Why is climate science political?

[Saigon]

If there is anything in your life that you feel the government should not control, that part of your thinking is Conservative.

This seems to assume that there are only two political options on the spectrum - liberal and coneservative.

We know that there are a good dozen schools of political thought, and why Americans seem to only refer to two is a mystery to me.

 

[Saigon]

Saigon- have you followed the latest back and forth over the Yamal FOI? have you found a way to support the cherry-picking of data that went into a proxy data set that is a significant portion of most or the hockey stick shaped temperature reconstructions?

f

Not particularly - given there are now more than 800 peer reviewed scientific papers available on climate change, focusing on one you seem to have found a problem with seems like learning about a Ford Mustang by examining only the distributor cap.

Secondly, the 'hockey stick' to me was less an accurate scientific statement than an alaogy that the non-science public could easily understand. At that level I thought it was fine.

Taking it too literally never seemed terribly clever to me.

 

[IanC]

being a liberal meant something quite a bit different 50 years ago

Essence of the Liberal Outlook

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Perhaps the essence of the Liberal outlook could be summed up in a new decalogue, not intended to replace the old one but only to supplement it. The Ten Commandments that, as a teacher, I should wish to promulgate, might be set forth as follows:

1. Do not feel absolutely certain of anything.
2. Do not think it worth while to proceed by concealing evidence, for the evidence is sure to come to light.
3. Never try to discourage thinking for you are sure to succeed.
4. When you meet with opposition, even if it should be from your husband or your children, endeavour to overcome it by argument and not by authority, for a victory dependent upon authority is unreal and illusory.
5. Have no respect for the authority of others, for there are always contrary authorities to be found.
6. Do not use power to suppress opinions you think pernicious, for if you do the opinions will suppress you.
7. Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.
8. Find more pleasure in intelligent dissent that in passive agreement, for, if you value intelligence as you should, the former implies a deeper agreement than the latter.
9. Be scrupulously truthful, even if the truth is inconvenient, for it is more inconvenient when you try to conceal it.
10. Do not feel envious of the happiness of those who live in a fool’s paradise, for only a fool will think that it is happiness.
by Bertrand Russell

 

[westwall]

If there is anything in your life that you feel the government should not control, that part of your thinking is Conservative.

This seems to assume that there are only two political options on the spectrum - liberal and coneservative.

We know that there are a good dozen schools of political thought, and why Americans seem to only refer to two is a mystery to me.

There are only two governmental types, collectivist and individualist. You can play any word games you wish but those are your choices. Collectivist governments require the maximum from it's citizens while giving them the least. Individualist governments are the opposite.

A good balance between the two gives the best chance for the largest majority of people to live happily.

 

[westwall]

Saigon- have you followed the latest back and forth over the Yamal FOI? have you found a way to support the cherry-picking of data that went into a proxy data set that is a significant portion of most or the hockey stick shaped temperature reconstructions?

f

Not particularly - given there are now more than 800 peer reviewed scientific papers available on climate change, focusing on one you seem to have found a problem with seems like learning about a Ford Mustang by examining only the distributor cap.

Secondly, the 'hockey stick' to me was less an accurate scientific statement than an alaogy that the non-science public could easily understand. At that level I thought it was fine.

Taking it too literally never seemed terribly clever to me.

The hockey stick is a wonderful example of pseudo science. It is based almost completely on a single tree from a rather large grove of trees. The formula that Mann used was so bad that no matter what number you punch in the result is allways warming and on and on.

It is no analogy, it is pure fraud. Now that the CRU is going to have to release the records that have been requested for years, we will finally be able to determine just how bad the fraud is.

Science is about literalism. More specifically observation and measurement. When one reduces science to a subjective outlook you might just as well be doing ice dancing....the two are then the same in nearly all ways.

 

[Saigon]

Westwall -

And as soon as you have presented a ist of scientific bodies which agree with your position, it might become worth considering.

