Lies and misinformation of the deniers

Okay, your doctor may have a medical degree, but that does not mean he is a good doctor now does it. He could be a lousy doctor, he may even make a mistake that could kill you. Remember that next time he writes you a perscription.

My facts are correct. Yes, there are plenty of global warming conspiracy theorists on these forum who post links to quack scientists who make completely unprovable leaps of faith regarding global warming and mankind being to blame for it. But every one of those quack scientists and their theories are in fact unprovable. It is all supposition.

The globe has been warming since the Ice Age, ten thousand years, and it has been continuing that trend for the past one hundred as well. Now try to prove that the increase is higher than it would have been without man. It can't be done because there are too many variables.

 

s/he will be a better doctor than my mechanic.... and ... if doctors were as incompetent as you seem to think climate scientists are - nobody would bother going to doctors.

they would be taking their chances with charlatans ... and mechanics.

only an ignorant person would think so.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-fingerprint-in-global-warming.html

read.

follow the links.

you have no excuse for ignorance.

 

And if that opinion actually had evidence to support it, you would publish it in a peer-reviewed journal on climate science. Which would turn your non-publication on climate science into being published on climate science. Which none of the 80% were able to do.

I don't have that opinion at all. Peer-reviewed journals don't look at who has degrees before making a publishing decision, and plenty have published non-degreed people. Even high-school dropout Anthony Watts has (one) peer-reviewed paper to his credit. But you would have to look very, very deeply at his blog to discover that his only peer-reviewed paper concludes that weather station siting has no effect on global warming data -- the exact opposite of the fear & doubt he's been hyping for years.

Utter hogwash. Here's a partial list of the data climate science has that deniers cannot explain:

1. Increasing surface temps.
2. Decreasing stratospheric temps.
3. Nights warming faster than days.
4. Winters warming faster than summers.
5. Oceanic heat content increasing.
6. Oceans warming fastest at the surface.
7. Arctic sea ice melting.
8. Greenland ice sheet mass loss.
9. Antarctic ice sheet mass loss.
10. Sea level rising.
11. Increased downwelling IR in the greenhouse gas bands.
12. Decreased upwelling IR in the greenhouse gas bands.
13. Retreating (and disappearing) alpine glaciers.
14. Species migration toward the poles.
15. Species migration to higher altitudes.
16. Increasing insurance losses from severe weather, much greater than inflation+growth.

... and I could go on ...

Oh, and one more thing: every law of science is a model.

 

Are you calling me ignorant? I could say the same to you...that only an ignorant person would be believe as you do. Reasonable people would agree to disagree. Immature people would resort to name calling.

Again with the name calling. Once you begin with the insults you have lost the argument. It matters not what you post, or the links. I can ignore your facts just as easily as you ignore mine. If I post an article that disagrees with your position, will you suddenly change your mind? No. So stop with the name calling, that is just childish and immature.

 

I have to admit, I have no idea what you are talking about. Are you saying that someone has to prove that someone has to prove there is no man made global warming? That is a really rediculous argument. If it is my position that man made global warming is unprovable, it is equally unprovable to prove that there is no man made global warming. I can prove that it is unlikely but not absolute. Just as I cannot prove there is a God, you cannot prove there is not.

Well now you are assuming that only peer reviewed journals can print scientific articles. There are many publishers, it doesn't have to be a peer reviewed journal to make the findings valid. Many peer reviewed journals refuse to print articles which disagree with the politically correct global warming conspiracy theories.

The above "data" in no way addresses my comments (nor disprove or makes it "hogwash" or even seem related to):

Oh please, do go on. You are embarrassing yourself. What law of science says that every law of science is a model. That's a new one on me. I've always thought that they normally came in the form of an equation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_science

 

I would not do that, and neither did Cass, but I can certainly see how any reasonable person reading your very ignorant and confused posts might come to that conclusion. What is very obvious is that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. You spew lies, misinformation and ignorant drivel and then seem surprised when no one takes you seriously. Your posts are mildly amusing but totally pointless and without substance.

Yeah we know. You obviously "ignore" pretty much all of the facts. It's called the 'ostrich strategy'. You may imagine that if you ignore and deny global warming, it will not be there, but unfortunately for your delusions, "it" (or anthropogenic global warming/climate changes) is quite real and it will still be here no matter how long you close your eyes, plug your ears and shout 'la-la-la-la-la', and it will eventually affect you in ways you'll have trouble denying, no matter how deep in the sand you shove your head.

