More Of That Settled Science
By Mitch Berg
The Earth is getting warmer! And Humans are causing it!
Don’t question the theory, peasants! It is SETTLED SCIENCE!
No, really! It’s all solid peer-reviewed science, and when the peers speak, you peasants must hold your filthy tongues!
In its most recent report [the IPCC] stated that observed reductions in mountain ice in the Andes, Alps and Africa was being caused by global warming, citing two papers as the source of the information.
However, it can be revealed that one of the sources quoted was a feature article published in a popular magazine for climbers which was based on anecdotal evidence from mountaineers about the changes they were witnessing on the mountainsides around them.
The other was a dissertation written by a geography student, studying for the equivalent of a master’s degree, at the University of Berne in Switzerland that quoted interviews with mountain guides in the Alps.
The revelations, uncovered by The Sunday Telegraph, have raised fresh questions about the quality of the information contained in the report, which was published in 2007.
Silence, Peasants! When we say “the science is settled”, it means “go away and talk about last night’s Desperate Housewives” or something, and let the Elites think Big Thoughts.
February 1st, 2010 at 9:30 am
Haha, so a conservative British tabloid is your proof, eh? Is that peer-reviewed by other rabid wingnuts? Seriously, when will you rightwing kooks learn that getting involved in scientific debates always makes you look stupid? Your bias in favor of the past predisposes you to discount any evidence of science. Decades ago you would have been blathering about social Darwinism, a flat earth and the abracadabra six-day creation of the universe. Don’tcha know science isn’t on the side of the politically regressive?
February 1st, 2010 at 10:14 am
Haha, so a conservative British tabloid is your proof, eh?
Well, if only the Telegraph were covering this, you’d have a point, Clown. But there have been articles in the Times of London, the Daily Mail and even the Guardian about the numerous problems with the IPCC report. The articles have concerned everything from disappearing Himalayan glaciers that aren’t disappearing, through rainforests that are disappearing because of AGW but not really, and this case. In each instance, the materials in the IPCC report were not peer-reviewed, which is precisely why the matter is gaining coverage in the U.K.
And while you wouldn’t know it unless you read the U.K. press, the IPCC has had to disavow the claims about the Himalayan glaciers entirely. But don’t worry your pretty little head about any of that, Miss Yakamoto — like Thomas Dolby, you can bellow “Science!” and it will all be okay.
Fortunately for the rest of us, scientists will continue to test the hypotheses and suppositions put forth in IPCC reporting and the truth will out. That is what is happening now.
February 1st, 2010 at 10:23 am
The foundation of the UN building is just a few feet above sea level.
Imagine the panic that is taking place there now. Bureaucrats and diplomats struggling to make it through flooded corridors, engineers moving the generators to the top floor so they can keep the operation going for a few days longer as the sea rises around them . . .
Nobody really believes this crap anymore, not even the people whose jobs depend on it.
February 1st, 2010 at 10:28 am
Angryclown, not content with showing his utter incompetence in climatology, demonstrates his lack of knowledge of informal logic by engaging in numerous ad hominem attacks.
AC, here’s a hint for you; when you attack the pedigree of the ideas instead of the ideas, all you prove is that you are either unwilling or unable (I’m leaning towards the latter) to actually address the argument.
Now to the argument; the Telegraph is quoting a number of scientists, including some who have worked for the IPCC, pointing out that significant conclusions of IPCC reports are based on anecdotal evidence. Anecdotes, of course, prove only that…..
….an anecdote occurred, and are no substitute for a well designed experiment.
Now the specific parts of the report may not be that big of a deal. However, if the IPCC members do not consistently differentiate anecdotal evidence from statistical evidence, that throws ALL of their evidence into doubt.
Kinda like things would be thrown into doubt if I saw the name “angryclown” among reviewers.
February 1st, 2010 at 10:31 am
To refute angyclowns worthless analysis. There is no science there it is anecdotal evidence at best. So the warming deniers should shut up since we deny science or don’t know what it is. Never mind the fact that the science being quoted and further being used to define the structure of societies for decades to come really isn’t science after all either. The more the AGW deniers push the AGW promoters to prove thier science the more we find it never was science in the first place. Instead we have news articles, single data points, dog ate my data, dropping data that does not fit, adjusting data with no explaination, cherry picking time frames to get desired results, admitted serial exaggerations, conflicts of interest, financial interest, hypocrisy, willful ignorance. But the science is settled and we must act now or else we are all going to dddddiiiiiieeeeee, or not.
