How many posters here are smarter than all the world's scientists?

[BlackSand]

I don't see the tools with which we used to post up polls but we can ad lib.

Just tell us in the comments. How many people believe they are more intelligent than all the world's active climate scientists. In case you were unsure, if you have EVER put up a post that accused all those scientists of lying, of being biased by "donations and bribes", of claiming that they put out results to please whoever pays for their grants, you should post "ME!". Got it? Okay. Can't wait to see the results!

.

Give me a Federal Grant for a few billion and I'll tell you what you want to know ...

.​

 

[Crick]

I'll add you to the list.

 

[BlackSand]

I'll add you to the list.

.

It's a long list, and includes a lot of the scientists you support ...

.​

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

They accuse them of lying to make money. They accuse them of saying anything to get research grants.

What are your thoughts on Michael Mann?

 

[Crick]

I'll add you to the list.

.

It's a long list, and includes a lot of the scientists you support ...

.​

It actually includes NONE of the scientists whose work I value. The list I was adding him to was that of people who believe they are smarter than all the world's climate scientists.

 

[daveman]

You seem to have missed the point of the entire thread. Most deniers believe, whether or not they will admit it, that they are smarter than the world's climate scientists. They accuse them of lying to make money. They accuse them of saying anything to get research grants. They come up with points that a junior high student wouldn't have missed and claim all the world's scientists missed them.

I accept the word of scientists, particularly on a topic on which there is almost universal agreement among them. AGW is just such a topic. As to my intelligence, the only thing I'll say is that I'm smart enough not to make a puerile remark like yours and I suspect you made that remark because you realize you are just the sort of person for which the lead post is searching.

Yes, you long ago made it plain which answers to your loaded question you'd accept and which you wouldn't.

 

[Missourian]

In case you were unsure, if you have EVER put up a post that accused all those scientists of lying, of being biased by "donations and bribes", of claiming that they put out results to please whoever pays for their grants, you should post "ME!". Got it? Okay. Can't wait to see the results!

Well, I haven't said any if those things. I've only said their models have been terribly inaccurate and they have no scientific proof of manmade global warming.

And that whole hockey stick "hide the decline" fiasco somewhat soured any uncritical faith in their prognostications.

Understanding Climategate's Hidden Decline

Close followers of the Climategate controversy know that much of the mêlée surrounds an e-mail in which Climate Research Unit (CRU) chief Phil Jones wrote about using “Mike’s Nature Trick” (MNT) to “hide the decli...

www.americanthinker.com

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And that whole hockey stick "hide the decline" fiasco somewhat soured any uncritical faith in their prognostications.

Yeah, and in all his court cases, Michael Mann has refused to release the data he used to build the hockey-stick. It almost seems like he's trying to hide something.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I am not smarter than ALL the world's scientists, but I am certainly smarter than anybody who thinks they all agree with one another because that isn't ............ummmmm............ at all scientific.

 

[Crick]

Why do you think that unscientific?

 

[Crick]

In case you were unsure, if you have EVER put up a post that accused all those scientists of lying, of being biased by "donations and bribes", of claiming that they put out results to please whoever pays for their grants, you should post "ME!". Got it? Okay. Can't wait to see the results!

Well, I haven't said any if those things. I've only said their models have been terribly inaccurate and they have no scientific proof of manmade global warming.

And that whole hockey stick "hide the decline" fiasco somewhat soured any uncritical faith in their prognostications.

Understanding Climategate's Hidden Decline

Close followers of the Climategate controversy know that much of the mêlée surrounds an e-mail in which Climate Research Unit (CRU) chief Phil Jones wrote about using “Mike’s Nature Trick” (MNT) to “hide the decli...

www.americanthinker.com

I'm sorry but your talking points here show that you are not particularly familiar with this topic. Global climate models (GCMs) have been quite accurate though several denier factions have been utterly dishonest and intentionally deceptive in their attempts to make them look bad (ex: Roy Spencer). * The original "hockey stick" graph (Mann, Bradley, Hughes, 1998) was criticized for a flaw in its statistical analysis and was corrected (MBH 1999 and later). No lay person could tell the difference between the old and the new, particularly since the numerical results - how much warmer the world has become than it once was - were completely unchanged by this "correction". The comment about hiding the decline and was a comment taken completely out of context. Phil Jones, then director of the Hadley Met Office in the UK was referring to a statistical procedure used by researchers Michael Mann and Keith Briffa to compensate for changes over time in the proportionality between tree ring thicknesses and temperature. Before you jump to the conclusion that this was done to make warming look worse than it did, note that this change happened in the latter half of the 20th century where there were plenty of accurate thermometer data against which to see the change. The "trick" made the data more accurate, not less.

If you have rejected global warming because of these two points, I think you need to reexamine your position.

