Drexel University study on AGW deniers

[bripat9643]

When you have to attempt to discredit your opposition because you can't win your case based on facts, you are done whether you know it or not.

That is precisely what Mann or any other reasonable person would say to Ball, Steyn and the National Review. Or would you characterize calling Mann a child molester who ought to be behind bars, an attempt to win based on facts?

Mann sued Steyn, not the other way around. He couldn't win in the court of public opinion, so he's trying to win in a real courtroom.

Mann is a thug.

 

[Abraham3]

AND YOU --- find the most touchy-feely poll you can find on the topic.. GUARANTEED, 60% of the respondents wouldn't know anything about the IPCC or hockey sticks.

AND YOU offer shit in the way of a substantive response concerning "hockey stick graphs", denier funding or the validity of your own position in any of these arguments.

Denier funding is a non-existent oxymoron and I gave you Marcott and Woods Hole as folks who are doubtful of the accuracy and resolution of global hockey stick studies.. That's some good shit man..

$558 million from identifiable sources on top of an equivalent amount from anonymous sources is NOT an oxymoron.

Marcott and Shakun were discussing work that went back 11,000 and 22,000 years, respectively and whose resolution decreased with distance. If you think the resolution of our data on the MWP is inadequate, where the fuck do you get the idea that Mann should go to jail for showing different values than you true experts hold? Who's to correct me if I say there WAS no MWP and there WAS no LIA? There all just spurious noise in a crappy proxy record.

Where the fuck do you get off with any of this shit? The MWP and the LIA are completely and utterly irrelevant. If you can't see that ALL these arguments serve ONLY the fossil fuel industry and that your position will do REAL HARM to millions of REAL PEOPLE... you people are all ignorant, stupid, closed-minded bigots.

 

[SSDD]

That is precisely what Mann or any other reasonable person would say to Ball, Steyn and the National Review. Or would you characterize calling Mann a child molester who ought to be behind bars, an attempt to win based on facts?

I see that you are as dishonest as mann himself. He was never called a child molester....but do feel free to provide a quote of anyone calling him a child molester and prove that you aren't as dishonest as you are duped.

He does certainly belong in jail...his fraud has cost hundreds of billions of dollars worldwide and untold suffering already.

You're a fooking idiot as well.

And you are the liar I suggested that you were. I can't help but notice that you provided no quote of anyone calling mann a child molester. We both know that there is no such quote...it was a fabrication like all of mann's claims. Did you see him (mann) back down like a pussy from Andrew Bolt when Bolt called him on his lie? mann's credibility is circling the drain and his hockey stick is going down with him.

 

[Abraham3]

God are you stupid.

 

[IanC]

Preliminary results are up at WUWT for a poll on skeptic's views on AGW. They don't appear to conform to the strawman definitions of 'deniers' put forward by such luminaries as our own Abraham3.

 

[flacaltenn]

AND YOU offer shit in the way of a substantive response concerning "hockey stick graphs", denier funding or the validity of your own position in any of these arguments.

Denier funding is a non-existent oxymoron and I gave you Marcott and Woods Hole as folks who are doubtful of the accuracy and resolution of global hockey stick studies.. That's some good shit man..

$558 million from identifiable sources on top of an equivalent amount from anonymous sources is NOT an oxymoron.

Marcott and Shakun were discussing work that went back 11,000 and 22,000 years, respectively and whose resolution decreased with distance. If you think the resolution of our data on the MWP is inadequate, where the fuck do you get the idea that Mann should go to jail for showing different values than you true experts hold? Who's to correct me if I say there WAS no MWP and there WAS no LIA? There all just spurious noise in a crappy proxy record.

Where the fuck do you get off with any of this shit? The MWP and the LIA are completely and utterly irrelevant. If you can't see that ALL these arguments serve ONLY the fossil fuel industry and that your position will do REAL HARM to millions of REAL PEOPLE... you people are all ignorant, stupid, closed-minded bigots.

THAT -- was a hissy fit of epic entertainment value.. Lemme help you rage bluer..

The MWP and the RWP and the LIA are all very PERSONALLY IMPORTANT to you and me because the true INDEPENDENT proxy data says that you can't claim that the temperature TODAY is warmer than anytime in recent history AND the resolution of GLOBAL METASTUDIES is too poor for you to claim that the RATE of recent warming is greater than it has been in recent history. These things are IMPORTANT -- because they basically SHITCAN your entire first string arguments..

