You don't say...lol

[flacaltenn]

And no. I'm interested only in the science here. Not in your pleasuring yourself by pitting members against each other

If you're interested in the science you should be correcting the science deniers rather than trying to attack my defense of science and scientists.

The thing is, that they don't deserve, or merit any defense at all...they are doing nothing more than pushing a political alarmist agenda.

Here is a perfect example of the degree of dishonesty they are engaging in..This is the typical temperature chart you see from climate science covering the past century.. Even if we assume that it is accurate which I question, it's format is designed for one purpose..and one purpose only. It is designed to create a sense of unease, and urgency regarding the global temperature. The scaling, and the fact that the temperature is shown in terms of anomaly, rather than actual degrees of temperature serves no purpose other than to create anxiety.

View attachment 274514

The graph below describes the same temperature change as the one above, but the sole purpose of the one below is to impart information about the amount and rate that the temperature has changed since 1900. Clearly this graph would not create a sense of anxiety, or alarm in anyone even though it shows the same information.

The graph above.....the graph below. Both show the same information...one is designed specifically to create a sense of urgency and alarm..one is designed to impart scientific information...One is patently dishonest in its intent...can you guess which one that might be?

Ah.. The science of perverting graphs.. I know it well... Problem is -- folks who READ graphs don't fall for the camouflage like National Review does....

 

[flacaltenn]

It doesn't have to be. It's just a word that can be used when scientists are in general agreement about something. When somebody mentions the consensus they are simply saying that there is a general agreement among scientists when it comes to this issue.

For it to be SCIENCE it does. Where did you get your so called education again? Out of a cereal box?

I am amazed that you have a PhD and fail to understand why it's not inappropriate for me to use the word consensus when describing the fact that there is a general agreement on a scientific matter. I am not saying a consensus is guaranteed to be right and leaves no room for skepticism.

Here is a quote from a pretty smart guy regarding consensus as it applies to science...and it hits the nail right on the head...you guys go on incessantly about consensus because you aren't able to provide even the first piece of observed measured evidence to support your case...if you had evidence, you wouldn't need consensus...

“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

“Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.

“In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of”

There is "consensus for practical purpose" which is the type that occurs once stuff appears in multiple textbooks on the subject. THIS might be endangered due to the HASTE of declaring consensus BECAUSE politics is mightily involved, but it still holds...

How many examples of "consensus" science being in multiple textbooks that was still wrong would you like? Shall we start with stress being the cause of gastric ulcers? That was in every textbook on gastroenterology for generations...and it was wrong...being in multiple textbooks doesn't really mean anything unless you are offering up consensus as evidence rather than offering up evidence as evidence...

Since you've referred to textbooks by various derogatory names before (like dogma), you have some issues with science that I don't care to fix.. Because after a hundred pages with you -- it's fruitless..

Of course, if you go back 50 years, those textbooks are NOT USED ANYMORE... They just sit in libraries taking up space and dust for historical purposes... Generally, not because they are seriously flawed, but because they aren't 100% accurate.

But the CURRENT ones that are USED identify theory from fact and opinions from data when it's "not settled"... Doesn't mean its right -- it just means that conspiracy theorists like you don't matter at the moment they are written...

 

[flacaltenn]

And no. I'm interested only in the science here. Not in your pleasuring yourself by pitting members against each other

If you're interested in the science you should be correcting the science deniers rather than trying to attack my defense of science and scientists.

See my post above Bullwinkle... I'm doing my part... When it's required to get topics discussed legitimately and on the actual topic...

 

[flacaltenn]

I know a lot more than you realize. That's why I don't prattle on like you do.

Jim Hansen??? Is that YOU??? We've missed your fairy tales buddy.... Loved those "coal trains of death" rants... And how you gave cover to CBS news in their GW special to post a picture of an ocean and the Caption -- "212 Degrees Fahrenheit".... You're a hoot....

 

[SSDD]

Since you've referred to textbooks by various derogatory names before (like dogma), you have some issues with science that I don't care to fix.. Because after a hundred pages with you -- it's fruitless..

It was dogma...it was something everyone "knew" but there wasn't a whit of actual evidence to support it...Everyone "knows" that the radiative greenhouse effect is reality, with no actual evidence to support it...post modern science is littered with "facts" that everyone "knows" without the first bit of actual evidence that support them...Sorry, but "knowing" isn't a rational substitute for evidence.

Of course, if you go back 50 years, those textbooks are NOT USED ANYMORE... They just sit in libraries taking up space and dust for historical purposes... Generally, not because they are seriously flawed, but because they aren't 100% accurate.

And given 50 years...or less if we are lucky, books that teach bullshit like a radiative greenhouse effect in a troposphere completely dominated by gravity, pressure, conduction and convection will be sitting right there with all the other textbooks serving an example of exactly how useful consensus is..

 

[westwall]

Most of the ORIGINAL LandSat1 images were analyzed BY HAND from film on light tables.. The company I joined designed specialized computing for machine analysis.. Late 70, early 80s...

Yup, I was one of those who did the initial analysis. Very hard work because we were under time pressure. But, it was also fun as hell because we were able to see relationships we had guessed at, but could now verify. It was a very heady time.

 

[daveman]

Most often they are found by statisticians

And these statisticians that find most of the mistakes and correct the climate scientists believe that AGW is a sham? Can you show some evidence of your claim?

