Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Koch Brothers pay to show global warming is real
Topic Started: Oct 31 2011, 08:01 PM (4,904 Views)
Chris
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Brewster
Nov 1 2011, 05:28 AM
Quote:
 
No one is certain what the causes are. Would you buy a car or a house based on that much uncertainty, I doubt it, so why should we ask the state to spend billions on the politicization of science?

Only the US Right is politicizing science Chris.

And I'm not really asking the state to start spending a few billion on the politicization of science. I'm asking the state to AVOID spending QUADRILLIONS on trying to overcome the devastating effects of Business as Usual.

The US Right is willing to spend any amount of taxpayer dollars just to support their twisted agenda - they keep claiming that they're "conservatives", but this topic alone shows what liars they are.

We know EXACTLY what the causes are.

I could produce (and have produced) Hundreds of articles, all solid science, which show human caused CO2 is the cause of recent warming.

But this graph proves it all in one step:
Posted Image

Temperatures are rising in lockstep with rising CO2 levels.

Until you can find ANY other cause that can match temps as closely, you don't have a fact to stand on.
#1, I'm only repeating ngc's claim we don't know enough.

#2 You claim scientific proof when science proves nothing. All scientific claims are uncertain, tentative, incomplete, probabilistic. Thus my earlier statement about political certainty based on scientific uncertainty.

Moreover "Until you can find ANY other cause that can match temps as closely, you don't have a fact to stand on." equivocates fact and explanation.

#3 From the Curry you ad hom, the fudgification of data is very clear:

Posted Image
Quote:
 
But a report to be published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation includes a graph of world average temperatures over the past ten years, drawn from the BEST project’s data and revealed on its website.

This graph shows that the trend of the last decade is absolutely flat, with no increase at all – though the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have carried on rising relentlessly.

‘This is nowhere near what the climate models were predicting,’ Prof Curry said. ‘Whatever it is that’s going on here, it doesn’t look like it’s being dominated by CO2.

#4 Simple facts, simple logic beats obfuscations hands down.
Edited by Chris, Nov 1 2011, 06:25 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tomdrobin
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
I'm no expert. But, it appears to me the Kochs got double crossed and Chris got spanked.
But, then I must be an ad hom liberal fascist. :tongue:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Brewster
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Quote:
 
Simple facts, simple logic beats obfuscations hands down.

Absolutely true, Chris. too bad you don't really believe it.

Here you are reposting the same crap that was already debunked on post #6.

Simple logic is that Curry cherry picked her data - it's well known that it takes at least 15 years to establish a Climate trend, and the longer the better, as in the BEST graph you posted. But she picked about 10. More to the point, she picked just enough to include the momentary major dip in 2010, then cut it off in a hurry before it rose so dramatically in 2011. She did even worse on the BEST graph, cutting it off in the early 2000's. Smart on her part, because they would totally destroy the nonsense she is trying to spread.

But of course, if you had actually read the entire of the link on #6, you'd already know that.

In the meantime, let's look at BEST's entire graph, from which Curry cut out just the part she wanted to show:
Posted Image

Ignorance isn't always bliss, sometimes it's just dangerous.

And if you continue to believe Deniers like Curry and her obfuscations, that's what you (and the whole world) will face.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jim Miller
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
I thought you were signing off?
Edited by Jim Miller, Nov 1 2011, 01:38 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Brewster
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
You're right, Jim. I was. And I shall.

But when someone posts obvious junk from proven liars and pretends he's quoting "facts and logic", then makes some sort of all-knowing statement about "scientific uncertainty" which proves he knows nothing about how the scientific method works, and uses that double mistake to make condescending remarks based off that nonsense, I get irate.

I apologize.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Chris
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
tomdrobin
Nov 1 2011, 12:51 PM
I'm no expert. But, it appears to me the Kochs got double crossed and Chris got spanked.
But, then I must be an ad hom liberal fascist. :tongue:
Ad hom.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Chris
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Brewster
Nov 1 2011, 01:35 PM
Quote:
 
Simple facts, simple logic beats obfuscations hands down.

Absolutely true, Chris. too bad you don't really believe it.

Here you are reposting the same crap that was already debunked on post #6.

Simple logic is that Curry cherry picked her data - it's well known that it takes at least 15 years to establish a Climate trend, and the longer the better, as in the BEST graph you posted. But she picked about 10. More to the point, she picked just enough to include the momentary major dip in 2010, then cut it off in a hurry before it rose so dramatically in 2011. She did even worse on the BEST graph, cutting it off in the early 2000's. Smart on her part, because they would totally destroy the nonsense she is trying to spread.

But of course, if you had actually read the entire of the link on #6, you'd already know that.

In the meantime, let's look at BEST's entire graph, from which Curry cut out just the part she wanted to show:
Posted Image

Ignorance isn't always bliss, sometimes it's just dangerous.

And if you continue to believe Deniers like Curry and her obfuscations, that's what you (and the whole world) will face.
Just more hand-waving ad hom distractions and repeating claims you proved something you haven't because it's been shown false.

You claim "human caused CO2 is the cause of recent warming." The graph you show supports your argument, and I understand why you want to use it, but Curry's graph of temps over the last decade falsifies it. If your hypothesis was correct, it would predict that given continuing human expansion driving continuing rising CO2 levels, that there would therefore be continuing rising temperatures. That prediction has failed over the last decade.

Posted Image

Again, simple facts, simple logic, simple conclusion: the data do not support your hypothesis.
Edited by Chris, Nov 1 2011, 07:50 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Chris
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Brewster
Nov 1 2011, 01:45 PM
You're right, Jim. I was. And I shall.

But when someone posts obvious junk from proven liars and pretends he's quoting "facts and logic", then makes some sort of all-knowing statement about "scientific uncertainty" which proves he knows nothing about how the scientific method works, and uses that double mistake to make condescending remarks based off that nonsense, I get irate.

I apologize.
More ad hom.


"makes some sort of all-knowing statement about "scientific uncertainty" which proves he knows nothing about how the scientific method works"

That statement makes no sense for two reasons.

One, scientific uncertainty implies tentative, incomplete, probabilistic knowledge, not "some sort of all-knowing". Self-contradiction is always false.

But, two, let's look at Scientific Method
Quote:
 
In the 20th century, a hypothetico-deductive model[12] for scientific method was formulated (for a more formal discussion, see below):
1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step 2.
2. Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook.
3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow?
4. Test: Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This error is called affirming the consequent.

Bruce follows scientific method up to step 4 and then abandons it. When I hear a scientific claim, I "Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2" and that's what I've done here, found data that falsifies Bruce's claim. Bruce on the other hand has not done that, but has desperately swept falsifying data under the rug and repeats data in an effort to affirm the consequent.

I suggest a healthy dose of Popper on falsification.

Bruce, you're a Creation Scietist whose formed a belief and seeks data to support it but rejects anything that doesn't, an Intelligent Designer who has replaced God with Man who is not only the problem but the solution if the Hegelian State can just re-engineer Society and save Man from himself.
Edited by Chris, Nov 1 2011, 08:56 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sea Dog
No Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
These folks should have called Chris!

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Environment/2011/10/28/18892601.html

They would have known not to get exited.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Chris
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Sea Dog
Nov 1 2011, 11:12 PM
These folks should have called Chris!

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Environment/2011/10/28/18892601.html

They would have known not to get exited.
You're right, no need to get excited over scientism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Fire And Ice General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Website Traffic Analysis