Page 1 of 187 123451151101 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 4654
  1. #1
    I'm not real! H.A.L.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Post Count
    12,335
    This is a continuation thread, the old thread is Here

  2. #2
    Prince of Whales RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    38,553
    Pseudoscience is any belief system or methodology which tries to gain legitimacy by wearing the trappings of science, but fails to abide by the rigorous methodology and standards of evidence that demarcate true science. Pseudoscience is designed to have the appearance of being scientific, but lacks any of the substance of science.
    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

    UPDATE:
    This exchange is, in my opinion, probably *the* most clear example of the kinds of arguments made against the actual science that supports the theory that mankind is affecting our overall climate. Thank you DarrinS

    http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=877



    From Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science by Martin Gardner
    1.The pseudo-scientist considers himself a genius.

    2.He regards other researchers as stupid, dishonest or both. By choice or necessity he operates outside the peer review system (hence the le of the original Antioch Review article, "The Hermit Scientist").

    3.He believes there is a campaign against his ideas, a campaign compared with the persecution of Galileo or Pasteur.

    4.Instead of side-stepping the mainstream, the pseudo-scientist attacks it head-on: The most revered scientist is Einstein so Gardner writes that Einstein is the most likely establishment figure to be attacked.

    5.He coins neologisms. ["new words", in this case meant to sound as scientific as possible-RG]
    In reading through numerous climate change threads, and websites, I have found many of the traits rampant within the Denier movement.

    While I would not lump all people who doubt the current scientific consensus regarding man's effect on our climate into this category, I can say what I see quoted often by people making the argument almost invariably fits rather well into this.

    Quite frankly the most damning thing in my mind is that Deniers tend to eschew the peer-review process entirely. Something shared in common with people putting forth theories about healing properties of some "energetically treated water" and so forth.

    I will in this thread attempt to delve into the pseudo-science underpinning the Denier movement. I am sure it will attract the usual suspects with the usual arguments, but since I am here to make MY case regarding this, I will first do that over the next week or two, and then get around to responding to posted material.

    What I will do to support my case is twofold. I will first answer questions honestly, to the best of my abilities, and in good faith. I expect the same in return.

    Dogmatics tend to be unable to answer honest, fair questions plainly. This is one of *THE* hallmarks of pseudoscience. At the end of this post, I will keep a scoreboard of the number of times I ask honest, direct questions that are not answered by anybody who wants to pick up the gauntlet. I will source this scoreboard for reference in the second follow-up post.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------
    #Questions asked without direct intellectually honest answers:

    Yonivore:
    One question asked. Completely ignored.
    One logical fallacy.

    Obstructed view:
    Five questions asked.
    Two questions dodged without honest answers.
    Two questions answered fairly.
    One ignored.

    DarrinS:
    twelve logical fallacies
    One false assertion
    One question pending, probable second false assertion
    Cherry-picking data

    Wild Cobra:
    Five logical fallacies
    Four unproven assertions
    Putting forth a scientific sounding but untestable hypothesis
    Three instances of confirmation bias
    First direct comparison of climate scientists to Nazis in the thread

    Tyson Chandler:
    One logical fallacy

    PopTech:
    One case of refusing to answer a fair question.
    Failure to provide evidence when asked.
    Strawman logical fallacy


    (edit)
    Here is a good bit on the differences between honest skepticism and irrational denial of human caused climate change.

    http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2008/...redux-edition/

    Here is a link to the skeptics society, a group dedicated to fighting pseudo-science of all kinds, and what honest skeptics think of deniers:
    http://www.skeptic.com/tag/global-warming/

    A skeptic is one who prefers beliefs and conclusions that are reliable and valid to ones that are comforting or convenient, and therefore rigorously and openly applies the methods of science and reason to all empirical claims, especially their own. A skeptic provisionally proportions acceptance of any claim to valid logic and a fair and thorough assessment of available evidence, and studies the pitfalls of human reason and the mechanisms of deception so as to avoid being deceived by others or themselves. Skepticism values method over any particular conclusion.
    This is to be contrasted with a "Denier"

    Skepticism, after all, is a rational, intellectual process that involves critical analysis of the facts and reasoned doubt applied to all evidence and hypotheses.

    “The key to skepticism is to continuously and vigorously apply the methods of science to navigate the treacherous straits between “know nothing” skepticism and “anything goes” credulity.” skeptic.com


    In contrast, Climate change Deniers:

    ignore the facts and evidence;
    do not critically examine any evidence or hypotheses;
    unquestionably embrace any counter proposal, no matter how transparently absurd or false.
    http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/...ain/#more-2959
    Last edited by RandomGuy; 05-24-2012 at 09:07 PM.

