Fake climate science

[SSDD]

Far to long, did not read.

That says it all...

Nobody has time to read your thousand word screed on why reality isn't real. I may not have read it but I know what it says. I'm sure it contains phrases like "healthy skepticism" and "consensus isn't scientific" and a few excerpts from junk science done by bought and paid for oil company shills about how co2 doesn't cause warming and surely mentions the predictions from the 70s about ice ages. As long as it is I'm sure there are many more of the standard denier lies in it as well but I bet that hits the high points.

There was one line in there you surely would have benefitted from. Real scientists never use the word Denier to describe an opposing view. That type of extreme vocabulry is only for those who seek to shut down debate...a very non-scientific habit.

Jo

I'm not a scientist.

You are a denier.

Since by your own admission, you don't know enough about the science to determine whether an argument is true or false, how do you know that you are not the denier? You certainly exhibit the traits one would expect in a denier. You refuse to even consider another view...you do your best to deride anyone who has a view different from your own...you make claims that you can't support, and are not supported by any sort of data....and your position is based entirely on faith...

 

[SSDD]

Nobody has time to read your thousand word screed on why reality isn't real. I may not have read it but I know what it says. I'm sure it contains phrases like "healthy skepticism" and "consensus isn't scientific" and a few excerpts from junk science done by bought and paid for oil company shills about how co2 doesn't cause warming and surely mentions the predictions from the 70s about ice ages. As long as it is I'm sure there are many more of the standard denier lies in it as well but I bet that hits the high points.

There was one line in there you surely would have benefitted from. Real scientists never use the word Denier to describe an opposing view. That type of extreme vocabulry is only for those who seek to shut down debate...a very non-scientific habit.

Jo

I'm not a scientist.

You are a denier.

Nor are you even remotely scientific.
The Term climate snob fits though.

Jo

And you're still a denier.

And there you have it. You sun yourself in the light of ignorance. Right above is a well reasoned prose that identifies this very
Condition. Your choice is tribalism over science .. once chosen the position is damn near immovable.... ERGO:

One convinced against his will
Is of the same opinion still.

Jo

Crepitus exemplifies a pseudoscience cultist. Real science, that is, science that is a pursuit of the truth has certain hallmarks. The primary one is that it actively looks for skeptical views so that it can use the evidence it possess to refute them. In a true science, the following statement can be easily made: “If x happens, it would show demonstrably that theory y is not true.” We can then design an experiment, a physical one or sometimes a simple thought experiment, to figure out if x actually does happen. It’s the opposite of looking for verification; you must try to show the theory is incorrect, and if you fail to do so, thereby strengthen it.

Pseudosciences cannot and do not do this–they are not strong enough to hold up.

Climate science does not actively look for factors that would falsify the AGW hypothesis...they cherry pick data for no other reason than to hide factors that would call the hypothesis into question. People like crepitus are tools...useful idiots. They stand out on the corner with sandwich boards proclaiming that the end is near and that all who question the prophecy are deniers. By his own admission, he doesn't know anything at all about science....climate is probably the first issue in science that has ever interested him and then only because of politics...he doesn't know that in real science, the primary activity is the effort to falsify the hypothesis. All he knows is what people with the same political views as his told him to say. He has been instructed that whenever someone questions the hypothesis, to name them a denier...he doesn't have any idea that doing so is the very least scientifically valid response to skepticism...he is a dupe.

 

[justoffal]

Cliff note it for me.

How about you back up your assertion? Anyone can troll.

What you are witnessing is absolute penetration of Tribalism. These fellows have abandoned debate and have characterized it as the demon instead of the guide whereas real science holds the mechanism of the debate sacrosacnt above all.

Their identity badge is the braggadocious
misconception and feral abuse of the word consensus. Indeed it has become the
Hooded priest of Gaia in it's religious abstention from curiousity and research; carefully forbidding and assiduously condemning any betrayal of the faith.
If you listen closely you can hear the ominous and hypnotic hum of a myriad
Borg like beings offering out white noise
In a surreal unison. They feel safe even as they drift towards the total blackness of
Total ignorance.

