waldo Posted February 5, 2012 Report Posted February 5, 2012 Maybe Waldo but you haven't given me reason to change my opinion. Frankly, it looks to me like some people today are trying to rewrite history to support their present premises. as I applied a few MLW searches looking back at past occurrences where the 70s global cooling myth was discussed, you appear prominently in those discussions having resurrected the "myth" several times in the past. You sir, are a MLW serial disinformer. what is your intent? What is the intent of anyone who repeatedly flogs this nonsense? The premise, your premise, seems to suggest that, as was stated earlier by your like-minded GostHacked, "They got it wrong, then, they could still have it wrong". Of course, through all of your personal disinformation campaign in this 70s global cooling myth regard, you have yet to provide any scientific foundation/theory that supported it... you have yet to provide anything to suggest the myth was more than a fringe view within the scientific community. Alternatively, you choose to ignore, to deny, the overwhelming decades+ scientific evidence that supports CC/AGW... in favour of a long past mythical media driven fantasy that you/others perpetuate simply to appease your personal denial in regards to the more current decades+ accelerated global warming and it's foundation/cause. Quote
GostHacked Posted February 5, 2012 Report Posted February 5, 2012 This is all in response to my understanding of what we're talking about - the popularity of the topic. Global Warming is more popular hands down... You might even call it a trend! Trends come and go. Never in my lifetime did I think I would see it where twice, bell-bottoms would be popular. Quote
TimG Posted February 5, 2012 Report Posted February 5, 2012 TimG, you are a text book example of someone who ignores denies science as a means to push your ideologically driven agenda instead of a vehicle to learn about how the world works.Gee. I understand and accept the uncertainties and biases that are inherent in the scientific process. I can separate hypotheses which are loosely supported by ambiguous data from actual scientific truths. You, on the other, evaluate science entirely on whether it supports your ideology. If it does then you insist it represents an unassailable "truth" - if it does not you dismiss a nonsense and hurl ad homs at the people who produced it or quote it. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted February 5, 2012 Report Posted February 5, 2012 Basically if comes down to a question of whether a group of politicians/activists decide that they can use a particular scientific notion for political gain. Meeting to decide whether they can perpetrate a hoax like this - it crosses the line from the 'group think' theory into the Star Chamber conspiracy theory realm. If they can, they ensure funding is provided to promote that scientific notion. Scientists that want that funding and then motivated to provide research that attracts even more funding. This did not happen with the ice age scare but it has happened with CO2 scare. Why not ? Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
Michael Hardner Posted February 5, 2012 Report Posted February 5, 2012 what is your intent? ... The premise, your premise, seems to suggest that, as was stated earlier by your like-minded GostHacked, "They got it wrong, then, they could still have it wrong". What I discovered on this thread, after months of talking about this, is that WB is referring to the popularity of these ideas in the public mindset. Waldo, you have it right by asking him a question, but let Wild Bill explain the premise to us. Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
TimG Posted February 5, 2012 Report Posted February 5, 2012 (edited) Meeting to decide whether they can perpetrate a hoax like this - it crosses the line from the 'group think' theory into the Star Chamber conspiracy theory realm.Please re-read what I wrote a few times. Nothing in what I said implies a co-ordinated meetings or such nonsense. Nor did I suggest there was any hoax. I simply stated the fact that when people want something they will work to set it happen. They will seek out allies that can help them convince others of the "truth" that they want to believe in. What I am also saying is reality is pliable. Ambiguous results can be pushed in one direction or the other depending on the motivation of the researcher. There are obviously limits on how far sceintific results can be manipulated without actual fraud but we are only talking about a difference between CO2 induced warming being presented as imminent threat requiring drastic action vs a manageable change. The data is indeed pliable enough to allow the results to be skewed one way or the other without the need to actually resort to what we would call fraud.Why not ?Gave you the answer: there was no critical mass of people that could benefit politically. Edited February 5, 2012 by TimG Quote
Michael Hardner Posted February 5, 2012 Report Posted February 5, 2012 Please re-read what I wrote a few times. Nothing in what I said implies a co-ordinated meetings or such nonsense. Your quote: "Basically if comes down to a question of whether a group of politicians/activists decide that they can use a particular scientific notion for political gain." A group ... deciding ... Can you see how I came to my conclusion. Edited to add: Gave you the answer: there was no critical mass of people that could benefit politically. Why not ? Couldn't they fabricate a theory around cooling and stick it to corporate America somehow anyway ? Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
