Why do so many people deny climate change

[Toddsterpatriot]

It is. A more exact number is 97 percent.

How many believe CO2 is to blame for Katrina?

Only climate scientists have an informed opinion.

You're the expert on their opinions.

Is our CO2 to blame for Katrina and the rains in Colorado?

 

[PMZ]

Only a gullible moron would accept Wikipedia as a valid source on any issue that is remotely political. Leftwingers have gone through every entering related to global warming and edited them to reflect the warmist dogma.

Certainly the people in charge of recruiting and training the conservative army know that exposure to knowledge is counter productive to their mission.

They have had historically a two prong attack on the knowledge threat. Wikipedia and IPCC denial.

Personally I think that their plan failed. Promoting ignorance most always does.

Now the conservative army is widely regarded as a mob of ignorant yahoos, and has been rendered irrelevant.

Ultimately, in a democracy, political groups have to be electable to impose the wants of the movement on others.

Now even the GOP wants to disassociate itself from the yahoo army.

The end is in sight.

That was a very weak attempt to defend obvious Wikipedia and IPCC propaganda.

In this debate you have three main arguments:

1. Appeal to authority
2. Begging the question
3. Circular logic

I find it truly scary that someone who claims to have been an engineer could have a mind that is so obviously incapable of rational thought.

I see that you have passed the yahoo army ignorance test. Congratulations.

I'm afraid that I, personally, am addicted to learning and confident enough in my ability to separate the fly shit from the pepper to resent others telling me what I can or can't, should or shouldn't, look at. That's why I'm a liberal.

It's obvious that you fall for a lot of bad information and that you are following Fox News orders. If you're OK with that, have at it. It makes it much easier to argue you.

 

[bripat9643]

It is. A more exact number is 97 percent.

How many believe CO2 is to blame for Katrina?

Only climate scientists have an informed opinion.

Appeal to Authority.

 

[PMZ]

How many believe CO2 is to blame for Katrina?

Only climate scientists have an informed opinion.

Appeal to Authority.

Appeal to experts. Those who know. The alternative being following those who don't know. Where's that going to get you? That’s the process that makes conservatives.

 

[PMZ]

Considering that Mann is flirting with contempt of court in Canada now, because of his refusal to release documents in Discovery, and his well known propensity for shooting his mouth off in inappropriate manner, I will take your bet.

Mann is going to lose, and lose big. The question is how many of the rats are going to go down with his little ship of fools...

Let's see, a businessman vs a scientist in a suit based on science.

Who do you suppose is paying for McIntyre's legal bills? What organization.

What legal bills? His website is funded purely by donations.

Who is paying Michael Mann's legal bills?

''His website is funded purely by donations.''

Why do you suppose people would pay a business man for running his mouth about science?

It must be good business for him.

 

[bripat9643]

Only climate scientists have an informed opinion.

Appeal to Authority.

Appeal to experts. Those who know. The alternative being following those who don't know. Where's that going to get you? That’s the process that makes conservatives.

As I demonstrated earlier, an appeal to "experts" is still an appeal to authority and a logical fallacy. As history shows so abundantly, the experts can be dead wrong, especially government experts.

The alternative is to way the evidence presented. That's something any well educated person is capable of. Only a servile drone allows the government to tell him what to think. The bottom line is that a free country cannot survive populated with servile brainwashed toadies like you. Your kind are what allow men like Hitler, Stalin and Roosevelt to come to power.

 

[PMZ]

How many believe CO2 is to blame for Katrina?

Only climate scientists have an informed opinion.

You're the expert on their opinions.

Is our CO2 to blame for Katrina and the rains in Colorado?

Increased atmospheric instability is caused by excess global energy.

Do you really think that it's possible to identify which storms would have occurred in our old climate and which only in our new climate?

Lots of luck with that science.

 

[bripat9643]

Let's see, a businessman vs a scientist in a suit based on science.

Who do you suppose is paying for McIntyre's legal bills? What organization.

What legal bills? His website is funded purely by donations.

Who is paying Michael Mann's legal bills?

''His website is funded purely by donations.''

Why do you suppose people would pay a business man for running his mouth about science?

It must be good business for him.

McIntyre is a mathematician. He's an expert with statistics. That makes him eminently more qualified to determine the validity of Michael Mann's statistical algorithms than you or Michael Mann himself. The National Science Foundation confirmed McIntyre's analysis of Mann's Hockey Stick fraud.

I thought you believed in consulting experts.

 

[PMZ]

Appeal to Authority.

Appeal to experts. Those who know. The alternative being following those who don't know. Where's that going to get you? That’s the process that makes conservatives.

As I demonstrated earlier, an appeal to "experts" is still an appeal to authority and a logical fallacy. As history shows so abundantly, the experts can be dead wrong, especially government experts.

The alternative is to way the evidence presented. That's something any well educated person is capable of. Only a servile drone allows the government to tell him what to think. The bottom line is that a free country cannot survive populated with servile brainwashed toadies like you. Your kind are what allow men like Hitler, Stalin and Roosevelt to come to power.

Only you would try to get away with paying attention to experts is a logical fallacy.

That is about as fundamental ignorance as I can imagine. But it does clarify your condition.

 

[PMZ]

What legal bills? His website is funded purely by donations.

Who is paying Michael Mann's legal bills?

''His website is funded purely by donations.''

Why do you suppose people would pay a business man for running his mouth about science?

It must be good business for him.

McIntyre is a mathematician. He's an expert with statistics. That makes him eminently more qualified to determine the validity of Michael Mann's statistical algorithms than you or Michael Mann himself. The National Science Foundation confirmed McIntyre's analysis of Mann's Hockey Stick fraud.

I thought you believed in consulting experts.

I read about the National Science Foundation's opinion. You are almost completely misrepresenting it.

 

[Peterf]

The thread title does not end with a question mark but I assume it is, nevertheless, an enquiry.

Many 'deny' AGW because they are immune to hysterical propaganda. Some - me for example - have a world view based on science and are revolted by its perversion. Many more are worldly wise and can recognise charlatans on the make.

Warmists 'computer models' and false data have comprehensively demolished . Only defenders of the faith, impervious to evidence or reason, remain.

Let's see. We have a global organization with unfettered access to the best climate science in the world vs Fox News bought and paid for by those heavily profiting from the status quo.

You're hooked on the Fox News story because they agree with what you wish was true.

That’s a pretty easy and obvious choice for me. And the reason why you spend so much time trashing science.

Science always trumps politics.

I have never seen or heard 'Fox News'. I have a good layman's understanding of scientific method. I am a rationalist and science is the light I live by. Which is, of course, why I am so dismayed by the perversion of science by warmist charlatans. They have over decades cherry-picked data and when that proved insufficient simply invented it. It is they who spread alarmism for political reason. You say "Science always trumps politics". Let us hope that that turns out to be the case.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Only climate scientists have an informed opinion.

You're the expert on their opinions.

Is our CO2 to blame for Katrina and the rains in Colorado?

Increased atmospheric instability is caused by excess global energy.

Do you really think that it's possible to identify which storms would have occurred in our old climate and which only in our new climate?

Lots of luck with that science.

Increased atmospheric instability is caused by excess global energy.

Is that why we've had record hurricanes every year for the last 5 years?

Do you really think that it's possible to identify which storms would have occurred in our old climate and which only in our new climate?

That's why I laugh when idiot warmers do that very thing.

 

[bripat9643]

''His website is funded purely by donations.''

Why do you suppose people would pay a business man for running his mouth about science?

It must be good business for him.

McIntyre is a mathematician. He's an expert with statistics. That makes him eminently more qualified to determine the validity of Michael Mann's statistical algorithms than you or Michael Mann himself. The National Science Foundation confirmed McIntyre's analysis of Mann's Hockey Stick fraud.

I thought you believed in consulting experts.

I read about the National Science Foundation's opinion. You are almost completely misrepresenting it.

Have I?

Here are some excerpts from the report:

The debate over Dr. Mann’s principal components methodology has been going on for nearly three years. When we got involved, there was no evidence that a single issue was resolved or even nearing resolution. Dr. Mann’s RealClimate.org website said that all of the Mr. McIntyre and Dr. McKitrick claims had been ‘discredited’. UCAR had issued a news release saying that all their claims were ‘unfounded’. Mr. McIntyre replied on the ClimateAudit.org website. The climate science community seemed unable to either refute McIntyre’s claims or accept them. The situation was ripe for a third-party review of the types that we and Dr. North’s NRC panel have done.