For you to say they're NOT important would be what a DENIER would do..
(OMGosh -- I think he may have herniated himself by now)..

What do I think about Mann? He shouldn't be prosecuted for "bad science" and making misleading statements. But when he's accused of bad science and decides to SUE because of ego damage -- THEN -- he needs to have his work reviewed and produce the data to the public.. Something that SHOULD HAVE happened years ago before the damage to the climate science library multiplied like vegetable bin mold.. And STOP WHINING about being forced to produce it and having it reviewed in the open.

MY BEEF with Mann is that he CLEARLY IGNORED a mountain of relevant evidence to make the statements that earlier Warming Periods were regional only. So he clearly is far from objective and honest.

 

[mamooth]

Preliminary results are up at WUWT for a poll on skeptic's views on AGW. They don't appear to conform to the strawman definitions of 'deniers' put forward by such luminaries as our own Abraham3.

A survey consisting of self-selected internet respondents? I shouldn't need to point out the flaring flaws.

Of course, it is rather typical of the quality of denialist science.

 

[bripat9643]

AND YOU offer shit in the way of a substantive response concerning "hockey stick graphs", denier funding or the validity of your own position in any of these arguments.

Denier funding is a non-existent oxymoron and I gave you Marcott and Woods Hole as folks who are doubtful of the accuracy and resolution of global hockey stick studies.. That's some good shit man..

$558 million from identifiable sources on top of an equivalent amount from anonymous sources is NOT an oxymoron.

Marcott and Shakun were discussing work that went back 11,000 and 22,000 years, respectively and whose resolution decreased with distance. If you think the resolution of our data on the MWP is inadequate, where the fuck do you get the idea that Mann should go to jail for showing different values than you true experts hold? Who's to correct me if I say there WAS no MWP and there WAS no LIA? There all just spurious noise in a crappy proxy record.

Where the fuck do you get off with any of this shit? The MWP and the LIA are completely and utterly irrelevant. If you can't see that ALL these arguments serve ONLY the fossil fuel industry and that your position will do REAL HARM to millions of REAL PEOPLE... you people are all ignorant, stupid, closed-minded bigots.

The AGW cult is funded to the tune of tens of billions of dollars every year from various government agencies.

You aren't helping your case with this lame argument. If you follow the money, it points straight at the government and all its various parasites and hangers on. The AGW cult servers on the parasite class. The working poor and the middle class are getting a royal screwing.

 

[IanC]

Preliminary results are up at WUWT for a poll on skeptic's views on AGW. They don't appear to conform to the strawman definitions of 'deniers' put forward by such luminaries as our own Abraham3.

A survey consisting of self-selected internet respondents? I shouldn't need to point out the flaring flaws.

Of course, it is rather typical of the quality of denialist science.

Compared to Cook and Lewandowsky's travesty of a poll? Hahahaha

At least this one has real skeptics rather than rabid warmers pretending to be 'deniers'.

 

[Toro]

The problem with this debate is that it is highly politicized. The Right doesn't trust government, and they assume that almost every expansion of government is bad, regardless of whether the consequences of not expanding government is a worse option. The Left assumes that corporations are evil, or at least bad, and must be reigned in regardless of whether the corporation is doing bad or not.

For 99% of highly politicized people, their opinion of global warming will be determined by which side of the political spectrum they are on, regardless of the science or the consequences.

I'm somewhere between #2 and #3.

Generally, the scientific consensus is correct.

 

[Zander]

There is no debate.

The "Consensus" in this thread proves that the OP is mindless propaganda. 97% agree.

 

[Zander]

The problem with this debate is that it is highly politicized. The Right doesn't trust government, and they assume that almost every expansion of government is bad, regardless of whether the consequences of not expanding government is a worse option. The Left assumes that corporations are evil, or at least bad, and must be reigned in regardless of whether the corporation is doing bad or not.

For 99% of highly politicized people, their opinion of global warming will be determined by which side of the political spectrum they are on, regardless of the science or the consequences.

I'm somewhere between #2 and #3.

Generally, the scientific consensus is correct.

If you're going to make up numbers, why go with 99%? Don't you agree that 97% has a much more authentic ring to it?

