Slashdot Mirror
When Beliefs and Facts Collide
schnell writes A New York Times article discusses a recent Yale study that shows that contrary to popular belief, increased scientific literacy does not correspond to increased belief in accepted scientific findings when it contradicts their religious or political views. The article notes that this is true across the political/religious spectrum and "factual and scientific evidence is often ineffective at reducing misperceptions and can even backfire on issues like weapons of mass destruction, health care reform and vaccines." So what is to be done? The article suggests that "we need to try to break the association between identity and factual beliefs on high-profile issues – for instance, by making clear that you can believe in human-induced climate change and still be a conservative Republican."
Humans aren't motivated by logic. Instead, they use logic as a tool to satisfy their emotional needs. No tool suits every problem.
The inherit problem is that we second-guess our subconscious intuition with emotional overrides.
Those damb religio-political dogmatists keep blocking publication of my papers on the theory of anturgic phrogneal boropathy.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
"for instance, by making clear that you can believe in human-induced climate change and still be a conservative Republican."
Unsurprisingly, TFA/NYT chose that polarity as an exemplar instead of its opposite.
Is something Christopher Hitchens would say
http://science.slashdot.org/story/14/05/28/0332258/belief-in-evolution-doesnt-measure-science-literacy?sdsrc=popbyskid
It's not like it was a buried Slashdot post. It had >500 comments to it and has appeared for over a month in the "Stories you Might Like". How about reading Slashdot once in a while, Slashdot editors?
> by making clear that you can believe in human-induced climate change and still believe that Sadam Hussein had anything to do with 9/11.
Sorry, but as soon as you start doing evidence or science based political reasoning, most of the Republican platform stops making sense.
for instance, by making clear that you can believe in human-induced climate change and still be a conservative Republican
How about making it clear that people have a wide variety of views on things like GWT, and its not simply true believers vs deniers. How about making it clear that not all Democrats believe in gun control.
I'm relatively literate from a scientific perspective, I hate all politicians equally and I have no religious beliefs.
Where does that put me?
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
Climate science recognised El Nino/La Nina before the current bunch of "fundamentalists" got popular by blaming the 1906 San Francisco earthquake on Gods will instead of geology. The latest batch of science denialism is just the latest recruiting drive for that bunch of merchants in the temple - all you have to do is deny reality and fill the collection box with cash and a dumbed down cardboard God of an unchanging world will make it all better.
The facts are just ignored by the ignorant. Facts should eradicate any beliefs at time of presenting them.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
we need to try to break the association between identity and factual beliefs on high-profile issues
I suspect that there are more than a few groups and people with influence who disagree. And from the evidence, they're likely to continue to get their way.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
religious zealots are the ones who see most clearly that science functions as a religion in modern society
In the sense that science and religion both underpin the way people see and interact with the universe, other people, and many of their attempts to control both. Sort of how apples function as oranges if what you are doing is holding a piece of fruit or chucking it at someone's head. Eating them are somewhat different experiences though.
I'll believe in CAGW when the scientists quit fudging the numbers and it still shows it...
They aren't "fudging" numbers. This is climate data, it's HARD to deal with. You're talking about millions, even billions of measurements over periods of centuries. There are more moving parts to this data than you can possible conceive of. And companies that make profits off of fossil fuels have armies of people scouring their data for the tiniest errors. Surprise surprise they find some on occasion.
when they can explain historical data that contradicts the theory...
It doesn't. It's dead on.
and when they can explain why the warming has stopped for the last couple of decades.
It hasn't, at all.
You are confusing local and short term temperature variations with a global, long term problem. People working for... well... whomever doesn't want you to believe in climate change, pick and chose data from a specific time, or location, or both... and show a cooling period in that specific area or at a specific time and then claim "Global warming is reverse! It's all lies" but this isn't about that specific area or time. This is about then GLOBAL AVERAGE temperature of the entire planet. That is, without a doubt, increasing. It's very slow, but it's like compound interest. It just keeps growing and growing, melting ice, heating bogs, and compounding the issue further. Temperatures in North Dakota falling for the past 10yrs is not relevant. The climate is a very, very, complicated machine.
As it is, he fudging is so blatant that "climate science" is nothing of the sort...it's a Trojan horse for the same lod tired leftist government takeoff of economies. That trick never works.
Plenty of scientists are republicans or even further right. Yet, less than 10 (that's ten0 out of hundreds of thousands, disagree with the simple finding that humans are altering the average global temperature of the planet. A global conspiracy to make your gas more expensive could never have that kind of influence. This is a consensus of unquestionable proportions. Either all the wind turbine makers and solar panel manufacturers have a hell of a lot more money than we thought and are using it to bribe the scientific community on a scale unprecedented in human history, or we really do have a problem.
I think that if there's one thing everyone could agree on, dumping crap into our atmosphere is a bad thing. We can fix it, and become a world leader in cheap power or we can sit back and hope all our scientists are lying to us. I, personally, am going with the former. And no, I'm not a democrat or a leftist.
Something like this might go a long way in providing an alternative to the usual suspects:
http://ideologicalfootprint.org/
" for instance, by making clear that you can believe in human-induced climate change and still be a conservative Republican."
But you can't. The Republicans won't have you.
Ignorance is a choice, just like belief. The real problem is to get people to reject ignorance. The difficulty in that is that ignorance, like belief, is easy. Rejecting ignorance requires effort. That is why there are so many people who choose ignorance and belief over reason and fact.
For many, being identified as a member of a specific group, even if that group wants you to believe stupid things, is more important than objective reality. They must get something from that group membership that outweighs what they would get from reality. Reality CAN be a bitch.
One of the main issues is that we teach kids what to think, but we don't teach them how to think. You can shove facts at them all you want, but if they don't have the ability to critically analyze something then what's the use. A critical thinking course in philosophy should be mandatory for high school students.
I'll believe in CAGW when the scientists quit fudging the numbers and it still shows it
Are you seriously saying that every single scientific study that matches the Global Warming theory has had their numbers fudged? How do you know? If you are given any random article from a journal, can you point to the data that has been altered to fit the theory?
If not, the perhaps the alleged fudging isn't as blatant - or as widespread - as you suggest. It could be that it is only obvious that the data is bunk if you come at it from the assumption that all the global warming theories are false; in which case you are obviously a perfect match for what this story is all about.
Well first off I'm rather disturbed that more people believe that humans have existed in current form since the beginning of time (33%) than are skeptical of global warming (26%). Before blaming that on the religious right, I think the more likely group is the people who listen to top 40 radio.
But overall this article mixes so many things that make little sense. For example, it uses the belief in WMDs prior to the invasion of Iraq, something that has nothing to do with scientific knowledge. Many of the other things (evolution, global warming, etc) really require a very high level (post graduate) to really understand. I have some high school and college life science knowledge, but I was not a biochemistry major. Based on my limited knowledge, the internal workings of the eukaryote cell is darn close to freaking magic. I found it much less amazing and magical when I had less knowledge. I'm not a religious guy, but I could certainly see how a little knowledge would INCREASE my belief in intelligent design.
You must be an American if you equate liberal with socialist. In Europe, they tend to be the very opposite of each other.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Increased scientific literacy increases sceptism toward those who claim to be the standard bearers of truth. "The more I learn the more I learn how little I know." Some old smart dude said something like this once.
"Yet, less than 10 (that's ten out of hundreds of thousands, disagree with the simple finding that humans are altering the average global temperature of the planet"
I'm sorry, until reading this point, I thought you were being serious.
Really?
Science says fetuses don't have the brain capacity or structure to be even vaguely human until 20 weeks or so. Whether this is true or not is another matter.
And that is why it is so difficult to have an intelligent conversation on the subject. The OP is right. Most of the AGW activists are pursuing political agendas that have a limited connection to AGW. Here are some questions to ask yourself - Why are AGW activists not actively pursuing increased hydroelectric power? Why are AGW activists not actively pursuing increased nuclear power? Why are AGW activists not pursuing geo-engineering solutions? I few might be, quietly, but I have yet to see a pro-nuke or pro-dams protest.
The reason is that the AGWers have aligned themselves politically with traditional environmentalists. In fact, many of them ARE traditional environmentalists. The idea that building more dams to produce clean sustainable hydroelectric and save the planet at the cost of some obscure sub-species of minnow should be an easy trade, but it is heresy to their cause, as are nuclear power plants. As it stands, the AGW crowd are pursuing a political agenda and AGW is just a tool in the box.
I've come to the conclusion that while AGW may be real, it isn't too bad or the experts would not be aligned with old school environmentalists who stand in the way of solutions. When I start to see AGW protesters holding up signs to keep nuclear power plants OPEN or protesting to keep dams open, then I will take them seriously.
Most of the AGW activists are pursuing political agendas that have a limited connection to AGW. Here are some questions to ask yourself - Why are AGW activists not actively pursuing increased hydroelectric power? Why are AGW activists not actively pursuing increased nuclear power?
Mostly because they're not interested in mandating specific aproaches. Instead of the old-fashioned approach of Nixon's EPA, they're going for market-based solutions: putting a price on carbon emissions, for instance. Or a conservative variant on that, George H. W. Bush's cap-and-trade mechanism updated by John McCain for carbon dioxide.
Or the most recent study's proposal: just eliminating taxpayer subsidies for fossil fuels would get us halfway to the 2-degree target.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
The big mistake the AGW people made was letting politicians control the discussion.
They allowed some politicians to use it as a weapon against other politicians which turned the issue into a partisan weapon.
Around the time you saw Al Gore pushing an inconvient truth, that was when the AGW movement shifted from being about science to being a weapon.
Seriously... Al Gore has personally done more damage to the AGW cause then anyone else in the world.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
From your point of view, that's quite possible. After all, for the Commies, everyone in the West was a fascist imperialist.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Our entire economic and political systems the world over are faith based. It is imperative that things remain as they are, or there will be chaos :-/
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
What...like they would supposedly go and tell them to vote for someone else?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
its climate change now. didn't you get the memo?
Ah yes, the old "they made a new name, therefore it must be wrong" argument (as if that makes any difference). I wonder why the same people who complain about this don't also come out to question why the denialists now claim that the warming has stopped since 1998 when they used to say that the climate had been cooling since that date. That change of wording seems to have gone unnoticed, and yet it is very telling that the original statement was incorrect and that the climate is still getting warmer.
I'm sure that in years to come when the records continue to be broken with higher temperatures that the "proof" that global warming is wrong will be conveniently forgotten, as those self-proclaimed sceptics will find some other tiny detail to use to justify their desire to postpone any action regarding the climate as long as possible.
Selection bias.
In Europe the socialists can identify and admit their intentions with substantially less backlash Anna ostracization than in America. Here, they mostly must hide their intentions within liberalism.
Mostly.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
So, with all this complexity of it, how come you are so certain that there is only one way to look at it ?
You are contradicting yourself. If its that complex it would be very difficult to make such a "dead on" match (when complexity increases any chance of a perfect fit should (at least) proportionally decrease).
As a result of the above I do not think I can share your certainty in regard to this matter.
Ah yes, the old "they made a new name, therefore it must be wrong" argument (as if that makes any difference).
Its not "global warming" or "climate change" ... its "climate disruption" now.
Seems to me that if warming wasnt the best word to describe it, and change wasnt the best word to describe it either, then I have to start wondering what the hell "it" really is.
"His name was James Damore."
I've noticed that every time somewhere in the US or Europe experiences a bit of cold weather for the season, comments sections all around the internet are filled with people proclaiming this proves climate change is a fraud.
Seriously? Wow.
Read this carefully, and with an open mind. At least this is an example of the sort is analysis that can lead a skeptic to distrust the scientists trying very hard to prove their hypothesis.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
I've seen many systems put forwards as proof of intelligent design. I've also seen them all explained as products of evolution. Though it doesn't matter: Even if a system were found which seems un-evolveable, at this point it still wouldn't disprove evolution to the point the whole theory gets thrown out. There's just too much evidence in favor - at most, it would suggest there is some small detail of the theory that remained incomplete.
Wasn't Richard Lewontin who said:
"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
Now, call it what you want, but the quid of the matter here is that the denial of statements that may contradict our worldview is based on faith in the set of facts that we already believe in. Theists do it, non theists do it.
you were doing quite well until "All your science your religion"
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Once again, this is an irrelevant argument designed to confuse the issue without having to actually make a claim that needs defending. It is the perfect strategy for the denialist movement. It can be stated in a single sentence, and people think that it is funny to do so. It is the same technique that advertisers use to create brand awareness. But have no doubt that it is a cynical ploy to capture people's imagination when facts can't be used.
The reason why there are multiple names for this is that the average person doesn't understand the difference between global warming and local warming. It if is a cold winter then they think that the globe must be cooler, when it may just be a symptom of a more active climate moving air from the cooler parts of the world to where they are.
It is not that warming was the wrong word to use, as you claim. Neither is the word change, because if it is warming then it must be changing. Climate disruption is not a common term for this, I don't think that it will catch on because it is stupid.
Maybe you should broaden your horizons on that Germany claim.
Germany's Energiewende Troubles Prove That Renewable Energy Has Failed. And Other Strange Ideas
.
Interesting belief you have there.
I believe that belief is inherent to the human mind, necessary for operation in the world. I see belief in two general categories: rigid and fluid. When rigid, a belief is maintained even in the face of evidence to its contrary. When fluid, a belief can change in nuance and substance based on life experience and information.