While the work of Michael Mann and colleagues presents what appears to be compelling evidence of global temperature change, the criticisms of McIntyre and McKitrick, as well as those of other authors mentioned are indeed valid.

“Where we have commonality, I believe our report and the [NAS] panel essentially agree. We believe that our discussion together with the discussion from the NRC report should take the ‘centering’ issue off the table. [Mann's] decentred methodology is simply incorrect mathematics …. I am baffled by the claim that the incorrect method doesn’t matter because the answer is correct anyway. Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science.

The papers of Mann et al. in themselves are written in a confusing manner, making it difficult for the reader to discern the actual methodology and what uncertainty is actually associated with these reconstructions.

It is not clear that Dr. Mann and his associates even realized that their methodology was faulty at the time of writing the [Mann] paper.

We found MBH98 and MBH99 to be somewhat obscure and incomplete and the criticisms of MM03/05a/05b to be valid and compelling.

Overall, our committee believes that Mann’s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis.

[The] fact that their paper fit some policy agendas has greatly enhanced their paper’s visibility. ,,,The “ ‘hockey stick’ reconstruction of temperature graphic dramatically illustrated the global warming issue and was adopted by the IPCC and many governments as the poster graphic. The graphics’ prominence together with the fact that it is based on incorrect use of [principal components analysis] puts Dr. Mann and his co-authors in a difficult face-saving position.

We have been to Michael Mann’s University of Virginia website and downloaded the materials there. Unfortunately, we did not find adequate material to reproduce the MBH98 materials. We have been able to reproduce the results of McIntyre and McKitrick

Generally speaking, the paleoclimatology community has not recognized the validity of the [McIntyre and McKitrick] papers and has tended dismiss their results as being developed by biased amateurs. The paleoclimatology community seems to be tightly coupled as indicated by our social network analysis, has rallied around the [Mann] position, and has issued an extensive series of alternative assessments most of which appear to support the conclusions of MBH98/99.

Our findings from this analysis suggest that authors in the area of paleoclimate studies are closely connected and thus ‘“independent studies’ may not be as independent as they might appear on the surface.

It is important to note the isolation of the paleoclimate community; even though they rely heavily on statistical methods they do not seem to be interacting with the statistical community. Additionally, we judge that the sharing of research materials, data and results was haphazardly and grudgingly done. In this case we judge that there was too much reliance on peer review, which was not necessarily independent.

Based on the literature we have reviewed, there is no overarching consensus on [Mann's work]. As analyzed in our social network, there is a tightly knit group of individuals who passionately believe in their thesis. However, our perception is that this group has a self-reinforcing feedback mechanism and, moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that they can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility.

It is clear that many of the proxies are re-used in most of the papers. It is not surprising that the papers would obtain similar results and so cannot really claim to be independent verifications.”

“We note that the American Meteorological Society has a Committee on Probability and Statistics. I believe it is amazing for a committee whose focus is on statistics and probability that of the nine members only two are also members of the American Statistical Association, the premier statistical association in the United States, and one of those is a recent Ph. D. with an assistant professor appointment in a medical school. The American Meteorological Association recently held the 18th Conference on Probability and Statistics in the Atmospheric Sciences.. Of the 62 presenters at a conference with a focus on statistics and probability, only 8 … are members of the American Statistical Association. I believe that these two communities should be more engaged and if nothing else our report should highlight to both communities a need for additional cross-disciplinary ties."

Especially when massive amounts of public monies and human lives are at stake, academic work should have a more intense level of scrutiny and review. It is especially the case that authors of policy-related documents like the IPCC report, Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, should not be the same people as those that constructed the academic papers.”​

 

[freedombecki]

True environmentalists know that their power to change the world for the better comes from science and government.

If you believe that business believes anything but make more money regardless of the cost to others, you've been had.

If you believe that business believes anything but make more money regardless of the cost to others, you've been had.

Al Gore earned $5,247 (some say $6,000 currently) per minute for his 2007 speech. An hour of Al Gore's environmental speech would cost you a minimum of $314,820 at his 2007 rate. (based on a British £ is equivalent to approximately $1.59 US Dollars currently.)Al Gore is criticised for lining his own pockets after £3,300-per-minute green speech | Mail Online

Educators in a number of countries refused free videos of his speech due to 9 inaccuracies (not cited in article), which is against educational principles universally, plus his use of exaggeration and omission is considered misleading by many scientists, not to mention honest journalists. Some of his work is accurate, but his use of political negativity against rivals was another reason cited by some countries' educational societies that would harm their children by poisoning the well of their minds in future decision-making.

Before accusing conservatives and conservationists of littering the landscape with discarded beer bottles, many of us have never done such a thing in our whole lives, and many of us turn off lights and fans when we leave a room and have done so for a lifetime.

Forcing societies to bankrupt their governments so unproved theories can be exercised can result in a lot of human misery. In my book, that is unnecessary, unwise, foolhardy.

So if profit is bad for conservatives, why are three thousand speeches by Al Gore that netted him half a billion dollars okay? Do tell.

Edit: Also, some of us are not amused that wind turbines kill millions of birds per year across the planet; because of them, the osprey count in the bird count surveys has declined as have other birds whose migratory paths fall where windfarms have arisen. Who speaks for them? The green community is mute on death by windfarm for birds and death by tidal turbines on aquatic mammals and fish and other sea species.

I can't tell. Are you saying that business is not each and every business following make more money regardless of the cost to others?

I'm not sure I can give you the answer you want, but I found a source that reinforces all I knew about my fellow small businesses in which I am sole proprietor since 1987, basically that half of businesses begun don't make it through the initiation years, and here's the skinny on too many small businesses:

The U.S. Small Business Administration has seen lots of small businesses come and, unfortunately, go. According to the SBA, over 50% of small businesses fail in the first five years. Why? What goes wrong?

In his book Small Business Management, Michael Ames gives the following reasons for small business failure:

1. Lack of experience
2. Insufficient capital (money)
3. Poor location
4. Poor inventory management
5. Over-investment in fixed assets
6. Poor credit arrangements
7. Personal use of business funds
8. Unexpected growth

Gustav Berle adds two more reasons in The Do It Yourself Business Book:
9. Competition10. Low sales
​

These figures aren't meant to scare you, but to prepare you for the rocky path ahead. Underestimating the difficulty of starting a business is one of the biggest obstacles entrepreneurs face. However, success can be yours if you are patient, willing to work hard, and take all the necessary steps.

It's true that there are many reasons not to start your own business. But for the right person, the advantages of business ownership far outweigh the risks.


You will be your own boss. Hard work and long hours directly benefit you, rather than increasing profits for someone else. Earning and growth potential are far greater. A new venture is as exciting as it is risky. Running a business provides endless challenge and opportunities for learning.
Source: U.S. Small Business Administration

Why Small Businesses Fail: SBA

Instituting government rules and regulations is often necessary in order that people will not be sold weight-loss pills that contain tapeworm segments!

But instituting big-business enforcements against small businesses is doom because

A small business owner starting up may not be able to afford a certified public accountant, bookkeeper, consultation attorney, or other luxuries large businesses take for granted based on their success.

Not everybody can run a small business, because they may not have customer relations trainings, understand legal/ethical problems other businesses in their field have had, or even the slightest grasp of economics. They also may lack the backbone to go to a state employment board and face down an employee seeking unemployment benefits who said they worked over a year for you when actually they worked less than two full working days and you had to call them when they didn't show up.
Since state employment boards in small areas tend to recall repeat businesses that are reported by employees seeking unemployment benefits, you are made specifically aware that your business account is charged for benefits the state gives out in some states by law. Why should you let a quitter of 12 hours of employment stick you for a full 2 years of paying their breakfast, dinner, lunch, rent, utilities and other luxuries paid for by unemployment taxes leveled against your business.

If that small business doesn't make muster for 12 years due to startup costs, the pressure of paying for a handful of cheaters to get money out of your business they neglected, nobody would stay in business. Our system works in a system that has ethics. When ethics break down, starvation is the alternative bedfellow.

That's my perspective on business. I hope that gives you an idea of where a business owner might have problems with dealing with providing fifty thousand dollars worth of medical benefits per employee when the yearly receipts are ninety-eight thousand after 5 years of 60- to 80-hour weeks of hard work for which you received zero salary and zero profits, and stark idiots walk up to you and say something to the effect: "Wow! You must really love this business and be making money hand over fist to be celebrating your fifth anniversary!"

And I'm supposed to finance unproved energy businesses that have a history of failure?

 

[westwall]

''His website is funded purely by donations.''