Jo

Very eloquently put but, probably lost on he TDS crowd.

Yep.... and that is another angle I have seen used repeatedly as if politics and climate science have anything to do with each other.
A person who wants to debate is tagged name DENIER which also happens to coincide with the use of numerous derogatories relating to political alignment.

That should be a dead giveaway
to anyone in search of validations for the AGW arguments... But no....much like the blind suicide bombers of radical religious origins they run at the opposing argument and ignite the explosives hoping for maximum carnage instead of maximum interchange.

Jo

In real science, the paramount, and primary activity of any scientists in the field is an effort to disprove the hypothesis. Every failure to disprove it makes it stronger. That is why when you offer up skepticism about a hypothesis in other fields of science, you are immediately bombarded from every direction with observed, measured evidence, experimental results, etc, etc, etc all which were designed to try and prove the hypothesis incorrect. It is the strength of the observed, measured evidence and all the experiments and lab work which failed to falsify the hypothesis that makes it so strong.

When you offer up skepticism to climate science, they tell you about the consensus. What other branch of science offers up consensus as evidence that the hypothesis is correct...they can't show you any real effort ever made to falsify the hypothesis...and when you ask for even one single piece of observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...the can't produce it...instead, they call you a denier...imagine the abject stupidity of someone who will call you a denier for being skeptical of his belief when he can't even produce a single piece of evidence that supports his hypothesis over simple natural variability.

At least he admits his ignorance of science so you can view him as just a dupe, a useful idiot who's political leanings have been hijacked for purposes he doesn't understand and feel a bit sorry for him. It is the people who claim to be versed in science who will lie, call you a denier and claim that mountains of evidence exist but refuse to provide even a single shred that are the real anti science culprits...it is they who have gone further than anyone else toward destroying the reputation of valid science. Since the onset of the AGW scam, actual trust in science has been on a steady decrease due to exactly those people...

I thought the author did a good job by categorizing that type of stubbornness as tribalism. It's something that all of us have to be careful of. I'm not one hundred percent against the new power technologies I just don't think they have to be emergency-rushed in at the expense of our economy. I always have my guard up against someone who needs something from me immediately and doesn't want to have to explain why. Then I become doubly suspicious when they pull out the chicken-little emergency stunts.

I'm aware of the fact that I could become equally stubborn in the other direction. I hope that doesn't happen to me. I try very hard to be aware of it. But for all of my experience with various feilds of science this climate science thing is the first thing I have come across that wants to stand on its own merits completely separate from every other branch of science. Nobody is questioning whether or not CO2 retains heat at a certain frequency or that rising sea levels could prove perilous to the coastal zones. What we question is why climatologists in this group seek to exclude every other input from other fields of science. In addition to that there have been so many claims that have demonstrably proved to be false in connection with this particular branch of science that it behooves anyone to look very carefully at the next new claim. If this particular group of people are pissed off because everyone doubts what comes out of their mouths they ought to look in the mirror and ask themselves why that is.

Jo

 

[Pilot1]

I have said this from the beginning. The Man Made Global Warming (now Climate Change) movement is not environmental. It is POLITICAL and purely economic to redistribute wealth and income of the average person. Raising the cost of energy and raising the cost of all products and services that fossil fuels touch (everything) is their goal. This will reduce the disposable income people have and reduce their standard of living.

Also draconian taxes on all fossil fuels will also negatively affect the average person.

 

[justoffal]

I have said this from the beginning. The Man Made Global Warming (now Climate Change) movement is not environmental. It is POLITICAL and purely economic to redistribute wealth and income of the average person. Raising the cost of energy and raising the cost of all products and services that fossil fuels touch (everything) is their goal. This will reduce the disposable income people have and reduce their standard of living.

Also draconian taxes on all fossil fuels will also negatively affect the average person.

Well if that is the case it certainly explains much.

