Ins ute of Physics memo to Parliament blasts AGW "science"

[DarrinS]

"I will accept it."

no, you won't. There are tons of evidence now, not in dispute except by oil/gas/coal-financed, duped deniers like yourself.

You Lie when you say the tons of scientific evidence on global warming is not transparent, not corroborated by multiple studies, and all the other You Lies you spew.

you ideological ignorance is not amenable to scientific evidence.

Is the memo in the OP written by oil/gas/coal-financed duped deniers?

[RandomGuy]

I doubt that day will come, but if so. I will accept it.

You see, I do understand enough of the geosciences to see the AGW crowd if flat out wrong. How many times have I said you must understand most of the earth sciences to understand Global Warming?

Actual scientific writing is very careful to indicate degrees of certainty. The IPCC reports, and scientific publishing in general, use couched terms like "highly likely" or "somewhat likely".

I am rather su ious of anyone who uses language like "vitually certain" to describe probabilities involved. Although I have faith your ability to understand science, I have little faith in your ability to draw adequate conclusions based on that understanding.

Personally, I would love for you to be thrown into the process of putting together the IPCC reports.

We should have someone deeply skeptical and intellectually dishonest enough to force the IPCC to make its case more transparently and better than it has in the past. It would sharpen the reports and make the rather insular scientists a bit more savvy as to how to present things.

[Wild Cobra]

Transparency has happened to a degree.

I think it will happen because people of good faith in science will ask for it, and generally, scientists tend to take this sort of things very seriously.

Yes, they do. The AGW crowd has been relegating Climate Science to as believable as the paranormal, and it's time that stops.

[Wild Cobra]

Actual scientific writing is very careful to indicate degrees of certainty. The IPCC reports, and scientific publishing in general, use couched terms like "highly likely" or "somewhat likely".

True, then they turn around and lie about better understood factors like solar forcing. They rate that as a Low LOSU. They only rate CO2, CH4, N2O, and halocarbons as a high LOSU, when they are not easy to quantify.

I am rather su ious of anyone who uses language like "vitually certain" to describe probabilities involved. Although I have faith your ability to understand science, I have little faith in your ability to draw adequate conclusions based on that understanding.

If you wish, but I an virtually certain the IPCC is a crock of , and politically motivated.

Personally, I would love for you to be thrown into the process of putting together the IPCC reports.

I'd be removed from the process like all the real scientists were.

We should have someone deeply skeptical and intellectually dishonest enough to force the IPCC to make its case more transparently and better than it has in the past. It would sharpen the reports and make the rather insular scientists a bit more savvy as to how to present things.

Except for the intellectually dishonest, thanx.

Example please?

[RandomGuy]

Except for the intellectually dishonest, thanx.

Example please?

Didn't have to look far.

I'd be removed from the process like all the real scientists were.

Defining only those scientists who agree with you are being "real scientists", and assuming that they were removed from the process solely because they were skeptical.

Giving a figure regarding the number of "scientists" who signed that pe ion about being "doubtful" of AGW without the caveat that the defintion of scientists was broad enough to include dieticians.

Criticising science papers submitted to peer review as being "politically/ideologically motivated" while failing to acknowledge that studies of data you cited in support of your theory were not peer-reviewed, and written by people with very obvious political/ideological agenda of their own.

Being intellectually honest includes behing honest of the shortcomings of your arguments. Something you are patently incapable of.

[101A]

They are rightfully calling for more transparancy of the process.

The problem you have is that transparency will happen, and that the level of scientific rigor involved will get better.

What happens when it does, and the weight of evidence debunks your conspiracy theory?

Yes. We WANT the Earth to Burn; melt - drown, whatever calamity might occur - it is my greatest desire; Wish we could just take a blow-torch to the sum now and get it over with!!!

The point is, if the 'weight of evidence" IS overwhelming? The VAST majority of people will agree to do what it takes, I am sure.

However, I don't believe the evidence will be even suggestive of man made global warming; otherwise, no one would have ever had to lie about it.

[Halberto]

Wow...

I'm amazed they are admitting scientific malpractices. I guess they are smart enough to remove themselves from the propaganda artists.

It shouldn't be surprising. There is no agenda in Science other than discovering factual truths.

EDIT:

My two cents:

Reading this article I feel that they are referring to the short term effects of global warming that had been exaggerated years ago. Today you will be hard pressed to find a Glaciologist tell you that our sea levels will rise by 1 meter by 2100. We've got more data due to GPS satellites and other technologies. Before GPS we relied on simple equations for Conservation of Mass, Conservation of Momentum and relied on a simple flow law for ice. Ice is has VERY complicated flow...

Other than the calving of ice sheets and glaciers, global warming is a real threat in the long term (1,000 to 10,000 years from now) and there is geologic proof of how devastating it can be for life on Earth. The worst extinction event in Earth's history was NOT the dinosaurs, it was before that (the Permian-Triassic extinction event aka the "great dying") where the most prominent cause being greenhouse gases. Even insects died from the atmospheric alteration, and that's a scary thing.