TimG Posted February 5, 2012 Report Posted February 5, 2012 Can you see how I came to my conclusion.Only because you were determined to read such a meaning when there was none. I could have said, the iPhone is successful because a large group of consumers decided that it met their needs. You would never interpret that statement to imply that there was some organized meeting of consumers to anoint Apple as its supplier. You would correctly understand that the group decision is this case was referring to the collective of individual decisions that had a macroscopic effect.Yet you did not do that with my statement because you are obsessed with looking for conspiracy theories when there are none. I suspect it is because you want to give yourself permission to dismiss sceptical arguments and the easiest way to do that is to dismiss them as conspiracy theories instead of trying to understand them. Quote
waldo Posted February 5, 2012 Report Posted February 5, 2012 Waldo, you are a text book example of someone who sees science as a means to push your ideologically driven agenda instead of a vehicle to learn about how the world works. TimG, you are a text book example of someone who ignores denies science as a means to push your ideologically driven agenda instead of a vehicle to learn about how the world works. Gee. I understand and accept the uncertainties and biases that are inherent in the scientific process. bull you do! Your favourite game has been to use those expressly identified uncertainties/caveats as a means to denigrate scientists... labeling the results your ideological bent won't/can't accept, as guesswork/hocum/manipulated/fabricated, labeling the science "pseudo-science". Would you like me to quote some of your past gems in this regard? I can separate hypotheses which are loosely supported by ambiguous data from actual scientific truths. yes, clearly... you're a "truth-teller"! Most particularly when your version of the "truth" feeds your personal denial premise that holds to themes of conspiracy, group think, ideological bias, confirmation bias, job protection, fraud, data manipulation, peer-review corruption, etc., etc., etc. You, on the other, evaluate science entirely on whether it supports your ideology. If it does then you insist it represents an unassailable "truth" - if it does not you dismiss a nonsense and hurl ad homs at the people who produced it or quote it. no, clearly I evaluate science based on it's prevailing position within the collective scientific community. Quite obviously you and I are not climate scientists; my recourse is to attempt to educate myself to a level that allows me to interpret and leverage the consensus science, the prevailing science, by relying upon the knowledge base and experts that represent that consensus. Your recourse is to troll the denialsphere for unsupported fringe science as expressed by, at best, charlatans... at worst, industry fueled serial misinformers. Whenever you are confronted with actual science that you can't refute, you resort to your clown act: see you spreading your "truth" that feeds your personal denial of the consensus science... see you resorting to relentless ad hom attacks that hold to themes of conspiracy, group think, ideological bias, confirmation bias, job protection, fraud, data manipulation, peer-review corruption, etc., etc., etc. Quote
waldo Posted February 5, 2012 Report Posted February 5, 2012 There are obviously limits on how far sceintific results can be manipulated without actual fraud but we are only talking about a difference between CO2 induced warming being presented as imminent threat requiring drastic action vs a manageable change. The data is indeed pliable enough to allow the results to be skewed one way or the other without the need to actually resort to what we would call fraud. no - clearly, the problem with your failed position on climate sensitivity, the one you echo from the "low-ballers", is that their data/methodology/process does not support the low-balling. Of course, we're now out of the realm of the fringe of the fringe because, quite obviously, to presume on climate sensitivity one must accept today's warming. This is how we quite easily separate out the Shady's and the Keepitsimple's and the GostHacked's and the Wild Bill's... you know, those guys who are still wandering and spinning around out there denying actual warming. speaking of... Shady, do the right thing - change this thread title. You can't support it's claim... you can't support the claim of your favourite British tabloid "journalist". Do the right thing Shady! Quote
