This is how millions of people are fooled into believing the AGW crap.

[SwimExpert]

For example the consensus that there was a Big Bang may end up being wrong.

Indeed, the BBT is starting to look like a relic of the past.

According to whom? Was it posted on the day room bulletin board?

Do a google search for "quantum corrections eternal universe." There are some new mathematical scenarios coming out that apply quantum trajectories to old problems, and finding that the results match observable phenomenon. The consequences that emerge are the possibility that the universe had no beginning and that dark matter/energy is an unnecessary infusion into the universe to explain observable phenomenon. The biggest challenge with the big bang theory is that it describes what we see, but it doesn't tell us anything about why. The math breaks down when you follow it back to the beginning. Everything that takes us backward in time to get to a big bang singularity stops working when we actually get to the singularity. This leads us to the uncomfortable realization that the BBT may not actually be a theory of the nature of the universe, and might be more an explanatory model akin to Ptolmey's geocentric model of the universe. The quantum trajectories approach is still very new and needs much more study. But it has a very high probability of yielding a new way to understand our observations of the universe, which might make the idea of a big bang obsolete.

 

[Crick]

Just how is the measurement of worldwide retreat of glaciers, Arctic ice, and the continental icecaps by hundreds of scientists from around the world measuring a large number of things about a small number of people? Just about as stupid of an anology as I have ever seen.

Actually, you made a stupid analogy by not making an analogy at all. I never said it's a small number of people. It's a small sampling.

Does this sound familar? "Here’s a dirty little science secret: If you measure a large number of things about a small number of people, you are almost guaranteed to get a “statistically significant” result."

Our measurements of climate activity span a very small time frame. And a good part of it is based on relatively inaccurate measurements. From this small sampling of less than 150 years, we are drawing extrapolations and conclusions about trends and activity that span tens of thousands, sometimes millions of years.

Our knowledge of the Earth's climate goes back millions of years while the period in which we're currently interested spans not much more than one hundred. You've got things completely topsy turvy. From data that spans millions of years, folks are drawing conclusions about what's been going on the last century.

Your OP has simply failed. I don't know what you were thinking when you put it up, but it's a fail, pure and simple.

I see you haven't changed.

 

[Crick]

Crick exaggerating his numbers again.. The list is now over 45,000 scientists who disagree with you..

What numbers do you believe I have exaggerated?

Speaking of exaggeration, if the 45,000 you're talking about is the list I think it is, any claim that they are all "scientists" is an "exaggeration" of the first order. And that's being excessively polite.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Just how is the measurement of worldwide retreat of glaciers, Arctic ice, and the continental icecaps by hundreds of scientists from around the world measuring a large number of things about a small number of people? Just about as stupid of an anology as I have ever seen.

Actually, you made a stupid analogy by not making an analogy at all. I never said it's a small number of people. It's a small sampling.

Does this sound familar? "Here’s a dirty little science secret: If you measure a large number of things about a small number of people, you are almost guaranteed to get a “statistically significant” result."

Our measurements of climate activity span a very small time frame. And a good part of it is based on relatively inaccurate measurements. From this small sampling of less than 150 years, we are drawing extrapolations and conclusions about trends and activity that span tens of thousands, sometimes millions of years.

Our knowledge of the Earth's climate goes back millions of years while the period in which we're currently interested spans not much more than one hundred. You've got things completely topsy turvy. From data that spans millions of years, folks are drawing conclusions about what's been going on the last century.

I see you haven't changed.

Crick exaggerating his numbers again.. The list is now over 45,000 scientists who disagree with you..

What numbers do you believe I have exaggerated?

Your Consensus is exaggerated by huge data manipulations. Holding on to Cook Et Al after being totally embarrassed by his lies is really stupid..

 

[Crick]

Crick exaggerating his numbers again.. The list is now over 45,000 scientists who disagree with you..

What numbers do you believe I have exaggerated?

Your Consensus is exaggerated by huge data manipulations. Holding on to Cook Et Al after being totally embarrassed by his lies is really stupid..

Have you been drinking? I've made no mention of consensus in this thread or anywhere else for some time. Do you have me confused with someone else or is it simply you that's confused?

 

[SwimExpert]

Our knowledge of the Earth's climate goes back millions of years

Who was there to take the measurements?

No, our knowledge of Earth's climate is, at best, vague estimates. Most of the "knowledge" of what happened millions of years ago is either generalized inferences that can gleaned from the geological record in rocks, or extrapolated by using the past not-quite 150 years as a baseline. The vast majority is based on the assumption that CO2 levels are a reliable proxy for "average temperature" and then using recent history to provide the anchor points from which to extrapolate. So don't give me this bullshit about we "know" what the Earth's climate has been like for millions of years. Beyond vague generalizations the only things we "know" are circular reasoning.

 

[Pogo]

Completely irrelevant to my point.

