Why are some so Anti GW?

[uscitizen]

Peer-reviewed IS a winner, actually. If it weren't for that peer-reviewed science, there would be no falsification of so many of the models predicting doom.

It's the media and blogs that are pathetic, and those who parrot their non-scientific opinions. Algore taught us that we can play at science without being a scientist. Algore is an enemy of science because of that.

I agree 100%. By overstating the case, comparing apples to oranges, and inflating "worst case scenarios" Al Gore and "An Inconvenient Truth" did as much damage to understanding the real issue as James Inhofe has - just from the opposite direction.

the premise I refer to is anthropogenic climate change. I'll say that I think it is clear that the degree to which human activity is linked, and the models have been exaggerated by politicians for political purposes.

Yes you are likely correct on the exaggeration part.
However I do believe that humans are having an impact. Just not sure how much.
Other things such as plastic in the oceans may contribute to global warming as well.

 

[Meister]

Meister - If he wants to have his work taken seriously, Mr. Spencer should submit his work and his findings to a peer-reviewed scientific journal for rigorous scientific review instead of offering it only on his own website.

The fact that you use an op-ed piece - never submitted for scientific study - in an attempt to rebutt real science is just one more example of how so many deniers piss away their credibility. You don't call the premise into question, you actually stregethen it by showing that only pseudo science can be offered as rebuttal.

Real science? You have to be joking Nodog. The real science was submitted to the IPCC, they took 900 submitted papers out of around 14,000 papers. That's your real science. No, there was no agenda from the U.N.
The U.N. needs to tax the hell our of the major players in the scam...guess who that would be?

 

[obama2ndterm]

Crooks and Liars
But the political argument against focusing on the deficit is even stronger than he realizes — because there are very good odds that even if Obama exhibited iron fiscal discipline, voters wouldn’t notice. There’s a remarkable, depressing paper by Achen and Bartels that includes an analysis of voter views of the deficit in 1996 — by which time the huge deficit that Bill Clinton inherited had been drastically reduced.

Yep: after one of the biggest moves toward budget balance in history, a majority of Republicans, and a plurality of all voters, believed that deficits had increased. the people wish G.W. acted more like Clinton fiscally speaking of coarse.

 

[Si modo]

Meister - If he wants to have his work taken seriously, Mr. Spencer should submit his work and his findings to a peer-reviewed scientific journal for rigorous scientific review instead of offering it only on his own website.

The fact that you use an op-ed piece - never submitted for scientific study - in an attempt to rebutt real science is just one more example of how so many deniers piss away their credibility. You don't call the premise into question, you actually stregethen it by showing that only pseudo science can be offered as rebuttal.

Real science? You have to be joking Nodog. The real science was submitted to the IPCC, they took 900 submitted papers out of around 14,000 papers. That's your real science. No, there was no agenda from the U.N.
The U.N. needs to tax the hell our of the major players in the scam...guess who that would be?

The IPCC are not doing science. They are politicians who looked at the real science that was done and reported on it based on their idea of what policy should be. They did not report real science; they reported the science they wanted to report.

This is why it is important for folks to apply critical thought and not just trust those involved in policy to think for them.

 

[Meister]

Crooks and Liars
But the political argument against focusing on the deficit is even stronger than he realizes — because there are very good odds that even if Obama exhibited iron fiscal discipline, voters wouldn’t notice. There’s a remarkable, depressing paper by Achen and Bartels that includes an analysis of voter views of the deficit in 1996 — by which time the huge deficit that Bill Clinton inherited had been drastically reduced.

Yep: after one of the biggest moves toward budget balance in history, a majority of Republicans, and a plurality of all voters, believed that deficits had increased. the people wish G.W. acted more like Clinton fiscally speaking of coarse.

huh?

 

[Oddball]

Many people are rabidly fixated on being anti Globull Warming.

I personally believe Globull Warming is happening.
And I believe we are contributing to it.
I do not believe in Cap and charade.
Just Cap if we are going to do anything.

Can't you be against Cap and Charade and still believe Globull Warming exists?

My personal reasons:

1) Faulty unreproducible "science".
2) Completely deceptive semantics.
3) Is structured very much like a doomsday cult, right down to its most fervent adherents.
4) Makes a claim which under any other circumstance would be considered preposterous: Man can positively control the weather.
5) Is populated with hundreds of people who want the whole world to change to meet their perceptions and expectations, and are willing to use physical force to do so.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Meister - If he wants to have his work taken seriously, Mr. Spencer should submit his work and his findings to a peer-reviewed scientific journal for rigorous scientific review instead of offering it only on his own website.