Jo

 

[ralfy]

The debate's a waste of time given pollution.

 

[justoffal]

The debate's a waste of time given pollution.

Co2 is not necessarily pollution.
A gas turbine that runs on methane generates as an end product 98% co2 and h2o. Coal can be cleaned up rather easily.
Most industrial furnaces can burn coal, number 6 oil or gas.

Jo

 

[Pilot1]

The debate's a waste of time given pollution.

We have greatly reduced "pollution" both air and water over the last fifty years. CO2 and "carbon" is NOT pollution. It is a natural occurring molecule, and element necessary for our existence.

 

[justoffal]

The debate's a waste of time given pollution.

We have greatly reduced "pollution" both air and water over the last fifty years. CO2 and "carbon" is NOT pollution. It is a natural occurring molecule, and element necessary for our existence.

sometimes it seems like this climate debate devolves into an argument over whether or not man actually has a right to live on the planet's surface.

 

[SSDD]

The debate's a waste of time given pollution.

True...there are plenty of real environmental problems...pollution, land use, runoff, etc which have real solutions. The problem is that nothing is being really done about them, nor will anything be done so long as the AGW scam is sucking all of the air out of the room and all the treasure out of the coffers.

 

[SSDD]

The debate's a waste of time given pollution.

We have greatly reduced "pollution" both air and water over the last fifty years. CO2 and "carbon" is NOT pollution. It is a natural occurring molecule, and element necessary for our existence.

sometimes it seems like this climate debate devolves into an argument over whether or not man actually has a right to live on the planet's surface.

True...follow any climate change discussion long enough and eventually the topic of overpopulation comes up and just beneath the surface, is their willingness to see millions, perhaps billions die in the name of their cultish environmental religion.

 

[Meister]

Moved from the CDZ to the Environment forum.
It seems that posters in these threads are more bent on insulting
opposing posters than just sticking to the topic in the CDZ.
Well played

 

[flacaltenn]

That says it all...

Nobody has time to read your thousand word screed on why reality isn't real. I may not have read it but I know what it says. I'm sure it contains phrases like "healthy skepticism" and "consensus isn't scientific" and a few excerpts from junk science done by bought and paid for oil company shills about how co2 doesn't cause warming and surely mentions the predictions from the 70s about ice ages. As long as it is I'm sure there are many more of the standard denier lies in it as well but I bet that hits the high points.

There was one line in there you surely would have benefitted from. Real scientists never use the word Denier to describe an opposing view. That type of extreme vocabulry is only for those who seek to shut down debate...a very non-scientific habit.

Jo

I'm not a scientist.

You are a denier.

Nor are you even remotely scientific.
The Term climate snob fits though.

Jo

And you're still a denier.

What do you suppose he's denying? Climate science doesn't HAVE just one question to answer. And in science, any form of consensus approval has ONE SPECIFIC DETAILED question as the basis...

Is the Earth Warming?
Is man causing it?
What percentage of the 1degC change in Global temp can be attributed to man's emissions.
What's the temperature GONNA be in 2100?
How accurate are the models PREDICTING that projected temperature?
What emissions scenario are those models based on?
What is the STATISTICAL CONFIDENCE range of those projections for temperature and SLevel rise 50 or 100 years out?
How do we know that this 1 degC in our lifetimes has never been approached since the last ice age?
With what evidence and confidence can we attribute CURRENT extreme weather events to this minor 1degC change in Global mean temperatures in our lifetimes?


I could go on for an hour here.. It's NOT as simple as being a denier or WORSE buying everything you've HEARD about GW whole hog without sweating some PERSONAL research.. Calling each other deniers or climate snobs doesn't begin to get the job done of UNDERSTANDING the science behind the politics and the fear mongering...

There IS an issue with man's emissions. It's NOT a crisis of any proportion worth $10 trillion.. The science has been BADLY abused and misinterpreted by the media and the UN money grubbers and political forces..

