With all due respect:
1) ‘Science’ will have to re – establish its credibility. ‘Science’ has become a religion with many of the ugly traits of Islam – purports to be the only allowable religion, purports to be the sole source of truth, has a rigid hierarchy where merit takes a back seat to political correctness*, etc,
2) a quick scan of the map of the US purporting to show pollution at sites across the US indicates most of the sites have either poor air quality or serious error in their data or both. I was unable to quickly find a definition of terms. The ‘Odd sights’ was interesting and is the exception that proves the following:
3) This site simply reeks of “Razzle Dazzle” – simply dazzle them with facts – and your point, no matter how shaky the ground it’s rooted on, is hammered home solid. This is what stock brokers do in the financial world and nobody is buying it for now – Derivatives? they’ve got a solid mathematical foundation that snows even ‘experts’. No thoughtful person should buy such crap from ‘Scientists’ any more.
4) In all things in the real world let us not forget:
a) How small inaccuracies in initial conditions can cause huge deviations in short orders of time in even the most well – contrived mathematical models of actual physical systems
b) Most if not all actual physical systems are non linear and characterized by chaos – beyond the reach of mathematics and modeling of any kind.
Science is extremely limited both in its powers of observation and in its predictive abilities. Humility is called for, not what comes forth currently – see 5)
5) ‘Science’ has, IMHO, transitioned to a place where self promotion trumps content and purpose. It’s all about grant money and tenure*… and looking good: firm handshakes and the like.
There – now shoot the messenger. But those of you wedded to science should at least reflect on my points. Elites in all branches of life are under fire whether they choose to see it or not. It’s way past time for Change; I can only Hope.
* Read Lee Smolin’s “The Trouble With Physics”. Even my beloved Physics is badly tainted.
Science is only as good as it’s methodology. In this case, the methodology (in this case, the data gathering) is being called into question.
And with good reason. 2/3rds of sites are less than 10 meters from an artificial heat source.
Do you guys even have the sense to wash your hands after you take a shit? Or do you believe that all this stuff about “little bugs” making us sick is just a con set up by researchers looking for grant money?
Do you guys even have the sense to wash your hands after you take a shit? Or do you believe that all this stuff about “little bugs” making us sick is just a con set up by researchers looking for grant money?
Posted by: John
…………………………….
Is Louis Pasteur involved in promoting AGW, or is this simply (another) Straw Man non sequitur?
“Is Louis Pasteur involved in promoting AGW, or is this simply (another) Straw Man non sequitur?”
I’m pointing out how conservatives (countless millions of whom also believe that a sky ghost created the earth in its present form 6000 years ago), resist adopting scientific knowledge, at their own risk.
At least give up on the belief that the earth isn’t getting warmer, when it so clearly is. (Melting permafrost, and glaciers, invasive species moving further north)
Just try and continue that it has nothing to do with humans pumping countless billions of tonnes of a known greenhouse gas into the atmosphere.
In other words, it was another straw man non sequitur.
In case you missed it, “John”, that was your cue to either clean up your act or take a hike.
So basically what you are saying is that the tone taken by those commenting shouldn’t in any way be as disrespectful as your posts?
Roger that. I guess I should stick to making racist comments about Arabs if I don’t want to get in trouble.
John – Are you obtuse or just obnoxious?
A little of both, but what does that have to do with anything I’ve said here?
Have you actually ever read this blog, or the comments?
Ok John here is some info for you.The top graph shows that reno nevada has a heat island effect of between 6 and 9 degrees farenheit.Now nasa and giss have allowed for this problem in calculating accurate temperatures by lowering their estimates of what the real temp is by .05 degree while the actual adjustment should be much larger bet ween 1 half and 1 degree.What the people at this and many other sceptical sights are worried about is the bad science that is being used to promote the alarmist agenda!
John,
The difference is that you can run an experiment to prove that “bugs” cause disease, but why bother? It’s been done. Climate models have not been experimentally verified. They create scenarios, not predictions, and none of the scenarios seems to have panned out and the data sucks.
I don’t know why I bother with you though, I bet you can’t even paraphrase the argument, even if you disagree with it, which discredits the hockey stick. I would love to hear you express the objection in your own words, and then explain why the objection is wrong. If you could do that one thing, WHICH YOU CAN”T, it would go a long way towards raising your credibility.
Note to others, John, don’t read this:
John will either post a fusillade of rhetorical questions, or other flourishes after rejecting the argument without answering it.
He will say he is “too tired” or it “isn’t worth his time” to answer the question.
He will slink away and keep his powder dry.
He will post a link to some other site and tell us that the answers are all there, but he won’t bother to put the answers in his own words, thus showing us what he thinks is important and placing it in the context of our question, showing he has mastered the material.
He will cut and paste some huge section from somewhere, and follow the quote with a rhetorical question.
He may attack my grammar which sucks.
What he WILL NOT DO is demonstrate any knowledge whatsoever of the objections to the Hockey Stick.
How are Gore and Suzuki going to stop that volcano in Tonga from spewing more ash and gas into the atmosphere?
Carbon tax the thing?
I’m sure the UN is picking the most profitable tax source right at this moment Bruce…
This is how it’s done. Every year a meeting is held which members of all the ‘Learned Societies’ attend. They are presented with a ballot covering every known scientific theory and they vote. Any theory which receives more than 50% of the votes is accepted by all members as ‘fact’, until the next meeting, a year later, when they get to vote again. I don’t see where the confusion arises. It all seems very straightforward to me. Membership in the ‘Learned Societies’ is restricted to those persons who can correctly pronounce the word ‘nuclear’.