Wild Bill Posted February 5, 2012 Report Posted February 5, 2012 as I applied a few MLW searches looking back at past occurrences where the 70s global cooling myth was discussed, you appear prominently in those discussions having resurrected the "myth" several times in the past. You sir, are a MLW serial disinformer. what is your intent? What is the intent of anyone who repeatedly flogs this nonsense? The premise, your premise, seems to suggest that, as was stated earlier by your like-minded GostHacked, "They got it wrong, then, they could still have it wrong". Of course, through all of your personal disinformation campaign in this 70s global cooling myth regard, you have yet to provide any scientific foundation/theory that supported it... you have yet to provide anything to suggest the myth was more than a fringe view within the scientific community. Alternatively, you choose to ignore, to deny, the overwhelming decades+ scientific evidence that supports CC/AGW... in favour of a long past mythical media driven fantasy that you/others perpetuate simply to appease your personal denial in regards to the more current decades+ accelerated global warming and it's foundation/cause. You have an incorrect premise, Waldo. That's why you think you see a contradiction in my actions. I simply don't care if you don't believe me! Or anyone else, for that matter. I know what I directly experienced. I am not going to rewrite my own memory because someone like you or anyone else is better at finding foot notes 40 years later! If I go down that path, where does it end? You could then convince me that NOTHING I experience is real! That I need to rely on others more academically versed to TELL me what I should remember! So far, neither you or Michael has given me anything to make me repudiate what I directly experienced for myself. I can understand why YOU don't want to accept it! That's your perogative! If you or Michael did not experience it for yourself then I am in the position of Jody Foster's character in the movie "Contact", where she knows what she experienced but lacks proof. For that reason I will not question the validity of your "proofs", but I will not accept them either. I CANNOT, without denying the validity of my own experience! Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
waldo Posted February 5, 2012 Report Posted February 5, 2012 Wild Bill, notwithstanding it counters the prevailing science of the day, if your personal 70's anecdote gives you solace Quote
Michael Hardner Posted February 5, 2012 Report Posted February 5, 2012 So far, neither you or Michael has given me anything to make me repudiate what I directly experienced for myself. I can understand why YOU don't want to accept it! That's your perogative! If you or Michael did not experience it for yourself then I am in the position of Jody Foster's character in the movie "Contact", where she knows what she experienced but lacks proof. I now understand that you're talking about the popularity of certain theories. Fair enough, but if we accept the premise how does it inform us today ? Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
Wild Bill Posted February 6, 2012 Report Posted February 6, 2012 Wild Bill, notwithstanding it counters the prevailing science of the day, if your personal 70's anecdote gives you solace And I will trade you one Trekker video clip for a Trekker joke! "He's dead, Jim! Quick! You get his tricorder and I'll grab his wallet!" Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
Shady Posted February 8, 2012 Author Report Posted February 8, 2012 Two major defections of AGW. What has set it all off? One of the fathers of Germany’s modern green movement, Professor Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt, a social democrat and green activist, decided to author a climate science skeptical book together with geologist/paleontologist Dr. Sebastian Lüning. Vahrenholt’s skepticism started when he was asked to review an IPCC report on renewable energy. He found hundreds of errors. When he pointed them out, IPCC officials simply brushed them aside. Stunned, he asked himself, “Is this the way they approached the climate assessment reports?”Link Quote
waldo Posted February 8, 2012 Report Posted February 8, 2012 Two major defections of AGW. Shady, do the right thing... change this, your threads title. The claim of one of your stable of disingenuous tabloid writers can't be supported; your accompanying supporting claim, of same, can't be supported. Do the intellectually honest thing Shady... change the thread title. Do the right thing, Shady! Quote
waldo Posted February 8, 2012 Report Posted February 8, 2012 Two major defections of AGW. what does this have to do with your thread Shady... with your failed thread Shady? Do the right thing Shady - change your thread title! and... no - it's not the Sun! The authors of the blog to this following linked article are prominent scientists and proponents of the theory supporting CC/AGW; one of those authors, the author of the article, most certainly has not been hesitant in offering criticism of particular like proponents. A skeptic lacking skepticism: Fritz Vahrenholt It seems that Fritz Vahrenholt and his coauthor Sebastian Lüning have simply cherry-picked – what is what they criticize their opponents for.What we see here is a transformation of an alarmist to a skeptic, who replaces the main message without changing attitudes, methods, claims-making and lack of skepticism against own positions and people, who support the wanted outcome of the analysis. He has not changed in his need to have opponents, or maybe better: enemies. He is a politician, who uses populist methods, and has no idea what science consists of. I consider him and his coauthor as honest people; they really believe what they say, they are seriously and honestly upset about what they see as a conspiracy. Vahrenholt's demand that alternative explanation