| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/06/2009 09:08:04 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by VitaminB:
I will reiterate... Christopher Booker is hardly the kind of journalist editorialist I trust to give me info on scientific matters. If I did trust him, I would have cancer from second hand smoke and asbestos. |
Oh come now... he's an award winning journalist. |
|
|
|
12/06/2009 09:10:32 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by VitaminB:
I will reiterate... Christopher Booker is hardly the kind of journalist editorialist I trust to give me info on scientific matters. If I did trust him, I would have cancer from second hand smoke and asbestos. |
Oh come now... he's an award winning journalist. |
I heard he is in line for a Stella award, Darwin Award, Razzie, and Ig Nobel prize too :) |
|
|
|
12/06/2009 10:25:02 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by VitaminB:
I heard he is in line for a Stella award, Darwin Award, Razzie, and Ig Nobel prize too :) |
Maybe those awards should be reserved for his employers, who appear to have a history of distorting climate science for sensationalism. In light of such a blatant misrepresentation and cover-up on the subject, it's ironic that this would be considered a credible source to claim conspiracy theories, huh?
Off-topic, but noted at the Bad Science site: YIKES!
Message edited by author 2009-12-06 22:53:18. |
|
|
|
12/06/2009 11:32:54 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by VitaminB:
I will reiterate... Christopher Booker is hardly the kind of journalist editorialist I trust to give me info on scientific matters. If I did trust him, I would have cancer from second hand smoke and asbestos. |
Smoking is clearly dangerous, but I think the science of second hand smoke is pretty thin. Here is a story about third hand smoke...you better start worrying. //www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-is-third-hand-smoke
I haven't studied mad cow disease. Do you get that from climate change?
Evolution theory has a lot of holes in it. Other theories should be explored.
Christopher Booker sometimes takes the road less traveled. It doesn't always pan out, but the basis of good science is sceptisicsm. The herd of sheep mentality is often wrong. |
|
|
|
12/06/2009 11:57:53 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by cloudsme:
I think the science of second hand smoke is pretty thin...
Evolution theory has a lot of holes in it...
The so called scientists who have made the best case for global warming have no data to back it up. |
Hey, whaddya know... these are all on the same page. |
|
|
|
12/07/2009 06:15:05 AM · #56 |
Originally posted by cloudsme:
It doesn't always pan out, but the basis of good science is sceptisicsm. The herd of sheep mentality is often wrong. |
Your wrong. The basis of good science is peer reviewed experimentation. Christopher Booker, the skeptic, is no scientist.
Evolution has had thousands of peer reviewed experiments. Intelligent Design: Zero.
Second hand smoke has had hundreds of peer reviwed experiments.
Asbestos has had hundreds of peer reviewed experiments.
Climate change has had hundreds of peer reviewed experiments/analyses. For climate change/global warming to get 'knocked down' it will take more than a few stolen emails. |
|
|
|
12/07/2009 06:20:47 AM · #57 |
It's incredible how politicians have actually caused society to regress on this matter.
The climate is changing; objective science has shown that. And politicians, for their own interests, manipulate and falsify information about climate change. |
|
|
|
12/07/2009 09:01:24 AM · #58 |
Originally posted by VitaminB:
Originally posted by cloudsme:
It doesn't always pan out, but the basis of good science is sceptisicsm. The herd of sheep mentality is often wrong. |
Your wrong. The basis of good science is peer reviewed experimentation. Christopher Booker, the skeptic, is no scientist.
Evolution has had thousands of peer reviewed experiments. Intelligent Design: Zero.
Second hand smoke has had hundreds of peer reviwed experiments.
Asbestos has had hundreds of peer reviewed experiments.
Climate change has had hundreds of peer reviewed experiments/analyses. For climate change/global warming to get 'knocked down' it will take more than a few stolen emails. |
No good peer review on climate change. That is one of the points of climategate. Anybody who disagrees is ridiculed and not allowed to publish. Evolution is still a theory. I am not supporting intelligent design, just saying that it is okay to give it a hearing. Don't be so closed minded. I have looked at the second hand smoke studies and they are weak. It is a theory supported by trial lawyers. I can't comment on asbestos, haven't studied it.