Why do you suppose people would pay a business man for running his mouth about science?

It must be good business for him.

McIntyre is a mathematician. He's an expert with statistics. That makes him eminently more qualified to determine the validity of Michael Mann's statistical algorithms than you or Michael Mann himself. The National Science Foundation confirmed McIntyre's analysis of Mann's Hockey Stick fraud.

I thought you believed in consulting experts.

I read about the National Science Foundation's opinion. You are almost completely misrepresenting it.

Really? Post it in its entirety, then so we can all see it. Don't leave anything out now....

 

[bripat9643]

McIntyre is a mathematician. He's an expert with statistics. That makes him eminently more qualified to determine the validity of Michael Mann's statistical algorithms than you or Michael Mann himself. The National Science Foundation confirmed McIntyre's analysis of Mann's Hockey Stick fraud.

I thought you believed in consulting experts.

I read about the National Science Foundation's opinion. You are almost completely misrepresenting it.

Really? Post it in its entirety, then so we can all see it. Don't leave anything out now....

PMS didn't even read it, or he's just plain lying about it. You can never take anything these warmist cult members say at face value.

 

[PMZ]

If you believe that business believes anything but make more money regardless of the cost to others, you've been had.

Al Gore earned $5,247 (some say $6,000 currently) per minute for his 2007 speech. An hour of Al Gore's environmental speech would cost you a minimum of $314,820 at his 2007 rate. (based on a British £ is equivalent to approximately $1.59 US Dollars currently.)Al Gore is criticised for lining his own pockets after £3,300-per-minute green speech | Mail Online

Educators in a number of countries refused free videos of his speech due to 9 inaccuracies (not cited in article), which is against educational principles universally, plus his use of exaggeration and omission is considered misleading by many scientists, not to mention honest journalists. Some of his work is accurate, but his use of political negativity against rivals was another reason cited by some countries' educational societies that would harm their children by poisoning the well of their minds in future decision-making.

Before accusing conservatives and conservationists of littering the landscape with discarded beer bottles, many of us have never done such a thing in our whole lives, and many of us turn off lights and fans when we leave a room and have done so for a lifetime.

Forcing societies to bankrupt their governments so unproved theories can be exercised can result in a lot of human misery. In my book, that is unnecessary, unwise, foolhardy.

So if profit is bad for conservatives, why are three thousand speeches by Al Gore that netted him half a billion dollars okay? Do tell.

Edit: Also, some of us are not amused that wind turbines kill millions of birds per year across the planet; because of them, the osprey count in the bird count surveys has declined as have other birds whose migratory paths fall where windfarms have arisen. Who speaks for them? The green community is mute on death by windfarm for birds and death by tidal turbines on aquatic mammals and fish and other sea species.

I can't tell. Are you saying that business is not each and every business following make more money regardless of the cost to others?

I'm not sure I can give you the answer you want, but I found a source that reinforces all I knew about my fellow small businesses in which I am sole proprietor since 1987, basically that half of businesses begun don't make it through the initiation years, and here's the skinny on too many small businesses:

The U.S. Small Business Administration has seen lots of small businesses come and, unfortunately, go. According to the SBA, over 50% of small businesses fail in the first five years. Why? What goes wrong?

In his book Small Business Management, Michael Ames gives the following reasons for small business failure:

1. Lack of experience
2. Insufficient capital (money)
3. Poor location
4. Poor inventory management
5. Over-investment in fixed assets
6. Poor credit arrangements
7. Personal use of business funds
8. Unexpected growth

Gustav Berle adds two more reasons in The Do It Yourself Business Book:
9. Competition10. Low sales
​

These figures aren't meant to scare you, but to prepare you for the rocky path ahead. Underestimating the difficulty of starting a business is one of the biggest obstacles entrepreneurs face. However, success can be yours if you are patient, willing to work hard, and take all the necessary steps.

It's true that there are many reasons not to start your own business. But for the right person, the advantages of business ownership far outweigh the risks.


You will be your own boss. Hard work and long hours directly benefit you, rather than increasing profits for someone else. Earning and growth potential are far greater. A new venture is as exciting as it is risky. Running a business provides endless challenge and opportunities for learning.
Source: U.S. Small Business Administration

Why Small Businesses Fail: SBA

Instituting government rules and regulations is often necessary in order that people will not be sold weight-loss pills that contain tapeworm segments!