  3. #3
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    can you Idso suckers refute this:

    "As such, a number of comments in this thread have cited 'CO2science.org' - this is a website run by Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. Be aware this website is a product of a small think tank that is run by four members of the same family, headed by Sherwood Idso, that has been funded by Exxonmobil and the Western Fuels Association. "

    http://api.economist.com/node/18386161/comments
    What Motivates the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change?
    "Where do you get your funding?" This is a common inquiry we frequently receive. Our typical response is that we never discuss our funding. Why? Because we believe that ideas about the way the world of nature operates should stand or fall on their own merits, irrespective of the source of support for the person or organization that produces them.

    Unfortunately, we know that this view is contrary to what often occurs in today's world, where the souls of many are bought and sold daily - some for a proverbial king's ransom and others for but a pauper's penny - to promulgate ideas to which they have not the slightest personal allegiance. I want to state once and for all, therefore, that we at the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change do not participate in such commerce, while acknowledging there are likely many scientists on the opposite side of the climate change debate that are equally true to themselves in this regard.

    But why should you believe me? Lying and fabrication are equally rampant throughout today's world, making almost anyone's declaration, however adamantly and eloquently delivered, more suspect than believable; and maybe that's what I'm doing here - lying to you.

    Clearly, one should not believe what we at CO2 Science or anyone else says about carbon dioxide and global change without carefully examining the reasoning behind, and the evidence for, our and their declarations, which makes questions about funding rather moot. It is self-evident, for example, that one need not know from whence a person's or organization's funding comes in order to evaluate the reasonableness of what they say, if - and this is a very important qualification - one carefully studies the writings of people on both sides of the issue.

    Nevertheless, questions about funding persist, and they are clearly of great interest to many people, as evidenced by the spate of publicity aroused by the 4 Sep 2006 letter of Bob Ward (Senior Manager for Policy Communication of the UK's Royal Society) to Nick Thomas (Esso UK Limited's Director of Corporate Affairs), as well his criticism of us in his BBC Today Programe interview of 21 Sep 2006 with Sarah Montague, where he pointedly described our Center as being one of the organizations funded by ExxonMobil that "misrepresent the science of climate change."

    That we tell a far different story from the one espoused by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is true; and that may be why ExxonMobil made some donations to us a few times in the past; they probably liked what we typically had to say about the issue. But what we had to say then, and what we have to say now, came not, and comes not, from them or any other organization or person. Rather, it was and is derived from our individual scrutinizing of the pertinent scientific literature and our analyses of what we find there, which we have been doing and subsequently writing about on our website on a weekly basis without a single break since 15 Jul 2000, and twice-monthly before that since 15 Sep 1998 ... and no one could pay my sons and me enough money to do that.

    So what do we generally find in this never-ending endeavor? We find enough good material to produce weekly reviews of five different peer-reviewed scientific journal articles that do not follow the multiple doom-and-gloom storylines of the IPCC. In addition, we often review articles that do follow the IPCC's lead; and in these cases we take issue with them for what we feel are valid defensible reasons. Why do we do this? We do it because we feel that many people on the other side of the debate - but by no means all or even the majority of them - are the ones that "misrepresent the science of climate change."

    Just as beauty resides in the eye of the beholder, however, so too does the misrepresentation of climate change science live there; and with people on both sides of the debate often saying the same negative things about those on the other side, it behooves the rational person seeking to know the truth to carefully evaluate the things each side says about more substantial matters. Are they based on real-world data? Do the analyses employed seem appropriate? Do the researchers rely more on data and logic to make their points, or do they rely more on appeals to authority and claims of consensus? Funding also enters the picture; but one must determine if it is given to influence how scientists interpret their findings or to encourage them to maintain their intellectual integrity and report only what they believe to be the truth.

    In this regard, as I mentioned earlier, there are many scientists on both sides of the climate change debate who receive funds from people that admire their work and who continue to maintain their intellectual and moral integrity. Likewise, there are probably some on both sides of the controversy who do otherwise. So how does one differentiate between them?