They don't "believe" anything. That is the realm of religion. What they observe (that's what science does) does not comport to what we have been told. I can go back throughout history and in no place do I find anything happening now, that is inconsistent with what has happened before. And in fact, this era is by far the most stable we have experienced since the Medieval Warming Period.

I suggest you actually look at some real science and educate yourself so that you can better discuss things.

Just to clarify for Confounding, are you talking about the Medieval Warming Period that the Klimate Kult altered the past temperature record to destroy?

Yup, that very one. Amazing how mann was able to disappear it, wasn't it...

Not as amazing as the number of people who went along with the Soviet-esque rewriting of history.

It really is a cult.

 

[daveman]

I don't trust anyone who lies. The only question is...why do you?

You are too ignorant to understand the difference between lies and adjustments in science. Surprisingly it seems some of the "scientists" in this thread are too.

Really? Where did the Medieval Warm Period go?

 

[daveman]

I disagree with flac when it comes to consensus science. There is NO place in science for consensus arguments. That type of science has slowed development for the three hundred years of the modern scientific methodology.

Well, doctor, I think Flac might actually understand what the word means and when/why it is appropriate to use it because his vocabulary is not limited to K-12. Do you seriously have a PhD? Flacal is the only one I believe may actually have a resume that technically allows him to call himself a scientist.

What's your background? You have completely failed to answer this question.

 

[daveman]

Westwall has been in both the academic sciences intimately related to climate science and on the practical side as well... He's "completely up to speed"..

You couldn't catch him...

I think you both overestimate your credentials and go out of your way to brag about them a little too often. Westwall is nobody.

Again...let's see your CV.

 

[daveman]

And no. I'm interested only in the science here. Not in your pleasuring yourself by pitting members against each other when YOU have no real interest in ANY of the scientific details of this topic... Why explain nuances to some guy with a mission who won't answer basic questions about the ACTUAL science??

Hey, Confounded, that flabby, jiggly, pale, pasty thing you're holding...that's your ass that flacaltenn just handed you.

Your best bet would be to run away from this thread and pretend you were never here.

 

[daveman]

If you know so much then say it.

Yoyre just blabbering away...more or less trolling the thread

I only have interest in exchanging with Flacal at this point. I'm bored of the rest of you.

No, you're too chickenshit to answer questions.

Remember, kids, Confounding is an expert because he says he is.

 

[daveman]

And no. I'm interested only in the science here. Not in your pleasuring yourself by pitting members against each other when YOU have no real interest in ANY of the scientific details of this topic... Why explain nuances to some guy with a mission who won't answer basic questions about the ACTUAL science??

Hey, Confounded, that flabby, jiggly, pale, pasty thing you're holding...that's your ass that flacaltenn just handed you.

Your best bet would be to run away from this thread and pretend you were never here.

And it looks like you did.

 

[SSDD]

If you know so much then say it.

Yoyre just blabbering away...more or less trolling the thread

I only have interest in exchanging with Flacal at this point. I'm bored of the rest of you.

No, you're too chickenshit to answer questions.

Remember, kids, Confounding is an expert because he says he is.

Actually, by his own admission he doesn't understand any of the science...his position is entirely political....if the left were skeptical, then he would be skeptical and would be just as sure that AGW is a flawed, and failed hypothesis as he is that AGW is a real and present danger...

 

[daveman]

If you know so much then say it.

Yoyre just blabbering away...more or less trolling the thread

I only have interest in exchanging with Flacal at this point. I'm bored of the rest of you.

No, you're too chickenshit to answer questions.

Remember, kids, Confounding is an expert because he says he is.

Actually, by his own admission he doesn't understand any of the science...his position is entirely political....if the left were skeptical, then he would be skeptical and would be just as sure that AGW is a flawed, and failed hypothesis as he is that AGW is a real and present danger...

HERETIC INFIDEL OUTCAST UNCLEAN DO NOT QUESTION THE DOGMA

There, I covered for you, Confounding.

 

[Confounding]

See my post above Bullwinkle

It's good to see you do more than try to undermine my defense of science and scientists.

Jim Hansen??? Is that YOU??? We've missed your fairy tales buddy

You agreed earlier when I stated that I'm not an alarmist. Why not respond to the rest of my post?

 

[Confounding]

The only deniers of science are those who willfully ignore the scientific method. That would be YOUR hero's. The climatologists who instead of making their raw data and methods available (as is required by the scientific method) instead resort to name calling and threats of imprisonment or death for the unbelievers.

flacaltenn

I noticed you didn't react to this post. I was wondering about your opinion of the points just made by this scientist.

 

[Confounding]

And no. I'm interested only in the science here. Not in your pleasuring yourself by pitting members against each other when YOU have no real interest in ANY of the scientific details of this topic... Why explain nuances to some guy with a mission who won't answer basic questions about the ACTUAL science??

None of the people here are actually qualified to discuss the science because on this topic in particular they're not as educated as real climate scientists, the people at the forefront of what we understand. That's fine, but I just want to remind everybody that they're ignorant compared to the people being calling liars and frauds. The fact that they think an obvious bullshit conspiracy would float in science proves just how ignorant they are. I noticed you still won't tell me that climate scientists aren't using evidence to support their claims, Mr. Scientist.

 

[Confounding]

examine the evidence

I leave that to scientists that have made it their career.

 

[Confounding]

If you know so much then say it.

I am saying it, but you're too stubborn and too ignorant.