The paper isn't what's news. The resignation is.
There was obviously something more festering under the surface here. Guess we will need to wait it out.
Terrible comparison. Climatology deals with weather averaged out over long periods. Short term wheather patterns are much more chaotic and unpredictibale.
It's like the difference in trying to predict the result of a single coin flip versus predicting the statistical result of many flips.
Last edited by Agloco; 09-02-2011 at 09:14 PM.
There was always something about geography that enticed me. Perhaps it was my love for travel.
Playing with any satellite technology will involve plenty of physics though.
Here is an interesting one to watch:
I have complained before these believers are reviewing each others work, and there is no "open" peer review process. It is all a closed system, and a total sham.
Yeah if only they opened up those papers to criticism from everyone. You really shouldn't trust the peer review process until the studies are made public, IMO.
Good video. Thanks for posting.
Pretty much sums up what the D-meister is trying to say.
It is sorta cute the way he finally tries to look for logical fallacies, but gets it so horribly wrong.
Does that actually get to a point?
About all it did was attempt to equate sceintists who beleived in AGW to Nazis.
I stopped watching at the point where it showed bulldozers shoveling piles of bodies at some concentration camp.
I figured that once you go there, you aren't interested in the science.
Yet more fodder for the assertion in the OP. Thanks.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 09-12-2011 at 02:00 PM.
Let me know when you can summarize it.
or
Does that article compare climate scientists to Nazis too?
You ended it too soon. There is example after example of lies and deceptions. Move the slider to 1:32, or just before. The rest is discussing the deceptions.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 09-12-2011 at 03:32 PM.
Do you realize how much that video, and you, sound like a 9-11 truther just about now?
You aren't helping your case.
Let me know when you can summarize it.
or
Does that article compare climate scientists to Nazis too?
Summary: Eugenics
Ad hominem
Summarizing it would be difficult as it goes from one example to another to another spending only several seconds on each. It starts with how the FAR (IPCC First Assessment Report) was honest and shows the medieval warming period and by SAR (Second Assessment Report) they removed it. There's a clip of a guy testifying they had to remove the warming period. They talk about how the Hockey Stick is false. The hockey stick is actually talked about for a bit, almost the 5 minute mark.
This video probably has at least three dozen examples of false AGW items.
Starting at 6:09, they talk about how the temperature recording stations were removed. Removing colder stations and using them with a lesser number of the warmer stations left. This skews the data when over time, your colder data is removed. it shows a false warming.
At 7:05 they talk about several examples how incorrect Peer Review processes are used, including someone admitting he didn't let people who disagree with them review the work, because they might find fault.
This is a good video. A must see.
Random...
Just open it in another window, and listen as you do something else.
You're so cute trying to use that word. (pinches cheeks)
(edit)
Let's be clear:
The videos points stand on their own merits, not on any vacuous, dishonest, and ty comparisons of climate scientists to Nazis.
I just don't want to waste my time to finish watching it because I found it more than a little insulting.
In most cases one should not dismiss the truth of things because of the person saying it.
BUT
In the cases where one is presented with a specific interpretation of facts and evidence by someone with so obvious and extreme of a bias, one should be EXTREMELY skeptical of the analysis or conclusions.
I will not throw away the conclusions of tens of thousands of scientists and researchers based on the cherry-picked data on a youtube video.
That may be the level of proof required by twoofers and creationists, but I require just a *bit* more convincing before the scale tips, IMO.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 09-12-2011 at 05:16 PM.
Gee thanks. How gay of you.
You're so cute trying to use that word. (pinches cheeks)
Why do you find it insulting?
And then you go on the insult offensive.
lol @ "tens of thousands" of scientists.
By the way, this line of reasoning is a fallacy known as "appeal to authority".
Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
Person A makes claim C about subject S.
Therefore, C is true.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...authority.html
Either you are a ing idiot and/or dishonest as all , I can't figure out which.
Climate scientists generally are, by definition, experts on climate, you moron.