* - A Google search on scholarly articles on the accuracy of climate models: Google Scholar
For a layman's critique of Spencer's GCM "analysis", see: Roy Spencer's latest deceit and deception
For a lengthy but objective discussion on the development and accuracy of global climate models, see General Circulation Models of the Atmosphere

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The original "hockey stick" graph was criticized for a flaw in its statistical analysis and was corrected.

You mean it was a lie.

The comment about hiding the decline and was a comment taken completely out of context.

The context was, the proxy data was deviating more and more from the recent, actual temperature measurements. Making the old proxy data look more and more unreliable, right?

Before you jump to the conclusion that this was done to make warming look worse than it did, note that this change happened in the latter half of the 20th century where there were plenty of accurate thermometer data against which to see the change. The "trick" made the data more accurate, not less.

The trick made the blending of proxy data and real measurements look less jarring.
Can't dishonestly blend the two if their divergence is too obvious, the normals will catch your lie.
It didn't make the data more accurate, it hid the inaccuracy of the older proxy data.

 

[Crick]

The original "hockey stick" graph was criticized for a flaw in its statistical analysis and was corrected.

You mean it was a lie.

The comment about hiding the decline and was a comment taken completely out of context.

The context was, the proxy data was deviating more and more from the recent, actual temperature measurements. Making the old proxy data look more and more unreliable, right?

Before you jump to the conclusion that this was done to make warming look worse than it did, note that this change happened in the latter half of the 20th century where there were plenty of accurate thermometer data against which to see the change. The "trick" made the data more accurate, not less.

The trick made the blending of proxy data and real measurements look less jarring.
Can't dishonestly blend the two if their divergence is too obvious, the normals will catch your lie.
It didn't make the data more accurate, it hid the inaccuracy of the older proxy data.

Todd, you really disappoint me. This is old news and I am quite certain you have heard the facts about this nonsense. Yet you give us the denier bullshit version of events. There was no problem with the inaccuracy of the data at either side of the discrepancy. The discrepancy was caused by an actual change in the growth behavior of trees. You know this, yet still you spout lies. You're better than that Todd.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The original "hockey stick" graph was criticized for a flaw in its statistical analysis and was corrected.

You mean it was a lie.

The comment about hiding the decline and was a comment taken completely out of context.

The context was, the proxy data was deviating more and more from the recent, actual temperature measurements. Making the old proxy data look more and more unreliable, right?

Before you jump to the conclusion that this was done to make warming look worse than it did, note that this change happened in the latter half of the 20th century where there were plenty of accurate thermometer data against which to see the change. The "trick" made the data more accurate, not less.

The trick made the blending of proxy data and real measurements look less jarring.
Can't dishonestly blend the two if their divergence is too obvious, the normals will catch your lie.
It didn't make the data more accurate, it hid the inaccuracy of the older proxy data.

Todd, you really disappoint me. This is old news and I am quite certain you have heard the facts about this nonsense. Yet you give us the denier bullshit version of events. There was no problem with the inaccuracy of the data at either side of the discrepancy. The discrepancy was caused by an actual change in the growth behavior of trees. You know this, yet still you spout lies. You're better than that Todd.

This is old news and I am quite certain you have heard the facts about this nonsense.

I agree, dishonestly adding actual measurements to proxy data is dishonest nonsense.
And then manipulating the recent proxy data to hide the divergence from actual measurements is even worse.

You don't think their lies have gotten better since the emails were released, did you?

Yet you give us the denier bullshit version of events.

Yeah, the warmers can try to deny their malfeasance, but it is bullshit.

There was no problem with the inaccuracy of the data at either side of the discrepancy.

Exactly! That's why they hid it. Liars.

Is Michael Mann going to win any of his lawsuits?
Is he going to pay any of the legal fees the courts say he owes?

Or is he going to continue as the whiney, sleazy liar he was always been?

At least he's still a Nobel Laureate, eh?

 

[jc456]

My input is emotionally charged because I have two daughters who are going to have to raise their children in a world gone to shit because of idiots that think their "commons sense" is better than the work of ten thousand scientists.

where is that today? the world gone to shit? you know, where you're getting your facts?

 

[jc456]

I'm astounded that you are allowed to remain on this forum.

the irony

 

[jc456]

You seem to be agreeing that if we average thousands of individual temperature measurements, the calculated global average temperature will be very close to the actual global average temperature.

not even close to what he said. you're confused as you are with everything in here.

 

[ReinyDays]

You seem to have missed the point of the entire thread. Most deniers believe, whether or not they will admit it, that they are smarter than the world's climate scientists. They accuse them of lying to make money. They accuse them of saying anything to get research grants. They come up with points that a junior high student wouldn't have missed and claim all the world's scientists missed them.

I accept the word of scientists, particularly on a topic on which there is almost universal agreement among them. AGW is just such a topic. As to my intelligence, the only thing I'll say is that I'm smart enough not to make a puerile remark like yours and I suspect you made that remark because you realize you are just the sort of person for which the lead post is searching.

Traditionally, the proper name for such a scientist is "climatologist" ... I understand language changes and new words and phrases are added all the time, and that slowly the term "climate scientist" is creeping into the lexicon as a synonym ... perhaps this helps the ill-informed to understand ...

