MIT Scientist Debunks Global Warming Hysteria

[Cardinal Carminative]

You were so humiliated you changed your name, sport.

You got pwned. Bigly.

Still can't prove your point?

Color me fascinated!

I changed my name because

1. I could
2. Your friends were getting awfully obsessed with my genitals. (Some still are which is really unsettling...but given the kind of people most of you are on here I shouldn't be surprised).

You can prove your lie or you can just keep deflecting.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

The US geological society wholeheartedly endorses the scientific consensus on climate change found in the IPCC report.

westwall would not be welcome, there.

westwall doesn't know what the USGS is.

 

[westwall]

Still can't prove your point?

Color me fascinated!

I changed my name because

1. I could
2. Your friends were getting awfully obsessed with my genitals. (Some still are which is really unsettling...but given the kind of people most of you are on here I shouldn't be surprised).

You can prove your lie or you can just keep deflecting.

Keep flailing there chew toy.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Keep flailing there chew toy.

Do you care to prove your claim yet?

 

[westwall]

Do you care to prove your claim yet?

Already did. You changed your name in shame.

 

[Sunsettommy]

The US geological society wholeheartedly endorses the scientific consensus on climate change found in the IPCC report.

westwall would not be welcome, there.

Consensus pablum's doesn't drive anything but politics while Reproducible research does.

Consensus errors are many.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Consensus pablum's doesn't drive anything but politics while Reproducible research does.

Consensus errors are many.

Oh look, a general, vapid argument for doubting any scientific consensus. Useless.

 

[ding]

Oh look, a general, vapid argument for doubting any scientific consensus. Useless.

Science doesn't mind challenges. Science actually encourages challenges.

 

[ding]

The US geological society wholeheartedly endorses the scientific consensus on climate change found in the IPCC report.

westwall would not be welcome, there.

That's a shame. You'd think scientists wouldn't be so quick to dismiss honest disagreements.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Science doesn't mind challenges. Science actually encourages challenges.

Absolutely! Go do some research! That's what experiments are and what most research is.

That is also what a challenge to accepted theory is. Not a blog, or a paid speaking event, or a blathering rant on USMB by an uneducated slob.

Judith has had a successful challenge, as I recall. She is invied to challenge. But she's one- or two-fer eleventy zillion and has not really touched the body of science.

The publishers of the study she found a flawed method in retracted, thanked her, and re-published.

What did Lindzen do when his mountain of bad science was exposed? Hissy fit. After hissy fit. Went on a world crybaby tour. Claimed oppression and conspiracy to explain it. Still does.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That's a shame. You'd think scientists wouldn't be so quick to dismiss honest disagreements.

The argument made from ignorance may be honestly ignorant, but that kind of patience is for children. A scientist would refer him to the published literature, instantly knowing the argument from ignorance. They aren't going to clear their schedule and sit down and teach for free. Sorry.

And yes, they would likely think a bit less of a scientist who makes claims against the preponderance of evidence. Again, sorry. It is what it is.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Oh look, a general, vapid argument for doubting any scientific consensus. Useless.

Oh, look no counterpoint shows up you forget your teddy bear today?

Consensus errors are many a fact well known in history except for morons who likes teddy bears.

Aliens cause Global Warming

Caltech Michelin Lecture January 17, 2003

excerpt:

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. Let’s review a few cases.

In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth . One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent “skeptics” around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.

There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the “pellagra germ.” The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory. Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called “Goldberger’s filth parties.” Nobody contracted pellagra. The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social factor—southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result—despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.

Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology—until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees.

And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy. The list of consensus errors goes on and on.

Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2 . Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.

LINK

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Oh, look no counterpoint shows up

No need for one. You cast general doubt on any scientific consensus. Good for you. Thanks for contributing nothing.

 

[Orangecat]

Our grandchildren and their children and their children and their children and their children will blame people just like YOU for the misery of their lives. They will spend generations trying to figure out how anyone could have been so incredibly oblivious.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"Here are times when consensus was wrong"

Neato. Now post the times it was right.

Anyhoo, I am not arguing from the consensus. So this means nothing anyway. The consensus is a symptom.

And some are stronger than others, and often there isn't any consensus.

So what? The consensus follows the evidence. Not vice versa.

IPCC is that collection of evidence. Unless you know of a secret one.

 

[Orangecat]

My children will benefit more from a strong, innovative economy than from an economy damaged by the political virtue signaling of green mandates that don't help the problem, waste trillions and reduce growth.

 

[Sunsettommy]

No need for one. You cast general doubt on any scientific consensus. Good for you. Thanks for contributing nothing.

You defend NOTHING because you say NOTHING which is why you have no idea why science research NEEDS reproducible papers not how many agree on something.

Consensus errors has killed many people over the centuries too bad you don't care about that fact.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You defend NOTHING because you say NOTHING

That's precisely what creating general doubt of scientific consensus is. In a nutshell. What needs to be refuted? Go find rabbit fossils in the Cambrian, break the consensus. Go jump off of your roof and fall up. Go break that consensus. What the fuck ever. Just stop whining.

Your uneducated blogs are not a challenge to the basic, now accepted theory. The two people of shaky credibility mentioned earlier have not put even a tiny crack in the foundation of accepted theory, made of all the evidence.

But all of you are invited to try your best.
Good luck.

 

[Sunsettommy]

That's precisely what creating general doubt of scientific consensus is. In a nutshell. What needs to be refuted? Go find rabbit fossils in the Cambrian, break the consensus. Go jump off of your roof and fall up. Go break that consensus. What the fuck ever. Just stop whining.

Your uneducated blogs are ot a challenge to the basic, now accepted theory. The two people of shaky credibility mentioned earlier have not put a crack in the foundation of accepted theory.

But all of you are invited to try your best
Good luck.

Ha ha ha,

So having doubts is bad for science it is clear you have no idea how science research is done, and you keep avoiding the numerous consensus failures over the years.

Why are you avoiding that well known fact that consensus fails many times?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So having doubts is bad for science

What a retarded non sequitur, unrelated to a word of what I actually said. Pathetic.

All doubters are free to mount a challenge. Fouth time, ya weasel.