Story of the Year: It's Global Warming, Stupid

[serfs up]

Wallop10 wrote:

Here is the reason for the extremely strong consensus.
There are strong clues the warming we have experienced in previous decades is from CO2 and not from the sun:
(i) The sun has been flat (and recently declining TSI)in terms of solar radiation for the past 50 years.
-- But the average global temperature has been warming.
(ii) If it were the sun causing the warming: Increased sunlight would heat the stratosphere first, where the ozone layer absorbs solar ultraviolet light.
-- But the stratosphere is cooling (as predicted by CO2 radiative warming)
(iii) Increased sunlight would heat the equator more than the poles (Lambert's cosine law).
- Instead we see "polar amplification," (read more for details on the site)
(iv) Increased sunlight would increase daytime temperatures more than nighttime temperatures.
-- But nighttime temperatures have risen more, which is consistent with an atmosphere of increased IR opacity holding in surface warmth better. Think of the way a cloudy night is warmer than a clear night.
(v) Increased sunlight would increase summer temperatures more than winter temperatures.
-- But winter temperatures have risen more. Again, more greenhouse gases hold in the heat better when sunlight is decreased.
see more details here
http://BartonPaulLevenson.com/Sun.html
who gets it from the IPCC.

To many people have stolen to much of others possessions over the years, over the decades and over history. Even if true. I don't believe them. They look for any reason to make a buck to keep the power elite living high off the hog. The real reason for taxing this is the global initiative to get us used to a world government. If Gore lived a humble life, it would help his cause with some. But he is a fraud. A rich one, but a fraud. Thing is, if true, to me it is the lies shoved down our throats by corrupted men and women who have corrupted many in the general population that makes me deny. They will get the money in some underhanded way at some point, and probably are.

[Teddy R]

Fair Game wrote:

<quoted text>
So we have a misuse of a quote from a real scientist, and a correctly used but worthless quote from a fantasy novelist.

No, actually what we have here is a smart-azz who’s chosen to get pissed off at being properly called out by peerless scientific authority for straying outside the bounds of science into the realm of political rhetoric and behaving un-scientifically.

And we have a smart-azz incapable of intellectually honest dialectic on the merits who apparently can muster nothing but a snarky juvenile ad hom in response.

Please recall, FG – I wasn’t posting in response to you – you’ve chosen to act the wounded party here. But if the shoe fits, I guess …

[Fair Game]

Teddy R wrote:

that article also mentions writings on the fallacies of concensus science by Nobel Laureate Brian David Josephson and Garth Paltridge, Visiting Fellow at the Australian National University and Emeritus Professor and Honorary Research Fellow at the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Oceans Studies (IASOS), University of Tasmania).

LOL.

So now in addition to the sci-fi writer, your sources are a parapsychologist and a climate change denier who writes for a Republican lobbying web site?

They don't believe in consensus? Well they wouldn't, would they?

Crichton seems to have been little restrained by scientific evidence even after his scientific education.

He experimented with astral projection, aura viewing, and clairvoyance, coming to believe that these included real phenomena that scientists had too eagerly dismissed as paranormal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton

Azimov knew that stuff was phoney stock.

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Mind you, he spent 5 days a week doing the science and left the writing to the weekend.

[Fair Game]

Teddy R wrote:

...peerless scientific authority...

MD Dinosaur, Professor Paranormal Phenomena and Dr Denial (energy industry lobbyist)?

You're full of shit.

[Teddy R]

Fair Game wrote:

<quoted text>
LOL.
So now in addition to the sci-fi writer, your sources are a parapsychologist and a climate change denier who writes for a Republican lobbying web site?
They don't believe in consensus? Well they wouldn't, would they?
Crichton seems to have been little restrained by scientific evidence even after his scientific education.
<quoted text>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton
Azimov knew that stuff was phoney stock.
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Mind you, he spent 5 days a week doing the science and left the writing to the weekend.

More sputtering ad homs. Still incapable of formulating a point and cogent argument on the merits.

Sad. You're better than this, you know. Stick to what you know - the science. Take off your AGW alarmist jihadi hat and put it away. Confine yourself to posting on the state of scientific knowledge in this arena, as a credible SCIENTIST, and learn to acknowledge the scientific knowledge is imperfect and incomplete. You'll be much more credible and effective than when you play high priest and demand adherence to AGW religious dogma.

Any cult cargo science faker can do that - leave that crap to them.

[Fair Game]

What you have there is a bunch of cranks. Cranks don't like consensus because the consensus says they are selling phoney stock, and they want you to believe their stock is real.

[Fair Game]

Teddy R wrote:

<quoted text>
More sputtering ad homs. Still incapable of formulating a point and cogent argument on the merits.
Sad. You're better than this, you know. Stick to what you know - the science. Take off your AGW alarmist jihadi hat and put it away. Confine yourself to posting on the state of scientific knowledge in this arena, as a credible SCIENTIST, and learn to acknowledge the scientific knowledge is imperfect and incomplete. You'll be much more credible and effective than when you play high priest and demand adherence to AGW religious dogma.
Any cult cargo science faker can do that - leave that crap to them.

You're ranting a bit, teddy.

Bit of a crank yourself, aren't you?

Astral projection, aura viewing, clairvoyance, paranormal phenomena and global warming denial- the science is good enough to say these are all phoney stock.

[Teddy R]

Fair Game wrote:

<quoted text>
MD Dinosaur, Professor Paranormal Phenomena and Dr Denial (energy industry lobbyist)?
You're full of shit.

Einstein? Feynman? WTF are you talking about?

You've lost your temper.

Come, come. Settle down. Have some tea.

Just for you to ponder as we sail into the week-end:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/20...

Will the IPCC cowboy up and face the data, do you think? Big opportunity to regain some of their lost credibility. "Yes, it appears we got it slightly wrong, biased to the high side, but we think we mostly know why, we're modifying our models and predictions in line with our continuously improving knowledge, and the fundamental scientific understandings we have about GCC and the part that anthropogenic forcings are playing in it remain valid."

See how easy that was?

[Teddy R]

Fair Game wrote:

What you have there is a bunch of cranks. Cranks don't like consensus because the consensus says they are selling phoney stock, and they want you to believe their stock is real.

Einstein? A crank? Ooooo-kayyyy ...

Feynman? A crank? Ooooo-kayyy ...

No - they didn't like appeals to "consensus" as a cheap substitute for real, good, always-skeptical-and-questioni ng-theory science, or scientists falling in love with a theory and losing their scientific objectivity.

Because they were - well - real scientists, with scientific integrity.

You are certainly working VERY hard at arguing against this inarguable truth, and it's very puzzling.

Why is that? Why is it sooo hard for you to admit the universally accepted epistematological truth that scientific knowledge is ALWAYS incomplete and imperfect, to some non-zero degree, however small, and that REAL scientists can readily be distinguished from the fake ones by their unalloyed acceptance & acknowledgement of that truth?

[Teddy R]

Fair Game wrote:

<quoted text>
You're ranting a bit, teddy.
Bit of a crank yourself, aren't you?
Astral projection, aura viewing, clairvoyance, paranormal phenomena and global warming denial- the science is good enough to say these are all phoney stock.

If that's what you consider a "rant," you need to get out more.

Now I'm a crank, too? Poor kid - surrounded by "cranks."

If my simply hanging my hat on the ageless and uncontroversial fundamentals of scientific thought, and calling out behaviors (like rhetorical appeals to numbers, appeals to Authority, consensus science) that have no place in the scientific method or scientific thought as fallacious makes me a "crank" - well, then yeah - I'm a "crank." Have it your way.

I reckon I'm in very good scientific company.

As for your sweeping little "rant" about various irrelevant 'cargo-cult science' subjects - well, yeah. Duh. Were you expecting some kind of argument from me?

[Fair Game]

Teddy R wrote:

<quoted text>
Einstein? Feynman? WTF are you talking about?

You seem to have misconstrued what Feynman was saying as well as what Einstein was saying. One thing for sure, Feynman hated pseudoscience and would have had nothing to do with Josephson or Creichton, nor bogus graphs from pseudoscience blogs.

Just for you to ponder as we sail into the week-end:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/20...
Will the IPCC cowboy up and face the data, do you think? Big opportunity to regain some of their lost credibility. "Yes, it appears we got it slightly wrong, biased to the high side, but we think we mostly know why, we're modifying our models and predictions in line with our continuously improving knowledge, and the fundamental scientific understandings we have about GCC and the part that anthropogenic forcings are playing in it remain valid."
See how easy that was?

Easy and wrong.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/fake-s...

[Fair Game]

Teddy R wrote:

Because they were - well - real scientists, with scientific integrity.

Yes, they seem to have been too clever by half for you- the points they were making went over your head.

[Fair Game]

Teddy R wrote:

<quoted text>
If that's what you consider a "rant," you need to get out more.
Now I'm a crank, too? Poor kid - surrounded by "cranks."
If my simply hanging my hat on the ageless and uncontroversial fundamentals of scientific thought, and calling out behaviors (like rhetorical appeals to numbers, appeals to Authority, consensus science) that have no place in the scientific method or scientific thought as fallacious makes me a "crank" - well, then yeah - I'm a "crank." Have it your way.
I reckon I'm in very good scientific company.
As for your sweeping little "rant" about various irrelevant 'cargo-cult science' subjects - well, yeah. Duh. Were you expecting some kind of argument from me?

Again, you're full of shit.

[Teddy R]

Fair Game wrote:

<quoted text>
You seem to have misconstrued what Feynman was saying as well as what Einstein was saying. One thing for sure, Feynman hated pseudoscience and would have had nothing to do with Josephson or Creichton, nor bogus graphs from pseudoscience blogs.
<quoted text>
Easy and wrong.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/fake-s...

Boy, you just can't shake your infatuation with ad homs against people I never cited, can you?

Thanks for the link - I'll peruse it over the week-end.

[Teddy R]

Fair Game wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, they seem to have been too clever by half for you- the points they were making went over your head.

Awww. You're still mad. Have another tea.

[Teddy R]

Fair Game wrote:

<quoted text>
Again, you're full of shit.

Really. That kind of puerile tantrum is quite beneath you. You're still wound too tight.

Perhaps the tea isn't soothing enough - maybe you need to treat yourself to a nice relaxing ... high colonic or something.

Have a pleasant weekend.

[Fair Game]

Teddy R wrote:

<quoted text>
Boy, you just can't shake your infatuation with ad homs against people I never cited, can you?

Teddy R wrote:

Perhaps you actually read the link I included in my post (gasp!), in which Chrichton IS quoted on the subject of 'consensus science.' If so, no doubt you also read there that the term pre-dates Chrichton's first reference to it in a 2003 article, and that it has long been in general use in the scientific community for many years (e.g., that article also mentions writings on the fallacies of concensus science by Nobel Laureate Brian David Josephson and Garth Paltridge, Visiting Fellow at the Australian National University and Emeritus Professor and Honorary Research Fellow at the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Oceans Studies (IASOS), University of Tasmania).

Josephson is one of the more well-known scientists who say that parapsychological phenomena may be real.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_David_Jose...

All the para-psychologists are looking for some experiment that can be repeated--that you can do again and get the same effect--statistically, even. They run a million rats--no, it's people this time--they do a lot of things are get a certain statistical effect. Next time they try it they don't get it any more. And now you find a man saying that is is an irrelevant demand to expect a repeatable experiment. This is science?

http://neurotheory.columbia.edu/~ken/cargo_cu...

You cited a parapsychologist, and a physicist who hates parapsychologists. Your own sources are attacking each other. I don't have to do it.

[Fair Game]

Teddy R wrote:

<quoted text>
Awww. You're still mad. Have another tea.

Troll. Ignored.

[Fair Game]

Teddy R wrote:

<quoted text>
Really. That kind of puerile tantrum is quite beneath you. You're still wound too tight.
Perhaps the tea isn't soothing enough - maybe you need to treat yourself to a nice relaxing ... high colonic or something.

Troll ignored.

Have a pleasant weekend.

You too.

[Teddy R]

Fair Game wrote:

<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_David_Jose...
<quoted text>
http://neurotheory.columbia.edu/~ken/cargo_cu...
You cited a parapsychologist, and a physicist who hates parapsychologists. Your own sources are attacking each other. I don't have to do it.

I did not.

I invoked concensus science as a well-understood un-scientific rhetorical dodge - in a response that wasn't even addressed to you.

You barged in in a sanctimonious huff and started flinging reactionary ad homs against Chrichton and your other favorite betes noires ... as a rhetorical dodge.

They're not "my sources."

To repeat my original point (you might actually go back and read it this time before posting):

- invoking "concensus science" - an appeal to numbers, authority, ot the majority - is a fallacious and UNSCIENTIFIC argument that real scientists reject out of hand - on principle. "Concensus" has no place in the scientific method, and contributes not an iota to determing the truthfulness or correctness of a scientific hypothesis or theory.

You're convinced the science is sound & conclusive? Then stick to arguing what the science and evidence tells us. When you indulge in throwing bullsh!t lists of warmista true believers vs. eeevul corrupt deniers at each other as if they lend ANY scientifically valid weight of evidence to the correctness of one side or the other - as the poster to whom I WAS responding was doing - you have taken complete leave of anything scientific, and gain no scientific credibility for your position by it.

It's a simple point, true by inspection, and hardly warranted your tantrums.

Do you seriously contest this point? Or are you just being contrary?