But instituting big-business enforcements against small businesses is doom because

A small business owner starting up may not be able to afford a certified public accountant, bookkeeper, consultation attorney, or other luxuries large businesses take for granted based on their success.

Not everybody can run a small business, because they may not have customer relations trainings, understand legal/ethical problems other businesses in their field have had, or even the slightest grasp of economics. They also may lack the backbone to go to a state employment board and face down an employee seeking unemployment benefits who said they worked over a year for you when actually they worked less than two full working days and you had to call them when they didn't show up.
Since state employment boards in small areas tend to recall repeat businesses that are reported by employees seeking unemployment benefits, you are made specifically aware that your business account is charged for benefits the state gives out in some states by law. Why should you let a quitter of 12 hours of employment stick you for a full 2 years of paying their breakfast, dinner, lunch, rent, utilities and other luxuries paid for by unemployment taxes leveled against your business.

If that small business doesn't make muster for 12 years due to startup costs, the pressure of paying for a handful of cheaters to get money out of your business they neglected, nobody would stay in business. Our system works in a system that has ethics. When ethics break down, starvation is the alternative bedfellow.

That's my perspective on business. I hope that gives you an idea of where a business owner might have problems with dealing with providing fifty thousand dollars worth of medical benefits per employee when the yearly receipts are ninety-eight thousand after 5 years of 60- to 80-hour weeks of hard work for which you received zero salary and zero profits, and stark idiots walk up to you and say something to the effect: "Wow! You must really love this business and be making money hand over fist to be celebrating your fifth anniversary!"

And I'm supposed to finance unproved energy businesses that have a history of failure?

A couple of points.

There is a lot of sadness in life and nobody is exempt. In the grand scheme of things, having your business not succeed is a pretty minor bump compared to early cancer, poverty, being born to bad parents or handicapped, which are big sadnesses. Having to get a job is pretty minor.

The environmrnt in the US is very friendly to both large and small business but those who fail rely on government to be a convenient scapegoat as it's easier on the ego than the truth. Most businesses that fail do so because they are poorly run or never had a viable business plan.

So business success is not an entitlement.

We are each invested in business one way or another and are also consumers. As a consumer, I hate to be taken advantage by business, be it by poor products, lousy service, dumping waste that pollutes, putting customers at safety risks, misleading advertising, low quality or disguised price gouging.

One huge error made by conservatives is the belief in the completely mythological perfect market. Perhaps once long, long ago that myth might have been viable but now regulated markets are the only protection consumers have.

The most iconic mark of our times in this country is our completely dysfunctional wealth distribution. The rich are getting much richer, the middle class is becoming poor, the poor are dismally so. So don't expect a lot of sympathy from anyone on high taxes that the wealthy don't even notice.

We had it right in the 70s after fixing civil rights. A few Republican administrations rewarded their constituents with half taxes on income from wealth and took the shortfall out on taxing income from work.

How bright is that? Reward being wealthy, punish working which creates wealth.

Now the latest GOP boondoggle. Health care as an entitlement for wealth. Maintaining the most expensive health care system by far in the world and only covering the wealthy half of the nation. It would be tough to find a less efficient, less effective non system.

So your pitiful whining that you shouldn't have to work hard, but are entitled to wealth, is falling on increasingly deaf ears based on real data about this country.

If you think that you have it hard now, try poverty.

 

[PMZ]

The thread title does not end with a question mark but I assume it is, nevertheless, an enquiry.

Many 'deny' AGW because they are immune to hysterical propaganda. Some - me for example - have a world view based on science and are revolted by its perversion. Many more are worldly wise and can recognise charlatans on the make.



Warmists 'computer models' and false data have comprehensively demolished . Only defenders of the faith, impervious to evidence or reason, remain.

Let's see. We have a global organization with unfettered access to the best climate science in the world vs Fox News bought and paid for by those heavily profiting from the status quo.

You're hooked on the Fox News story because they agree with what you wish was true.

That’s a pretty easy and obvious choice for me. And the reason why you spend so much time trashing science.

Science always trumps politics.

I have never seen or heard 'Fox News'. I have a good layman's understanding of scientific method. I am a rationalist and science is the light I live by. Which is, of course, why I am so dismayed by the perversion of science by warmist charlatans. They have over decades cherry-picked data and when that proved insufficient simply invented it. It is they who spread alarmism for political reason. You say "Science always trumps politics". Let us hope that that turns out to be the case.

