Evidence for climate change

[juanesky 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

what about NASA's number one priority to make muslims feel good about themselves ?

That deserves the Stupid Post of the Month Award.

you assert , it might make sense if obuma didn't say it , and NASA administrator bolden didn't implement it , heck even bill and quade are defending obuma's loopy make muslims feel good NASA top priority policy !

You know if forbidden to state facts, based on exact words Hussein says....

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[juanesky 0]

Quote

Quote

No, it means "there is peace in the world, fundamentalist muslim terrorist no longer exist".

Kind of got a "Johnny One Note" thing going on right now; don't you?

Not really, it correlates well, as we are talking about NASA as well in this post. You do know what policy Hussein gave Nasa right?

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[billvon 2,434]

To try to get the thread back from muslim-bashing to climate change, here's a pretty good article on arguments against climate change:

http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/

[skipbelt 0]

what will you call it when the muslim bashes you...
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/al-qaeda-group-executes-two-teenage-women-while-town-forced-to-watch/
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/iran-takes-major-step-toward-nuclear-armament/

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

Quote

>there are no stupid posts , just stupid post readers !

In alio pediculum, in te ricinum non vides.

What is that, latin for "I don't think, therefore I rant"? Man, what a lousy thing to say.

Do I smell some humour ... again??



(Hitler would say: Lousy times, folks, lousy times - buy lice powder)

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[skipbelt 0]

i g farben made "delousing powder" for hitler , they called it xylon b
back to topic here's how i know for a FACT there is no global warming...
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/8595/Gore-leaves-car-idling-for-one-hour-during-speech-Opts-for-Swedish-government-jet-over-public-transportation

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

i g farben made "delousing powder" for hitler , they called it xylon b

back to topic here's how i know for a FACT there is no global warming...

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/8595/Gore-leaves-car-idling-for-one-hour-during-speech-Opts-for-Swedish-government-jet-over-public-transportation

Quicker than Quade

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[billvon 2,434]

>what will you call it when the muslim bashes you...

Conservative freedom of the press, part 2.

[skipbelt 0]

you could be intentionally ignoring my point reinforce muslim apologist tendencies , but back to topic ,
let's celebrate GW fools day...
http://rt.com/Top_News/2010-10-27/climate-change-fools-sceptics.html

[billvon 2,434]

>you could be intentionally ignoring my point . . . .

Not at all! I just took it as a given.

We all know by now that you do not like Muslims, and think they're scary/evil/dangerous. Posting another 30 of your standard posts will not further convince the handful of other people on this board who feel the same way; they've made up their minds, as you have. Nor will it change the minds of the people who think Muslims are no more evil/scary/dangerous than blacks, or flamboyant gays, or diehard atheists, or fundamentalist anti-abortion Christians.

But feel free to keep posting them. That's what this forum is for; to keep such nonsense out of the topical forums.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

>you could be intentionally ignoring my point . . . .

Not at all! I just took it as a given.

We all know by now that you do not like Muslims, and think they're scary/evil/dangerous. Posting another 30 of your standard posts will not further convince the handful of other people on this board who feel the same way; they've made up their minds, as you have. Nor will it change the minds of the people who think Muslims are no more evil/scary/dangerous than blacks, or flamboyant gays, or diehard atheists, or fundamentalist anti-abortion Christians.

But feel free to keep posting them. That's what this forum is for; to keep such nonsense out of the topical forums.

HOLY FUCK Bill

Now you will have them checking their closets and under their beds for a couple more groups of boogiemen

[1969912 0]

Flamboyant Gays Rule!

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[skipbelt 0]

a masterful apologist treatment to cover the extremism , you think you know my mind regarding muslims , but you don't . you attack me and condone EVERY example i have presented.
maybe you could redeem yourself with this...
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/swine-and-infidel-western-couple-mocked-at-their-own-wedding-ceremony/

[skipbelt 0]

crickets ,
well then back to topic , why won't this damn climate cooperate...
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2010/10/here-idea-let-convince-shivering.html

[quade 3]

Quote

crickets ,
well then back to topic , why won't this damn climate cooperate...
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2010/10/here-idea-let-convince-shivering.html

Are you entirely certain that link leads where you wanted it to? I mean, did you actually READ the link, linked to on the page you linked to?

