myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
Global cooling
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 332, 333, 334 ... 347, 348, 349  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
pointster



Joined: 22 Jul 2010
Posts: 235

PostPosted: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

isobars wrote:
I find it laughable that anyone would think that disparaging one scientist discredits the other 50 (in this case), let alone the 32,000 who signed the Oregon Petition.

It's even funnier that a bunch of anonymous internet posters rank their undefined credentials above those of IPCC members with careers and PhDs relevant to the task of evaluating AGW ... especially when the primary AGW alarmist agency is the IPCC.

And ... really ... citing Wikipedia, essentially an open bulletin board functionally like this one, as proof in ANY controversial issue? Who wrote the Wikipedia entry ... Al Gore? Jim Henson? But OOOOH ... it cites hundreds of impressive references. Got news for youse guys: So do the denier books and papers.


OK then, how about the American Chemical Society?

http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/atmosphericwarming/climatsensitivity.html

Clear and complete exposition.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 5581

PostPosted: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What is funny is that Mikey posts something from the same vile think tank (and at least one of the same "scientists") that apologized for tobacco for years--and expects us to take it as a credible source. What is funny is that NW doesn't consider that to be propaganda worthy of derision.

What is even funnier is that after we check once or twice, we find that his "experts" didn't say what the Heritage folks claim (what a surprise, a lobbyist group funded by the carbon industry lies about carbon dioxide!), or don't have any scientific credentials in the climate field, or can't hold a job, Iso still considers them his go to guys and gals.

More sad than funny.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mrgybe



Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 2899

PostPosted: Sat Aug 23, 2014 11:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mac wrote:
He [Mr Gybe] is correct that current models don't predict what we are observing. He is dead wrong that this means we don't need to worry about CO2 emissions.

If I had said that, I might indeed be wrong..........but then I didn't say it did I? Go on.......you can admit it, you made that up didn't you? And how about those three climate scientists you called liars? You got that wrong too didn't you? You got their hypothesis completely arse backwards didn't you? Hey, wait just a cotton pickin' minute...........makes stuff up..........wrong nearly all the time.........pours scorn on anyone who disagrees with him.......are you a climate climate scientist?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LHDR



Joined: 22 Jun 2007
Posts: 108

PostPosted: Sun Aug 24, 2014 2:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

lhdr wrote:
I don't get the cynicism.
mrgybe wrote:
Simple. There has been a never ending series of excuses to explain why the last prediction didn't come close to fruition other than the rather obvious reason......they got it wrong.....again.

From all I know about scientific research, it is inherent to the process that previous findings and models are adjusted, expanded, corrected as new insights and data emerge. Why wouldn't you assume that that is what is going on here? I understand that it is simple indeed to ridicule this as a "never-ending series of excuses", and I would expect such statements from a typical politician in congress, but from a genuine person... not so clear.

mrgybe wrote:
[Scientists] just eat up a lot of grant money pretending they do [know].

This statement would become meaningful if solutions were proposed, for example, no more taxpayer money for global warming research or no money for any type of research. Or propose better ways of awarding grant money. Those would be meaningful contributions that could be argued about.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LHDR



Joined: 22 Jun 2007
Posts: 108

PostPosted: Sun Aug 24, 2014 2:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

isobars wrote:
LHDR wrote:
in contrast to isobars' claims in his post ..

I made no claims.

So you post misleading nonsense, get called out for it, and then bow out? Disappointing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GURGLETROUSERS



Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Posts: 1413

PostPosted: Sun Aug 24, 2014 2:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

For once, the forum comes up trumps. (Thank you Mac and Pointster for the details.)

I'm well aware that infighting in the scientific community is rife, and that understanding of what goes on behind the public front does not help in our acceptance (without a severe bout of indigestion) of the IPCC reports of consensus amongst the worlds experts. (Similar to the statements given out after political cat-fight summit meetings.)

I think it's almost impossible for us laymen to hold an accurate picture on this subject (which explains much of the cynical behaviour), and we have to figure out for ourselves which sources to believe.

As an emotional human being (who isn't?) I do not necessarily discount intuition as long as it's backed by a reasonable grasp of the issue. Many breakthroughs in science have probably come from such. (Though I doubt Mr Archimedes really was in his bath, watching the water swirl down the plug hole. He was more likely cogitating on the design of his toy ducks!)

Just one point Mac. Mr Gybe did not claim that there was no need to worry about CO2 emissions, and your claiming that he did, merely inflames the ongoing vendetta.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 14635

PostPosted: Sun Aug 24, 2014 7:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

LHDR wrote:
isobars wrote:
LHDR wrote:
in contrast to isobars' claims in his post ..

I made no claims.

So you post misleading nonsense, get called out for it, and then bow out? Disappointing.

Show us any claims I made in that post.

And while you're at it, prove those scientists' claims misleading. (Hint: criticizing, even disproving, one of the 50 proves nothing.)

And what about the 32,000 signatories of the Oregon Petition?

If we're deniers, you guys are [b]SUCK-KERS! [/b]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mrgybe



Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 2899

PostPosted: Sun Aug 24, 2014 8:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

LHDR wrote:
From all I know about scientific research, it is inherent to the process that previous findings and models are adjusted, expanded, corrected as new insights and data emerge. Why wouldn't you assume that that is what is going on here?

Because that is not what we have had. We have been told repeatedly that global warming is "settled science". Anyone who questioned the wild claims of the extent and impact of global warming was sneeringly dismissed as a denier, a flack of the carbon industry, or an uninformed fool. Both the President and John Kerry have referred to skeptics as "the flat earth society". Government policy around the globe has been shaped, billions in taxes have been extracted, and thousands of jobs have been lost based upon predictions that have turned out to be wildly wrong.

