajun food but that doesn't make me Emeril LaGasse. They are also ignorant in history and human nature. They don't know the history of science so they think that scientists are always right. They are ignorant of human nature and don't realize that they are humans too and subject to the same human faults of greed, ambition, fraud, and fame.

AGW believers are really just poorly educated all around.

Emeril Lagasse is Portuguese, not Cajun, and from Massachusetts, not Louisiana. So your attempted analogy is ironical in its ironicality.

Far more interesting to this observer is the, for lack of a better term, "AGW Deniers" who know about the same about science as you describe, yet somehow "know" it's all a giant hoax perpetuated by Al Gore from his Fortress of Solitude where he invented the Internet. That takes a special kind of arrogance.

He cooks cajun food. Get it now dummy? Believing in AGW and thinking that makes you smart like a scientist, is the same as me thinking I'm Emeril Lagasse because I like Cajun food.
Do you know what an analogy is?

And Emeril Lagasse isn't a Cajun. So yeah apparently I do.

 

[Pogo]

Far more interesting to this observer is the, for lack of a better term, "AGW Deniers" who know about the same about science as you describe, yet somehow "know" it's all a giant hoax perpetuated by Al Gore from his Fortress of Solitude where he invented the Internet. That takes a special kind of arrogance.

There are just as many AGW believers who similarly lack any substantial understanding of science or scientific concepts, yet "know" it's pure truth. The fallacies of people who believe a proposition is not evidence against the proposition.

Completely irrelevant to my point.

 

[HUGGY]

There is nothing to prove Huggy. We were told by the AGW crowd that if CO2 concentrations ever got above 350 ppm the world was doomed!!

Well, CO2 concentrations are now well above 400 ppm and we have had no statistically significant warming in over 18 years.

The theory is a bust. I

I still support alternate energy sources. I love solar and have it on my house and have used it to heat my pool for over 25 years. I never pollute and I recycle.
I do those things voluntarily not because of some bullshit theory pimped by hypocrites who ride around in jets while exhorting the "little people" to make sacrifices.....

How can you claim the general theory of global warming as a "bust" just because of one statistical missed prediction? That sounds like denying that automobiles exist because they don't all meet mileage standards. I don't care about some stupid arbitrary number. It OBVIOUSLY was published without enough information to back up such a claim. That hardly proves Global Warming is a hoax.

 

[Zander]

There is nothing to prove Huggy. We were told by the AGW crowd that if CO2 concentrations ever got above 350 ppm the world was doomed!!

Well, CO2 concentrations are now well above 400 ppm and we have had no statistically significant warming in over 18 years.

The theory is a bust. I

I still support alternate energy sources. I love solar and have it on my house and have used it to heat my pool for over 25 years. I never pollute and I recycle.
I do those things voluntarily not because of some bullshit theory pimped by hypocrites who ride around in jets while exhorting the "little people" to make sacrifices.....

How can you claim the general theory of global warming as a "bust" just because of one statistical missed prediction? That sounds like denying that automobiles exist because they don't all meet mileage standards. I don't care about some stupid arbitrary number. It OBVIOUSLY was published without enough information to back up such a claim. That hardly proves Global Warming is a hoax.

Sorry Huggy, but there has been no global warming for over 18 years. The AGW crowd are now calling it "the pause" and spinning like tops to explain why.

 

[SwimExpert]

"Fact" in this case meaning something you believe with a religious fervor, despite the contrary evidence.

Oh, that's rich. It's precisely a lack of religious fervor that allowed me to become a skeptic when I was once upon a time an ardent "believer." As I became better versed with the actual science of it all I came to see the various logical flaws and the substantial inconclusiveness of the evidence. It is precisely the reason my top target for criticism is when people "believe" because it's "science."

If it's a fact, show us the evidence. You need to understand that we in the reason-based community aren't like you, and we won't accept faith-based claims.

So that's why you merely accept the claims of man-made global warming, and don't even bother to appraise the quality of the evidence for yourself.

That's a creative way to backpedal. Faced with the evidence that your claim that climate science predicted cooling was false, you respond by denying climate science existed. You certainly thought it existed when you incorrectly claimed it was predicting cooling. Climate science only seemed to vanish when you found it said the opposite of what you claimed.