I don't know where you're getting your science news ... but if you think all the world's climatologist agree with you, then I'd guess you're reading the National Enquirer, New York Times or Scientific American ... all of which are heavily biased towards their commercial mandate, they publish whatever makes them the most money, hardly a basis for scientific accuracy ... I'm sorry, when put to the question, most climatologists will say it's too soon to tell ... but who buys magazines to read that? ... obviously not you ...

You are also greatly misinformed if you think climate models produce discreet results ... they produce distribution curves ... if we take the most extreme points of our curve using the most extreme scenario, then we get the top story on NBC Nightly News ... nevermind the vanishingly small probability of this occurring ... NBC is there to sell you Rolaids, and whose stomach doesn't churn at the news hypercanes will be making landfall in Florida every fifteen minutes ... the major problem with climate models is that we can only include factors that are known to science ... that which remains unknown cannot be programmed into our computers ... up-thread I discussed average cloud cover, hell's bells, we don't even know how clouds effect temperature, the forcings work both ways and we have no idea how much either direction ... if you'd ever investigate the claims you so wholeheartedly believe in, you'll find the research wasn't about what the measurement are, but rather how to measure the effect in the first place ... the original authors make no claim to accuracy, "This is what we did, and these are the numbers we came up with, more research is needed" ...

Hydrothermodynamics in Middle School ... you are confused in these matters ...

 

[jc456]

I accept the word of scientists, particularly on a topic on which there is almost universal agreement among them. AGW is just such a topic.

if that were indeed an accurate statement, then in no way could you conclude what you have. You ignore scientists who disagree with your fears. You even go out of your way to delegitimize their work. You actually manufacture your own facts rather than including all of the facts. It's what a warmer has always done. delegitimize the work that doesn't agree. I give you zero respect because you do that. Am I smarter, perhaps, I chose to include all scientists input and evaluate for myself, I don't need you to tell me what to think. there is that. You are a symptom.

 

[Crick]

You seem to have missed the point of the entire thread. Most deniers believe, whether or not they will admit it, that they are smarter than the world's climate scientists. They accuse them of lying to make money. They accuse them of saying anything to get research grants. They come up with points that a junior high student wouldn't have missed and claim all the world's scientists missed them.

I accept the word of scientists, particularly on a topic on which there is almost universal agreement among them. AGW is just such a topic. As to my intelligence, the only thing I'll say is that I'm smart enough not to make a puerile remark like yours and I suspect you made that remark because you realize you are just the sort of person for which the lead post is searching.

Traditionally, the proper name for such a scientist is "climatologist" ... I understand language changes and new words and phrases are added all the time, and that slowly the term "climate scientist" is creeping into the lexicon as a synonym ... perhaps this helps the ill-informed to understand ...

I don't know where you're getting your science news ... but if you think all the world's climatologist agree with you, then I'd guess you're reading the National Enquirer, New York Times or Scientific American ... all of which are heavily biased towards their commercial mandate, they publish whatever makes them the most money, hardly a basis for scientific accuracy ... I'm sorry, when put to the question, most climatologists will say it's too soon to tell ... but who buys magazines to read that? ... obviously not you ...

You are also greatly misinformed if you think climate models produce discreet results ... they produce distribution curves ... if we take the most extreme points of our curve using the most extreme scenario, then we get the top story on NBC Nightly News ... nevermind the vanishingly small probability of this occurring ... NBC is there to sell you Rolaids, and whose stomach doesn't churn at the news hypercanes will be making landfall in Florida every fifteen minutes ... the major problem with climate models is that we can only include factors that are known to science ... that which remains unknown cannot be programmed into our computers ... up-thread I discussed average cloud cover, hell's bells, we don't even know how clouds effect temperature, the forcings work both ways and we have no idea how much either direction ... if you'd ever investigate the claims you so wholeheartedly believe in, you'll find the research wasn't about what the measurement are, but rather how to measure the effect in the first place ... the original authors make no claim to accuracy, "This is what we did, and these are the numbers we came up with, more research is needed" ...

Hydrothermodynamics in Middle School ... you are confused in these matters ...

This is where I get the idea that the vast majority of climate scientists agree with the IPCC; that AGW is real and represents a significant threat: Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

I have no idea what prompts your comment about GCMs. I am aware that they are generally run repeatedly using different scenarios predicting future, non-deterministic conditions (ie, how human CO2 emissions will change over time). There is a great deal that IS known to science but is not yet included in models, but with every passing year and every iteration in the continuous improvement in computers, the number of factors passed over grows less and less.. I'm glad to see you admit that the net effect of clouds is not yet determined. That was my position from the start. If you want to argue that GCM's uncertainty makes them valueless, I'd have to say you're full of shit. I fully accept they aren't perfect, but they are of value and a value that is growing over time. In general, GCMs have UNDERstated the trends and consequences of global warming.