/s
With all due respect:
1) ‘Science’ will have to re – establish its credibility. ‘Science’ has become a religion with many of the ugly traits of Islam – purports to be the only allowable religion, purports to be the sole source of truth, has a rigid hierarchy where merit takes a back seat to political correctness*, etc,
2) a quick scan of the map of the US purporting to show pollution at sites across the US indicates most of the sites have either poor air quality or serious error in their data or both. I was unable to quickly find a definition of terms. The ‘Odd sights’ was interesting and is the exception that proves the following:
3) This site simply reeks of “Razzle Dazzle” – simply dazzle them with facts – and your point, no matter how shaky the ground it’s rooted on, is hammered home solid. This is what stock brokers do in the financial world and nobody is buying it for now – Derivatives? they’ve got a solid mathematical foundation that snows even ‘experts’. No thoughtful person should buy such crap from ‘Scientists’ any more.
4) In all things in the real world let us not forget:
a) How small inaccuracies in initial conditions can cause huge deviations in short orders of time in even the most well – contrived mathematical models of actual physical systems
b) Most if not all actual physical systems are non linear and characterized by chaos – beyond the reach of mathematics and modeling of any kind.
Science is extremely limited both in its powers of observation and in its predictive abilities. Humility is called for, not what comes forth currently – see 5)
5) ‘Science’ has, IMHO, transitioned to a place where self promotion trumps content and purpose. It’s all about grant money and tenure*… and looking good: firm handshakes and the like.
There – now shoot the messenger. But those of you wedded to science should at least reflect on my points. Elites in all branches of life are under fire whether they choose to see it or not. It’s way past time for Change; I can only Hope.
* Read Lee Smolin’s “The Trouble With Physics”. Even my beloved Physics is badly tainted.
Science is only as good as it’s methodology. In this case, the methodology (in this case, the data gathering) is being called into question.
And with good reason. 2/3rds of sites are less than 10 meters from an artificial heat source.
Do you guys even have the sense to wash your hands after you take a shit? Or do you believe that all this stuff about “little bugs” making us sick is just a con set up by researchers looking for grant money?
Do you guys even have the sense to wash your hands after you take a shit? Or do you believe that all this stuff about “little bugs” making us sick is just a con set up by researchers looking for grant money?
Posted by: John
…………………………….
Is Louis Pasteur involved in promoting AGW, or is this simply (another) Straw Man non sequitur?
The gaps in the science are presumably the reason for Hanson’s latest lunatic’s pronouncement…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/mar/18/nasa-climate-change-james-hansen
Leading climate scientist: ‘democratic process isn’t working’
“Is Louis Pasteur involved in promoting AGW, or is this simply (another) Straw Man non sequitur?”
I’m pointing out how conservatives (countless millions of whom also believe that a sky ghost created the earth in its present form 6000 years ago), resist adopting scientific knowledge, at their own risk.
At least give up on the belief that the earth isn’t getting warmer, when it so clearly is. (Melting permafrost, and glaciers, invasive species moving further north)
Just try and continue that it has nothing to do with humans pumping countless billions of tonnes of a known greenhouse gas into the atmosphere.
In other words, it was another straw man non sequitur.
In case you missed it, “John”, that was your cue to either clean up your act or take a hike.
So basically what you are saying is that the tone taken by those commenting shouldn’t in any way be as disrespectful as your posts?
Roger that. I guess I should stick to making racist comments about Arabs if I don’t want to get in trouble.
John – Are you obtuse or just obnoxious?
A little of both, but what does that have to do with anything I’ve said here?
Have you actually ever read this blog, or the comments?
Ok John here is some info for you.The top graph shows that reno nevada has a heat island effect of between 6 and 9 degrees farenheit.Now nasa and giss have allowed for this problem in calculating accurate temperatures by lowering their estimates of what the real temp is by .05 degree while the actual adjustment should be much larger bet ween 1 half and 1 degree.What the people at this and many other sceptical sights are worried about is the bad science that is being used to promote the alarmist agenda!
John,
The difference is that you can run an experiment to prove that “bugs” cause disease, but why bother? It’s been done. Climate models have not been experimentally verified. They create scenarios, not predictions, and none of the scenarios seems to have panned out and the data sucks.
I don’t know why I bother with you though, I bet you can’t even paraphrase the argument, even if you disagree with it, which discredits the hockey stick. I would love to hear you express the objection in your own words, and then explain why the objection is wrong. If you could do that one thing, WHICH YOU CAN”T, it would go a long way towards raising your credibility.
Note to others, John, don’t read this:
John will either post a fusillade of rhetorical questions, or other flourishes after rejecting the argument without answering it.
He will say he is “too tired” or it “isn’t worth his time” to answer the question.
He will slink away and keep his powder dry.
He will post a link to some other site and tell us that the answers are all there, but he won’t bother to put the answers in his own words, thus showing us what he thinks is important and placing it in the context of our question, showing he has mastered the material.
He will cut and paste some huge section from somewhere, and follow the quote with a rhetorical question.
He may attack my grammar which sucks.
What he WILL NOT DO is demonstrate any knowledge whatsoever of the objections to the Hockey Stick.
How are Gore and Suzuki going to stop that volcano in Tonga from spewing more ash and gas into the atmosphere?
Carbon tax the thing?
I’m sure the UN is picking the most profitable tax source right at this moment Bruce…
This is how it’s done. Every year a meeting is held which members of all the ‘Learned Societies’ attend. They are presented with a ballot covering every known scientific theory and they vote. Any theory which receives more than 50% of the votes is accepted by all members as ‘fact’, until the next meeting, a year later, when they get to vote again. I don’t see where the confusion arises. It all seems very straightforward to me. Membership in the ‘Learned Societies’ is restricted to those persons who can correctly pronounce the word ‘nuclear’.
/s