How so? It seemed to me that your point was that some people who disbelieve AGW theory lack scientific aptitude, with the implication being that that fact undermines the validity of the non AGW theory believing position. Perhaps I misunderstood your point. If so, please illuminate.

I hadn't realized you meant this thread as more than a troll thread (hence the Hindenburg at the outset) but if you're serious, my point is, and on this topic has always been, the arrogance of absolutism. The wags who are constantly on here whining how science is "lying" and "rigged" and "hypocritical" (that's just from the first several posts in this thread alone). We've got said wags who are downright evangelistic about proclaiming "there's no such thing" -- which begs the question what their agenda is. Seems to me we're waaaaay short of the temporal perspective to be making absolute analyses like that. We work on theories, not absolutes.

Working from the absolute negative, if that negative is wrong we've condemned ourselves. If that negative is correct, the worst that can happen is we clean up the place. I have a hard time interpreting the latter as the sky falling.

 

[flacaltenn]

The "consensus" is meaningless at best and a lie at worst. There is no
Consensus because there are scientists who disagree. Even if there weren't, having a consensus is meaningless because having everyone agree with a thing, doesn't make it true. For example the consensus that there was a Big Bang may end up being wrong.

Most AGW believers don't actually know anything at all about science. They think that agreeing with scientists on AGW makes them intelligent. I like Cajun food but that doesn't make me Emeril LaGasse. They are also ignorant in history and human nature. They don't know the history of science so they think that scientists are always right. They are ignorant of human nature and don't realize that they are humans too and subject to the same human faults of greed, ambition, fraud, and fame.

AGW believers are really just poorly educated all around.

Emeril Lagasse is Portuguese, not Cajun, and from Massachusetts, not Louisiana. So your attempted analogy is ironical in its ironicality.

Far more interesting to this observer is the, for lack of a better term, "AGW Deniers" who know about the same about science as you describe, yet somehow "know" it's all a giant hoax perpetuated by Al Gore from his Fortress of Solitude where he invented the Internet. That takes a special kind of arrogance.

It clearly IS a hoax. AGW is. CO2 IS a greenhouse gas. It will cause about 1degC/doubing of concentration in the ATMOS. Most of our better "deniers" agree to that. But the rest of hype happened when scientists willingly allowed the socio-political activists to misintrepret their work. Statements like the "current rate of warming is unprecendented in the past 10,000 years is based on studies that never had the data integrity or the resolution to determine that. And studies of the "energy balance" got the right teensy tiny answer while ignoring the rather large "ocean storage" component that the warmers now blame for the failure of their models that were magically multiplying about 1 degC into 7 or 8 DegC by 2100.

There are credible recent polls of Climate Scientists indicating that THEY don't believe those historical "proxy" temperature studies and that MANY feel their field was an immature science when they launched into the front of public attention.

Al Gore described it perfectly when he screamed out "They Played on Your Fears".. He just was talking about another cause.

 

[Crick]

Our knowledge of the Earth's climate goes back millions of years

Who was there to take the measurements?

No, our knowledge of Earth's climate is, at best, vague estimates. Most of the "knowledge" of what happened millions of years ago is either generalized inferences that can gleaned from the geological record in rocks, or extrapolated by using the past not-quite 150 years as a baseline. The vast majority is based on the assumption that CO2 levels are a reliable proxy for "average temperature" and then using recent history to provide the anchor points from which to extrapolate. So don't give me this bullshit about we "know" what the Earth's climate has been like for millions of years. Beyond vague generalizations the only things we "know" are circular reasoning.

They're called proxies. Like a rough version of the proxy we make use of when we correlate the expansion of mercury or the change in the potential of a themocouple to ambient temperature.

I don't know how you manage to get yourself out of bed and off to special class every day.

 

[Zander]

I have a new global warming theory that has been rigorously peer reviewed. It states : Shit floats. Warm shit floats better. Hot shit with a sprinkling of fear floats best! That's why you're all gonna die unless you give up your air conditioning, electricity, and cars.



This is the consensus!! No dissent allowed. The "little people" must sacrifice for GAIA!!

Now go get my jet bitch!!

 

[HUGGY]

All these people screaming "FRAUD!!!!"

And the ice continues to recede. The oceans continue to rise. Why is that?

And.... They want to play word games with the science.

How much more damage will hurricanes cause when the wind blown tidal surges have less far to go to bring more water inland?

I'm a simple guy. I've been in three hurricanes. I believe in them. When god shows up to make these charletons correct let me know. In the mean time I will trust that the vast majority of scientists are honest brokers of what they discover.

 

[PredFan]

The "consensus" is meaningless at best and a lie at worst. There is no
Consensus because there are scientists who disagree. Even if there weren't, having a consensus is meaningless because having everyone agree with a thing, doesn't make it true. For example the consensus that there was a Big Bang may end up being wrong.