 

[Abraham3]

Here's your 99%

James Lawrence Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium, analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[120] A follow-up analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[121]

 

[flacaltenn]

The problem with this debate is that it is highly politicized. The Right doesn't trust government, and they assume that almost every expansion of government is bad, regardless of whether the consequences of not expanding government is a worse option. The Left assumes that corporations are evil, or at least bad, and must be reigned in regardless of whether the corporation is doing bad or not.

For 99% of highly politicized people, their opinion of global warming will be determined by which side of the political spectrum they are on, regardless of the science or the consequences.

I'm somewhere between #2 and #3.

Generally, the scientific consensus is correct.

I'd agree that being skeptical on bad science goes hand in hand with being skeptical about bad government. But there is ample reason to believe that the stakes in this case are high because that's the way the problem was posed to the public. This is about $$$$TRILLIONS in changes to society. And control of the energy sector and World Fairness and Redistribution.

All of the scheme took shape BEFORE any real science was accomplished. THAT ALONE should make you pause..

Kerry made a speech in Indo last week and tipped the plan. He asked "what's the harm if we are wrong on the science"?? And then launched into all the wondrous results if "the plan" we to be FORCED on the world even without adequate scientific validation and understanding. The political groups keeping this plan on life support dont' give a ratzazz about the performance of the models or the over-zealous claims made for the studies. They have their eyes on the prize..

Ask yourself why we just don't fix this tomorrow by building out 200 new nuclear plants.. Solves the CO2 issue, allows us to shutter the coal plants, and tear down the dams.. It's not like we couldn't get to fabulously low CO2 levels with EXISTING knowledge --- but that isn't the plan.. Vanuatu needs some cash.. Green jobs are a trophy for the Prez. And the kiddies in charge want to do this THEIR way..

 

[Abraham3]

Generally, the scientific consensus is correct.

I'd agree that being skeptical on bad science goes hand in hand with being skeptical about bad government. But there is ample reason to believe that the stakes in this case are high because that's the way the problem was posed to the public. This is about $$$$TRILLIONS in changes to society. And control of the energy sector and World Fairness and Redistribution.

All of the scheme took shape BEFORE any real science was accomplished. THAT ALONE should make you pause..

1) What "scheme", specifically, are you talking about?

2) You admit, then, that the "real science" supports AGW and that global warming represents a large threat to humanity. Good to see some progress.

Kerry made a speech in Indo last week and tipped the plan. He asked "what's the harm if we are wrong on the science"?? And then launched into all the wondrous results if "the plan" we to be FORCED on the world even without adequate scientific validation and understanding.

That is a complete lie. What he launched into was an explanation that such changes had merit even if 'you, the listener' do not accept AGW or the threat of global warming. If you disagree that your statement is a LIE, please give us quotations from Kerry's speech matching your description.

Ask yourself why we just don't fix this tomorrow by building out 200 new nuclear plants.. Solves the CO2 issue, allows us to shutter the coal plants, and tear down the dams.. It's not like we couldn't get to fabulously low CO2 levels with EXISTING knowledge --- but that isn't the plan.. Vanuatu needs some cash.. Green jobs are a trophy for the Prez. And the kiddies in charge want to do this THEIR way..

You're fighting against every penny to be spent combating AGW. Do you suggest there'd be no opposition from your side at the cost of replacing every coal fired plant with a nuclear one? Good news.

And then, of course, we need to deal with transportation. And do you believe we'll get no opposition from your side about that either? Is it just the money for Vanuatu to which you object? That's a shame since they were the real core of the entire thing. They'd promised us all waterfront estates and topless native girls if we went along.

 

[skookerasbil]

Generally, the scientific consensus is correct.

I'd agree that being skeptical on bad science goes hand in hand with being skeptical about bad government. But there is ample reason to believe that the stakes in this case are high because that's the way the problem was posed to the public. This is about $$$$TRILLIONS in changes to society. And control of the energy sector and World Fairness and Redistribution.

All of the scheme took shape BEFORE any real science was accomplished. THAT ALONE should make you pause..

1) What "scheme", specifically, are you talking about?

2) You admit, then, that the "real science" supports AGW and that global warming represents a large threat to humanity. Good to see some progress.

