Our Summer of Climate Truth
POSTED BY: kpo
UPDATED: Tuesday, October 21, 2025 14:11
VIEWED: 3074
PAGE 3 of 4
Quote:So, you don't have a definition for science?
No, I'll start by explaining junk science, pertaining to this issue.
Falsifying data, placing temp measuring stations in precarious locations, ignoring data which doesn't fit into hoped for results... stuff like that.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:So, you don't have a definition for science?
No, I'll start by explaining junk science, pertaining to this issue.
Falsifying data, placing temp measuring stations in precarious locations, ignoring data which doesn't fit into hoped for results... stuff like that.
Yeah, I do, but I'm not playing that game w/ you. What's relevant to this issue is that data have been corrupted, conclusions have been erroneously arrived at well before adequate ( and honest ) evidence can be collected and studied. There are alternate views to some issues, yet the AGW crowd is stuck in a mantra which only acknowledges their view. Period, end of discussion. And I'd be fine w/ that, were it not such a damn coincidence that their 'solutions' to the problems JUST HAPPEN to be exactly the very things the Left wingers have been fighting for, all these years.
Seriously, what ARE the odds that the very things which Leftists say need to be stamped out - capitalism, industry, use of fossil fuels, so that wealth can be redistributed across the globe, are almost identical to the AGW crowds demands.
Gibb's Rule # 39 There's no such thing as coincidence.
Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen
" We're all just folk. " - Mal
" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Rappy, you claim to know what "science" is well enough to be able to distinguish "real" science from "junk" science, but you refuse to explain what you think of as "real science" because you think its "playing a game"???
I'm not playing that game w/ you
How can anyone possibly have a conversation with you?
Let me fill in the part that you refused to explain, using your statement as a negative example. "Falsifying data, placing temp measuring stations in precarious locations, ignoring data which doesn't fit into hoped for results." Everything you point to is about mishandling data. Good data handling isn't the ONLY aspect of science, but it is one part of it, so let's accept that good data handling is part of "real science".
As it turns out, you're not the only one to have had these qualms about the data. As I recall, I went over the Vostok ice cores and Siberian tree rings with you in detail, but it apparently wasn't good enough or didn't stick. So let me introduce former skeptic Dr Muller, who - using money from one of the Koch Brothers- claims to have fixed all of that, and winds up with the same conclusion: That the earth is warming, and that none of the other possible causes (orbital wobble, volcanoes, etc) fit the warming curve except carbon dioxide.
http://berkeleyearth.org/results-summary/
If you have some SPECIFIC problem or question about the data, ask away. But be prepared to listen to the answer, and set your skepticism aside if your objections are met. Because part of "real" science means following the data.
Quote:Now, as far as what you think of as a grand conspiracy between leftists and scientists (that scientists follow the leftists' lead) have you ever thought that maybe you have the situation bass akwards? That leftists are following the scientists' lead, and are responding to what the scientists are saying?
Seriously, what ARE the odds that the very things which Leftists say need to be stamped out - capitalism, industry, use of fossil fuels, so that wealth can be redistributed across the globe, are almost identical to the AGW crowds demands
And maybe the right wing is busy ignoring reality? After all, wasn't it Karl Rove who dismissed studying reality by famously saying
Quote:So the right wing appears to have no interest at all in studying reality, which should be a prerequisite for science. I would say that the right wing is actually rather busy rejecting science, seeing as much of that end of the political spectrum believes that god created the earth 6000 years ago.
That's not the way the world really works anymore. We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Credible scientist can have the exact same data and come to completely different conclusions. That there's disagreement, alone, isn't any basis for the claim of 'junk science' to be raised. What I'm talking about is the promotion of certain conclusions, like the snow line on Mt. Kilimanjaro, or the melting polar caps, as being exclusively caused by AGW, and nothing else.
Hell, even the idea that carbon is the cause of global warming, instead of the result, isn't settled.
And Karl Rove ? Seriously ? He was talking purely on politics in that quote. In politics, perception IS reality, and I think all will agree that 'spin' is often placed well above fact when it comes to being successful in politics.
But where's this leave us , if all we're gonna do is cut/paste this or that study, each claiming to be some objective arbiter in the debate over who is right? It's a never ending process, like two drunk fans in a sports bar, arguing over the designated hitter rule in baseball.
