Why I think Climate Change Denial is little more than pseudoscience.

[MannyIsGod]

A new team.

Most of you have this crazy view of how science is done, but Yonivore you take the damn cake.

[MannyIsGod]

So, how'd it work out? Did their models accurately predict the current climate?

What did your blogs tell you?

[MannyIsGod]

Its amazing that scientists thought to check their models without Yonivore coming up with the idea first.

http://www.grida.no/publications/oth...1/figspm-4.htm

[Yonivore]

Define reasonable.

Doesn't matter how it's defined when you expect the evidence and conclusions to both meet the same reasonableness standard.

In that case, the conclusions are as good as the evidence.

[Yonivore]

What did your blogs tell you?

So, you don't know how they turned out?

[RandomGuy]

Substantiated vs. supported, thousands of years vs. any empirical evidence; meh, I wrote the sentence from what I remembered from the letter.

In either case, that is clearly what they are saying.

I stand by my other characterization of the letter, as well.

not supported by any empirical evidence

I don't know if any of them would say there there is absolutely no empirical data supporting the theory that man-made factors are causing some climate changes.

Do you think there is no empirical evidence supporting this theory at all?

[MannyIsGod]

So, you don't know how they turned out?

Yeah - I don't know Yoni. I look to you and your blogs for information on climate sciences.

[RandomGuy]

Doesn't matter how it's defined when you expect the evidence and conclusions to both meet the same reasonableness standard.

In that case, the conclusions are as good as the evidence.

It seems to be the central argument here, so it does matter.

You don't want it to matter, because you realize on some level you aren't being reasonable.

Define a "reasonable" level of evidence. We obviously don't have enough now to satisfy you, so what would?

[RandomGuy]

FWIW, here is one of those alarmists blathering on about reducing emissions.

This made me change my mind about nuclear power though. New information, reasonably presented.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traveling_wave_reactor

Bloody brilliant idea, IMO. Uses nuclear waste to make energy.

Hard to do from what I read, but I'm sure the technical barriers can be overcome, with the right investment.

[RandomGuy]

I hope even you would admit those decades of research have been marred with miscalculations, errors, misrepresentations, and scientific malpractice, to the point where it is reasonable to question the validity of the absolute certainty being claimed by Al Gore and the GISS's Hansen.

Sorry, I think the top-tier AGCC proponents have lost all credibility with the world. They need to field a new team with their reputations intact if any of this is to be taken seriously.

It is always reasonable to question scientific studies. That is the nature of science.

I hope even you would admit that our understanding of our climate has vastly improved and will continue to improve going forward. Do you admit this?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

FWIW, here is one of those alarmists blathering on about reducing emissions.

This made me change my mind about nuclear power though. New information, reasonably presented.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traveling_wave_reactor

Bloody brilliant idea, IMO. Uses nuclear waste to make energy.

Hard to do from what I read, but I'm sure the technical barriers can be overcome, with the right investment.

i am just glad the the insurance industry and thus the financial industry is realizing they have a significant stake in this. Catastrophic weather related claims are severely impacting the industry.

They are concerned with what actually happens rather than trying to convince people that something will not happen so they can sell you something.

[RandomGuy]

for any given scientific field, if decades of research in that field resulting in hundreds of research papers tends to point to one theory as being the most likely one, and arrives at that conclusion based on multiple lines of evidence, is does that reach the level where one can reasonably accept that explanation as being the most probable one?

Not when there's evidence of unscientific complicity to arrive at that explanation.

So when we find one instance of this, we ignore all the data?

Is it reasonable to assume that all scientists in this field partake in this conspiracy?

[RandomGuy]

i am just glad the the insurance industry and thus the financial industry is realizing they have a significant stake in this. Catastrophic weather related claims are severely impacting the industry.

They are concerned with what actually happens rather than trying to convince people that something will not happen so they can sell you something.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...te+change+real


Yuppers.

The ad hominems work one way for Deniers, but not the other. Hence the OP. The line between legitimate skepticism and pseudoscience is fairly clear.

[Wild Cobra]

Those who believe in AGW being the primary cause of our warming do not understand real science. i don't know what else to say. It's all been said, and I'm tired of arguing with religious fanatics, over the religion of AGW.

[MannyIsGod]

[MannyIsGod]

The ing parts changer telling scientists who actually publish their methods and show their work that they don't know what science is.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The ing parts changer telling scientists who actually publish their methods and show their work that they don't know what science is.

Hey the guys at Berkley, Cornell, NASA, MIT, etc are all dummies but he can read a trouble shooting checklist and figure out which part to change. Hes even memorized the lists now.

[Wild Cobra]

I see I woke up the peanut gallery.

[DarrinS]

The ing parts changer telling scientists who actually publish their methods and show their work that they don't know what science is.

Hansen just skips the peer review process and publishes on his Columbia website.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/


He's also still out there telling people he thinks sea level will rise 5 meters this century.



Love the Indiana Jones look, btw.


If I were those NASA employees, I'd be embarassed too.

[MannyIsGod]

Congrats to Hansen. Its funny how there are so many holes to be poked in AGW yet where is the peer reviewed lit doing just that?

[DarrinS]

Congrats to Hansen. Its funny how there are so many holes to be poked in AGW yet where is the peer reviewed lit doing just that?

900+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm

http://www.populartechnology.net/200...upporting.html

[DarrinS]

I wonder where Hansen got the idea for the le of his recent book?

[MannyIsGod]

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full#

[MannyIsGod]

What was it you said that one time Darrin about posting blogs in response to peer reviewed literature?

[MannyIsGod]

And since you're so well read on that list, Darrin, would you mind pointing me to the specific papers on it that debunk the effects of CO2?

Thanks!