Kerry made a speech in Indo last week and tipped the plan. He asked "what's the harm if we are wrong on the science"?? And then launched into all the wondrous results if "the plan" we to be FORCED on the world even without adequate scientific validation and understanding.

That is a complete lie. What he launched into was an explanation that such changes had merit even if 'you, the listener' do not accept AGW or the threat of global warming. If you disagree that your statement is a LIE, please give us quotations from Kerry's speech matching your description.

Ask yourself why we just don't fix this tomorrow by building out 200 new nuclear plants.. Solves the CO2 issue, allows us to shutter the coal plants, and tear down the dams.. It's not like we couldn't get to fabulously low CO2 levels with EXISTING knowledge --- but that isn't the plan.. Vanuatu needs some cash.. Green jobs are a trophy for the Prez. And the kiddies in charge want to do this THEIR way..

You're fighting against every penny to be spent combating AGW. Do you suggest there'd be no opposition from your side at the cost of replacing every coal fired plant with a nuclear one? Good news.

And then, of course, we need to deal with transportation. And do you believe we'll get no opposition from your side about that either? Is it just the money for Vanuatu to which you object? That's a shame since they were the real core of the entire thing. They'd promised us all waterfront estates and topless native girls if we went along.

What a meathead........"deal with transportation".


Do you know what these are shitforbrains? >>>






America stops without them. 3+ million a pop. 30 year lifespan. 10's of thousands purchased since 2000 by CSX, BNSF, UP, NS etc........



That's right......the railroads are going to send them to scrap tomorrow based upon a hypothesis!!



Back to Disney s0n!!!

 

[Abraham3]

Rail would have been an excellent direction for American transport development to have taken - a hundred years ago. It's a little late now. If you'd like to institute widespread rail commuting, I'm right with you. You just have to figure out how to afford the construction of a half a million miles of track across a nation already pretty much solid with alternative transportation infrastructure.

 

[gnarlylove]

I think high speed rail is a foundational step in creating generally a better society as well as addressing some of the consumption of fuels on highways and transportation.

But regarding your original post I would like to add the following:

Doubters Dominated On Fox News, The Majority Of Whom Were Unqualified. Fox News tipped the balance toward those on the opposite side of the facts, as 69 percent of guests and 75 percent of mentions cast doubt on climate science. Seventy-three percent of doubters hosted by Fox News had no background in climate science.

STUDY: Media Sowed Doubt In Coverage Of UN Climate Report | Research | Media Matters for America

Best to stay tuned to Fox if deniers want ideology confirmed most of the time but don't be afraid, look at the mass media too for a favorable opinion of denailism. Just be sure to stay out of the scientific studies that confirm your falsehood of 2-3%.

After having done more research, I wonder what anyone thought on the soon-coming thaw of the permafrost that will release gigatons of methane, a significantly more potent GHG? Is this just one of the many threats of nonlinear progression or simply the main issue coming from the thawing of ice?

 

[flacaltenn]

Generally, the scientific consensus is correct.

I'd agree that being skeptical on bad science goes hand in hand with being skeptical about bad government. But there is ample reason to believe that the stakes in this case are high because that's the way the problem was posed to the public. This is about $$$$TRILLIONS in changes to society. And control of the energy sector and World Fairness and Redistribution.

All of the scheme took shape BEFORE any real science was accomplished. THAT ALONE should make you pause..

1) What "scheme", specifically, are you talking about?

2) You admit, then, that the "real science" supports AGW and that global warming represents a large threat to humanity. Good to see some progress.

Kerry made a speech in Indo last week and tipped the plan. He asked "what's the harm if we are wrong on the science"?? And then launched into all the wondrous results if "the plan" we to be FORCED on the world even without adequate scientific validation and understanding.

That is a complete lie. What he launched into was an explanation that such changes had merit even if 'you, the listener' do not accept AGW or the threat of global warming. If you disagree that your statement is a LIE, please give us quotations from Kerry's speech matching your description.

Ask yourself why we just don't fix this tomorrow by building out 200 new nuclear plants.. Solves the CO2 issue, allows us to shutter the coal plants, and tear down the dams.. It's not like we couldn't get to fabulously low CO2 levels with EXISTING knowledge --- but that isn't the plan.. Vanuatu needs some cash.. Green jobs are a trophy for the Prez. And the kiddies in charge want to do this THEIR way..

You're fighting against every penny to be spent combating AGW. Do you suggest there'd be no opposition from your side at the cost of replacing every coal fired plant with a nuclear one? Good news.

And then, of course, we need to deal with transportation. And do you believe we'll get no opposition from your side about that either? Is it just the money for Vanuatu to which you object? That's a shame since they were the real core of the entire thing. They'd promised us all waterfront estates and topless native girls if we went along.

I never lie on a public message board. Rarely I'm wrong and sometimes it's sarcasm.. But I have absolutely no motive to lie about what Kerry spouted..

Remarks on Climate Change


But think of it this way: If the worst-case scenario about climate change, all the worst predictions, if they never materialize, what will be the harm that is done from having made the decision to respond to it? We would actually leave our air cleaner. We would leave our water cleaner. We would actually make our food supply more secure. Our populations would be healthier because of fewer particulates of pollution in the air – less cost to health care. Those are the things that would happen if we happen to be wrong and we responded

In other words -- we (THE GOVERNMENT) don't NEED to make a case. We (THE GOVERNMENT) don't need to be specific as to what this consensus actually says -- we (THE GOVERNMENT) just need to do this because of the SECONDARY benefits that drive the political bulldozer behind this fraud.. EVEN IF WE ( >>>) are wrong.

The rest of your reply is silly and irrelevent..

 

[Abraham3]

Here is a larget piece of what Kerry said

And despite more than 25 years of scientific warning after scientific warning after scientific warning – despite all that, the call to arms that we heard back in Rio back in 1992 – despite that, we still haven’t globally summoned the urgency necessary to get the job done. And as a result of this complacency, last year the amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere reached the highest point in human history – despite all the warnings.

Now, I know that these are some dramatic scientific facts – statistics. But think of it this way: If the worst-case scenario about climate change, all the worst predictions, if they never materialize, what will be the harm that is done from having made the decision to respond to it? We would actually leave our air cleaner. We would leave our water cleaner. We would actually make our food supply more secure. Our populations would be healthier because of fewer particulates of pollution in the air – less cost to health care. Those are the things that would happen if we happen to be wrong and we responded. But imagine if the 97 percent of those scientists are correct and the people who say no are wrong. Then the people who say no will have presented us with one of the most catastrophic, grave threats in the history of human life. That’s the choice here.

Notwithstanding the stark choices that we face, here’s the good thing: there is still time. The window of time is still open for us to be able to manage this threat. But the window is closing. And so I wanted to come to Jakarta to talk to you because we need people all over the world to raise their voices and to be heard. There is still time for us to significantly cut greenhouse emissions and prevent the very worst consequences of climate change from ever happening at all. But we need to move on this, and we need to move together now. We just don’t have time to let a few loud interests groups hijack the climate conversation. And when I say that, you know what I’m talking about? I’m talking about big companies that like it the way it is that don’t want to change, and spend a lot of money to keep you and me and everybody from doing what we know we need to do.

First and foremost, we should not allow a tiny minority of shoddy scientists and science and extreme ideologues to compete with scientific fact. Nor should we allow any room for those who think that the costs associated with doing the right thing outweigh the benefits. There are people who say, “Oh, it’s too expensive, we can’t do this.” No. No, folks. We certainly should not allow more time to be wasted by those who want to sit around debating whose responsibility it is to deal with this threat, while we come closer and closer to the point of no return.

I have to tell you, this is really not a normal kind of difference of opinion between people. Sometimes you can have a reasonable argument and a reasonable disagreement over an opinion you may have. This is not opinion. This is about facts. This is about science. The science is unequivocal. And those who refuse to believe it are simply burying their heads in the sand.

and here is what you said.

Kerry made a speech in Indo last week and tipped the plan. He asked "what's the harm if we are wrong on the science"?? And then launched into all the wondrous results if "the plan" we to be FORCED on the world even without adequate scientific validation and understanding. The political groups keeping this plan on life support dont' give a ratzazz about the performance of the models or the over-zealous claims made for the studies. They have their eyes on the prize..

[emphases mine]

I'm impressed that you would post Kerry's actual comments. What they show is that you lied about what the man actually said. Perhaps I'm being too harsh. Perhaps you were simply mistaken. But seeing that you have now provided us the text of his comments and have NOT withdrawn this accusation, it has become a lie.