Climategate turned on its head this time

[lapaz]

Originally Posted by UncleDoug

You cite a self selecting poll, aka unscientific, where only 3000 of 10000 even responded and of those 3000 that responded they singled out 79 respondents that claimed to be climate scientist, and then you imply that I take a position and then I try to find supporting evidence. I can cite polls of heartland institute conferences that have more participation and includes more self described climate scientist that disagree with the conclusion. I have a feeling you would dismiss the poll as biased yet you expect others to accept equally questionable sources as factual. Really?


Here is an article that concerns another climate alarmist who is welling to commit fraud and misrepresent himself to promote the cause.
Why the Climate Skeptics Are Winning | The Weekly Standard

First of all, you have me confused with another poster that accused you of taking a position then trying to find evidence to support your position: "then you imply that I take a position and then I try to find supporting evidence". Secondly a poll from the heartland institute WOULD be biased by any honest assessment. I posted the reference from which the 97% of climatogists stat came. I gave no analysis about the validity, because i was only responding to a post that asked for the links. With that said, I see no reason to suspect its validity. Your claim that it is not valid because only 30% responded and only 79 self identified as climatologists doesn't make sense to me. What's to prevent the skeptics to self identify and respond? I think it is disaffected that tend to be more motivated to respond to polls, so why wouldn't the skeptics have replied to the poll? Arguing poll is invalid because it is self-selected seems to contradict your attempt to undermine the poll. I agree that it is less scientific, but the likelier impact would've been to get a lot more skeptics. Now, where are your polls that show significant skeptics to human climate effect?

Lastly, citing alarmists is meaningless to me, and I suspect most others here. Most believe that the science overwhelmingly supports the theory of the human effect, but not that the world as we know it will end soon. Most climatologists are not making that claim, and you'll also find that in the links that I provided. There is a significant portion of climatologists that believe there are dier consequences imminent, but most still believe that there is uncertainty about the consequences. What almost all believe is that we should be taking action to prevent the consequences, even if there is still uncertainty. The argument that we should be having is not if we're affecting the climate, but what reasonable actions should we take.

[UncleDoug]

Originally Posted by Yoweigh

This justifies the data theft somehow?

The publics right to know versus the conspiring to destory data and information they were paid to gather on the public dime (that would be two legal infractions to the one of data theft). I do not agree with the method used but I doubt the data would have seen the light of day otherwise.

[Yoweigh]

that's like saying the public has a right to steal mitch landrieu's mail because we pay his salary. the stolen "data" consisted of emails. not suppressed research.

[N.O.Bronco]

Originally Posted by UncleDoug

You cite a self selecting poll, aka unscientific, where only 3000 of 10000 even responded and of those 3000 that responded they singled out 79 respondents that claimed to be climate scientist, and then you imply that I take a position and then I try to find supporting evidence. I can cite polls of heartland institute conferences that have more participation and includes more self described climate scientist that disagree with the conclusion. I have a feeling you would dismiss the poll as biased yet you expect others to accept equally questionable sources as factual. Really?

Ps the most recent "evidence" you cited was from 2008. Since then a few things have happened; One, the temperatures have not continued to rise like all the computer models that the climate alarmist proclaimed as empirical proof projected. Two, the hockey stick graph was generated by Michael Mann who drew a graph that supported his position then purposely left out data that did not support his conclusion. Plus many more.

Here is an article that concerns another climate alarmist who is welling to commit fraud and misrepresent himself to promote the cause.
Why the Climate Skeptics Are Winning | The Weekly Standard

1.) take a statistics course and come back here. While not perfectly ideal those surveys aren't worthless, nor even close to it. Furthermore you can also look at the wealth of scientific research that has come out over the last ten years and see that where it is relevant, an overwhelming majority of said research supports the idea of global warming and humans having a role.

2.) since 2008 a majority of the years have been some of the hottest on record. Once again not sure where this wanton assertion to the contrary keeps coming from.


Frankly if you aren't aware of number two then it tells me you are doing a piss poor job gathering and assessing information about this topic and that anyone taking your posts seriously must themselves have an even worse grasp of the information surrounding the topic. Frankly you should probably go back to the drawing board and come back once you have at least a rudimentary understanding of recent data and it's implications.

[UncleDoug]

Originally Posted by N.O.Bronco

1.) take a statistics course and come back here. While not perfectly ideal those surveys aren't worthless, nor even close to it. Furthermore you can also look at the wealth of scientific research that has come out over the last ten years and see that where it is relevant, an overwhelming majority of said research supports the idea of global warming and humans having a role.

2.) since 2008 a majority of the years have been some of the hottest on record. Once again not sure where this wanton assertion to the contrary keeps coming from.


Frankly if you aren't aware of number two then it tells me you are doing a piss poor job gathering and assessing information about this topic and that anyone taking your posts seriously must themselves have an even worse grasp of the information surrounding the topic. Frankly you should probably go back to the drawing board and come back once you have at least a rudimentary understanding of recent data and it's implications.

Despite your blathering condescending rant the facts remain. The poll is self selecting which excludes it from being scientific (I got that from the statistics course I just took. If you are going to talk down you not demonstrate ignorance yourself. To other posters I should have used the phrase unscientific rather then valid).

