The spread of 'debate is over' syndrome

[DarrinS]

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/media-608400-many-one.html





The ongoing trial involving journalist Mark Steyn – accused of defaming climate change theorist Michael Mann – reflects an increasingly dangerous tendency among our intellectual classes to embrace homogeneity of viewpoint. Steyn, whose column has appeared for years on these pages, may be alternatingly entertaining or over-the-top obnoxious, but the slander lawsuit against him marks a milestone in what has become a dangerously authoritarian worldview being adopted in academia, the media and large sections of the government bureaucracy.

Let’s call it “the debate is over” syndrome, referring to a term used most often in relationship with climate change but also by President Barack Obama last week in reference to what remains his contentious, and theoretically reformable, health care plan. Ironically, this shift to certainty now comes increasingly from what passes for the Left in America.

These are the same people who historically have identified themselves with open-mindedness and the defense of free speech, while conservatives, with some justification, were associated more often with such traits as criminalizing unpopular views – as seen in the 1950s McCarthy era – and embracing canonical bans on all sorts of personal behavior, a tendency still more evident than necessary among some socially minded conservatives.

But when it comes to authoritarian expression of “true” beliefs, it’s the progressive Left that increasingly seeks to impose orthodoxy. In this rising intellectual order, those who dissent on everything from climate change, the causes of poverty and the definition of marriage, to opposition to abortion are increasingly marginalized and, in some cases, as in the Steyn trial, legally attacked.

A few days ago, Brendan Eich, CEO of the web browser company Mozilla, resigned under pressure from gay rights groups. Why? Because it was revealed he donated $1,000 to the campaign to pass Proposition 8, California’s since-overturned ballot measure defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

In many cases, I might agree with some leftist views, say, on gay marriage or the critical nature of income inequality, but liberals should find these intolerant tendencies terrifying and dangerous in a democracy dependent on the free interchange of ideas.

This shift has been building for decades and follows the increasingly uniform capture of key institutions – universities, the mass media and the bureaucracy – by people holding a set of “acceptable” viewpoints. Ironically, the shift toward a uniform worldview started in the 1960s, in part as a reaction to the excesses of Sen. Joseph McCarthy and the oppressive conformity of the 1950s.

But what started as liberation and openness has now engendered an ever-more powerful clerisy – an educated class – that seeks to impose particular viewpoints while marginalizing and, in the most-extreme cases, criminalizing, divergent views.

Today’s clerisy in some ways resembles the clerical First Estate in pre-revolutionary France, which, in the words of the historian Georges Lefebvre, “possessed a control over thought in the interests of the Church and king.” With today’s clerisy, notes essayist Joseph Bottum, “social and political ideas [are] elevated to the status of strange divinities ... born of the ancient religious hunger to perceive more in the world than just the give and take of ordinary human beings, but adapted to an age that piously congratulates itself on its escape from many of the strictures of ancient religion.”

To be sure, there remains a still-potent camp of conservative ideologues, many associated with think tanks, such as the Heritage Foundation, and a host of publications, most notably the media empire controlled by the Murdoch family. But, for the most part, today’s clerisy in media and academia tilts in one basic direction, embracing a fairly uniform set of secular “truths” on issues ranging from the nature of justice, race and gender, to the environment.

Those who dissent from the “accepted” point of view may not suffer excommunication, burning at the stake or other public rituals of penance, but can expect their work to be vilified or simply ignored. In some bastions of the new clerisy, such as San Francisco, an actress with unsuitable views can be pilloried, and a campaign launched to remove her from a production for supporting a Tea Party candidate.

Nowhere is this shift more evident than in academia, as evidenced in Mann’s civil action against Steyn. The climate change issue, one of great import and worthy of serious consideration, is now being buried by the seemingly unscientific notion that everyone needs to follow orthodoxy on an issue that – like the nature of God in the Middle Ages – is considered “settled,” and those who do not agree deserve to be pilloried.

But climate change is just one manifestation of the new authoritarian view in academia. On many college campuses, “speech codes” have become an increasingly popular way to control thought at many campuses. Like medieval dons, our academic worthies concentrate their fire on those whose views – say on social issues – offend the new canon. No surprise, then, as civil libertarian Nat Hentoff notes, that a 2010 survey of 24,000 college students found that barely a third of them thought it “safe to hold unpopular views on campus.”

This is not terribly surprising, given the lack of intellectual diversity on many campuses. Various studies of political orientation of academics have found liberals outnumber conservatives, from 8-to-1 to 14-to-1. Whether this is a reflection of simply natural preferences of the well-educated or partially blatant discrimination remains arguable, but some research suggests that roughly two of five professors would be less inclined to hire an evangelical or conservative colleague than one more conventionally liberal.

Political uniformity is certainly in vogue. A remarkable 96 percent of presidential campaign donations from the nation’s Ivy League faculty and staff in 2012 went to Obama, a margin more reminiscent of Soviet Russia than a properly functioning pluralistic academy.

[boutons_deux]

Kock/Bircher-land OCR bitching about backlash to right-wing, corporate-funded LYING and denying scientific facts, and slandering the backlash as orthodoxy, conformity, authoritarian, etc, etc. :lol


"Heritage Foundation" :lol one of the original stink tanks from early 1970s funded by the VRWC, ie, PAID to propagandize, LIE, SLANDER

[Wild Cobra]

Good article. Too bad progressives/liberals don't see their hypocrisy in orthodoxy.

[TeyshaBlue]

Kock/Bircher-land OCR bitching about backlash to right-wing, corporate-funded LYING and denying scientific facts, and slandering the backlash as orthodoxy, conformity, authoritarian, etc, etc. :lol


"Heritage Foundation" :lol one of the original stink tanks from early 1970s funded by the VRWC, ie, PAID to propagandize, LIE, SLANDER


Says the poster-boy for thinkprogress. :lol

[MannyIsGod]

Hmmm, I wonder if there's a reason that academics tend to be more progressive than not? Probably just liberal brainwashing. Certainly not the fact GOP's stance on issues such as funding of higher ed, denying evolution and climate change, or their vilification of being an academic to begin with.

[MannyIsGod]

I don't know about many of the topics the article talks about as it attempts to lump everything under the sun they disagree with into one freaking article. The piece overall stinks of a "hey this is why progressives" suck hit piece as opposed to anything with actual substance. Thats probably why Darrin liked it enough to post it.

In the case of the antidefimation lawsuit, it certainly is not a situation where people who are denying climate change are being sued. Its a case where a climatologist was compared with a child molester in a publication for the purposes of discrediting his scientific work when every independent review panel/board/group who has analyzed his work has said its fine. If this is the type of behavior Darrin wants to defend then that is up to him but miscatagorizing that lawsuit as a suppression of free speech is hilarious. Whether or not there's a legal case I have no clue as I am not an expert on slandar/defemation law but I do know that multiple judges have decided the case has enough merit to go forward and be heard.

Don't really care much about the rest of the rant, I mean article except that I would say I agree that speech codes aren't a good idea on a university campus. I get their targeted to kill hate speech but I still think that they are inherently wrong and I'm pretty sure that most court cases have ruled against them.

[Wild Cobra]

Hmmm, I wonder if there's a reason that academics tend to be more progressive than not? Probably just liberal brainwashing. Certainly not the fact GOP's stance on issues such as funding of higher ed, denying evolution and climate change, or their vilification of being an academic to begin with.
You would think that higher learning would be neutral. Too bad it isn't.

[boutons_deux]

"hey this is why progressives"

ok, but also "this is why (hired) conservatives are equal to progressives and therefore deserve respect" for their lying, slander, propaganda

iow, just another case of right-wing false equivalence, like creationism is as plausible as evolution, etc, etc.

[MannyIsGod]

You would think that higher learning would be neutral. Too bad it isn't.

Why on earth are they supposed to be neutral?

[Wild Cobra]

Why on earth are they supposed to be neutral?
Why should they be political?

[MannyIsGod]

Um, because we're citizens with interests just like anyone else?

[Wild Cobra]

Um, because we're citizens with interests just like anyone else?
Taking political bias out of teaching doesn't curtail teaching.

[MannyIsGod]

This is the kind of reason why I just ignore you. Who said anything about teaching? The article complains about the political leaning of people in academia being overly progressive. It's not academia's fault the GOP shits on it but it doesn't mean they have to develop Stockholm syndrome and support them. Also, political neutrality certainly isn't going to happen in most upper division courses as the professor is going to teach from their perspective. Thats the whole point of taking a class from an expert. A graduate level evolutionary biology course isn't going to change what is taught simply to please some creationist politician.

But yes, WC, tell us with all your academic expertise what the academic environment should be like.

[boutons_deux]

Taking political bias out of teaching doesn't curtail teaching.

who said they have have political bias in their teaching?

[Spurminator]

You would think that higher learning would be neutral. Too bad it isn't.

In cases like climate change and evolution, "neutral" to you would mean watering down facts to appease people who are wrong.

[Wild Cobra]

In cases like climate change and evolution, "neutral" to you would mean watering down facts to appease people who are wrong.
Believe as you wish. I disagree with your take. The climate sciences are built on a false foundation as to CO2's sensitivity. There hasn't been any empirical work on the topic that addresses a mixed atmosphere. Any study you find cites other papers, which in turn cite other papers. The root papers correlates cause and effect without properly addressing all variables.

The climate sciences have become a political tool, used by those in power to increase their authoritarian stance and control over others. Just look at who gets funded by the government. Only those looking for more alarmists ideals.

[MannyIsGod]

LOL at some of the shit this guy spews.

[baseline bum]

LOL at some of the shit this guy spews.

some?

[spurraider21]

Hmmm, I wonder if there's a reason that academics tend to be more progressive than not? Probably just liberal brainwashing. Certainly not the fact GOP's stance on issues such as funding of higher ed, denying evolution and climate change, or their vilification of being an academic to begin with.
i'm pretty sure its a lot like a bell curve. at the low end of the academic spectrum you have the deadbeat uneducated folks who vote democrat for all the stereotypical reasons. close to the middle of the academic spectrum you have the people that are making money, and vote republican for the stereotypical reasons. then at the high end you have the guys with doctorates, etc who tend to vote democrat/progressive for more idealistic reasons.

of course, this isn't an absolute, but this is at least the impression i get

[baseline bum]

Stupid progressives and their "Debate is Over" about cigarettes causing cancer.

[RandomGuy]

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/media-608400-many-one.html


an increasingly dangerous tendency among our intellectual classes to embrace homogeneity of viewpoint.

:lmao

jYZE5900EBA

The debate is over unless you are into conspiracy theories.

[RandomGuy]

Good article. Too bad progressives/liberals don't see their hypocrisy in orthodoxy.

People who believe in pseudoscientific bullshit should be ostracized.

[Wild Cobra]

People who believe in pseudoscientific bullshit should be ostracized.
No, they should be shown wrong with empirical evidence. If that doesn't occur, then maybe you are calling it wrong.

[RandomGuy]

No, they should be shown wrong with empirical evidence. If that doesn't occur, then maybe you are calling it wrong.

Dude, you have argued with mouse, and thrown in with Cosmored on occasion.

Do you think showing them empirical evidence did anything?

Conspiracy theorists have some very-hard-to-dislodge beliefs.

[DarrinS]

People who don't share my beliefs should be ostracized.

fify

[RandomGuy]

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/media-608400-many-one.html

Quite frankly the tone and wording sounds so much like the magic crystal, and 9-11 twoofer crowd.

Riddle me this:

What would people who really understand the science say about people who pull shit out of their ass about a topic?

Sounds like the human tendency to overestimate competence, and do so in increasing gaps the less they know.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

I think in this case there are a lot of bottom quartiles on the information spectrum thinking they are above average about their knowledge of the topic.

52KLGqDSAjo

Start here, and this guy will take you through what actual scientists say. I will say he isn't very nice to Al Gore.

[RandomGuy]

fify

Show me some solid science, and I am happy to change my mind.

Until then stand in the corner with the magic chakra crowd.

[DarrinS]

Quite frankly the tone and wording sounds so much like the magic crystal, and 9-11 twoofer crowd.



The article isn't about climate change. It's about intolerance.

[Wild Cobra]

The article isn't about climate change. It's about intolerance.

The left only hears what they want to.

[RandomGuy]

I wonder if we can bemoan the "debate is over" about evolution?

Creationists make the same complaints.

"boo-fucking-hoo, the scientists dont' take us seriously"....

bmQZ4f9f_Yw

[RandomGuy]

The left only hears what they want to.

jYZE5900EBA

[Wild Cobra]

Too bad the bad science from climatologists make people weary about evolution.

[DarrinS]

RG with the whiff

[MannyIsGod]

i'm pretty sure its a lot like a bell curve. at the low end of the academic spectrum you have the deadbeat uneducated folks who vote democrat for all the stereotypical reasons. close to the middle of the academic spectrum you have the people that are making money, and vote republican for the stereotypical reasons. then at the high end you have the guys with doctorates, etc who tend to vote democrat/progressive for more idealistic reasons.

of course, this isn't an absolute, but this is at least the impression i get

I don't think many people with PhDs are idealists, quite frankly. Grad school tends to really bring out the cynic in people. Many people have an impression of academics that is very very far from the truth and I think this is a good example. I really doubt even those with PhDs in the humanities are very idealistic. In fact, they are likely more jaded and cynical than those who are on a STEM path.

From my exposure to academics in the geosciences, most are definitely progressive. But its not because of an idealistic views. Its because the GOP's stances. Most people I've come across tend to be very much against GOP actions when it comes to gay marriage, science, and the war on terror. If you do find any idealism, its likely to be in the last category but I don't know for sure as most of my conversations with these people involve science or subjects we enjoy more (BEER) than politics. Its basically hard for trained scientists to back a party who for the last decade has been hell bent on denying some fundamental science and focusing on subjects such as gay marriage.

In other disciplines, YMMV.

[MannyIsGod]

I've read things that show that the political identification among professors has shifted to the left but perhaps what people should consider is that the shift hasn't occurred among college faculty but rather in the GOP shifting to the right. Perhaps it was easier for professors to identify with GOP principles in the 70s than it has been after the 90s.

[DarrinS]

jYZE5900EBA

The tired ass 97% consensus bullshit again?

Do you know the origin of that figure?

[pgardn]

Stupid progressives and their "Debate is Over" about cigarettes causing cancer.

And Obama's birth certificate still looms large. I think he was last an Egyptian.

[DarrinS]

And Obama's birth certificate still looms large. I think he was last an Egyptian.

Actually, it doesn't loom large.

[pgardn]

Too bad the bad science from climatologists make people weary about evolution.

Nah, they just don't like being associated with apes.
Created specially and all that. If anything you got it backwards imo.

Weary from the constant battering, or wary, as in skeptical, not trusting?

[pgardn]

Actually, it doesn't loom large.

Dont tell Glen Beck... and his listeners.

[DarrinS]

Dont tell Glen Beck... and his listeners.

Glen Beck is a birther? I doubt it.

[ElNono]

Those who dissent from the “accepted” point of view may not suffer excommunication, burning at the stake or other public rituals of penance, but can expect their work to be vilified or simply ignored.

Sounds like what happens to boutons' posts, tbh...

The reality is that there's a lot of debate about the "accepted" point of view, new/different theories, etc, within the realm of science. The actual problem is when you start hearing "god of the gaps", "trickle down", etc, and at this point, why would anybody be surprised they're ignored?

[ElNono]

LOL at some of the shit this guy spews.

He's the kind described in the OP as getting ignored/vilified... rightly so if you ask me.

[The Reckoning]

Hmmm, I wonder if there's a reason that academics tend to be more progressive than not? Probably just liberal brainwashing. Certainly not the fact GOP's stance on issues such as funding of higher ed, denying evolution and climate change, or their vilification of being an academic to begin with.


there is a reason, and as an academic, i see it everywhere. it isn't anything new though. it has been around a long time.

to debate the status quo in academics is a huge gamble. chances are you'll be completely ostracized from the field. if not, you start your own "black box" so to speak.

that's the beauty of academics though. without "follow the leader" academics, nothing really substantial gets done. however, it takes one screwy theory or academic to throw it all out of line. that's why academics are so cynical because it takes one asshole to spoil a whole field of work and every one will be out of the job or have to translate their work without sounding like a hypocrite.

or as often the case, two (or more) different schools of thought spring up and academics usually feel they have to "assign" themselves to one or the other.

usually your best bet is to agree with the consensus and add your own brick to the wall.

[pgardn]

there is a reason, and as an academic, i see it everywhere. it isn't anything new though. it has been around a long time.

to debate the status quo in academics is a huge gamble. chances are you'll be completely ostracized from the field. if not, you start your own "black box" so to speak.

that's the beauty of academics though. without "follow the leader" academics, nothing really substantial gets done. however, it takes one screwy theory or academic to throw it all out of line. that's why academics are so cynical because it takes one asshole to spoil a whole field of work and every one will be out of the job or have to translate their work without sounding like a hypocrite.

or as often the case, two (or more) different schools of thought spring up and academics usually feel they have to "assign" themselves to one or the other.

usually your best bet is to agree with the consensus and add your own brick to the wall.

But if you really uncover a significant flaw everyone missed and effectively present this flaw, respect.

There are also academics that love to point out flaws or conclusions that don't necessarily follow the evidence. They lie in wait ready to pounce. I know exactly who they are, they relish slamming a paper that might follow the leader if it is not worthy. It may be different depending on which field you are in. I don't know.

And there clearly are gadflies just out for attention.

[The Reckoning]

But if you really uncover a significant flaw everyone missed and effectively present this flaw, respect.

There are also academics that love to point out flaws or conclusions that don't necessarily follow the evidence. They lie in wait ready to pounce. I know exactly who they are, they relish slamming a paper that might follow the leader if it is not worthy. It may be different depending on which field you are in. I don't know.

And there clearly are gadflies just out for attention.


we had this guy fly in from out of country to give a seminar on something...his research was meticulously done, his methods and analysis were solid and presentation great.

then some random academic drills this dude during questioning about ethics and how he didn't go through the right mediums....all the guy could do was sit there in silence because the whole ethics portion of the study was done by someone else in the very department that invited him to talk.

i swear there are some real McAssholes in academia. and as far as everyone else was concerned, the ethics were fine. they had to be approved by a committee anyway...

[RandomGuy]

The tired ass 97% consensus bullshit again?

Do you know the origin of that figure?

I don't really care. 97%, 92%, 89.3%, 62.33333%, etc.

A general consensus among the people who actually study something is about all I would look to.

If you really want to delve into the science, the other series by potholer54 is better.

(Playlist)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP

He addresses the actual science, as well as what you would term alarmism by the likes of Al Gore. Let me know when you get to the end.

I would point out, that mouse, Cosmored, parker, et al., never watch anything of similar length that challenges their pre-existing beliefs.

[RandomGuy]

Glen Beck is a birther? I doubt it.

https://www.google.com/search?q=glenn+beck+birther+quote

He isn't.


On the air today, popular radio host Glenn Beck mocked “birthers” and claimed there is a concerted campaign to get those questioning Barack Obama’s constitutional eligibility onto the airwaves – a strategy Beck said would actually benefit Obama.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2010/01/120992/#mAvdERiUr6xZ6cAk.99

[RandomGuy]

The article isn't about climate change. It's about intolerance.

People should be intolerant of intellectual dishonesty and pseudoscientific garbage.

Do you think that people who say that crystals have magic healing powers should be held to the same level of credibility that someone who graduated from medical school would have?

[RandomGuy]

No, they should be shown wrong with empirical evidence. If that doesn't occur, then maybe you are calling it wrong.

Yes they should be show empirical evidence.

If they are shown rank dishonesty, what should they think?

w5hs4KVeiAU

[DarrinS]

I don't really care. 97%, 92%, 89.3%, 62.33333%, etc.

A general consensus among the people who actually study something is about all I would look to.



The source is your buddy, John Cook, the dude who runs SkepticalScience website. That paper has received a LOT of criticism, and rightly so.



People should be intolerant of intellectual dishonesty and pseudoscientific garbage.


And yet, you are more than willing to accept pseudoscience when it comports with your beliefs.

John Cook has also published a paper that likens CAGW skeptics to conspiracy nutters. That, too, is getting slammed for the pseudoscience it represents.

[pgardn]

The source is your buddy, John Cook, the dude who runs SkepticalScience website. That paper has received a LOT of criticism, and rightly so.



And yet, you are more than willing to accept pseudoscience when it comports with your beliefs.

John Cook has also published a paper that likens CAGW skeptics to conspiracy nutters. That, too, is getting slammed for the pseudoscience it represents.

What pseudoscience is he believing?