Only, in this case, buying into one position will cost us trillions of dollars, and have no real effect on anything. Even those who buy into global warming admit that to be the case.
Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen
" We're all just folk. " - Mal
" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:It depends on how consistent the data is. There are no credible scientists who would argue gravity, none would argue that the world is flat, and none would argue evolution.
Credible scientist can have the exact same data and come to completely different conclusions
Of course, where the data is complex or incomplete (as in the case of evolution in the 1800s) there is room for interpretation and additional data-gathering. But taking the data as a whole, if scientists have a problem with a conclusion, they propose a new hypothesis which explains more of the data and which has a causal basis. They don't reject the bulk of the data in favor of a few selected tidbits, they incorporate it. That is how real science makes progress.
You and your so-called "real" scientists have done neither, and any of those "real" scientists that you keep pointing to who have decided to REALLY dig into the data have come over to the AGW conclusion. (Richard Muller, Bjorn Lomberg) That should tell you something.
So, is there ANY data or data analysis, or ANY person that you would trust to do the data analysis for you which would change your mind? If not, there is no point to this dsicussion, because it really isn't about the data.
Quote:Logical fallacy, you are once again inserting your CONCLUSION (the very thing that has yet to be demonstrated) into the argument. Since you have not yet demonstrated the conclusion, I reject the entire sentence.
Only, in this case, buying into one position will cost us trillions of dollars, and have no real effect on anything
Quote:Not true. Putting (false) words in someone else's mouth. Straw man. Rejected.
Even those who buy into global warming admit that to be the case.
Quote:In anywhere, perception is perception and reality is reality. Nowhere are the two automatically the same. You CAN fool some of the people some of the time, but if what you're doing cuts across reality's bow, sooner or later reality will run you over AND sooner or later most people will see that you're a fraud.
In politics, perception IS reality
I see, though, that you have not addressed the idea that perhaps it is liberals who are paying attention to science, not the other way around, and I perceive that is the heart of your disquiet with the whole notion of global climate shift... not that the data is flawed or the conclusion is unsound, but that you find yourself on (what you see as) the losing side.
Rappy, there are no winners and losers in science. And in real life, losers tend to be those who mis-perceive reality and/ or those who fail to react accordingly.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sorry, it's true. Not 'false', so not 'rejected'.
I also find myself on the losing side of a population of humans who believe in some sort of magical sky deity ( or deities ). The difference here is, with those who believe in God™, I'm not forced to pay a god tax or some absurd thing as the AGW nuts want to impose on all of us for the mere crime of living. ( Now, here in GA, we DID have no alcohol sales on Sunday, in grocery and liquor stores, but thankfully, that has been lifted ) The net effect of carbon credits and mandating we burn corn for fuel will be a huge drain on our economy and not a damn bit of difference in the climate.
Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen
" We're all just folk. " - Mal
" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I rejected your statements not because they were factually "false" but they were logically invalid.
As far as the rest of your post is concerned, you have not addressed the problems with the data which (you claim) are the basis of your disagreement, but (once again) have simply restated your conclusion. THAT kind disputation really is just one drunk in a bar. No further discussion is warranted.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Seriously, Sig?
"I'm not playing that game w/ you." - 
"How can anyone possibly have a conversation with you?" Obviously, one cannot, and never COULD.
"you have not addressed the problems with the data which (you claim) are the basis of your disagreement, but (once again) have simply restated your conclusion" - 
"So, is there ANY data or data analysis, or ANY person that you would trust to do the data analysis for you which would change your mind? If not, there is no point to this dsicussion, because it really isn't about the data." Surely you already knew that....?
As you said, it's already been shown that an ACTUAL SCIENTIST, funded by the Koch Brothers, has reversed his stance and admits to global warming and that nothing but carbon dioxide explains it. How he can dismiss someone FUNDED by the biggest source of right-wing funding around has been "bought off" or isn't a "real scientist" or something, yet he will cling to his denial until the cows come home. When the cows do come home and we're all suffering the results, he'll probably STILL deny it's global warming...he'll come up with some kind of left-wing conspiracy intended to poison us all or something.
You're right, no further discussion is warranted. Nor was it warranted in the first place; the end result was a foregone conclusion. You already KNOW what Raptor is:
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
NIKI, roughly every two months I provide rappy with an opportunity for a real conversation. If all he ever gets here is derision, that's all he'll ever expect.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