If you had bothered to read your own damn link you would see that I was merely agreeing with a point that its authors made. It is true that climate science as we know it today did not exist in the 70s. The study of earth's climate was done by individuals spread across multiple disciplines with an assortment of interests that were tangentially related to climate sciences. The "climate science community" if you will, was a decentralized group of scientists who were trying to study the Earth's climate for different reasons, in pursuit of separate primary interests. Climate science as an independent field came to exist as a merging of these separate interests into a common subject of interest. If you knew anything about climate science, you would already know this. But since you're an ignorant fool, you're learning something new and reacting violently to something that might challenge your dogmatic faith.

The "consensus" of the community at the time was that we were on the path toward an impending glacial period. It was, in fact, the only substantial theory that carried any degree of cohesive agreement. Truth is, there were few people at the time who were interested to bother with trying to extrapolate such long term, far reaching conclusions. Of course, the theory was substantially flawed. It was too quick a rush to judgement, based on far too small a sampling. Everyone knew that the planet seemed to have been on a cooling trend for a few decades, and the newest research and theories about solar and orbital cycles' effects on climate seemed to further indicate that we were heading in that direction. What was getting people worked up was that the trend seemed to be moving quite fast. Since nobody had seen any trend before (seeing as nobody had been doing much study on the matter), panic and arrogance got the best of them. The trend was undeniable. The causal link between cycles and climate was at least extremely difficult to dismiss. Three parts correlation, one part causation, balance with panic and serve over ice, and presto! The global cooling cocktail was a hearty flavor of the week.

Enter the politics....

It was an advisory council to LBJ who were charged with the task of coming up with a way to sell anti-pollution policy to the American public. They latched on to recent research that was suggesting that atmospheric levels of CO2 were on the rise. This rise was attributed to the consumption of fossil fuels for energy. This was pretty good evidence that human activity was having a significant impact on the environment. But what was missing was how this could be converted into a need for policy. What was the impact on American lives? There was the potential health side effects pollution. (You really should read your own link; it lays out how the committee first wanted to make a public health case about pollutants.) But instead they came up with a newly hatched hypothesis about CO2 levels becoming a direct factor for massive climate change.

This is important for you to understand: The idea that the planet was warming and that CO2 was to blame was born inside a politician's round table chamber.

Now, I know what you're going to say....you're going to accuse me of weaving a conspiracy theory. But that's not at all what I'm doing. There's no conspiracy about it. There's no malicious plot afoot. The problem is a simple matter of bias and conflicting interests, as well as well intended but misguided flaws in reasoning. Once the political hypothesis of global warming was hatched government action and money was poured into studying the idea further. This, on its surface would sound all well and good, right? There was a big problem, however, because the same arrogance, rush to judgement, and over emphasis of geologically insignificant time scales took hold and led to an equally flawed conclusion; that the world was rushing head first into dramatic and catastrophic warming. The first attempts to study man-made global warming were inherently flawed because they were attempts to study man-made global warming when they should have been attempts to study the climate and verify whether climate change was occurring at all, and what the causal agents actually were. The government funded studies to measure global warming but not to verify global warming.

This is how climate science, as we know it today, was born as in independent field of study. As people attempted to join the field, they were essentially required to sign onto the belief of man-made global warming as a result of CO2. There was no consideration for testing the hypothesis, it was merely assumed. It wasn't long before it became educational material. The scientists who were being paid with government grants to study global warming "verified" that it was real, and next thing you knew was that budding scientists could not emerge without first accepting the hypothesis as scripture. Again, while you're probably going to accuse me of making a conspiracy theory I want to point out that there's no conspiracy here, just a series of well intended but misguided events that have led to erroneous conclusions.

And that's a paranoid conspiracy theory.

And that's why you're not taken seriously. Your science and logic stinks, and all you have is conspiracy theories.

There is alot of evidence and research emerging that challenges the underlying assumptions of AGW theory. But you consistently reject it as being paid propaganda from oil companies. And you want to talk to me about alleged conspiracy theories?

 

[SwimExpert]

Completely irrelevant to my point.

How so? It seemed to me that your point was that some people who disbelieve AGW theory lack scientific aptitude, with the implication being that that fact undermines the validity of the non AGW theory believing position. Perhaps I misunderstood your point. If so, please illuminate.