I'll post more about it later if anyone is interested.

[Wild Cobra]

Didn't have to look far.



Defining only those scientists who agree with you are being "real scientists", and assuming that they were removed from the process solely because they were skeptical.

Giving a figure regarding the number of "scientists" who signed that pe ion about being "doubtful" of AGW without the caveat that the defintion of scientists was broad enough to include dieticians.

Criticising science papers submitted to peer review as being "politically/ideologically motivated" while failing to acknowledge that studies of data you cited in support of your theory were not peer-reviewed, and written by people with very obvious political/ideological agenda of their own.

Being intellectually honest includes behing honest of the shortcomings of your arguments. Something you are patently incapable of.

Oh I see. Your jumping to your own conclusions of my statements...

Lame...

[Wild Cobra]

It shouldn't be surprising. There is no agenda in Science other than discovering factual truths.

EDIT:

My two cents:

Reading this article I feel that they are referring to the short term effects of global warming that had been exaggerated years ago. Today you will be hard pressed to find a Glaciologist tell you that our sea levels will rise by 1 meter by 2100. We've got more data due to GPS satellites and other technologies. Before GPS we relied on simple equations for Conservation of Mass, Conservation of Momentum and relied on a simple flow law for ice. Ice is has VERY complicated flow...

Other than the calving of ice sheets and glaciers, global warming is a real threat in the long term (1,000 to 10,000 years from now) and there is geologic proof of how devastating it can be for life on Earth. The worst extinction event in Earth's history was NOT the dinosaurs, it was before that (the Permian-Triassic extinction event aka the "great dying") where the most prominent cause being greenhouse gases. Even insects died from the atmospheric alteration, and that's a scary thing.

I'll post more about it later if anyone is interested.

The whole fact that the data is carefully sheltered is the scientific malpractice. The AGW crowd talks about peer review, but only those whop already agree are allowed in the process. That is not true peer reviewing. A true peer review process is where scientists who are skeptical also agree with the end result.

[baseline bum]

Ah, someone adds nothing but an ad hominem argument and a personal insult. Surprising.

If there was a physical unit for arrogance, it would be mogrovejos.

[baseline bum]

I can see why mogro is such a huge Palin fan. He likes to make little sarcastic remarks and insult everyone else all the time, and then plays the victim card and complains about others dragging the discussion in the dirt.

[EmptyMan]

Step 1. Repeat Overwhelming over and over.

[RandomGuy]

Oh I see. Your jumping to your own conclusions of my statements...

Lame...

Erk, the grammatical mis-mash of that sentence makes it hard for me to decipher precisely what it is you meant, but let me take a stab.

Your statement seems to accuse me of some kind of strawman attack wherein I distorted what you said or didn't say in order to make you look like the intellectually dishonest hack that I gererally assert you are, when in fact you are scrupulously honest in all of your assertions.

Let's examine what "jump" to an incorrect conclusion I made here:

RG: Personally, I would love for you to be thrown into the process of putting together the IPCC reports.

WC: I'd be removed from the process like all the real scientists were.

The implication of this sentence is that no "real" scientists remain in the process of issuing the IPCC reports. These reports are put together by a rather lengthy list of people with PhDs of various sorts, and these credits are given in the reports themselves. These people would be regarded by any layman as a "scientist", by any fair definition.

It is also a fair conclusion that your implied definition of "real scientist" was someone who agrees with your position that AGW is virtually non-existant, and would therefore be skeptical of the IPCC's overall conclusion.

I don't regard either statement of implied meaning to be "jumping to a conclusion".

As for the other two remembered instances:
It was not a jump to a conclusion to state that you did not disclose some of the shortfalls to your arguments, such as the fact that dieticians counted as "scientists" when giving a statistic concerning the number of "scientists" who signed a pe ion skeptical of global warming.

It was not either a jump to a conclusion to state that some of the papers you cited as evidence to support your case turned out to have both not peer-reviewed and produced by people with rather active and strident agendas.

Both cases were instances of my taking an honest look at some of your claims to see if the evidence supported your claims or assertions.

Upon reflection, it may not have been "intellectual dishonesty" on your part. I guess that was jumping to a conclusion. I assumed that you knew about either fact beforehand, and simply omitted it.

I failed to account for the other possibility:
That you are a lazy , and didn't bother to look at the facts/papers you put forth in support of your argument, and honestly didn't know.

I would judge it was more of the latter than the former. Perhaps you could clear it up:

Were you committing a lie of omission, or just being a lazy ?

Even in being a lazy when failing to look into the background of a scientific sounding paper and realizing it wasn't peer reviewed contains an element of dishonesty.

If you continually subject opposing science to greater scrutiny than you do science you agree with, that demonstrates an inability or unwillingness to examine underlying assumptions.