 

[IanC]

Saigon- I have to agree with westwall that MBH98,99 were pseudoscience. but the worst part was that the climate science community decided to back the obviously flawed papers.

you say it is just 2 papers out of hundreds. I say the Hockey Stick graph was the most important and iconic figure in climate science, ever. in Canada it was sent out to everyone by the govt as proof of global warming and the dire consequences that were being forecast. unfortunately for M. Mann, Steve McIntyre is one of those canadians who received that pamphlet, and so the long saga began.

the data were cherry-picked, the methods were flawed, inconvenient sections were simply deleted. when the data and methods were hidden from inspection, did the scientists and science journals jump in to verify that everything was kosher? no they did not. in fact they hindered and stonewalled as much as possible.

did climate scientists continue to use bristlecone pines and the famous YAD061? of course they did! and Mann sweetened the pot with the upside-down Tiljander cores as well. if you repealed all the temp reconstructions that use those three proxy series then you have nothing left except the old reconstructions that show a large MWP and the LIA. people dont seem to realize how often these bogus data are used in other papers. that is undoubtedly one of the main reasons for not wanting to clean up the whole affair. can you imagine the uproar if 100 papers (low estimate) were yanked from the journals due to toxic data?

enough ranting. I understand how people want to give science and scientists the benefit of the doubt but every area of climate science has festering wounds where someone has fabricated (adjusted) data or simply refused to publish contrary data, and no one seems willing to put things right. Feynman must be spinning in his grave.

 

[code1211]

If there is anything in your life that you feel the government should not control, that part of your thinking is Conservative.

This seems to assume that there are only two political options on the spectrum - liberal and coneservative.

We know that there are a good dozen schools of political thought, and why Americans seem to only refer to two is a mystery to me.

I see political thought not as a single continuum on which all issues can be placed, but rather as a method of thinking to consider how to make a solution to any issue.

So, let's use the most polarizing issue in American Politics: Abortion.

To me, if you favor the free market availability of abortion to all within the confines of today's existing medical frame work, you are a Conservative.

If you favor the interference of government into this by either banning this or forcing organizations to promote it, you are a Liberal.

I think Anarchy is the extreme expression of Conservatism and absolute dictatorial government control and support of all individual action and interaction is the extreme expression of Liberalism.

To the extent that you favor the support or control of government in your life or in the lives of others, that is the extent to which you are a Liberal.

By the extent to which you favor moving to either extreme end of the spectrum, that is the extent to which you are nuts.

 

[code1211]

If there is anything in your life that you feel the government should not control, that part of your thinking is Conservative.

This seems to assume that there are only two political options on the spectrum - liberal and coneservative.

We know that there are a good dozen schools of political thought, and why Americans seem to only refer to two is a mystery to me.

What are those schools of thought? I would think that in all cases, you could apply some measure to gauge the amount of governmental support or control of individual lives contained in these systems and THAT is what defines them as either Conservative or Liberal.

 

[code1211]

Saigon- have you followed the latest back and forth over the Yamal FOI? have you found a way to support the cherry-picking of data that went into a proxy data set that is a significant portion of most or the hockey stick shaped temperature reconstructions?

f

Not particularly - given there are now more than 800 peer reviewed scientific papers available on climate change, focusing on one you seem to have found a problem with seems like learning about a Ford Mustang by examining only the distributor cap.

Secondly, the 'hockey stick' to me was less an accurate scientific statement than an alaogy that the non-science public could easily understand. At that level I thought it was fine.

Taking it too literally never seemed terribly clever to me.

Wow!

You are recommending the dissemination of misleading propaganda from governments to trick the populations into following an agenda that is neither explained nor revealed.

Is this your estimate of the abilities of the population and the role of government?

 

[Saigon]

Code -

Please try to respond to what I post, rather than just make up stories.

I am recommending that you take a look at some of the 800+ latest research papers, none of which have ever stood accused of any kind of shortcuts or junk science, rather than get lost in red herrings.

Keep in mind - not a single scientific body agrees with your position on this topic. Not one.

 

[skookerasbil]

Westwall -

And as soon as you have presented a ist of scientific bodies which agree with your position, it might become worth considering.

Yo Nitz..........its not about the science. Dummy. Its the whole point of the thred ( which I basically locked, obstensibly, a few pages ago ).

The k00ks present volumes of suppossedly irrefutable information and data............BUT ITS NOT MATTERING


If it is.......................

 

[skookerasbil]

New poll says global warming is not a major environmental concern

Kevin UsselmanMay 23, 2012 07:43:55 AM

Canadians are more worried about water, air and land pollution than they are about the planet heating up.