Most of the original "pants wetting" projections of 2100 temps and slRise numbers from the 80's have been revised WAAAY the hell down.. But like everything else that's no longer real or accurate, this shit lives on forever on the internet.

 

[Crepitus]

Nobody has time to read your thousand word screed on why reality isn't real. I may not have read it but I know what it says. I'm sure it contains phrases like "healthy skepticism" and "consensus isn't scientific" and a few excerpts from junk science done by bought and paid for oil company shills about how co2 doesn't cause warming and surely mentions the predictions from the 70s about ice ages. As long as it is I'm sure there are many more of the standard denier lies in it as well but I bet that hits the high points.

There was one line in there you surely would have benefitted from. Real scientists never use the word Denier to describe an opposing view. That type of extreme vocabulry is only for those who seek to shut down debate...a very non-scientific habit.

Jo

I'm not a scientist.

You are a denier.

Nor are you even remotely scientific.
The Term climate snob fits though.

Jo

And you're still a denier.

What do you suppose he's denying? Climate science doesn't HAVE just one question to answer. And in science, any form of consensus approval has ONE SPECIFIC DETAILED question as the basis...

Is the Earth Warming?
Is man causing it?
What percentage of the 1degC change in Global temp can be attributed to man's emissions.
What's the temperature GONNA be in 2100?
How accurate are the models PREDICTING that projected temperature?
What emissions scenario are those models based on?
What is the STATISTICAL CONFIDENCE range of those projections for temperature and SLevel rise 50 or 100 years out?
How do we know that this 1 degC in our lifetimes has never been approached since the last ice age?
With what evidence and confidence can we attribute CURRENT extreme weather events to this minor 1degC change in Global mean temperatures in our lifetimes?


I could go on for an hour here.. It's NOT as simple as being a denier or WORSE buying everything you've HEARD about GW whole hog without sweating some PERSONAL research.. Calling each other deniers or climate snobs doesn't begin to get the job done of UNDERSTANDING the science behind the politics and the fear mongering...

There IS an issue with man's emissions. It's NOT a crisis of any proportion worth $10 trillion.. The science has been BADLY abused and misinterpreted by the media and the UN money grubbers and political forces..

Most of the original "pants wetting" projections of 2100 temps and slRise numbers from the 80's have been revised WAAAY the hell down.. But like everything else that's no longer real or accurate, this shit lives on forever on the internet.

So, you're a denier as well.

 

[flacaltenn]

There was one line in there you surely would have benefitted from. Real scientists never use the word Denier to describe an opposing view. That type of extreme vocabulry is only for those who seek to shut down debate...a very non-scientific habit.

Jo

I'm not a scientist.

You are a denier.

Nor are you even remotely scientific.
The Term climate snob fits though.

Jo

And you're still a denier.

What do you suppose he's denying? Climate science doesn't HAVE just one question to answer. And in science, any form of consensus approval has ONE SPECIFIC DETAILED question as the basis...

Is the Earth Warming?
Is man causing it?
What percentage of the 1degC change in Global temp can be attributed to man's emissions.
What's the temperature GONNA be in 2100?
How accurate are the models PREDICTING that projected temperature?
What emissions scenario are those models based on?
What is the STATISTICAL CONFIDENCE range of those projections for temperature and SLevel rise 50 or 100 years out?
How do we know that this 1 degC in our lifetimes has never been approached since the last ice age?
With what evidence and confidence can we attribute CURRENT extreme weather events to this minor 1degC change in Global mean temperatures in our lifetimes?


I could go on for an hour here.. It's NOT as simple as being a denier or WORSE buying everything you've HEARD about GW whole hog without sweating some PERSONAL research.. Calling each other deniers or climate snobs doesn't begin to get the job done of UNDERSTANDING the science behind the politics and the fear mongering...

There IS an issue with man's emissions. It's NOT a crisis of any proportion worth $10 trillion.. The science has been BADLY abused and misinterpreted by the media and the UN money grubbers and political forces..