If you were anything like you claim to be, you'd be demanding science and evidence based action in the face of completely unaffordable consequences of doing nothing about energy.

You say you don't even have the excuse of being misled by Fox. Does that imply that you are a self made moron?

Like most deniers you look around and notice that your grass is green today so, what's the problem?

What you're really doing is hoping that someone else will take care of you as the problem unfolds and solutions get put in place. Unfortunately, as almost always happens, the problem solvers will take care of the problem creators. If mankind could fix that there would be a lot fewer problem creators and a lot more problem solvers.

 

[PMZ]

Appeal to Authority.

Appeal to experts. Those who know. The alternative being following those who don't know. Where's that going to get you? That’s the process that makes conservatives.

As I demonstrated earlier, an appeal to "experts" is still an appeal to authority and a logical fallacy. As history shows so abundantly, the experts can be dead wrong, especially government experts.

The alternative is to way the evidence presented. That's something any well educated person is capable of. Only a servile drone allows the government to tell him what to think. The bottom line is that a free country cannot survive populated with servile brainwashed toadies like you. Your kind are what allow men like Hitler, Stalin and Roosevelt to come to power.

Obviously, you are comfortable continuing to follow those who don't know what they're doing. Feel free to carry on.

Me, I'm going to continue to live in the highly specialized 21st century culture, whereby we take advantage of the people who know best how to solve particular problems.

 

[SSDD]

I read about the National Science Foundation's opinion. You are almost completely misrepresenting it.

Typically uninformed regarding your priest:

The NAS indicated that the hockey stick method systematically underestimated the uncertainties in the data (p. 107).

The NAS agreed with the M&M assertion that the hockey stick had no statistical significance, and was no more informative about the distant past than a table of random numbers. The NAS found that Mann's methods had no validation (CE) skill significantly different from zero. In the past, however, it has always been claimed that the method has a significant nonzero validation skill. Methods without a validation skill are usually considered useless. Mann’s data set does not have enough information to verify its ‘skill’ at resolving the past, and has such wide uncertainty bounds as to be no better than the simple mean of the data (p. 91). M&M said that the appearance of significance was created by ignoring all but one type of test score, thereby failing to quantify all the relevant uncertainties. The NAS agreed (p. 110), but, again, did so in subtle wording.

M&M argued that the hockey stick relied for its shape on the inclusion of a small set of invalid proxy data (called bristlecone, or “strip-bark” records). If they are removed, the conclusion that the 20th century is unusually warm compared to the pre-1450 interval is reversed. Hence the conclusion of unique late 20th century warmth is not robust—in other word it does not hold up under minor variations in data or methods. The NAS panel agreed, saying Mann’s results are “strongly dependent” on the strip-bark data (pp. 106-107), and they went further, warning that strip-bark data should not be used in this type of research (p. 50).

The NAS said " Mann et al. used a type of principal component analysis that tends to bias the shape of the reconstructions", i.e. produce hockey sticks from baseball statistics, telephone book numbers, and monte carlo random numbers.

The NAS said Mann downplayed the "uncertainties of the published reconstructions...Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that ‘the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium.’

A subsequent House Energy and Commerce Committee report chaired by Edward Wegman totally destroyed the credibility of the ‘hockey stick’ and ripped apart Mann’s methodology as ‘bad mathematics’. When Gerald North, the chairman of the NAS panel -- which Mann claims ‘vindicated him’ – was asked at the House Committee hearings whether or not they agreed with Wegman’s harsh criticisms, he said they did:

CHAIRMAN BARTON: Dr. North, do you dispute the conclusions or the methodology of Dr. Wegman’s report?

DR. NORTH [Head of the NAS panel]: No, we don’t. We don’t disagree with their criticism. In fact, pretty much the same thing is said in our report.

DR. BLOOMFIELD [Head of the Royal Statistical Society]: Our committee reviewed the methodology used by Dr. Mann and his co-workers and we felt that some of the choices they made were inappropriate. We had much the same misgivings about his work that was documented at much greater length by Dr. Wegman.

WALLACE [of the American Statistical Association]: ‘the two reports [Wegman's and NAS] were complementary, and to the extent that they overlapped, the conclusions were quite consistent.’