I have been burned by going along with the crowd on proven science. I used to prescribe estrogen to women because the science was clear that it was a good thing for them, even though I felt in my senses that it wasn't. It was all peer reviewed by the way. Little did I know, that drug companies were behind all that great research. The same thing is going on with Vitamin D research now. We are in Vitamin D euphoria, where it cures everything. It's not true.
Global warming is so fun to argue, because it shows science at its worst. It is clear that the globe isn't warming. You only have to go outside. The ridiculous claims made about global warming are funny, like global warming caused hurricane Katrina. Not many hurricanes the last few years, but nobody says that finding is significant because it doesn't fit the template. And the hypocrites. Look at all the private jets flying to Copenhagen. They don't believe that they are causing global warming. So hypocritical it is laughable. They just want to take power and our money. You are about to be robbed. Don't be afraid, consider that the global warming scare is fake. The evidence is all around you.
//www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6736517/Copenhagen-climate-summit-1200-limos-140-private-planes-and-caviar-wedges.html |
|
|
|
12/07/2009 09:29:08 AM · #59 |
Originally posted by cloudsme:
No good peer review on climate change. That is one of the points of climategate. Anybody who disagrees is ridiculed and not allowed to publish. |
Anybody who disagrees with global warming is certainly welcome to offer actual data (not opinions), but there just ISN'T any. There's no mystery or conspiracy here... you don't see peer reviewed articles disputing AGW for the same reason you don't see peer reviewed articles disputing heliocentricity: it's crackpot material. There is absolute concurrence from too many studies from too many serious researchers in too many independent lines of research to reach any other conclusion. "Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion."
""Modern skepticism," according to Michael Shermer, editor of the scientific skepticism quarterly Skeptic, "is embodied in the scientific method, that involves gathering data to formulate and test naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena. A claim becomes factual when it is confirmed to such an extent it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement." Terms such as "deny global warming" and "climate change denial" have been used since 2000 to describe business opposition to the current scientific consensus. Organizations such as the Global Climate Coalition, according to a leaked 1991 "strategy memo," set out not to gather data and test explanations, but to influence public perception of climate change science and "reposition global warming as theory rather than fact.""
Global warming denial is a PR campaign of disinformation, nothing more. Here is your Climategate: "A survey carried out by the UK's Royal Society found that in 2005 ExxonMobil distributed $2.9m to 39 groups that the society said "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence.""
Originally posted by cloudsme:
Evolution is still a theory. I am not supporting intelligent design, just saying that it is okay to give it a hearing. Don't be so closed minded. I have looked at the second hand smoke studies and they are weak. It is a theory supported by trial lawyers. I can't comment on asbestos, haven't studied it. |
...and the earth is flat, we never landed on the moon, the Holocaust was a hoax, vaccines are secret mind control agents, and the government is still exploiting alien technology from Roswell. ROFLMAO!
Message edited by author 2009-12-07 11:10:43. |
|
|
|
12/07/2009 11:21:48 AM · #60 |
Originally posted by robs:
I never really understood the anger in the debate..... This is way oversimplified but....
* Does anyone honestly think that dumping crap into the air is good.
|
I don't think it's oversimplified |
|
|
|
12/07/2009 11:25:44 AM · #61 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
... Here is your Climategate: "A survey carried out by the UK's Royal Society found that in 2005 ExxonMobil distributed $2.9m to 39 groups that the society said "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence."" ... |
Thanks, Shannon. I'm glad someone has the energy to continue to refute the glut of misinformation. |
|
|
|
12/07/2009 11:26:10 AM · #62 |
Originally posted by cloudsme:
I have been burned by going along with the crowd on proven science. I used to prescribe estrogen to women because the science was clear that it was a good thing for them, even though I felt in my senses that it wasn't. It was all peer reviewed by the way. Little did I know, that drug companies were behind all that great research. |
I would think that would make you especially skeptical of climate "research" conducted by oil and coal companies.
Message edited by author 2009-12-07 11:28:55. |
|
|
|
12/07/2009 01:13:19 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by cloudsme:
It is clear that the globe isn't warming. You only have to go outside. |
Do you change your mind about global warming if the weather in your area is hotter than normal? Do you become skeptical if it is colder than normal?
Climate and weather are different. Differences between weather and climate |
|
|
|
12/07/2009 01:36:49 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by cloudsme:
It is clear that the globe isn't warming. You only have to go outside. |
Your front door is not the globe, and just because it's cooler at one spot doesn't mean others can't go outside and reach a very different conclusion.
