Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 13261 - 13280 of total 28426 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Oct 2, 2013 - 01:39am PT
Of course...
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Oct 2, 2013 - 02:00am PT
here pussy pussy pussy....


from some forgetable christian rag:

“There seems to be a misunderstanding about science,” said Dr. Roy Spencer, climatologist and principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, Ala., at The Heritage Foundation-hosted event.

Spencer said there are two parts to science: measurements and interpretation of the measurements.

“I think people think that science is as simple as making measurements,” Spencer said. “[But] believe it or not most scientists – probably all the scientists I know that work in climate change – do have religious views about the earth and how fragile it is and that colors their research and how they interpret data.”

Follow us Get CP eNewsletter ››

He pointed to the recent leaked e-mails by the world’s top climate scientists that suggest they have manipulated data to support their claim of the threat of global warming. Spencer said he believes those scientists did so because they are “true believers” that the earth is fragile.

“These scientists are absolutely convinced that we are destroying the environment,” Spencer said, “that mankind has caused all the global warming that we have seen…They believe it is serious and the way they look at it – all data, all measurements, there are errors in the data – is that all the errors in the data are not showing the warning.”

He continued, “So it is reasonable to analyze the data in ways that maximize the warning signal. I’m thinking this is the way they are thinking and that it’s okay in their eyes. I think they are blinded by their worldview, which is global warming is due to mankind.”

The evangelical climatologist says he has been researching the earth’s feedbacks to increased CO2 in the atmosphere – which he calls the “biggest missing piece” in the climate change puzzle – for the past few years.

He agrees that CO2, a greenhouse gas, is increasing in the atmosphere and that it is largely due to human activities. The question, however, is how is the climate system responding to the little increase in warming. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, he noted, agrees the direct warming from the greenhouse gases is small. The difference is how big an impact is the warming having on the climate system.


listen to this guy! Hes still claiming that the emails are evidence of manipulation of the science and he has the gall to claim "they are blinded by their world view"...... yet he - a young earther - is immune from that himself?
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Oct 2, 2013 - 09:06am PT
Of Course....

So that’s it: the 15+ years period of no temperature increase is, according to the IPCC, a non-event, barely worth mentioning in the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM). The explanation is simple: we are just witnessing short usual natural variations of the climate that are consistent with climate models. The question about whether those models had foreseen this so-called “hiatus” is just irrelevant: move along!

But let’s just imagine for a while that since around 2000, the world had seen a warming bigger than everything the IPCC had ever predicted. I mean a situation just opposite to what we have been experiencing until now with regard to model forecasts. What would have been the analysis proposed by the IPCC in its SPM report?



SCIENCE:

We live in a scientific age. The sciences are viewed as the only real sources of authoritative information. Knowledge derived from other epistemological systems is regarded as having less credibility. The conclusions of philosophy are untestable, and religion is often cynically interpreted as nothing more than superstition and myth. Public policy decisions made upon the basis of scientific recommendations may have economic consequences measured in trillions of dollars. Yet few people realize how unreliable scientific authority can be.

The popular conception is that scientists dispassionately discover truth through a foolproof technique called the scientific method. In some simplistic views, the scientific method reduces to a series of procedural steps analogous to instructions in a cookbook. The results produced by this hypothetical scientific method are verified by something called peer review, a process that allegedly certifies reliability.

But the common understanding of science is largely an ignorant misconception.


Although most science is based on observation and reason, there is no such thing as an agreed upon scientific method. It doesn’t exist. With the exception of supernaturalism, almost everything is allowed in the sciences. Both inductive and deductive logic are employed. Analogical reasoning is alright. So are speculation and hunches. Serendipity plays a role in scientific discovery. Both radioactivity and penicillin were discovered accidentally. Objectivity is not required or taught, nor are there any totally objective human beings. Bias is ubiquitous and fraud occurs.

Peer review is a highly unreliable process that produces nothing but opinion. A study conducted in 2010 concluded that reviewers agree “at a rate barely exceeding what would be expected by chance.” Furthermore, the peer review process may be, and usually is, cynically manipulated. Scientists aggregate in social cliques that facilitate orthodoxy and suppress dissent. When manuscripts are submitted for review authors are commonly asked to suggest reviewers. Invariably these tend to be acquaintances holding the same views. Thus peer review often amounts to pal review. Neither does peer review detect fraud. In 2011, Tilburg University in the Netherlands suspended psychologist Diederik Stapel for publishing at least 55 scientific research papers based on fabricated data.

US Secretary of State John Kerry has said that climate science is “irrefutable.” He is categorically wrong. There is no certainty in science. The very notion of scientific consensus implies that the validity of scientific knowledge is subject to human judgment and therefore inherently problematic. No one speaks of consensus when discussing geometrical proofs. Scientists are not philosophers trained to avoid intellectual fallacies, but technical specialists possessing ideological and political persuasions that influence their scientific activity. Like other human beings, they tend to take note of what is consistent with preexisting beliefs and filter out what contradicts preconceptions. The influence of money can be corrupting. A group of people offered billions of dollars to investigate climate change is unlikely to conclude that it is a benign, natural process unworthy of further attention.

The history of science is a chronicle of revision. For two thousand years, physicists maintained that heavy objects fall faster than light ones. Astronomers thought the Sun moved around the Earth. Physicians supposed that plagues were caused by bad air and treated their patients by bleeding them to death. The icons of the Scientific Revolution, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton, all made serious errors. In the late eighteenth century, Neptunists formulated a theory to explain the origin of rocks. They described their conclusions as incontrovertible because everywhere they looked they found evidence that supported their theoretical conceptions. The Neptunist theory turned out to be completely erroneous. At the end of the nineteenth century, geologists thought the Earth was less than 100 million years old. Radioactive dating in the twentieth century showed they were in error by a factor of 46. In the 1920s, American geologists rejected Alfred Wegener’s theory of continental drift with near unanimity. They were all wrong. The history of science is a history of error. Has the process of history ceased? Has human nature changed?

We are now asked to change the world’s economy on the basis of yet another scientific theory. The fifth assessment report of the IPCC has concluded that there is a 95 percent probability that humans are responsible for climate change. We are induced to accept this conclusion on the basis of naive faith in scientific authority. But this faith can only come from an ignorance of how science really works. Count me out.
PhD.


Exactly.


Oh the hypocrisy continues.
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 2, 2013 - 10:28am PT
We are now asked to change the world’s economy on the basis of yet another scientific theory. The fifth assessment report of the IPCC has concluded that there is a 95 percent probability that humans are responsible for climate change. We are induced to accept this conclusion on the basis of naive faith in scientific authority.

There is a point where the theory turns into fact.


Get this, there's 100 doctors in a clinic. 95 say the infection is going to kill you if you don't take a strong dose antibiotics. The other 5, who have been shown to be shamers, say "You're fine, don't do a thing."

In this scenario, The Chief would be happy listening to the 5, because heck, those antibiotics are expensive!!



Hey The Chief, ever go to a western doctor, who bases their practice on science? Did you ever take a pill??

Oh, the hypocrisy is deafening.
Malemute

Ice climber
the ghost
Oct 2, 2013 - 10:39am PT
Never take advice from the village idiot.

Unless the query could be answered by a 5 year old.
Such as "where's the post office?"
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Oct 2, 2013 - 10:47am PT
In this scenario, The Chief would be happy listening to the 5, because heck, those antibiotics are expensive!!

Of significance is that wether he listens to the 5% or the 95%, he has no choice but to listen to and abide by the advice of someone other than himself. In other words he is not self reliant. He can look at all the graphs he likes, he still dosn't have the tools to decide for himself.

So then you ask by what measure does he decide who to listen to? Well, those antibiotics are expensive of course!



Unless the query could be answered by a 5 year old.
Such as "where's the post office?"

Its amazing how even that can't get a straight answer.....



Arkansas Traveler Lyrics

Hey farmer, you been livin' here all your life?
not yet

Hey farmer, where does this road go?
Been livin' here all my life, it ain't gone nowhere yet

Hey farmer, how do you get to Little Rock?
Listen stranger, you can't get there from here

Hey farmer, thought you said that mud-hole weren't very deep?
Only comes up to here on me ducks

Hey farmer, when you gonna fix that leakin' roof?
Ah stranger, when it's a rainin' it's too wet to fix it
And when it's dry it's just as good as any man's house

Hey farmer, you're not too far from a fool are you?
Just a barbed-wire fence between us

Hey farmer, you don't know very much do you?
No, but I ain't lost



Read more: Michelle Shocked - Arkansas Traveler Lyrics | MetroLyrics
Malemute

Ice climber
the ghost
Oct 2, 2013 - 11:23am PT
^ should be drawn in crayon
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Oct 2, 2013 - 11:27am PT
Of Course...
anita514

Gym climber
Great White North
Oct 2, 2013 - 11:38am PT
how about making a 3D graph with play doh and legos?
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Oct 2, 2013 - 11:41am PT
Of Course...

But what is really of interest is not what the village idiot thinks. We want to know what that pillar of intellectual debate and nuanced reasoning thinks - Dr Sumner. Surely he will follow the lead of his crush JC and explain the difference in significance of probable bias between the Agenda 21 crowd and the Cornhole alliance. Ricks long history of principled debate through the looking glass of a shot glass of rye with his debating compadres at the U of Wassilllla bar and grill debating and opining society has honed his skills to a whip designed specifically for the "Green Dragon".

So Rick - are you in general agreance with your mentor and wet dream Sweet Judy blue Eyes on the subject of tribal authoritarianism applied to science?
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Oct 2, 2013 - 12:02pm PT
Hey The Chief, ever go to a western doctor, who bases their practice on science?

Ah, I do not know what kind of physician you go to. But mine DOES NOT depend on a system of failing totally bias fortune telling computer models to fix my shet up when it's broken. Thank god.

BTW, both of my two regular Physicians are God Fearing men who totally disdain anything that MMGW stands for. One is an award winning Ortho Surgeon/Knee Specialist and senior member of the USSA/US SKI TEAM Ortho Surgery Staff. An OPEN and professing Creationist.
dirtbag

climber
Oct 2, 2013 - 12:20pm PT
^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^



anita514

Gym climber
Great White North
Oct 2, 2013 - 12:31pm PT
Chef, why do you hate PhDs?
am I sensing a lil jealousy? or... ???
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Oct 2, 2013 - 12:40pm PT
Anita and DIRTBAG should get together and share their Lego's and open orifices. Of course FRONTAL will buy an immediate ticket to Montreal in order to watch. Cus that is all he is capable of doing.... down instrument and all.
dirtbag

climber
Oct 2, 2013 - 12:46pm PT
What a creep.
anita514

Gym climber
Great White North
Oct 2, 2013 - 12:49pm PT
why do you keep talking about my orifice? gross
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Oct 2, 2013 - 12:55pm PT
Of Course....

See the thread below Anita and get up to speed with life....dah.

What a creep... Let your dreams run wild

Per your thread BAGLADY..

http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=2238245&msg=2238245#msg2238245

Oh the hypocrisy lives.
dirtbag

climber
Oct 2, 2013 - 12:59pm PT
What a f*#king dodge chief. I don't give a crap if you talk about me. I think its funny to tell you the truth. But the last few times Anita has joined us, and before that thread was posted, you've acted like that creepy old guy .
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Oct 2, 2013 - 01:02pm PT
Anita, asking direct and simple questions of the Chuff will get you no where in a hurry.

However this may provide some answers...



http://www.queensu.ca/psychology/Quinsey/publications/sexoffenders/WalkerRoweQuinseyJPSP1993.pdf



http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224545.1963.9919467?journalCode=vsoc20#.UkxRvxwxeH8
anita514

Gym climber
Great White North
Oct 2, 2013 - 01:09pm PT
actually, the Chief, you were referring to my vulva last week, as well as my lardoass.
are you obsessed with me?
Messages 13261 - 13280 of total 28426 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews