Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You don't have to read the links, you just need to realize these papers have been published in a real life science journal and support AGW, and that there are plenty more where they came from. So either there is a massive conspiracy afoot, or there is something to this whole AGW theory.
When you post a link that leads to an actual journal, with the exception of Energy and Environment, then I'll take it seriously... provided it actually says what you think it says and stands up to scrutiny.
Why are they lies?
Are the authors of these papers frauds?
Why?
What have they done that makes you think so?
What about these papers screams 'not real'?
What about them suggests it is a cult?
Do you know what a fallacy is?
If so, stop engaging in fallacies.
No matter how many people publish papers based on a false premise, it never becomes true.
You don't have to read the links, you just need to realize these papers have been published in a real life science journal and support AGW, and that there are plenty more where they came from. So either there is a massive conspiracy afoot, or there is something to this whole AGW theory.
When you post a link that leads to an actual journal, with the exception of Energy and Environment, then I'll take it seriously... provided it actually says what you think it says and stands up to scrutiny.
No, I don't have to fall for the false dilemma fallacy. Shame on you for engaging in juvenile, totally dishonest arguments.
Here's a clue:
THEY ARE WRONG.
That's simple enough, and it requires no fallacies, no lies, just a defense of the scientific process.
You'll just use the mere existence of articles to bludgeon people with whom you disagree?
Quote:
tl;dr - your articles raise as many scientific questions as they attempt to answer. Right off the bat, I countered with a paper that refutes the entire mathematical construct called "global temperature". Skip to the conclusion on page 22, where it flatly states there is no global temperature and that the "purpose of this paper was to explain the fundamental meaninglessness of so-called global temperature data." On what basis do you refute the article I link?
First of all... the biggest problem is that for most of these papers, it's impossible for even people like you (who actually have the intellect and a somewhat relevant background [but let's face it, not really]) to fully grasp the issue. No one on this board can grasp ALL of the calculations, the industry protocols, etc. involved in every single climate model, every single measurement or calculation. And yet, this doesn't seem to be an issue for anyone.
My point isn't even that people don't understand these articles, it's that most of the 'skeptics' on this board can't even appreciate just how much work, how much brainpower and how much data goes into these studies, and feel perfectly secure in writing them off as part of a liberal plot to dominate the world. All this without ever understanding anything about them.
Seriously, I look at these studies and am pretty intellectually intimidated, and it isn't hard for me to confidently proclaim that I'm not exactly the dimmest bulb in the city-data chandelier... and before you go there, I don't consider that to be a boast. I know when to defer to the superior intellect, admit my limitations and accept that NASA scientists know more than I do about this topic. But so many others haven't yet figured out how little they know.
The AGW issue isn't even one where absolute transparency from the climatology community would suddenly lead to astounding revelations with people exclaiming 'finally I get why some people think this is real!'... because let's face it, not only are people too lazy or otherwise attention disordered to read these things multiple times, figure out the language and the protocols, etc... but even if they did have some basic grasp of the facts, the science is so complex and so advanced that even a science or math degree doesn't guarantee full comprehension.
Beyond your politically motivated agreements with certain posters, you MUST know that even certain basic news articles are either being completely ignored or flying way way over their heads... and yet they still proclaim with utmost confidence that it's all a hoax, science says this, science says that, etc. Maybe I'm no better for taking offense and trying in vain to explain that this theory has almost universal acceptance in unpoliticized science (which is true, no matter how you spin it), and calling attention to some examples of actual science (not daily mail articles or blog posts) in an attempt to induce something approximating humility in the stubbornly deluded.
Obviously you aren't one of THOSE, and you can apparently use your background to try to take on articles you haven't read and probably haven't understood as well as you want to appear you have... but ultimately, you still need to fall back to whatever you can find online to support your opinions... which means the only real debate to be had here is the credibility of the people writing these papers.
...which brings me to the article you've posted.
Someone does a really good job of refuting it here:
The issue seems to be that the authors of your paper are hardcore deniers, funded by the Koch brothers... and one of whom is a senior fellow at the right wing libertarian Fraser Institute... and the paper is yet another politically motivated attempt to cloud the issue. Yes, that argument keeps coming up over and over, but until people learn to check their sources it's not going to stop.
