Climate deniers act like actual skeptics, do own research, get "surprising" results.

page: 13
30
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by pierregustavetoutant
 


NASA just recently said that they have evidence tying solar activity directly to weather patterns also. I guess they must have opened their eyes. Solar activity has a big influence on human relationships and perception also. The monks have written documentation of this for a thousand years. But who would believe a monk anyway, they don't have any scientific credentials.




posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by nixie_nox



I am still waiting for the skeptics to answer this. They can't, so all they can come up with is little insults.




Pretty pathetic response that is translated too: I feel like an ignoramous because I can't answer that.


You're assuming I cant answer it. Need a mirror?



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by wlf15y

Ok, so the OP bailed on this thread days ago. Maybe he found out the papers this thread was based on have now been officially rejected?



Yes, now officially rejected. Go to the site, and you can see all the reasons for the rejection. There are links to his referee reports. Essentially, it has been rejected for the ridiculous claims made by Muller, which are not supported by his own work!
Clearly, in my view, this was purely designed to be a MEDIA event, as most of the major MSM's had him on pushing his garbage. They're trying to take advantage of the ignorant during the drought (weather pattern) to push the AGW "causes" everything meme. He also apparently has a book(s) to sell.



Nice. Doubt it will stop nixie or any of the other climate deniers. I call them that because they deny the real data that hasnt been spun. The information you provided reminds me of the 'climategate' emails and just about everything else about AGW.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 11:45 AM
link   
Still fighting the good fight, MC!

Been interesting watching responses to Muller's work from the likes of Watt et al. Watt's response very much reminds me of this...



Think he's seriously jumped the shark (just can't bring himself to accept BEST's results as he said he would).



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


Well it couldn't get past peer review, and has now been officially rejected, so why should Watts, or anybody else "accept" it? Did you even read through the thread?

Maybe Watts acceptance would be, in part, dependent on the BEST papers actually clearing peer review. He also based that "acceptance" on receiving ALL the data from the paper, which wasn't available until much later. Upon review (his and many others, including the JGR) of that data, found fault with it and now rejects it. Especially in light of Muller's most recent ridiculous claims.
edit on 3-8-2012 by wlf15y because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by wlf15y
 





Well it couldn't get past peer review, and has now been officially rejected, so why should Watts, or anybody else "accept" it? Did you even read through the thread?


Peer review has been used for too long as a sacred cow, to the point of logical fallacy:

Publish-or-perish: Peer review and the corruption of science


Pressure on scientists to publish has led to a situation where any paper, however bad, can now be printed in a journal that claims to be peer-reviewed

Peer review is the process that decides whether your work gets published in an academic journal. It doesn't work very well any more, mainly as a result of the enormous number of papers that are being published (an estimated 1.3 million papers in 23,750 journals in 2006). There simply aren't enough competent people to do the job. The overwhelming effect of the huge (and unpaid) effort that is put into reviewing papers is to maintain a status hierarchy of journals. Any paper, however bad, can now get published in a journal that claims to be peer-reviewed.


The tribalistic corruption of peer review – the Chris de Freitas incident


From New Zealand Climate Change, this goes beyond “noble cause corruption”. This is outright malicious interference with the scientific process, and it’s damned ugly. I can’t imagine anyone involved in professional science who could stand idly by and not condemn this.


Inside Higher Ed: Kill peer review or reform it?


“Blind peer review is dead. It just doesn’t know it yet.” That’s the way Aaron J. Barlow, an associate professor of English at the College of Technology of the City University of New York, summed up his views on the future of the traditional way of deciding whose work gets published in the humanities. Professor Barlow did not dispute that most of the top journals in the humanities continue to select papers this way. But speaking in Seattle at a session of the annual meeting of the Modern Language Association, he argued that technology has so changed the ability of scholars to share their findings that it is only a matter of time before people rise up against the conventions of traditional journal publishing.


YIISA's Fate and the Corruption of the Peer-Review Process


When confronted by outside criticism, defenders of the academic status quo invariably cite the peer-review process to justify conditions on campus. Specialists know best, they note, and outsiders need to defer to the superior judgment of trained experts.


It is worth while reading the article I linked regarding climatgate and the Chris de Frietas incident:


People with bona fide scientific background should not review articles, as they might actually accept them for publication. …

… is it not partially the responsibility of climate science to make sure only satisfactorily [agreeing with their views] peer-reviewed science appears in scientific publications?


These are excerpts from the East Anglia emails discussing how to use peer review to shut out papers that differ from "conventional wisdom". Hardly the scientific method.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


While I absolutely agree, unfortunately, as of now, it's the only way to "give weight" to a paper, right or wrong. "Blog" review may prove to be a much better way of doing it, at least for the initial vetting of the paper, which is how Watts is doing it. Much more input AND larger set of "eyes" to find fault and/or confirm.