    Clearly, each researcher's case is unique. In my case, I feel that a significant indication of what motivates me to do what I do can be gleaned from my publication record, which demonstrates that I studied and wrote about many of the topics we currently address on our website a full quarter-century ago in a host of different peer-reviewed scientific journals - as well as in a couple of books (Idso, 1982, 1989) that I self-published and for which I personally paid the publication costs - all of which happened well before I, or probably anyone else, had ever even contemplated doing what we now do and actually receiving funds to sustain the effort. What is more, many of these things occurred well before there was any significant controversy over the climate change issue, which largely began with the publication of one of my early contributions to the topic (Idso, 1980). Hence, it should be readily evident that my views about the potential impacts of the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 concentration from that time until now have never been influenced in even the slightest degree by anything other than what has appeared in the scientific literature. And my sons are in their father's image.

    So, it is indeed true that we have our point of view, just as the other side of the debate has its point of view; and those views are radically different from of each other. Please study carefully, therefore, the materials that each side produces and decide for yourself which seems to be the more correct, based upon real-world data and logical reasoning; but be very careful about appeals to authority, claims of consensus, and contentions of funding leading to misrepresentation of climate-change science. Although there likely is some of the latter occurring on both sides of the debate, the mere existence of funding, whether from private or public sources, does not, in and of itself, prove malfeasance on the part of the funds' recipients.

    Sherwood B. Idso, President
    Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change

  4. #4
    Just Right of Atilla the Hun Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    25,370
    This is a continuation thread, the old thread is Here
    Well, this doesn't happen often, does it?

  5. #5
    Prince of Whales RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    38,553
    Well, this doesn't happen often, does it?
    You broke it!





  6. #6
    Prince of Whales RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    38,553
    Picking up with the discussion about Roy Spencer, let's see some of his other work:

    http://www.ideasinactiontv.com/tcs_d...evolution.html


    True evolution, in the macro-sense, has never been observed, only inferred.
    It is already legal to teach intelligent design in public schools. What is not currently legal is to mandate its teaching. The Supreme Court has ruled that this would violate the First Amendment's establishment of religion clause.


    But I have some questions relating to this: Does not classical evolutionism, based almost entirely upon faith, violate the same clause? More importantly, what about the establishment clause of the First Amendment, which states that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion?
    Ah yes, the theory of evolution is a religion.

    Good to know.

  7. #7
    Prince of Whales RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    38,553
    what I do can be gleaned from my publication record, which demonstrates that I studied and wrote about many of the topics we currently address on our website a full quarter-century ago in a host of different peer-reviewed scientific journals - as well as in a couple of books (Idso, 1982, 1989) that I self-published and for which I personally paid the publication costs - all of which happened well before I, or probably anyone else, had ever even contemplated doing what we now do and actually receiving funds to sustain the effort.
    Mr. Idso hasn't published anything peer-reviewed in more than a decade.

    He is the president of a website.

    I would prefer science a bit more up to date. His webiste offers some critiques, but again, nothing overly compelling.

  8. #8
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    Picking up with the discussion about Roy Spencer, let's see some of his other work:
    Nice Red Herring. It is always the same distractions such as falling back to religious arguments when the debate is lost.

  9. #9
    Damns (Given): 0 Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    60,223
    Well, this doesn't happen often, does it?
    It's happened before.

    4000 posts and HAL pops up.

  10. #10
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    Mr. Idso hasn't published anything peer-reviewed in more than a decade.
    Lie,

    Seventeen years of carbon dioxide enrichment of sour orange trees: final results
    (Global Change Biology, Volume 13, Issue 10, pp. 2171-2183, October 2007)
    - Bruce A. Kimball, Sherwood B. Idso, Stephanie Johnson, Matthias C. Rillig


    I would prefer science a bit more up to date.
    CO2Science is update weekly with new reviews of peer-reviewed science.
    Last edited by Poptech; 05-23-2012 at 10:42 PM.

  11. #11
    Just Right of Atilla the Hun Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    25,370
    It's happened before.

    4000 posts and HAL pops up.
    Cool.

  12. #12
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    18,729
    Idso had to be pressed to admit that he received funding from Exxon and who knows for how long he has been receiving said funding. Tobacco scientists also claimed that their work was not swayed by tobacco funding.

    I also noted how Popaspergers avoided the question as to whether any AGW scientists have made a good argument.

  13. #13
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    Idso had to be pressed to admit that he received funding from Exxon and who knows for how long he has been receiving said funding. Tobacco scientists also claimed that their work was not swayed by tobacco funding.
    Surely you can present evidence of corruption, instead of just baseless smears. He was a skeptic long, long, long before his non-profit organization received any energy company donations.