February 1st, 2010 at 11:10 am
Oh my God, Asswipe, you’re absolutely right. A human egg joins a human sperm and it’s not human. Your side owns the truth in science. You must be so proud!
February 1st, 2010 at 11:40 am
To refute angyclowns worthless analysis.
Almost as pointless an exercize as tryin to “contain” carbon dioxide.
February 1st, 2010 at 12:05 pm
If Pelosi really believed that AGW was a threat to mankind she would have attended the Copenhagen conference via telecon and used every bit of influence she had to hammer out a deal.
Instead she flew her people out there in carbon-spewing jets and stayed at luxury hotels. The carbon footprint of the congressional delegation’s limousines alone was larger than what I use in a year. No agreement was reached, it was a waste of time.
Pelosi is smart enough to tell the difference between politics and science, unlike some SITD commenters.
February 1st, 2010 at 12:49 pm
Let’s test this hypothesis: Follow the money.
February 1st, 2010 at 2:23 pm
There’s a thought, Knight Rider. The people who would make money from falsely denying global warming include: every industry that produces or uses fossil fuels. At a minimum, every oil, coal and gas producer. Almost every manufacturer, distributor and seller of products, of all descriptions. Plus you silly wingnuts, of course, who are too dumb to actually get any money out of carrying water for big industries.
On the other side?
February 1st, 2010 at 2:40 pm
On the other side?
Generation Investment Management LLP
http://www.generationim.com/
February 1st, 2010 at 2:44 pm
On the other side?
Glad you asked, Clown. Meet Rajendra Pachauri.
February 1st, 2010 at 2:57 pm
“Nobody really believes this crap anymore, not even the people whose jobs depend on it.”
AssClown believes in MMGW. Ha ha ha ha ha what a joke.
…..
For those of us that are versed in math and science, without actual data it is nothing more than a hoax.
In God We Trust, all others must bring data.
….
As for math/science, my favorite calculus formula:
The integral of e to the x equals a Function of u to the n.
8)
February 1st, 2010 at 3:08 pm
So Al Gore has gone into the business of selling indulgences?
I’m a Lutheran. We know how to deal with that.
February 1st, 2010 at 3:32 pm
Terry
GIM is there so that when Cap-and-Trade legislation gets passed they will be the brokers for carbon credit trading. Mr Gore believes he will be to carbon credit trading what Soros is to monetary speculation
February 1st, 2010 at 3:43 pm
Notice AC is assuming that because climatology is largely funded by government, that it’s done without bias.
Just like PBS, DoED, NEA, NEH……
Follow the money, AC, and notice who is sponsoring global warming scare conferences.
February 1st, 2010 at 3:57 pm
Haha Kel. Yeah, here’s a list of the nefarious socialist enviro-radical stocks they invest in.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1375534/000117266109001492/gen3q09.txt
FAIL.
February 1st, 2010 at 4:30 pm
eriously, when will you rightwing kooks learn that getting involved in scientific debates always makes you look stupid?
This from a worthless wad of meat that claims the scientific consensus says his son’s appetite for gargling testicles is perfectly natural.
February 1st, 2010 at 4:40 pm
So, Kel, Gore is yet another rich guy trying to fatten himself on working people and the poor by taxing their existence.
What a talentless sponge.
February 1st, 2010 at 4:42 pm
Don’tcha know science isn’t on the side of the politically regressive?
If by “regressive” you mean “conservative?” Not true. Most university engineering departments (the people who have to make science do things) are oases of conservative sanity on most campuses.
February 1st, 2010 at 4:57 pm
I think you’ll find, Mitch, that most of the PhD’s with doctorates in the hard sciences who do pure research are AGW believers.
Most of them have been making a living off of grants since they became grad students.
February 1st, 2010 at 7:28 pm
Bozo- “The people who would make money from falsely denying global warming include: every industry that produces and uses fossil fuels.” Including the biggest industry of all, the Federal Government, right? But they`re not denying it, are they? And your`re upset because the fossil fuel industry wants to make money because they don`t believe the g.w. bullshit. And the problem would be…. As if they wouldn`t want to make money even if it was true. Debating skills even worse than normal, Boz.
February 1st, 2010 at 9:35 pm
Another nail in the coffin of AGW:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/01/leaked-emails-climate-jones-chinese
The Guardian is a far-left rag, but it tends to be a bit more populist than American establishment press.
There’s a good example of boilerplate in the article:
The revelations on the inadequacies of the 1990 paper do not undermine the case that humans are causing climate change, and other studies have produced similar findings. But they do call into question the probity of some climate change science.
Translation: “The data is bad but the theory we derived from the data is good”.