You can argue that there's a conspiracy to silence dissent, but when someone openly proclaims their political affiliations via not just membership but a committed relationship with a right wing think tank, it's not such a leap to imagine that their 'studies' might have non-scientific reasons for so perfectly aligning with their politics.
Quote:
Nobody can PROVE that catastrophe is headed my way for an assumed, theoretical 0.6-0.75 degree_C increase to a mathematically and physically meaningless number in the next century. All those papers listed simply cannot do it, and no global warming proponent has thus far offered sufficient proof for my hysteria needle to even flutter.
Maybe you can smoke a pack a day and not get cancer. Maybe you can drink and drive and make it home without incident. There's no proof that bad things will happen, only probabilities.
So what is the probability that something bad will happen if no action is taken to curb AGW?
Last edited by Spatula City; 02-09-2015 at 09:24 PM..
You don't understand them, but you know they're wrong because...?
Because their premise is incorrect. No matter how many papers tell you that "global warming" is unique and caused by man, it does not make it so.
There is no logical or rational foundation for ANY AGW theory. None. Zilch.
Those who have had to invent (by adjusting the facts to fit the theory) evidence have demonstrated that there is no evidence, because they had to invent it, and the argument itself fails even the most cursory of examinations.
For the rest, it's circular logic:
"The earth is getting warmer because of CO2"
"How do you know it's CO2?"
"Because it's rising"
"How is that proof?"
"Because it's getting warmer".
It violates EVERY principle of the scientific method.
First of all... the biggest problem is that for most of these papers, it's impossible for even people like you (who actually have the intellect and a somewhat relevant background [but let's face it, not really]) to fully grasp the issue. No one on this board can grasp ALL of the calculations, the industry protocols, etc. involved in every single climate model, every single measurement or calculation. And yet, this doesn't seem to be an issue for anyone.
My point isn't even that people don't understand these articles, it's that most of the 'skeptics' on this board can't even appreciate just how much work, how much brainpower and how much data goes into these studies, and feel perfectly secure in writing them off as part of a liberal plot to dominate the world. All this without ever understanding anything about them.
Seriously, I look at these studies and am pretty intellectually intimidated, and it isn't hard for me to confidently proclaim that I'm not exactly the dimmest bulb in the city-data chandelier... and before you go there, I don't consider that to be a boast. I know when to defer to the superior intellect, admit my limitations and accept that NASA scientists know more than I do about this topic. But so many others haven't yet figured out how little they know.
The AGW issue isn't even one where absolute transparency from the climatology community would suddenly lead to astounding revelations with people exclaiming 'finally I get why some people think this is real!'... because let's face it, not only are people too lazy or otherwise attention disordered to read these things multiple times, figure out the language and the protocols, etc... but even if they did have some basic grasp of the facts, the science is so complex and so advanced that even a science or math degree doesn't guarantee full comprehension.
Beyond your politically motivated agreements with certain posters, you MUST know that even certain basic news articles are either being completely ignored or flying way way over their heads... and yet they still proclaim with utmost confidence that it's all a hoax, science says this, science says that, etc. Maybe I'm no better for taking offense and trying in vain to explain that this theory has almost universal acceptance in unpoliticized science (which is true, no matter how you spin it), and calling attention to some examples of actual science (not daily mail articles or blog posts) in an attempt to induce something approximating humility in the stubbornly deluded.
Obviously you aren't one of THOSE, and you can apparently use your background to try to take on articles you haven't read and probably haven't understood as well as you want to appear you have... but ultimately, you still need to fall back to whatever you can find online to support your opinions... which means the only real debate to be had here is the credibility of the people writing these papers.
...which brings me to the article you've posted.
Someone does a really good job of refuting it here:
The issue seems to be that the authors of your paper are hardcore deniers, funded by the Koch brothers... and one of whom is a senior fellow at the right wing libertarian Fraser Institute... and the paper is yet another politically motivated attempt to cloud the issue. Yes, that argument keeps coming up over and over, but until people learn to check their sources it's not going to stop.
