Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It ought to be obvious that if someone intends to oppose widely accepted mainstream science, then they better have a really good reason to do so. So far, the only reason I've ever seen from any of you is that you hate Al Gore for winning the popular vote in the 2000 election.
.I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
"Let's be clear: The work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus
It ought to be obvious that if someone intends to oppose widely accepted mainstream science, then they better have a really good reason to do so. So far, the only reason I've ever seen from any of you is that you hate Al Gore for winning the popular vote in the 2000 election.
Science is not Consensus....
I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
"Let's be clear: The work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
It ought to be obvious that if someone intends to oppose widely accepted mainstream science, then they better have a really good reason to do so. So far, the only reason I've ever seen from any of you is that you hate Al Gore for winning the popular vote in the 2000 election.
Science is not Consensus....
I think what you wanted to say was that consensus was not science. But both are incorrect. What is it that makes accepted science, accepted? A consensus among scientists. Period. If you want to reject that, then you reject ALL mainstream science. You will have become a flat-Earther, UFO-nut, demonic-possession idiot.
I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
"Let's be clear: The work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
Michael Crichton was not a scientist. His opinion here is simply incorrect. The greatest scientists in the world are great because their experimental results convinced A CONSENSUS of the world's other scientists that they were correct. There are no great, wrong scientists.
There is no consensus on global warming. the religious like yourself believe, because it is your belief and you want to believe. Politicians want the power, the scientist want the money. Global warmest are playing on people's emotions, there's no logic in what they do
Prove it.
And dont just quote some shill who hopes to get more grant money;
Prove it.
Not how it works. I've got the whole world on my side. You've got a deranged political blog that has a history of making shit up. You're the one making the extraordinary claim, so you need extraordinary evidence to back it up, not just cherrypicked nonsense crap.
And dont just quote some shill who hopes to get more grant money;
You ought to apologize to scientists for declaring they're in it for the money. I know a few of these guys. On both an intellectual and a moral level, you're not worthy to sniff their jocks. They're honest, fiercely intelligent and independent, while you're a brainless political shill.
You don't understand how the grant system works. Say a scientists gets a million dollar grant. You know how much of that goes into his pocket? Zero. Zilch. Nada. Not a single penny. That's how the law works. All the money is tracked to an insane degree of precision.
You cultists won't care, however. You depend on that particular dishonest conspiracy theory, so you'll keep spouting it, even after you know it's bullshit. It's part of that lack of honesty thing which is common to nearly all denialists.
It's -4 here, I never remember it being this cold for so long.
It ought to be obvious that if someone intends to oppose widely accepted mainstream science, then they better have a really good reason to do so. So far, the only reason I've ever seen from any of you is that you hate Al Gore for winning the popular vote in the 2000 election.
As a simple exercise, I quickly revisited the everchanging Hansen adjustments, a topic commented on acidly by E.M. Smith (Chiefio) in many posts also see his interesting comments in the thread at a guest post at Anthonys, a post which revisited the race between 1934 and 1998 an issue first raised at Climate Audit in 2007 in connection with Hansens Y2K error.
As CA readers recall, Hansens Y2K error resulted in a reduction of US temperatures after 2000 relative to earlier values. The change from previous values is shown in red in the graphic below; the figure also shows (black) remarkable re-writing of past history since August 2007 a rewriting of history that has increased the 2000-6 relative to the 1930s by about 0.3 deg C.
Now, here is some actual proof that the CRU was deliberately tampering with their data. Unfortunately, for readabilitys sake, this code was written in Interactive Data Language (IDL) and is a pain to go through.
NOTE: This is an actual snippet of code from the CRU contained in the source file: briffa_Sep98_d.pro
1;
2; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
3;
4 yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
5 valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
6 if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,'Oooops!'
7
8 yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)
I ran a post yesterday, showing how the latest version of GISSTEMP had changed from using Hadley/Reynolds to ERSST for ocean temperatures, with the result that about 0.03C had been added to recent warming.
However, this is not the only change they have made to the historical temperature record in recent years. Climate4You, fortunately, archived the GISS data in May 2008. Comparing this dataset with todays version, we can see that about 0.10C of warming, or more, has been added to temperatures in the last decade, compared to data up to about 1950.
It ought to be obvious that if someone intends to oppose widely accepted mainstream science, then they better have a really good reason to do so. So far, the only reason I've ever seen from any of you is that you hate Al Gore for winning the popular vote in the 2000 election.
Science is not Consensus....
.I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
"Let's be clear: The work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus
Is There a "Consensus" in Science? Remembering the Late Michael Crichton - Evolution News & Views
Prove it.
Not how it works. I've got the whole world on my side. You've got a deranged political blog that has a history of making shit up. You're the one making the extraordinary claim, so you need extraordinary evidence to back it up, not just cherrypicked nonsense crap.
It's -4 here, I never remember it being this cold for so long.
You fucking retards are so self-centered, you can't see beyond your own backyard.
