Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3

[Mr GrimNasty]

GISS - "squandered much credibility" playing a "shady role".

http://notrickszone.com/#sthash.jfIHZghi.dKApaX1G....

[turbobloke]

Mr GrimNasty said:

NOAA/NASA should be made to adhere to law of the Data Quality Act which most rational people would sense they flout.

Climate activists first, scientists second, it appears.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/28/300-scientis...

That plain weird adjustment from accurate scientific buoy measurements to less accurate unscientific and heat-contaminated ship intake temperatures for SST, that'll be the actual high quality proper evidence from reliable sources we've been hearing about.

[durbster]

turbobloke said:

powerstroke said:

durbster said:

Tell me about it. They come in here, posting actual research, requesting credible sources and proper evidence. It's ridiculous. Why can't they just leave us alone so we can debate the topic by only posting the things that agree with us, no matter how tenuous!?

Reading that post from durbster the irony is at unprecedented levels and has reached a tipping point.

...and what follows this. Oh look, a link to Watts' blog!

I rest my case.

[deeps]

durbster said:

I guess that's indicative of how poorly science is reported by the press both here and in the US.

You can not be serious?!

I don't know if the US have an equivilent of the BBC, but if they do god help them!

Yes, the reporting is extremely poor, but not in the sense you mean, but by subjecting viewers to a daily barrage of weather events dressed up as news with one intention in mind. There's more weather on the BBC news than actual news.

The fact that most people don't believe warmist climate propaganda is not due to a lack of trying on the establishment warmist behalf! We have a one sided biased media mockery.

Most people don't believe because they have studied the facts where true debate takes place - online. Anyone who takes the time will see the reality.

[don4l]

durbster said:

Tell me about it. They come in here, posting actual research, requesting credible sources and proper evidence. It's ridiculous. Why can't they just leave us alone so we can debate the topic by only posting the things that agree with us, no matter how tenuous!?

Good grief!

Tell us... what actual research do you find to be convincing?

"credible sources"? You claim to understand the meaning of "Nullius in Verba", so you know that there are no credible sources.

"proper evidence".

You cannot show us any. Adjusted figures do not constitute evidence, yet alone "proper" evidence.

[Einion Yrth]

durbster said:

I rest my case.

Cheeses K Reist, I wish you would.

[durbster]

deeps said:

You can not be serious?!

I don't know if the US have an equivilent of the BBC, but if they do god help them!

Yes, the reporting is extremely poor, but not in the sense you mean, but by subjecting viewers to a daily barrage of weather events dressed up as news with one intention in mind. There's more weather on the BBC news than actual news.

If you get your science from the mainstream media (not just the BBC), you'll likely have a poor understanding of it and unrealistic expectations.

Not just on climate, I mean everything science related.

deeps said:

The fact that most people don't believe warmist climate propaganda is not due to a lack of trying on the establishment warmist behalf! We have a one sided biased media mockery.

It's possible of course, but seems highly unlikely.

deeps said:

Most people don't believe because they have studied the facts where true debate takes place - online. Anyone who takes the time will see the reality.

Look at it this way; I don't know what you do for a living but I'm going to hazard a guess that you know rather more about it than a person who occasionally spend a couple of hours a week reading a few blog and and participating in online debates about it.

That's what this debate is. It's people vastly overestimating their understanding and reaching their own conclusions about a highly complex subject based on minimum of effort. I probably spend an hour or two a week reading about science but I'm well aware that this does not qualify me in any way to form my own conclusions.

Somebody told me recently that their brother isn't going to vaccinate his children. That is what happens when you "study the facts where true debate takes place". You end up with people who have no understanding of critical thinking, applying critical thinking. They give weight to the most appealing argument, not the most accurate argument, and they give credibility to people who absolutely do not deserve it.

People are gullible and malleable. That's why we invented science.

[turbobloke]

durbster said:

If you get your science from the mainstream media (not just the BBC), you'll likely have a poor understanding of it and unrealistic expectations.

Not everyone has access to the peer-reviewed scientific literature like you and me, and even for those who do but have limited time, some more populist secondary sources can be a good source of pointers. Not the BBC, as the lack of balance is risible.

More on due process and good practice - lack of.