If you really put your mind to it, you might be able to identify how your own biases affect your starting assumptions, you are obviously smart enough to do that.

Honest or intellectually rigorous enough is another matter entirely.

[DarrinS]

I like this liberal's take.


Basically, man is arrogant to think he can destroy the planet and arrogant to think he can save it.

[RandomGuy]

And now, a terrifying message from AGW cult leader, Al Gore:

The Al Gore Op Ed:

We're all going to die if you don't invest in my carbon trading ponzi scheme and climate change deniers are all Big Oil shills. (I paraphrase)


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/op...28gore.html?hp

Actully that is something of a strawman.

What he said was more along the lines that "Big Oil" has been fighting legislation tooth and nail, and have acted in a manner very similar to Tobacco companies when faced with scientific evidence that their products were dangerous.

Given that companies who benefit most from unrestrained CO2 emissions would have the most economic stake in finding ANYTHING that might poke a hole in AGW, I don't see that as an entirely specious assertion.

I would actually agree with Gore on a number of points that people like you make when you post things about cold weather in winter (gasp!) as if it is somehow proof that overall global temps aren't creeping upwards.

The word for that is "specious".

The fact that you seem to revel in this "because the other side does it" doesn't help your case when it comes to the rest of us trying to objectively weigh arguments in as rational a fashion as we can.

[Wild Cobra]

Your statement seems to accuse me of some kind of strawman attack wherein I distorted what you said or didn't say in order to make you look like the intellectually dishonest hack that I gererally assert you are, when in fact you are scrupulously honest in all of your assertions.

Let's examine what "jump" to an incorrect conclusion I made here:

RG: Personally, I would love for you to be thrown into the process of putting together the IPCC reports.

WC: I'd be removed from the process like all the real scientists were.

The implication of this sentence is that no "real" scientists remain in the process of issuing the IPCC reports. These reports are put together by a rather lengthy list of people with PhDs of various sorts, and these credits are given in the reports themselves. These people would be regarded by any layman as a "scientist", by any fair definition.

It is also a fair conclusion that your implied definition of "real scientist" was someone who agrees with your position that AGW is virtually non-existant, and would therefore be skeptical of the IPCC's overall conclusion.

Science is not by consensus. Any self respecting scientist will not place their reputation on the line with such reports, scorn with problem after problem. There are people who have been kicked off the process because they didn't agree, but then their names remained on the reports. Some have actually sued to get their names off.

The IPCC does not have any real scientists who actually believe their own material regarding AGW. They are all part of a political agenda. Anyone who actually uses the scientific process cannot make the conclusions as stated in the IPCC reports concerning AGW.

I don't regard either statement of implied meaning to be "jumping to a conclusion".

I don't always explain myself. You have often jumped to conclusions of what I meant, and at times, I have not explained myself well.

As for the other two remembered instances:
It was not a jump to a conclusion to state that you did not disclose some of the shortfalls to your arguments, such as the fact that dieticians counted as "scientists" when giving a statistic concerning the number of "scientists" who signed a pe ion skeptical of global warming.

I have never disagreed with the fact that most were outside of climatology. The fact is, I have responded to this point when we discussed that pe ion.

It was not either a jump to a conclusion to state that some of the papers you cited as evidence to support your case turned out to have both not peer-reviewed and produced by people with rather active and strident agendas.

And you claim papers advocating AGW have gone though a true peer review process? A peer review process is not proper when you have people who already agree with you review it. It takes skeptics of your position also agreeing with your work.

Upon reflection, it may not have been "intellectual dishonesty" on your part. I guess that was jumping to a conclusion. I assumed that you knew about either fact beforehand, and simply omitted it.

I do sometimes intentionally trap someone with the way I word something, but that's about it. As for your point, it doesn't apply.

I failed to account for the other possibility:
That you are a lazy , and didn't bother to look at the facts/papers you put forth in support of your argument, and honestly didn't know.

Just because you don't agree with a link, paper, etc. that I cite, that doesn't mean it's invalid.

I would judge it was more of the latter than the former. Perhaps you could clear it up:

Were you committing a lie of omission, or just being a lazy ?

I don't know what you are referring to.

Even in being a lazy when failing to look into the background of a scientific sounding paper and realizing it wasn't peer reviewed contains an element of dishonesty.

I never claim papers I read are peer reviewed. In fact, I have stated several times, peer reviewing is meaningless on this topic.

If you continually subject opposing science to greater scrutiny than you do science you agree with, that demonstrates an inability or unwillingness to examine underlying assumptions.

Maybe if you understood the sciences better, you would understand why I believe as I do. I have explained things rather well, at least to those who understand the sciences involved.

If you really put your mind to it, you might be able to identify how your own biases affect your starting assumptions, you are obviously smart enough to do that.

It isn't bias. I have studied several aspects of Global Warming. Having collected and understanding the evidence I have, I know for fact, that there is no AGW threat in the form we are told.