You can argue that there's a conspiracy to silence dissent, but when someone openly proclaims their political affiliations via not just membership but a committed relationship with a right wing think tank, it's not such a leap to imagine that their 'studies' might have non-scientific reasons for so perfectly aligning with their politics.
Maybe you can smoke a pack a day and not get cancer. Maybe you can drink and drive and make it home without incident. There's no proof that bad things will happen, only probabilities.
So what is the probability that something bad will happen if no action is taken to curb AGW?
Ummmm.................
I HAVE published in the scientific literature, have edited papers, and have conducted bench science.
I told you several posts ago why the first article (wow- they are all from the same journal) is crap. However, you fail to listen, as you have a pre-determined agenda and facts do not matter. That is probably why you cling to AGW as well. There is no degree of factual information that will ever change your mind. Such behavior, of course, is common among cult members.
Please do not claim the undisputed "high ground" of science, as AGW is the antithesis of science and is an academic embarrassment. Your "references" were poor in that:
1. published in a journal that does not rank in the top 20 for climate science -crap journal
2. no empiric studies
3. no randomized, blinded prospective data
4. uses modeling to make assumptions which exceed the scope of "data" presented
4. assumes correlation with causation without a statistical analysis of ANOVA with a correction for multiple confounding variables.
5. pretty "rigorous" review process. Submitted in March and accepted in April! GOOD journals (Science, Nature, NEJM, ect...) do have a rigorous review process that takes 6-9 months and involved several revisions and communication back and forth among the editors. Of course you would not know this because you have never published!
I once conducted a bench science study and completed the paper, which was ready to send for publication. I was unhappy with the overall quality and threw the manuscript in the trash. My mentor scolded me, retrieved the paper, and had it published in a fairly respectable journal (without my name on it to teach me a lesson). I DID learn a lesson from that experience.
1. The quality of the journal means EVERTHING
2. Crap journals publish crap studies
3. In my experience, few editors have superlative knowledge of subtleties in statistical analysis
4. The third author is usually the principle investigator and "pulls the strings"
5. Papers will sometimes be published if the PI is well known and well published
6. 50 publications in crap journals is not worth one in "Science", "Nature", "NEJM", or other quality journals
7. That experience was probably the sentinel moment that led me to abandon academic medicine
Wake up and pull the scales from your eyes, as you have been duped by a cult that is no more akin to science than sorcery or a sideshow huckster. When you truely do not understand science, you appear absurd when you attempt to defend principles of science. It is like a child dressing up like a knight and fighting imagined "enemies" with a cardboard shield and sword. While cute, it is not to be taken with any credibility.
Last edited by hawkeye2009; 02-10-2015 at 06:47 AM..
I HAVE published in the scientific literature, have edited papers, and have conducted bench science.
I told you several posts ago why the first article (wow- they are all from the same journal) is crap. However, you fail to listen, as you have a pre-determined agenda and facts do not matter. That is probably why you cling to AGW as well. There is no degree of factual information that will ever change your mind. Such behavior, of course, is common among cult members.
Please do not claim the undisputed "high ground" of science, as AGW is the antithesis of science and is an academic embarrassment.
They're all from NATURE, which you claim is reputable... now you're claiming that several links from a reputable journal isn't good enough?
You can do a search on the Science Journal homepage and get similar results:
I'm really struggling to understand how you can have a science background and yet be completely uninterested in understanding the issue, while repeatedly insisting that you're right simply because you have 'published in the scientific literature, have edited papers, and have conducted bench science'.
I responded to your response... from the laughable claim that the paper isn't from a respected journal down to the out-of-place demands that climate change modelling follow the same protocols seen in drug testing and provide empirical evidence from the future.
I'm not claiming the 'high ground', but any thinking person can see that you haven't made a single valid point, and no matter how much you repeat your whole 'religious belief' schtick, you aren't an authority on this subject and an unrelated science background (which I suspect is in pharmacology) means you're still an amateur in the field of climatology.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