Most of the original "pants wetting" projections of 2100 temps and slRise numbers from the 80's have been revised WAAAY the hell down.. But like everything else that's no longer real or accurate, this shit lives on forever on the internet.

So, you're a denier as well.

I'm a VERY well informed skeptic on the CATASTROPHIC aspects of GW theories... And you --- apparently -- are all mouth and no knowledge of the subject..

Tell me what you know about the projected temperature anomaly in 2100... I mean ALL you know about it from the list of some GW questions above... Should be a very short post... Like all of your trolling work..

 

[justoffal]

I'm not a scientist.

You are a denier.

Nor are you even remotely scientific.
The Term climate snob fits though.

Jo

And you're still a denier.

What do you suppose he's denying? Climate science doesn't HAVE just one question to answer. And in science, any form of consensus approval has ONE SPECIFIC DETAILED question as the basis...

Is the Earth Warming?
Is man causing it?
What percentage of the 1degC change in Global temp can be attributed to man's emissions.
What's the temperature GONNA be in 2100?
How accurate are the models PREDICTING that projected temperature?
What emissions scenario are those models based on?
What is the STATISTICAL CONFIDENCE range of those projections for temperature and SLevel rise 50 or 100 years out?
How do we know that this 1 degC in our lifetimes has never been approached since the last ice age?
With what evidence and confidence can we attribute CURRENT extreme weather events to this minor 1degC change in Global mean temperatures in our lifetimes?


I could go on for an hour here.. It's NOT as simple as being a denier or WORSE buying everything you've HEARD about GW whole hog without sweating some PERSONAL research.. Calling each other deniers or climate snobs doesn't begin to get the job done of UNDERSTANDING the science behind the politics and the fear mongering...

There IS an issue with man's emissions. It's NOT a crisis of any proportion worth $10 trillion.. The science has been BADLY abused and misinterpreted by the media and the UN money grubbers and political forces..

Most of the original "pants wetting" projections of 2100 temps and slRise numbers from the 80's have been revised WAAAY the hell down.. But like everything else that's no longer real or accurate, this shit lives on forever on the internet.

So, you're a denier as well.

I'm a VERY well informed skeptic on the CATASTROPHIC aspects of GW theories... And you --- apparently -- are all mouth and no knowledge of the subject..

Tell me what you know about the projected temperature anomaly in 2100... I mean ALL you know about it from the list of some GW questions above... Should be a very short post... Like all of your trolling work..

The Danger in the Tribal aspects of the AGW cult is their complete isolation from all other fields of science.
Even the consensus claim is a lie....if one were to interview each individual mind that contributes to the so called consensus we would quickly find many differences of opinion as the the causes, severity and contributory components of the Earth's climate variations. So several hundred leading scientists were interviewed and they all came up with an agreement that the Earth is subject to climate variability?????...hmmm...seems to me we learned this stuff in high school fifty years ago and back then the fear was Global Freezing not Global Warming.

I do not say that we should abandon a search for better and cleaner forms of mass power generation. IMO....
we will eventually end up with a system based on fusion technologies which produce nearly a million times the output per unit of fuel that the combustion technologies produce and without the CO2. It's coming....

Here's a litmus test...
Mandate that all monies set aside for energy grid improvements are carefully monitored to be sure that they are spent just that way penny for penny.

You know as well as I do that would be the end of the conversation.

JO

 

[justoffal]

The debate's a waste of time given pollution.

We have greatly reduced "pollution" both air and water over the last fifty years. CO2 and "carbon" is NOT pollution. It is a natural occurring molecule, and element necessary for our existence.

sometimes it seems like this climate debate devolves into an argument over whether or not man actually has a right to live on the planet's surface.

True...follow any climate change discussion long enough and eventually the topic of overpopulation comes up and just beneath the surface, is their willingness to see millions, perhaps billions die in the name of their cultish environmental religion.

Yep...that is why I call them the sect of GAIA..... it's really that sick.

