S
StudentMI
Guest
Isn’t it kind of wrong to compare a list being deleted from a website to victims of Stalinism?
- Status
H
HarryStotle
Guest
I suppose that will all depend upon the outcomes from pursuing an alarmist view of climate change, contrary to all the voices that are deliberately being “airbrushed” out of the public record to effectively mute them. Perhaps fifty years from now we will wake up and wonder why so many human beings have perished as a result of inadequate energy and because of the ludicrous “green new deal” measures enacted at the behest of climate alarmists?
I don’t have much hope that wind and solar will provide anywhere near sufficient heat and comfort during the long, cold winters we experience up here in Canada. When daylight is down to a few hours in winter and the wind is dead calm, millions of Canadians will begin to think of Trudeau, with his feet dragging on energy development and his pushing of “sustainable” development, with the same kind of fondness the kulaks might have had of Stalin by 1932.
We’ll talk again in 2040 or 2050 when a more complete portrait of the damage to human progress will have been accomplished by the climate alarmists. They are currently winning. I am sure that even Stalin’s “collectivization” proposals seemed like a great idea at the time.
Last edited:
S
StudentMI
Guest
Well hopefully by that point power will be more distributed, decentralized. Just think: freer markets would mean the end of subsidies towards oil. People would develop more alternative energies on an individual or communal basis. The suburbs would suddenly become impractical (basically a subsidy to real estate and the auto industry anyway), people would flock to the cities or create actual communities in suburbia. Strengthened property rights would end the socialized externalities that business gets away with.
And ironically, the system would be greener.
And ironically, the system would be greener.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Ah yes, a “great leap forward,” no doubt.
S
StudentMI
Guest
If you’re saying that with a freer market than we have now we’d make a great leap forward, yes, I believe we would.
E
EndTimes
Guest
Yep…
Man’s Contribution to Climate is rather miniscule when compared with e.g., Olde Sol.
The Total Solar Irradiance reaching Earth’s Surface is directly proportional to the Temps…
Man did not and could not have Caused the last Ice Age …
When AGW Alarmists Conveniently Neglect
to Include the always going on Climatic Influence of Mammma Nature,
they’re Committing a Large Sin of Omission.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Wrong. A fact can be an Ad Hominem. The fact that the people at Snope may be left-leaning is not a sufficient reason to ignore the facts they use to support their conclusion, which in this case is that 30,000 scientists did not declare climate change to be a hoax. Read the reasons and refute them if you can. Otherwise your objection to Snopes is just a classic Ad Hominem.LeafByNiggle:
No. It’s Fact… Fact is not Ad Hominem…
Last edited:
T
Theo520
Guest
Snopes is not a reliable source, they lack integrity.
Take your link, in it Snopes creates a strawman instead of addressing the actual claims
- Snopes: “a petition arguing that there is no convincing scientific evidence for anthropogenic climate change.”
- Petition: "no convincing scientific evidence that …(man will)…cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere…:
SNOPES deserves to be ridiculed as a fact checker.
This is not an ad hominem because I detailed their gross error in performing their fact checking.
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
If read their argument of what is false about the claim, you will see that the argument does not depend on the missing qualifier. The objections raised by Snopes are just as valid with or without that qualifier. In fact the exact text of the petition was included in the Snopes article. The re-wording of the claim of the petition played absolutely no subsequent role in the presentation of their case against the claim, which was based mostly on the lack of verification of the signatories and their qualifications.LeafByNiggle:
Snopes is not a reliable source, they lack integrity.
Take your link, in it Snopes creates a strawman instead of addressing the actual claims
Did you see what they did? They excluded the key adjective ‘catastrophic’ from their fact check, which changes everything. Snopes turned a petition questioning the degree of warming into a petition that completely denied there is man made warming.
- Snopes: “a petition arguing that there is no convincing scientific evidence for anthropogenic climate change.”
- Petition: "no convincing scientific evidence that …(man will)…cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere…:
SNOPES deserves to be ridiculed as a fact checker.
This is not an ad hominem because I detailed their gross error in performing their fact checking.
T
Theo520
Guest
Their premise is a strawman, their analysis thus is invalid for that petition.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Consider the premise suitably modified, and then see that the objections still hold.LeafByNiggle:
Their premise is a strawman, their analysis thus is invalid for that petition.
N
Nightfly
Guest
Well I do not have the interest or background you do. I have heard from real experts that essentially say if there is climate change it is not from us.