A new survey conducted by Abacus Data for QMI Agency found 55 per cent of Canadians are worried about the pollution of drinking water with river, lake and reservoir pollution not far behind.

The president of the polling firm, David Colleto, tells 660News the survey also shows environmental concerns vary depending on where people live and who they vote for.


New poll says global warming is not a major environmental concern - 660News







And where is "Global Warming" on the list of TOP 20 concerns of Americans?????



DEAD LAST s0ns


Poll: Economy remains Americans' top concern - The Hill's On The Money

But we can always continue this thread of drivel!! Im getting a kick out of it!!

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[code1211]

Code -

Please try to respond to what I post, rather than just make up stories.

I am recommending that you take a look at some of the 800+ latest research papers, none of which have ever stood accused of any kind of shortcuts or junk science, rather than get lost in red herrings.

Keep in mind - not a single scientific body agrees with your position on this topic. Not one.

You say 800? That's terrific. Why are their predictions all wrong? I would have thought that maybe they'd be right if they were all that smart.

However, you said that the use of the Hockey stick was justified because it explained the problem in a way that could be understood by the stupid people in the public.

It was based on flawed science, showed a history that does not exist, distorts the nature and magnitude of the problem and assumes a cause that is not proven.

It is this to which i responded and it is is what you said.

Why are you ignoring the topic?

 

[Saigon]

It is this to which i responded and it is is what you said.

Really?

Can you give me the post number where I said this?

You are recommending the dissemination of misleading propaganda from governments to trick the populations into following an agenda that is neither explained nor revealed.

Stupid, stupid posting from you, Code.

 

[Big Fitz]

Westwall -

And as soon as you have presented a ist of scientific bodies which agree with your position, it might become worth considering.

So for you it's what the establishment says. Right or wrong. You stick with the title, not the facts.

Okay, gotcha. Your credibility is done here.

 

[Saigon]

Fitz -

No, it's nothing to do with any sinister covert 'establishment' - you'll have to do better than that.

Earlier I posted a list of more than 50 scientific bodies from right around the world, and across a huge range of different areas of science - everything from geophysics to biology, from geography to climatlogy.

If you are right and they are wrong, then it only makes sense that a fair number of other scientific bodies would take up your case.

But none do.

So this is a little like consulting 50 different doctors, and then claiming that they are all wrong and you are right, despite the fact no doctors agree with you.

 

[Big Fitz]

Fitz -

No, it's nothing to do with any sinister covert 'establishment' - you'll have to do better than that.

Earlier I posted a list of more than 50 scientific bodies from right around the world, and across a huge range of different areas of science - everything from geophysics to biology, from geography to climatlogy.

If you are right and they are wrong, then it only makes sense that a fair number of other scientific bodies would take up your case.

But none do.

So this is a little like consulting 50 different doctors, and then claiming that they are all wrong and you are right, despite the fact no doctors agree with you.

But you yourself have stated you won't accept evidence from any source regardless of accuracy. Only those who have a title and prestige to your satisfaction.


Others have posted information regarding this. I don't need to. But you need to be not so lazy as to go and look it up. 358 posts is NOT much to look through.

Of course, this assumes you actually WANT your viewpoint challanged, which I seriously doubt. You want the elites to tell you what to think regardless of fact.

I've watched you act like a pet owner teasing their animals with a treat but then yanking it back when they jump up to get it. They'd easily succeed but at the last second, you move it away from their mouth. You've no credibility.

 

[Saigon]

Fitz -

I think the analogy of medicine and doctors is a good one.

Naturally if we feel ill, we think first ourselves what the diagnosis might, and consider some common sense possibilities and solutions.

We may then choose a doctor we trust.

If his diagnosis doesn't fit, we might consult another doctor, perhaps a specialist.

But when 50 doctors all come to a similar conclusion, and there is no real dissenting voice, I tend to go with the 50 doctors.

I've read quite a few studies on particular issues - largely to do with glaciers, desertification and coral reefs, because I have seen evidence of these with my own eyes, so they naturally interest me more.

My conlusion based on those reports and my own observations in places like Spain, Australia, Mozambique and Bangladesh, I think the scientists have got it right.