[MannyIsGod]

we had this guy fly in from out of country to give a seminar on something...his research was meticulously done, his methods and analysis were solid and presentation great.

then some random academic drills this dude during questioning about ethics and how he didn't go through the right mediums....all the guy could do was sit there in silence because the whole ethics portion of the study was done by someone else in the very department that invited him to talk.

i swear there are some real McAssholes in academia. and as far as everyone else was concerned, the ethics were fine. they had to be approved by a committee anyway...

I've been to quite a few contentious seminars but they don't stem from shit like ethics but rather the assertions and conclusions. Never felt its been malicious.

[MannyIsGod]

The source is your buddy, John Cook, the dude who runs SkepticalScience website. That paper has received a LOT of criticism, and rightly so.



And yet, you are more than willing to accept pseudoscience when it comports with your beliefs.

John Cook has also published a paper that likens CAGW skeptics to conspiracy nutters. That, too, is getting slammed for the pseudoscience it represents.

Did anyone here post the John Cook paper? Did anyone support it?

[MannyIsGod]

there is a reason, and as an academic, i see it everywhere. it isn't anything new though. it has been around a long time.

to debate the status quo in academics is a huge gamble. chances are you'll be completely ostracized from the field. if not, you start your own "black box" so to speak.

that's the beauty of academics though. without "follow the leader" academics, nothing really substantial gets done. however, it takes one screwy theory or academic to throw it all out of line. that's why academics are so cynical because it takes one asshole to spoil a whole field of work and every one will be out of the job or have to translate their work without sounding like a hypocrite.

or as often the case, two (or more) different schools of thought spring up and academics usually feel they have to "assign" themselves to one or the other.

usually your best bet is to agree with the consensus and add your own brick to the wall.

There's some truth to the fact that it takes more effort to move against the status quo than it does to go with it but that's because of how the status quo is built to begin with. I suspect that our two fields are actually quite different in many respects, though.

But there's also a difference between political beliefs and research ideas. But even if this were extended to political beliefs, there's been a move away from the status quo the past couple of decades as academic political identification has shifted to a more liberal makeup.

[DarrinS]

Did anyone here post the John Cook paper? Did anyone support it?

RG posted a video that cited the 97% line.

[DarrinS]

Cook's latest paper, equating skeptics to 9/11 twoofers (something RG loves to do), is based on the equivalent of a SpursTalk poll. What could go wrong?

[MannyIsGod]

Cook's latest paper, equating skeptics to 9/11 twoofers (something RG loves to do), is based on the equivalent of a SpursTalk poll. What could go wrong?

Who cares? Who here is using that paper to make any points? I get that you want to erect an easy target here so that you can tear it down but no one here is supporting that paper or brandishing it to make a point. No one brought up that paper but you. CLASSIC strawman.

Keep on with the crusade against a paper no one here is supporting if it makes you feel better.

[MannyIsGod]

FYI - Cook is not the person behind the 97% consensus figure.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus#ft1

[Wild Cobra]

I hope everyone realized that consensus is not science. There are real scientists who take the skeptical view. If there was real evidence the alarmist view was correct, there would be no skeptics. They would see and accept the science.

[DarrinS]

FYI - Cook is not the person behind the 97% consensus figure.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus#ft1


lol

"We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming."


Well, Kook et. al. are one of the sources of this crock.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The article isn't about climate change. It's about intolerance.

It's called empiricism and deduction. Deduction is what it is and sorry that ideas like man's CO2 production does not have a tangible effect or your magic sky man have been deducted from reality based on empirical evidence.

It is an objective manner in proving something to be true or not. Lies and fiction inserted for reality should not be tolerated. Noting your comfort in misleading people you position is not surprising.

[pgardn]

I hope everyone realized that consensus is not science. There are real scientists who take the skeptical view. If there was real evidence the alarmist view was correct, there would be no skeptics. They would see and accept the science.

What?

[boutons_deux]

I hope everyone realized that consensus is not science. There are real scientists who take the skeptical view. If there was real evidence the alarmist view was correct, there would be no skeptics. They would see and accept the science.

consensus is, by definition, nothing but opinion. Science is by definition fact finding, facts, proof.

the majority of "scientists who take the skeptical view" were or are or will be paid by BigCarbon for their "view".

"If there was real evidence the alarmist view was correct, there would be no skeptics" there would still be self-interested, paid "skeptics"

there's tons of evidence, dear ideological AGW denier.

[spurraider21]

consensus is, by definition, nothing but opinion. Science is by definition fact finding, facts, proof.

the majority of "scientists who take the skeptical view" were or are or will be paid by BigCarbon for their "view".

"If there was real evidence the alarmist view was correct, there would be no skeptics" there would still be self-interested, paid "skeptics"

there's tons of evidence, dear ideological AGW denier.
meh, scientists who disagree with what i believe "are paid off." it's an awfully convenient excuse. note that i'm not taking sides on this issue here, but at least try harder than that

[boutons_deux]

meh, scientists who disagree with what i believe "are paid off." it's an awfully convenient excuse. note that i'm not taking sides on this issue here, but at least try harder than that

I don't "believe" they are paid off. The AGW denier scientists have nearly all been debunked as on the take from BigCarbon, much like the 1000s of corrupt doctors push BigPharma's shit.

[DarrinS]

I don't "believe" they are paid off. The AGW denier scientists have nearly all been debunked as on the take from BigCarbon, much like the 1000s of corrupt doctors push BigPharma's shit.


Corporate sponsors of AGU Fall Meeting, a top meeting of the world's climate science community. AGU is the American Geophysical Union.


http://fallmeeting.agu.org/2013/general-information/thank-you-to-our-sponsors/




boutons --> :dizzy

[boutons_deux]

Corporate sponsors of AGU Fall Meeting, a top meeting of the world's climate science community. AGU is the American Geophysical Union.


http://fallmeeting.agu.org/2013/general-information/thank-you-to-our-sponsors/




boutons --> :dizzy

:lol green washing!! :lol

All those asshole BigCarbon companies spend $100Ms more sponsoring climate deniers and killing regulations, carbon taxes, etc.

DarrinS --> suckered shill

[DarrinS]

It's called empiricism and deduction. Deduction is what it is and sorry that ideas like man's CO2 production does not have a tangible effect or your magic sky man have been deducted from reality based on empirical evidence.


Nice try, but I know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and affects the climate. I know this because it can be empirically demonstrated. What can't be empirically demonstrated -- is some future enviropocalypse.

[DarrinS]

:lol green washing!! :lol

All those asshole BigCarbon companies spend $100Ms more sponsoring climate deniers and killing regulations, carbon taxes, etc.

DarrinS --> suckered shill


http://berkeleyearth.org/funders

"Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation ($150,000)"

:lol

[Winehole23]

What can't be empirically demonstrated -- is some future enviropocalypse.it can't be proven, but the prospect entails bottom line outcomes for business. the speculation is surely of interest well short of civilizational failure to businessmen with long term plans, no?

isn't wanting to know how bad the damage might be, and what kind, germane to economic rational self-interest?

[DarrinS]

isn't wanting to know how bad the damage might be, and what kind, germane to economic rational self-interest?


Sure. It's also in our economic self-interest to know how little damage there might be.


Consideration given to any prediction must be weighed against a growing track record. For example --> http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/feared-migration-hasn-t-happened-un-embarrassed-by-forecast-on-climate-refugees-a-757713.html

[Winehole23]

Sure. It's also in our economic self-interest to know how little damage there might be.you seem determined to minimize it no matter what. you look as inflexible and biased to me as the catastrophists you scoff at.

[DarrinS]

you seem determined to minimize it no matter what. you look as inflexible and biased to me as the catastrophists you scoff at.


Believe it or not, I used by be a hardcore believer.

[Winehole23]

you seem to have traded one bias for another.

in the real world, one doesn't have to be right; both can be wrong.

[DarrinS]

you seem to have traded one bias for another.

in the real world, one doesn't have to be right; both can be wrong.


There's actually a spectrum of belief about AGW. I would place myself in the bucket labeled "luke warmers".

[Winehole23]

the trend of your posting seems to speak otherwise at times, but thanks for disclosing.

[boutons_deux]

http://berkeleyearth.org/funders

"Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation ($150,000)"

:lol

greenwashing

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Nice try, but I know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and affects the climate. I know this because it can be empirically demonstrated. What can't be empirically demonstrated -- is some future enviropocalypse.

You moved on to your current tactic of mitigate rather then deny. You were crying about intolerance though. I did not realize that you were doing it from the guise of a martyr.

You are changing the subject. Rejecting disproven hypothesis is what it is. Empiricism is an objective standard.

[MannyIsGod]

Of course oil and gas companies bankroll AGU: its a place where they can do a lot of hiring. Energy companies are some of the largest - if not the largest - employers of all kinds of geoscientists. Trying to show that their support of the conference and group as some kind of attempt to show they aren't a big factor in fighting regulation over CO2 is pretty fucking laughable.

Not quite as laughable as showing the Koch funding of BEST as some kind of way to show they support AGW research. They were pretty damn sure that BEST was going to show that pesky temperature record was wrong. Oops.


Darrin loves to say he believes in global warming but he never has said what he believes is a reasonable expectation of temperature increase and has never told us why studies who disagree with him are wrong. The reason Darrin finds himself flip flopping so much (LOL regretting a vote before someone even takes office) is because he displays incredibly shallow decision making.

[boutons_deux]

As if 1000s of CLIMATE FACTS would have any "intelligence increasing effect" on AGW deniers :lol

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/04/this-years-el-nino-could-grow-monster

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/10/us-weather-elnino-idUSBREA390YW20140410?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews

http://www.nationalmemo.com/un-weather-extremes-consistent-man-made-climate-change/

enviro-catastrophe? CA's drought is looking like the worst in 500 years, and shooting at 1000 years. ( tree ring FACTS! :lol )

[DarrinS]

Of course oil and gas companies bankroll AGU: its a place where they can do a lot of hiring. Energy companies are some of the largest - if not the largest - employers of all kinds of geoscientists. Trying to show that their support of the conference and group as some kind of attempt to show they aren't a big factor in fighting regulation over CO2 is pretty fucking laughable.

Not quite as laughable as showing the Koch funding of BEST as some kind of way to show they support AGW research. They were pretty damn sure that BEST was going to show that pesky temperature record was wrong. Oops.



Good science doesn't depend on political ideology or who signs your paychecks. If you make reasonable assumptions, use appropriate methods, and your work can be replicated by others, then it is good science.