Steve McIntyre said:

One of the longest standing Climate Audit issues with paleoclimate reconstructions is ex post decisions on inclusion/exclusion of data, of which ex post decisions on inclusion/exclusion of sites/data in “regional [treering] chronologies” is one important family. This was the issue in the original Yamal controversy, in response to which Briffa stated that they “would never select or manipulate data in order to arrive at some preconceived or unrepresentative result”. However, Briffa and associates have never set out ex ante criteria for site inclusion/exclusion, resulting in the methodology for Briffa regional reconstructions seeming more like Calvinball than science, as discussed in many CA posts.

Unlike Briffa, D’Arrigo has candidly admitted to the selection of data to arrive at a preconceived result. At the 2006 NAS panel workshop, Rosanne D’Arrigo famously told the surprised panelists that you had to pick cherries if you want to make cherry pie. Again in 2009 (though not noticed at the time), D’Arrigo et al 2009 stated that they could “partially circumvent” the divergence problem by only using data that went up...

Mmmmmmm taste that Believer Economy of Reality Cherry Pie

More at the link.

http://climateaudit.org/2016/01/29/cherry-picking-...

[turbobloke]

Climate change eats aliens for breakfast, seriously.

http://news.discovery.com/space/alien-life-exoplan...

[durbster]

Mr GrimNasty said:

Just goes to show, Brits and Yanks aren't so gullible - yougov poll rates climate change as near bottom concern.

It's a shame our government doesn't democratically represent our REAL concerns - such as over population and energy security.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/britain-as...

This is totally off topic but this post got me wondering about how how susceptible different nations are to bad/pseudo science. Vaccination seemed the obvious topic to look into and from a quick bit of googley-pokery it does seem that scandinavian countries have been less willing to embrace the anti-vaccination bks that spread through the US and the UK.

So, depressingly, maybe Brits and Yanks really are more gullible.

Mind you, I did also find out that Sweden has a Homeopathic Emergency Room, which I'm now going to find out more about because it sounds fking hilarious

[powerstroke]

powerstroke said:

durbster said:

Mr GrimNasty said:

Just goes to show, Brits and Yanks aren't so gullible - yougov poll rates climate change as near bottom concern.

It'sa shame our government doesn't democratically represent our REAL concerns - such as over population and energy security.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/britain-as...

This is totally off topic but this post got me wondering about how how susceptible different nations are to bad/pseudo science. Vaccination seemed the obvious topic to look into and from a quick bit of googley-pokery it does seem that scandinavian countries have been willing to embrace the anti-vaccination bks that spread through the US and the UK.

So, depressingly, maybe Brits and Yanks really aren't more gullible.

Mind you, I did also find out that Sweden has a Homeopathic Emergency Room, which I'm now going to find out more about because it sounds fking awesome maybe someone will put their dick in my ear and fk some sense into me

EFA

[durbster]

don4l said:

Good grief!

Tell us... what actual research do you find to be convincing?

"credible sources"? You claim to understand the meaning of "Nullius in Verba", so you know that there are no credible sources.

"proper evidence".

You cannot show us any. Adjusted figures do not constitute evidence, yet alone "proper" evidence.

Oh come on. If you really think there are no credible sources you simply can't have an opinion. Unless you're doing the experiments yourself, you are getting your information from someone.

You can't question everything. It's impractical. If you really want to learn something firsthand you have to study it, otherwise you have to find out from somebody else. You might be content getting your science from a car forum or a blog written by a journalist or author, whereas others might be happier with science literature.

[mybrainhurts]

durbster said:

People are gullible and malleable. That's why we invented science.

Quoted for posterity.

Did durbs really type that, or am I hallucinating?

[durbster]

mybrainhurts said:

durbster said:

People are gullible and malleable. That's why we invented science.

Quoted for posterity.

Did durbs really type that, or am I hallucinating?

I've said that since the start.

[mybrainhurts]

durbster said:

don4l said:

Good grief!

Tell us... what actual research do you find to be convincing?

"credible sources"? You claim to understand the meaning of "Nullius in Verba", so you know that there are no credible sources.

"proper evidence".

You cannot show us any. Adjusted figures do not constitute evidence, yet alone "proper" evidence.

Oh come on. If you really think there are no credible sources you simply can't have an opinion. Unless you're doing the experiments yourself, you are getting your information from someone.

You can't question everything. It's impractical. If you really want to learn something firsthand you have to study it, otherwise you have to find out from somebody else. You might be content getting your science from a car forum or a blog written by a journalist or author, whereas others might be happier with science literature.

This is your failing. The process is broken, so we are unable to trust its integrity. You really are wasting your time and effort.

[nelly1]

durbster said:

You can't question everything. It's impractical.

[mybrainhurts]

Vizsla said:

alock said:

bodhi said:

turbobloke said:

Agreed x2. The storm naming thing really is crass and wholly unnecessary, none of the possible motives appear sensible or reasonable - what am I missing?! Apart from True Belief and that will remain absent.

I'm told the storm naming originally cane from the Irish MET Office, and to be fair, predicting the weather in Ireland is one of the easiest jobs in the world, as chances are, it will be raining.

Probably a facetious answer but makes more sense than any other I've heard so far...

I thought it was just a joke. The first was Abigail... i.e. 'a big gale'.

Some weather twonk on the Beeb at lunchtime saying that 'the next named storm' could be on its way, arriving Tuesday.
Let's see, we're up to 'h' aren't we? ?Humbug ?Hooey ? Hokum ?Horsest ?Havinalaff

Does that mean we've already had George? Unlikely, I think, I didn't hear Monbiot having a screaming orgasm atop a Welsh mountain...

[don4l]

durbster said:

don4l said:

Good grief!

Tell us... what actual research do you find to be convincing?

"credible sources"? You claim to understand the meaning of "Nullius in Verba", so you know that there are no credible sources.

"proper evidence".

You cannot show us any. Adjusted figures do not constitute evidence, yet alone "proper" evidence.

Oh come on. If you really think there are no credible sources you simply can't have an opinion. Unless you're doing the experiments yourself, you are getting your information from someone.

As I said, you claim to understand what "Nullius in Verba" means, but clearly, you haven't a clue.

"Nullius in Verba" is telling us that there are no credible sources.

Intelligent people have known this for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.

You cannot claim that you understand the meaning of "Nullius in Verba" and also talk about "credible sources". The two are mutually incompatible.

durbster said:

You can't question everything. It's impractical. If you really want to learn something firsthand you have to study it, otherwise you have to find out from somebody else. You might be content getting your science from a car forum or a blog written by a journalist or author, whereas others might be happier with science literature.

Kepler explained the motion of the planets to us.

For a hundred year nobody proved him wrong.

So Kepler's theories became known as "Kepler's Laws".

Then, along came Newton. He noticed that Kepler had missed something.

Kepler had missed out the fact that the mass of the Sun played an important part in the motion of the planets.

Newton's theories also stood the test of time. And, so they became known as "Newton's Laws".

Guess what?

Einstein. That's what. Newton was wrong.

We know that almost all scientists have been wrong about everything for the last 30,000 generations. It is gobsmacking that some people are gullible enough to believe that this generation of scientests are actually right about anything at all.

[durbster]

don4l said:

Kepler explained the motion of the planets to us.

For a hundred year nobody proved him wrong.

So Kepler's theories became known as "Kepler's Laws".

Then, along came Newton. He noticed that Kepler had missed something.

Kepler had missed out the fact that the mass of the Sun played an important part in the motion of the planets.

Newton's theories also stood the test of time. And, so they became known as "Newton's Laws".

Guess what?

Einstein. That's what. Newton was wrong.

None of which is relevant.

As I've said several times, science has always been and will always give us the best understanding at the time.

But just because gravity isn't quite what we thought doesn't suddenly mean Newton's laws were worthless; they served their purpose and we could have continued to rely on them indefinitely had we never looked up. We had aircraft before we had Einstein's theory of relativity.

don4l said:

We know that almost all scientists have been wrong about everything for the last 30,000 generations. It is gobsmacking that some people are gullible enough to believe that this generation of scientests are actually right about anything at all.

If you fundamentally don't trust the scientific method then that's your perogative but it seems a difficult position to be in when science has given you the tools that allow us to have this discussion in the first place.

This generation of scientists were right enough to land a robot on a comet, stick another on Mars and go for a joyride, take close-up photos of Pluto, give us wifi and smartphones, edit genes and contain the Ebola virus.

Frankly, I think you do modern science a disservice.

[mybrainhurts]

durbster said:

Frankly, I think you do modern science a disservice.

It's the crooked climate scientists who've done that. They've certainly shaken my faith in scientific research.