JO

 

[justoffal]

Nobody has time to read your thousand word screed on why reality isn't real. I may not have read it but I know what it says. I'm sure it contains phrases like "healthy skepticism" and "consensus isn't scientific" and a few excerpts from junk science done by bought and paid for oil company shills about how co2 doesn't cause warming and surely mentions the predictions from the 70s about ice ages. As long as it is I'm sure there are many more of the standard denier lies in it as well but I bet that hits the high points.

There was one line in there you surely would have benefitted from. Real scientists never use the word Denier to describe an opposing view. That type of extreme vocabulry is only for those who seek to shut down debate...a very non-scientific habit.

Jo

I'm not a scientist.

You are a denier.

Nor are you even remotely scientific.
The Term climate snob fits though.

Jo

And you're still a denier.

What do you suppose he's denying? Climate science doesn't HAVE just one question to answer. And in science, any form of consensus approval has ONE SPECIFIC DETAILED question as the basis...

Is the Earth Warming?
Is man causing it?
What percentage of the 1degC change in Global temp can be attributed to man's emissions.
What's the temperature GONNA be in 2100?
How accurate are the models PREDICTING that projected temperature?
What emissions scenario are those models based on?
What is the STATISTICAL CONFIDENCE range of those projections for temperature and SLevel rise 50 or 100 years out?
How do we know that this 1 degC in our lifetimes has never been approached since the last ice age?
With what evidence and confidence can we attribute CURRENT extreme weather events to this minor 1degC change in Global mean temperatures in our lifetimes?


I could go on for an hour here.. It's NOT as simple as being a denier or WORSE buying everything you've HEARD about GW whole hog without sweating some PERSONAL research.. Calling each other deniers or climate snobs doesn't begin to get the job done of UNDERSTANDING the science behind the politics and the fear mongering...

There IS an issue with man's emissions. It's NOT a crisis of any proportion worth $10 trillion.. The science has been BADLY abused and misinterpreted by the media and the UN money grubbers and political forces..

Most of the original "pants wetting" projections of 2100 temps and slRise numbers from the 80's have been revised WAAAY the hell down.. But like everything else that's no longer real or accurate, this shit lives on forever on the internet.

Aside from recent recalculations of the previously deeply underestimated out-gassing of the earth's volcanic systems the other 800 pound Gorilla in the room is Solar progression. The hard fact of the matter is that the Sun is getting warmer... because it must. Even a variation of .0001 can cause an effect here on earth. Not only would it be impossible to measure on a year by year basis it is nearly impossible to quantify except to say that it is definitely happening.

Now then to the more practical earthly matters. Other nations. Excactly what to the Gaians propose to do about China"s construction of 300 plus new Coal fired power plants right now all over the planet.? The Chinese have become so adept at building coal plants that many underdeveloped nations are keen to hire them for that purpose. Xi is not gong to tell his star energy construction companies to slow it down...that's for damn sure.
How do they propose to force China to comply with the rules they want to make.?? Shall we bomb the new plants?
Will we blockade China until it complies? Clearly they have not thought this thing through. Additionally some of the finest Climate scientist on the planet live in China...why is it that they are not as concerned as their Western Partners?

JO

 

[ralfy]

The debate's a waste of time given pollution.

Co2 is not necessarily pollution.
A gas turbine that runs on methane generates as an end product 98% co2 and h2o. Coal can be cleaned up rather easily.
Most industrial furnaces can burn coal, number 6 oil or gas.

Jo

I'm referring to various types of pollution leading to ecological damage on a significant scale worldwide. Dealing with those issue will ultimately require a decrease in resource consumption per capita, at least until ecosystems recover.

That's the same outcome for dealing with climate change. That's why the debate's a waste of time.

 

[ralfy]

We have greatly reduced "pollution" both air and water over the last fifty years. CO2 and "carbon" is NOT pollution. It is a natural occurring molecule, and element necessary for our existence.

If "we" refers to the U.S., then that's probably because the pollution has been outsourced to other countries.

And that doesn't simply mean CO2 or even "carbon."