Darrin loves to say he believes in global warming but he never has said what he believes is a reasonable expectation of temperature increase and has never told us why studies who disagree with him are wrong. The reason Darrin finds himself flip flopping so much (LOL regretting a vote before someone even takes office) is because he displays incredibly shallow decision making.




What is a reasonable expectation of temperature increase? I don't know.


But, I DO know, that what was predicted by computer models doesn't comport with observation.


http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/model-trend/cmip5-73-models-vs-obs-20n-20s-mt-5-yr-means1.png

[boutons_deux]

Evidence of Acceleration of Anthropogenic Climate Disruption on All Fronts


http://truth-out.org/news/item/22999-evidence-of-acceleration-on-all-fronts-of-anthropogenic-climate-disruption


the planet is warming rapidly, but:

"Ignoring anthropogenic and other possible sources of variation acting at frequencies higher than one cycle per 19,000 years, this model predicts that the long-term cooling trend that began some 6,000 years ago will continue for the next 23,000 years."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milan?kovitch_cycles

[MannyIsGod]

What is a reasonable expectation of temperature increase? I don't know.






When one doesn't know then its best for them to STFU and not say the people are wrong.

[DarrinS]

When one doesn't know then its best for them to STFU and not say the people are wrong.

On that basis, a whole lot of people need to STFU.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Good science doesn't depend on political ideology or who signs your paychecks. If you make reasonable assumptions, use appropriate methods, and your work can be replicated by others, then it is good science.

What is a reasonable expectation of temperature increase? I don't know.

But, I DO know, that what was predicted by computer models doesn't comport with observation.

http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/model-trend/cmip5-73-models-vs-obs-20n-20s-mt-5-yr-means1.png

That strip of 40 degrees is about 15% of the earths crust. The CMIP estimates are whole earth. Now I do not know where the disconnect is because who knows what is data points they plucked from CMIPs data but that is shitty misleading bullshit. Just like I expect from you.

It's cute that you saved graphs from the UAH guy on your cloud though.

Also here is the graph that the IPCC uses to present their case:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/fig/faq-8-1-figure-1-l.png

and here is the graphs legend:


Errata FAQ 8.1, Figure 1. Global mean near-surface temperatures over the 20th century from observations (black) and as obtained from 58 simulations produced by 14 different climate models driven by both natural and human-caused factors that influence climate (yellow). The mean of all these runs is also shown (thick red line). Temperature anomalies are shown relative to the 1901 to 1950 mean. Vertical grey lines indicate the timing of major volcanic eruptions. (Figure adapted from Chapter 9, Figure 9.5. Refer to corresponding caption for further details.)

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-8-1.html

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Good science doesn't depend on political ideology or who signs your paychecks. If you make reasonable assumptions, use appropriate methods, and your work can be replicated by others, then it is good science.

What is a reasonable expectation of temperature increase? I don't know.

But, I DO know, that what was predicted by computer models doesn't comport with observation.

http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/model-trend/cmip5-73-models-vs-obs-20n-20s-mt-5-yr-means1.png

That strip of 40 degrees is about 15% of the earths crust. The CMIP estimates are whole earth. Now I do not know where the disconnect is because who knows what the data points UAH guy plucked from CMIPs or how he selected the weather balloons but that is misleading bullshit.

It's cute that you saved graphs from the UAH guy on your cloud though.

Also here is the graph that the IPCC uses to present their case:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/fig/faq-8-1-figure-1-l.png

and here is the graphs legend:


Errata FAQ 8.1, Figure 1. Global mean near-surface temperatures over the 20th century from observations (black) and as obtained from 58 simulations produced by 14 different climate models driven by both natural and human-caused factors that influence climate (yellow). The mean of all these runs is also shown (thick red line). Temperature anomalies are shown relative to the 1901 to 1950 mean. Vertical grey lines indicate the timing of major volcanic eruptions. (Figure adapted from Chapter 9, Figure 9.5. Refer to corresponding caption for further details.)

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-8-1.html

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Believe it or not, I used by be a hardcore believer.

:lmao as if anyone believes that

[DarrinS]

:lmao as if anyone believes that


Actually, I still agree with most of it, up until you start talking about "tipping points" and Biblical-style catastrophes.

[boutons_deux]

The Climate Deniers Are Using the Same Tactics as the Tobacco Industry

As it becomes increasingly obvious that global warming is entering doomsday scenario territory, the fossil fuel industry is ramping up the propaganda war.

Last week, the so-called Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) :lol released its fifth report "debunking" the findings (http://nipccreport.org/reports/ccr2b/pdf/Full-Report.pdf)of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

According to the NIPCC report, which was published by the conservative think tank the Heartland Institute, global warming is nothing to worry about. It's just a natural process that's happened hundreds of times before. If anything, the report concludes, global warming could be a good thing because extra CO2 in the atmosphere means more air for plants to breath.

Seriously.

Not surprisingly, Fox So-Called News has picked up on the NIPCC report and is treating it like real science. (http://www.truth-out.org/:http:/www.foxnews.com/science/2014/04/09/new-report-claims-un-findings-on-climate-change-is-just-bunch-hot-air/?utm_term=0_876aab4fd7-160aa3dc43-303421281&utm_content=bufferc0d9a&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer)
But if you're wondering why 97 percent of scientists disagree with the NIPCC on global warming, Heartland Institute President Joseph Bast says it's because the entire climate science community has been "corrupted (http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/04/09/new-report-claims-un-findings-on-climate-change-is-just-bunch-hot-air/?utm_term=0_876aab4fd7-160aa3dc43-303421281&utm_content=bufferc0d9a&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer)" by environmentalists.

In reality, though, it's the NIPCC and the Heartland institute that are corrupt and dishonest.

To quote Deep Throat, just follow the money.

The Heartland Institute, the think tank that published the NIPCC report, is largely funded by the fossil fuel industry and its allies. In fact, it's received around $67 million dollars over the past thirty years from donors like Exxon Mobil, the Koch Brothers, and the Scaife Foundation. All stand to get very, very rich if we continue pumping greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere (http://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-denial-palooza-sponsors-have-received-67-million-exxonmobil-koch-and-scaife-foundations).

The NIPCC report's leading authors, meanwhile, are a virtual who's who of the climate denial industry.

Dr. Fred Singer, the group's founder, has been pushing the lie that global warming isn't a big deal for decades now, and fossil fuel companies have helped him out (http://www.desmogblog.com/s-fred-singer) all along the way.

Another author, Craig Idso, actually used to work for coal giant Peabody Energy (http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/04/08/heartland-institutes-smoke-and-mirrors-attempt/198805).

Make no mistake about it: the NIPCC report is one giant scam created by the fossil fuel industry to trick the public into thinking global warming is a lie.

History, it seems, is repeating itself in the worst possible way. Back in the 1990s, the people behind the NIPCC climate change denial machine used to shill for another not-so-reputable industry: the tobacco industry.

As lawsuits and Congressional hearings turned public opinion turned against the tobacco industry, the Heartland Institute pushed out bunk study after bunk study claiming that there was no connection between secondhand smoke and cancer.

In 1998, for example, current Heartland President Joseph Bast argued (http://heartland.org/policy-documents/july-1998-five-lies-about-tobacco-tobacco-bill-wasnt-about-kids)in a piece for the think tank's website that the "EPA had to twist and torture its data to find a public health risk from secondhand smoke."

The Heartland Institute's PR campaign was so crucial to the tobacco industry's cause that Phillip Morris executive Tom Borelli actually listed supporting the Heartland Institute as one of his company's most important strategies in a 1993 memo called (http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/action/document/page?tid=ufu92e00)the "Five Year Plan"

At the same time as Heartland towed the big tobacco party line, NIPCC founder Fred Singer was busy pumping out some blatant pro-tobacco of his own. In 1993, he joined up with the Philip Morris' favorite PR firm APCO Associates to "debunk" studies showing the link (http://www.exposethebastards.com/who_is_s_fred_singer)between secondhand smoke and cancer.

All this, of course, was done to protect the interests of giant tobacco companies who denied in front of Congress that nicotine was addictive.

There are few coincidences in history. The fossil fuel industry today appears to be following the exact same script used by the tobacco industry in the 1990s.

http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/23000-the-climate-deniers-are-using-the-same-tactics-as-the-tobacco-industry

you suckered, shilling AGW deniers are in company of some really nasty whores.

[Th'Pusher]

Is global warming just a giant natural fluctuation?

Statistical analysis rules out natural-warming hypothesis with more than 99% certainty



An analysis of temperature data since 1500 all but rules out the possibility that global warming in the industrial era is just a natural fluctuation in the earth’s climate, according to a new study by McGill University physics professor Shaun Lovejoy.

The study, published online April 6 in the journal Climate Dynamics, represents a new approach to the question of whether global warming in the industrial era has been caused largely by man-made emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. Rather than using complex computer models to estimate the effects of greenhouse-gas emissions, Lovejoy examines historical data to assess the competing hypothesis: that warming over the past century is due to natural long-term variations in temperature.

“This study will be a blow to any remaining climate-change deniers,” Lovejoy says. “Their two most convincing arguments – that the warming is natural in origin, and that the computer models are wrong – are either directly contradicted by this analysis, or simply do not apply to it.”

Lovejoy’s study applies statistical methodology to determine the probability that global warming since 1880 is due to natural variability. His conclusion: the natural-warming hypothesis may be ruled out “with confidence levels great than 99%, and most likely greater than 99.9%.”

To assess the natural variability before much human interference, the new study uses “multi-proxy climate reconstructions” developed by scientists in recent years to estimate historical temperatures, as well as fluctuation-analysis techniques from nonlinear geophysics. The climate reconstructions take into account a variety of gauges found in nature, such as tree rings, ice cores, and lake sediments. And the fluctuation-analysis techniques make it possible to understand the temperature variations over wide ranges of time scales.

For the industrial era, Lovejoy’s analysis uses carbon-dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels as a proxy for all man-made climate influences – a simplification justified by the tight relationship between global economic activity and the emission of greenhouse gases and particulate pollution, he says. “This allows the new approach to implicitly include the cooling effects of particulate pollution that are still poorly quantified in computer models,” he adds.

While his new study makes no use of the huge computer models commonly used by scientists to estimate the magnitude of future climate change, Lovejoy’s findings effectively complement those of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), he says. His study predicts, with 95% confidence, that a doubling of carbon-dioxide levels in the atmosphere would cause the climate to warm by between 2.5 and 4.2 degrees Celsius. That range is more precise than – but in line with -- the IPCC’s prediction that temperatures would rise by 1.5 to 4.5 degrees Celsius if CO2 concentrations double.