While one cannot put what they say as an absolute truth with no room for error, one can certainly assign a base probability that they might know something about their field of expertise at higher level than, say, your average brain-damaged comptuer programmer or the nutritionists who sign pe ions about climate science.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 09-13-2011 at 01:05 AM. Reason: Spelling and smileys. Loves me them smileys.
LOL...
There aren't that many who have studied and agree with all this AGW stuff. I think the number is 26.
And as many or more disagree with the AGW scare.
I think you are dishonest.
What you think and what you can prove are two different things, and there is generally a fairly large gulf between them.
The few studies that have been done, have shown the as the level of knowledge and education, and specifically the more one studies climate systems, the more convinced they are of AGW.
http://content.usatoday.com/communit...imate-change/1
In the study, the authors wrote: "This extensive analysis of the mainstream versus skeptical/contrarian researchers suggests a strong role for considering expert credibility in the relative weight of and attention to these groups of researchers in future discussions in media, policy, and public forums regarding anthropogenic climate change."
http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-...-skeptics.htmlThere have been various surveys or pe ions claiming that thousands of scientists are skeptical that humans are causing global warming. The thing is, when you peruse these lists, you find very few scientists who actually have expertise in climate science. So what do the experts think? A 2009 survey found that over 97% of actively publishing climate scientists are convinced humans are significantly changing global temperatures (Doran 2009). Now a new study has digged into this topic a little deeper and broader. As well as covering a larger number of climate scientists, they also researched how many papers each scientist published and how often their work was cited (Anderegg 2010). How many published climate scientists think most of recent global warming was due to human activity? Between 97 to 98%.
The results are strikingly consistent with Doran's earlier work. The overwhelming majority of climate experts think humans are causing climate change. Next, they dig a little deeper. They examine the number of publications by each scientist as a measure of expertise in climate science. What they find is the average number of publications by unconvinced scientists (eg - skeptics) is around half the number by scientists convinced by the evidence. Not only is there a vast difference in the number of convinced versus unconvinced scientists, there is also a considerable gap in expertise between the two groups.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/20...87107.abstract
Random...
Guess what. we have been over that 97% number before. Two questions were asked. If forget exactly how they were worded, but I would be part of that 97% if asked those questions. They were effectively asking if global warming was real, and if man had any pert of it. Not if AGW was primary. Not if man was the cause.
As for my number of 26...
That is the sum total of the scientists involved in peer review authoring and reviewing associated with Anthropogenic Global Warming. They are all on the same sheet of music and review each others works. It is not an open peer review process. Then when a "skeptic" tears apart their work, they get together and peer review something to discredit real science.
I challenge you to show me more names than that involved with the AGW peer review process.
Guess what, the new study (you know, the one I linked and you obviously didn't read) that confirms the ealier one didn't ask questions.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/20....full.pdf+htmlWe compiled a database of 1,372 climate researchers and classified each researcher into two categories: convinced by the evidence (CE) for anthropogenic climate change (ACC) or unconvinced by the evidence (UE) for ACC.
We defined CE researchers as those who signed statements broadly agreeing
with or directly endorsing the primary tenets of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report that it is “very likely” that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for “most” of the “unequivocal” warming of the Earth’s average global temperature in the second half of the 20th century (3). We compiled these CE researchers comprehensively from the lists of IPCC AR4 Working Group I Contributors and four prominent scientific statements endorsing the IPCC (n = 903; SI Materials and Methods).
We defined UE researchers as those who have signed statements strongly dissenting from the views of the IPCC.We compiled UE names comprehensively from 12 of the most prominent statements criticizing the IPCC conclusions (n = 472; SI Materials and Methods).
Only three researchers were members of both the CE and UE groups (due to
their presence on both CE and UE lists) and remained in the dataset, except in
calculations of the top 50, 100, and 200 researchers’ group membership.
It appears as though the authors didn't ask any questions and used some pretty unambiguous indicators of opinion, and this study confirms the first set of data that you are tryign to ignore.
More education + more research into climate = more convinced of the actual evidence for ACC
less educastion + less research into climate = less convinced of the actual evidence for ACC
This dovetails with the OP, by the way.
There are currently 4 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 4 guests)
Posting Permissions
