Aerothorn on 29/11/2009 at 11:29
Hey look there's ice at the 42 second mark. I guess global warming is a hoax after all.
jay pettitt on 30/11/2009 at 16:02
Anthony Watts in plagiarism shocker!
(
http://denialdepot.blogspot.com/2009/11/450-peer-reviewed-papers-to-support.html)
Yeah, there is something else...
Quote Posted by Fragony
Faith
Fair enough. I'm not clever or knowledgeable enough to tell you, first hand, that climate change is happening or that people are the sure cause - I can only tell you what I read - though I have studied climate and do have a sciencey qualification - so I can read the odd paper and not always get hopelessly lost. But it isn't blind faith - science is the art of finding out about the world without kidding yourself. It has a systematic approach and an global ecology of research, checks, review and renewal that keep it on the straight and narrow. I put my faith in the body of current scientific thinking because I know that it is, without any shadow of doubt,
the most reliable source of information for this kind of thing. You put your faith in wacky conspiracy theory stuff some bloke put up on the Internet.
Do you see the difference?
Aerothorn on 30/11/2009 at 16:06
A. Some of those papers are not legit. I'm sorry, but global warming research funded by the American Association for Petroleum Geology?
B. Some of them do seem to be legit, but all the ones I read were asking questions - are these models good enough to support this conclusion, etc. This is very different from saying "GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT HAPPENING." Moreover, these studies you've linked are ones that are skeptical of AGW (primarily human caused) global warming - not global warming itself, which you deny.
You're going to have to do better. The fact that every single one of your links points back to this single skeptical blog tells me that you're not getting your information from numerous sources, instead just finding one that supports your viewpoint and otherwise sticking your head in the sand like so many Fox News viewers.
DDL on 30/11/2009 at 16:11
And ultimately, those who are pretty convinced that man-made climate change is happening, and who are making efforts to prevent it, can afford to be wrong.
Climate change deniers cannot.
....And they are.
Fragony on 30/11/2009 at 17:18
Quote Posted by jay pettitt
Anthony Watts in plagiarism shocker!
(
http://denialdepot.blogspot.com/2009/11/450-peer-reviewed-papers-to-support.html)
Yeah, there is something else...
Fair enough. I'm not clever or knowledgeable enough to tell you, first hand, that climate change is happening or that people are the sure cause - I can only tell you what I read - though I have studied climate and do have a sciencey qualification - so I can read the odd paper and not always get hopelessly lost. But it isn't blind faith - science is the art of finding out about the world without kidding yourself. It has a systematic approach and an global ecology of research, checks, review and renewal that keep it on the straight and narrow. I put my faith in the body of current scientific thinking because I know that it is, without any shadow of doubt,
the most reliable source of information for this kind of thing. You put your faith in wacky conspiracy theory stuff some bloke put up on the Internet.
Do you see the difference?
My specialism is medieval and modern history, cool isn't it. But don't we have a little problem here, that problem being manipulated data. Wait for the real blow, the university of fraud has gotten an official order to release all the data they have been fooling around with, going to be fun, and a lot of you are going to feel pretty silly.
Xorak on 30/11/2009 at 20:15
I'm amazed it took so long for someone to finally post this. It's been out for over a week at least. Maybe at last there can be peace.
jay pettitt on 30/11/2009 at 20:48
Quote Posted by Fragony
My specialism is medieval and modern history, cool isn't it. But don't we have a little problem here, that problem being manipulated data. Wait for the real blow, the university of fraud has gotten an official order to release all the data they have been fooling around with, going to be fun, and a lot of you are going to feel pretty silly.
Oh cool - I did climate & soil and pollen analysis and that sort of thing in archaeology, am now doing climate in a environmental science degree with the open university.
The thing is, the only place in the world that thinks the leaked emails are a smoking gun confirming massive scientific fraud of epic proportions is the denialsphere. Even the juiciest of the emails just has me thinking that Dr
Indiana Phil Jones has a wicked sense of humour; and that's it. The very, very worst bits are just throw-away comments in a couple of emails intended for a private and equally knowing audience.
The context of sinister deception that you read into them is you looking for things to confirm your existing prejudices and getting excited because you read that an email referred to a 'trick' or what ever it is. That the trick in question was simply to plot one group of data against another so you can compare the two is moot - you want to see fraud, even though in real life it just ain't there.
Muzman on 30/11/2009 at 21:01
A fifth of those are from a publication called Energy & Environment which is not a peer reviewed scientific publication.
Quite a few don't actually question climate change at all (according to people who read them).
Bad start. Rather similar looking to the tactics of anti vaccinationists, homeopaths and creationists so far: ladle on studies of vague and questionable relevance in the hope no one actually looks, and a month later after people sift through, none are left standing. (I'd expect better than that in this case; the contributing factors and the severity of climate change is not beyond question so there'll be a few sensible papers about that).
Quote Posted by Fragony
My specialism is medieval and modern history, cool isn't it. But don't we have a little problem here, that problem being manipulated data. Wait for the real blow, the university of fraud has gotten an official order to release all the data they have been fooling around with, going to be fun, and a lot of you are going to feel pretty silly.
Silly for not firing you clowns into space a lot sooner. That'd reduce the hot air quotient by a great deal.
I expect it'll go pretty much as usual; people will focus on minutiae like it undermines the whole thing ("they moved that one weather station OMG manipulation, lies, coverup!"), people who don't understand data gathering and analysis will bleat away about magnification and manipulation. FUD FUD FUD until daddy takes the T-bird away.
Maybe it'll work well and the pulic understanding of the methods will increase and knowledge will be the winner.
DDL on 30/11/2009 at 21:03
Plus if you follow up jay pettitt's link, you find that:
Quote:
Well if you try to compile and understanding of how nature works from the 450 list you will only get confused. For example some of the arguments include:
* Global temperature has risen naturally
* Global temperature hasn't risen
* Global temperature doesn't exist
* The greenhouse effect is saturated
* The greenhouse effect doesn't exist
They are all good arguments to support our skepticism if taken individually, but not if you think about them all at once.
Which isn't encouraging. It's like trying to disprove evolution by citing the bible, the torah, the koran and the church of scientology. Yes, all the sources disagree with the same thing, but they also all disagree with EACH OTHER, which lessens the impact somewhat...