 

[HUGGY]

There is nothing to prove Huggy. We were told by the AGW crowd that if CO2 concentrations ever got above 350 ppm the world was doomed!!

Well, CO2 concentrations are now well above 400 ppm and we have had no statistically significant warming in over 18 years.

The theory is a bust. I

I still support alternate energy sources. I love solar and have it on my house and have used it to heat my pool for over 25 years. I never pollute and I recycle.
I do those things voluntarily not because of some bullshit theory pimped by hypocrites who ride around in jets while exhorting the "little people" to make sacrifices.....

How can you claim the general theory of global warming as a "bust" just because of one statistical missed prediction? That sounds like denying that automobiles exist because they don't all meet mileage standards. I don't care about some stupid arbitrary number. It OBVIOUSLY was published without enough information to back up such a claim. That hardly proves Global Warming is a hoax.

Sorry Huggy, but there has been no global warming for over 18 years. The AGW crowd are now calling it "the pause" and spinning like tops to explain why.

Is your misinformation deliberate? Do you STILL have trouble with 2nd grade definition recognition?

Slow does not mean STOP. We have been in a steady energy added bank status for a very long time. The scientists don't have a good understanding why the rise in surface temperatures HAVE SLOWED for almost two decades. The recent warming has been steady at half the rate of the previous two decades before the slowing started. The receding ice and ocean rise has been at the same rate or worse as when the observed surface temps were higher.

Telling people that there has been a stoppage in temps rising is a bald faced lie.

What is the purpose of you lying?

If you were right I couldn't care less. But you are not right. So you lie in place of the truth which is that the rise in surface temps have slowed for about two decades and the scientists don't know what happened to the extra energy that the earth absorbed which has been a constant for a few more decades than the slowing.

 

[Crick]

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.

Does this sound familar? "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."

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.

Our knowledge of the Earth's climate goes back millions of years while the period in which we're currently interested spans not much more than one hundred. You've got things completely topsy turvy. From data that spans millions of years, folks are drawing conclusions about what's been going on the last century.

I see you haven't changed.

 

[Billy_Bob]

There is nothing to prove Huggy. We were told by the AGW crowd that if CO2 concentrations ever got above 350 ppm the world was doomed!!

Well, CO2 concentrations are now well above 400 ppm and we have had no statistically significant warming in over 18 years.

The theory is a bust. I

I still support alternate energy sources. I love solar and have it on my house and have used it to heat my pool for over 25 years. I never pollute and I recycle.
I do those things voluntarily not because of some bullshit theory pimped by hypocrites who ride around in jets while exhorting the "little people" to make sacrifices.....

How can you claim the general theory of global warming as a "bust" just because of one statistical missed prediction? That sounds like denying that automobiles exist because they don't all meet mileage standards. I don't care about some stupid arbitrary number. It OBVIOUSLY was published without enough information to back up such a claim. That hardly proves Global Warming is a hoax.

Sorry Huggy, but there has been no global warming for over 18 years. The AGW crowd are now calling it "the pause" and spinning like tops to explain why.

Is your misinformation deliberate? Do you STILL have trouble with 2nd grade definition recognition?

Slow does not mean STOP. We have been in a steady energy added bank status for a very long time. The scientists don't have a good understanding why the rise in surface temperatures HAVE SLOWED for almost two decades. The recent warming has been steady at half the rate of the previous two decades before the slowing started. The receding ice and ocean rise has been at the same rate or worse as when the observed surface temps were higher.

Telling people that there has been a stoppage in temps rising is a bald faced lie.

What is the purpose of you lying?

If you were right I couldn't care less. But you are not right. So you lie in place of the truth which is that the rise in surface temps have slowed for about two decades and the scientists don't know what happened to the extra energy that the earth absorbed which has been a constant for a few more decades than the slowing.

Incorrect;

We have been in a negative earth energy balance now for over 22 years. (32 by UAH and RSS calculations) Only the fudged models say that there is missing heat.

 

[Billy_Bob]

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.

Does this sound familar? "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."

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.

Our knowledge of the Earth's climate goes back millions of years while the period in which we're currently interested spans not much more than one hundred. You've got things completely topsy turvy. From data that spans millions of years, folks are drawing conclusions about what's been going on the last century.

I see you haven't changed.

Crick exaggerating his numbers again.. The list is now over 45,000 scientists who disagree with you..