Message edited by author 2009-12-07 13:37:01. |
|
|
|
12/07/2009 09:21:04 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by cloudsme:
No good peer review on climate change. That is one of the points of climategate. Anybody who disagrees is ridiculed and not allowed to publish. |
Anybody who disagrees with global warming is certainly welcome to offer actual data (not opinions), but there just ISN'T any. There's no mystery or conspiracy here... you don't see peer reviewed articles disputing AGW for the same reason you don't see peer reviewed articles disputing heliocentricity: it's crackpot material. There is absolute concurrence from too many studies from too many serious researchers in too many independent lines of research to reach any other conclusion. "Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion."
""Modern skepticism," according to Michael Shermer, editor of the scientific skepticism quarterly Skeptic, "is embodied in the scientific method, that involves gathering data to formulate and test naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena. A claim becomes factual when it is confirmed to such an extent it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement." Terms such as "deny global warming" and "climate change denial" have been used since 2000 to describe business opposition to the current scientific consensus. Organizations such as the Global Climate Coalition, according to a leaked 1991 "strategy memo," set out not to gather data and test explanations, but to influence public perception of climate change science and "reposition global warming as theory rather than fact.""
Global warming denial is a PR campaign of disinformation, nothing more. Here is your Climategate: "A survey carried out by the UK's Royal Society found that in 2005 ExxonMobil distributed $2.9m to 39 groups that the society said "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence.""
Originally posted by cloudsme:
Evolution is still a theory. I am not supporting intelligent design, just saying that it is okay to give it a hearing. Don't be so closed minded. I have looked at the second hand smoke studies and they are weak. It is a theory supported by trial lawyers. I can't comment on asbestos, haven't studied it. |
...and the earth is flat, we never landed on the moon, the Holocaust was a hoax, vaccines are secret mind control agents, and the government is still exploiting alien technology from Roswell. ROFLMAO! |
...You cannot put the secret global warming data on the same page as the shape of the earth. I do believe we landed on the moon, watched the space shuttle take off a few months ago and it was spectacular, my mother escaped from Germany when she was 6 years old, parents left everything behind, my grandfather saw what was happening at the very start and he tried to warn others but they didn't listen (it runs in the family), I did get my H1N1 vaccine and have recomended it to my patients, but what happened to the epidemic? UFO's? maybe, I don't know.
Campbell Brown devoted a good portion of her show to Climategate and the meeting in Copenhagen. At the end she had the head of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri on. He said his private emails were worse than ones that were leaked. Boy did that sound bad. Overall it was a fairly balanced presentation. Michael Moore was on, and his explanation of his manipulations was nonsensical. Michael Oppenheimer sounded smooth, like a lawyer, (I think he might be one?) His best argument is that they are peer reviewed and we can trust them. After Pachauri's statement, I'm not really sure we can trust them.
My conclusion from watching CNN's expose; Tree ring data is totally invalid. Without it, you can't say that the bit of warming we had in the 1990's has any historic significance. Meanwhile, watch for big power grab at the EPA, as they try to do what congress won't. All of you who value liberty should be very concerned. |
|
|
|
12/07/2009 11:13:12 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by cloudsme:
Tree ring data is totally invalid. Without it, you can't say that the bit of warming we had in the 1990's has any historic significance. |
LOL, again. Earlier you were claiming that the tree ring data was hidden because it proves there is no warming. Now you say that warming can only be shown WITH the tree ring data. Do you even know what you're babbling about? I think not.
For an issue that seems to concern you so deeply, many of your posts ("just step outside...") make it painfully clear that you don't have the faintest clue what you're talking about. There's nothing wrong with skepticism, but you're not even diluting the Flavor Aid— just chugging it straight from the Telegraph despite proof that they intentionally publish fraudulent info. You've literally bought into the conspiracy of disinformation so deeply that you can't accept anything else. How can anyone possibly believe that tabloid news sensationalists, mercenary think tanks and discredited blog authors are more credible sources of information than the thousands of independent researchers who actually have expertise in these fields and study hard data? It's like distrusting board certified physicians because you only believe the witch doctors. It boggles the mind. |
|
|
|
12/08/2009 12:23:05 AM · #67 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by cloudsme:
Tree ring data is totally invalid. Without it, you can't say that the bit of warming we had in the 1990's has any historic significance. |
LOL, again. Earlier you were claiming that the tree ring data was hidden because it proves there is no warming. Now you say that warming can only be shown WITH the tree ring data. Do you even know what you're babbling about? I think not.
For an issue that seems to concern you so deeply, many of your posts ("just step outside...") make it painfully clear that you don't have the faintest clue what you're talking about. There's nothing wrong with skepticism, but you're not even diluting the Flavor Aid— just chugging it straight from the Telegraph despite proof that they intentionally publish fraudulent info. You've literally bought into the conspiracy of disinformation so deeply that you can't accept anything else. How can anyone possibly believe that tabloid news sensationalists, mercenary think tanks and discredited blog authors are more credible sources of information than the thousands of independent researchers who actually have expertise in these fields and study hard data? It's like distrusting board certified physicians because you only believe the witch doctors. It boggles the mind. |
I meant just step outside your closed mind. As far as the tree ring data goes, it was faked, raw data was claimed to be lost but is probably hidden, and that makes it invalid. It was supposed to prove that the little bit of warming we had in the 1990's was historic, rather than a common variation.
We are both accusing each other of putting our faith in people that intentionally publish fraudulent information. In time we will know the truth. I have seen large groups of scientists be quite certain about subjects before, only to be found out wrong in the end. Our climate is so complex, it is amuseing to me that anyone would be so arrogant to think they have it figured out. You have put your faith in scientists with an agenda. I have certainly made that mistake before in my lifetime. Hopefully my point of view is correct, and we are in no danger of fiery death.
All of this being said, I am not opposed to finding better ways to fuel our lives. I love a clean environment as much as the next fellow. I don't like paying all that money to countries who don't like us for oil. I just think these scare tactics are the wrong way to convince people.
Your comments reminded me of a story. I have been a board certified physician for 22 years. Early in my career, a woman came in with a mass in her pelvis. It was large, and showed up on our ultrasound scans (I admit the scans were not as good back then). I told her she needed surgery, but she insisted on going home and praying. She said that God would take care of it. I strongly disagreed with her, but she insisted that was what she wanted. A while later she came in and was ready for surgery. At the time of surgery, no mass was found.
Good night
|
|
|
|
12/08/2009 01:01:55 AM · #68 |
Originally posted by cloudsme:
As far as the tree ring data goes, it was faked, raw data was claimed to be lost but is probably hidden, and that makes it invalid. It was supposed to prove that the little bit of warming we had in the 1990's was historic, rather than a common variation. |
A. What evidence do you have that anything was faked or lost?
B. Scientists have confirmed the same result (that recent warming is far greater that at any point in at least the past 1,300 years) using corals, cave deposits, sediments, ice cores, etc., so even if you completely ignore tree rings, it changes nothing.
Regarding your story... have you since given up on surgery in favor of prayer? If you think climate science is a matter of faith and speculation, then put up or shut up: show me something that you think was faked or distorted along with the evidence for it. Let's see how well your claims stand up to scrutiny. |
|
|
|
12/08/2009 07:23:14 AM · #69 |
Originally posted by cloudsme:
Hopefully my point of view is correct, and we are in no danger of fiery death.
|
I truly and honestly hope that you are right too. If you are not, we are screwed, because the global warming deniers are doing their best to railroad any chances to doing something significant about it.
The question then, is, what if you are wrong? You have been before, as you mentioned about estrogen therapy. You said that you put your trust in the scientists that recommended it, and they were wrong. Now, you are putting your trust in some skeptical journalists, and scientists that have connections to the oil industry. What happens if history shows that they are wrong, and it is too late to do anything significant about it.
As you mentioned, you like a clean environment as much as the next guy. Scare tactics aside, would you support legislation that would reduce our collective ecological footprint? Reduce reliance on oil? Generate electricity in a renewable way? Overall become more sustainable, or perhaps even carbon neutral? |
|
|
|
12/08/2009 07:25:37 AM · #70 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by cloudsme:
As far as the tree ring data goes, it was faked, raw data was claimed to be lost but is probably hidden, and that makes it invalid. It was supposed to prove that the little bit of warming we had in the 1990's was historic, rather than a common variation. |
A. What evidence do you have that anything was faked or lost?
B. Scientists have confirmed the same result (that recent warming is far greater that at any point in at least the past 1,300 years) using corals, cave deposits, sediments, ice cores, etc., so even if you completely ignore tree rings, it changes nothing.
Regarding your story... have you since given up on surgery in favor of prayer? If you think climate science is a matter of faith and speculation, then put up or shut up: show me something that you think was faked or distorted along with the evidence for it. Let's see how well your claims stand up to scrutiny. |
The point of the story is; be careful when you are sure of what is going on. You will often get bit. I think the tree ring data was distorted, the evidence being the emails and the scientists inability to release their original data.
I can't say why we don't believe global warming is real better than Mona Charan does in this opinion piece.
//www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/12/08/torquemada_in_east_anglia_99445.html
I will read any replies, but won't post anymore on this thread. Thanks for all of your comments. |
|
|
|
12/08/2009 09:57:31 AM · #71 |
Originally posted by cloudsme:
I think the tree ring data was distorted, the evidence being the emails and the scientists inability to release their original data. |
The "trick" and data release non-issues have been debunked several times. Quoting a new source for myths doesn't suddenly make them valid. Since you apparently refuse to read or accept the simple explanations, I'll demonstrate in DPC terms why your emperor has no clothes:
Let's say User X suspects a photo was illegally edited in a Basic challenge. The user requests validation, then the SC checks it out and declares the editing OK. Now say this particular user suffers from a paranoid delusion that the challenges are all rigged. He believes the Site Council is getting kickbacks, has some agenda or is playing favorites to allow their "buddies" to dodge the rules. With that mindset, it doesn't matter what we say— User X will continue to believe the photo was illegally edited (without any proof or evidence whatsoever), and rant against the "corrupt" SC and unfair contests. Unfortunately, we have several users who actually do this on a regular basis. Now let's fast forward 5 years and say a hacker makes the hidden SC forums visible to all users. Oh, my! Look at all the incriminating evidence! User X finds a comment that Manic matched the "trick" of hiding a prominent dust speck in the aforementioned entry. "Aha!" screams X, "Here's the smoking gun that the entry was illegally edited, and the SC tried to cover it up!" Uh, noâ€Â¦ all it means is that he figured out how to duplicate a perfectly legal technique. User X demands to see the original RAW file, but the SC refuses due to site policies that prohibit us from releasing a member's copyrighted work. "Aha!" he trumpets again, "It IS a cover up, and they don't have the original data to back it up! This means every entry validated by SC is suspect, and the regular ribbon winners all cheat!" Er, noâ€Â¦ the file exists, and we just aren't allowed to release it. Moreover, the same entry was declared legal on four separate contest sites, and other DPC entries were independently validated by different Site Council members under a variety of rulesets, all of which reinforces the general integrity of the site and the regular ribbon winners (a bad apple or two notwithstanding).
Net result: User X is making an issue out of absolutely nothing to support his unfounded belief. The claims are groundless, but he'll still find some sympathetic members that agree with his conclusionsâ€Â¦ even if User X himself has been caught illegally editing photos multiple times, and has been buddy voting with other known cheaters. That is pure, unsupported belief, and the polar opposite of an open mind.
Message edited by author 2009-12-08 10:37:53. |
|
|
|
12/09/2009 06:03:50 PM · #72 |
I know that skeptics won't read the links I am about to post, but I'll waste my time anyway
Woods Hole
Timesonline
Dissident Voice
NASA
Just a few of many.....
|
|
|
|
12/10/2009 10:14:10 AM · #73 |
thanks for the links, the third one is very interesting. |
|
|
|
12/10/2009 05:32:04 PM · #74 |
Just two of the many problems with this article....
Originally posted by Mona Charan Article:
Climate change believers are like Freudians. If the weather is warm, it's proof of global warming. But if the weather is cool, this, too, is evidence of the sinister tricks global warming can play. |
The author clearly does not understand the difference between climate and weather.
Originally posted by Mona Charan Article:
That same year, the Carter administration issued a global forecast predicting that "the world in 2000 will be more crowded, more polluted, less stable ecologically ... and the world's people will be poorer in many ways than they are today." Um, no. |
Actually, everything in that prediction came to pass.... the world is more crowded Population, more polluted pollution, less stable ecologically 1, 2, the world's people are poorer poverty (monetary)
|
|
