dennislmay

APS and the Global Warming Scam

Recommended Posts

Naomi:

I am just getting started.

First of all you do not use scientific consensus which of course I did look up.

Provide me with yours please.

Secondly, state specifically what percentage of the scientific experts would constitute a scientific consensus.

Thirdly, which "experts," are being included in you "pool" upon which count will be made?

Fourth, what field(s) are being used? Climatologists? Environmentalists? Meteorologists? Seismologists? and more if none of those will be in your consensus "pool?"

Back in a few...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Naomi:

I am just getting started.

First of all you do not use scientific consensus which of course I did look up.

Provide me with yours please.

Secondly, state specifically what percentage of the scientific experts would constitute a scientific consensus.

Thirdly, which "experts," are being included in you "pool" upon which count will be made?

Fourth, what field(s) are being used? Climatologists? Environmentalists? Meteorologists? Seismologists? and more if none of those will be in your consensus "pool?"

Back in a few...

It's not a matter of specific percentages. When asked for the color of my eyes, I don't respond to the question by giving a spectrum of frequencies.

What I mean by "scientific consensus" is just what I said. That the overwhelming majority of scientific research organizations and climatologists generally agree on a certain set of propositions. It's kind of like pornography. I know it when I see it.

You call that evidence, do you?

Ellen

Yes. Since it is well known that employing the scientific method in an investigation of nature produces accurate theories and beliefs about nature better than chance, a consensus among people who employ the scientific method in their investigations is evidence in favor of those beliefs and theories. Additionally, since the scientific method performs significantly better in that regard than all of the alternatives, then the consensus of such experts is very strong evidence in favor of the theories they advocate.

By the way, you have failed once again to present the facts which would prove your claims in the most effective way possible were they to exist, which they don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Naomi, priceless!

It's not a matter of specific percentages. When asked for the color of my eyes, I don't respond to the question by giving a spectrum of frequencies.

What I mean by "scientific consensus" is just what I said. That the overwhelming majority...

And the "overwhelming majority" cannot be expressed in a percentage...hmm - must be that Common Core math.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your might want to take some time in evaluating this project...

http://www.petitionproject.org/

Heading_Text_06.png

31,487 American scientists have signed this petition,
including 9,029 with PhDs

Teller_Card_100dpi.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of my favorite sections on Peer Reviewed Research...

Summary of Peer-Reviewed Research

Most scientists have a detailed knowledge of their own narrow field of specialization, a general knowledge of fundamental science, an understanding of the scientific method, and a mental model that encompasses a broad range of scientific disciplines. This model serves as the basis of their thoughts about scientific questions.

When a scientist desires to refine his understanding of a specific scientific subject, he often begins by reading one or more review articles about that topic. As he reads, he compares the facts given in the review with his mental model of the subject, refining his model and updating it with current information. Review articles do not present new discoveries. The essential facts given in the review must be referenced to the peer-reviewed scientific research literature, so that the reader can check the assertions and conclusions of the article and obtain more detailed information about aspects that interest him.

A 12-page review article about the human-caused global warming hypothesis is circulated with the petition. To view the entire article in html, 150-dpi PDF, 300-dpi PDF, 600-dpi PDF, Spanish or figures alone in powerpoint or flash, click on the appropriate item in this sentence.

Article_First_Page_60.png

The factual information cited in this article is referenced to the underlying research literature, in this case by 132 references listed at the end of the article. Although written primarily for scientists, most of this article can be understood without formal scientific training. This article was submitted to many scientists for comments and suggestions before it was finalized and submitted for publication. It then underwent ordinary peer review by the publishing journal.

The United Nations IPCC also publishes a research review in the form of a voluminous, occasionally-updated report on the subject of climate change, which the United Nations asserts is “authored” by approximately 600 scientists. These “authors” are not, however – as is ordinarily the custom in science – permitted power of approval the published review of which they are putative authors. They are permitted to comment on the draft text, but the final text neither conforms to nor includes many of their comments. The final text conforms instead to the United Nations objective of building support for world taxation and rationing of industrially-useful energy.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Naomi, priceless!

