Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Party Rooster, Sep 4, 2011.
Interesting that they neither point out what about the paper was wrong, or how exactly it was refuted.
Yup. Not an attack peace at all.
there is more science in midichlorians than there is in "global warming" and "green jobs"
Finally found something more predictable than the weather!
Are you referring to the fact that the climate industry will always find in favor of the climate industry?
No, he's referring to the fact the Cousin Dave goes out of his way to say the dumbest things possible. I'm starting to think it's a bit. At least for his sake.
If I were to show you a tobacco industry study showing that cigarettes do not cause cancer, you'd fucking laugh in my face. Yet here come the people who make billions of Dollars and gain enormous amounts of power because of so-called manmade Global Warming, and tell you that Global Warming is manmade, and yet you don't laugh in their faces (not you specifically, but society as a whole). That is simply beyond me.
No, I'm referring to the fact that the guy that resigned admitted it was flawed based on scientific principles yet we're not even discussing the science of it. And don't think for a minute this Dr. Roy Spencer isn't making his living pushing his agenda out to whoever will buy his books or listen to him speak just like you think every single climatologist is.
Gee... I wonder why? Oh, yeah.
Apparently not referencing relevant research is a big no-no in the scientific community.
Also, the three people the two scientists had that did "preliminary" peer review were known GW skeptics. The proper way is to divide it up amongst skeptics and proponents and compare criticisms. Not even saying they may not even be right on some of their findings, but the way they published it should make you ask questions, no? You wouldn't if it was the other way around?
I don't know enough about the actual FACTS. You are quoting from the same article that mentioned this guy was a Christian and right-wing. They devote half the article to discuss the "common tactic" of publishing in a magazine that doesn't routinely deal with climate change, yet only half a sentence to the actual problems in the study. That just strikes me as suspicious.
But the fact that he couldn't get a publication that knows something about the topic to publish his paper doesn't strike you as suspicious?
Too bad you didn't reserve a bit of that suspicion for the rest of the article. :icon_cool
Not particularly because a) We don't actually know that he tried and was turned down and b) because publications routinely dealing with climate change are very "party line" because the only people who read them are green freaks, which could have influenced his decision to go to an "off-topic" publication in the first place. Besides, they call it off-topic, but this is a study that deals with clouds, published in a magazine about scientific observations made from space. I fail to see how those two are not related, since he undoubtedly gathered some of his data from satellite photos or sensors.
I actually tried, but the Googles are just flooded with the this whole resignation bullshit and not the actual science. And every link I post I'm sure can be matched with someone who can make the same points for the other side. Was going to post this, but it's a bit technical (and yes, biased):
I REALLY tried to understand that, but failed miserably. The science is just too esoteric, and he makes a few statements that I don't know if are widely accepted or not, or even proven.
EDIT: Just one more point - I think my ire at this whole global warming stuff is that even if humans are causing global warming, it is mostly Chinese and Indian humans who are doing it, yet it is routinely used to, once again, bash America. We need to tighten our carbon belts so China and India can pump all the coal smoke they want into the atmosphere. Once social justice and shit like that invade the science, it makes me suspicious of the entire thing.
I was curious so I looked for some of the "comparable papers that have been refuted" and why they were refuted. Found this-
It makes a lot of points but the most interesting sounding part of the point they lead off with was "They didn’t provide an objective criterion for selecting these endpoints and in some instances (see their Fig. 1), the selection of these intervals actually appears to be quite odd. ... So with this method the perceived feedback can be whatever one wishes it to be, and the result obtained by LC09 is actually very unlikely. This is not then really indicative of a robust cloud feedback."
OK, sounds pretty bad. But is that what happened with the new paper, the one that caused the resignation? Sounds like a stretch to say that just because the conclusion was similar to that of a different paper that cherry-picked data, it must be wrong.
Edit: took me a while and it looks like partycock did something similar.
Edit 2: or not ... anyway...
Just for the record, one of the guys who wrote the refutation article partycock posted was an employee of the IPCC. If that doesn't strike you as odd, I have a Phillip-Morris oncologist to recommend to you. Just browsing that site casually, I can tell that it isn't a site devoted to science. It is a site devoted to affirming manmade Global Warming. That doesn't mean they lie to achieve it, but I can find zero articles on there supporting the opposing opinion, and I highly doubt that every single study disputing manmade global warming is false, and every single study affirming it is true.
Typical Israeli, attacking peace even in a topic totally unrelated to the situation in the Middle East.
Anthropomorphic global warming has nothing to do with science and everything to do with restricting liberties. Once you understand that basic truth, none of this stuff is surprising.
My take on it is that it's a certain type of person's ultimate Bond-villain wet dream.
"See? We always told you that the capitalists were evil and would destroy the earth for profit. Now do you finally believe us? Now can we finally get the pat on the back we've been craving?"
Big surprise that the environmental scientists - many of which I'm sure are good scientists but a disproportionate amount had to declare a major at ONE point or another, and what kind of person do you think they were before they did so - happen to side with the conclusion that paints capitalists as evil.
(you did say anthropomorphic sarcastically ... right)
Let's not forget that the more people these "scientists" can scare, the more funding they get. Don't rule out plain old greed.
What liberties? I liked the argument better when it was about green companies politicizing the debate to make money.