“We’ve had a fluctuation in average temperature that’s just huge since 1880 – on the order of about 0.9 degrees Celsius,” Lovejoy says. “This study shows that the odds of that being caused by natural fluctuations are less than one in a hundred and are likely to be less than one in a thousand.

“While the statistical rejection of a hypothesis can’t generally be used to conclude the truth of any specific alternative, in many cases – including this one – the rejection of one greatly enhances the credibility of the other.”

http://www.mcgill.ca/research/channels/news/global-warming-just-giant-natural-fluctuation-235236

[DarrinS]

Good post, pusher, but the debate is not whether it has warmed or whether CO2 contributes to that warming. It's whether AGW is a "crisis".

Here's an actual debate on that question.

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL15C1190908095519

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Actually, I still agree with most of it, up until you start talking about "tipping points" and Biblical-style catastrophes.

Yeah that is why you liked trotting out that graph and said that it hadn't warmed in a decade. You were a 'true believer' when? The 1980s?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Well, there was a 30 year cooling trend from the 1940's to 1970's. Do we understand that better than they did in 1970?

What would that be? CO2 rose dramatically during that period.


You know what? Fuck it. I don't even care about the "denier" label any more. The AGW ship has been sinking for some time now and its advocates are scurrying around like drowning rats trying to save it. Time and observations will disprove this pseudoscience, just like it disproved other shitty theories from the 1970's.


Much of AGW theory is based on computer models. Being a computer modeler myself, I've looked at a lot of the source code and I don't have a lot of confidence in it.

Especially when there are comments in the code like:

"Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!"

"APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION"

etc. etc.


Yep. The same CO2 trend was occuring from 1940 to 1970 while the temperature dropped. A THIRTY YEAR PERIOD.

The dashed line is most likely a smoothed average of CO2.

[http://www.zanzig.com/miscpix/crichton2.jpg


The global temp anomaly from 1940 to 1970 is why the SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS in the 1970's was that we needed to be worried about global COOLING.


With all the "overwheming evidence" to support AGW, a sci-fi docudrama by a Nobel-winning ex vice president, and a more than willing mainstream media, you'd think that more than a third of the population would believe that humans cause climate change.

Why is getting harder and harder to sell this ROCK SOLID science?

This is all from the first few hundred posts of this thread:

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=163637&page=10

Now everyone repeat after me, "Darrin is a lying piece of shit that cannot be trusted to tell the truth."

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Actually, I still agree with most of it, up until you start talking about "tipping points" and Biblical-style catastrophes.

So when did you believe all of it? Give a specific year.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Actually, I still agree with most of it, up until you start talking about "tipping points" and Biblical-style catastrophes.

Darrin being Darrin.

[boutons_deux]

It's whether AGW is a "crisis".

There are FACTS of the increasing CRISIS all around. The trajectory of global warming since coal and oil burning started in the 19th industrial revolution is well documented, like a hockey stick to the head. :lol

AGW facts and the initiations of multi-dimensional CRISES falls on WILLFULLY IGNORANT, IDEOLOGICALLY STUFFED ears.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Mann_earth-will-cross-the-climate-danger-threshold-by-2036_large.jpg

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/04/gaius-publius-climate-scientist-michael-mann-dont-stop-now-well-surpass-2c-global-warming.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NakedCapitalism+%28naked+capi talism%29

BigCarbon has the power to confuse the public, has the $Bs to buy politicians, and so has power to block even discussion of AGW.

[DarrinS]

This is all from the first few hundred posts of this thread:

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=163637&page=10

Now everyone repeat after me, "Darrin is a lying piece of shit that cannot be trusted to tell the truth."


From same thread

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=163637&page=50&p=5414665&viewfull=1#post5414665




No one denies it has warmed in the past century.
No one denies that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
No one deines that humans emit CO2.

The REAL questions are:

Is CO2 the main driver of the warming?
Is the recent warming significant compared to historical patterns?
Will effects of the warming be catastrophic?
Will drastic cuts in CO2 emissions make much difference?

This is where reasonable people can agree to disagree. Calling people that you disagree with retarded doesn't add much to the debate.

[boutons_deux]

Greenland ice cores show industrial record of acid rain, success of U.S. Clean Air Act

The rise and fall of acid rain is a global experiment whose results are preserved in the geologic record.

By analyzing samples from the Greenland ice sheet, University of Washington atmospheric scientists found clear evidence of the U.S. Clean Air Act. They also discovered a link between air acidity and how nitrogen is preserved in layers of snow, according to a paper (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/04/03/1319441111.abstract?sid=19f4931b-6726-4a62-af2b-6f200dce42bd) published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (http://www.pnas.org/).

Forty-five years ago, acid rain was killing fish and dissolving stone monuments on the East Coast. Air pollution rose beginning with the Industrial Revolution and started to improve when the U.S. Clean Air Act of 1970 required coal power plants and other polluters to scrub sulfur out of their smokestacks.

UW researchers began their study of ice cores interested in smog, not acid rain. They discovered a link between the two forms of pollution in the geologic record.

The rise and fall of acid rain is a global experiment whose results are preserved in the geologic record.By analyzing samples from the Greenland ice sheet, University of Washington atmospheric scientists found clear evidence of the U.S. Clean Air Act. They also discovered a link between air acidity and how nitrogen is preserved in layers of snow, according to a paper (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/04/03/1319441111.abstract?sid=19f4931b-6726-4a62-af2b-6f200dce42bd)published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (http://www.pnas.org/).

suggests that ratio is sensitive to the same chemicals that cause acid rain.

“This shows that the relationship between emissions and the isotopes is less direct than we thought, and the final signal recorded in the
Greenland ice cores is actually not just the nitrogen emission, but the combined effect of sulfur and nitrogen emissions,”

Read more at http://scienceblog.com/71653/greenland-ice-cores-show-industrial-record-of-acid-rain-success-of-u-s-clean-air-act/#ihTkpbrF3Kprm3BG.99

hmm, a GOVT POLICY caused a change in CORPORATE BEHAVIOR that reduced pollution?

Kock Suckers most certainly disagree

[boutons_deux]

Climate Panel Stunner: Avoiding Climate Catastrophe Is Super Cheap — But Only If We Act Now (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/04/13/3426117/climate-panel-avoiding-catastrophe-cheap/)

You read that right, the annual growth loss to preserve a livable climate is 0.06% — and that’s “relative to annualized consumption growth in the baseline that is between 1.6% and 3% per year.” So we’re talking annual growth of, say 2.24% rather than 2.30% to save billions and billions of people from needless suffering for decades if not centuries. As always, every word of the report was signed off on by every major government in the world.

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/AR5-WG3-638x355.jpg

Global mitigation costs for stabilization at a level “likely” to stay below 2°C (3.6°F). Cost estimates shown in this table do not consider the benefits of reduced climate change as well as co-benefits of mitigation. The green columns show the consumption loss in the years 2030, 2050, and 2100 relative to a baseline development without climate policy. The light green column shows that the annualized consumption growth reduction over the century is 0.06%. Source: IPCC 2014.

Moreover, this does not even count the economic benefit of avoiding climate catastrophe. Afew years ago (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/03/10/1696521/flashback-scientists-find-1240-trillion-in-climate-impacts-on-current-co2-path-so-we-must-mitigate-to-under-450-ppm/), scientists calculated that benefit as having a net present value of $615 to $830 trillion. That means our current do-nothing plan is actually far, far costlier than aggressive climate mitigation.

And the IPCC warns “Delaying is estimated to … substantially increase the difficulty of the transition to low, longer-term emissions levels and narrow the range of options consistent with maintaining temperature change below 2 degrees C.”

These are not new findings. In its previous Fourth Assessment (AR4) in 2007 (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf), the IPCC found the cost of stabilizing at 445 ppm CO2-eq corresponded to “slowing average annual global GDP growth by less than 0.12 percentage points.”

These conclusions should not be a surprise since they are based on a review of the literature — and every major independent study has found (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2009/03/30/203888/global-warming-economics-low-cost-high-benefit/) a remarkably low net cost for climate action — and a high cost for delay. Back in 2011, the International Energy Agency warned (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/11/09/364895/iea-global-warming-delaying-action-is-a-false-economy/)“Delaying action is a false economy: for every $1 of investment in cleaner technology that is avoided in the power sector before 2020, an additional $4.30 would need to be spent after 2020 to compensate for the increased emissions.”

As German economist Ottmar Edenhofer, a co-chair of the IPCC committee that wrote the new report, put it (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/14/science/earth/un-climate-panel-warns-speedier-action-is-needed-to-avert-disaster.html?_r=0), “We cannot afford to lose another decade. If we lose another decade, it becomes extremely costly to achieve climate stabilization.”

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/04/11/1291328/-The-harder-GOPers-fight-Obamacare-the-easier-single-payer-will-be?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos %29

Of course, BigCarbon, and their proxies like ALEC, US CoC, etc will block ALL AGW mitigation.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

From same thread

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=163637&page=50&p=5414665&viewfull=1#post5414665

That thread took place over the space of three years. I was calling you out for being a lying piece of shit back then too.

You don't 'still' agree with anything. You are full sophist that will hide sources rather than have them bear scrutiny and blanatly misrepresent yourself. I used to think you were a shill but it's been too long and no one would keep on incompetence such as yours in a position with much latitude.

I will say that you are compulsive liar that lies habitually and with a purpose. In our cases of dealing with you it has been lies in an attempt to make you appear more credible. In this case you want people to believe that you have been objective in the past.

Liar liar. Pants on fire.

[DarrinS]

That thread took place over the space of three years. I was calling you out for being a lying piece of shit back then too.

You don't 'still' agree with anything. You are full sophist that will hide sources rather than have them bear scrutiny and blanatly misrepresent yourself. I used to think you were a shill but it's been too long and no one would keep on incompetence such as yours in a position with much latitude.

I will say that you are compulsive liar that lies habitually and with a purpose. In our cases of dealing with you it has been lies in an attempt to make you appear more credible. In this case you want people to believe that you have been objective in the past.

Liar liar. Pants on fire.


Are you done?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Are you done?

Never. Thank you please drive through.

[DarrinS]

Never. Thank you please drive through.

Don't get in trouble for posting at work.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Don't get in trouble for posting at work.

