AWG conspiracy, why?

[Peephole]

Except that then we have people "hiding" the "decline" in temperatures that was showing in tree rings when "real" temperatures went up by inserting those "real" temperatures. Well all find and dandy, except a) if the tree ring temperatures aren't able to be used where we know they don't match the "real" temperatures, how can we know that they actually match the real temperatures were we don't have data to match to them?

Because first of all, tree rings aren't the only temperature proxies in existence. And secondly, the divergence problem doesn't spring up until the 1950s. We have direct temperature data from a lot longer ago.

And b) we don't actually know if the "real" temperatures are right anyway, since the raw data was thrown away and we can't go back and check that the modifidied "real" data we do have was modified justifiably and correctly.

This is a big fat lie, there is tons of raw temperature date available. And there's nothing wrong with CRU's temperature data.

Now it might have been modified correctly, but really, are you going to trust someone that has already shown that they are willing to throw out as unreliable data that doesn't match other collected data when it doesn't agree with their conclusions, but then turn around and use that very same unreliable data when it does agrees with them, yet can't be verified. I'm not.

"Throwing out data when it doesn't agree their conclusions."

That's a ridiculous characterization, what they do, is throw out proxy data that doesn't agree with the directly measured temperature record. Which is one of the things a responsible scientist may do when he's trying to visualise the temperature record as accurately as possible.

 

[PhantomWolf]

No, but things like gravity, evolution and AGW are well-accepted theories that aren't going to suddenly radically change. That doesn't mean further refining the science isn't necessary.

You mean like our understanding of gravity didn't suddenly and radically change with the introduction of Relativity?

 

[Travis]

It was hard for me to accept AGW after going to college with blatant Communists who were, suddenly, big on this issue who's only solution, according to them, was to dismantle capitalism. I eventually got around it but it was hard when all I could think about every time someone mentioned AGW were the drum circle idiots who called people "Planet Murderers" for not being vegans.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

It was hard for me to accept AGW after going to college with blatant Communists who were, suddenly, big on this issue who's only solution, according to them, was to dismantle capitalism. I eventually got around it but it was hard when all I could think about every time someone mentioned AGW were the drum circle idiots who called people "Planet Murderers" for not being vegans.

You're a vegan?

 

[JamesB]

Nobody except the Alex Jones types claims it a conspiracy. That doesn't mean that there may not be some part of of the scientific movement who don't just happen to share ideological goals and biases, or that may be motivated financially to get grants and research approved, or feel pressure from others to slant research a certain way. Just look at the recent CRU e-mails. That is not a conspiracy, that is just humans being, well, human.

 

[Travis]

You're a vegan?

Um, no. Hence they called me a "Planet Murderer."

 

[BenBurch]

Nobody except the Alex Jones types claims it a conspiracy. That doesn't mean that there may not be some part of of the scientific movement who don't just happen to share ideological goals and biases, or that may be motivated financially to get grants and research approved, or feel pressure from others to slant research a certain way. Just look at the recent CRU e-mails. That is not a conspiracy, that is just humans being, well, human.

You are trying to call it a conspiracy without taking on the opprobrium of the CTer moniker.

 

[Travis]

Of course the existence of one bad researcher wouldn't invalidate the entire field of research. Although we still have people trying to discredit Evolution because of Piltdown Man.

 

[Peephole]

You mean like our understanding of gravity didn't suddenly and radically change with the introduction of Relativity?

No, you still fall down when you jump out of a building, and Newton's laws are still widely and succesfully used.

 

[Bob from NJ]

Do I misunderstand the word "Skeptical?" It seems the skeptics accept Global Warming without question, and the Skeptics Guide to the Universe (My fav podcast ever) belittles anyone who questions it as cranks, or 'woo'.

Isn't it skeptical to question what you are TOLD by authority figures? Global warming hysteria has been rammed down my throat for decades by "suits" in authority- but I'm suspicious because;

1) Usually they ONLY blame cars and SUVs for pollution, and only cars driven in the US, EU, and Japan. (But I thought US cars had cleaned up their act and polluted 80% less nowadays?)

2) ONLY US factories pollute; Mexico, China, Russia, and India are never called upon to clean up their act, when they're polluting like it was 1899!

3) I've heard on Skeptoid and other places that recycling paper is actually BAD for the environment (!?!)

4) Fluorescent lightbulbs take more energy to make, and often contain Mercury- almost NO ONE disposes of them correctly

5) If the politicians were serious about getting people "off the grid" they's subsidize solar panels for EVERY household to power our homes and charge our electric cars- I'd LOVE that! Then we could stop burning so much coal and gasoline. (Egad! That's too much energy independence for the individual! We can't have that!!)

Of course we need to pollute less; I think the Global Warming boogeyman is being used for some other political agenda, NOT to conserve the ecosystem. It's being rammed down our throats like Revealed Dogma; accept it without question or you'll burn forever in a fiery inferno of CO2 and styrofoam cups!!!!