 

so you are saying that you are unreasonable?

"only an ignorant person would think so" is not name calling.

if you posted articles that were based on scientific evidence, I would not be ignoring them.

you don't do that, though.

 

The only thing that surpasses the ignorance of some Americans on the fundamental ideas of science is the complete refusal to remedy that ignorance by actually taking time to learn This seems to go hand in hand with a readiness to believe conspiracy theories despite an underlying lack of either fact or logical rationale

Can someone please explain this phenomena to me

 

Due to history and an extremely self aggrandising nationalism, Many Americans think they are the shining light to all of us, so there is no need for them to learn anything more.

 

No, I'm saying you are.

Sure it is. It is name calling, because you are acting arrogant and condescending. Pretentious know-it-alls repeat the same garbage they learned in liberal public school systems. If mankind disappeared today, in 100,000 years, there would be little evidence we were even here.

I have posted articles in the past, but it is pointless because the writer or the evidence is quickly attacked by the AGW conspiracy theorists/believers who aren't going to change their minds anyway.

 

it goes both ways.


you yourself said "Reasonable people would agree to disagree."

no, it is not.

name calling would be if I directly said something like - "you are an ignorant twerp" - which I did not.

that you refer to "AGW conspiracists" - plus the sources of the articles you link to - is ample evidence that I either know A LOT MORE about this than you do, or you are deliberately posting misinformation.

Condescension I tend to reserve for those who deliberately attempt to mislead.

 

No. I'm saying that 80% of the 700 (actually 687) have no particular expertise in climate science. A sociologist is a scientist, but his opinion on global warming wouldn't be any better than mine.

Nothing in science is ever proven, because science can always change as new data comes in. But there are some propositions which have so much data behind them that only someone ignorant of the data would withhold provisional consent. Heliocentricity is one. The theory of gravity is one. Evolution is one. And AGW is one now too. Yes, you can find people who disagree with all of these. That doesn't mean those opinions have merit. It means those opinions are spectacularly uninformed. Those guys (and you're one of them) just haven't the slightest clue of the size of the mountain of data under which their positions are buried.

No, I'm assuming that only peer reviewed journals can print peer reviewed articles. Being peer reviewed simply assures that the paper has passed a rather low threshold of not being total crap. Peer reviewed papers have passed this low bar. Non-peer reviewed papers might very well be valid. But if they are, they should be able to pass peer review.

Name two. Citations, please, of a peer-reviewed journal that has refused to print valid science for political reasons.

You said, "The global warming conspiracy theorists have only computer models and no real provable facts to rely upon." Then I provide you with a virtual mountain of such facts. Which you totally ignore.

The fact is, we have mountains of facts. The fact is, you continue to ignore that mountain of facts, because those facts disagree with your preconceived notions of how you think the world works. Your position is not fact based, it's opinion based. If your position were fact based, you could actually explain the facts. Which you won't do, because you simply can't do.

Bingo. Every scientific equation is a model. And since every law of science can be expressed as an equation, every law of science is a model.

 

It may have something to do with the rejection of science by the fairly large fundamentalist wacko wing of Christianity in America. People raised in those kind of households are taught that the Bible is right about everything and all the scientists are wrong about evolution and then it just goes downhill from there. People in that mindset are sure that they know everything worth knowing so they have little interest in learning anything new, particularly anything that might challenge the validity of any of that stuff that they are so very sure about but that unfortunately is all too often a bunch of myths, malarkey and misinformation. There is also the apparent sense among the rightwingnut contingent that environmentalism is some kind of liberal plot (perhaps to take away their SUV's) so that leads to rejecting the inconvenient scientific facts that might require any kind of lifestyle change. They just don't want to believe it so they are careful not to disturb their blissful ignorance with any messy scientific facts. I suspect that is a very strong dose of the Dunning-Kruger Effect mixed in with all that. A lot of the people you are referring to just aren't that bright, and because of that, they are just plain incapable of comprehending just how ignorant and mentally unqualified they are compared to even regular people with just ordinary intelligence and educations, let alone to the professional scientists with PhD's who've been intensely studying global warming (or any other area of scientific inquiry) for the last three or four decades. And that pervasive general lack of intelligence ties into their eager willingness to believe really idiotic conspiracy theories that give them the feeling of being right and knowing the truth while everyone else is being fooled by the evil conspirators. It must be comforting to embrace those delusions when you are actually so very clueless and confused about that big mysterious world out there.