    I also noted how Poptech avoided the question as to whether any AGW scientists have made a good argument.
    No alarmist scientists has made a good argument supporting alarm.

  14. #14
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    18,729
    Corruption? I realize your asperger need to label something so you can understand it but its not that simple. If you insist on labeling it then call it a conflict of interest.

    So then you agree that the earth is warming or that CO2 is the most significant contributor behind the deviation from the ENSO cycle?

    You just do not agree with the feedback estimates?

    5 years ago did you not believe that Earth was warming at all? When between now and then did you change your position from being anti-AGW to anti-AGW alarm?

  15. #15
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    Corruption? If you insist on labeling it then call it a conflict of interest.
    Since CO2 affects just about everything this is an illogical argument.

    So then you agree that the earth is warming or that CO2 is the most significant contributor behind the deviation from the ENSO cycle?

    You just do not agree with the feedback estimates?
    I've always believed there is empirical evidence for a mild warming of a fraction of a degree since the end of the little ice age,



    I do not believe man-made CO2 is the most significant contributor to this mild warming. I do not support any alarmist feedback scenarios period.

    5 years ago did you not believe that Earth was warming at all? When between now and then did you change your position from being anti-AGW to anti-AGW alarm?
    You are confusing believing in a mild warming of a fraction of a degree since the little ice age with the cause or primary cause of that warming being man-made CO2. Anti-AGW Alarm has always been my position whether stated as such or not.
    Last edited by Poptech; 05-23-2012 at 11:18 PM.

  16. #16
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    18,729
    Could you post a graph actually compiled by NASA-GISS? You know one without the gratuitous range?

  17. #17
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    Could you post a graph actually compiled by NASA-GISS? You know one without the gratuitous range?
    Why would I post a graph at a scale meant to mislead the average person like NASA-GISS does?

  18. #18
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    18,729
    The values range from -0.4 to 0.6 and you think the proper way to compile a graph with those values is to set the range from -5 to 5?

    But when they make the range from -0.5 to 0.7 that is misleading?

    I mean setting the range only fractionally larger than the range of data is misleading but making it 10 times bigger is not?

    I guess whatever confirms your bias.



    So that is intentionally misleading?

  19. #19
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    18,729
    Also if you are going to try and paint me as psychotic due to having delusions then you need to actually point to the delusions.

    I can point to your admission that you believe you have an Axis 1 mental disorder. I certainly can understand why you believe that. I just do not understand why you have not gone to see a mental health professional about it.

    If I were to admit that I had psychotic breaks then I would definitely go see one. It seems irresponsible to me that you admit you have a disorder yet do nothing about it. You not have the funding to do so or something?

  20. #20
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    The values range from -0.4 to 0.6 and you think the proper way to compile a graph with those values is to set the range from -5 to 5?

    But when they make the range from -0.5 to 0.7 that is misleading?
    It is misleading to the layman as they only measure temperature in degrees and can easily mistake your graph for degrees not fractions of degrees. I have seen this happen repeatedly with the public. People can make up their own minds as to why this matters. I personally believe it is obvious,

    Real Temperatures

  21. #21
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    18,729
    It is misleading to the layman as they only measure temperature in degrees and can easily mistake your graph for degrees not fractions of degrees. I have seen this happen repeatedly with the public.
    So the layman does not understand what a decimal point means? What most people do not understand is how a fraction of a degree in that cycle is significant. Most people see that their seasons go from -5 to 40 degrees.

    Even if i were to admit that was a reasonable argument --a 50% positive deviation from the cycle is a 50% positive deviation from the cycle-- why make it 5. Why not make it 1 or 2? Why 5?

    Could it be an attempt at obfuscation?

  22. #22
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    18,729
    And NASA is unreliable but the axis 1 mental disorder guy is reliable?

    That link is to your site. What exactly are your credentials anyway? Besides thinking that you have aspergers and how that makes you special?

  23. #23
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    What most people do not understand is how a fraction of a degree in that cycle is significant.
    It's not.

    why make it 5. Why not make it 1 or 2? Why 5?
    Because I have consistently heard people make the false claim that temperatures have increase by 5 or more degrees.

    And NASA is unreliable
    NASA-GISS is unreliable.

  24. #24
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    18,729
    That link is to your site. What exactly are your credentials anyway? Besides thinking that you have aspergers and how that makes you special?

  25. #25
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    What exactly are your credentials anyway?
    Uh… genius, billionaire, playboy, philanthropist…

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •