You can find a lot of different definitions of post-modernism. Here is one from Wikipedia, which seems appropriate because in some sense at its very core Wikipedia adopts a post-modernist approach to truth. Post-modernism rejects objective truth, or at least man’s ability ever to identify such truth. As applied to science, post-modernists would say that what we call scientific “truth” in in fact the results of social, cultural, and political forces within and acting on the scientific community.
Some elements of post-modernism actually provide a useful critique of science. Its focus on biases and resulting observational blindness to certain results that falsify ones pre-conceived notions are useful caveats in a scientific process. But the belief that a rational scientific process is not just difficult but impossible leads to all kinds of crazy conclusions. Many in hard core postmodern circles would argue that since objective truth is impossible anyway, scientific findings should be guided by what is most socially useful. As Steven Schneider of Stanford says vis a vis climate:
We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.
And speaking of Steven Schneider, he is coauthor of a recent study appearing in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that has really made it plain to me that climate is becoming the first post-modern physical science. Just note the incredible approach to his study, and how much it mirrors the precepts of post-modernism: To decide who is right and wrong in climate science between skeptics and alarmists, the study authors have … wait for it .. counted them and measured their relative influence in academic circles. Since the authors count more alarmists than skeptics, and judge that the alarmists are more influential in academic circles, then they must be right! After all, truth is determined by those with the most political and cultural influence, not by silly stuff like testing hypotheses against observational data.
Postscript: I think a lot of the skeptic backlash against this study is overwrought, examples here and here. To paraphrase another climate publication, this study is “not evil, just silly.”
Some people will never learn from the History, just like the author of this blog.
There were people who shook their heads with disbelieve to the “silly” fact of Adolf Hitler’s election. He was ridiculed a lot.
Sadly but you on the West deserves yet to be be given another lesson for your deranged seeing of EVIL things as “not evil, just silly”.
I have in mind specially Americans and Australians, as Europeans still remember the times of “not evil, just silly” people or things. The lousy times which reined on the West and on the East of Europe during XX century.
Pathetic.
Regards,
(Poland)
Przemysław Pawełczyk, I agree with you. The Klimate Kranks aren’t just silly. They’re evil. However, your lower echelon Klimate Kool-Aid drinkers are largely oblivious to harm that the policies, which they subscibe to, seek to do. The CAGW conmen are steeped in a malthusian world view. The CAGW crowd are basically our generation’s Eugenicists.
****”I am not calling for censorship, and you know it.”
I do not know how many times I’ve read on this here very blog about how the “alarmists” are “squashing” or “censoring” “dissenting opinion” or some such tripe. I am only echoing the opinion of the tribe here.
Did it ever occur to you, hunter, that peeps like Justa Joe, Przemysław Pawełczyk, and many, many others here are every bit as irrational, poorly informed, politically motivated, antagonistic, and just plain silly as any of your so called “trolls”?
I would follow your line of reasoning here if it were applied to both sides of the argument – but repeatedly you and the tribe are frothing, ranting, raving, and making ridiculous analogies (to Eugenics,tulip frenzies and now even Hitler)with the best of them yet the hunters of the world refuse to recognize this (or it might be too great a stretch of intellect).
You folks are as trollish as anyone on this useless site. The first step is admitting you are powerless in the face of an overwhelming addiction…
Trolldoe, Przemysław Pawełczyk might be one of you guys.
I’m not the person that invented the comparison of CAGW movement to the eugenics movement. The comparisons are fairly obvious unless you’re just in denial. I’m sorry if I’ve offended your sense of self righteousness. Here is an example below.
Global warming: The new eugenics, Henry Lamb
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=2382
Are you also denying the Malthusian nature of the CAGW movement?
Trolldoe, If you want to avoid being called a troll you could start with settling on your own unique moniker rather than perverting other people’s names.
Well, I’ve never denied being a troll – the idea does not bother me in the least, certainly not on site as problematic and ridiculous as this.
And no, my friend, the Climate Realist article was not particularly convincing. I like the Reductio ad Hitlerum: “The idea that increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is ‘killing God’s green Earth’ is as preposterous as the idea that society would be better if it consisted only of blond-haired, blue-eyed Aryans.”
Yeah, that’s a reasonable, rational response to a scientific problem. The Mathusian connection is just as absurd. The irrationality of this stance is fairly obvious unless you are in a state of frustration bordering on hysteria…
Actually I suspect it is a very human albeit juvenile response to a position one disagrees with: rather than actually dealing with the issues, some people will exaggerate their argument in order to stifle any possible objections, to frighten, and to create propaganda. The Hitler and Eugenics comparisons are the rhetorical equivalents of screaming in an opponent’s face.
What you posted is pure propaganda, Joe, and very poorly researched and presented at that.
One of the most interesting things about the denialist stance is how often the deniosphere accuses scientists and government agencies of doing exactly the same things the deniosphere does in spades. You may be much closer to your socialist examples than you realize.
Only a sad idiot or or poor actor could honestly compare pointing out how you trolls have trashed this board and asking the host to fix it with the suppression, list making and efforts at censorhsip of CAGW con-artists.
Until this blog is cleaned up, ‘bye ‘bye.
So hunter takes his ball and goes home. Nevertheless, he claims “suppression, list making and efforts at censorhsip of CAGW con-artists” without the least bit of irony.
Pot meet kettle.
Mr Meyer and Commenters,
I am fed up with skeptics naivety to adroit policy of the Church of AGW (CAGW) believers and what I see your practically total vulnerability to their socio-technical tricks.
“First we take Manhattan” – “first we take the Skeptics then we take the Globe” – AGWers could say nowadays, after admitting recently it is high time to change the tactics and reach for the “denialists” directly.
And thanks to you, and Mr Watts, and probably many others from skeptic camp who cannot accept the idea that AGWers are taking no chances in this fight against opponents of their “new religion”. (The main target is of course bigger than the cranky denialists.)
First I read on Mr Watts’ webblog the post “Badges? The “We don’t need no stinking badges” contest” (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/28/badges-the-we-dont-need-no-stinking-badges-contest/) in which he downplayed the danger to “PNAS blacklist” tentative “balloon”.
What’s more, he made fun for himself (not “of” himself) and ridiculed the warnings about “wearing badges”. That’s not __funny__. Wearing any signs just for fun of being a skeptic would create precedence from which the skeptic camp would collapse under own burden.
Now going over the Climate AGW skeptics’ blogs (I do it once a week, reading Watts Up With That daily) I came across with your remark – “not evil, just silly”.
And if the name of the “National Academy of Sciences” didn’t sound alarm bell, I wonder what would do it for skeptics to open their eyes, and minds!? Using definitions of “post-modernism” Science, what sounds to me like “euphemism” for the real Science, is not enough.
The crux of the problem with the “skeptics” versus “alarmists” or the “progressists/progressives” versus “traditionalists” debates is that the latter agree to use the language of the firsts and they do it without a stutter (mostly not knowing that they say or behave like the first ones wanted them to do!).
So they lose “the battle”, playing on the progressives/alarmists playgrounds. QED
WAKE UP, please!
With regards
“Until this blog is cleaned up, ‘bye ‘bye.”
Finally!
The poster purporting to be Justa Joe immediately preceeding this post was a troll… Just more in lies in the service of the neo-pagan religion that is CAGW.
The poster purporting to be Justa Joe immediately preceeding this post was a troll… Just more in lies in the service of the neo-pagan religion that is science denial.
So denial is part of religion ? get a grip, religion is belief and resorting to any backhanded tactic to promote it (because they believe the truth is on their side). Denial of what is forced down your throat by the “ordained” and backed by the powers that be bought about the foundation of science. Just because some are so internally conflicted why do they feel the need to hijack a site such as this. Discussion , thought and individual determination of truth is the enemy of religion. It is fairly easy to read by the comments those that are free and those who feel the need to evangelize their unshakeble beliefs.
“And no, my friend, the Climate Realist article was not particularly convincing.” – Waldoe
You can lead a troll to water, but you can’t make him drink. The only thing that the mentioning of the article was intended to convince you of is that the comparison of the CAGW movement to the Eugenics movement is not new and not exclusive to this site. Like most of your ilk you’re well practiced in female-like snarky derision, but your ability to comprehend foreign concepts suffers as a result.
Eugenics and CAGW both based on discredited or at best controversial “scientific” theories. Eugenicists and Warmists both are zealots hell bent to refashion society to their liking for the good of the little people even if the little people don’t agree. Eugenicists and Warmists steeped in the Malthusian wet dream of preserving resources through selective depopulation. Eugenicists and Warmists both to be eventually relegated to the ash heap of history we can only hope.
“ The Mathusian[SIC] connection is just as absurd…” – Waldo
I would just love to hear how you think the CAGW movement in terms of its proposed solutions is not Malthusian. I know we won’t get a valid explanation for that idea because none exists.
Another Inconvenient Truth: The World’s Growing Population Poses a Malthusian Dilemma
Solving climate change, the Sixth Great Extinction and population growth… at the same time
By David Biello
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=growing-population-poses-malthusian-dilemma
Nature Reports Climate Change
Published online: 15 May 2008 | doi:10.1038/climate.2008.44
The population problem
http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0806/full/climate.2008.44.html
Instead of your usual mealy mouthed knee jerk nay-saying of everything why don’t you do some research and see how Malthusian concepts apply to the CAGW scam? Also since so-called “ deniers” aren’t asking you to do anything besides leaving them alone while the warmists have an entire new comprehensive plan for the world your constant worrying about “deniers” seems a tad hysterical.
You can lead Joe anywhere…particularly if is a right wing blog! Are you really that gullible, Joe?
Or one could read Newsweek’s breaking news Read it folks, then let the rationalization and conspiracy theories begin:
http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/the-gaggle/2010/06/25/newspapers-retract-climategate-claims-but-damage-still-done.html
Or better yet (since no one here will actually read anything outside their comfort zone), let’s actually take a look at the article in question:
Newspapers Retract ‘Climategate’ Claims, but Damage Still Done
Greg Rico / AP
Vindicated too late? Penn State climatologist Michael Mann
A lie can get halfway around the world while the truth is still putting its boots on, as Mark Twain said (or “before the truth gets a chance to put its pants on,” in Winston Churchill’s version), and nowhere has that been more true than in “climategate.” In that highly orchestrated, manufactured scandal, e-mails hacked from computers at the University of East Anglia’s climate-research group were spread around the Web by activists who deny that human activity is altering the world’s climate in a dangerous way, and spun so as to suggest that the scientists had been lying, cheating, and generally cooking the books.
