On the one hand, well-known climate scientist James Hansen demonstrates the effect of correcting the recently-discovered flaws in NASA's U.S. temperature database:
On the other hand, global warming is clearly still a complete fiction.
What to think, what to think ...
9 comments:
For these guys, science is only tool if they can spin it to conveniently make it say what they want. Otherwise its a socialist conspiracy don't ya know...
This lunacy about correcting a mistake...it all fits into the same pattern we've come to expect. Admitting a mistake, any mistake, even if to make a correction, is seen as a bad thing. It's pure immaturity combined with religious thinking.
These complaints are coming from the same people that call people flip-floppers when they learn something, and change their minds. Most important to them is the frighteningly delusional concept that you haven't made a mistake unless you admit to it (see : Iraq War, Afghanistan war, religion, being caught saying two directly contradictory things). They can create their own reality just by wishing really hard. That's their story, and they're sticking to it.
Ok...so can we know start thinking about re-education camps? Seriously, there is going to have to be some remediation down the road because these people are dangerous.
...bah. Who knows? Maybe they'll just all decide to shut up at one point and let the adults run things again.
It is hilarious to watch you all stamp your little feet and sputter, working yourselves into a fit of righteous indignation at the temerity of this woman to mock your toadying obeisance to your chosen priesthood. How dare she!!
She does not denigrate science, she scoffs at your close-minded belief that the verdict is irrefutable, taking shameless delight in showing examples one after the other of sloppy methodology. In your zeal to compete with one another for the honour of bowing lowest before your masters, you are incapable of mustering a coherent counter-argument, relying instead upon the blathering shouts of the herd. You cannot even see that she does you a great service by revealing that some of your idols have feet of clay.
If you truly sought the truth, you would be more cautious before deciding that there was no more to learn. science has nothing to fear from the light of day: true practitioners are always willing to have their work held up to scrutiny, for such examination only makes them better.
FR, if you're going to characterise the prevailing science as a "priesthood", you're going to have to back that up.
Where does the scientific community claim that the current "verdict" on climate change is irrefutable?
Where has the scientific community claimed that "there [is] no more to learn"?
You've thrown a few straw men out here, and what Kate is adding hardly qualifies as "scrutiny". If you want to actually defend Kate, you'd better pony up with somewhere where she's right about global climate change and the scientific community is wrong.
Oh, wait, there they were, wrong again. Even their own computer models of arctic ice reductions can't be melted. Silly scientists, always clinging to their irrefutable verdicts and claiming there's nothing more to learn.
Here's how it works:
The flock at CC's place believes what they believe about climate.
Kate at SDA mocks people who think what they think at CC.
Flock at CC fume and sputter, maybe call her bad names and stuff like that.
I notice, and laugh my bag off at the comedy of it all. I make a comment to that effect.
m@ reads my comment and says I build straw men and impugn the integrity of scientists. m@ says this because of poor reading skills: pronouns apparently give m@ trouble, as do subject and predicate. m@ needs to re-read my comment and see if he can figure out what I was actually saying, because he wasted some valuable time replying to me and getting it all wrong.
"If you want to actually defend Kate, you'd better pony up with somewhere where she's right about global climate change and the scientific community is wrong."
I did not say that the scientific community is wrong; I did not say that Kate is right; I did not even say that she offers an opinion on climate. I said that I find it hilarious how worked up you guys get when she pokes shit at your idols, your "priesthood", and their stuff. I used the word "priesthood" because the flock at CC behave like "climate change" is their religion. Ooooh, the fervour.
"..and what Kate is adding hardly qualifies as "scrutiny".
As for this gem, if you're okay with dismissing example after example of comically inept methodology, and are willing to carry on without question, then I'd say that the whole "priesthood-flock-fervour" thing is right on the money where you are concerned.
Right, right. You can sit on the sidelines and laugh and point at the silly people who rant and rave. How brave -- you're such a hero.
So from your, presumably, extremely not-inept methodology, perhaps you'd like to tell us about your own position on global change is. I don't recall you giving one. What does your superior, bemused intelligence tell you?
m@, I am not a climate-change expert, as I suspect is also the case with you. I am just a guy who hears and sees two sides arguing with each other, not debating or discussing. That the climate is changing seems obvious; I've got windows at my house, too. What is not so apparent is why it is changing. The people behind the Al Gore side ( relax, it's just a way to identify them quickly ) present many convincing arguments in support of their position. So do, in my opinion, those who see it differently. As a layman who will be asked to pay for the required changes, all I want is for the people who are supposed to know this stuff to get their act together. Going public with data that is flawed, putting sensing equipment in asinine places, and being secretive about your computer modelling methods is not conducive to reassuring the public that you are being truthful...or competent. On the other hand, the majority of scientists work behind the scenes, so I don't take anything I read or hear as gospel. I suppose that is really my point in a nutshell: neither side has convinced me that they don't have an axe to grind, so I remain on the sidelines.
I don't know about you, m@, but when I am going to have to pay for something, I want to be reasonably sure that the money is necessary and is going to be spent wisely. Lord knows that such is not always the case.
FR, yes, it seems we always end up on the same side in these things. I agree that it's worth being skeptical. But the quality of the skepticism on the GCC deniers is pretty low, and the quality of both the data and the conclusions on the GCC side is very high.
First, on the side where the data is collected and analysed, there is a stunning amount of agreement, from a wide number of disciplines, worldwide. To deny the conclusions requires evidence on that level -- pictures of temperature stations in tall grass don't fit the bill.
Second, the stuff that the media chooses to highlight does not necessarily reflect the work that's being done, because media coverage is typically sensationalistic and science-illiterate (or near to it). It does pay to try to educate yourself, and I've spent time with that. I was a GCC skeptic until I did. That doesn't mean everyone must make the same conclusion, but it tells me that the prevailing public perception may be missing a lot of what the GCC group is saying.
Third, it is pragmatic and economically prudent to anticipate these changes and do whatever we can to mitigate them. If we're apparently going to have to pay so much in the future for our actions today, it's worth looking at what we can do about it, now, today, isn't it?
So my position is, if you're going to criticise the prevailing knowledge of the scientific community, you'd better have a damned good reason.
LOL OMG Tim Ball r0XX0r climatologists suXX0r is what Kate and her ilk are adding to the conversation, and it's a waste of everyone's time and energy.
Post a Comment