This one;
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/10/27/chiclone-of-denial

Or, did you simply stop at the page you found that seemed to agree with your world view rather than tracking down what "Tom Nelson" was talking about?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[skipbelt 0]

according to my reading nelson parodies wonklink .
but why stop there...
http://travel.usatoday.com/destinations/dispatches/post/2010/10/skiers-eary-season-snow-colorado-utah-wyoming-resorts/128805/1

[lawrocket 3]

I think this is an interesting article about the "us v. them" approacj to science...
[Url]http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=climate-heretic[/url]

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rushmc 18]

That was an interesting read

Thank you

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

I think this is an interesting article about the "us v. them" approacj to science...
[Url]http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=climate-heretic[/url]

Interesting article. For those who are disinclined to read the whole thing, this quote (IMHO) sums up the point of the article:
"So it is important to emphasize that nothing she encountered led her to question the science; she still has no doubt that the planet is warming, that human-generated greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, are in large part to blame, or that the plausible worst-case scenario could be catastrophic. She does not believe that the Climategate e-mails are evidence of fraud or that the IPCC is some kind of grand international conspiracy. What she does believe is that the mainstream climate science community has moved beyond the ivory tower into a type of fortress mentality, in which insiders can do no wrong and outsiders are forbidden entry."

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

I think this is an interesting article about the "us v. them" approacj to science...
[Url]http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=climate-heretic[/url]

Interesting article. For those who are disinclined to read the whole thing, this quote (IMHO) sums up the point of the article:
"So it is important to emphasize that nothing she encountered led her to question the science; she still has no doubt that the planet is warming, that human-generated greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, are in large part to blame, or that the plausible worst-case scenario could be catastrophic. She does not believe that the Climategate e-mails are evidence of fraud or that the IPCC is some kind of grand international conspiracy. What she does believe is that the mainstream climate science community has moved beyond the ivory tower into a type of fortress mentality, in which insiders can do no wrong and outsiders are forbidden entry."

Don

The parts that caught my attention were those comments admitting that the science as of yet, still does not know what it does not know

But the open debate is necessary. Something the warmist seem to not want

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

But the open debate is necessary. Something the warmist seem to not want

That's been my issue - that there shall be NO debate. The investigations surrounding the CRU hack ALL have been critical of the small group of climate scientists who have insulated themselves from everyone else. One report went so far aas to say that climate scientists - BECAUSE of their secrecy and groupthink - have brought all of this negativity on themselves.

What is most fascinating to me is the seemingly absolute inability to learn or to even acknowledge any validity to these complaints. You've got Michael Mann writing an editorial about how he is apolitical but not this election. Science requires that Democrats stay in power. He does not acknowledge that his livelihood is about federal funding and he has been one of the best at playing the political game to get that funding.

About a year ago, Gavin Schmidt posted on realclimate.org about a book on effective communicating climate science to the public. The comments to the post - and the immediate subsequent activities on that very blog - demonstrated that the book simply was not heeded. I believe that it is because it would require outside the box thinking and a recognition that there is something - anything - that they haven't been doing well.

Everybody will be defensive in one way or another. I understand why these scientists are defensive about their work. For the foreseeable future their livelihoods depend upon it! Nobody likes being challenged including scientists.

People like Curry are being attacked by the inner circle because they are thinking outside the box. The paradigm is that there are insiders and outsiders and ne'er between shall the two meet. It's a clique.

Most people don't like cliques at all. A clique of climate scientists is still a clique. I think inclusiveness is an important first step for climate scientiststs in not only rehabilitating their image but also rehabilitating climate science in the public eye.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

I understand why these scientists are defensive about their work. For the foreseeable future their livelihoods depend upon it! Nobody likes being challenged including scientists.

Scientists expect their work to be critically evaluated. What is different here is a well financed and orchestrated campaign to deny every aspect of climate change science. Dr. Curry herself acknowledges that as much as 99% of the denier's claims have been rebutted many times. How many times does one have to keep answering the same arguments over and over? It would be as if every court verdict could be rejected out of hand by the defense, just keep redoing the trial over and over and over until the defense gets the verdict they want. Of course by adopting an overly defensive stance, the science runs the risk of ignoring the 1% of valid criticism that could make the science stronger.