We all have beliefs and operate from biases that do not agree with others. I see this as natural and as it should be. Each person is their own subjective lens on reality, and no one person nor committee can determine what objective reality ultimately is. Once we think we have it, something comes along and blows away our vaunted conceptions. Life will never fully give away its secrets, we will always be left guessing. To me that's the beauty of the mystery. What we each make of it is our own journey, and we should not try too hard to fit our personal beliefs to any consensus.
"Molest me not with this pocket calculator stuff."
- Deep Thought
You can vote republican even if you believe in anthropogenic global warming, and they'll be happy to have your vote. You just can't have anything to do with setting the group's policies/platform/agenda. No one in the Republican party's leadership can say they believe in anthropogenic global warming and remain in their leadership position.
Being religious and "accepting science" is just drawing the boundaries in a different place. There is still a science no-go zone so they really do not accept science they just define the boundaries differently.
How about on all beliefs should be rejected and replaced with reality. A belief system that contradicts with the world we live in should be diagnosed as a phsycological disorder.
Psychosis is a loss of contact with reality that usually includes: False beliefs about what is taking place or who one is (delusions) ; Seeing or hearing things that aren't there (hallucinations).
Why does society accept the mass relgious psychosis yet reject other forms?
Science is about changing our "belief" system to match what we know about the world we live in. Religion is about denying the world we live in for a belief system that is a mental fugue.
Yep. The European Liberals actually stand for liberty. The American users of the name are the opposite — their first solution to any problem is to create a government agency responsible for solving it, as well as simply banning the use of anything potentially dangerous — and thus the proper name for them is Illiberal.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
I believe rigid belief, as defined by you, is equivalent to ignorance.
The percentages come from looking at all studies, papers, research, etc. and determining the number one one side or the /i?
When the administrators of research funding withhold future grants from scientists who publish papers questioning some aspect of the current global warming scenario, while giving additional funding to scientists who publish papers supporting it (or claiming some global-warming tie-in to whatever phenomenon they're examining), the count becomes skewed. This is political action, not science.
This happened in the '70s with research into medical effects of the popular "recreational" drugs - before such research was effectively banned. Among the resuts were a plethora of papers where the conclusions obviously didn't match the data presented and a two-decade delay in the discovery of medical effects and development of treatments. Only NOW are we finding evidence that PTSD might be aborted by adequate opate dosages in the weeks immediately following the injury, or that compounds in marijuana may be a specific treatment for it - as they are for some forms of epilepsy and may be for some cancers, late stage parkinsons, and so on.
The same happens when the editors of a journal and their selection of reviewers systematically approve and publish only research supporting the current paradigms, to the point that scientists with contrary resuts must find, or create, other journals or distribution channels (which can then be smeared as non-authoritaive, creations of the fossil fuel industry, right-wing politicans, or conspiracy nuts - and their articles LEFT OUT OF THE COUNT). Again, this is politics, not science.
Then there's the question of the methodology of the count itself. What is counted as "support for" versus "opposition to"? What does it count as a scientific paper? Were well-established research methods used? Was it reviewed? By whom? Was it done by scientists with no established position on the issue, by scientists supporting one side, by pollsters, by an advocacy group, by politicians? (Hell, was it done at all? Truth is the first casualty of politics, and fake polls are one of the commonest murder weapons.)
For an instance: How would you interpret the study behind the Scientific American article that seems to indicate:
- Planetary temperatures have tightly tracked a function of three orbital-mechanics effects on the earth's orbit and axial orientation - up to the time of human domestication of fire.
- That occurred as the function was just starting to inflect downward into the next ice age.
- The deviation amounted to holding the temperature stable as the function slowly curved downward. (Perhaps a feedback effect - more fires needed for comfort in colder winters?)
- This essentially flat temperature held up to the industrial revolution, when the temperature began to curve upward, overcoming the gradually steepening decline of the function.
- If this deviation is the result of burning fossil fuels, they are expected to run out in about 800 years - after which the temperature might crash toward the "Ice age already in progress" as the excess carbon is removed from the atomsphere by various processes, or simply be overwhelmed by the orbita
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
It is a global consensus. Is there a dispute that CO2 traps heat? The runaway greenhouse that is venus is that fake too. Is this fake too?
In other words: There are far too many bad scientists.
(Stupid touchpad...)
- If this deviation is the result of burning fossil fuels, they are expected to run out in about 800 years - after which the temperature might crash toward the "Ice age already in progress" as the excess carbon is removed from the atomsphere by various processes, or simply be overwhelmed by the orbital mechanical function if it remains.
Does this scenario count as supporting or opposing anthropogenic global warming?
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
If science were to admit that the scientific method itself had significant selection effects, when applied to certain questions, then science would have to admit that science can not resolve certain questions.
One of those questions might be "Is the Universe a machine?" Or if one wants to take quantum into account "Is the Universe a machine with a gazillion true hardware random number generators attached?"
If the Universe is a machine, then the scientific method preference for repeatable results is justified. If the Universe is a quantum machine, or statistically unbiased machine (i.e. a machine with a gazillion TRNGs attached), then the scientific method's preference for repeatable statistical results is justified.
But what if the Universe is not any kind of machine? What if the Universe is a living being as Eastern religion and philosophy assert? What if the Universe is adjusting itself to the questions and presuppositions of science? What if the Universe is like a child being questioned by a biased investigator alleging sexual abuse? What if the Universe is giving the answers that it thinks the investigator wants to hear?
It seems to me that the scientific method can not resolve such claims. In order to prove an answer, one would have to prove that the scientific method had no selection effects, which one could not prove with knowing the answer to the question a priori . In other words the question is hopelessly circular.
This means that one of the key assumptions of scientism , can not to be proved by the scientific method.
No, in this case, we just laugh at you. You're too obnoxious to ignore.
Nobody wins in this game.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
You're giving me the impression that you think that any study not matching global warming is wrong. On what grounds ? Are they fudging their numbers ? How do you know ?
I am not giving that impression, but just to be clear I categorically state that any study not matching current global warming theories is to be accepted with the same cautious scepticism as any paper that conveniently matches the theories. This is why we need to have lots of studies to act as checks and balances.
I find that it is actually quite satisfying to point out the mistakes in a study which arrives at the same conclusion I have, because I know that I am being even handed and not guided by any bias.
Scientific findings that are contrary to existing theories or even your own beliefs should not be feared, but instead should be a source of excitement as it means that we are collectively fine-tuning our knowledge of the universe. It also generates a lot more activity in the scientific community.
As for my use of the word denialist, I stand by it even though I should use the correct term denier. The only people to bring up any negative connotations are the denialists themselves as they attempt to sound more reasonable and open minded. But why? It can't be because it sounds like holocaust deniers because I didn't use that term - I said denialist. I have no problem with true sceptics. The entire scientific principle is to be sceptical of everything and to test each other's works. If you have questions about the science then it is quite reasonable to ask them. But denialists are those who belittle scientists (they are only in it for the money) or science itself (it's a religion), and when provided with answers to their questions just keep asking the same questions again or instantly change to a different topic. A sceptic will have an open mind, while a denialist will never change their mind and will always disbelieve global warming despite all evidence presented.
I have seen someone say here on /. "I'm not a denier, I just deny climate change". It's funny that people only have problems with the noun and not the verb.
Unfortunately, that is not true.
So many political opinions are viable within any party IF you frame it correctly.
Somehow many anarchist/libertarians end up on the progressive/leftist portion of political because they are against corporation/banks/police/war.
Similarly, many anarchist/libertarians end up on the 'right' because they are against corporations/banks/police/war/government excess..
I'll give my own example.
I grew up in pretty conservative Islam. Now, as I grew up, I was still a Muslim. I could sit around and interpret the texts any which way I want and I could have a decent conversation and be a part of *most* Muslim communities. I didn't pray, didn't really believe in any of the rules, barely fasted... yet I was still by in large welcomed in *most* Islamic communities.
Eventually, I left Islam and would not be called a cultural Muslim or an ex-Muslim or whatever label you want. In practical things, I believe and act pretty much the same. Yet, by denying God and Mohamed was God's messenger/perfect man, suddenly I am shunned. I knew that going in. People suddenly stopped communicating.
The point I am making here, is that whatever practical issues I had with Islam, I could deliberate and discuss with people as long as I didn't threaten the Islamic identity and Islamic power. The moment I did, my opinion becomes meaningless.
The same is largely true of politics.
People think Climate Change is merely science. It is not. By admitting the 'science' you are automatically subscribing to a whole host of political initiatives from carbon taxes, road tolls, increased government spending...
But all that has nothing to do with the science. In some ideal world, climate change science could be independent of policy. But that is not the world we live in today.
How many scientists say we must act on global warming and have more taxes, more government spending...
Buying into climate change MEANS buying into the political policies of 'the other team'. Hence you are more likely to reject it the science.
The same is true again of religion. Evolution is pretty convincing. I know many Muslims who believe in Evolution as well. Some kind of God guided evolution :P But much better than the creation story.
In any case, however, if buying into evolution means rejecting god, siding with secularists... then they are likely to just ignore the science of evolution.
I'd be willing to wager that if the climate science was presented to republications without any stipulation of Big government / Left political action, most would not fight it.
And just to emphasize, there is no reason climate change should entail carbon taxes or anything of hte like. Those are all policy tools we choose. We could just as easily pay the oil companies extra money for them to deveolop green energy. We could just as easily reduce healthcare spending and entitlement spending, and use that money to build levies, green power....
"Liberals" in Europe are classical liberals who would be labeled libertarians in the US. This is classical definition of liberalism. These people are social liberals and econonomic liberals (free market). "Liberals" in the US are social liberals in the classical sense who generally have a lot of economic positions close to democratic socialists, such that the right wing conflates "liberalism" with socialism.
He won nothing. Pakistan still split off (as "Muslim India"), and Britain only left due to increasingly violent resistance, huge war debts and related internal issues, and too many military issues elsewhere due to the World Wars.
"A soft answer turneth away wrath. Once wrath is looking the other way, shoot it in the head."
Seriously... Al Gore has personally done more damage to the AGW cause then anyone else in the world.
THIS. He massively increased the politicization of the issue and almost single-handedly created the incentive to turn climate denialism in the US from a fringe conspiracy theory to a mainstream belief. I don't think things would be massively different today if he had stayed out of climate issues, but the brakes wouldn't be dragging nearly so hard on the science train. I don't think climate policy would be more contentious than any other environmental policy issue.
I'd say the biggest catastrophes in climate policy are:
1. Al Gore, for contributing massively to the politicization of climate science
2. Disinformation campaigns funded by fossil fuel companies and conservative think-tanks
3. Michael Chrichton's State of Fear, the Book of Revelation for climate denialists.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Science already knows that it can't answer all questions.
The media and liberals conflate the three issues of-- Is the world warming? Is it human induced? Can human countermeasures have any worthwhile effect?" into one hoping the public will be too dumb to see the difference so that any skepticism about countermeasures like onerous carbon taxes can be shouted down as flat-earth talk. Any intelligent observer of the issue will arrive at the conclusion that the high costs Americans will be asked to pay for certain quantity of carbon reduction will be quickly overwhelmed by India and China opening one new coal fired power plant per week. Americans should be told that the extra $500 per month they will be paying for energy is largely symbolic and designed more to shame the developing world into adopting green energy policies and burnish America's image as a green nation doing its part to combat GW.
The study is wrong. I have always believed that the presentation of solid evidence will sway anyone's view, and I still do.
The problem is that many don't trust scientists and researchers to be objective. The details of scientific claims are too involved for the average person to dig into directly and compare and contrast such that they are relying on somebody's word.
In the conservative world, people should be motivated by greed, and this means that paid scientists should say whatever makes their wallets fatter, and claiming there are climate problems allegedly increases the need for climate services.
I'm at a loss for a way to fix this, though.
Table-ized A.I.
The amygdala assignes emotional weights to facts.
For example, some poeple with a damaged amygdalas will head towards dangerous things because one part of the brain says, "Whoop! Something interesting there" and then the amygdala makes you fear it or like it, etc. Without the amygdala you only know it's interesting.
Oddly, without the emotional weighting, other people with damaged amygdala's lose the ability to make logical decisions. Without the emotional weighting- they dither. Everything is equally important.
So, when a person has a strong belief in something- the amygdala weights contrary facts as unimportant or even dangerous while supporting facts are weighted as important and good.
You really need to find some other belief they have to get into their brain. For example, some religious people believe that making human beings suffer is bad. So if you can humanize another group and then show that some behavior the person is doing is making the other human suffer, then they can change their mind.
A religious person has a fundamentally different axiom. They believe there is a real deity and usually also believe that their deity cares about the believer's existence and how they behave. Anything that doesn't agree with that axiom- or worse- is perceived to threaten it- is downweighted or even made fearful/dangerous by the amygdala.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
And herein we find one massive problem with the idea that we shouldn't make things political - some people will find something political about anything.
97% is scientific, not political. That's why AGW should get 97% "pro-" coverage, and at most 3% "anti-" coverage, but people like this Spazmania will cry when their anti-AGW coverage doesn't get 50%.
Except that you just said you think you and people like you will be killed. That's real psychopathy. The rest of what you said is ginned up nonsense. Not, "hate speech," just insanely stupid.
"But we also need to reduce the incentives for elites to spread misinformation to their followers in the first place. Once people’s cultural and political views get tied up in their factual beliefs, it’s very difficult to undo regardless of the messaging that is used."