Let's steer this back to topic shall we?

Where we left off was Darrin saying that he used to be a believer in AGW and that he still believes many of the tenants. I then showed a bunch of posts of his from a few years ago where he embraces the denial label and presents what he think is evidence that CO2 is not causing any warming and that there is no warming going on at all. He goes on and on about it in 2010.

That showed how he is a lying piece of shit that much like the premise of the OP tries to make the illusion of an objective and openminded approach to determining the truth when in fact he is a sophist of the first order.

I would also warn to not take him at face value when he presents data. He will use doctored graphs that do not reveal the source and then lie to you about what the source is. He used to use graphics created by the heartland institute and claim that they were from BEST.

It's always wise to check for yourself when dealing with anything but it is doubly true for Darrin.

[DarrinS]

Let's steer this back to topic shall we?

Where we left off was Darrin saying that he used to be a believer in AGW and that he still believes many of the tenants. I then showed a bunch of posts of his from a few years ago where he embraces the denial label and presents what he think is evidence that CO2 is not causing any warming and that there is no warming going on at all. He goes on and on about it in 2010.

That showed how he is a lying piece of shit that much like the premise of the OP tries to make the illusion of an objective and openminded approach to determining the truth when in fact he is a sophist of the first order.

I would also warn to not take him at face value when he presents data. He will use doctored graphs that do not reveal the source and then lie to you about what the source is. He used to use graphics created by the heartland institute and claim that they were from BEST.

It's always wise to check for yourself when dealing with anything but it is doubly true for Darrin.


As I said to Winehole, I'm what you would call a "luke warmer". I fully acknowledge that it has warmed a smallish amount in the last century and that carbon emissions contributed to that increase. I just don't believe in all the doomsday scenarios. That is what I currently think. If I made posts that contradict that, then that was poor judgement on my part.

As for YOU, I think people would be wise not to hit your "tipping point", or they might face the wrath of a psychotic douchebag move like this...

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=197878&page=5&p=5910380&viewfull=1#post5910380




Below is what I emailed.

Dear Site Administrator or Similar Associate,

I am a poster on a sports website, spurstalk.com. It's a very diverse site and includes one of the most nefarious locales on the internet: a lightly moderated political forum. I post as under the username FuzzyLumpkins.

On said forum, there is a thread entitled Why I think Climate Change Denial is Little More than Pseudoscience. It's original thread went up to 4002 posts and has recently started its second iteration. the previous incarnation can be found HERE and its current form will most certainly be on the front page. For most of you, this will have an obvious link and for the rest it will become more clear shortly.

To cut to the chase, about a month and a half ago a member of the forum posted a link to the <large number>+ Skeptical Science Papers from a site many of you are probably familiar with: populartechnology.net. I did a bit of research and found blogs and the like about the contents regarding the relatively small collaborative scientists who wrote the papers, contradictions within the works, umbrage from included scientists, etc. I am sure most if not all of you are familiar with the list. It seems like its been getting a lot of play lately. I made a post about it.

I think you can guess what happened next: Poptech shows up. He began posting his litany of rehearsed answers and began his megalomaniac claims of being irrefutable. Anyone who disagreed with him were liars and he has now gone to the point recently of claiming that skeptics that disagree with him are drug addicts mostly because I have said that I smoke pot and I know how to push his buttons. More on that in a second.

Anyway I quickly tired of having him rehash his canned answers and decided to go a different tact. Anyone that has dealt with him or had any discourse with him quickly realizes that he is not 100% right upstairs. He is singularly obsessive and completely inflexible and puritanical about anything that deviates from his worldview. Anything that he deems socialist precludes something as being capitalist. Any link justifies conflation and is absolute. His views on your stereotypical US 'right' agenda are absolute. His forums are really his database for his political views and canned answers. You can read as his sophistry is cataloged and evolves. If you go there and read them they are the stereotypical rightist views. Stuff like drugs are bad, alcohol is good, AGW is false, unions are bad, laissez faire is the way to go, flat tax is good, socialized medicine is bad, etc. Any deviation from that is irrefutably wrong. From what I understand he goes across the interwebs to spread his gospel.

I began to get him to go through his canned responses. It started off with me trying to figure out his method but quickly became me trying to get his obsessiveness rolling. I was going to see what I could get him to do. I worked out his puritanical approach to economics but then I came upon the 'Truth' series on his site. Most of you are probably familiar with it because with each of you he considers his political enemies he has one on you. He labels people as communists, terrorists, criminals, or posts pictures of your homes and tries to demean your professions. It's really scummy stuff. So, I decided to have him go through that. Some of the lengths that he went through to dig up stuff on you guys is pretty alarming. Pun intended.

At the end after arguing with him for quite some time, I conceded a point. Sorry greenfyre, it had to do with you indeed being associated with those he labeled as terrorists. Its asinine, I know. Why this was important will be clear in a moment. The next day I log on to find that he had started a thread which boiled down to Laissez Faire is great. It consisted of a bunch of youtube advertisements from the Heritage Foundation, Koch Brothers, and the Cato Institute. After discussing the particular industries that the board members of the Heritage Foundation worked for I decided to see what we could get him to do. I had his obsession rolling and I had given him the narcissistic feedback he needed to feel comfortable. I put a checklist about a particular Axis 2 mental disorder in front of him. The link for it is from the NIH and can be found HERE. He criticized my first posting which I conceded by correcting, put it back in front of him and lo and behold he filled it out. Below is what he wrote.

****************************

Take advantage of other people to achieve his or her own goals Fail - I have not taken advantage of anyone. That is just absurd.

Have excessive feelings of self-importance Fail - I have no such feelings

Exaggerate achievements and talents Fail - I have exaggerated nothing

Be preoccupied with fantasies of success, power, beauty, intelligence, or ideal love Fail - on all counts, I am already successful, I do not seek "power", I am not vain, I have no fantasies about my intelligence, I am in a fullfilling relationship with a beautiful women

Have unreasonable expectations of favorable treatment True - You got me there, I do not expect to be dishonestly lied about and now smeared as you and RG have done.

Need constant attention and admiration Fail - Absolute fail, You have no idea how I do not care for attention or admiration.

Disregard the feelings of others, and have little ability to feel empathy Check - I could careless about yours or anyone else's feelings online. All I care about is what is true.

Have obsessive self-interest - Check - This is true but it has nothing to with this disorder but actually something else. I believe I have a mild form of aspergers syndrome similar to Michael Burry that allows me to relentlessly concentrate on a topic if I choose. This is actually a strength as I effectively never tire.

Pursue mainly selfish goals - Absolutely False - My whole point for doing this is I do not like liars like you and other alarmists. If you never stated any lies I would not even be here.

********************************

Now the link to his original post is HERE, but despite it being written on 5/4/2012 you can see that he edited it to ridicule me and conflate me with psychotics nearly three weeks later on 5/24/2012. I guess it took him awhile but I think he finally realized or someone he knows realized what he had written. But not to worry my response immediately following the original post where I quote what he wrote is HERE. Also there are HERE and HERE where there are other posters talk about or link his admission which as you can see none of which have been edited. If you want read the postings that lead up to and follow the linked posts and it becomes pretty clear what went on.

I will leave it to the individual to judge what they consider true or flase from what he wrote but one thing is clear: he claims he thinks he has a Axis 1 Mental Disorder. Now if you look a bit into aspergers and NPD, you will quickly find that they are often misdiagnosed for each other. A simple google search of 'aspergers narcissist misdiagnosis' will pull reams of articles and studies on the particular misdiagnosis. The main difference between sociopathic personality disorders like NPD and and autism spectrum mental disorders likeaspergers is that the latter is unaware of what his action are doing to the people he interacts with while the former is aware but just doesn't care.

I have thought about this and concluded he is probably the former. One of the things that narcissists do is devalue or dehumanize people that they consider threats or critics so they can dismiss them. Most of us have been labeled as what he considers undesirables. In my case, he has taken an admission of having smoked pot to label me as a psychotic drug addict. Others have been labeled as communists, criminals, terrorists or otherwise ridiculed so he can dismiss you out of hand. He has done this with every major AGW site on the internet. Every one. That and as you can see he says 'I could careless about yours or anyone else's feelings online.'

Now I am not above some introspection. If you read that site, it demonstrates that I can be a hothead who does not suffer fools and I wrestle with the ethic and moral implications of manipulating mentally ill people. I worry may be antisocial behavior of my own. At the same time I have tried to point out what he is susceptible to and that there are people out there that can help him. He is to the point where I am such a threat in his mind though that he just repeats the litany of how he devalues me and completely denies ever to admitting having the disorder. He is nothing if not disconcerting.

Regardless, I also think that given what he has done to you guys with his 'Truth' series, perhaps some of you will appreciate this context of this particular individual. That is my hope anyway. I also hope that somehow he can get the help that he really does need.

Finally, I would like to mention that I appreciate the empirical approach that you guys take towards your blogging and reporting and I believe you are fighting the good fight. I hope for the best in your endeavors.

Fuzzy

[DarrinS]

You have to admit it, Fuzzy, that was a real bitch move.


I had forgotten about this post :lol

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=197878&page=7&p=5911214&viewfull=1#post5911214

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You have to admit it, Fuzzy, that was a real bitch move.


I had forgotten about this post :lol

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=197878&page=7&p=5911214&viewfull=1#post5911214

If you want me to feel bad for tricking that sociopath into filling out the survey and sending it to the people he harasses then you are going to have to do better than that.

I had forgotten about that. He was much like you, he went back and edited posts and tried to make it appear that he never filled out that survey so I knew it would fuck with him to send them to those he considered his political enemies. He didn't last long after that.

He is a kindred spirit of yours in the world of deception. You are just more resilient.

It should be noted that you in no way contradict and others can see that you are lying about your objectivity regarding climate science.

[Wild Cobra]

You have to admit it, Fuzzy, that was a real bitch move.


I had forgotten about this post :lol

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=197878&page=7&p=5911214&viewfull=1#post5911214
When does that bitch not make bitches look bad?

That's why I have Fuzzy on IGNORE. I can tolerate a lot of shit, but he goes beyond most people's shit.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

When does that bitch not make bitches look bad?

That's why I have Fuzzy on IGNORE. I can tolerate a lot of shit, but he goes beyond most people's shit.

You were so adorable when poptart was here. You were telling him all about your high school years and appreciation for his work. Your servility had an outlet and you were in love. He of course ignored you. Unrequited cobra it was.

Maybe we can revisit that later.

[RandomGuy]

The source is your buddy, John Cook, the dude who runs SkepticalScience website. That paper has received a LOT of criticism, and rightly so.

And yet, you are more than willing to accept pseudoscience when it comports with your beliefs.

John Cook has also published a paper that likens CAGW skeptics to conspiracy nutters. That, too, is getting slammed for the pseudoscience it represents.

As I said before, the exact percentage is not as meaningful as a general consensus. The point made by the video would be as valid if it were far less, something you either don't understand, or won't admit. Feel free to actually address something that isn't a red herring.

Secondly, what pseudoscience do I believe in? Define pseudoscience as part of your answer.

Lastly, what scientific journal did John Cook "publish a paper" in that likens CAGW to conspiracy nutters?

[RandomGuy]

From same thread

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=163637&page=50&p=5414665&viewfull=1#post5414665

The REAL questions are:

Is CO2 the main driver of the warming?
Is the recent warming significant compared to historical patterns?
Will effects of the warming be catastrophic?
Will drastic cuts in CO2 emissions make much difference?




If your answers to those questions end up based on logical fallacies, does that indicate a greater or lesser liklihood that those answers accurately reflect reality?

[RandomGuy]

I hope everyone realized that consensus is not science. There are real scientists who take the skeptical view. If there was real evidence the alarmist view was correct, there would be no skeptics. They would see and accept the science.

Sorry consensus generally is science. That is how "best fits to evidence" are ascertained.

Go stand in the corner with the creationists.

[RandomGuy]

Climate Panel Stunner: Avoiding Climate Catastrophe Is Super Cheap — But Only If We Act Now (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/04/13/3426117/climate-panel-avoiding-catastrophe-cheap/)

You read that right, the annual growth loss to preserve a livable climate is 0.06% — and that’s “relative to annualized consumption growth in the baseline that is between 1.6% and 3% per year.” So we’re talking annual growth of, say 2.24% rather than 2.30% to save billions and billions of people from needless suffering for decades if not centuries. As always, every word of the report was signed off on by every major government in the world.

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/AR5-WG3-638x355.jpg

Global mitigation costs for stabilization at a level “likely” to stay below 2°C (3.6°F). Cost estimates shown in this table do not consider the benefits of reduced climate change as well as co-benefits of mitigation. The green columns show the consumption loss in the years 2030, 2050, and 2100 relative to a baseline development without climate policy. The light green column shows that the annualized consumption growth reduction over the century is 0.06%. Source: IPCC 2014.

Moreover, this does not even count the economic benefit of avoiding climate catastrophe. Afew years ago (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/03/10/1696521/flashback-scientists-find-1240-trillion-in-climate-impacts-on-current-co2-path-so-we-must-mitigate-to-under-450-ppm/), scientists calculated that benefit as having a net present value of $615 to $830 trillion. That means our current do-nothing plan is actually far, far costlier than aggressive climate mitigation.

And the IPCC warns “Delaying is estimated to … substantially increase the difficulty of the transition to low, longer-term emissions levels and narrow the range of options consistent with maintaining temperature change below 2 degrees C.”

These are not new findings. In its previous Fourth Assessment (AR4) in 2007 (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf), the IPCC found the cost of stabilizing at 445 ppm CO2-eq corresponded to “slowing average annual global GDP growth by less than 0.12 percentage points.”

These conclusions should not be a surprise since they are based on a review of the literature — and every major independent study has found (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2009/03/30/203888/global-warming-economics-low-cost-high-benefit/) a remarkably low net cost for climate action — and a high cost for delay. Back in 2011, the International Energy Agency warned (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/11/09/364895/iea-global-warming-delaying-action-is-a-false-economy/)“Delaying action is a false economy: for every $1 of investment in cleaner technology that is avoided in the power sector before 2020, an additional $4.30 would need to be spent after 2020 to compensate for the increased emissions.”

As German economist Ottmar Edenhofer, a co-chair of the IPCC committee that wrote the new report, put it (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/14/science/earth/un-climate-panel-warns-speedier-action-is-needed-to-avert-disaster.html?_r=0), “We cannot afford to lose another decade. If we lose another decade, it becomes extremely costly to achieve climate stabilization.”

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/04/11/1291328/-The-harder-GOPers-fight-Obamacare-the-easier-single-payer-will-be?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos %29

Of course, BigCarbon, and their proxies like ALEC, US CoC, etc will block ALL AGW mitigation.



This makes a very valid economic point about how pollution can shift costs on to others and create artificially profitable industries and companies.

It is also appears to be a good effort at quantifying the NPV of inaction. I would challenge any denier to find something even remotely similar. And no, the Spanish study is shitty, so don't even try that one.

[DarrinS]

Sorry consensus generally is science.

Except, when it's wrong.

http://reason.com/archives/2010/06/29/agreeing-to-agree




"In any case, the credibility of scientific research is not ultimately determined by how many researchers agree with it or how often it is cited by like-minded colleagues, but whether or not it conforms to reality."







Go stand in the corner with the creationists.

smh

[DarrinS]

Lastly, what scientific journal did John Cook "publish a paper" in that likens CAGW to conspiracy nutters?


Frontiers in Psychology

"Recursive fury: Conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in response to research on conspiracist ideation" :lol

http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00073/full


"This article has been retracted. Please follow the link to the full retraction notice for details."

[RandomGuy]

Frontiers in Psychology

"Recursive fury: Conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in response to research on conspiracist ideation" :lol

http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00073/full


"This article has been retracted. Please follow the link to the full retraction notice for details."


In the light of a small number of complaints received following publication of the original research article cited above, Frontiers carried out a detailed investigation of the academic, ethical, and legal aspects of the work. This investigation did not identify any issues with the academic and ethical aspects of the study. It did, however, determine that the legal context is insufficiently clear and therefore Frontiers wishes to retract the published article. The authors understand this decision, while they stand by their article and regret the limitations on academic freedom which can be caused by legal factors.

A sense of legal caution, not any concern about the content.

Not quite the way to win a scientific debate is it Darrin?

Do you think that scientific debates should be settled by lawyers? A simple yes or no will do.

[RandomGuy]

smh

I noticed you don't seem to be interested in answering fair questions.
e.g
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=231191&page=4&p=7243467&viewfull=1#post7243467

Why is that?

[RandomGuy]

That thread took place over the space of three years. I was calling you out for being a lying piece of shit back then too.

You don't 'still' agree with anything. You are full sophist that will hide sources rather than have them bear scrutiny and blanatly misrepresent yourself. I used to think you were a shill but it's been too long and no one would keep on incompetence such as yours in a position with much latitude.

I will say that you are compulsive liar that lies habitually and with a purpose. In our cases of dealing with you it has been lies in an attempt to make you appear more credible. In this case you want people to believe that you have been objective in the past.

Liar liar. Pants on fire.

I think the biggest thing that for me demonstrated that was Darrins use of the "CO2 is such a small % of the atmosphere it can't be bad" idea. One of the weakest tropes put forth by the deniers, and very easily debunked from a rational standpoint, yet Darrin put it out there as part of his argument.

It was the kind of argument that requires a bit of ignorance to buy into, and reminded me quite closely of the "look there aren't any stars in these Moon landing pictures, they must be faked" schtick commonly employed by conspiracy nutters.

[DarrinS]

A sense of legal caution, not any concern about the content.

Not quite the way to win a scientific debate is it Darrin?

Do you think that scientific debates should be settled by lawyers? A simple yes or no will do.


http://www.frontiersin.org/blog/Rights_of_Human_Subjects_in_Scientific_Papers/830

[RandomGuy]

Except, when it's wrong.

http://reason.com/archives/2010/06/29/agreeing-to-agree

"In any case, the credibility of scientific research is not ultimately determined by how many researchers agree with it or how often it is cited by like-minded colleagues, but whether or not it conforms to reality."
smh

I agree.

That is the only value any given theory has, is how closely it models reality.

Which is why the dishonesty of many in the denier movement makes me deeply skeptical of their "skepticism".

If you can't make logical, evidence based, fair arguments like the one above, then one, rightly, should lose credibility.

You also left out some extra bits before and after your quote.


So what to make of this increase in the use of the concept of “scientific consensus?” After all, several scientific consensuses before 1985 turned out to be wrong or exaggerated, e.g., saccharin, dietary fiber, fusion reactors, stratospheric ozone depletion, and even arguably acid rain and high-dose animal testing for carcinogenicity. One reasonable response might be that anthropogenic climate change is different from the cited examples because much more research has been done.


"In any case, the credibility of scientific research is not ultimately determined by how many researchers agree with it or how often it is cited by like-minded colleagues, but whether or not it conforms to reality."

[DarrinS]

I think the biggest thing that for me demonstrated that was Darrins use of the "CO2 is such a small % of the atmosphere it can't be bad" idea. One of the weakest tropes put forth by the deniers, and very easily debunked from a rational standpoint, yet Darrin put it out there as part of his argument.






It was the kind of argument that requires a bit of ignorance to buy into, and reminded me quite closely of the "look there aren't any stars in these Moon landing pictures, they must be faked" schtick commonly employed by conspiracy nutters.


Yes, those two things are sooo similar.

[DarrinS]

I agree.

That is the only value any given theory has, is how closely it models reality.




Bravo! You're starting to get it.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yes, those two things are sooo similar.

He explained the link between the two groups with specific methods that were used. You know: empirical facts.

Whining doesn't change that. Whining is better than lying but not by much.

[RandomGuy]

Do you think that scientific debates should be settled by lawyers? A simple yes or no will do.



http://www.frontiersin.org/blog/Rights_of_Human_Subjects_in_Scientific_Papers/830

That isn't a yes or a no answer.

Cosmored, Parker, Mouse, and all sorts of creationist doo-dahs consistently fail to answer direct questions when put to them.

Every time you dodge fair, simple questions, you make my case for me. Thank you.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Bravo! You're starting to get it.

You just going relink your UAH balloon satellite and pretend that is wasn't rebutted? That would be just like cosmored.

[DarrinS]

I think the biggest thing that for me demonstrated that was Darrins use of the "CO2 is such a small % of the atmosphere it can't be bad" idea. One of the weakest tropes put forth by the deniers, and very easily debunked from a rational standpoint, yet Darrin put it out there as part of his argument.

It was the kind of argument that requires a bit of ignorance to buy into, and reminded me quite closely of the "look there aren't any stars in these Moon landing pictures, they must be faked" schtick commonly employed by conspiracy nutters.



A tale of two PowerPoint presentations:

The first is by someone that RandomGuy would consider a conspiracy nutter -- Dr. Judith Curry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Curry)

http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/curry.pdf


The second is by someone I could consider an AGW alarmist -- Dr. Kevin Trenberth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_E._Trenberth)

http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/trenberth.pdf

[DarrinS]

You just going relink your UAH balloon satellite and pretend that is wasn't rebutted? That would be just like cosmored.

You didn't rebut shit, ratboy

[RandomGuy]

Yes, those two things are sooo similar.

I have shown you, repeatedly, the difference between an ad hominem logical fallacy, and simply calling someone a name, you fucktard.

Morons like yourself are wrong, because the quality of your arguments is shitty. It isn't because you are a pencil-dicked twat, or can't summon the brainpower required to tie your shoes on a consistent basis. It isn't because your momma dresses you funny. It isn't because pusillanimous windbags that consistently make logically flawed arguments wallow in their own ignorance like pigs in their own shit, or return to the same sad arguments again and again, like dogs to their vomit.

It is because you consistently make arguments that are, in essence, based upon ignorance of the scientific principles involved. That is why you are wrong.

Does this help outline the difference between an ad hominem fallacy, and simple name calling?

[DarrinS]

From Curry's presentation:

Agreement:
• Globally averaged surface temperatures have increased since 1880
• Humans are adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere
• Carbon dioxide and other so-called greenhouse gases have a
warming effect on the planet

Disagreement:
• Whether the warming since 1950 has been
dominated by human causes
• How much the planet will warm in the 21st
century
• Whether warming is ‘dangerous’
• Whether we can afford to radically reduce CO2 emissions


I know, totally "wacko" positions.

[DarrinS]

I have shown you, repeatedly, the difference between an ad hominem logical fallacy, and simply calling someone a name, you fucktard.

Morons like yourself are wrong, because the quality of your arguments is shitty. It isn't because you are a pencil-dicked twat, or can't summon the brainpower required to tie your shoes on a consistent basis. It isn't because your momma dresses you funny. It isn't because pusillanimous windbags that consistently make logically flawed arguments wallow in their own ignorance like pigs in their own shit, or return to the same sad arguments again and again, like dogs to their vomit.

It is because you consistently make arguments that are, in essence, based upon ignorance of the scientific principles involved. That is why you are wrong.

Does this help outline the difference between an ad hominem fallacy, and simple name calling?



If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table.

I don't know why you and Fuzzy go full Tourette's. :lol

[RandomGuy]

You have to admit it, Fuzzy, that was a real bitch move.


I had forgotten about this post :lol

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=197878&page=7&p=5911214&viewfull=1#post5911214

Speaking of a bitch move, you have accused me of believing in some sort of pseudoscience.

I asked:


Secondly, what pseudoscience do I believe in? Define pseudoscience as part of your answer.

Are you going to ignore this one too?

[RandomGuy]

If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table.

I don't know why you and Fuzzy go full Tourette's. :lol

It was primarily trying to get you to understand what exactly an ad hominem logical fallacy is. You seem to wave that around as if you understand it, when your posts rather obviously demonstrate the opposite.

Secondarily, it was fun to write. :D

[RandomGuy]

Yes, those two things are sooo similar.

Yes, they are, as I have made the case repeatedly, thanks in no small part to posts by people like you.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=163637&p=4668019&viewfull=1#post4668019

How does that feel?

[DarrinS]

Yes, they are, as I have made the case repeatedly, thanks in no small part to posts by people like you.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=163637&p=4668019&viewfull=1#post4668019

How does that feel?


What a sad little "scoreboard".


You know, it's too bad that the "Recursive Fury" paper got retracted. I have the feeling that you would've really enjoyed that paper.

[RandomGuy]

What a sad little "scoreboard".


You know, it's too bad that the "Recursive Fury" paper got retracted. I have the feeling that you would've really enjoyed that paper.

It fit with the title of the thread. I will make no apologies for it, as it was fun to do. Everyone has to have a hobby. :D

It was kinda sad, but not in the way you mean it.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You didn't rebut shit, ratboy

Yeah I did. Your UAH guy keeps on trying to act like his tropospheric temperature readings are the standard by which all models should be judged.


That strip of 40 degrees is about 15% of the earths crust. The CMIP estimates are whole earth. Now I do not know where the disconnect is because who knows what is data points they plucked from CMIPs data but that is shitty misleading bullshit. Just like I expect from you.

It's cute that you saved graphs from the UAH guy on your cloud though.

Also here is the graph that the IPCC uses to present their case:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/fig/faq-8-1-figure-1-l.png

and here is the graphs legend:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-8-1.html

You never responded. You were instead trying to convince wine that you have been objective from the very beginning. That was a sidetrack but I would like it noted that I wanted to talk the science. Are you going to address the disconnect between the satellite band temperature readings and whole earth climate model outputs?

Or are you going to use it to claim model outputs are not consistent with observations still? This speaks directly to what RG is talking about in unsound principles. You claim your graph shows the x and y axis to not be in accord but your data sets are not consistent. You do this a lot. Regurgitate bad graphs.

[DarrinS]

FuzzyTurd,

They were focusing on the tropics for a reason.

Do you really think they were comparing the satellite measurements in that narrow band to "whole earth" models?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

FuzzyTurd,

They were focusing on the tropics for a reason.

Do you really think they were comparing the satellite measurements in that narrow band to "whole earth" models?

I don't think. I know what the CMIP is.

I will help and I will give you a hint: it has nothing to do with latitude, dimwit.


Coupled atmosphere-ocean general circulation models allow the simulated climate to adjust to changes in climate forcing, such as increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. CMIP began in 1995 by collecting output from model "control runs" in which climate forcing is held constant. Later versions of CMIP have collected output from an idealized scenario of global warming, with atmospheric CO2 increasing at the rate of 1% per year until it doubles at about Year 70. CMIP output is available for study by approved diagnostic sub-projects.

http://cmip-pcmdi.llnl.gov/

From reading that are they modeling temperature? Is there ocean outside of the equator? Is there land in the equatorial band?

Again you post shit without looking to see if it valid. You are a sophist piece of shit.

[DarrinS]

lol, you're a dumbass. You don't think they compared model output for tropical latitudes? Maybe you should report them? :lmao

oh, by the way, the satellite dataset covers WAY more of the earth than the surface temperature records.

[DarrinS]

And you still don't know why they were focusing on that band?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

lol, you're a dumbass. You don't think they compared model output for tropical latitudes? Maybe you should report them? :lmao

oh, by the way, the satellite dataset covers WAY more of the earth than the surface temperature records.
Since you are unable to answer the questions I will do the critical thinking for you.

Why are you patting yourself on the back over satellites covering more than just surface temp records. Your graph clearly says troposphere temps between latitudes. You not understanding what you are posting gets old.

CMIP does not include land. The arbitrary 15% of the Earth UAH came up with includes land. The datasets are not comparable because the satellite data includes air over much of africa asia and the americas. There really should be nothing more to say.

If he would have instead chosen the pacific ocean or atlantic or a body of water to map then that would make sense. That is how the model is set up. CMIP models the forcing interchange between the ocean and atmosphere. There are other models that describe the interaction with the surface as well.

The whole models which CMIP isn't include the interaction between all three mediums. Those are the models in the graph I posted

You ignored the IPCC whole earth models and data comparison graph that shows that data.

[Winehole23]

Steyn strikes out on his own, asking for a trial on the merits:


The climate policy debate is quite heated. Partisans hurl charges against each others with impunity, challenging the honesty, intelligence, and integrity of those on the other side. So it’s understandable that many environmentalists hope Mann will win. Yet should he prevail, many on his side may come to rue this result. Should Mann win, it will not be long before defamation suits are filed in the other direction. Every time an environmental activist suggests someone on the other side is “bought” by fossil fuel interests, they had better be able to substantiate their claim, or they will be inviting a lawsuit. And while it would be nice to have less ad hominem in our political debates, and more serious discussion (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/06/02/why-the-epas-new-power-plant-rules-are-a-diversion-from-serious-climate-policy/)of climate policy in particular, the threat of defamation suits is not a good way to achieve this result.http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/06/09/mann-v-steyn-steyn-goes-his-own-way/

[boutons_deux]

maybe the suing will stop the defamation, but most of the whore scientists who deny AGW have been shown to be on the take, at one time or another, directly or indirectly, from BigCarbon and/or BigCorp.

[Winehole23]

or, maybe it will make it easier for special interests to sue the bearers of bad news.

[boutons_deux]

False Balance Lives: Media Biased Toward Fringe Climate Scientists Who Reject Global Consensus (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/08/11/3469735/false-balance-media-biased-climate/)

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/shutterstock_FalseBalance-638x358.jpg

A new study finds that the media disproportionately favors scientists who reject the basic scientific consensus on climate change. By consensus, I mean the latest findings of the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC), which are already overly cautious (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/09/10/2596781/denier-intimidation-tactics-ipcc-lowball-sea-level-rise-climate-sensitivity/) and watered down (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/03/30/3420723/climate-breakdown-of-food-systems/).

Some — though not most (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/04/18/207892/climate-shift-matthew-nisbet/) — analysts have declared the media’s era of false balance in climate coverage is over. But the truth is that the media continue to present the public a misleading picture on climate science, giving fringe scientists more attention (http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/10/10/study-media-sowed-doubt-in-coverage-of-un-clima/196387)(disproportionate to their actual number) than the leading climate scientists.

A new study (http://pubs.acs.org/doi/ipdf/10.1021/es501998e) in Environmental Science and Technology by Bart Verheggen et al, surveys “more than 1800 international scientists studying various aspects of climate change” and finds (http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2014/08/11/survey-confirms-scientific-consensus-on-human-caused-global-warming/):




There is widespread agreement that global warming is predominantly caused by human greenhouse gases.
This consensus strengthens with increased expertise, as defined by the number of self-reported articles in the peer-reviewed literature.
Self-reported media exposure is higher for those who are skeptical of a significant human influence on climate.


So what did the study find about false balance? It found that scientists who say that the climate’s sensitivity to greenhouse gas emissions is below the consensus range report getting the most frequent media exposure.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/08/11/3469735/false-balance-media-biased-climate/

[DarrinS]

Lol, tp

[boutons_deux]

the biggest LOL is you demagogue'd dupes.