That “global consensus” that y’all have claimed for the hypothesis of Man-Made Global Warming?
It does not exist. Never did.
Not to say it couldn’t – but y’all are going to have to start acting more like scientists and less like brow-beating propaganda-whores to create it.
That is all.
you really should not put a word like ‘incontrovertible’ in double-quotes and attribute it to me
Even by your lax standards, your last post is self-indulgent; the difference between “incontrovertible” and “the science is conclusive in our favor” isn’t even semantically interesting.
The “the broad public” used to believe black people were inferior.
“Scientifically, there is no point in further debate with people who are willingly and proudly ignorant. ”
And there we have it; “our” science is right, “theirs” is ignorant.
You are the anti-scientist, Rick.
Thousands of scientists, every single one of them more qualified on this topic than you, put their professional reputations on the line (against that invincibly intelligent general public, woo hoo!) to show the world that there is a debate.
And that Lambert link is a joke. I may have to fisk it tomorrow. If you think you cemented anything by posting it (other than a reputation as an anti-intellectual who routinely mixes up “science” and “writing condescending rhetorical checks you are demonstrably ill-equipped to cash”), I’m buggered if I can figure out what it would be.
Seriously, Rick – did you really appeal to public sentiment as some sort of objective standard on global warming?
My head is still reeling over that one.
The worst possible result would be for us to seek some squishy compromise with you.
I agree! I am much more interested in embarassing and humiliating all of you cultists.
Mitch wrote:
“the difference between “incontrovertible” and “the science is conclusive in our favor” isn’t even semantically interesting.”
I will leave that to readers, but Karl Popper, David Hume, and plenty of others would disagree. There is conclusive evidence that the sun will rise tomorrow, but the proposition is not incontrovertible, since it would be controverted by the sun not rising.
““our” science is right, “theirs” is ignorant”. Again with the non-quotes. More accurately, ours is science, yours is not.
“Thousands of scientists, every single one of them more qualified on this topic than you, put their professional reputations on the line . . . to show the world that there is a debate.”
Well not all of them:
bigcitylib.blogspot.com/2007/11/now-im-denier-now.html#links
“I may have to fisk it tomorrow”
and Troy’s Mom may let him step up from velcro to lace-up shoes, but I ain’t holding my breath.
“did you really appeal to public sentiment as some sort of objective standard on global warming?”
Er No. It is called reading, try it sometime. I carefully distinguished the scientific question from the political state of public sentiment.
If public opinion was still against GW while the science continued to support GW, there would be more need for scientific debate to inform the public. But now that scientific debate has won over the vast majority of Americans to the truth, there is little need to waste time on full on denires like you. Indeed, leaving the GOP in your grip is actually helpful.
“I am much more interested in embarassing and humiliating all of you cultists”
I suggest you start with John McCain
Again… you haven’t been listening DFL Rick. We’ve “started” with John McCain quite some time ago. Years, in fact.
Er No. It is called reading, try it sometime.
Put something up worth reading, maybe…?
I carefully distinguished the scientific question from the political state of public sentiment.
Irrelevant (and wrong); you posited it another reason we should get behind MMGW.
If public opinion was still against GW while the science continued to support GW, there would be more need for scientific debate to inform the public.
And now that science (as opposed to activism using science and anti-intellectual, anti-scientific browbeating as a prop) is divided, we need to have the scientific debate to inform the public.
Why does that terrify you so?
Because nothing scares a fascist like a debate.
But now that scientific debate has won over the vast majority of Americans to the truth
Not a truth, though, which is the point here. Your “science” on this subject begins and ends with stomping your feet and yelling about what a bunch of idiots the “deniers” are.
Which is anti-intellectual, anti-scientific, anti-democratic, anti-enlightenment, anti-everything good.
“If public opinion was still against GW while the science continued to support GW, there would be more need for scientific debate to inform the public”
So, by Rick’s eminent logic, if the science actually DENIED GW, as it does, there would be a need to inform the public that had been convinced to believe GW did exist, would there not? Mitch, you’ve offered a great public service. It’s too bad we have so many people still willing to deny the truth that AGW is a myth.
Mitch:
“you posited it another reason we should get behind MMGW.”
Really where? Please use a direct quotes.
“we need to have the scientific debate to inform the public”
Well then do some science, publish it is a peer-reviewed journal, and we will have a debate.
RickDFL said:
“Well then do some science”
More proof that RickDFL thinks science is magic.
Better yet, Rick, I’ll make a hysterical movie and market it through a none-too-bright media and a clacque of fabians-masquerading-as-scientists to a credulous and scientifically-illiterate public!
Better idea, Rick – since I don’t have the time or money to get a PhD in climatology, why don’t you learn a little about how science works, so you can act more like an empiricist and less like a snake-handler high on the holy spirit?