This has morphed from well intentioned scientific inquiry into an advocacy movement with any dissenting opinion pushed aside. That is the very antithesis of scientific research and is deserving of strong push back when so clearly proven to be flawed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 14635

PostPosted: Sun Aug 24, 2014 9:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Not to mention this, in full at http://tinyurl.com/p2ztmdj :

Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims

Global warming alarmists and their allies in the liberal media have been caught doctoring the results of a widely cited paper asserting there is a 97-percent scientific consensus regarding human-caused global warming. ... the authors [misclassified]the papers ...meaningless survey question so they could twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism.

"Skeptical Science" claimed they reviewed nearly 12,000 abstracts of studies published in the peer-reviewed climate literature ... [falsely claimed] 97 percent ... “endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.”

BUT ... the question surveyed had absolutely nothing to do with the issues of contention between global warming alarmists and global warming skeptics. ... meaningless regarding the global warming debate.

Either through idiocy, ignorance, or both [other experts have added deliberate ideological deception], global warming alarmists and the liberal media have been reporting that the Cook study shows a 97 percent consensus that humans are causing a global warming crisis. However, that was clearly not the question surveyed. [Besides], the "Skeptical Science" blog strikingly classified papers by such prominent, vigorous skeptics as Willie Soon, Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir Shaviv, Nils-Axel Morner and Alan Carlin as supporting the 97-percent consensus. [They go on to shoot SS's claims about their papers down at both technical and BS levels, but the SUCK-KERS neither care about nor admit their being proved to be fools.]

[The degree and modalities of deliberate deception go on and on, leaving zero doubt that the 97% consensus is a total fabrication.]

"Misleading the public about consensus opinion regarding global warming, of course, is precisely what the Cook paper sought to accomplish. This is a tried and true ruse perfected by global warming alarmists. Global warming alarmists use their own biased, subjective judgment to misclassify published papers according to criteria that is largely irrelevant to the central issues in the global warming debate. Then, by carefully parsing the language of their survey questions and their published results, the alarmists encourage the media and fellow global warming alarmists to cite these biased, subjective, totally irrelevant surveys as conclusive evidence for the lie that nearly all scientists believe humans are creating a global warming crisis.

These biased, misleading, and totally irrelevant “surveys” form the best “evidence” global warming alarmists can muster in the global warming debate. And this truly shows how embarrassingly feeble their alarmist theory really is."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pueno



Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 2768

PostPosted: Sun Aug 24, 2014 11:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mr. Fick-shun wrote:
I find it laughable that anyone would think that disparaging one scientist discredits the other 50 (in this case), let alone the 32,000 who signed the Oregon Petition.

It's even funnier that a bunch of anonymous internet posters rank their undefined credentials above those of IPCC members with careers and PhDs relevant to the task of evaluating AGW ... especially when the primary AGW alarmist agency is the IPCC.

And ... really ... citing Wikipedia, essentially an open bulletin board functionally like this one, as proof in ANY controversial issue? Who wrote the Wikipedia entry ... Al Gore? Jim Henson? But OOOOH ... it cites hundreds of impressive references. Got news for youse guys: So do the denier books and papers.



Mr. Fick-shun wrote:
Show us any claims I made in that post.

And while you're at it, prove those scientists' claims misleading. (Hint: criticizing, even disproving, one of the 50 proves nothing.)

And what about the 32,000 signatories of the Oregon Petition?

If we're deniers, you guys are [b]SUCK-KERS! [/b]




Mr. Fick-shun wrote:
Not to mention this, in full at http://tinyurl.com/p2ztmdj :

Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims

Global warming alarmists and their allies in the liberal media have been caught doctoring the results of a widely cited paper asserting there is a 97-percent scientific consensus regarding human-caused global warming. ... the authors [misclassified]the papers ...meaningless survey question so they could twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism.

"Skeptical Science" claimed they reviewed nearly 12,000 abstracts of studies published in the peer-reviewed climate literature ... [falsely claimed] 97 percent ... “endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.”

BUT ... the question surveyed had absolutely nothing to do with the issues of contention between global warming alarmists and global warming skeptics. ... meaningless regarding the global warming debate.

Either through idiocy, ignorance, or both [other experts have added deliberate ideological deception], global warming alarmists and the liberal media have been reporting that the Cook study shows a 97 percent consensus that humans are causing a global warming crisis. However, that was clearly not the question surveyed. [Besides], the "Skeptical Science" blog strikingly classified papers by such prominent, vigorous skeptics as Willie Soon, Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir Shaviv, Nils-Axel Morner and Alan Carlin as supporting the 97-percent consensus. [They go on to shoot SS's claims about their papers down at both technical and BS levels, but the SUCK-KERS neither care about nor admit their being proved to be fools.]

[The degree and modalities of deliberate deception go on and on, leaving zero doubt that the 97% consensus is a total fabrication.]

"Misleading the public about consensus opinion regarding global warming, of course, is precisely what the Cook paper sought to accomplish. This is a tried and true ruse perfected by global warming alarmists. Global warming alarmists use their own biased, subjective judgment to misclassify published papers according to criteria that is largely irrelevant to the central issues in the global warming debate. Then, by carefully parsing the language of their survey questions and their published results, the alarmists encourage the media and fellow global warming alarmists to cite these biased, subjective, totally irrelevant surveys as conclusive evidence for the lie that nearly all scientists believe humans are creating a global warming crisis.

These biased, misleading, and totally irrelevant “surveys” form the best “evidence” global warming alarmists can muster in the global warming debate. And this truly shows how embarrassingly feeble their alarmist theory really is."


It's fun watching Mikey stew. Very Happy

.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 332, 333, 334 ... 347, 348, 349  Next
Page 333 of 349

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group