Conservatives and climate change

[DC]

Is this an excuse for sucking on the RealCrapClimate.com teat? I've never had problems accessing information since I got the internet in 1992. (or porn)

well i have had several papers that i actually wanted to read and could not find them for free in full length.
and do you have any evidence that i am sucking on the RealCrapClimate.com teat?

 

[Furcifer]

So what does any of this have to do with Anthony Twatts beiong a denier?

Don't tell me you're just trying to bluster your way out of admitting that you've been proved wrong?

No I don't understand why you think the peer review process is "denial"? He doesn't "deny" the temperature record, he said it may be inaccurate and then used the scientific method to determine if it was true or not. Challenging the staus quo is not "denial" and any scientists with an ounce of integrity would appreciate the challenge.

That being said, I think his website is equally rift with pseudoscience.

eta:

 

[Furcifer]

The one time I've seen you try to cite a science journal it turned out the paper expressly rejected the claim you were trying to support.

Lie.

Feel free to support your lie with evidence. lol.

 

[Furcifer]

Niners won! Woo-hoo!

And I have Brady on my fantasy team. Su-weet.

Oops. Off topic.

Hey, it's seasonally cold in Foxboro.

 

[Furcifer]

The post you wrote this in response to showed a favorite of yours rejecting peer reviewed results because that he had previously promised to accept after he found out they didn't say why he wanted.

You answer is therefor Non sequitur at best, but if anything once again demonstrates your rejection of the process of peer reviewed science.

lol, I could care less about Watts. It's just an easy way to show how empty the "denier" claims really are. He runs the most popular "climate science" website on the internet. It's easy to show he doesn't "deny" climate science, he actively participates in it. You can't "deny" what you're part of.

 

[Furcifer]

Evidence? An alternative hypothesis? Those things would be a good start.

Evidence of what exactly? I've shown how the site pushes a political agenda, I've shown how it selectively promotes science which it feels furthers it's own alarmists agenda. What more do you want?

It gets tiresome trying to change the faith of believers. My own mother is still Catholic

 

[bit_pattern]

lhe actively participates in it. You can't "deny" what you're part of.

That's the biggest joke i think I've heard so far this year. Thanks for the lulz!

 

[bit_pattern]

No I don't understand why you think the peer review process is "denial"? He doesn't "deny" the temperature record, he said it may be inaccurate and then used the scientific method to determine if it was true or not. Challenging the staus quo is not "denial" and any scientists with an ounce of integrity would appreciate the challenge.

That being said, I think his website is equally rift with pseudoscience.

eta:

So WattsUpHisArse is peer reviewed now? Good one!

 

[Furcifer]

Again you demonstrate why you are a denier. You are a denier because you think it's "appropriate" to label peer reviewed scientists citing current, high profile peer reviewed papers "crap" "hokum" and "psudoscience"

Right, calling out pseudoscience for what it is is "denial". It's the same thing religious freaks say about atheists.

Climate Science, the new opiate for the alarmist masses.

I resent science being used for religious or political beliefs. That's why I'm a skeptic.

 

[Furcifer]

So WattsUpHisArse is peer reviewed now? Good one!

Just the paper you cited, certainly not the website. It's pseudoscience.
The same goes for many of the articles and studies at RealCrapClimate.com, good science being used for pseudoscientific purposes. Damn shame.

 

[DC]

Right, calling out pseudoscience for what it is is "denial". It's the same thing religious freaks say about atheists.

Climate Science, the new opiate for the alarmist masses.

I resent science being used for religious or political beliefs. That's why I'm a skeptic.

but somehow you fail to backup your claims when asked for it. you are a sceptic? really?

 

[Furcifer]

but somehow you fail to backup your claims when asked for it. you are a sceptic? really?

You're supposed to be citing SPECIFIC examples of people denying climate science and what aspects of climate science they deny,and how it's been proven demonstrable false, and how they keep claiming the same thing ie; "denial".

It's laughable, basically the claim is anyone involved in the peer review process is a "denier".

 

[bit_pattern]

2. For starters, stop applying pejorative labels like "denier" to the opposition. It reinforces the impression that advocates for the AGW hypothesis must rely on intimidation rather than evidence.