Mitch:
“since I don’t have the time or money to get a PhD in climatology”
So you want a debate where you don’t have to contribute anything. Typical conservative nanny stater with a hand out.
Er No. It is called reading, try it sometime. I carefully distinguished the scientific question from the political state of public sentiment.
This is the same technique RickDFL used to determine that the heritable portion of IQ is neglible, despite all the published, peer-reviewed papers that say otherwise! And the results, too, fit his left-of-center preconceptions! Amazing!
I don’t care if rickDFL’s scientific credentials are crap. I propose that we name him Egghead in Chief!
Hmm…RickDFL is very Clavinesque…
Terry:
“This is the same technique RickDFL used to determine that the heritable portion of IQ is neglible, despite all the published, peer-reviewed papers that say otherwise!”
Man Terry you are really, and I mean really, obsessed with this issue. Do you feel a deep need to lay the blame on your ancestors for you current condition? Kids looking at you with that sullen ‘thanks for giving us the losing ticket in the genetic lottery’ look?
Funny how you keep referring to this mystical stash of published peer-reviewed papers, but never actually cite them or provide links.
But I suppose you are right, basing our views on science does give Democrats a significant advantage.
It is amazing that those who want to say that AGW is real can only do so by COMPETELY IGNORING the conclusive science presented, in this very post that they are commenting upon, and continuing to say that there is no science against their position.
The simple fact is that there is NO science even close to proving that Catastrophic Anthropogenic (that’s manmade, for those from publlic schools) Global Warming DOES exist. There is evidence of a warming trend from about 1970 to 2001, but no evidence that it was caused by CO2, and no evidence that the CO2 was manmade, and no evidence that it will continue to get warmer except for some computer models that start with ASSUMING that human activity will cause CO2 to increase, and that CO2 increases will cause warming! That isn’t science, that’s called how to lie with statistics.
Before commenting and making complete Democrats of yourselves, read the cite provided to you! Their scientific conclusion is that curbing manmade CO2 is essentially irrelevent to global climate (and the IPCC almost agrees), while having huge negative economic impacts AND reducing biodiversity. That is, curbing CO2 HARMS the environment! So, tell me again what you want to do?
So, tell me again what you want to do?
Rick wants you to drink the kool-aid and agree with him that earth is flat.
BTW, here is some bedtime reading for you, Rick. From someone who knows a thing or two about climate.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/3151
Care to debate AGW with Dr. Ball, Rick? Oh, he does not have enough credentials, you say? Anything he says must be wrong because it does not agree with your point of view? That damn kool-aid must be some potent stuff!
Ah, who am I kidding?
J. Ewing:
“the conclusive science presented”
If anyone in SITD has cited a published peer-reviewed paper against AGW, I missed it. Please cite such a paper.
The paper attached to the petition is neither and includes some elementary scientific errors.
http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=OISM
As for the rest, keep it out. Lets make sure the GOP continues to get associated with the lunatic fringe.
You didn’t touch my link, did you Rick? Plenty of references there. What do you need, for Dr. Ball to call you personally?
BTW, the entire algore AGW arguement is based on misleading and false data. But you would have to read the article to know that…
What do you need, for Dr. Ball to call you personally?
Dr. Ball needs to be in Wikipedia!
It would not help. RickDFL would simply change his requirements when it suited his faith. Then he would say something like “Uh oh, fifteen minutes to Judge Wapner”.
“The paper attached to the petition is neither and includes some elementary scientific errors.”
Thank you for establishing the standard for this discussion. I hereby reject the entire UN IPCC report because it, too, is a summary of other referenced scientific works, and some few of them contain nit-picking little errors. It seems the basis for judging the evidence FOR AGW is that it be “false, but accurate,” while the data against is “imperfect and therefore completely wrong.”
Face it, Rick, there is absolutely ZERO evidence that manmade CO2 will create a catastrophic warming 100 years from now, because there CAN’T be. The future is not known.
If anyone in SITD has cited a published peer-reviewed paper against AGW, I missed it. Please cite such a paper.
Rick, I introduced you to Dr. Ball, as per your want. But, as I suspected, factual, scientific truth paralyzed your two typing fingers. That is if you even attempted to open the link.
So, Rick, next time you opine on the subject and start citing religious propaganda, a la Inconvinient UnTruth, be mindful that the retort will be just two words – Dr. Ball. Since you have been given the link, you will be expected to know who we are talking about.
Class dismissed.
JPA:
You moron, Dr. Ball’s paper is not peer reviewed, nor is ‘The Canada Free Press’ a scientific journal. Much of the material he cites is not peer-reviewed. Nor is he a scientist. His advanced degrees in Geography are humanities degrees not from the scientific faculty. He published a handful of peer-reviewed articles (none on climatology) many years ago. He could not hack real science, so he took up a lucrative career as a denier. Of course, he worked hard to conceal his funding from the oil industry. Moreover he misstated his own scientific credentials in public.
More details here:
http://www.desmogblog.com/dr-tim-ball-the-lie-that-just-wont-die
Looks like Troy is still stuck with velcro shoes, Mitch never got around to fisking Tim Lambert’s demolition of the Oregon petition.
So, Rick – you ignorant slut – you still did not read Dr. Ball’s article. You refuse to address the facts he brings up. Instead, you careen headfirst into an ad-hominem attack. Hmm, I see a parallel here with SWVFT…
Oh, and algore’s advanced degree in… in… in what is it exactly? makes him an uncontested, unquestionable authority on AGW. Riiiight…. And Dr. Hansen’s lies – yes LIES, – are taken as gospel by blind minions such as yourself, but hey, his credentials are impeccable!
Mitch, you were so right! Rick culled his anti-Ball screed directly from Wikipedia!
JPA:
“you still did not read Dr. Ball’s article”
If I did not read it, how would I know “much of the material he cites is not peer-reviewed”. I feel no need to debunk ever crank you find on the internet.
“Oh, and algore’s advanced degree in… in… in what is it exactly? makes him an uncontested, unquestionable authority on AGW”.
Nobody says Al Gore is a scientific expert on GW. Unlike Dr. Ball, he cites real scientific research, done by real scientists, published in real scientific journals. Moreover, real climate scientists confirm his presentations, while Dr. Bell can not even get his ravings published.
“And Dr. Hansen’s lies – yes LIES, – are taken as gospel by blind minions such as yourself, but hey, his credentials are impeccable!”
If you can document such instances, I suggest you report them to the appropriate professional or government body.
“Mitch, you were so right! Rick culled his anti-Ball screed directly from Wikipedia!”
If any information I cited is false let me know. Otherwise quit acting like looking up the facts is some sort of unfair advantage. Maybe you Republicans are having so much trouble lately, because citing a reliable reference source now is taken a point against someone in a debate.
claim by P.D. Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that the global average annual temperature increased 0.6°C ± 0.2°C in some 130 years.
This is “real scientific research, done by real scientists, published in real scientific journals? you are citing as gospel? Please discuss the level of confidence of P.D. Jones’ statement, and why any real scientist would dismiss that “finding” as statisitcally insignifcant indication of, well, anything!
Rick says:
Mitch never got around to fisking Tim Lambert’s demolition of the Oregon petition.
Right before saying:
I feel no need to debunk ever crank you find on the internet.
Um, yeah.
Look, Rick – you approach MMGW with what can only be called religious zeal; you toss “peer review” around as if the lack (permanent or temporary) is dispositive evidence of lack of credibility, which is merely lazy except when you combine it with your comorbit habits of condescenscion and the claims that your authorities are the only authorities – which is logically vacant in general, to say nothing of this particular argument.
This religion might get more respect, and perhaps some excellent tax benefits, if it were less aggressive in attempting to control what non-believers do.
It is unfortunate that they have Rick”DoSomeScience”DFL speaking for them here. Speaking of which, shouldn’t you be heading over to KMart soon RickDFL?
JPA:
Mr. P.D. Jones is a firm supporter of AGW
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/jones-mann.html
“While there are differences between the reconstructions due to the factors mentioned above, all, even the least similar, are in agreement in showing the strong increase in temperatures since early 19th century, with the highest temperatures in the past 1000 years occurring at the end of the 20th century. The robustness of this result is clearly supported by the range of data and methods used to generate these reconstructions. Since only one of these reconstructions extends back to the early part of the previous millennia, results are more tentative, but suggest the recent warming could be unprecedented in nearly 2000 years.”
In plain English, you are a nut.
Mitch:
“you toss “peer review” around as if the lack (permanent or temporary) is dispositive evidence of lack of credibility”
It is.
with the highest temperatures in the past 1000 years occurring at the end of the 20th century… /snip …but suggest the recent warming could be unprecedented in nearly 2000 years
P.D. Jones postulates that “reconstructions” from past 2000 years (note – NOT data) out of a total of approximately 5,000,000,000 constitutes an “unprecedented” trend. Can you spot a scientific conundrum here, Rick? Even a non-scientist like you should!
And yes, the absolute authority of P.D. Jones. Speaking of peer review: “We can’t reproduce Jones’ results because he refuses to disclose which stations he used and how the data was adjusted. To a request for information from Warwick Hughes, an Australian climate researcher who has long studied the global temperature record, Jones wrote, “We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.” (Jones’ reply to Warwick Hughes, 21. February 2005; P. Jones later confirmed this to Alex von Storch.) “
I think Jones’ statement above is a clear indication of the depth of depravity of AGW zealots, never mind the absolute disregard for scientific method.
Who’s the nut now, Rick?
For the record about Mr. Hansens’s cherrypicking of data, in case I need to rub Rick’s nose into this bit of trivia:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/05/goddard_nasa_thermometer/print.html