Australia is in the midst of their hottest year in over 100 years, since they began measuring.
So it may be cold here (duh! It's winter!) but climate change is affecting the planet everywhere.
Bull. Show me that link.It's -4 here, I never remember it being this cold for so long.
You fucking retards are so self-centered, you can't see beyond your own backyard.
Australia is in the midst of their hottest year in over 100 years, since they began measuring.
So it may be cold here (duh! It's winter!) but climate change is affecting the planet everywhere.
As it ALWAYS HAS FOR MILLIONS OF YEARS, dude.
Come back when you have something new and intelligent to say how about?
It ought to be obvious that if someone intends to oppose widely accepted mainstream science, then they better have a really good reason to do so. So far, the only reason I've ever seen from any of you is that you hate Al Gore for winning the popular vote in the 2000 election.
Science is not Consensus....
I think what you wanted to say was that consensus was not science. But both are incorrect. What is it that makes accepted science, accepted? A consensus among scientists. Period. If you want to reject that, then you reject ALL mainstream science. You will have become a flat-Earther, UFO-nut, demonic-possession idiot.
I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
"Let's be clear: The work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
Michael Crichton was not a scientist. His opinion here is simply incorrect. The greatest scientists in the world are great because their experimental results convinced A CONSENSUS of the world's other scientists that they were correct. There are no great, wrong scientists.
In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. ― Galileo Galilei
Why do we put up with it? Do we like to be criticized? No, no scientist enjoys it. Every scientist feels a proprietary affection for his or her ideas and findings. Even so, you dont reply to critics, ""Wait a minute; this is a really good idea; Im very fond of it; its done you no harm; please leave it alone.""
Instead, the hard but just rule is that if the ideas dont work, you must throw them away.
― Carl Sagan,
So my antagonist said, "Is it impossible that there are flying saucers? Can you prove that it's impossible?" "No", I said, "I can't prove it's impossible. It's just very unlikely". At that he said, "You are very unscientific. If you can't prove it impossible then how can you say that it's unlikely?" But that is the way that is scientific. It is scientific only to say what is more likely and what less likely, and not to be proving all the time the possible and impossible.
― Richard P. Feynman
Bull. Show me that link.You fucking retards are so self-centered, you can't see beyond your own backyard.
Australia is in the midst of their hottest year in over 100 years, since they began measuring.
So it may be cold here (duh! It's winter!) but climate change is affecting the planet everywhere.
As it ALWAYS HAS FOR MILLIONS OF YEARS, dude.
Come back when you have something new and intelligent to say how about?
Science is not Consensus....
I think what you wanted to say was that consensus was not science. But both are incorrect. What is it that makes accepted science, accepted? A consensus among scientists. Period. If you want to reject that, then you reject ALL mainstream science. You will have become a flat-Earther, UFO-nut, demonic-possession idiot.
Michael Crichton was not a scientist. His opinion here is simply incorrect. The greatest scientists in the world are great because their experimental results convinced A CONSENSUS of the world's other scientists that they were correct. There are no great, wrong scientists.
Hey Abe --- I've got some credentialed vetted scientists for you that will back up Crighton.
It IS a tenet of science that the better explanations not be based on opinion polling. Now matter how deep the pile of PhDs are...
Or on the topic of allowing PERSONAL OPINION to rescue weak or shoddy work....
Why do we put up with it? Do we like to be criticized? No, no scientist enjoys it. Every scientist feels a proprietary affection for his or her ideas and findings. Even so, you dont reply to critics, ""Wait a minute; this is a really good idea; Im very fond of it; its done you no harm; please leave it alone.""
Instead, the hard but just rule is that if the ideas dont work, you must throw them away.
― Carl Sagan,
And when you ask skeptics for PROOF that catastrophic GW isn't possible, my latest favorite scientist explains why they dont NEED to do that..
So my antagonist said, "Is it impossible that there are flying saucers? Can you prove that it's impossible?" "No", I said, "I can't prove it's impossible. It's just very unlikely". At that he said, "You are very unscientific. If you can't prove it impossible then how can you say that it's unlikely?" But that is the way that is scientific. It is scientific only to say what is more likely and what less likely, and not to be proving all the time the possible and impossible.
― Richard P. Feynman
Of course Feynman never lived long enough to see the IPCC evidence go down as their percent certainties went up... No doubt -- he'd have a comment...
Bull. Show me that link.As it ALWAYS HAS FOR MILLIONS OF YEARS, dude.
Come back when you have something new and intelligent to say how about?
Temperature record with CO2 levels for the last 600 million years
Last 10,000 years
Anything else, hun?
So if you cant prove it then shut the fuck up, lying bastard.
Temperature record with CO2 levels for the last 600 million years
Last 10,000 years
Bull. Show me that link.
Temperature record with CO2 levels for the last 600 million years
Last 10,000 years
Anything else, hun?
Dr. Scotese is a geologist, not a climatologist. You are posting geological temperatures, not weather temperatures.