 

[Peephole]

Do I misunderstand the word "Skeptical?" It seems the skeptics accept Global Warming without question, and the Skeptics Guide to the Universe (My fav podcast ever) belittles anyone who questions it as cranks, or 'woo'.

Creationists and holocaust deniers are very skeptical too, you know.

 

[tsig]

Do I misunderstand the word "Skeptical?" It seems the skeptics accept Global Warming without question, and the Skeptics Guide to the Universe (My fav podcast ever) belittles anyone who questions it as cranks, or 'woo'.

Isn't it skeptical to question what you are TOLD by authority figures? Global warming hysteria has been rammed down my throat for decades by "suits" in authority- but I'm suspicious because;

1) Usually they ONLY blame cars and SUVs for pollution, and only cars driven in the US, EU, and Japan. (But I thought US cars had cleaned up their act and polluted 80% less nowadays?)

2) ONLY US factories pollute; Mexico, China, Russia, and India are never called upon to clean up their act, when they're polluting like it was 1899!

3) I've heard on Skeptoid and other places that recycling paper is actually BAD for the environment (!?!)

4) Fluorescent lightbulbs take more energy to make, and often contain Mercury- almost NO ONE disposes of them correctly

5) If the politicians were serious about getting people "off the grid" they's subsidize solar panels for EVERY household to power our homes and charge our electric cars- I'd LOVE that! Then we could stop burning so much coal and gasoline. (Egad! That's too much energy independence for the individual! We can't have that!!)

Of course we need to pollute less; I think the Global Warming boogeyman is being used for some other political agenda, NOT to conserve the ecosystem. It's being rammed down our throats like Revealed Dogma; accept it without question or you'll burn forever in a fiery inferno of CO2 and styrofoam cups!!!!

In all those years did you ever try to study the problem?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

You are trying to call it a conspiracy without taking on the opprobrium of the CTer moniker.

So anyone and everyone who questions or is skeptical is a CTer?

It's being rammed down our throats like Revealed Dogma; accept it without question or you'll burn forever in a fiery inferno of CO2 and styrofoam cups!!!!

Exactly right. It is rammed down our throats. For many, it has become a moral crusade.

Creationists and holocaust deniers are very skeptical too, you know.

Sigh. There we go again.

In all those years did you ever try to study the problem?

Probably not, but I would suggest they (we) never ardently studied creationism either to know it doesn't add up.
What's your point?

 

[Peephole]

Newsflash: there's more to being a skeptic, than "just asking questions".

 

[fourtoe]

I just read that James Randi himself, does not accept AGW on PZ Myers' blog!

Is this old news?

This is a big CT that I argue all the time with Truthers and LaRouche-bags. It always ends up with them showing their complete ignorance in atmospheric and climate science and geology and them just talking about how Al Gore sucks.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Newsflash: there's more to being a skeptic, than "just asking questions".

And there's more to adherence of AGW theory than gullibility and ideology.

I just read that James Randi himself, does not accept AGW on PZ Myers' blog!

Is this old news?

This is a big CT that I argue all the time with Truthers and LaRouche-bags. It always ends up with them showing their complete ignorance in atmospheric and climate science and geology and them just talking about how Al Gore sucks.

It looks like it was written fairly recently.

One wonders whether the warm mongers think he's a denier and CTer too.

Everyone think Al Gore sucks.

 

[fourtoe]

And there's more to adherence of AGW theory than gullibility and ideology.



It looks like it was written fairly recently.

One wonders whether the warm mongers think he's a denier and CTer too.

Everyone think Al Gore sucks.

What do you think about Randi's views on the validity of the Petition Project?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

What do you think about Randi's views on the validity of the Petition Project?

That not everyone that signed it was Donald Duck.

What's your opinion on him being a denier and CTer?

 

[fourtoe]

That not everyone that signed it was Donald Duck.

What's your opinion on him being a denier and CTer?

Well I don't think he is any of those. However I do find it kind of lame that he is agreeing with a very sketchy petition put out by an even more sketchy think tank.

Not everyone who signed it was Donald Duck but only 0.5% of them were scientists in relevant fields.

Ultimately of course Randi is welcome to his opinion but to support that opinion with such a despicable source does not seem right.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Well I don't think he is any of those. However I do find it kind of lame that he is agreeing with a very sketchy petition put out by an even more sketchy think tank.

Not everyone who signed it was Donald Duck but only 0.5% of them were scientists in relevant fields.

Ultimately of course Randi is welcome to his opinion but to support that opinion with such a despicable source does not seem right.

Thanks.

So, two points/questions.

Are all those who take a skeptical point of view, such as Mr Randi, deniers and CTers?

And, the 0.5%.... what are the "scientists in relevant fields"? Or what are these relevant fields exactly?