The fact that you use an op-ed piece - never submitted for scientific study - in an attempt to rebutt real science is just one more example of how so many deniers piss away their credibility. You don't call the premise into question, you actually stregethen it by showing that only pseudo science can be offered as rebuttal.

Real science? You have to be joking Nodog. The real science was submitted to the IPCC, they took 900 submitted papers out of around 14,000 papers. That's your real science. No, there was no agenda from the U.N.
The U.N. needs to tax the hell our of the major players in the scam...guess who that would be?

So the IPCC is just politically motivated?
What about the the USCRP?
The ACIA?
The European Academy of Sciences and Arts?
The InterAcademy Council?
The International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technical Sciences?
The national science academies of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Cameroon, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Ghana, Germany, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, India, Japan, Kenya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, New Zealand, Russia, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Sweden, Tanzania, Uganda, United Kingdom, United States, Zambia, and Zimbabwe?
The network of African Science Academies?
The Royal Society of New Zealand?
The Polish Academy of Sciences?
The US National Research Council?
The American Association for the Advancement of Science?
The European Science Foundation?
The Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies?
The American Geophysical Union?
The European Federation of Geologists?
The European Geosciences Union?
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
National Association of Geoscience Teachers
American Meteorological Society
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
World Meteorological Organization
American Quaternary Association
International Union for Quaternary Research
American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
American Society for Microbiology
Australian Coral Reef Society
Institute of Biology (UK)
Society of American Foresters

Even the position of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists is NON-Committal



I can list 75 others - and you would have us to believe that they ARE ALL just political tools of the same "hoax?" Never mind that these nations agree on NOTHING else - they've ALL agreed to perpetrate this "hoax?"

Beyond absurd.

 

[Oddball]

Meister - If he wants to have his work taken seriously, Mr. Spencer should submit his work and his findings to a peer-reviewed scientific journal for rigorous scientific review instead of offering it only on his own website.

The fact that you use an op-ed piece - never submitted for scientific study - in an attempt to rebutt real science is just one more example of how so many deniers piss away their credibility. You don't call the premise into question, you actually stregethen it by showing that only pseudo science can be offered as rebuttal.

Real science? You have to be joking Nodog. The real science was submitted to the IPCC, they took 900 submitted papers out of around 14,000 papers. That's your real science. No, there was no agenda from the U.N.
The U.N. needs to tax the hell our of the major players in the scam...guess who that would be?

So the IPCC is just politically motivated?
What about the the USCRP?
The ACIA?
The European Academy of Sciences and Arts?
The InterAcademy Council?
The International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technical Sciences?
The national science academies of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Cameroon, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Ghana, Germany, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, India, Japan, Kenya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, New Zealand, Russia, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Sweden, Tanzania, Uganda, United Kingdom, United States, Zambia, and Zimbabwe?
The network of African Science Academies?
The Royal Society of New Zealand?
The Polish Academy of Sciences?
The US National Research Council?
The American Association for the Advancement of Science?
The European Science Foundation?
The Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies?
The American Geophysical Union?
The European Federation of Geologists?
The European Geosciences Union?

I can list 75 others - and you would have us to believe that they ARE ALL just political tools of the same "hoax?" Never mind that these nations agree on NOTHING else - they've ALL agreed to perpetrate this "hoax?"

Beyond absurd.

They are politically motivated in that in order to get positive peer reviews, you have to tell the "peers" what they think they know, and build upon it....Politics within the academic community, not necessarily politics politics.

That's why the current scandal is so huge, since we're not only dealing with the people who have falsified and withheld information, but the "peers" who validated that bogus information as reliable.

 

[nodoginnafight]

In fact, since 2007 not a single scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion and very few even hold a non-committal positions.

So that means they've all gotten together in this great conspiracy to perpetuate a hoax?????

 

[Si modo]

Meister - If he wants to have his work taken seriously, Mr. Spencer should submit his work and his findings to a peer-reviewed scientific journal for rigorous scientific review instead of offering it only on his own website.

The fact that you use an op-ed piece - never submitted for scientific study - in an attempt to rebutt real science is just one more example of how so many deniers piss away their credibility. You don't call the premise into question, you actually stregethen it by showing that only pseudo science can be offered as rebuttal.

Real science? You have to be joking Nodog. The real science was submitted to the IPCC, they took 900 submitted papers out of around 14,000 papers. That's your real science. No, there was no agenda from the U.N.
The U.N. needs to tax the hell our of the major players in the scam...guess who that would be?

So the IPCC is just politically motivated?
What about the the USCRP?
The ACIA?
The European Academy of Sciences and Arts?
The InterAcademy Council?
The International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technical Sciences?
The national science academies of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Cameroon, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Ghana, Germany, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, India, Japan, Kenya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, New Zealand, Russia, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Sweden, Tanzania, Uganda, United Kingdom, United States, Zambia, and Zimbabwe?
The network of African Science Academies?
The Royal Society of New Zealand?
The Polish Academy of Sciences?
The US National Research Council?
The American Association for the Advancement of Science?
The European Science Foundation?
The Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies?
The American Geophysical Union?
The European Federation of Geologists?
The European Geosciences Union?
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
National Association of Geoscience Teachers
American Meteorological Society
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
World Meteorological Organization
American Quaternary Association
International Union for Quaternary Research
American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
American Society for Microbiology
Australian Coral Reef Society
Institute of Biology (UK)
Society of American Foresters

Even the position of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists is NON-Committal



I can list 75 others - and you would have us to believe that they ARE ALL just political tools of the same "hoax?" Never mind that these nations agree on NOTHING else - they've ALL agreed to perpetrate this "hoax?"

Beyond absurd.

For chemists, the premier organization is the ACS. Chemists know that the ACS is their voice for POLICY. They are a repository and publisher of science that scientists do but they do not do the science. They lobby in DC for policy that benefits their membership - their primary agenda.

The IPCC is interested in policy as well. They already have an agenda - to effect policy as they see fit. They do not do science.

None of those organizations do science. They all are interested in policy that will benefit their membership.

Do you see the distinction?

 

[nodoginnafight]

AND not a SINGLE PIECE of peer-reviewed science to support dissent.....

The intellectual gymnnastics required to hold such a position is beyond absurd.

You guys twist yourself into knots to defend your position all you like. The real debate on the issue - which is to what extent and what is a reasonable response - has left you behind. We'll make the decisions without you.

 

[Si modo]

The intellectual gymnnastics required to hold such a position is beyond absurd.

You guys twist yourself into knots to defend your position all you like. The real debate on the issue - which is to what extent and what is a reasonable response - has left you behind. We'll make the decisions without you.

Who's we?

 

[Meister]

Real science? You have to be joking Nodog. The real science was submitted to the IPCC, they took 900 submitted papers out of around 14,000 papers. That's your real science. No, there was no agenda from the U.N.
The U.N. needs to tax the hell our of the major players in the scam...guess who that would be?

So the IPCC is just politically motivated?
What about the the USCRP?
The ACIA?
The European Academy of Sciences and Arts?
The InterAcademy Council?
The International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technical Sciences?
The national science academies of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Cameroon, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Ghana, Germany, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, India, Japan, Kenya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, New Zealand, Russia, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Sweden, Tanzania, Uganda, United Kingdom, United States, Zambia, and Zimbabwe?
The network of African Science Academies?
The Royal Society of New Zealand?
The Polish Academy of Sciences?
The US National Research Council?
The American Association for the Advancement of Science?
The European Science Foundation?
The Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies?
The American Geophysical Union?
The European Federation of Geologists?
The European Geosciences Union?

I can list 75 others - and you would have us to believe that they ARE ALL just political tools of the same "hoax?" Never mind that these nations agree on NOTHING else - they've ALL agreed to perpetrate this "hoax?"

Beyond absurd.

They are politically motivated in that in order to get positive peer reviews, you have to tell the "peers" what they think they know, and build upon it....Politics within the academic community, not necessarily politics politics.

That's why the current scandal is so huge, since we're not only dealing with the people who have falsified and withheld information, but the "peers" who validated that bogus information as reliable.

I find this interesting, and brings the word collusion into play.

In one e-mail, the center's director, Phil Jones, writes Pennsylvania State University's Michael E. Mann and questions whether the work of academics that question the link between human activities and global warming deserve to make it into the prestigious IPCC report, which represents the global consensus view on climate science.

"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report," Jones writes. "Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

In another, Jones and Mann discuss how they can pressure an academic journal not to accept the work of climate skeptics with whom they disagree. "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal," Mann writes.

"I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor," Jones replies.

Patrick Michaels, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute who comes under fire in the e-mails, said these same academics repeatedly criticized him for not having published more peer-reviewed papers.

"There's an egregious problem here, their intimidation of journal editors," he said. "They're saying, 'If you print anything by this group, we won't send you any papers.' "
In the trenches on climate change, hostility among foes

 

[Si modo]

AND not a SINGLE PIECE of peer-reviewed science to support dissent.....

The intellectual gymnnastics required to hold such a position is beyond absurd.

You guys twist yourself into knots to defend your position all you like. The real debate on the issue - which is to what extent and what is a reasonable response - has left you behind. We'll make the decisions without you.

Dissent of what?

 

[Oddball]

AND not a SINGLE PIECE of peer-reviewed science to support dissent.....

The intellectual gymnnastics required to hold such a position is beyond absurd.

You guys twist yourself into knots to defend your position all you like. The real debate on the issue - which is to what extent and what is a reasonable response - has left you behind. We'll make the decisions without you.

Speaking of twisting and intellectual gymnastics, you apparently missed this delicious quote, from the leaked e-mails:

"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report," Jones writes. "Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

 

[Oddball]

It has gone beyond being obvious that nogoginafight does indeed have a several dogs in the fight.

 

[nodoginnafight]

AND not a SINGLE PIECE of peer-reviewed science to support dissent.....

The intellectual gymnnastics required to hold such a position is beyond absurd.

You guys twist yourself into knots to defend your position all you like. The real debate on the issue - which is to what extent and what is a reasonable response - has left you behind. We'll make the decisions without you.

Dissent of what?

anthropogenic climate change.

And just for arguments sake - let's look at the theory of a "political conspiracy" perpetrated by these diverse scientific organizations from all around the globe. It requires that you assume:

1) these widely diverse groups from all around the globe all agreed to participate in the first place. How likely is that? Is there anything else that representatives from all these different countries can all agree upon?

2) They orchestrated this expansive and wide-spread conspiracy in virtually secrecy with a single email as the only trail.

3) They continue to hold everyone in line without a single one of the participating organizations getting miffed enough at someone else in the group to blow the whistle.

4) They manipulate every single one of the different peer-reviewed journals to join in by ignoring legitimate scientific work that contradicts the agreed upon premise.

5) Not a single one of the peer-reviewed journals took offense at the suggestion that their scientific review be subjected to a political conspiracy and blew the whistle.

I trust some of you are aware enough with the concept of Occam's Razor. The political conspiracy theory requires far too many unrealistic assumptions to be plausible. So instead we get an email, an ad-hom. screen-name jab, and equally "convincing" evidence.

If THAT type of stuff is how you think we ought to be forming public policy ...... well, all I can say is God help us all if that becomes the prevailing criteria.

 

[Polk]

Many people are rabidly fixated on being anti Globull Warming.

I personally believe Globull Warming is happening.
And I believe we are contributing to it.
I do not believe in Cap and charade.
Just Cap if we are going to do anything.

Can't you be against Cap and Charade and still believe Globull Warming exists?

I don't think people are rabidly against global warming----they are rabidly against the hysteria generated by those who will profit from it.

O please. That's complete rubbish. Newsflash: researchers working at universities aren't make money off of it.

 

[Polk]

The message is suspect also. There is no sound scientific evidence that long term global warming is occurring. No one has the scientific wherewithal or understanding to make such a claim based on the short period that warming did occur.

That's just absolutely false.

Warming pretty much stopped in 1998. At least any significant warming. The warming that occurred was a short spike of about 1/3 of a degree in about 15 years.

This is also false. While 1998 was the hottest year on record (although according to some studies, 2005 was hotter), warming isn't a constant upward movement year after year. It's a sharp upward trend over time.

 

[Oddball]

AND not a SINGLE PIECE of peer-reviewed science to support dissent.....

The intellectual gymnnastics required to hold such a position is beyond absurd.

You guys twist yourself into knots to defend your position all you like. The real debate on the issue - which is to what extent and what is a reasonable response - has left you behind. We'll make the decisions without you.

Given the recent scandal, peer review is a dead letter.