But not only did British investigators clear the East Anglia scientist at the center of it all, Phil Jones, of scientific impropriety and dishonesty in April, an investigation at Penn State cleared PSU climatologist Michael Mann of “falsifying or suppressing data, intending to delete or conceal e-mails and information, and misusing privileged or confidential information” in February. In perhaps the biggest backpedaling, The Sunday Times of London, which led the media pack in charging that IPCC reports were full of egregious (and probably intentional) errors, retracted its central claim—namely, that the IPCC statement that up to 40 percent of the Amazonian rainforest could be vulnerable to climate change was “unsubstantiated.” The Times also admitted that it had totally twisted the remarks of one forest expert to make it sound as if he agreed that the IPCC had screwed up, when he said no such thing.
It’s worth quoting the retraction at some length:
The article “UN climate panel shamed by bogus rainforest claim” (News, Jan 31) stated that the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report had included an “unsubstantiated claim” that up to 40% of the Amazon rainforest could be sensitive to future changes in rainfall. The IPCC had referenced the claim to a report prepared for the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) by Andrew Rowell and Peter Moore, whom the article described as “green campaigners” with “little scientific expertise.” The article also stated that the authors’ research had been based on a scientific paper that dealt with the impact of human activity rather than climate change.
In fact, the IPCC’s Amazon statement is supported by peer-reviewed scientific evidence. In the case of the WWF report, the figure . . . was based on research by the respected Amazon Environmental Research Institute (IPAM) which did relate to the impact of climate change. We also understand and accept that . . . Dr Moore is an expert in forest management, and apologise for any suggestion to the contrary.
The article also quoted criticism of the IPCC’s use of the WWF report by Dr Simon Lewis, a Royal Society research fellow at the University of Leeds and leading specialist in tropical forest ecology. We accept that, in his quoted remarks, Dr Lewis was making the general point that both the IPCC and WWF should have cited the appropriate peer-reviewed scientific research literature. As he made clear to us at the time, including by sending us some of the research literature, Dr Lewis does not dispute the scientific basis for both the IPCC and the WWF reports’ statements on the potential vulnerability of the Amazon rainforest to droughts caused by climate change. . . . A version of our article that had been checked with Dr Lewis underwent significant late editing and so did not give a fair or accurate account of his views on these points. We apologise for this.
In another retraction you never heard of, a paper in Frankfurt took back (apologies; the article is available only in German) its reporting that the IPCC had erred in its assessment of climate impacts in Africa.
The Times’s criticism of the IPCC—look, its reports are full of mistakes and shoddy scholarship!—was widely picked up at the time it ran, and has been an important factor in turning British public opinion sharply against the established science of climate change. Don’t expect the recent retractions and exonerations to change that. One of the strongest, most-repeated findings in the psychology of belief is that once people have been told X, especially if X is shocking, if they are later told, “No, we were wrong about X,” most people still believe X. As Twain and Churchill knew, sometimes the truth never catches up with the lie, let alone overtakes it. As I wrote last summer in a story about why people believe lies even when they’re later told the truth, sometimes people’s mental processes simply go off the rails.
Nature & Scientific American are “right wing blogs,” and Newsweak is not a leftist vehicle? I didn’t know that.
If you believe or even care about Penn State’s white wash of Mikey Mann you probably believe CBS’s “investigation” that concluded that Dannie Rather and Mary Mapes were 100% free of political bias in either case you’re beyond gullible and entering the area of willful blindness.
I seemed to have missed your explanation of how CAGW activism is free of Malthusian ideas. Sorry, We can’t just accept your self serving proclamations as evidence.
I have enjoyed some rational discussions on this board.
The troll [whatever his name is] is bent on shutting down any coherent discussion.
That is because he keeps getting demolished when he attempts logic.
His purpose is to disrupt this board.
One way to counter him [or them] is to require a password if it could be done automatically like USA today does it would be ideal.
[He could have multiple ID’s but he couldn’t impersonate someone else.]
It could be done manually by putting it at the beginning of the post and the moderator removing it.
Any other ideas ?
Now netdr, I thought this was a discussion board! Your demolishing logos is not as demolishing as you would like to think and remains unconvincing, lame even (comparisons to Malthus and Hitler are automatically weak because they are such exaggerated and emotional analogs that thinking people see them for what they are). This is the tribe’s real problem here – the “logic” on these boards is demonstrably weak and the ‘science’ is markedly simplistic and amateurish. It is not disruption, it is the simple act of pointing out where your “logic” and “rational discussions” are anything but.
And you are ignoring the article above (predictably!) in which several of the leading media crusaders against global warming science have now retracted their claims.
Let me post that again!