And if it's not peer reviewed, it is simply ignored, especially by warmists. Watt's paper/projects bring up items that are of major importance due to the effect of UHI, yet the "mainstream" organizations simply pump out a quick paper to try to disprove Watts, while they're really just trying to cover their butts. All you have to do is look at all the pics of the surface stations conditions and/or siting to see their is a huge problem with a strong majority of them.
edit on 3-8-2012 by wlf15y because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by wlf15y
reply to post by melatonin
 


Well it couldn't get past peer review, and has now been officially rejected, so why should Watts, or anybody else "accept" it?


Course they will find it hard to publish the data - not exactly new findings! If you could publish the same old crap over and over again this research lark would be rather easy. They'll probably publish it in time in some low impact gutter journal (sure better journals would give preference to original and important research).

As noted, their data is something well-established at least over two decades ago - little more than reinventing the wheel. That is, the BEST work is irrelevant and always was.


Did you even read through the thread?


Heh, I have better things to do. And doing so would probably lead me back into an ATS sabbatical.


Maybe Watts acceptance would be...


I'm sure he's more worried about getting his own pathetic station 'research' up to an undergraduate's standard.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by stanguilles7

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by stanguilles7
 


Yes. It is the only rebuttal necessary to logical fallacy. There is nothing to challenge.


Indeed. Fallacious logic, to be sweet and to the point, without having too much of a go-round about it. In short, and without dragging the point out too much, it's merely a copiously-worded and nearly overflowing abundance of pixels forming words which are meant to drage one further and further away from realizing that while one is being quite wordy, they arent saying a damn thing, and certainly not actually debating a point I ever made.


Care to identify your logical point?



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by inverslyproportional
reply to post by unityemissions
 


I lol when I read this. You do understand that farmers release co2 in to a greenhouse to raise the amount to make the plants grow faster right? Plants are no where near peak co2 absorbtion. Matter of fact the amount of co2 in our atmosphere is barely above the minimum for plants to conduct photosynthesis right now. If it goes below 280 ppm they will shrivel and die as co2 is essential to them as food. They can no more livve without enugh than you can live without enough food air or water.


Yes, I'm aware of that, and no they won't die below 280ppm. There's a chart which shows the average ppm for hundreds of thousands of years. It only crossed over 280 in the last 250 years. Debunked!

As for the trees being able to take in more co2, then explain to me why the rate is continuing to climb in the atmosphere, genius. It's not that they absolutely can't take more in, it's that the rate at which they can absorb it is far too slow compared to the rate at which we are dumping it into the air.

Think a bit more dynamically.




posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 06:46 PM
link   
edit on 3-8-2012 by wlf15y because: (no reason given)
edit on 3-8-2012 by wlf15y because: Still learnin'



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 





Heh, I have better things to do. And doing so would probably lead me back into an ATS sabbatical.


Agree, the subject of AGW has been run over the grill here many times.



I'm sure he's more worried about getting his own pathetic station 'research' up to an undergraduate's standard.


Careful on that high horse up there. Watts does have many highly qualified scientists working with him on this paper. You do realize he is using the NEW 2010 WMO ISO standard for station siting and adjustments right? That in it's self should help get his paper through peer review and published, as there haven't been any papers done on the USHCN stations using that standard. Mullers papers did not use the new standard, therefore it's not surprising he came up with the results he did, well it's among the reasons.

The new standard adds one simple but effective physical metric; surface area of the heat sinks/sources within the thermometer viewshed to quantify the total heat dissipation effect.

This single metric is what Watts has been talking about for at least 5 years, so we'll see.



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 04:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by wlf15y
reply to post by melatonin
 


Careful on that high horse up there. Watts does have many highly qualified scientists working with him on this paper..


He needs them, most scientific papers have a least one person who knows ass from elbow. Pity both McIntyre and Pielke Sr rapidly distanced themselves from Watts' premature ejaculation t'other day.

Anyway, enjoy the discussion was just passing through and dropping a Yo! for MC.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


Hi Mel!


No I'm not really fighting the good fight anymore - like you I've accepted how futile it is trying to beat the Chewbacca defense with a jury full of Dunning-Kruger Tusken Raiders.

Evidence: "basic laws of atmospheric physics"

Jury: "urrrRR Uuuuuurrr uUUrrrrr emails urrrRRrurrrrr"


I think though, having read through yet another 13 pages of regurgutated memes - mostly centered around the climate-change-is-obvious-but-it's-just-a-natural-cycle strawman effigy they like to erect at every one of these gatherings now - I am gonna try and find some time this week to write out a thread on how and why we know it's "anthropomorphized" (



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by wlf15y
reply to post by mc_squared
 


Ok, so the OP bailed on this thread days ago. Maybe he found out the papers this thread was based on have now been officially rejected?



Didn't bail - simply have a job and a life that prevents me from wasting my entire week getting repeatedly sucked into this inane debate, thank god.


Anyway you're right though - the BEST papers apparently haven't been published yet, so I was mistaken about that. However they ARE currently (still) under peer-review. There is more info at this link:

Amid criticism, Berkeley Earth extends record, upholds findings


All of the articles have been submitted to journals, and we have received substantial journal peer reviews. None of the reviews have indicated any mistakes in the papers; they have instead been primarily suggestions for additions, further citations of the literature. One review had no complaints about the content of the paper, but suggested delaying the publication until the long background paper, describing our methods in detail, was actually published.