I'm not a climatologist so I can't speak from personal experience about their situation. I am a biologist, and so I am attacked (not personally, but as a member of the community of biologists) daily by proponents of creationism, usually under the guise of "intelligent design". These people keep repeating over and over the same lies and distorted half-truths that have been rebutted time and again. They do no experiments to bolster their argument, they ignore almost all of scientific literature, and they put great effort into "communicating with the public" and lobbying politicians (sort of like most of the climate change denier community). I could come in to work every day and spend the whole day typing up rebuttals to the crap posted on creationist websites, but the next day the same crap would still be up there and I would have got no work done on my own research. How much time do you think I should sink into such an enterprise?

As far as "their livelihoods depend on it" goes, I somehow doubt that climatology is so well understood that there would be nothing for climatologists to do research on were it not for climate change.

Quote

Most people don't like cliques at all. A clique of climate scientists is still a clique. I think inclusiveness is an important first step for climate scientiststs in not only rehabilitating their image but also rehabilitating climate science in the public eye.

Perhaps so. Doubtless there are people outside the climatology field who nevertheless have expertise that could (and should) be brought to bear on the problem. So, when are you lawyers going to allow truck drivers and electricians to start trying cases or drawing up contracts? And damn those neurologists, insisting on people having actual medical training before poking around in peoples heads. Aren't lawyers and neurologists being cliquish too? Isn't that sometimes a good thing? Didn't you spend all those years in law school to acquire some actual expertise, so you'd actually know what you're talking about when you represent clients?

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[juanesky 0]

Quote

I think this is an interesting article about the "us v. them" approacj to science...
[Url]http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=climate-heretic[/url]

Yes, and it has progressiveness written all over it.

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

Yes, and it has progressiveness written all over it.

So just how regressive are you, actually? Civil rights too much to swallow? Suffrage for women? That whole Magna Carta thing pushing it too far?

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Scientists expect their work to be critically evaluated. What is different here is a well financed and orchestrated campaign to deny every aspect of climate change science.

Well financed and orchestrated? How so?

First - what constitutes a denier? Is Patrick Michaels a "denier?" He readily admits that climate change is real and is happening and human activities are responsible for a large part of it. Michaels is a pariah because he claims that global warming is an exaggerated issue. He alleges that it is blown out of proportion (understandably so) by the political climate and the professional climate. This political and professional climate is based upon the government funding of science, the finite funds available for same, and the elevation of the dangers in order to achieve priority of funding.

Michaels also has spent a great deal of time and detail in examining the scientific issues behind his skepticism - he is a climatologist, after all.

On the other hand, check out realclimate.org. This is a well organized site. Gavin Schmidt, Mike Mann, Ray Bradley, Eric Steig, Ray Pierrehumbert, etc. James Hansen (Schmidt's boss) uses realclimate.org as a proponency website. These people have gotten together in one location.

Well organized. Well funded. Highly moderated. They've got the power, the funding and the resources. I have no reason to believe they planned to get together, but rather fell together like any group of like-minded, like-interested people do.

Quote

Dr. Curry herself acknowledges that as much as 99% of the denier's claims have been rebutted many times. How many times does one have to keep answering the same arguments over and over?

Depends on the argument. There are new arguments all the time. However, part of the recurring problem with climate scientists is the culture of secrecy that has developed.

Other scientists wanted to examine the code Mann used for his hockey stick graph. Mann refused:

Quote

My computer program is a private piece of intellectual property….whether I make my computer programs publicly available or not is a decision that is mine alone to make….”

This is a mockery of scientific method. And recall the Willis report:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387/387i.pdf

Said one of the conclusions:

Quote

Reputation does not, however, rest solely on the quality of work as it should. It also depends on perception. It is self-evident that the disclosure of CRU e-mails has damaged the reputation of UK climate science and, as views on global warming have become polarised, any deviation from the highest scientific standards will be pounced on. As we explained in chapter 2, the practices and methods of climate science are a key issue. If the practices of CRU are found to be in line with the rest of climate science, the question would arise whether climate science methods of operation need to change. In this event we would recommend that the scientific community should consider changing those practices to ensure greater transparency.

(Page 44, Para 132)

And:

Quote

We recognise that some of the e-mails suggest a blunt refusal to share data, even unrestricted data, with others. We acknowledge that Professor Jones must have found it frustrating to handle requests for data that he knew—or perceived—were motivated by a desire simply to seek to undermine his work. But Professor Jones’s failure to handle helpfully requests for data in a field as important and controversial as climate science was bound to be viewed with suspicion. He was obviously frustrated by other workers in the field trying to “undermine” his work, but his actions were inevitably counterproductive. Professor Jones told us that the published e-mails represented only “one tenth of 1%” of his output, which amounts to one million e-mails, and that we were only seeing the end of a protracted series of e-mail exchanges. We consider that further suspicion could have been allayed by releasing all the e-mails. In addition, we consider that had the available raw data been available online from an early stage, these kinds of unfortunate e-mail exchanges would not have occurred. In our view, CRU should have been more open with its raw data and followed the more open approach of NASA to making data available. (Paragraph 38)

(Page 47, Para 1)

The scientists are takign it on themselves to decline to release data, codes, etc., to people they believe are only going to try to discredit them and prove them wrong. Which is kinda what the scientific method is about...

Dr. Curry is NO denier, and yet is treated as a pariah. Why? Because she breaks the party line. I'll put it this way - if it was ONLY the science involved by objective scientists, then why would the climate science community view her as a heretic? It's not that she is incorrect. It's not that her points are invalid.

Judith Curry stated in July that Lord Monckton's book was pretty well stated, easily communicated, and pointed lots of things that made sense. Take a look at this realclimate comment thread:
http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=4431

In a sense, Dr. Curry warned the climate community that in the public eye, Monckton and the deniers are winning because the climate elite simply dismiss the "deniers" and don't respond.

Ever try to bring up a concern with somebody who just doesn't understand what you're saying? Ever try telling somebody soemthing that they should know but they don't hear it because they are thinking something else is said? She was saying tha we're losing this battle because you are thinking that this stuff will just fade to obscurity. It isn't and it makes sense to people who read it. And then she was roundly attacked.

Check this posted less than a year before:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/09/communicating-science-not-just-talking-the-talk/

Quote

What Randy has to say may be tough to hear, but its tough love. He provides some very important lessons on what works and what doesn’t, and they ring true to us in our own experience with public outreach. In short, says Randy: Tell a good story; Arouse expectations and then fulfill them; Don’t be so Cerebral; And, last but certainly not least: Don’t be so unlikeable (i.e. don’t play to the stereotype of the arrogant, dismissive academic or the nerdy absent-minded scientist).

And we need merely look at where climate scientists are now - even more firmly viewed as arrogant and dismissive.

Dr. Curry was trying to POINT THAT OUT! The arrogant dismissiveness of Monckton would not be effective. Hence, she is derided because she tried to do more than "just talking the talk..." Bad news.

Quote

It would be as if every court verdict could be rejected out of hand by the defense, just keep redoing the trial over and over and over until the defense gets the verdict they want.

It happens, but mainly on the plaintiffs' side. It's called "offensive mutual collateral estoppel." We see it often in drug lawsuits, etc.

Quote

Of course by adopting an overly defensive stance, the science runs the risk of ignoring the 1% of valid criticism that could make the science stronger.

Correct. That's part of what the Oxburgh Report stated - "When the prices to pay are so large, the knowledge on which these kinds of decisions are taken had better be right. The science must be irreproachable."

If the argument has been dealt with, then point to the recorded response. If another argument lies within that argument then discuss it. Open discussions do nothing but advance science and understanding.

Quote

I'm not a climatologist so I can't speak from personal experience about their situation. I am a biologist, and so I am attacked (not personally, but as a member of the community of biologists) daily by proponents of creationism, usually under the guise of "intelligent design". These people keep repeating over and over the same lies and distorted half-truths that have been rebutted time and again.

Of course. And the standard arguments are reiterated to the point where you can point to numerous resources that provide facts or other information that subverts those claims.

What climate scientists are doing is saying that Snuffy is a kook so ignore him. Smedlap is funded by kooks and should be summarily dismissed. Smith is just trying to prove us wrong and is nothing ore than a pest so we don't have to dignify his requests. Congress cannot my code to support their witch hunt. Hey, I'm the climate scientist here - you aren't. I know what's going on and you don't so goodbye.

***They do no experiments to bolster their argument, they ignore almost all of scientific literature, and they put great effort into "communicating with the public" and lobbying politicians (sort of like most of the climate change denier community).