As long as the few can remain in power or make money by lying, they will.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
1. Al weaponized the issue and made it something that had to be met in ideological battle.
2. The disinformation is more broadly based then I think you realize. The oil companies don't have to do much. The reality is that the situation is primed for them there is an existing resistance to the whole thing due to the weaponization.
If the oil companies didn't throw anything at the issue the resistance would still be pretty strong.
3. State of fear was in large part a response to the climate change evangelism. That was a huge mistake.
The whole "your ideology is wrong and will be crushed and I have science behind me... and the science is settled" thing was a big mistake.
As you're doubtless aware a defense is made in depth. You don't just have one line of defense. You have many layers. To resist the whole thing you set up many points where it is slowed or stopped or confused.
Because the theory was weaponized the whole basis of the theory had to be undermined.
I think a good example would be Eugenics... lets say someone wanted to implement a eugenics program in the US.
Now the scientific basis for such a program might be strong. The underlying reason for doing it might make biological/genetic sense. But politically you can see how it would be a problem.
Consider what the political groups would do if you tried to push a eugenics program? I can tell you the conservatives would probably undermine evolution, DNA, and the very science of genetics itself.
Now is that scientifically valid? Obviously not. But it would help to stop a eugenics program.
Likewise, the issue with AGW is the solutions to it are basically "your political faction gets nothing it wants, our political faction gets lots of stuff it wants including power, and ultimately your whole society gets controlled to some extent by our programs."... People are going to fight that.
It was a big mistake to try and force people to comply to programs while at the same time putting rival political powers in charge of the whole thing.
Both nationally and internationally.
The whole thing needs to be run akin to the way that we are getting the chinese to comply with AGW. You ask nicely, talk to them respectfully, and accept the compromises they're willing to make right now as what you're going to get. If you want change beyond that you change yourself but you don't impose your will on anyone else.
So for example, in the US you could break down the environmental policy on a state by state basis without imposing a federal AGW guild line. Then you could set up environmental rules between the states that cause some states to do less business with states that create a lot of CO2 and more business with states that have better environmental policy.
In that way, states could choose and make those choices on sound business practices without being compelled by federal fiat or having a portion of their income taken as taxes to go in many cases directly to political rivals.
Its the forcing that has to stop. Maybe you could have forced people IF you had avoided letting the likes of Al Gore weaponize the issue.
But that happened... and there is a price for that. The price is that the forcing stops or the resistance won't stop.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
That's why there are peer reviews in science, and the need for reproducibility. When there is a 97% consensus, it's well-past the point where we should be arguing with them.
Consider there is an ample amount of agenda-driven motivation to deny that AGW is happening, but very, very few scientists are apt to do so. Your sword swings both ways.
They aren't "fudging" numbers. This is climate data, it's HARD to deal with.
Then perhaps you can explain why they're adjusting historical temperature data, while claiming that it's "functionally bad or maladjusted" even though those same instruments are in use today, and are considered the gold standard for measurements.
Om, nomnomnom...
I've noticed that every time somewhere in the US or Europe experiences a bit of cold weather for the season, comments sections all around the internet are filled with people proclaiming this proves climate change is a fraud.
Media and various "scientific literates: "
Weather was warm - global warming
Weather cold - global warming
We had tornado's - global warming
A hurricane hit the NE coast - global warming
Drought in central US - global warming
Forest fires in Canada - global warming
Unseasonably warm spring - global warming
Unseasonably wet spring - global warming
Unseasonably cold spring - global warming
Regular spring - global warming
Snowfall in October - global warming
Blizzard in December - global warming
Water in reservoirs low - global warming
Water high in reservoirs - global warming
Higher than average cloud cover - global warming
War in the middle east - global warming
War in Balkans - global warming
In the end, global warming causes everything.
Om, nomnomnom...
One of the main impacts of climate change would be an increase in extreme weather, so not entirely surprising such things would be claimed.
One of the main impacts of climate change would be an increase in extreme weather, so not entirely surprising such things would be claimed.
Except I didn't say extreme, nor do they generally in the media. In fact they were screaming "extreme weather" when we had the cold-snap here in Canada. On the other hand, that was normal winter weather according to the historical data. So...which is it?
Om, nomnomnom...
Telling people who collect stamps they're idiots could be a hobby.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
God made humans rational beings.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
People who disagree with Yale professors have brain damage. This finding makes it easier for Yalies to hold on to their prejudices without considering ideas that make them uncomfortable.
I18N == Intergalacticization
From your point of view, that's quite possible. After all, for the Commies, everyone in the West was a fascist imperialist.
Awww... just when I got used to capitalist dog...
And I would never support the Empire*
(* Arrival of a Death Star may cause me to change my vote)
You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
I'm an atheist.
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
Science isn't decided by consensus. It's decided by predictive power and explanatory power. Nothing else. CAGW has neither.
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
And I note the standard Slashdot moderation is in full effect: "I disagree with it, therefore it must be trolling."
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
and when they can explain why the warming has stopped for the last couple of decades.
It hasn't, at all.
According to the various data-sets, there has been no statistically significant surface warming for 17 years. How can we have an honest discussion if you won't admit to plain facts?
Not all Republicans are fanatics that deny global-warming.
The problem is that the actual fanatic radicals in the party end up becoming the defining image of that group in the face of public mass media. (Same goes for the Democratic and other parties)
Not that "climate change" is homogeneous and 10 years does not centuries make, but currently from a notorious yellow rag: NOAA's most accurate, up-to-date temperature data confirm the United States has been cooling for at least the past decade. "Temperatures in North Dakota falling for the past 10yrs is not relevant. " But this is NA, a slightly larger land area than ND.
I think the GP is arguing about extrapolation of the data to fill in missing gaps. And while I completely agree that "dumping crap into our atmosphere is a bad thing", the devil is in the details.
They think that a million smokestacks is enough, I think that a thousand of them is enough, you think that only one is enough. So how many are built? What point on the gradient is right?
Oh, and I like and believe in science too. But at a certain point you seem to have made up your mind (quote: Contradictions? No, "It's dead on."), blame the dumb and evil groups trying to stop you and come across as these guys. They were 100% convinced too, you know, with a literal evil guy trying to stop them.
Not that they're not bad and misleading groups out there. And to slightly mis-quote you: "climate data is HARD to deal with." So how do you know that you (they) have gotten it right? After all: men won't live through the high 15mph speeds of trains, bumblebees and men can't fly, and man will never go to the moon.
Models are wanna-be theory implementations, but this one is slightly wrong.
Quoting from elsewhere in this thread: "That is why there are so many people who choose ignorance and belief over reason and fact." And I'm sure the End of the World people above used those exact words too.
Down here in the bible belt (sigh) there's a saying; "God did it; I believe it; That settles it." As opposed to the other funnier saying: "My mind's made up, don't confuse me with the facts." Those match this current discussion When Beliefs and Facts Collide.
Finally, to end this rambling, no matter which side of of the fence you're on (fences only have 2 sides, right -- black and white, right and wrong, "yer with me or agin me"), this is just wrong: forced to step down after subjected to 'Mc-Carthy'-style pressure from scientists around the world.
Just because you want to present a debunked theory doesn't mean you should be shouted down -- it ought to be easy to refute their (new?) arguments. And if not -- why, that's even better! Science works by correcting incorrect "facts" no matter how widespread they're known.
If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
...the Republican and Democrat Parties apparently now act as if maintaining their pride and party-loyalty is more important than actually carrying out change and doing their jobs...
We've been trained to "follow the money" in all circumstances of public advocacy and to be highly suspicious of those who would befit financially. Scientists who say "increase funding for my field", or "I deserve a prize", or "better agree with this or you'll lose tenure and not get your grants approved." undermine the credibility of the whole profession.
Malpractice is what I call it when Scientists mask politics under the cloak of science. Science can speak about climate change, and perhaps about the cause. On the other hand, what to do about it (if anything) is a question of values, not science. It sounds immoral to spoil the world for our grandchildren, but that's not science. So when scientists get on the media and try to dictate what we must do about it (such as renewable energy), that's malpractice because it is a political issue not a scientific issue. When they threaten to label you as a denier if you disagree, that's even worse. When they tell the politicians to obey scientific edits or else, that's an attempt to create an uber ruling class.
My point is that much (not all but much) of the blame for cynicism goes to the scientists.
Australia's industry hired PR (aka propagandists) to attack climate change science. The publicly stated plan by the company they hired was right out in the open for people to read-- they would base their campaign around what worked in the USA. To redefine large demographics (like conservatives) so that the issue became part of their identity of who they are. That is how Australia which had high numbers of acceptance (and 1st hand experience with crazy weather) but went quickly to a high "skeptic" nation almost as bad as the USA.
Clearly the PR people know how to hack human brains better than the academics who are way way behind the curve (proving things and discovering truth is much harder than just using whatever seems to work without needing to know why it works.)
Identity psychology is extremely powerful stuff and a deep subject.
Searching for truth (science) may have some flaws due to the fact humans are involved, but it is still the best we've got. The elite scientists are the people who logically should be authoritative on their topics. You can dismiss them all you wish and go have the shit doctor or dentist or nuclear engineer, but me, I want elite expert advice and facts. Not mere opinions. If you are not a psychologist then they should feel superior to you when you spout baseless made-up psychology.
Academics may be greatly undermined today than in the past, but they still have plenty of freely exploring intellectuals without external controlling forces biasing their results. Government laboratories are a less free variation but are also in decline. Those two are the best we've got; there is nothing else. Think tanks are merely propaganda organizations which spew out whatever technobabble you pay them to do; with heavy agendas being their sole purpose for existing (as opposed to the pure actual research the other two aspire to.) Corporations have different agendas with their own strengths and weaknesses. As far as not liking what science is saying... well, "reality has a liberal bias" is simplistic but a generally correct assessment. Reality sucks, that is why people work so hard to escape or blind themselves from it.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Curious about this:
...companies that make profits off of fossil fuels have armies of people scouring their data
I hear all sorts of stories but never see these sorts of accusations verified. Do you have evidence of armies?
It reminds me of the study that showed the Koches et cetera were spending billions on blogs and propaganda. Sounds reasonable. Until I realized there would have to be some newly rich people on the receiving end of all this dough. I haven't seen them. Got data?
I18N == Intergalacticization
Classic piece of Completely Wrong.
Atheism SHOULD be the absence of religion, but as a group they go out and try to force other to believe as they do. They are behaving the same as a religion.
In practice Agnostic has become the true absence of religion.
Bzzt. Wrong. I'm not sure who this "they" and what "group" it is that you're talking about. As an atheist, I do no subscribe to any "theist" (get it? a-theist, as in not theist.) philosophies. That's me. You go and believe whatever you want. If you believe in something I don't, more power to you. Have at it and since I don't share those beliefs, there's more for you!
However, don't expect to me agree with you or not call you out if you espouse demonstrably false ideas and/or concepts.
Just because I disagree with you and don't mind telling you *why* I disagree with you, doesn't mean I'm forcing anything on you.
Feel free to ignore me or argue with me. Who knows, if your argument is good enough, maybe I'll be convinced. I'm open minded like that -- if you can make a rational argument and back it up with empirical data to support your argument, I will accept it, even if it contradicts my current beliefs.
Enjoy your beliefs, whatever they may be and enjoy your day, friend.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
The whole idea of (whatever they're calling it now) global warming is inextricably bound up with centralized economic planning or, at the very least, extensive economic regulation; and in many cases it goes beyond that with the advocating of international boards that threaten national sovereignty. Furthermore, many of these proposed treaties are seen by their opponents—and not without good cause—as a way of stifling rich, developed countries while favoring un-developed or developing countries. They're seen as a political punishing of the "Great Satan." This is what people can't get past.
You've done a piss-poor job of saying anything that even vaguely approximates reality. I'm not sure whose talking points you're mangling here, but if I were them, I'd shut up and then sue you for making me look even worse.
Global warming and Centralized Economic planning? Cite please. Look hard, but you won't find anything -- because it doesn't exist.
Threats to national sovereignty? In what fantasy world?
Last I checked, the rich, developed countries were gaming the system in their favor. Show me where that's changed? You can't, because it ain't so.
Sigh.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
You exaggerate here: "readily observable and incontrovertible". The study of abstracts of assorted scientific papers was done very subjectively. Some authors said they were counted as on one side when they were aren't on any side. And so on.
That said, it's clearly a majority of climate science.
Climate science finds itself in the unusual position of making quantitative predictions of chaotic systems based on numerical digital simulations, which in turn are based on limited data. Compare that to, oh say, evolutionary biologists, who spent a 100 years proving their theories about the past were correct, but don't dare try to predict the future course of evolution.
I18N == Intergalacticization
Saying that agnostic has in practice become the true absence of religion (as opposed to atheism which is "supposed to be") is not a sensible statement. It's like saying that sometimes people dye their hair, so in practice blue eyed people are the true brunettes.
One thing that's interesting is that nobody sits around talking about the absence of things. It doesn't make sense to sit in a circle and talk about how there are no robot showbusinessmen on Uranus that are re-enacting Earth's transmissions and rebroadcasting them with Faster-Than-Light technology to their home galaxy. Likewise, atheists don't sit around and talk about how there's no god.
So if you see atheists talking on the Internet, or go to atheist forums, then it's almost by definition that they are talking about religions (usually the dominant religion in their area, which in English-language forums is usually Christianity). And just like most informal groups of people, some of them are total jackasses about it.
Even so, a statement like this seems starkly opposed to reality:
as a group they go out and try to force other to believe as they do.
I've seen an atheist argue that a condition of political office should be atheism, on the basis that admitting that you are influenced by things that aren't real means you are mentally incompetent in the worst way*, and I can see how that is like "forcing" others to believe as they do -- but this is not a common stance, even among the vitriolic internet atheists.
*I also know deeply religious people who got extremely uncomfortable with George Bush's "god talks to me" speech, because they might not agree with the atheist I just mentioned, but they follow his argument as far as thinking that it's really not a good sign if a powerful political leader claims to be hearing the voice of god in his head.
Where is the Democrat campaign to define liberal as believing in global warming???
We KNOW PR corps are being paid to conflate the issue with conservatism. That is a fact. But where is the other side? Some tiny non-profits who might be trying it as a strategy? Maybe. Somehow I would think any that do would be going with SCIENCE instead of beliefs. When you can use science.... you do... when you can't, you resort to emotions and beliefs.
Politicians like science when they can exploit it; but they never praise science too highly because they know that it is going to backfire upon them sooner or later. Governing people isn't a game of reason or logic; today (with money) it is a science of human manipulation --- which means if your voters think Obama has no birth certificate, you appease their idiocy by acting the fool before the election.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
It's amazing how much you know about Republicans, given that you obviously are not a Republican.
In the modern world truth is relative.
Give you an example.
The US *used to* Fluoridate to level x.
At the time many people complained and said it was not a safe level. Not unlike that from most slash-dotters, the general arrogant response from idiots who think they know everything and claim "scientific consensus" based on poorly designed highly biased and well selected studies, and a few pay-walled papers which are written by authors whose careers are on the line should they go against the trend, was that these people were crazy conspiracy theorists.
Well, low and f*cking behold, eventually the US lowered the "safe" level of Fluoride and now claim that y is the safe maximum fluoride concentration where y is less than x! Well that means that x was an UNSAFE level of Fluoridation and they were in fact POISONING US! Suddenly all of the morons who claimed to know everything now have to walk around saying exactly what the people they ridiculed before were saying. But alas, they still claim that this poison should be added to the water supply, but at level y instead of x, and that it is compatible with a free society to enforce mass medication on an entire population even though they have already had to admit that they were adding UNSAFE levels to the water previously. NO! If I want Fluoride, I WILL ADD IT MYSELF THANKS.
Real truth is not relative. It is an absolute - but in this f*cked up world that we have created where black is white and 1+1=3, torture is "enhanced interrogation", a Jewish State for the Jewish People is not a racist state, truth is very relative.
Another one. Let's look at the Big Bang Theory and the expanding universe. A few years ago, it was complete heresy to even think that perhaps we actually don't know what happened billions of years ago. Anybody who dared to say that the universe might not be expanding was cut down immediately. In the Physics departments there was a lot of political shenanigans regarding the enforcement of belief in the Big Bang Theory. It literally became, and to some extent remains, a religiously held belief.
But, low and f*cking behold, now there are some papers coming out which say that the universe is not expanding. But before they said that we live in an expanding universe. Yes there are caveats and details but one cannot ignore the dogmatism that pervades our universities.
My point is that all of the idiot morons who appeal to "scientific consensus" think that they are so open minded and well informed and that they know everything (although they will claim that they are humble and do not) keep closing down the debates and the discussions on a variety of topics, but then they get egg all over their faces. They are the most religiously dogmatic of people. They pick up on a scientific theory and make it their dogma and woe betide anybody who looks at the data and arrives at a different conclusion. So-called "Climate Science" is the best example of this to date. As the planet continues to not warm for two decades in a row now, as the Antarctic Ice increases and they tell us it is increasing because the planet is warming (even though the data shows that the planet is not currently warming), we are likely about to see another massive debacle of the dogmatically incorrect "scientific community".
Well I've got my pop-corn all stocked up and ready for that one.
And don't get me started on Vaccines. Please, just don't.
They aren't "fudging" numbers. This is climate data, it's HARD to deal with. You're talking about millions, even billions of measurements over periods of centuries. There are more moving parts to this data than you can possible conceive of.
Indeed, and this is a problem when science tangles up with politics. Here we ware saying it's hard to deal with and requires quite a lot of corrections and processing, while the left of politics runs a coercive campaign that you should be called a pariah if you are not convinced by our data and therefore their policies. In science, our credibility is dragged under far more by agreeing politicians trying to co-opt us than by political opponents disagreeing with us. (Disagreement is part of the process; but being dragged into a sharp tongued campaign about why you must vote for higher taxes on big business or otherwise you're a horrible person is not a part of science, and makes us look like a bunch of corrupt fudgers trying to raise our grant funding by cosying up to the left). To a great deal of the public, environmental movement is not the rebel alliance, but Moff Tarkin trying to tighten his grip.
And companies that make profits off of fossil fuels have armies of people scouring their data for the tiniest errors. Surprise surprise they find some on occasion.
This is essentially irrelevant. I work in a less controversial discipline, but if someone finds a flaw in one of my papers, "but you were paid by someone to look for it" would not remove the flaw or change how I should address it. Fossil fuel companies are paying people to scour science for errors -- excellent, good on them, it will help us improve the quality of our publications. So far as the public discussion is concerned, however, it is not the fossil fuel companies whose reputations are in questioned (everyone already thinks Big Oil is a bunch of rotters) so pointing accusing fingers at them does us much more harm than good.
when they can explain historical data that contradicts the theory...
It doesn't. It's dead on.
That's a rhetorical dodge. The models are based on historical data, and are a moving target, so just stating that the historical data concurs with our latest models is hardly surprising. The question, which is not answered so simplistically, is whether our computer models are overfitted or properly predictive. (Hopefully the latter, but we seem never to make that clear in these sorts of discussions.)
As it is, he fudging is so blatant that "climate science" is nothing of the sort...it's a Trojan horse for the same lod tired leftist government takeoff of economies. That trick never works.
Plenty of scientists are republicans or even further right. Yet, less than 10 (that's ten0 out of hundreds of thousands, disagree with the simple finding that humans are altering the average global temperature of the planet.
You're misreporting that rather badly. A small proportion of climate scientists disagree, but plenty of other scientists do. Vastly more than 10 (no I'm not going to "out" my colleagues, but yes I do personally know plenty). It's very important not to misrepresent the views of the field as being the views of everyone in every other field too. Otherwise it seems like we're dishonestly trying to gloss over the selection factor (if you've taken up a career in that part of science over any other, you probably think it's important).
Either all the wind turbine makers and solar panel manufacturers have a hell of a lot more money than we thought and are using it to bribe the scientific community on a scale unprecedented in human history, or we really do have a problem.
The problem we have, particularly as scientists, is that the political left has tried to co-opt us. Academics are naturally a little left-leaning (more of the free marketeers among
Over here in the US, the fascist conservatives equate anything not as fascist as them to be socialists.
Actually, here in the US not one person in a million can tell you anything at all about what fascism stood for. The term is now just one of a growing list of political insult terms with no actual content.
Of course, the fraction of Americans who can actually define socialism or liberalism or any other -ism isn't much larger than one in a million. Such terms are really just the modern equivalent of tribal names. You're expected to hate anyone with a label different from yours, but you're not expected to actually know the meaning of any of the labels. Once you understand this situation, American political rhetoric becomes much more comprehensible.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Much of your complaint seems to be equivalent to complaining that They are giving more research grants to people who appear to be competent, while denying grants to people seen as incompetent, corrupt, or unethical. Sure, this means that occasionally someone will be unfairly denied, and there will be a bias against unpopular things, but surely it's a good thing overall.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
for instance, by making clear that you can believe in human-induced climate change and still be a conservative Republican."
When it comes to politicians, the question is not what they believe, but what they say they believe. Politicians are not as dumb as they pretend to be, and would stop pretending the day we start treating continuous incompetence the same as malice.
For example, there already are lots of Republican politicians who believe in global warming -- they just know better than to admit it. It would weaken their position, both during elections and during negotiations (since they intend to vote against any spending on curbing CO2). For what benefit? Honesty? They gave that up when they decided to win elections.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
"But you can't. The Republicans won't have you."
I believe in human induced climate change, and I'm a Republican - in fact, I''ve been a delegate to the last 3 conventions.
What was your point again?
I'd be curious to hear/meet any Democratic delegates who DIDN'T believe in anthropogenic climate change?
-Styopa
Well, over there you are all socialists so the political label doesn't matter much anyway.
You really haven't been paying attention have you.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
Certainly can't argue with that, although i imagine there's more than 1 in a million that does know, the numbers of the ignorant are disproportionally large compared to those that do. But downplaying the meaning and actions of those "groups" is hardly the answer.
While some of these quite a ways out there in the way they use the data, many of them put forward a pretty simple analysis of what's going on...such as: http://www.activistpost.com/20...
Make no mistake, the militarism, anti-intellectualism, religious fervor, party "purity," along with the other traits justifies the radical rights admission into the roster of fascist groups, even though they've substituted total obedience to their party for the total obedience to the state that the European fascists of the 1920's-1940's pushed. That list of traits is like a checklist for the radical right.
So no, this isn't just a political insult... it's the way things are happening in the US. My statement above, that's already been modded down by someone who disagrees, is accurate.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
In the USA, the left appropriated the term liberal and started using it to refer to itself in the early 20th century. It stuck. As a result, the word liberal now has almost the opposite meaning in the USA as everywhere else.
Congratulations. It is obvious from the Republican party's platform and statements made by leadership to news media on a daily basis that believing in AGW is NOT a Republican thing to do. You're an outlier, not a mainstream Republican.
I find it interesting that you ask about democrats who don't believe in AGW. It's as if the existence of AGW is a matter of opinion. You're in a group that denies science - not just AGW, but also evolution, and probably other things- i.e. the group you are in chooses ignorance over reason. To equate that position with believing AGW and evolution is ridiculous. AGW and evolution are based on science. It isn't a matter of belief. If there is a democrat who denies the science behind AGW they, too, are ignorant.
Your implication is like the ID advocates who equate their position with the position of scientists who study evolution. The positions are NOT equivalent. ID advocacy is based on nothing but poorly camouflaged religious ideology, evolution is based on 100+ years of research.
In US politics, the opinions of stupid/ignorant people are as valuable as those of intelligent people- everyone gets one vote. In real life, stupid/ignorant people can't accomplish much. But politicians don't care about what people can accomplish- they just want the votes and they know that there are a LOT of stupid/ignorant people out there waiting to be told what to do, so the message gets crafted to appeal to the hordes of the stupid and ignorant. You should be proud of yourself for being an integral part of that process.
What I know is what I hear them saying on the news every day. If you think my knowledge is wrong, tell your party leadership to quit saying the things they keep saying in front of cameras.
After 17 years of cold weather it's pretty much proven that global warming is a fraud. I seem to recall that weather patterns averaged over 20 years is what defines a climate. Doing that and we compare the climate of today to that of 20 years ago and we don't see a change, or if we do we see a slight cooling.
AGW is a fraud because global warming has not happened.
Let's assume that AGW is true, what has been the response of the UN, US federal government, or anyone in any government? Their solution is to raise taxes, reduce freedom, and give money to their friends. If they were really concerned about AGW then I would expend them to build some nuclear power plants. More like lots of nuclear power plants. But they don't. The federal buildings in DC are still heated and lit by coal. If not nuclear power then at least put some windmills off the Maryland coast to light up DC. Our elected officials don't seem concerned about AGW so therefore I am not.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Without education, we are in a horrible and deadly danger of taking educated people seriously.' G.K. Chesterton
emacs or via
Well, I do believe that Emacs has C-x M-c M-fixcat, but if you're looking for veterinary software specifically, instead of a PUSS (Primordial Universal Sapience Simulator), VIA appears to come highly recommended--at least by their marketing materials.
Change, no matter what it is, can be difficult. Contributing to the level of difficulty, Dr. Eigner was traveling almost two weeks per month. But to stay on top of things she was able to use remote access capabilities to log on to VIA from wherever in the world she was. Nevertheless, Dr. Eigner decided to go paperless using VIA’s SOAP note generator over the course of a weekend.
On the other hand, you might want to drop the SOAP.
It's late. I should probably sleep.
I think the issue here is more about the public perception of what "faith" is. The word as such has meanings like "trust" and "confidence in ..." - and the sciences spring very much from a positive faith in reality being the work of God. While the belief in a supernatural being is no longer part of science, it is still driven by the same, fundamental faith in the existence of an ultimate truth, that we can never fully know, perhaps, but which we can get closer to, little by little, by applying logic and scientific method to observable facts.
It is almost incomprehensible that "faith" is now generally accepted to mean, not a deep trust in God as the reason behind reality, but a fundamental distrust in everything that conflicts with one's view, even to extent of ignoring or misrepresenting simple, observable facts. It is also a relatively new phenomenon; there has always been wild-eyed fundamentalists, who would deny what was clearly visible, but they were not regarded as representatives of mainstream views - I think that came about mostly as a reaction to the hippie-movement.
Whatever the cause may be - in my view, what is needed is that we as scientists take back the claim on faith. As a scientist, you are willing to sacrifice your view of the world every day; each time you perform an experiment, you know that all your dearest theories may be proven wrong. Is that not faith? A trust in the ultimate good of knowing the truth a little better? Even the most atheistic, anti-religious scientist has more faith in their little finger than all the world's bone-headed fundamentlists together.
Curious that you rant about stupid/ignorant people, yet ignore the direct refutation of your own statement. Et tu, Democrat?
You said: "The Republican Party won't have you."
I illustrated that not only am I in the party, I'm an active and positive participant.
But please, don't let facts get in the way of your quasi-religious beliefs.
FWIW, the Left cheerfully ignores science when it wants to as well. Shall we talk about GM foods? Nuclear power?
But I understand. The world is much, much simpler when you can just castigate people who disagree with you as "stupid", right?
-Styopa
Then perhaps you can explain why they're adjusting historical temperature data, while claiming that it's "functionally bad or maladjusted" even though those same instruments are in use today, and are considered the gold standard for measurements.
If you don't know why the data is adjusted, that is really your problem, not anybody elses. Nobody is responsible for you ignorance but yourself.
If you think something is wrong with adjusting the data, then by all means, explain in detail what the problem is and how it should be done. Remember it's YOUR job to convince us that the science is wrong.
Is it a problem if there is no statistical warming for 17 years? Which 17 years are you referring to? Which datasets are you referring to? Remember it's YOUR job to convince us that the science is wrong.
According to what measure was this winter colder than any other since 1912? Does a cold winter pose some sort of problem for climate change? If so, why? Explain in detail: Remember it's YOUR job to convince us that the science is wrong.
The problem does't come from, "If I'm in group A, then I must have beliefs X," it comes from the recognition that an issue will be seized upon by a faction and used to pump their wider agenda. Use climate change, since the OP brought it up: Rather than a rational discussion of whether it's really happening, whether it's human-caused if so, and what to do about it if anything, we've got one side using it to justify all manner of intrusive measures, while the other wants to ignore the issue entirely. The same thing happens with any talk about WMD, terrorism, abortion, etc. The issue itself is the carrier wave for a lot of additional modulation that's usually far off the topic but important to one side or the other. It's the, "Never let a crisis go to waste" mentality. I don't know how you fix that.
I'll believe in CAGW when the scientists quit fudging the numbers and it still shows it.
Nobody owes you an explanation, will offer you an explanation or seek to resolve your ignorance for you. Nobody cares if you don't "believe In" climate change.
..when they can explain historical data that contradicts the theory.
I have a theory - which says you can't produce any instances of historical data that contradict the consensus theory on the causes of the present warming. Prove me wrong.
.and when they can explain why the warming has stopped for the last couple of decades.
I have a theory - which says that you can't produce data to back your assertion that there has been no warming since 1994. Prove me wrong.
Sorry, but the burden of proof lies with CAGW advocates, not skeptics. You're seeking to overturn the world's economic system and replace it with government control. That extreme a change requires strong proof, and it's just not there.
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
Short and sweet. "I'll take my sorrow straight"
Yep. The European Liberals actually stand for liberty. The American users of the name are the opposite — their first solution to any problem is to create a government agency responsible for solving it, as well as simply banning the use of anything potentially dangerous — and thus the proper name for them is Illiberal.
You're right: Liberalism in Europe
"In general, liberalism in Europe is a political movement that supports a broad tradition of individual liberties and constitutionally-limited and democratically accountable government. This usually encompasses the belief that government should act to alleviate poverty and other social problems, but not through radical changes to the structure of society."
A "liberal" in Europe wants smaller govt like conservatives do in America, while liberals in America want a bigger govt that has more control and attempts to eliminate poverty by equalizing income like a socialist would, like doubling minimum wage to the same wage most college graduates receive.
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
But there's a lot of people, especially on /., who refuse to acknowledge that, because it threatens their beliefs.
Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
Because "global warming" was a fairly terrible name for it versus "climate change"
Some places will get hotter, yes, but it also disrupts the flow of air/clouds/etc so that - as we've experienced locally - we get some extremely hot days coupled with an usual amount of wetter/colder days as well. I'm in what's considered a semi-desert climate, but it's greener than ever because we're getting a *lot* more precipitation than I've ever seen before.
For me, it's a positive thing since I'm not on a flood plain and the plants like it. The only drawback is the increased mosquitoes.
On the other hand, other people are suffering from floods, pests/pestilence (increased bugs and/or bacterium that prefer heat+humidity), and a change in biodiversity that is having both beneficial and detrimental effects on the local wildlife.
I don't think that, given your chosen example of climate change, is separated along 'party lines', or even conservative vs liberal. it comes down to more big gov't solutions and being 'forced' into one reality while not seeing the corresponding benefit and expansion of related individuals rights. The 'rights' of the majority does not trump the rights of the minority.
I don't believe the problem is selling climate change. I think the problem is selling the solutions. You want me to not burn coal, don't tax it into oblivion, build thorium reactors (like the US Gov ran at Oak Ridge for over 10 years), or other similar solutions. Solar and wind are good, but they can't cover the entire energy deficit. Want to have more electric vehicles, give incentives for more of them (give the incentives to the customers, not to the manufacturers). Restart industrial metals production in the US (one day we will no be able to import strategic metals if we step on someones political toes. Russia has the US over a barrel with no access for man in space since we ticked them off recently, so we need to get on the stick to get US based transport to space!)
Conservatives tend to be for less central government, more for individuals and even states rights, and more conservative economically than socially.
I plan on collecting social security. But I planned so that my wife and I will be OK if Social Security is NOT there, but I find it totally unfair to tax me so that I must pay for others poor personal preparation. I am not against Social Security, I am against putting so many additional programs under it and using the SS Trust Fund to pay for them. Social Security was actuarially (mathematically) based for many years, but as it has been 'touched' for additional social programs, the mathematical / actuarial basis was removed. SS is now 'just a tax', and we are not taxing enough if we want to keep SS alive as the program we now know it. ... You can't pull more out of a tow-sack than you put into it, and that is what we are trying to do. -- I did like the proposal to keep SS for those on it and within 10 years of retirement or 50 or pick some number. Pay out or endow a commercial style trust fund for the ones not currently taking social security. For those under 50 (for example) take the 'pay out' amounts and put them in 'ROTH' style IRA's, and require current percentage levels of contributions to be put 60% of the current 'SS Contributions' be put into a traditional IRA, and 40% into a 'ROTH'. This over and above currently allowed contribution levels for IRA/401K/etc contributions.
The idea is to eventually (in 65 or so years) to get the Government out of Social Security, and for retirees to have enough money to pay for their own retirements effectively. Those who get non-contributory social security benefits needs to come from the general fund (helping the young, blind, bereavement benefits, etc)
For any social tax or social program, the government does not pay for ANYTHING. Only tax payers do. Taxing tax payers beyond their ability to to support the programs is the government being a 'poor parasite'. Even in biology parasites live WITH their host. If the host gets sick or dies, the parasite dies too. A good parasite makes it a symbiotic relationship, where the host and the parasite both gain from the relationship, making the whole greater than the corresponding parts. But it requires first for the host to survive.
Enough for now, but I think you get the idea. -- I think we all want the US to be strong and looked up to in the world. We all want a good environment, education for our kids, and to treat everyone right. The only difference is in the road we think we need to take to get there.
I am trying to vote for politicians that are reasonable, will look for was to SOLVE issues, and not be idealogs on a
... "When you pry the source from my cold dead hands."
I have seen this seeming contradiction up close and personal and it has nothing to do with knowledge or training, it has to do with untested ideas and the lack of a challenge to form consistent sets of value. That is a failing of our culture, of many cultures, and of the educational system. The propaganda in media doesn't help nor does the numbness it creates to informal fallacies. If you spent your time discovering all the flaws in reasoning that get pitched at you in a day, you would have no time for anything else. This is a side-effect of "free speech" that depends on the size of the megaphone and what it costs to use. Citizenship requires time to reason and to think and the drivers of mass media do not want individuals to take time to think.So the barrage is a kind of mind control where the intent is to flood and discourage reflection. It is no wonder that people have such unconsidered views and that there are whole sections of their opinions that are inconsistent and viral. That is how the political machines and the corprorate controllers want it. They want a population of consumers driven by impulse and who are maleiable and easily manipulated.
A couple of days ago there was a post about a study in which the test subjects would rather give themselves electric shocks than have to spend fifteen minutes alone with just their thoughts. Not only is that classical conditioning but it may reveal that many people are afraid of the thoughts that come up when they are quiet and alone. Not only is it not in the interest of the power structure that people have the time to reflect but it is also in their interest, particularly of business people that people do not have any practice debating, discovering formal logical errors, or understanding the informal fallacies. Surely logic is important for many important pursuits in society, such as in mathematics, but a tiny elite knows about formal proofs and logic and can follow that kind of reasoning. It isn't that people are unintelligent, it is that they are unpracticed and untrained and there are powerful forces in society that want them to remain that way.
I believe that Social Media is actually a case in point, and that the blog is an impediment to people using the Internet to reason if they want. Social Media is about the propaganda va;ue of marketing in business, nothing more, and the blog restricts control of the discussion by ownership of topics. It isn't that you can't hold a reasoned conversation in a blog; it is that the structure of blogs and Social Media do not help you communicate and actually gets in the way. That is intentional by the comercal interests who drive Social Media, and makes the point that the power structure in society is not at all interested in helping us communicate and reason in the way that enables our citizenship in a society that pays lip service to democratic institutions.
What would change this is to restore some of the structure in discussion groups to the web and do away with blogs. Mark Zuckerberg's "Simple" criterion is just the wrong model and shows that Facebook is about manipulating its users.
We hear "Shhh, USENET" because it has become the avenue for pirated content and porn, but in the text-only groups beginning in 1984, there were some lively debates in which it was possible to practice your reasoning, debating, and writing skills. We need to bring some of that back and the Internet is a good place to do that, too bad that opportunity is being wasted on Social Media and Blogs. USENET discussion groups and their message structure contains the tools needed to rescue public discourse in the world, despite what Zuckerberg claims, If you want a demonstration compare what is in the DejaVu archive of USENET that Google owns with Google Groups and Google+, There is no comparison, and the fact that Google preserved the archive of old USENET posts is very telling WRT the above and as compared with the communication style they have set in their products.
Slashdot has some of the things needed, but the p
"Objective reality" is just a cloak people wear to make their own concoctions look bigger than they are.
See Nietchze, Kierkegaard, etc.
"They aren't "fudging" numbers."
Where have you been?
Can you tell me whether or not the hockey stick graph is accurate or not?
The "pause" is real. In this nature article they characterize the pause as mysterious, and describe the various explanations scientists are piecing together to try to explain it. I find it interesting that they don't consider the simplest explanation - that the climate models grossly exaggerated "climate sensitivity", especially since the latest climate sensitivity estimates are much lower than the ones used in the models. (Climate sensitivity is the hypothesis that the earth is hyper-reactive to CO2, that a little extra heat from CO2 causes a major chain reaction, amplifying that heat by 3-4 times. Climate sensitivity is a key issue in the debate, at least among the scientifically literate.)
In 2009, Phil Jones suggested 15 years of no warming would be cause for concern. Judith Curry said more recently: "Climate model simulations find that the probability of a hiatus as long as 20 years is vanishingly small." At what point is this theory falsifiable? How long do we have to wait? 15 years? 20 years? 50 years? 100 years of no warming before we can say the global warming scare was grossly exaggerated?
If you are still not convinced that the "pause" is real, you can look at the datasets for yourself. Here's the HADCRUT 4 dataset, and here's the RSS dataset. You can play with the app and the various datasets, although it's not very granular.
The study makes a fallacious conclusion. It ignores the fact that people with scientific training are trained to be skeptics. Once you can find the holes in "proven research" and realize that expressions like "97% of all climate scientists" are bullshit because they do not define who climate scientists actually are- it is easy to dismiss many scientific conclusions and continue to hold beliefs that one knows are simply beliefs and not facts. As an example, a large number of scientists until very recently believed that oil and gas production in the United States had passed its peak production and the science supported that conclusion. At the same time a smaller number of skeptical scientists who were willing to accept a new geologic paradigm regarding oil and gas expulsion were working hard to find the oil that has now put the US in the top ranking spot for world oil production. Science is often wrong and those who change scientific belief are generally in the minority at the beginning of the change. Good scientists know that. Politicians, and those who are more inclined to spread their own agenda, either don't understand that, or ignore it. Science thrives on falsification of the proven. If there is a generally accepted norm that I do not agree with....it does not mean my political or religious bias is the reason.....it simply means that I do not consider the evidence conclusive based on my scientific knowledge and experience. If that happens to mean I agree with Republicans or Democrats, that is only a coincidence. Correlation is not causation.
I actually don't know if there is anything wrong with the adjustments. But they do look a little high - a degree or more of warming can be attributed to adjustments in some places. I'd like to know more, but it's up to the NOAA to explain what adjustments were made, why they were made, and what algorithms they used. So far they have not been forthcoming. I would like to be able to scrutinize their work, but I can't. I would like to try to repeat their work, but I can't. Reproducibility is one of the main principles of the scientific method. I'd like to think warmists and skeptics could agree on matters of scientific principle, but so far I have been sorely disappointed. It seems both sides only stand up for scientific principles when it suits them.
I'm afraid the UN, Kyoto, the laws, the regulations, the taxes, etc are not ignorable.
The AGW people gave those things justification and therefore linked themselves to them.
As such the whole thing has to be fought as a single entity.
As I said, if you were pushing a Eugenics program, we'd be trying to discredit DNA, genetics, and evolution if only because it would make justifying a eugenics program more difficult.