Several of the leading media crusaders against global warming science have now retracted their claims!!
Let me post that again!
SEVERAL OF THE LEADING MEDIA CRUSADERS AGAINST GLOBAL WARMING SCIENCE HAVE NOW RETRACTED THEIR CLAIMS!
Demolish the logic of that if you will.
“SEVERAL OF THE LEADING MEDIA CRUSADERS AGAINST GLOBAL WARMING SCIENCE HAVE NOW RETRACTED THEIR CLAIMS!
Demolish the logic of that if you will.”
Y’know, I’ve mostly been sitting on the sidelines of this blog, because watching most of you go back and forth demonstrates about as much argumentative merit as children fighting over Lego blocks. I’d file myself under “implicitly skeptical, but still reading through evidence.”
Anywho, back to the bit I quoted. *What* logic? The appeal to authority?
Just a play on netdr’s snarky commentary, Adam – a bit too literal there.
And there is no “appeal to authority” above – if you are going to express derision about the tone of the commentary, my friend, you should not allow yourself to be sucked into the mentality yourself.
Very simply, I want to see if the people here are willing to acknowledge that two of the loudest critics of the AGW scientists have retracted their statements or if they are going to rationalize why this is not significant.
“…if you are going to express derision about the tone of the commentary, my friend, you should not allow yourself to be sucked into the mentality yourself.”
Aye. I’ll admit I misread the tone of your statement but, in my defense, you must admit that, given the trolls and random nonsense in most posts here, discerning between the literal and the ridiculous is somewhat… difficult.
Given that a great deal of weight has already been placed on the supposed legitimacy of consensus in this affair, though, I have to say I’m not swayed one iota one way or the other by the retraction of statements made by people I placed no credibility in *anyway*.
I’m returning to the peanut gallery.
****”given the trolls and random nonsense in most posts here, discerning between the literal and the ridiculous is somewhat… difficult.”
Yes, and I admit I do tend to get sucked into the general melee of backlashing.
****”the retraction of statements made by people I placed no credibility in *anyway*.”
I do like the “no credibility” aspect of the comment, Adam, but the point is that so much public sentiment is based upon commentaries just such as these – in fact, these particular articles where apparently very influential in turning public opinion against climate science – and now we are seeing retractions. Probably the first of many.
All along I have been arguing we, the laypeople, should step out of the way, let the scientists do their work. We do not understand enough and are too easily swayed by commentary just like the ones above. This, I think, was my very first argument on this blog. And now I am being vindicated.
Whatever the troll calls himself.
I seriously doubt that either of the above scientists you mentioned said they had changed their mind and CAGW was a real problem worth spending tens of trillions of dollars at. [In a worthless non solution I might add.]
I actually respect people that are human and make mistakes and don’t know everything and admit it. Real science is about being wrong then being peer reviewed and finding errors and getting closer to the truth. The peer review system has broken down by too much buddy buddy peer review. Dr Mann’s hockey stick study is the poster child for that.
The “debate is over” attitude of the climate alarmist is so anti-science that it is appalling to me and it causes me to question their honesty. If the climate alarmists were more honest and scientist like I might believe them. Instead their studies read like the converted in a messianic church. CO2 is the answer now what is the question ?
I saw a science show last night in which Stephen Hawking and another scientist [ a former plumber] wrote papers for several years disputing each others theories. Finally Hawking wrote a paper which said “I was wrong” in effect. This gained him a lot of respect in my eyes.
Science never has been about 100 people believe X and 10 believe Y, and it never will be.
When Albert Einstein was informed of the publication of a book entitled 100 Authors
Against Einstein, he is said to have remarked, “If I were wrong,
then one would have been enough!” (Hawking, 1988); however,
that one opposing scientist would have needed proof in the form
of testable results
The only “testable result” the climate alarmists put forth are models which always predict a lot more warming than actually happens. A set of models should have some too high and some too low. All of them too high suggests a lack of understanding of some aspect of the problem.
I don’t expect a rational reply to any of the points I have made.
Isn’t wanking fun? I love it. But my penis is so tiny. I make up for that by pretending to know about stuff. But really I don’t know very much at all. I just like wanking.
netdr’s default defense is to run back to dogma and then claim everyone else is being irrational. But this –
****”The only ‘testable result’ the climate alarmists put forth are models which always predict a lot more warming than actually happens. A set of models should have some too high and some too low. All of them too high suggests a lack of understanding of some aspect of the problem.”
– is pretty darn silly. Certainly you know that there is a good deal of evidence other than climate models. Fixation on climate models is he favorite rational of denialists. But, netdr, are you so darn sure that climate models are inaccurate? Have we been down this road before? And if you understand the problem, why not tell Hansen et al? Explain to them what they’ve done wrong.
****”I don’t expect a rational reply to any of the points I have made.”
You have had plenty of rational replies in the time I’ve been on this blog, netdr, and plenty of justifiable questions and challenges to the things you post. You do not want to admit that, however – generally you disappear.
To the toll whatever his name.
Actually the way you post makes rational discussions an exercise in self abuse. The purpose seems to be to shut off debate. When I answer you I get a torrent of abuse and a lame answer. Do I want to get another torrent of abuse to point out how lame it is ? Eventually you end the conversion with your arrogance and abuse.