M
Metis1
Guest
Contrary to what someone posted, I am neither an “alarmist”, nor do I advocate that approach. It’s assumptions like that which makes me not want to engage some here in much of any kind of discussion.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
It takes considerably less expertise to determine if a published paper supports global warming than it does to interpret raw data (like temperature samples or “climate sensitivity”) and come up with your own conclusions of whether there is global warming or not.LeafByNiggle:
Well, actually the Cook, et al, paper was all about interpreting what the papers claimed about the extent of warming based upon very loose “interpretive” criteria, i.e., “implicit endorsement.” That was the source of the “consensus of 97% of scientists” claim. In other words, the interpretation of science papers was core to their survey of papers.
That’s what is supposed to happen to misleading information.
That’s a good example of misinformation. Repeating a false claim does not make it true.
Are you qualified to evaluate evidence that man-made climate change is real?
This is misdirection. Of course nature has the largest effect on climate. But that effect, as large as it is, is slow moving and already taken into account. One example is the changes of the seasons. The difference between summer and winter and much much greater than any change claimed to be caused by man. But summer and winter average out. The changes due to man do not average out. They are steadily increasing. Similarly, comparison to the ice ages are irrelevant because they took thousands of years to develop. The changes man is make are happening much faster.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
This quote by Roy Spencer does not confirm that surface temperature readings are being falsified or otherwise surreptitiously altered, as some here have alleged. The most he does is call them “heavily-massaged”, which is an ethically neutral term. Even scientists that process the surface temperature readings admit that the measurements require extensive processing in order to compensate for all the systematic errors that result from unrelated changes in technology and sampling site conditions as compared to other samples taken in different places and times…LeafByNiggle:
…the alarmists will continue to use the outdated, spotty, and heavily-massaged thermometer data to support their case. For a group that trumpets the high-tech climate modeling effort used to guide energy policy — models which have failed to forecast (or even hindcast!) the lack of warming in recent years — they sure do cling bitterly to whatever will support their case.
So, why are the surface thermometer data used to the exclusion of our best technology — satellites — when tracking global temperatures? Because they better support the narrative of a dangerously warming planet. (Roy Spencer, 2014)
Oops.
The main point of the blog entry this came from was the superiority of satellite measurements over surface measurements. I will not attempt to challenge Dr. Spencer on the reasons for his conclusions. But I will point out that his view on this particular contest is not universally held among other scientists. See the analysis of Dr. Carl Mears (who runs the RSS satellite time series) referenced in this explainer in which he describes how satellite data is also “heavily masaged”. He also says the surface data is more accurate.
E
Ender
Guest
You could hardly expect him to use your exact words, but the implication is surely there:
alarmists will continue to use… heavily-massage thermometer data…Because they better support the narrative of a dangerously warming planet .
You asked for a quote from Spencer. That’s what I gave you.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
But the quote from Spencer did not go as far as the opinions expressed here. It isn’t just a matter of not using the same exact words. It just isn’t as extreme.LeafByNiggle:
You could hardly expect him to use your exact words, but the implication is surely there:
alarmists will continue to use… heavily-massage thermometer data…Because they better support the narrative of a dangerously warming planet .
You asked for a quote from Spencer. That’s what I gave you.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
I suppose if your mind is made up about what constitutes “misleading” a priori, then all information contrary to what you have predetermined is, therefore, “misleading.”
Fortunately, science isn’t supposed to be done that way. There was a “scientific revolution” a few centuries back that determined science to be an inductive – and open to new information and critique – and not a deductive or dialectic , method.
In other words, we don’t start with the assumption (opinion, really) that the climate is catastrophically warming and then ONLY accept evidence that supports that foredrawn conclusion, while writing-off all contrary evidence as “misleading.”
Since when did science become so dogmatic and presumptive?
Oh right, since the science of “climate change” developed models that couldn’t be challenged no matter how poorly they accorded with the real world.
Last edited:
H
Holly3278
Guest
I’m sorry but I don’t really feel like getting into that much of a conversation about it. I hope you don’t mind.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
You seem to have no qualms about determining which evidence is “misleading” and should be expunged from the book of knowledge.
How are you qualified to make that determination?
I will continue to make this point:
The value of evidence is not based upon what experts say about it. The value of evidence stands on its own.
Scientists like Lindzen, Happer, Soon, Curry, Easterbrook, Christy, McKitrick and others are far more competent to determine the “science” than the left-wing editors at Wikipedia.
And yet, here you are – a supposed defender of competent scientists – claiming anonymous Wikipedia editors are more “qualified” to determine what counts as “misleading” than atmospheric physicists, geophysicists and scientists from places like MIT, Princeton, Harvard, NASA, NRC, Georgia Tech, etc., with decades of world-class scientific work behind them.
Consistency of thought argues vehemently against your points.
- Status