It's not a matter of specific percentages. When asked for the color of my eyes, I don't respond to the question by giving a spectrum of frequencies.

What I mean by "scientific consensus" is just what I said. That the overwhelming majority...

And the "overwhelming majority" cannot be expressed in a percentage...hmm - must be that Common Core math.

You're just playing semantics. It's not that one can't pick a percentage to represent the idea of an "overwhelming majority". It's that it doesn't make much sense to do so because the definition is arbitrary. One person could say that it's 51%, another 90%, and still another 99.99999%. Any choice would lead to confusion if the definition is not specified. Butt if you do specify it then you might as well simply say that x% of scientists agree and leave it at that.

must be that Common Core math.

Don't even go there...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't even go there...

I am from NY City woman. I have walked at 2 AM in places you would't go with a tank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your might want to take some time in evaluating this project...

http://www.petitionproject.org/

The project is complete baloney.

First of all, according to the site:

Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields.

Simply having a bachelor's degree or even a PhD in a field of study in no way makes you an expert in that field. One actually has to be involved in ongoing scientific research in order to be considered a researcher.

Secondly,

All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement.

No, they don't, only the climatologists do (at least for claims about AGW which is what is being discussed) of which there are only 39.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of my favorite sections on Peer Reviewed Research...

Summary of Peer-Reviewed Research

Most scientists have a detailed knowledge of their own narrow field of specialization, a general knowledge of fundamental science, an understanding of the scientific method, and a mental model that encompasses a broad range of scientific disciplines. This model serves as the basis of their thoughts about scientific questions.

When a scientist desires to refine his understanding of a specific scientific subject, he often begins by reading one or more review articles about that topic. As he reads, he compares the facts given in the review with his mental model of the subject, refining his model and updating it with current information. Review articles do not present new discoveries. The essential facts given in the review must be referenced to the peer-reviewed scientific research literature, so that the reader can check the assertions and conclusions of the article and obtain more detailed information about aspects that interest him.

A 12-page review article about the human-caused global warming hypothesis is circulated with the petition. To view the entire article in html, 150-dpi PDF, 300-dpi PDF, 600-dpi PDF, Spanish or figures alone in powerpoint or flash, click on the appropriate item in this sentence.

Article_First_Page_60.png

The factual information cited in this article is referenced to the underlying research literature, in this case by 132 references listed at the end of the article. Although written primarily for scientists, most of this article can be understood without formal scientific training. This article was submitted to many scientists for comments and suggestions before it was finalized and submitted for publication. It then underwent ordinary peer review by the publishing journal.

The United Nations IPCC also publishes a research review in the form of a voluminous, occasionally-updated report on the subject of climate change, which the United Nations asserts is “authored” by approximately 600 scientists. These “authors” are not, however – as is ordinarily the custom in science – permitted power of approval the published review of which they are putative authors. They are permitted to comment on the draft text, but the final text neither conforms to nor includes many of their comments. The final text conforms instead to the United Nations objective of building support for world taxation and rationing of industrially-useful energy.

That was published by The Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine, which is not involved in any actual Climate research whatsoever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't even go there...

I am from NY City woman. I have walked at 2 AM in places you would't go with a tank.

Ja sam zivela na Kosovu (u Pristini) izmedu 1998 i 1999 dok je bio rat. Po noci nisam mogla da spavam zbog zvuka sirena i bombardovanja, a po danu sam skupljala caure sa ulica na kojim sam se igrala sa prijateljima pre nekoliko meseci.

Translation: I lived in Kosovo (in Pristina) between 1998 and 1999 during the war. At night I couldn't sleep from the sound of the sirens and bombardment, and during the day I collected bullet casings I found on the streets I played with my friends on just a few months before.

Your "tough guy" credentials don't impress me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the facts are precisely what make Ellen's statement there so entertaining.

Actually they would make you entertaining, but you sound too much like typical leftist propaganda.

I mean that literally. You guys keep repeating the consensus hype and hoping one day it will become a fact. But it never will and all it does nowadays is sound like propaganda. Not just to me. Look at the polls. This AWG stuff is tanking in public opinion.