BTW, please take a minute to read that article I linked to about the Dunning-Kruger Effect and learn the meaning of this interesting German word: "Fremdschämen". It may be the emotion you're experiencing when you read some of the denier posts on this forum.

 

You claim you would not do that and then in the same breath you do exactly that. You call me ignorant, confused and a liar. So in other words, you are spewing lies and all in the same paragraph.

I don't ignore the facts, I just do not agree with the conclusions reached by quack scientists who are doing it for finacial gain and political expediency.

It does go both ways, however you are decending into insults, while I am merely pointing out a fact that you are arrogant and condescending for attempting to paint my opinions as ignorant. You are attempting to say I am ignorant with no other evidence than I disagree with your opinion.

Yes it is. Your are attempting to split hairs. If you say my opinion is ignorant, ergo, I am ignorant. People reading this are not as stupid as you would like to believe and even they can see right through this. As I've said before, once you resort to insults you have lost the argument.

Again your logic is flawed. You present only two possibilities, when there are many. You either "know a lot more than me, or I am deliberately posting misinformation." There is a third possibility, that you don't know as much as you think you do, and that I am right. Again you show your arrogance by presuming you know a lot more than me, and conceed that you are condescending.

So 700 - 687 = 13. Thirteen climate scientists don't agree with the man made global warming conspiracy theory which means you have conceeded the argument that there is a consensus among climatologists.

I think heliocentricity is proven, unless you are with the flat Earth society. Gravity is not a theory but a well established natural phenomenon. You mean 13 spectacularly uninformed climate experts and me.

Okay then here is a website which claims to have peer reviewed articles disputing AGW conspiracy theories:
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/page.php?8

No, I don't do homework assignments. But if you can name two, I will agree that those two are probably two of the ones that print for political reasons.

They may be facts, they may be indisputable facts, but it is another thing to connect those facts to man made global warming.

It is not the facts that I neccessarily disagree with, but the conclusions. Yes, I do have a preconceived notion of how the world works, as do you.

Who said every scientific equation is a model? Your logic is really bad. So is your math. Let me put your last two sentences into the form of an equation:
Scientific equation (Se) = (M) Model
Law of science (L) = (Se) therefore (L) = (M)
But (Se) ≠ (M) therefore (L) ≠ (M)

 

Ah, no. That means that there were actually 687 people on Inhofe's list, which he rounded up to 700.

Nope. Nothing in science is proven, not even heliocentricity. But I'd like to see you try.

It's both a phenomenon and a theory.

"Claims" being the operative word here. That page lists eleven papers. Six out of the eleven (numbers 1 through 5, and number 7) don't challenge the concensus view in the slightest. Of the remaining 5, two were written by Willie Soon, a well known "scientist for hire" who has accepted over $1,000,000 from the fossil fuel industry; and the rest are either obsolete or debunked. Interesting, though, how the publication of such papers puts the lie to your claim that skeptics can't get published in the peer-reviewed literature.

Meaning, you were lying. Having no evidence and no argument, you decided to just make stuff up, and were hoping you wouldn't get caught.

I can't name any. So we agree that there aren't any. Which means you were lying to try to score a point.

If you're interested in learning something about the science, I'd be happy to connect them for you.

I did.

Equation 1: incorrect, and not representative of my statement. All scientific theories are models, but not all models are scientific theories. Hence your logic is wrong.
Equation 2: incorrect, and not representative of my statement. All laws of science can be expressed as equations, but not all scientific equations are laws of science. Hence your logic is wrong (again).

 

Y'all might want to check this link regarding the IPCC changing it's report for political purposes:
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/ipccpeer.pdf

 

Really? Not one is a climatologist? Now that would be a lie.

You don't think that it is proven that the Sun is at the center of the solar system?

Is electricity also a theory? Gravity is not a theory.

See, now this is why I don't bother presenting peer reviewed article that disagree with the AGW conspiracy types. You just attack the writers and the facts presented in the article. Pointless.

Meaning I don't have to do what you tell me to do because you are not my boss. But you might want to look at the article I just posted in this thread regarding the IPCC report being edited for political reasons, so if they do it I'm sure journals do too.

You can't name any peer reviewed journals? Not suprising. Your are lying. (I love to throw that in there every time people call me a liar for no reason).

You go right ahead you climate expert.

The first equation is you, the second mine. Both are right, you just don't understand logic equations.

 

"eminent physicist Frederick Seitz" ??