systems of the observed climate changes and of expected future changes need to be studied, is entirely legitimate; more resources should go into the scientific inquiry about alternative explanations, but they should be studied with the same scrutiny as the greenhouse-gas based explanation, which has been examined carefully by very many different scientists and disciplines. But to present the solar-explanation system as certain truth, is simply irresponsible. What is needed is skepticism, which should not be used as an excuse of not deciding about policies. But I was really surprised, and personally disappointed, when Fritz Vahrenholt referred to the reduced harvest of regional wind energy in recent winters as a surprise and an argument against the reality of man-amde climate change. How could he have believed in a steady increase of windiness in Northern Germany in the early decades of the 21st century because of increasing greenhouse gas levels? Quote
Keepitsimple Posted February 10, 2012 Report Posted February 10, 2012 I think Gobal Warming has lost a good chunk of public support as hundreds have died across Europe as one of the longest and deepest cold spells grips the continent. Quote Back to Basics
waldo Posted February 10, 2012 Report Posted February 10, 2012 I think Gobal Warming has lost a good chunk of public support as hundreds have died across Europe as one of the longest and deepest cold spells grips the continent. just your presumptive self-serving satisfaction that plays off purposeful conflation of weather and climate... by the by, how's your cold Canadian winter playing out for you - not so bad, hey? Shady, do the right thing! Quote
TimG Posted February 10, 2012 Report Posted February 10, 2012 (edited) just your presumptive self-serving satisfaction that plays off purposeful conflation of weather and climate...Yet that is EXACTLY what you do whenever a heatwave or hurricane hits. The shameless hypocrisy of your ilk is why more and more people are getting fed up with the CAGW meme. Edited February 10, 2012 by TimG Quote
waldo Posted February 10, 2012 Report Posted February 10, 2012 Yet that is EXACTLY what you do whenever a heatwave or hurricane hits. The shameless hypocrisy of your ilk is why more and more people are getting fed up with the CAGW meme. no... no it's not. I recall past MLW discussions concerning intensity versus frequency of hurricanes... I've certainly highlighted those studies that speak to increased intensity and acknowledged some uncertainty in regards increased frequency. I take solace in your having to resort to making shyte up - carry on! Quote
Keepitsimple Posted February 11, 2012 Report Posted February 11, 2012 Did I mention I have Waldo on IGNORE? Don't care to read his comments - but I can see he's in there flailing again - no doubt trying to take a defensive position against the continuous drop in public support for catastrophic APG Global Warming. Quote Back to Basics
waldo Posted February 11, 2012 Report Posted February 11, 2012 Did I mention I have Waldo on IGNORE? keep on, keeping on, hey Simple? What's this now... you must be closing in on a dozen or so times you've highlighted you have me on ignore, hey? Of course, as is your way, as is my way... each and every time you keep highlighting you have me on ignore, I am quite content to remind you of your meltdown that cascaded into you throwing the ignore switch... you know, the day I took you to task over your blustering want to, as you related, legislate morality; i.e., to legislate an outright, absolute ban against any/all abortion. Quote
waldo Posted February 11, 2012 Report Posted February 11, 2012 I think Gobal Warming has lost a good chunk of public support as hundreds have died across Europe as one of the longest and deepest cold spells grips the continent. - no doubt trying to take a defensive position against the continuous drop in public support for catastrophic APG Global Warming. Simple, you need to get your head out of your perpetual infatuation with Hackergate/Son-of-Hackergate... the rest of the (thinking) world has moved on now! like I said, Hackergate proved to be a non-issue in the minds of the general public (who even know what it is)... again, absolutely reinforced by the total lack of attention given to it's recent failed spawn, 'son-of-Hackergate'... which got and gets no play (other than in the denialsphere!). Your cited poll is now ~2 years old. Anything more current, say... the Jan,2011 UK ICM poll: Public belief in climate change weathers storm, poll shows - Events of past 18 months have little effect on Britons' opinion, as 83% view climate change as a current or imminent threat Asked if climate change was a current or imminent threat, 83% of Britons agreed, with just 14% saying global warming poses no threat. A large majority of people think that humanity is causing climate change, with 68% agreeing and 24% choosing to blame non-man-made factors, which again is very close to the August 2009 response, with figures of 71% and 23% respectively. Shady... do the right thing! Change your thread title since the crapola of your favoured British tabloid journalist-huckster can't be supported. Do the right thing, Shady! Quote
GostHacked Posted February 12, 2012 Report Posted February 12, 2012 Turns out they were wrong on the Himalayan mountains losing all their ice. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.