Enjoy your true believer echo chamber, emails about fake data, intimidation of dissenting scientists, falsified reports, and all the other crap involved in this mess. And keep on blanking it out.

I doubt you will convince anyone on this board. I don't even think you are interested in convincing anyone anyway. I think you just want to laugh at the yokels like a true believer.

If you were interested in convincing folks, why don't you get someone who hasn't lied their asses off to present the AGW case, the consensus hype, etc? You can't because they don't exist, and I, for one, will not take serial liars seriously.

You keep asking people to prove AWG doesn't exist. Here's the deal. The people saying it does keep lying and getting caught. What on earth is there to prove? That this time they are not lying?

Heh.

WSS sometimes comes up with something reasonable to look at, but you never do.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the facts are precisely what make Ellen's statement there so entertaining.

Actually they would make you entertaining, but you sound too much like typical leftist propaganda.

I mean that literally. You guys keep repeating the consensus hype and hoping one day it will become a fact. But it never will and all it does nowadays is sound like propaganda. Not just to me. Look at the polls. This AWG stuff is tanking in public opinion.

Enjoy your true believer echo chamber, emails about fake data, intimidation of dissenting scientists, falsified reports, and all the other crap involved in this mess. And keep on blanking it out.

I doubt you will convince anyone on this board. I don't even think you are interested in convincing anyone anyway. I think you just want to laugh at the yokels like a true believer.

If you were interested in convincing folks, why don't you get someone who hasn't lied their asses off to present the AGW case, the consensus hype, etc? You can't because they don't exist, and I, for one, will not take serial liars seriously.

You keep asking people to prove AWG doesn't exist. Here's the deal. The people saying it does keep lying and getting caught. What on earth is there to prove? That this time they are not lying?

Heh.

WSS sometimes comes up with something reasonable to look at, but you never do.

Michael

Michael,

If it is in fact true that human activity has no significant effect on global warming, or that global warming doesn't exist, or both, then it should be easy to come up with the data and models that refute the AGW theory (i.e. explain temperature trends using only natural factors). However, as far as I know, no such data or models have been given or proposed by any climate researchers. If these AGW skeptics had the data which falsifies AGW, then why not just present it? I find it very suspicious when someone refuses to give the strongest possible case for their position. One also wonders how so many independent climate researches could all independently come up with the exact same falsehood.

However, if we assume that AGW is true, then that explains the current state of the field perfectly. The scientific method is reliable, and thus we should expect that the overwhelming majority of climate scientists believe that AGW is true. ALthough some might disagree, but then again there are biologists who believe in intelligent design.

Even if some scientists have been very bad boys and girls, that in no way disproves AGW. Only evidence can do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Redfhook, Bushwick, South Bronx, Arverne and Hell's Kitchen make a town in you live in about as dangerous as a church social.

However, puff your chest up anytime ... when you are ready, you fly into Kennedy and I'll some folks give you a guided tour.

They might even save your sorry ass from getting wasted just for fun.

Nite nite...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it is in fact true that human activity has no significant effect on global warming...

Naomi,

Please show me some credible models from those who do not lie. I have no interest in entertaining the thoughts of people who lie to my face, then lie again and again.

I don't care if their suppositions are true or not. If there is something to AGW, one day a credible person will bring it up. I have a lot of faith in people of good will.

I have none in the people you support. You deal with them.

I will only do so when they point a gun at my head.

I believe most people are starting to feel this way. Once again, look at the polls...

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it is in fact true that human activity has no significant effect on global warming...

Naomi,

Please show me some credible models from those who do not lie. I have no interest in entertaining the thoughts of people who lie to my face, then lie again and again.

I don't care if their suppositions are true or not. If there is something to AGW, one day a credible person will bring it up. I have a lot of faith in people of good will.

I have none in the people you support. You deal with them.

I will only do so when they point a gun at my head.

I believe most people are starting to feel this way. Once again, look at the polls...