Please show me the other TESTABLE evidence for CO2 causing CAGW.
“There is a particular configuration of warming which was predicted by the computer models.It is at once visible that the predicted warming caused by greenhouse-gas concentrations produces a pattern
strongly distinct from other causes of warming. A “hot spot” appears between 8km and 12km of altitude in or near
the tropics. At this computer-predicted “hot spot” high above the Earth, the UN’s models project that greenhouse
warming will cause temperature to rise over the decades at a rate up to three times faster than at the surface.”
The temperature data fails to confirm the existence of the hot spot despite tens of years of frantic searching. The prediction fails.
The existence of overall positive feedback is crucial to the cause of CAGW. Without it a doubling of CO2 will cause 1 ° C of warming in 100 to 200 years. The crisis doesn’t exist without positive feedback and lots of it. Most climate alarmists are ignorant of this simple fact. CO2 is a poor GHG and cannot by itself cause significant warming.
A simple experiment was done by comparing the amount of radiation from the earth in response to warming or cooling over a period of time.
Climatologists have their own definition of positive and negative feedback which is different from the rest of science.
Here is how it works.
There is a certain amount of radiation which a black [gray] body should emit for a given amount of temperature rise.
If it emits more than that there is overall negative feedback.
If it emits less than that there is overall positive feedback.
The climate alarmists predict that the earth will exhibit strong positive feedback. The prediction failed.
This experiment was redone by several teams working independently. [Lindzen and Choy 2009] Realclimate didn’t argue with the results except to claim the feedback wasn’t as negative as claimed. They forgot [temporarily] that the whole CAGW bandwagon was postulated on strong positive feedback. [oops!]
We don’t have a spare earth to do experiments with but we can analyze what happens when the one we have heats and cools.
no really I am
Okay, netdr.
One of the things you do is summarize and simplify vast amounts of information, sometimes incorrectly and always with a tremendously biased understanding. You also tend to misquote from the same sources over and over, as you do here – we have already discussed this paper.
You do not provide links so I have to track down what you post. So forgive me if I have to answer your posts one at a time and perhaps out of order.
First: it is “Lindzen and CHOI” not “Choy.” The world refers to it as WC09. We’ve been over all this before, which makes me think you do not actually read ripostes. It is also readily apparent you did not read the actual paper…or you would have the author’s name correct – and yet you have a die-hard opinion on the subject. Interesting…
And you are factually incorrect on the Real Climate response – it is considerably more detailed and complicated than what you indicated.
You can read the actual response here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/lindzen-and-choi-unraveled/
Although I suspect you will not – you would rather have your incorrect ideas which confirm to your own beliefs.
So I shall summarize.
• The first charge against LC09 is that the data was cherry picked. Lindzen and Choi only looked at tropical feedbacks and they randomly selected their “end points” randomly.
• L&C treated the tropics as a closed system, not a dynamic one influenced by the Ninos, evaporation, and other factors. Therefore LC09 fails because it does not take into account many of the other factors involved, and cloud feedback cannot be understood by local analysis analysis.
• LC’s only model was not very robust.
• LC used only incomplete forcings.
• LC did not use black body forcings in their feedback parameters.
Are these critiques correct and valid? I dunno. But apparently, netdr, neither do you – you did not understand the RC response and it seems fairly certain you do not understand the concepts Lindzen and Choi present.
As for the TESTABLE evidence for CO2, it would seem you are ignoring a great deal of the evidence in existence, such as global temperatures and ice melt. But fine, the deniosphere either denies or ignores a great deal of stuff.
What I want is TESTABLE evidence that plate tectonics cause earthquakes along the Pacific Rim. I also want TESTABLE evidence that the sun goes around the Earth. And I want TESTABLE evidence that we exist on an outer arm of the Milky Way. I mean, that’s fair, right?
pattern project extinctions new
What I want is TESTABLE evidence that plate tectonics cause earthquakes along the Pacific Rim. I also want TESTABLE evidence that the sun goes around the Earth.
[Actually the sun does NOT GO around the earth. Who told you it did ? — NetDr]
And I want TESTABLE evidence that we exist on an outer arm of the Milky Way. I mean, that’s fair, right?
[That is not difficult to prove by computing distances and angles of stars. There aren’t tens of trillions of dollars riding on the answer so the astronomers are fairly objective. — NetDr]
************
Please post a testable prediction based on the hypotheses of CAGW.
The examples you chose from astronomy were either wrong to easily testable.
Without testable hypothesis CAGW is just astrology.
If people die of freezing in Peru it is global warming.
If it rains too much in Omaha it is global warming.
If it is too dry in Oklahoma it is global warming.
if there are few hurricanes it is global warming.
Same thing if there are more hurricanes.
The steady drumbeat of CAGW scare stories make the more intelligent people skeptical. The rest just believe the “experts” must know what they are talking about no matter how mentally challenged it may seem.
CAGW predicts all things so how can it be proven wrong ? It is the astrology of sciences. Your horoscope like CAGW predicts everything so it predicts nothing.