By pushing for a massive nationalization of global industry, massively increasing taxes, attempting to put unelected international bodies in charge of domestic energy policy, and various other things you've created a situation where we cannot afford to have AGW be secure. It has to be undermined and discredited until such time as the "solutions" to the problem become more reasonable or the people running the whole thing are not merely our political enemies empowered to do whatever they please with no limits.
It cannot be borne.
If you want cooperation on the issue you have to take the weapon away from the socialists. They've gone power mad with it. They see the whole issue as a blank check to settle scores, punish enemies, reward friends, and do other slimy things. Its not acceptable that they do that. And they have ONLY been slowed down by denying AGW itself. We couldn't do it any other way.
We tried. We tried arguing the merits of these systems. We tried getting things to work in a bipartisan fashion.
We tried lots of stuff. We were bypassed, shut out, shouted down, sidelined...
And so we had no choice. So we went to DEFCON 1 and nuked AGW itself.
I'm sorry but we had no choice. Back off the above issues and give us an EQUAL seat at the table. Until that happens AGW will remain under just enough of an attack to keep it neutralized as a weapon against us.
Keep in mind... we are half of your society. You cannot just do whatever you please indifferent to our wishes. We live with you. We're all around you. To the left to the right in front of you behind you. We're right here.
And so are you. Cut a deal or you're challenging us to an arm wrestling contest.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
I actually don't know if there is anything wrong with the adjustments.
This is probably something you should have decided upon before implying there was a problem with the adjustments.
I'd like to know more, but it's up to the NOAA to explain what adjustments were made, why they were made, and what algorithms they used.
No it isn't. They don't owe you an explanation, you owe us an explanation. You implied there was something wrong with the adjustments made, now you think because you say there is a problem, NOAA should hop to it and consolidate the methodologies used into a pamphlet for you to read and satisfy yourself that all is above board. That is, to be frank, moronic. NOAA is not there to answer the every whim of ignoramuses. Do your research, find out what the correct method of adjustment should be, and if the existing results are wrong publish a paper on it.
Otherwise "I don't know" is not an argument that will convince anyone that that there is a problem with the methodology.
You're seeking to overturn the world's economic system and replace it with government control. That extreme a change requires strong proof, and it's just not there.
Your moronic ignorance and bizarre paranoia is not impressive and is not a convincing argument.
So you are saying science should be done in secret. That's not science, dude. Being able to reproduce and verify results is important.
Actually stopping climate change means going back to an 1800's lifestyle for 99% of the worlds population. The few who live that now desperately want out and the rest of aren't going back unless we have to.
Even people who sincerely believe their lifestyle is killing the planet only make token changes. Only a world wide authoritarian government with firing squads for those who resist has any chance of working. Better make a lot of pop corn, it's going to be quite a show.
Is it a problem if there is no statistical warming for 17 years? Why is that a problem?
Which 17 years are you referring to? Which datasets are you referring to?
At what point is this theory falsifiable? How long do we have to wait?
Why are you asking me? It's your assertion, you prove it
Should models be falsifiable?
Remember it's YOUR job to convince us that the science is wrong.
So you are saying science should be done in secret.
Comprehension fail on your part - your problem.
Being able to reproduce and verify results is important.
We wait with bated breath for you to justify your assertions with something reproducible.
Again, I am not making any claims about the temperature adjustments. The NOAA is the one claiming their adjustments are sound and justified. That may well be true, but I am curious how they got their results and would like to see the evidence that supports their assertions. Thus far they have not released that evidence, so I am not able to verify their results. I see no reason why I should just take their word for it. Science is about letting other people check your work. This is science 101 stuff and should be dead obvious to anyone with any scientific literacy at all.
Can you imagine an oil funded think-tank making claims about global warming but refusing to release their data or their methodology? I bet you would be all over the lack of verifiability and reproducibility in that case. Like I said, people only seem to care about scientific principles when it suits them.
Are you saying that scientific claims should be assumed correct until proven wrong? If I say pink bunnies fly out of my ass at night, and you disagree, it's up to you to prove me wrong? The fact is, the models made predictions, and those predictions have failed. I don't need to prove the models wrong. They have proven themselves wrong. I'm just pointing it out. It matters because the model predictions are the basis for much of the global warming scare. I gave you the data-sets; I showed you the article from the journal Nature; I backed up my claims with evidence. And yet you are apparently unable to figure out which 17 years I am talking about? Wouldn't an informed person on this issue already know it hasn't warmed in the last 17 years? You would think that 17 years of no statistically significant surface warming would be an important fact to be aware of, but apparently you are not well informed.
You ask "Should models be falsifiable"? Isn't it blatantly obvious that climate models should be falsifiable? That we should have specific criteria by which we can judge a models reliability in predicting future results? Instead, in climate science, we get constantly shifting goal posts. "We'll know the models are wrong if there is no warming for a period of 15 years or more." 15 years later: "We'll know the models are wrong if there is no warming for a period of 20 years or more". A few years later and still no warming: "We'll know the models are wrong if there is no warming for a period of 50 years or more." That's not science.
Ah, good news. It appears the methodology and code has now been made available. (Or maybe not? I haven't read through the whole thing yet.) See? Science in action! Now I can check for myself.
Err... Congratulations?
Oh thanks. It's nice to see reason prevail once in a while.
Oh for fuck's sake, what does liberal have to do with communism? Are you trying to convince anyone that Stalin was a liberal?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Mostly because what's considered "the left" in the US is considered "the moderate right" in most of the rest of the world.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
If you don't know why the data is adjusted, that is really your problem, not anybody elses. Nobody is responsible for you ignorance but yourself.
So you're saying that it's up to me to prove why their methodology is incorrect, when they have yet to provide the proof or proofs as to why the altering of methodology is correct. But I'm apparently the ignorant one.
If you think something is wrong with adjusting the data, then by all means, explain in detail what the problem is and how it should be done. Remember it's YOUR job to convince us that the science is wrong.
Wrong, it's not my place to convince you that the science is wrong. It's up to them to prove that the adjustments are justified with proofs, along with this they're required to give an indepth explanation as to why they believed that such adjustments were necessary, as well as plotting out trends over the period sample.
Om, nomnomnom...
So you're saying that it's up to me to prove why their methodology is incorrect,
That's right.
when they have yet to provide the proof or proofs as to why the altering of methodology is correct.
They don't need to justify their methodology to every ignorant moron who thinks they are qualified because they edit a blog, any more than I need to prove the existence of owls to owl deniers.
But I'm apparently the ignorant one.
It's very apparent, yes.
Wrong, it's not my place to convince you that the science is wrong.
Very well then - I, and the vast majority of the scientific community, and humanity with us, will continue to accept the 150 odd years of climate research behind AGW, and push for mitigation until governments are forced into action. And you can sit quietly, or continue to scream about conspiracies and other delusion rantings like a homeless guy off his meds.
It's up to them to prove that the adjustments are justified with proofs, along with this they're required to give an indepth explanation as to why they believed that such adjustments were necessary, as well as plotting out trends over the period sample.
Nobody cares about your unproven (and obviously unprovable) assertions, anymore than we care about people who have doubts about the relative size of 15 versus 5, or the existence of owls. Your delusions are your problem.
Again, I am not making any claims about the temperature adjustments.
Righto then. You can't - or won't - explain what is supposedly wrong with their methodology, then what are you expecting to achieve?
Do you have a feeling that something isn't right with it?
Let me be clear we don't care. Unless you can prove that there is a problem with the methodology you might as well be claiming that there are no owls. Your allegations amount to nonsensical babbling. Go away, do some research, and only come back when you have something non-ludicrous to say about climate change.
Are you saying that scientific claims should be assumed correct until proven wrong?
No, you haven't convinced me that your claim ("climate change is a time travelling zombie conspiracy!") is correct. I won't be convinced until you provide your evidence.
The fact is, the models made predictions, and those predictions have failed.
Baseless assertion.
I don't need to prove the models wrong.
Yes you do. You claimed they ("the models") have failed - in other thread where this claim was discussed in detail you showed a remarkable propensity for avoiding any verifiable, workable definition of failure, can't name the models you claim have failed, can't reference a published paper detailing the failure, can't elaborate on whether you mean a suite of models or a class of models, constantly demonstrate clear ignorance of the purpose of models, their usage, bounds.
If you are the expert on model that you claim to be, then by all means, produce a model that is more accurate and publish it. If sensitivity is lower than the climate record shows, then by all means, publish a paper that better defines the sensitivity and matches the climate record. If you are not prepared and not skilled or intelligent enough to do that, then too bad. You don't get to tell us whether the models are successful or not.
I gave you the data-sets; I showed you the article from the journal Nature; I backed up my claims with evidence.
You're delusional. Here's what you actually gave me:
1. A link to a nature article which contradicts your central claims
2. A link to the blog of a conspiracy theorist
3. A link to Phil Jone's biography on wikipedia.
With these links you plan to overturn 150 years of climate research.
Call me skeptical, but I'm struggling to believe a word of it.
Yes, on your part, since you claimed there was no published methodology, and have now - apparently - found it.
Totally wrong. The denialist thing didn't start until after "an inconvenient truth", Kyoto, and the push for international carbon caps.
That's just a fact. You are entitled to your own opinions.
You are not entitled to your own facts.
I'm sorry, but AGW was pushed... we took issue with some of the ideas... we were shut out of the process and given no recourse besides undermining AGW itself.
So... that happened.
If you want it to stop you need to back off and give us an equal voice at the table. Its our right as much as it is yours.
Because you denied the obvious above I'm going to assume you're not willing to accept opposition input...
The consequence of that is that the games continue.
We only need to work hard enough to stalemate you. We've already pretty much won. Your whole push is more sound and fury signifying nothing at this point. The international efforts are mostly for show. Many countries that initially had aggressive programs have either canceled them or included so many loopholes that they don't matter. Etc Etc Etc.
We're not stupid and we're not powerless.
I am not bragging when I say we have enough power to stop these political factions unless they cooperate with us. So those are the terms. Take it or leave it.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
I recommend to include https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... in your school https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Casteism
"Liberals" in the US believe in liberal government spending on programs designed to remove individual liberty. Of course, so do "conservatives" in the US these days.
Modern American Illiberals advocate bigger government role in the citizenry's every day lives. The bigger government needs higher taxes to support it, so, of course, taxes go up and up. Socialism/Communism aren't a binary (yes or no), they are gradual and can be measured — the measure is the percentage of GDP, that comes from spending by the government. Between Federal, State, and local governments nation-wide today, our percentage already exceeds 50%. Which means, the fate of over half of the monies spent by Americans is decided not by themselves, but by the politicians they elect.
That is Socialism creeping up, which I refer to as Communism-lite and its proponents, who defile the proud name of Liberals by their invalid claims to the name — commies-lite. But the differences between Socialism and Communism are slight — indeed, per Karl Marx himself, the former leads to the latter — they are both Collectivist regimes, emphasizing the (Glorious) Collective over a (greedy) Individual. "It takes a village" — right?
Oh, it all changes, once the "liberal" gets to actual power. As Lenin was explaining in his writing, for example, "we use bourgeois's freedom of press to further our cause, but, once we prevail, the freedom should be curtailed". Look at Obama — NSA's roles expanding, TSA ever more obnoxious, IRS is used to suppress opposition, while Capitalism is being sabotaged by regulations and politically-motivated prosecutions. That he is not using the outright violence of Stalin, is because his country — and its traditions — aren't Russia-like...
But let's not get hung-up on Stalin, who (along with Hitler — another Collectivist), got so much negative press, that speaking fondly of them arouses nothing by (well-deserved) ridicule. How about Fidel Castro or Hugo Chavez? Both are idols to American Illiberals — even though they turned their respective countries into shitholes. And Che Guevara — every Illiberal has a T-shirt with his likeness in their closet.
Here is a quiz for you — can your recognize the person behind each quote?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Other than abortions, I can't think of a freedom, Conservatives are try to remove. And even that one comes from a (mistaken but sincere) belief, that fetus is a human being no less worthy of the State's protection from killing than any other citizen — a respectable opinion, even if you disagree with it.
And even if Conservatives prevail and manage to outlaw abortions, I'll be able to pay for a trip to Canada, should my daughter ever needs the procedure. But, if obamas are allowed to continue ravaging the country, in 10 more years we'll all be so poor, having a free abortion clinic next door will be of little consolation.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
I never made any allegations. I don't know if there is anything wrong with their methodology. How could I know either way if they were not making their methodology public? That was the entire point, which you fail to understand. Do you seriously support keeping scientific data and methodology secret?
Lol. I said there was no global warming for the past 17 years and that scientists were trying to figure out why. The Nature article says: "Sixteen years into the mysterious ‘global-warming hiatus’, scientists are piecing together an explanation." That's direct, concrete evidence that backs up what I'm saying. I gave you a link where you can see the various data sets for yourself. I have no idea who hosts that app, but if you think they are using fake data, go download the datasets for yourself, or keep your head in the sand. I know for a fact they are accurate because I've checked, and besides nobody is disputing there has been no warming for 17 years anymore except global warming devotees who are in denial. If you dispute that no warming has taken place, maybe you should write to Nature and ask THEM why they say there has been a "hiatus" for 16 years (at the time). I don't need to "publish a paper" that shows climate sensitivity is much lower than the IPCC estimates. Others have already done this for me. If you were well informed on this subject, you would already know this and I wouldn't have to keep spoon feeding you information. I don't know what other thread you are talking about, but obviously I am talking about the IPCC climate models. They have failed to predict the 17 year pause, which explains why scientists must now "piece together an explanation", according to the science journal Nature. If you won't accept the journal Nature or the actual climate data, then there is nothing you will accept. That's religion, not science.
Wrong yet again. They published it because of the media attention generated over this issue. But good for them. They did the right thing.
Overwhelming scientific support? That's a myth that is repeated over and over and over...
If the global warming scare is based largely on model predictions which have failed, and scientists are scrambling to try to explain why they failed... I really don't understand how you can say my skepticism is unwarranted. Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas and is likely contributing some heat to the climate. But a climate sensitivity of 3-4 degrees? That's preposterous. There is no evidence for it, it's simply assumed in the models. The latest climate sensitivity "estimates" are far lower, the latest being around 1.3 degrees. Low climate sensitivity translates directly to no dangerous global warming. That would explain why there has been no global warming for the past 17 years. Everyone's time would be better spent focusing on innovative nuclear projects, where everybody wins. Fossil fuels are dirty, finite and expensive. But no, the oceans are not going to boil if we are stuck using fossil fuels for the next decade or two. Sorry to disappoint you.
Ironically it's this misguided fixation on CO2 that is delaying our transition to new energy sources.
The facts are out about the "billions in funding".
Its actually a little over 900 million.
1. No where near the "BILLIONS"
2. That amount was the total for ALL investments against AGW (not just Koch Bros)
3. THAT WAS OVER A 10 year period. 10 FRAKKING YEARS.
4. In comparison the USA alone spent approx. 22 Billion on Global Warming in 2013
Now, tell me that the big bad oil industry is the problem. Go ahead.
I already did: "John O’Sullivan showed the part of Figure 3 with the net fluxes in July 2009 but “forgot” to show the fluxes for the rest of the year."
Click on "Figure 3" then scroll down to Figure 3 to verify, but this shouldn't be necessary because a comment by truegoogle on your original "PSI" link already made that point.
Can we agree that our carbon emissions are ~200% as large as the rise in atmospheric CO2?
I never made any allegations. I don't know if there is anything wrong with their methodology.
Safe then for me to assume that there is no problem with their methodology since nobody, to my knowledge, has described any problems with it.
Almost all the "evidence" for evolution is post-facto interpretation of data to conform to the model. The usual evidence for evolution that is trotted out doesn't actually demonstrate EVOLUTION; it tends to demonstrate natural selection as a mechanism for explaining the prevalence of certain variations in species over others. There is no observation of speciation in, for example, viruses or bacteria where generations are extremely short. Evolution is a powerful story. It provides a justification for being an atheist - so is not adopted neutrally, but part of a wider ideological package.
(b) Did you, or did you not, say: "It appears the methodology and code have [...] been made available"
(c) Did you, or did you not, say (a), and then (b), thus retracting statement (a) by statement (b).
Answers parts a,b AND c.
Answer to b): No I did not say that. I do find it interesting how you could fail to accurately reproduce what I actually wrote only a few posts up. It almost looks like you are deliberately misquoting me.
Again, do you support keeping data and methodology "private" so nobody can examine it?
If you'd like to assert that falsifiability isn't required
You're the one doing the asserting that a falsifiable statement *is* required for science. I'm not required to prove a negative.
It is not and never has been a requirement for science. It's a belief of the philosopher Karl Popper, and nothing more.
The problem with posting any sort of article about facts vs. beliefs in todays society and, especially, on the intarwebz, is that you then get a long chain of things like this. (See above) (Go ahead, scroll. I'll wait.)
--- Say something clever. Pretend it was me. Thanks.
Do you use 2 or more accounts to game Slashdot's moderation system?
Looks to me like you accidently logged in using one of your other fake accounts. Are you paid to shill for just oil companies or are you generally for hire?
How many of the people (denialists) who post in climate change related articles is actually you? You accidently logged in using a different account, I'm wondering - how many accounts would you manage for a slip up like that to occur? How many posts per day?
Ah, it seems we have someone who thinks there's a -1 "disagree" option.
Funny. No, I created a new account to match my blog name. I'm not using the old account anymore, although I should have continued using it here for continuities sake I suppose.
So, according to you
Nope, I never said anything of the kind.
Still waiting for you to provide evidence that falsifiability is a necessary part of science, and not just a proposal by the philosopher Karl Popper.
You can't of course.
You're wasting your time with youtube links by the way. I'm not going to waste the time it takes to watch them. You're not worth it.
So you still have no evidence for your claim falsifiability s a necessary part of science. Let's face it, you know full well your claim was wrong.
Falsifiability is quite obviously the answer to the demarcation problem
That's Karl Popper's angle. Which does precisely zero to make it a part of the scientific method.
(a) That there is in fact a methodology underpinning the collation of of temperature data (contrary to your previous statements)
(b) That you cannot describe any issue with NOAAs climate methodologies , but you are angry that NOAA did not see fit to share their methodology with you personally so that you wouldn't be forced to google for it. Perhaps if you speak eloquently concerning your anger, a helpful poster will give you some hints on better ways to channel your anger.
(c) Be sure also to include your theory on how the scientific community actually thinks that warming ceased 17 years ago, based on a single word you plucked from a single article in nature, and in contrast to what the actual temperature data tells us. I'm sure that the scorn expressed by various parties is really just respect (in disguise) at your undoubted brilliance,
Reading comprehension is important.
a) I never said there wasn't a methodology, just that they hadn't released it at the time. You seem to be deluding yourself into believing that the code was always publicly available.
b) I was not angry, but I disagreed with their decision to keep the information private. Good for them for changing their tune. You apparently see nothing wrong with keeping scientific data hidden away from prying eyes.
c) Interesting that you still deny the recent lack of warming. The HADCRUT4 warming trend since 1997 is a statistically insignificant 5 one-hundredths of a degree per decade. I find it interesting how people react when confronted with plain facts that challenge their views. Maybe you should contact the Journal Nature and explain to them how they made a big, amateur blunder when they said there was a 16 year "hiatus" in global warming.
Reading comprehension is important.
You seem to be pinning your hopes on your readers not exercising any reading comprehension. Your hope is vain.
a) I never said there wasn't a methodology, just that they hadn't released it at the time. You seem to be deluding yourself into believing that the code was always publicly available.
Tut Tut Tut. Naughty naughty!
You said:I'd like to know more, but it's up to the NOAA to explain what adjustments were made, why they were made, and what algorithms they used. So far they have not been forthcoming. I would like to be able to scrutinize their work, but I can't. I would like to try to repeat their work, but I can't. You said that here. Don't lie, and especially don't tell stupid lies. It's very unbecoming and makes us doubt all of your OTHER unevidenced assertions.
b) I was not angry,
You seem angry.
but I disagreed with their [NOAA's] decision to keep the information private.
You blame others for your own ignorance. In fact, your ignorance of the function and efficacy of climate models, and the methodology behind them, is entirely your fault, and your affair. You assertion that NOAA kept some methodology (for what? when? why?) private is entirely unevidenced.
You apparently see nothing wrong with keeping scientific data hidden away from prying eyes.
I've repeatedly noted that the "science" in question, which is the science behind your assertions, is unevidenced and therefore not science. Your allegation is frankly bizarre.
c) Interesting that you still deny the recent lack of warming. The HADCRUT4 warming trend since 1997 is a statistically insignificant 5 one-hundredths of a degree per decade.
Tut Tut Tut.
Naughty Naughty!
You said there has been no warming for the last 17 years.
I suspect you don't even know what HADCRUT4 is. Unfortunately for you, I do. And unfortunately for your argument, the actual temperature data is readily available, and your argument, such as it is, has already been repeatedly debunked - heck, I've debunked it myself.
Please indicate on this graph of temperatures how there has been no warming from 1996-2014 (compared to the previous 14 years 1982-1996).
a) Readiing comprehension. They released the code on July 8th in response to all the controversy. I've pointed that out to you at least twice now.
b) You seem intellectually dishonest and childish, who cares so much about "winning" a meaningless debate you can't admit when you're clearly wrong. But that's a personal statement, and why start getting personal? If you think I am "angry", you are projecting.
Again, the code was kept private until July 8th. Why would they go to the trouble of releasing code that was already available (according to you - which you have not substantiated). If you have evidence that the code was released prior to July, I'm all ears.
You are saying the reason that I couldn't find the unreleased code is because of my own ignorance. It should be easy for you to substantiate that accusation. You won't because you can't. Instead you will continue to insist that I prove a negative. Logic 101... Maybe you can answer this: What evidence could I provide that would prove that the code hadn't been released prior to July?
c) Clearly you do not know what "statistical significance" means. Why do you show me a graph purporting to debunk my claim of no trend for the last 17 years that uses a trend-line that starts in 1950? Pretty sloppy. Here is what the trend looks like from 1997, using various datasets, including your GISS temps. The average temperature increase from the five models is about 4 one-hundredths of a degree per decade. That is not a statistically significant amount. Ie: it is well within the margin of uncertainty. In other words: there is no discernable trend. Or to put it another way: the planet has not warmed in 17 years. If you believe otherwise you should point it out to the Journal Nature. They say there has been a 16 year plateau. I'm sure they will be embarrassed by their amateur error once you point it out to them.
a) Readiing comprehension. They released the code on July 8th in response to all the controversy. I've pointed that out to you at least twice now.
So, let's be clear. You are saying that if I look, I will not find a methodology for the homogenisation of longitudinal temperature data (i.e. USHCN v2.0 or v2.5 and GHCN) published prior to July 8th 2014?
My time is important. What should be my motivation for spending the time to look: Let's say, if I find a methodology, you will issue the following statement: I made remarks impugning the scientific methodology underpinning datasets published by NOAA which, upon investigation, turned out to be false.
Deal?
Also, I hate to speak out of school but there is no such controversy. There is chatter on the usual blogs, but this doesn't amount to controversy - bloggers don't get a seat at the science table. To do that, you need to use science, which, I have to say, I see is sorely lacking in both your arguments and the arguments of your peers and betters. Like as not, the scientific community probably didn't even notice these paranoid rantings.
You blame others for your own ignorance. In fact, your ignorance of the function and efficacy of climate models, and the methodology behind them, is entirely your fault, and your affair. You assertion that NOAA kept some methodology (for what? when? why?) private is entirely unevidenced.
b) You seem intellectually dishonest and childish, who cares so much about "winning" a meaningless debate you can't admit when you're clearly wrong. But that's a personal statement, and why start getting personal? If you think I am "angry", you are projecting.
This is not a debate. You are trying to convince me that your science (as yet unreferenced) is correct, and the 150 years of climate research which contradicts your assertions is wrong (for reasons, somehow, you have yet to begin explaining). Of course I know a deal about climate science (who would enter a discussion such as this if they were ignorant? Only a moron would do that!) , but I'm not under any obligation to dissemble the things I know or correct your ignorance should it raise it's head. Your ignorance it's your concern, not mine.
Again, the code was kept private until July 8th.
Let's test this assertion directly:
What model code NOAA publish on July 8th 2014?
Where did they publish this code?
Which climate model was the code written for?
You are saying the reason that I couldn't find the unreleased code is because of my own ignorance. It should be easy for you to substantiate that accusation. You won't because you can't.
Your feelings about my motivations are of no consequence.
Maybe you can answer this: What evidence could I provide that would prove that the code hadn't been released prior to July?
This is your problem. You made the assertion, you prove it.
c) Clearly you do not know what "statistical significance" means.
Not for you to judge, I'm afraid.
Why do you show me a graph purporting to debunk my claim of no trend for the last 17 years that uses a trend-line that starts in 1950?
You can't read a graph, even when the graph includes all of the timeline you need? I guess that answers my question. You can't explain the continued warming post 1996, nor the fact that the period 1997-2013 was warmer than the period 1982-1996.
Here is what the trend looks like from 1997, using various datasets, including your GISS temps. [woodfortrees.org]
Why does this dataset start at 1997?
Do you even know how to formulate the required data to justify your assertion there has been no warming for 17 years?
The average temperature increas
Do you not understand the demarcation problem?
Do you not understand that without the requirement of falsifiability, you allow things like astrology and intelligent design to be considered "science"?
I'm afraid your problem is that you are having to try and argue your opinion that falsifiability should be an essential part of the scientific method, because it isn't. If it was, you could supply the evidence that is was. And you can't.
And since it isn't an essential part of the scientific method, your one and only objection to AGW is worthless.
Do you even know what statistical significance means? The temperature is always fluctuating. Four hundredths of a single degree over a 10 year period is next to nothing, and is well within the margin of uncertainty. But your logic I could claim it has been cooling since 2001. The models predicted 2 tenths of a degree warming per decade.
The IPCC report says that AGW is repsonsible for 50%+ of warming since 1950, at 95% certainty. I don't know why Stocker is misrepresenting it, maybe you should ask him. Go read the report for yourself. It's easy to try to change history after predictions fail.
Have fun looking for that code.
So, let's be clear. You are saying that if I look, I will not find a methodology for the homogenisation of longitudinal temperature data (i.e. USHCN v2.0 or v2.5 and GHCN) published prior to July 8th 2014?
My time is important. What should be my motivation for spending the time to look: Let's say, if I find a methodology, you will issue the following statement: I made remarks impugning the scientific methodology underpinning datasets published by NOAA which, upon investigation, turned out to be false.
Deal?
Have fun looking for that code.
I take that as a yes.
USHCN methodology Last updated Oct 2013
GHCN methodologyLast updated 2009
Total time less than 5 minutes.
Now, where would be an appropriate place for your retraction? I suggest:
(1) On your blog
(2) That if you ever choose to post here again on a climate related topic, your remarks should start with this disclaimer.
The temperature is always fluctuating. Four hundredths of a single degree over a 10 year period is next to nothing, and is well within the margin of uncertainty. But your logic I could claim it has been cooling since 2001. The models predicted 2 tenths of a degree warming per decade.
Well, thanks for just making stuff up. Are you actually going to attempt to justify your statement There has been no warming for 17 years? Not that I should have to tell you what to do, but you might progress along this path if you cite a scientific paper which says this. (i.e 1996-2013) Don't imagine that you can bedazzle me with figures that you plucked out of your arse, mixed together with flawed methodology and then shaped into a cake for consumption, I'm not eating it. I don't accept assertions and distortions as proof. Cite.
The IPCC report says that AGW is repsonsible for 50%+ of warming since 1950, at 95% certainty. I don't know why Stocker is misrepresenting it, maybe you should ask him. Go read the report for yourself. It's easy to try to change history after predictions fail.
So to summarise: the source you relied upon for your statement: there has been no warming for 17 years is in fact misrepresenting the facts. Got it.
You seem angry btw.
You are flailing around without a clue. You have no shame and will just say anything, no matter how baseless, no matter how nonsensical. It would be fun to watch if it wasn't so embarrassing.
Here the link to the code they released. They made it available to Zeke Hausfather who made it available to everyone else.
Regarding the 17 year "plateau" that you deny, apparently you can't interpret a graph, don't know what 'statistical significance' means, and Nature isn't good enough for you either. Right off the top of my head, here's a paper that tries to explain the "hiatus". According to your insightful analysis there is nothing to explain.
I've provided links directly to the temperature data, yet you accuse me of making it up and plucking those figures out of my ass. It is obvious that you are in a state of denial. How ironic that a global warming supporter denies what the data says and denies the scientific journals (when it suits him). Your behaviour here contributes to my thesis. Thank you for your time.
You are flailing around without a clue. You have no shame and will just say anything, no matter how baseless, no matter how nonsensical. It would be fun to watch if it wasn't so embarrassing.
Well, you are right about one thing - you ought to be embarrassed. You b rought that embarrassment upon yourself. Please post a link to your blog so that we can check that you have posted the disclaimer: I made remarks impugning the scientific methodology underpinning datasets published by NOAA which, upon investigation, turned out to be false per our agreement.
Here the link to the code they released. [dropbox.com] They made it available to Zeke Hausfather [yaleclimat...ctions.org] who made it available to everyone else.
Well, my time - even 5 minutes of it, is important, so let's make a deal: If I check your sources and find (a) That the citation your allege is NOAA's GHCN homogenization code is NOT in fact NOAA's code, and/or (b) NOAA's actual homogenization code is available from their ftp site, and was there prior to July 7th 2014, that you will amend the above statement as such:
I made remarks impugning the scientific methodology underpinning datasets published by NOAA which, upon investigation, turned out to be false. Further, I made remarks concerning the work of Zeke Hausfather which might have impugned Mr Hausfather's motivation's, for which I apologize to him, and further, implied that NOAA had not released their homogenization code for GCHN 2.5 prior to July 2014 - a remark, which upon investigation, turned out to be false. I admit that I was wrong concerning these statements. You will post this statement at the beginning of any remarks you make on Slashdot on any climate related topic, and also on your blog, and cite that blog so that we can satisfy ourselves that you have acted as agreed.
Do we have a deal?
Regarding the 17 year "plateau" that you deny, apparently you can't interpret a graph [woodfortrees.org], don't know what 'statistical significance' means, and Nature [nature.com] isn't good enough for you either.
So, you agree with the following quotation from the nature article you cite as a source: Overall, the report cites more than 9,200 scientific papers, two-thirds of which have been published since 2007. There is now an overwhelming body of evidence, says Stocker, that the 1 C or so of global warming since the mid-nineteenth century is the result of human activity.
Well, thanks for just making stuff up. Are you actually going to attempt to justify your statement There has been no warming for 17 years? Not that I should have to tell you what to do, but you might progress along this path if you cite a scientific paper which says this. (i.e 1996-2013)
Right off the top of my head, here's a paper [that details and proves a 17 year period (1996-2013) of no warming]
To quote from said paper:
The 2000s are by far the warmest decade on record (Figure 1). Before then the 1990s were the warmest decade on record.
and:
Deniers of climate change often cherry-pick points on time series and seize on the El Niño warm year of 1998 as the start of the 'hiatus' in global mean temperature rise (Figure 6). Cherry picking.... that would be what YOU are doing, would it not?
Is seems the paper you cite says in fact the opposite of what you assert, and is, in fact, saying exactly what I thought when this conversation started! How about that! You've made no ground in your efforts to convince me that global warming is a scam, and if anything, the links provided confirm the consensus position.
You're a failure.
I've provided links directly to the temperature data
Cite yourself providing links directly to the temperature data.
yet you bzzzzt
Nope, don't care what you think.
If you can show me previously released code and procedures that shows why the temperatures for 1936 fluctuate up and down by as much as a degree from month to month, and I can run accurately back test it, then I will happily admit I was wrong, and that the NOAA has been open with their procedures all along, just that some implications of those procedures weren't made clear. I will also say "thank you" for clearing that little detail up for me. And what will you do if you discover I am correct? And what will you do when you admit I am correct about the temperature trends for the last 17 years?
Note I have been using 1997, BEFORE the El Nino warm year. And of course you wouldn't notice that because then you wouldn't be able to accuse me of cherry picking. See my point about 'flailing' above. I am genuinely curious though: did you notice that I used 1997, then decide to ignore it? Or did you honestly not notice at all?
Much of my effort here has been observing how you deny plain facts. The paper you cite is trying to explain the pause. You are denying the pause even exists.
SkepticalScience.com, one of the most fervent pro-warming sites around, describes the woodfortrees app as "excellent". You can click on the "raw data" link beneath the graph. But since the graphs appear to support my position, they must be faking the temperature data, right? You will say anything that you think strengthens your position, and deny the blatantly obvious when it appears to weaken your position. You are now suggesting the Journal Nature is not trustworthy. It is interesting to watch the "pro-science" side throw scientific journals under the bus when the facts don't support their positions.
Please post a link to your blog so that we can check that you have posted the disclaimer: I made remarks impugning the scientific methodology underpinning datasets published by NOAA which, upon investigation, turned out to be false per our agreement.
I note that you did not provide the link. If you lack the intellectual honesty necessary to do as you agreed and suffer the consequences of making assertions that you can't prove (and are in fact, trivially disproved) - if you lack that intellectual honesty, then further discussion is likely to be unproductive.
Well, my time - even 5 minutes of it, is important, so let's make a deal: If I check your sources and find (a) That the citation your allege is NOAA's GHCN homogenization code is NOT in fact NOAA's code, and/or (b) NOAA's actual homogenization code is available from their ftp site, and was there prior to July 7th 2014, that you will amend the above statement as such:
I made remarks impugning the scientific methodology underpinning datasets published by NOAA which, upon investigation, turned out to be false. Further, I made remarks concerning the work of Zeke Hausfather which might have impugned Mr Hausfather's motivation's, for which I apologize to him, and further, implied that NOAA had not released their homogenization code for GCHN 2.5 prior to July 2014 - a remark, which upon investigation, turned out to be false. I admit that I was wrong concerning these statements.
You will post this statement at the beginning of any remarks you make on Slashdot on any climate related topic, and also on your blog, and cite that blog so that we can satisfy ourselves that you have acted as agreed.
A "yes" (please test my assertion) or "no" (don't test my assertion, I withdraw it) will suffice. There isn't any negotiation. You have nothing I want.
So, you agree with the following quotation from the nature article you cite as a source: Overall, the report cites more than 9,200 scientific papers, two-thirds of which have been published since 2007. There is now an overwhelming body of evidence, says Stocker, that the 1 C or so of global warming since the mid-nineteenth century is the result of human activity.
[no answer]
Do you agree with this remark from your cited source, or not (i.e you repudiate your source)?
To quote from said paper [cited by you]:
The 2000s are by far the warmest decade on record (Figure 1). Before then the 1990s were the warmest decade on record.
and:
Deniers of climate change often cherry-pick points on time series and seize on the El Niño warm year of 1998 as the start of the 'hiatus' in global mean temperature rise (Figure 6).
The paper you cite is trying to explain the pause.
This is the paper you cited. This is the paper you cited, directly contradicting your claim that there has been no warming for 17 years. It is not trying to explain the pause, it debunks the notion of a 17 year pause. *facepalm*
SkepticalScience.com, one of the most fervent pro-warming sites around, describes the woodfortrees app as "excellent". You can click on the "raw data" link beneath the graph. But since the graphs appear to support my position, they must be faking the temperature data, right? You will say anything that you think strengthens your position, and deny the blatantly obvious when it appears to weaken your position. You are now suggesting the Journal Nature is not trustworthy. It is interesting to watch the "pro-science" side throw scientific journals under the bus when the facts don't support their positions.
This is the link you are referring to, correct?
I cite and you cite back. That's not obvious? Do whatever you like. I'm pretty sure you are looking at two different articles. I understand Stocker has misrepresented the actual report, but maybe because he was looking at the report for policy makers? It's a bit more "informal". Why don't you find out what the official report says and find out for yourself? (You don't know what the report says, do you?) Yeah, I know. It's up to me to provide a web page, and a page line, and a direct quote. IPCC reports are not easy for my grandparents to find either. Just goes to show you don't know WTF you are talking about. Apparently it's my job to educate you about what YOUR SIDE ACTUALLY SAYS, and then I have to defend against your RANDOM accusations, often against your own 'sides' position. I'm looking forward to witnessing more of your ridiculous grandstanding. It suits my purpose. Just in case we are unclear: I have no respect for your abilities what-so-ever. (At least, if this is all you have to offer.) BTW, this SkS page describes WFT as excellent: http://www.skepticalscience.com/temperature_trend_calculator.html. And yes, I hate myself a little bit for having to reference a SkS page.
Please post a link to your blog so that we can check that you have posted the disclaimer: I made remarks impugning the scientific methodology underpinning datasets published by NOAA which, upon investigation, turned out to be false per our agreement.
I note that you did not provide the link. If you lack the intellectual honesty necessary to do as you agreed and suffer the consequences of making assertions that you can't prove (and are in fact, trivially disproved) - if you lack that intellectual honesty, then further discussion is likely to be unproductive.
[no response]
Provide the citation as agreed.
Well, my time - even 5 minutes of it, is important, so let's make a deal: If I check your sources and find (a) That the citation your allege is NOAA's GHCN homogenization code is NOT in fact NOAA's code, and/or (b) NOAA's actual homogenization code is available from their ftp site, and was there prior to July 7th 2014, that you will amend the above statement as such:
I made remarks impugning the scientific methodology underpinning datasets published by NOAA which, upon investigation, turned out to be false. Further, I made remarks concerning the work of Zeke Hausfather which might have impugned Mr Hausfather's motivation's, for which I apologize to him, and further, implied that NOAA had not released their homogenization code for GCHN 2.5 prior to July 2014 - a remark, which upon investigation, turned out to be false. I admit that I was wrong concerning these statements.
You will post this statement at the beginning of any remarks you make on Slashdot on any climate related topic, and also on your blog, and cite that blog so that we can satisfy ourselves that you have acted as agreed.
A "yes" (please test my assertion) or "no" (don't test my assertion, I withdraw it) will suffice. There isn't any negotiation. You have nothing I want.
[no response]
Provide the response as specified
So, you agree with the following quotation from the nature article you cite as a source: Overall, the report cites more than 9,200 scientific papers, two-thirds of which have been published since 2007. There is now an overwhelming body of evidence, says Stocker, that the 1 C or so of global warming since the mid-nineteenth century is the result of human activity.
[no answer]
Do you agree with this remark from your cited source, or not (i.e you repudiate your source)?
[no response]
Provide the response as specified
To quote from said paper [cited by you]:
The 2000s are by far the warmest decade on record (Figure 1). Before then the 1990s were the warmest decade on record.
and:
Deniers of climate change often cherry-pick points on time series and seize on the El Niño warm year of 1998 as the start of the 'hiatus' in global mean temperature rise (Figure 6).
The paper you cite is trying to explain the pause.
This is the paper you cited. This is the paper you cited, directly contradicting your claim that there has been no warming for 17 years. It is not trying to explain the pause, it debunks the notion of a 17 year pause. *facepalm*
[no response]
Provide the explanation to this inconsistency.
SkepticalScience.com, one of the most fervent pro-warming sites around, describes the woodfortrees app as "excellent". You can click on the "raw data" link beneath the graph. But since the graphs appear to support my position, they must be faking the temp
Liberal in most sane countries refers to a centrist who promotes progressive ideas usually taken from both the left and right. In the US it seems to be a bizarre insult almost equal to calling someone a commie / socialist.
Perhaps you should be asking your doctor which medication is right for you.
Libertarians don't really have an obvious counterpart in Europe. It sure as hell isn't liberals who are centrist parties who tend to balance ideas which they cherry pick from left and right.