Of course they believe things, but their belief is based on evidence, and not faith. That is the difference. Scientists base their beliefs on the measurable and the likely.
You might want to brush up on the scientific method before you start calling it nonsense, for all to see, as if you are proud of your rampant ignorance.
That is explained in great depth every single time adjustments are made. Their methodology for adjusting is published for peer review, also, meaning their entire work can be torn to shreds if mistakes were made. You not knowing why the adjustments were made - and refusing to find out - does not allow you to call it all nonsense. Data sets are frequently adjusted, sometimes many times a year, if the understanding of shortcomings of the data collection methodology is improved. You not understanding it doesn't turn good science into bad science.
Your anecdote doesn't prove anything, it just demonstrates that it's not always the case. You haven't explained away the masses of companies which had to be stopped from abusing their market position, which you'd have to do in order for your claim to be true.
That AGW is happening is settled. It was settled the moment Arrhenius worked out how CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas. What is not settled is the details - but they are getting more and more accurate as time goes on. Clearly some answers are needed, but nothing is at all likely to disprove AGW.
They are not an al Qaeda offshoot. Al Qaeda has distanced themselves massively from ISIS, and ISIS's start was completely separate from al Qaeda. It was only after the Iraq invasion that it all got ratcheted up a gear, with them getting battle experience and all the arms they could capture.
Them starting in Iraq and moving to Syria doesn't even figure in your appraisal of the situation, does it? They started in Iraq as "Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad", which joined Al Qaeda in 2004. They fought during the Iraq invasion, which gave them lots of experience in battle, and access to the spoils of war. They then joined another Iraqi group - Mujahideen Shura Council - to form the "Islamic State of Iraq" in 2006. In 2011 delegates were sent to Syria, in a group called "Jabhat an-Nuá£rah li-Ahli ash-ShÄm" or "al-Nusra Front", and dug in. In 2013 this group then formally merged back with ISI to form ISIL.
So yeah, no war in Iraq, no ISIS. It's not even up for discussion any more - their history has been well documented, and is available to anyone who cares to learn. They started in Iraq and Bush gave them just what they wanted - an insurgency in which to grab as much as they can. This is all before they were even in Syria.
Thanks for showing everyone you have no idea what you're talking about. It's clearly safe to ignore you, as you are confused about the basic principles of this field, and clearly don't understand what this means.
You just admitted you get your scientific information from the popular press, as that was the only place the "global cooling" fad gained any traction. If you are that out of touch with the scientific community and its findings, it might not be the best idea for you to wade in and confidently call it all nonsense. You don't look particularly rational.
They are denying science. That's the whole point. They claim things which are untrue, and claim known things are unknown. When that is pointed out, their argument either shifts or they attempt to discredit the entire field with one or two throw-away comments, and act all butt-hurt and upset.
If the deniers had a shred of evidence, people would listen to them. They don't. They have childish arguments and fundamental misrepresentations - that's it.
All of your questions have been answered. Every time you state that no-one knows something, people do know it. Heck, most of your claims are false or gross oversimplifications of complicated concepts. I don't mean to cause offence - I'm just trying to point out that if you are not a denier, you are doing a great impression of one!
It would be really, really bizarre if the deniers are right, as they simply can not explain the warming. They have no models, no data, nothing. If they are right, water stopped behaving as we've known it to for centuries, right about the time of the industrial revolution. That means we'd need to figure out why water only misbehaves when it is part of the world's climate or in politically sensitive areas, as it's still behaving precisely as we'd expect it to in every other instance. That water has a grasp of politics and economics would be quite a shake-up!
They won't admit it was malpractice as the investigation found there was no malpractice. Unless you are suggesting that people just make up their own reality, you can't just claim malpractice where none was found.
You have a fucked-up idea of what ameliorating the effects of climate change entails. No wonder you believe such nonsense if you can't even be bothered to read the literature on the subject. You are a wonderful example of what the article is talking about.
If your position is correct, why does it have no supporting evidence? What should people who deny scientific findings be called? One is not a skeptic if one refuses to accept scientific results. Your questions have been answered time and time again yet here you are, complaining once more. It's easy to discount it as propaganda instead of using the scientific method to rebut the findings. You are intellectually lazy.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course they believe things, but their belief is based on evidence, and not faith. That is the difference. Scientists base their beliefs on the measurable and the likely.
You might want to brush up on the scientific method before you start calling it nonsense, for all to see, as if you are proud of your rampant ignorance.
Science has improved markedly since the days you talk of, rendering your whole point entirely moot.
That is explained in great depth every single time adjustments are made. Their methodology for adjusting is published for peer review, also, meaning their entire work can be torn to shreds if mistakes were made. You not knowing why the adjustments were made - and refusing to find out - does not allow you to call it all nonsense. Data sets are frequently adjusted, sometimes many times a year, if the understanding of shortcomings of the data collection methodology is improved. You not understanding it doesn't turn good science into bad science.
Learning is hard! Let's just guess how the world works. I see you've already started.
It's happened in lots of species. It's called industrial melanism
1. No
2. No.
3. No.
So much nonsense in one post. Incredible. I'm sure everything else you say is equally awesome, and will listen intently to every word you say. /s
If that's how you see gravity, you sound like a terrible engineer.
Your arrogance is simply astounding.
Or you could fix the potholes like people do in civilized countries... :)
Your anecdote doesn't prove anything, it just demonstrates that it's not always the case. You haven't explained away the masses of companies which had to be stopped from abusing their market position, which you'd have to do in order for your claim to be true.
You wouldn't be politically incorrect, you'd be flat-out incorrect.
That AGW is happening is settled. It was settled the moment Arrhenius worked out how CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas. What is not settled is the details - but they are getting more and more accurate as time goes on. Clearly some answers are needed, but nothing is at all likely to disprove AGW.
They are not an al Qaeda offshoot. Al Qaeda has distanced themselves massively from ISIS, and ISIS's start was completely separate from al Qaeda. It was only after the Iraq invasion that it all got ratcheted up a gear, with them getting battle experience and all the arms they could capture.
Them starting in Iraq and moving to Syria doesn't even figure in your appraisal of the situation, does it? They started in Iraq as "Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad", which joined Al Qaeda in 2004. They fought during the Iraq invasion, which gave them lots of experience in battle, and access to the spoils of war. They then joined another Iraqi group - Mujahideen Shura Council - to form the "Islamic State of Iraq" in 2006. In 2011 delegates were sent to Syria, in a group called "Jabhat an-Nuá£rah li-Ahli ash-ShÄm" or "al-Nusra Front", and dug in. In 2013 this group then formally merged back with ISI to form ISIL.
So yeah, no war in Iraq, no ISIS. It's not even up for discussion any more - their history has been well documented, and is available to anyone who cares to learn. They started in Iraq and Bush gave them just what they wanted - an insurgency in which to grab as much as they can. This is all before they were even in Syria.
They're studying different aspects of the same problem, using their own individual techniques and available tools. Do you think that's a bad idea?
Thanks for showing everyone you have no idea what you're talking about. It's clearly safe to ignore you, as you are confused about the basic principles of this field, and clearly don't understand what this means.
So you assume they don't exist, and are too lazy to look for them. Brilliant. What a bastion of rational thought you are. Bravo.
You just admitted you get your scientific information from the popular press, as that was the only place the "global cooling" fad gained any traction. If you are that out of touch with the scientific community and its findings, it might not be the best idea for you to wade in and confidently call it all nonsense. You don't look particularly rational.
They are denying science. That's the whole point. They claim things which are untrue, and claim known things are unknown. When that is pointed out, their argument either shifts or they attempt to discredit the entire field with one or two throw-away comments, and act all butt-hurt and upset.
If the deniers had a shred of evidence, people would listen to them. They don't. They have childish arguments and fundamental misrepresentations - that's it.
All of your questions have been answered. Every time you state that no-one knows something, people do know it. Heck, most of your claims are false or gross oversimplifications of complicated concepts. I don't mean to cause offence - I'm just trying to point out that if you are not a denier, you are doing a great impression of one!
It would be really, really bizarre if the deniers are right, as they simply can not explain the warming. They have no models, no data, nothing. If they are right, water stopped behaving as we've known it to for centuries, right about the time of the industrial revolution. That means we'd need to figure out why water only misbehaves when it is part of the world's climate or in politically sensitive areas, as it's still behaving precisely as we'd expect it to in every other instance. That water has a grasp of politics and economics would be quite a shake-up!
They won't admit it was malpractice as the investigation found there was no malpractice. Unless you are suggesting that people just make up their own reality, you can't just claim malpractice where none was found.
You have a fucked-up idea of what ameliorating the effects of climate change entails. No wonder you believe such nonsense if you can't even be bothered to read the literature on the subject. You are a wonderful example of what the article is talking about.
If your position is correct, why does it have no supporting evidence? What should people who deny scientific findings be called? One is not a skeptic if one refuses to accept scientific results. Your questions have been answered time and time again yet here you are, complaining once more. It's easy to discount it as propaganda instead of using the scientific method to rebut the findings. You are intellectually lazy.