You cannot show a testable prediction, and when the CAGW crowd tries they always fail.
s for the TESTABLE evidence for CO2, it would seem you are ignoring a great deal of the evidence in existence, such as global temperatures and ice melt. But fine, the deniosphere either denies or ignores a great deal of stuff.
**********
No one denies there has been a slight warming.
The slight warming in the last 120 years however wasn’t predicted.
Any after the fact attempt to blame it on AGW is not a validation of a prediction.
Have you confused observable – such as angles of stars – with testable?
And the scientists disagree with you about “slight warming” in the last 120 years. Why should I believe you?
And, after all that rhetoric about abuse and trying to stifle debate, do you honestly not see that same trait in yourself when you write emotionally charged, highly biased comments such as: “The rest just believe the ‘experts’ must know what they are talking about no matter how mentally challenged it may seem.”
Is this really what you think happens? Really? Do you really believe that you are that much smarter than the people who disagree with you? And if so…
What about Lindzen-Choi 09?
reducing retreat 2000
Third climategate-related investigation — Mann cleared:
http://live.psu.edu/story/47378
Something to think about before you scream ‘whitewash!’:
http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2010/02/15/psu-cover-up-extremely-unlikely/
Have you confused observable – such as angles of stars – with testable?
.
[No confusion that is a testable prediction. I can predict where a star will be in 10 years and point my telescope and there it will be. I can launch a satellite and predict it’s orbit accurately. There are things like “dark matter” that they don’t understand but they don’t PRETEND they do. I respect that! None of this “the debate is over” nonsense.
.
There are many poorly understood processes in climate science which makes them unable to predict temperatures in 10 years let alone 100 years. They then have the dishonesty to claim that it is somehow easier to predict 100 years in the future. Nonsense I have written computer models professionally and I know better. — NetDr]
.
And the scientists disagree with you about “slight warming” in the last 120 years. Why should I believe you?
.
[There is that old argument from authority. No matter what logic you are faced with a person with your mindset will always choose the authority. Go on believing the lies and distortions.
The fact is that we have no Idea if the warming is particularly rapid since we started measuring at the end of the Little Ice Age [Maunder minimum]. We have gone down that path before and in my opinion you lost that argument.– NetDr]
.
And, after all that rhetoric about abuse and trying to stifle debate, do you honestly not see that same trait in yourself when you write emotionally charged, highly biased comments such as: “The rest just believe the ‘experts’ must know what they are talking about no matter how mentally challenged it may seem.”
.
[That is like comparing spitting on the sidewalk with murder, they are both crimes. You have disrupted the conversation and posted under my name and under so many other names [hunter for one] I really don’t know who I am discussing things with as you intended.
.
I posted on another board and one of the posters said I should be banned from posting. Later on he said I should be put into a reeducation camp to learn the truth as he saw it. He was banned from posting because of his attitude. Too many people complained about him, abusive [like you] arrogant [like you] and disruptive [like you]. —NetDr]
.
This attitude from the true believers some of the climate scientists makes me think that they cannot be objective.
.
Is this really what you think happens? Really? Do you really believe that you are that much smarter than the people who disagree with you?
.
[Most of the lay people just don’t know the facts. They think CO2 is this super GHG when it is actually rather puny, the CAGW comes from broken computer models and positive feedback which is unproven and probably not true.— NetDr]
.
And if so…
What about Lindzen-Choi 09?
[I read an article in realclimate soon after the paper was published and it didn’t say any of what you quoted. Their only quibble was that the data used wasn’t the latest and greatest. They even admitted that using the newer data the experiment still showed overall negative feedback which blows CAGW away. If they did another attack on the paper it must have come later. I just looked it up on realclimate and it is definitely not the article I read. Possibly they took down the one I read because it was embarrassing to them.
.
So it all comes down to “argument from authority”. No matter what untestable nonsense the climate scientists propose they are automatically right ?
.
The near magical thinking that causes the faithful to assert connections between CO2 and every evil known to man is comical and tragic. They have cried wolf so many times and been proven wrong that if a wolf should actually appear the won’t be believed.–NetDr]
***”There are many poorly understood processes in climate science which makes them unable to predict temperatures in 10 years let alone 100 years”
This is the old evolution ploy – if the scientists can’t explain everything they must not be able to explain anything. Evidence would seem to suggest that they have explained a good deal – in order to counter this evidence, you must run to amateurs who do not work in their field and willfully ignore the evidence presented by the experts.
On the other hand, there do seem to be a great many processes that seem to be understood and a good deal of observable evidence [in the same manner that your stars are observable] to back them up. Haven’t we had a significant warming in the last 100 years or so?
Is the only important evidence that which would seem to disrupt climate science?
***”You have disrupted the conversation and posted under my name and under so many other names [hunter for one] I really don’t know who I am discussing things with as you intended.”
Not me. I have always posted under a variation of “Waldo” – can’t you tell the difference?
And the point, my friend, is that you are every bit as annoying, abusive, one-sided and disruptive as any of the so-called “trolls.” And yes, DR net, you are arrogant – you have repeatedly condescended to people who disagree with you [probably a good idea to stop posting the “alarmists don’t understand…” ploy – you have no great reservoir of esoteric knowledge, my friend].