Frederick Seitz, who produced study after study saying smoking didn't cause cancer? And who was being paid by the tobacco industry the whole time? The one who's been dead for three years?

That eminent physicist Frederick Seitz?

 

Yes, that Frederich Seitz, among many others. (note to readers, again with the attacks on the scientists who disagree).

 

you must be kidding - fred seitz was a disgrace and had no credibility whatsoever.

 

To the contrary:

 

And I can claim to be Jesus Christ. But until I have evidence to prove it, I would just be considered a nutcase..

Tell me, PN! Why do do accept all unsubstantiated claims of the deniers and yet question and reject the facts presented by the climate scientists?

 

Can you add? Inhofe's original list contained 687 names. The headline on the list rounds that number up to 700. There are not 700 names on Inhofe's list. There are 687. Of those, 80% have no particular expertise in climatology, having never published a peer-reviewed paper on the subject. And 4% of the total list are not GW skeptics. That leaves about 110 actual skeptics on the list with some expertise.

I repeat: nothing in science is ever proven.

Electricity is a phenomenon, and there is a theory that explains it. Gravity is a phenomenon and there is a theory that explains it. The theory that explains the phenomenon of gravity is called "the theory of gravity." So the word "gravity" can refer either to the phenomenon or to the theory.

So you think non-peer-reviewed junk is of higher quality? On what basis? Do you look at the author's voter registration before deciding whether or not his science is sound? Or do you have some other litmus test?

How very six-year-old of you. In other words, you can't back up your ridiculous claim and have no intention of doing so. Which means, you just made it up.

IPCC doesn't do research and doesn't publish original work. They simply summarize the current state of the science for political leaders and for the public. If you want actual science, look at the references, not at the IPCC.

But I said you lied for a reason: you made up a claim for which you had no evidence (and still have no evidence). You made up your claim to try to win a point. That's a lie in my book.

1. Surface temperatures are going up, as confirmed by the BEST study (among many others). Most deniers focus on this single thing and studiously ignore the remaining evidence, which is enormous.
2. If the current warming were caused by the sun, then we should be getting more heat during the day. But if the current warming is caused by increasing greenhouse effect, we should be losing less heat at night. So if it's the Sun, days should be warming fastest, but if it's greenhouse, nights should be warming fastest. Nights are warming almost twice as fast as days, which is a "smoking gun" for increased greenhouse effect.
3. Since nights are longer in winter and shorter in summer, if it's greenhouse, winters should be warming faster, but if it's the Sun, summers should be warming faster. Winters are warming faster than summers, which is another "smoking gun" for increased greenhouse effect.
4. If it's the Sun, then we're getting more energy and the whole atmosphere should be warming. But if it's greenhouse, we're getting the same amount of energy, but it's being distributed differently: more heat is trapped at the surface and less heat escapes to the stratosphere. So if it's the Sun, the stratosphere should be warming, but if it's greenhouse, the stratosphere should be cooling. The stratosphere is cooling, which is another "smoking gun" for increasing greenhouse effect.
5. Ocean cycles don't create heat, but they do move it around between the surface and the depths. So if the current warmth is due to ocean cycles, the depths should be cooling as the surface warms. In fact, the heat content of the oceans is rising along with surface temperatures. So ocean cycles are disproven as a cause of the current warmth.
6. Some deniers speculate that undersea volcanoes are responsible for the current warming. If that were true, the oceans would be warming fastest at the bottom. In fact, oceans are warming fastest at the surface, showing that the heat is coming from above, not from below.
7. Arctic sea ice loss should not be occurring unless the globe is warming.
8. Greenland ice mass loss should not be occurring unless the globe is warming.
9. Antarctic ice mass loss should not be occurring unless the globe is warming.
10. Sea level rise cannot be explained unless the world is warming.
11. Increased downwelling IR cannot be explained in any other way than increasing greenhouse effect.
12. Decreased upwelling IR cannot be explained in any other way than increasing greenhouse effect.
13. Worldwide alpine glacier retreat can be explained by global warming, and cannot be explained in its absence.
14. Species migration toward the poles can be explained by global warming, and cannot be explained in its absence.
15. Species migration to higher altitudes can be explained by global warming, and cannot be explained in its absence.
16. Increasing surface temps speeds up the hydrological cycle and makes storms more intense. That explains increased insurance losses, which are above the level of inflation plus growth.

I haven't published a single equation in this thread. Only you have.

You don't understand Venn diagrams.

 

seitz used science the same way a prostitute uses sex.

he had no credibility - certainly in his later years.