Michael

There are thousands of papers on climate change that have been published in peer-reviewed journals such as Nature and Science. (or just go here and take your pick). If you want direct access to the current research, that would be the place to go. If you can't or won't do that, then buy a textbook on the subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael,

If it is in fact true that human activity has no significant effect on global warming, or that global warming doesn't exist, or both, then it should be easy to come up with the data and models that refute the AGW theory (i.e. explain temperature trends using only natural factors).

What percentage of atmospheric carbon dioxide is human produced?

However, as far as I know, no such data or models have been given or proposed by any climate researchers.

If you don't know, you can't have been looking.

If these AGW skeptics had the data which falsifies AGW, then why not just present it? I find it very suspicious when someone refuses to give the strongest possible case for their position. One also wonders how so many independent climate researches could all independently come up with the exact same falsehood.

How much of the actual papers have you read?

However, if we assume that AGW is true, then that explains the current state of the field perfectly. The scientific method is reliable, and thus we should expect that the overwhelming majority of climate scientists believe that AGW is true.

Where do you get that (supposed) information?

ALthough some might disagree, but then again there are biologists who believe in intelligent design.

Even if some scientists have been very bad boys and girls, that in no way disproves AGW. Only evidence can do that.

Have you ever heard of onus of proof? The person making a claim is the one required to provide evidence FOR the claim. Where is the evidence for AGW?

Ellen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are thousands of papers on climate change that have been published in peer-reviewed journals such as Nature and Science.

Two of the journals which are closed against counter material.

Ellen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[...] a consensus among people who employ the scientific method in their investigations [...].

A consensus among people who make models and guess and change the models, and the data, when the guesses don't pan out - and call this procedure "science."

Ellen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael,

If it is in fact true that human activity has no significant effect on global warming, or that global warming doesn't exist, or both, then it should be easy to come up with the data and models that refute the AGW theory (i.e. explain temperature trends using only natural factors).

What percentage of atmospheric carbon dioxide is human produced?

Each year, 720 GT of CO2 are pumped into the atmosphere, about 0.8% of which is done by humans.

If you don't know, you can't have been looking.

It's not that I'm not looking, it's that none exist.

How much of the actual papers have you read?

None. I don't have the money technical expertise to understand a scientific paper on climate science.

Where do you get that (supposed) information?

It's a perfectly reasonable logical inference.

Have you ever heard of onus of proof? The person making a claim is the one required to provide evidence FOR the claim. Where is the evidence for AGW?

There are thousands of papers that have been published in peer-reviewed journals that support AGW.

Papers that don't support AGW are virtually non-existent.

Now, in light of all this evidence in favor of AGW, if you disagree with it, then it must be that you have evidence that falsifies it. Do you? If so, I'd be very interested in seeing it. (I'm not holding my breath though)

There are thousands of papers on climate change that have been published in peer-reviewed journals such as Nature and Science.

Two of the journals which are closed against counter material.

Ellen

So?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[...] a consensus among people who employ the scientific method in their investigations [...].

A consensus among people who make models and guess and change the models, and the data, when the guesses don't pan out - and call this procedure "science."

Ellen

Wow, it's almost as if those models are fallible or something. Surely, no real scientific theory has ever been disproven in the history of actual science. :rolleyes:

Honestly I would be a lot more concerned if the models did not change in response to falsifying evidence.

Further, all the data collected so far supports AGW.

How would you know that the data has been fudged unless you have the real data? Where is that data?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are thousands of papers on climate change that have been published in peer-reviewed journals such as Nature and Science. (or just go here and take your pick). If you want direct access to the current research, that would be the place to go. If you can't or won't do that, then buy a textbook on the subject.

Heh.

Why do you think, with this, the public support for AGW is tanking so badly?

These scientists have discredited their profession badly.

Peer reviewed = government toady in the public mind for AGW. Deservedly so. They should be ashamed of themselves for selling out their integrity for money. Science is supposed to be objective.

Notice that toady image for AWG scientists grows and grows with each passing day. Ignore it if you must, but that won't stop the growth.

Like I said, enjoy your echo chamber. Don't despair as the echoes lose more and more sound. That's just what happens to discredited people.