There is no observable difference between the behavior of the regular denialist commentators and the people who disagree with them [how many times have people on this board used variations of the verb “to fuck” in regards to yours truly?] – the only reason you call people “trolls” is because we disagree with you and you are looking for a cheap shot to stifle debate. That one has clearly not worked and yet you persist. Again, interesting.
***”Their only quibble was that the data used wasn’t the latest and greatest. They even admitted that using the newer data the experiment still showed overall negative feedback which blows CAGW away. If they did another attack on the paper it must have come later. I just looked it up on realclimate and it is definitely not the article I read. Possibly they took down the one I read because it was embarrassing to them.”
Reeeeeally? Awfully convenient that it’s gone, now isn’t it? There’s been some BS slung on the boards, my friend, but this is some thick guacamole.
***”So it all comes down to ‘argument from authority’. No matter what untestable nonsense the climate scientists propose they are automatically right ?”
Never said that. You said that. Strawman. I’ve said all along that if it comes to a choice between the actual scientists and good people like yourself – who obviously do not read the material or even properly understand it and have a demonstrably biased and exaggerated attitude – why the hell should I listen to you?
And even if it is an “argument from authority,” if by “authority” you mean “expert,” I see little problem with it, particularly when someone like yourself is clearly not informed but has a hammer-headed opinion anyway – you honestly don’t see that in yourself?
But just for sake of argument, isn’t the reliance on Wattsup or Mr. Meyer an “appeal to authority”? And aren’t these “authorities” simply people who do not work in climate science? Hmmmm…
So it all comes down to ‘argument from authority’. No matter what untestable nonsense the climate scientists propose they are automatically right ? ”
.
Never said that. You said that. Strawman.
.
[I think you said exactly that. You have admitted that CAGW cannot be tested but must be accepted on the word of “authorities”.
.
I’ve said all along that if it comes to a choice between the actual scientists and good people like yourself – who obviously do not read the material or even properly understand it and have a demonstrably biased and exaggerated attitude – why the hell should I listen to you?
.
[If you want an “authority” you shouldn’t listen to me. Listen to Dr Hansen or Dr Mann and his hockey team and believe whatever nonsense they say. I think it is you that have failed to understand the arguments but that is my perspective.
.
I have pointed numerous places where the so climate scientists have goofed. You may not agree but the argument that they are the “experts” and so must be correct is ludicrous. For people of a certain mindset it is the ultimate argument. To me it is the poorest argument that exists.
.
Look up lysenkoism where all of the major science bodies in Russia subscribed to a false scientific theory. Were the “experts” right on that one ? They called those that disagreed with them “deniers” and tools of capitalism [big oil]. Doing experiments which could refute lysenkoism required getting someone like big oil to fund you because the government was in love with lysenkoism. Similar to CAGW ? Of course it is ! –NetDr]
.
And even if it is an “argument from authority,” if by “authority” you mean “expert,” I see little problem with it, particularly when someone like yourself is clearly not informed but has a hammer-headed opinion anyway – you honestly don’t see that in yourself?
.
But just for sake of argument, isn’t the reliance on Wattsup or Mr. Meyer an “appeal to authority”? And aren’t these “authorities” simply people who do not work in climate science? Hmmmm
.
[I don’t cite Mr Meyer as an authority on anything he is just a man with opinions many of which are similar to mine.
As engineer’s we have learned to separate the “flyspecks from the pepper”. He isn’t an authority and I am not one either. It isn’t surprising that a lot of skeptics are engineers because we have to recognize Bovine Scatology when we see it. That is a job requirement.
.
To someone with your mindset authority is the only argument you understand. You have to decide what you believe and if authority does it for you then go with it, but don’t expect others to buy it. Engineering projects don’t respect authority they work or they don’t work and all of the authority in the world won’t save your job if it doesn’t work. That attitude is probably why engineers aren’t authority based.
.
The CAGW attitude of “step to the back of the bus and leave the thinking to us” is insulting and doesn’t cut it with me or any other engineer. –NetDr]
****************
We can go back and forth forever and never agree. No matter what I say the argument that “the climate scientists don’t agree with you” trumps any logic ! God gave you a brain but you have given it away to any passing authority.
.
I find that way of thinking lazy.
****”I think it is you that have failed to understand the arguments but that is my perspective.”
Nope. I understand the arguments perfectly – I simply reject yours. You would like to believe that we skeptics-of-the-skeptics do not understand, but we do.
I do not know if CAGW is real or not. I know that I do not know, however, and this is the big difference between us. You have elevated yourself above the actual scientists, and if this is true I think you should contact them and explain what they’re doing wrong – no one here will do this, probably because Mann et al can actually do the science. The peeps here have blog postings, which is kind of like coaching the World Cup from your barcalounger. Now that’s arrogant.