Two. I never claimed Man was not having an effect or the climate was not changing that is the straw man that gets thrown out to dodge the subject of the lack of understanding of how the system works. The computer models that were beholden as proof by Al Gore, Michael Mann, etc have been proven wrong is what I ascertained. Just because it is some of the warmest does not mean the average temperature is increasing. The fact is the average temperature has trended down.

[RebSaint]

Originally Posted by UncleDoug

Despite your blathering condescending rant the facts remain. The poll is self selecting which excludes it from being scientific (I got that from the statistics course I just took. If you are going to talk down you not demonstrate ignorance yourself. To other posters I should have used the phrase unscientific rather then valid).

I won't get into how you've misunderstood the methodology and statistics of this survey, but you're just patently wrong about the growing consensus among scientists, the scientific community, organizations as to whether the existence of global warming.

Here perhaps is more tangible, verifiable proof that there's rather strong consensus here.

Scientific Consensus on Global Warming | Union of Concerned Scientists

There's a lot of disagreement as to at what rate, the effects, and what's causing global warming: there's still a lot of disagreement as to its causes, the overall effects, etc. etc., but at some level, scientists from a variety of different scientific fields from Meteorology, Climatology, Biology, Ecology...these people aren't fringe kooks or are taking cues from omglol ALGORE! These people are experts in their fields who may disagree vehemently as to the details regarding global warming, but there's rather stunning consensus as to those who recognize its existence.

[UncleDoug]

Originally Posted by RebSaint

I won't get into how you've misunderstood the methodology and statistics of this survey, but you're just patently wrong about the growing consensus among scientists, the scientific community, organizations as to whether the existence of global warming.

Here perhaps is more tangible, verifiable proof that there's rather strong consensus here.

Scientific Consensus on Global Warming | Union of Concerned Scientists

There's a lot of disagreement as to at what rate, the effects, and what's causing global warming: there's still a lot of disagreement as to its causes, the overall effects, etc. etc., but at some level, scientists from a variety of different scientific fields from Meteorology, Climatology, Biology, Ecology...these people aren't fringe kooks or are taking cues from omglol ALGORE! These people are experts in their fields who may disagree vehemently as to the details regarding global warming, but there's rather stunning consensus as to those who recognize its existence.

Thank you for reiterating the point that I started the next segment (which you ignored or did not read) with. You know the whole straw man that is a complete misrepresentation of what I stated and what I am questioning.

[RebSaint]

Originally Posted by UncleDoug

Thank you for reiterating the point that I started the next segment (which you ignored or did not read) with. You know the whole straw man that is a complete misrepresentation of what I stated and what I am questioning.

Then I must be as dense as others in this thread, but I suspect you're just hopelessly lost. Or you're doing a real poor job in exactly stating what you're exact point is.

If it to explain that there's significant disagreement within the scientific community about the causes/details/rate etc. of global warming, Then you would be correct.

If it is to point out that there's significant disagreement within the scientific community about the mere existence of global warming, you would be wrong.

[Yoweigh]

Originally Posted by UncleDoug

The fact is the average temperature has trended down.

What?! According to who? Citation needed.

Random people on the internet accusing climate scientists of a "lack of understanding" just expose their own stupidity.

[Sarcastic]

Stoopid scientists, weather is obviously getting colder

[UncleDoug]

Originally Posted by RebSaint

If it to explain that there's significant disagreement within the scientific community about the causes/details/rate etc. of global warming, Then you would be correct.

What I have written should be placed in the correct category.

If people do not read or ignore entire segments or purposely misrepresent my position it is not on me to correct the record. People have repeated wrote, to paraphrase, that I think the average temperature is remaining the same, despite my repeatedly for literally years now having stated other wise.

[wcklink]

Originally Posted by Sarcastic

Stoopid scientists, weather is obviously getting colder

Well, let's work on getting a forecast for next month, next quarter, and next year that is even remotely accurate before we toss a big pile of cash on a "problem" based on climate models that are off by orders of magnitude.

[dtc]

Originally Posted by wcklink

Well, let's work on getting a forecast for next month, next quarter, and next year that is even remotely accurate before we toss a big pile of cash on a "problem" based on climate models that are off by orders of magnitude.

I love this argument. It's awful close to saying you disagree that a quarter flipped 10,000 times is likely to come out 50/50 heads and tails because you can't predict with certainty the next 10 tries.

[Sardonios]

Originally Posted by wcklink

Well, let's work on getting a forecast for next month, next quarter, and next year that is even remotely accurate before we toss a big pile of cash on a "problem" based on climate models that are off by orders of magnitude.

That's a false equivalence. Scientists have only vague predictive models to tell me whether I'll die tomorrow. They likewise can't tell me with strong accuracy whether I'll die in six months or six years. Obviously, then, they're talking directly out of their rectum when they tell me that they're reasonably certain that I'll be dead within the century without medical intervention. Bunch of shills for the medical-industrial complex.

[wcklink]

Originally Posted by dtradin

I love this argument. It's awful close to saying you disagree that a quarter flipped 10,000 times is likely to come out 50/50 heads and tails because you can't predict with certainty the next 10 tries.

But I'm not asking that you bet billions on the outcome of something that you can't control. We have as much control over "climate change" as you do of flipping that coin and it coming up heads 10,000 times in a row.