Most AGW believers don't actually know anything at all about science. They think that agreeing with scientists on AGW makes them intelligent. I like Cajun food but that doesn't make me Emeril LaGasse. They are also ignorant in history and human nature. They don't know the history of science so they think that scientists are always right. They are ignorant of human nature and don't realize that they are humans too and subject to the same human faults of greed, ambition, fraud, and fame.

AGW believers are really just poorly educated all around.

It is painfully true those which we used to view as scientists have been anointed as such by some pretty shaky organizations. There was a time that science had to pass muster by those that only sponsored the work. Then there were periods in history when the church took a heavy hand in deciding what was truth or not regardless of the information discovered. Leaders often leaned on the truth and bent it out of shape.

Fortunately for the human species these dark times mentioned are nearly totally in the past.

It does not matter what anyone BELIEVES who is not working to find the actual scientific data that confirms or denies AGW. What the bible supposes to suggest is worse than irrelevant. What the bible thumpers WANT you to believe is worse than dangerous.

What data that has been collected suggests that human activity could very well accelerate CO in the atmosphere. How much is still not fully understood. Just the fact that it can accumulate and be added to by our own hand makes it obvious that we should be prepared to reduce our participation in CO levels.

What boggles my mind is WHY anyone would be so against human beings doing what they can to prevent problems. Even if it happens gradually over a hundred years or so do we really want to flood most of Florida and other parts of the coasts of many parts of the globe?

What is the end game for you deniers? What are you trying to prove? If anything is it not prudent to err on the side of caution and not go kicking and screaming into the future putting band aids on just the property of the rich and let the water take over those places that can't afford to put dikes around tiny places where only the wealthy reside and own property?

First of all, I don't know what the bible says about AGW, I didn't know it did, and I don't care.

What is the end game? I can't speak for anyone else but I don't think there is one in my case. I just want the truth. I hate what has been done in the name of science. All the lies, the fraud, the intimidation. All these so called scientists acting very much unlike scientists. Even if it wasn't wrong, it would still be debasing science.

Look at the last statements you made. All more political than scientific. The corporations, blah blah, the rich Blah blah blah.. We can recognise a scam when we see it. If there really is a science message, it's getting lost in the politics and scientists are not only allowing it to happen, they are actively participating in it.

 

[PredFan]

All these people screaming "FRAUD!!!!"

And the ice continues to recede. The oceans continue to rise. Why is that?

And.... They want to play word games with the science.

How much more damage will hurricanes cause when the wind blown tidal surges have less far to go to bring more water inland?

I'm a simple guy. I've been in three hurricanes. I believe in them. When god shows up to make these charletons correct let me know. In the mean time I will trust that the vast majority of scientists are honest brokers of what they discover.

Except that the ice isn't receding and the oceans are not rising.

You ARE a simple guy, and as such you prefer to simply believe what you are told because it's easier than investigating yourself.

 

[Crick]

We can recognise a scam when we see it.

And even when you cannot.

 

[PredFan]

I have a new global warming theory that has been rigorously peer reviewed. It states : Shit floats. Warm shit floats better. Hot shit with a sprinkling of fear floats best! That's why you're all gonna die unless you give up your air conditioning, electricity, and cars.



This is the consensus!! No dissent allowed. The "little people" must sacrifice for GAIA!!

Now go get my jet bitch!!

It's sarcasm, but it isn't far off base sadly.

 

[PredFan]

For example the consensus that there was a Big Bang may end up being wrong.

Indeed, the BBT is starting to look like a relic of the past.

According to whom? Was it posted on the day room bulletin board?

You should pay a little bit of attention to what's happening in science. This is the problem with most of you AGW believers. You don't really know squat about science, you think that agreeing with AGW makes you smart. It doesn't. It only makes you a victim of the scam.

 

[Crick]

Except that the ice isn't receding and the oceans are not rising.

You ARE a simple guy, and as such you prefer to simply believe what you are told because it's easier than investigating yourself.

You want him to believe what YOU are telling him when you have NO evidence, and all the evidence he CAN find tells him that you're wrong in every regard.

 

[Crick]

For example the consensus that there was a Big Bang may end up being wrong.

Indeed, the BBT is starting to look like a relic of the past.

What is that supposed to mean?

 

[PredFan]

We can recognise a scam when we see it.

And even when you cannot.

What are you 10 years old? Shouldn't you be in school?

 

[PredFan]

Except that the ice isn't receding and the oceans are not rising.

You ARE a simple guy, and as such you prefer to simply believe what you are told because it's easier than investigating yourself.

You want him to believe what YOU are telling him when you have NO evidence, and all the evidence he CAN find tells him that you're wrong in every regard.

Cherry picked data has been debunked any times already. The ice ebbs and flows as a natural pattern. You guys cherry pick it to show it receding, the other side cherry picks it to show it advancing. We've been through all this before.