We may agree to disagree here, netdr, because your reasoning – that you can “think for yourself” even though you demonstrably do not know the material and do not work in the field [which is truly lazy thinking] – is patently ridiculous under the circumstances. I think it is very telling that, in order to argue, denialists need to make these gratuitous analogies to Red Soviet programs and American racial bigotry. In the end, climate science will probably be much closer to conservation efforts which have brought back nearly extinct species or preserved wetlands, saved the ozone and coral reefs, and quenched acid rain. Pretend otherwise if you will.
Anyone that thinks he is incapable of reasoning for himself about global warming is absolutely right.
He knows his limitations.
And some of those people who think they are capable of reasoning about global warming are absolutely deluded.
These people should know their limitations but do not.
Another way to say this – simply because you think you can leap tall buildings does not mean you can leap tall buildings. You need to prove you can leap tall buildings.
So, since your limitations are apparently quite far off, why don’t you email Dr. Mann and Dr. Hansen and explain to them what they are doing wrong?
mann@psu.edu
James.E.Hansen@nasa.gov
Or, better yet, peer review your findings? Clearly if you are as capable as you believe, you will have no trouble in getting published.
Go for it, netdr, you’d be the first from Climate Skeptic to be brave enough to actually put your money where your mouth is. Go ahead – after all, only you know your limits.
I second Waldo’s suggestion for netdr. Have asked others to do the same. Go on netdr.
Pretty sure we’ll get the same answer we got from Wally though.
I Don’t know why Waldo still bothers here.
****”I Don’t know why Waldo still bothers here.”
It’s love, man, plain and simple. Pure love.
Here’s an example which even someone with only a knowledge of elementary algebra can spot:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/1984/Hansen_etal_1.html
Click on the Download PDF at the bottom.
He assumes a feedback of 1.6 for water vapor, 1.3 for clouds, and 1.1 for ice/albedo effects.
I think the feedback factors are overestimated, but take a look at equations
#10 and #12. Anyone should be able to figure out that they’re obviously wrong.
For a multiplier of 1.6, lambda must be 0.375 for water vapor, since 1/(1-0.375) = 1.6.
likewise, lambda must be 0.231 for clouds and 0.091 for ice/albedo feedback, using Hansen’s figures.
Hansen plugged in 1/(1 -.375-.231-.091) and got a multiplier effect of 3.3 total times the original incrase of around 1.2 C.
Using Hansen’s equation, with 3 multiplier effects of 0.333… each, you get a multiplier effect of
1/(1 – .333… -.333…-.333…)= infinity.
Using 4 feedbacks with lambda of 0.333, each, you get a multiplier of 1/(-.333) = MINUS 3, so instead of an increase of 1.2 C, you plug in that -3 multiplier and get a DROP of 3.6 C – obviously the equation is flawed badly.
Brilliant Alan! Now, I posted Dr. Hansen’s email above – why don’t you let him know his mistake? I think he would be very appreciative.
In reply to Walitive: Are you claiming it WASN’T an obvous booboo?
Trying to prove CAGW was in error to Dr Hanson would be like trying to prove to the pope that Jesus wasn’t the son of God ! I am sure the pope is just as objective as the authors of the multiple papers and books on global warming I have read. Dr Hansen has gone to England t testify in favor of eco-terrorists so I am certain he is unbiased.
.
Hansen is the pope of the church of CAGW and is almost a rock star so the analogy is apt.
.
Neither CAGW nor the divinity of Christ can be proven by testable methods. [Waldo admitted the latter though he is confused. He thinks other sciences aren’t testable either and in that he is very wrong as I proved.
.
For another Example:
It is easy to prove the the essence of plate tectonics. With GPS receivers at high precision we can measure how far the continents move each year. We can predict where each continent will be next year and measure to check our predictions.
.
With CAGW you just have to have faith. Particularly about the “C”.
@ Alan D.
****”Are you claiming it WASN’T an obvous booboo?”
No – nothing of the sort. I suggesting you take it to the source. If you are correct, as I am sure you are, I’m sure you’d want to clean up this climate mess, right? Take it to Hansen and let him know what he did wrong. Do it for the children!
*************************************************************
@ netdr
****”Trying to prove CAGW was in error to Dr Hanson would be like trying to prove to the pope that Jesus wasn’t the son of God !”
So? Prove it to the world! Peer review it. Otherwise one might surmise that you are, in fact, unsure of your own science on some level. Or perhaps you do not really know what you are posting about. Or perhaps you are lying. Or perhaps you are, to be crude, chicken.
Sure sounds like you’re hedging to me…no one’s fooled by this sort of tactic, netdr, no matter how you rationalize it.
****”Hansen is the pope of the church of CAGW and is almost a rock star so the analogy is apt.”
And you yourself are very unbiased (as evidenced in the comment above). Somehow I just can’t see Hansen at Ozzfest. By the way, did you use the above “rock star” analogy on WUWT?
Netdr says: ‘Trying to prove CAGW was in error to Dr Hanson would be like trying to prove to the pope that Jesus wasn’t the son of God !’
So now we are back to this excuse again. Somehow the Climate scientists don’t behave scientifically? What evidence to you have for this? None.
It is ironic that this recent denialist group, supposedly championing good science, have had very little effect going through the scientific process, whilst the vast majority of their effectiveness has come from climategate and other media-bolstered scandals.