As for Richard Muller's trigger happy publishing strategy - I already said myself on page 2 I personally think he is just a shameless self-promoter. I have made no attempt to big him or his research up in this thread - I simply posted it because I think it's hilarious how all the typical deniers were bigging him up, until the results did not go the way they wanted/expected.


This is the very point I have used this thread to make: The "skeptics" in this debate are not true skeptics at all - they make no attempt to judge the available information rationally or objectively. They simply pick a pre-determined outcome and fight tooth and nail (read: bend reality) to confirm that outcome. Then they make all sorts of completely unfounded - and not to mention obviously tainted with projection-bias - claims about "data manipulation" when it comes to anything that doesn't conform to their own beliefs. Meanwhile they are so obviously threatened by anything that challenges this warped dogma, that all they seem to do is rant about how "religious" the other side must be (see Jean Paul Zodeaux's thread for a perfect example).







So I think it's also particularly ironic that you believe you've forced me to turn from my own thread and run, when all you're doing is helping me prove my original point:

First of all, you're chastising the BEST study for publishing their results before passing peer-review - but simultaneously contrasting that against Anthony Watts new "paper", which was posted on his blog before even being submitted for peer review?

Watts' work is already being eviscerated online (see here) for egregious errors and spotty, unproven conclusions that are so physically unrealistic that even other deniers are distancing themselves from them.

Watts' "research" is absolutely typical of exactly what I described above:

This so-called "skeptic" has conducted an analysis that was clearly engineered to deliver the results he wanted. In doing so he carelessly omitted all sorts of well-known data biases like changing observation times, instruments, and locations with absolutely NO justification for any of it - other than the fact these elements were inconvenient to the conclusion he wanted to get. Even perpetual denier Steve McIntyre seems to agree:


There is a confounding interaction with (time of observation) that needs to be allowed for, as has been quickly and correctly pointed out.



But this sort of hypocrisy is nothing new to anyone who has truly familiarized themselves with the (fake) global warming debate - it is the absolute signature M.O. of the climate deniers.

From their shoddy research to their manufactured scandals to all their over-the-top sensationalist claims about the "alarmists". It's so obvious to anyone who practices true skepticism, rather than prancing around the internet just calling themselves one because they think it makes them look smart.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 06:10 PM
link   
Anyway, sorry I missed out on most of the fun here - really didn't expect this thread to get as much burn as it did lol.

Unfortunately the vast majority of it seems to be the same old story: loads of bickering/intellectual pissing contests, one-upsmanship, misinformed and disinformed ignorance, and not a hint of any real skepticism.


My favorite is how many people chimed in to point out there's absolutely no evidence out there human beings are responsible for climate change - when that's exactly what the study in the OP determined, and more importantly I left the same link 3 times summing up the VAST amount of evidence out there.


So I think the next thread I do will focus exclusively on this evidence. Gonna need to find some time somewhere in the next week to draw it up, because it will be looooooong. But really I'm sick of the "skeptics" always dragging this debate away from that. Time to face the facts guys. See ya in a bit.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by mc_squared
 


once again well thought out and i agree with everything you said. i think most of us who know climate change is not a hoax eventually give up arguing with people who refuse to review the facts and continue to spout off the exact same talking points time and time again...... talking points that have already been debunked (or are half truths). it gets to be so terribly daunting that we give up and walk away. not because we think we've LOST the debate but you can't argue with false information. it's useless.

i look forward to your posts even though the zealots who think it's a hoax (the irony being that they are the ones being duped) will continue to ignore the facts.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by pasiphae
 


Thanks pasiphae - I've gotten quite a few similar sentiments in PM's lately, and it's kind of almost cathartic to know there are still this many ATS members out here who do get it.

Anyway I'm gonna put up another thread soon, strictly on the science, and strictly in the interest of denying ignorance. We'll see how that goes over though.

If the ideologues and the militaristic meme army decide to descend on it I have another thread I've been sitting on for years now, and it's probably time to dust that one off. It amasses all the research I've done for years now uncovering the real conspiracy in all this - the deniers, their connections to big oil, big tobacco, fake astroturf
"libertarianism", and their dependence on everyone's collective lazy, naive ignorance to fall for all of it.

It'll really expose just how much the dupes are being duped and it won't be pretty.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 08:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


You nailed it. The peer review process carries no weight at all anymore. Science says whatever it is paid to say and that is a huge tragedy for humanity and the planet we inhabit. I did a thread quasi related but it barely scratches the surface of corruption. Basically, those of us without degrees in science and no ability to fact check on our own are left with lack of knowledge, crucial knowledge and that in my opinion is criminal.

However we are not left totally defenseless, some common sense can help as well as looking at very obvious mistakes we have made, what was said previous to any oopsies and by whom.

What seems like common sense to me is:
Yes the planet goes through warming and cooling cycles all on it's own but to deny that our industrial culture has no impact and isn't speeding things along faster than nature can adapt to is flat out ignorant to me.





new topics
top topics
 
30
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in

join