I'm certainly not taking these folks seriously any more. I did at one time and I was not on one side or the other. I was trying to understand this issue. See some early threads here on OL for the kerfuffles. Long and longwinded, acrimonious, sourced threads with science quotes galore, like this topic always generates.

If I'm not doing that sourcing here, it's because you are really late to this party, but saying all the same things in the same manner as before, mocking and all. It's like someone time-traveled from back then to now. Same old crap every time this issue comes up.

You're a true believer on this issue, not a proponent of science. If you were, you would be mocking the AWG scientists who have been caught lying and playing dirty with scientists who disagree with them along with mocking us yokels. But you don't. You support the bullies sight unseen.

That's faith, not reason. Us against them cult thinking.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are thousands of papers on climate change that have been published in peer-reviewed journals such as Nature and Science. (or just go here and take your pick). If you want direct access to the current research, that would be the place to go. If you can't or won't do that, then buy a textbook on the subject.

Heh.

Why do you think, with this, the public support for AGW is tanking so badly?

These scientists have discredited their profession badly.

Peer reviewed = government toady in the public mind for AGW. Deservedly so. They should be ashamed of themselves for selling out their integrity for money. Science is supposed to be objective.

Notice that toady image for AWG scientists grows and grows with each passing day. Ignore it if you must, but that won't stop the growth.

Like I said, enjoy your echo chamber. Don't despair as the echoes lose more and more sound. That's just what happens to discredited people.

I'm certainly not taking these folks seriously any more. I did at one time. See some early threads here on OL for the kerfuffles. Long and longwinded, acrimonious, sourced threads with science quotes galore, like this topic always generates.

If I'm not doing that sourcing here, it's because you are really late to this party, but saying all the same things in the same manner as before, mocking and all. It's like someone time-traveled from back then to now. Same old crap every time this issue comes up.

You're a true believer on this issue, not a proponent of science. If you were, you would be mocking the AWG scientists who have been caught lying and playing dirty with scientists who disagree with them along with mocking us yokels. But you don't. You support the bullies sight unseen.

That's faith, not reason. Us against them cult thinking.

Michael

The public believes a lot of stupid things.

---------------------------------------------------------

There are definitely those scientists who have engaged in scientific fraud. They deserve to be mocked.

However AGW is sound science done by honest scientists. A proponent of science respects the work of scientists and the scientific method.

What most people here are doing is engaging in conspiracy theory and irrational denialism because they don't like the possible public policy implications that AGW might have. Nobody here has presented a single bit of evidence that contradicts AGW, which is what they would do if they actually had a rational basis for being skeptical. Additionally they claim that because some AGW scientists are guilty of scientific fraud it must mean that all AGW science is fraudulent. This is not respect for science. It is the politicization of science. You are doing precisely what you accuse "the bullies" of doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are definitely those scientists who have engaged in scientific fraud. They deserve to be mocked.

Well we certainly won't find you doing that, will we?

It's not in the mythology you worship.

The rest of what you say is same old same old... leftist caricaturing of people not in their cult and pretending that is science.

Not interested.

When are you going to start calling this racism? That is coming down the pike. :)

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[...] a consensus among people who employ the scientific method in their investigations [...].

A consensus among people who make models and guess and change the models, and the data, when the guesses don't pan out - and call this procedure "science."

Ellen

The nature of physical science is such that we must constantly be ready to deal with contrary fact, see where our dearest theories have failed and be ready to go back to zero and start over again.

Nature is Always Right and our principles must be crafted to follow where nature leads.

The enemy is NOT nature. It is the attitude and belief that there are principles that -must- be true. A Priori reasoning and common sense always must do battle with nature and nature always wins.

The only a prior principle we cannot do without is the law of non contradiction. Why must we hold that dear? Because our brains won't work in the face of a logical contradiction. Any hypothesis or theory we come up with must be logically consistent. I suspect that being bound to the principle of non-contradiction is related to the way our brain processes language. It is connected with our ability to do mathematics and logic. Our brains cannot be like Schrodinger's Cat, both dead and not dead. We simply cannot have A and not-A at the same time under the same conditions. It is a limitation that is wired in naturally.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...