Here is some REAL intimidation:

Prominent MIT researcher Kerry Emanuel has been receiving an unprecedented "frenzy of hate" after a video featuring an interview with him was published recently by Climate Desk.

Emails contained "veiled threats against my wife," and other "tangible threats," Emanuel, a highly-regarded atmospheric scientist and director of MIT's Atmospheres, Oceans, and Climate program, said in an interview. "They were vile, these emails. They were the kind of emails nobody would like to receive."

"What was a little bit new about it was dragging family members into it and feeling that my family might be under threat, so naturally I didn't feel very good about that at all," Emanuel said. "I thought it was low to drag somebody's spouse into arguments like this."

Climate Desk has seen a sample of the emails and can confirm they are laced with menacing language and expletives, and contain personal threats of violence.

Emanuel began receiving emails "almost immediately" after the video was posted on Jan. 5, and the volume peaked at four or five emails a day. The threats have now petered off.

Threats are nothing new in the world of climate science. But Emanuel was surprised by the viciousness of the emails. "I think most of my colleagues and I have received a fair bit of email here and there that you might classify as ‘hate mail,' but nothing like what I've got in the last few days."

"This was a little more orchestrated this time," he said.

http://www.grist.org/climate-skeptics/2012-01-13-mit-climate-scientist-receives-frenzy-of-hate-mail

 

[Peephole]

If there are no sides, to whom does the label "denier" apply? Others have referred to "partisan" climate blogs. The root of "partisan" is "part".

Well no, since there's no actual discussion anymore. All there's left is some fringe whack jobs.

 

[Furcifer]

Here is some REAL intimidation:

Unacceptable.

I'd point out that this isn't a one way street. I can easily find examples of alarmists claiming genocide from the continued use of hydrocarbons. People are crazy.

 

[keale]

Unacceptable.

I'd point out that this isn't a one way street. I can easily find examples of alarmists claiming genocide from the continued use of hydrocarbons. People are crazy.

The preponderance of the evidence support AGW.

I would like to point out a few things. scientists from around the world have looked at this and come to the same conclusion. Many scientists come from countries where said countries would benefit if AGW wasnt true yet there they pretty much all agree on the realities of AGW.

Tell me why is that?


Do you have some evidence of some worldwide conspiracy where all these countries would direct their scientists to not only agree with the conclusions of AGW but also not say a word about it.

What the hell is there to gain by falsifying AGW?

 

[Furcifer]

The preponderance of the evidence support AGW.

I would like to point out a few things. scientists from around the world have looked at this and come to the same conclusion. Many scientists come from countries where said countries would benefit if AGW wasnt true yet there they pretty much all agree on the realities of AGW.

Tell me why is that?


Do you have some evidence of some worldwide conspiracy where all these countries would direct their scientists to not only agree with the conclusions of AGW but also not say a word about it.

What the hell is there to gain by falsifying AGW?

And I would say what the heck are you talking about? 98% of scientists agree that it's warmed about 1 degree on average in the last 150 years due to humans burning fossil fuels.

There's no "denying" that.

Unfortunately, what's to happen in the coming years, decades and even centuries is totally open to interpretation.

IMO it's not that bad. It's not bad enough to do much beyond trying to reduce CO2 emissions in the next 20 years down to 0. It's not enough to put a halt to economic progress and tax ourselves into recession in the process. We're putting up wind turbines and implementing PV on a daily basis. People are buying more fuel efficient cars and going to triple pane windows. They're using CFL's and LED's. They're recycling and composting more now than they ever have in human history.

So what am I denying? Denying that it's not the end of the World? Denying impetus irrational thought? You betcha. If that's what a "denier" is then I've got no problem wearing the scarlet "D".

 

[SezMe]

I'd point out that this isn't a one way street. I can easily find examples of alarmists claiming genocide from the continued use of hydrocarbons. People are crazy.

It is a one way street. Threatening individuals right now for their position is not anywhere the same as suggesting that populations will suffer in the future because of public policy. Guys like Ben Santer have had their lives severely damaged by deniers. Bankruptcy, divorce, smeared professional reputation, etc. You cannot find an analogous situation on the other side of the fence.

 

[Corsair 115]

IMO it's not that bad. It's not bad enough to do much beyond trying to reduce CO2 emissions in the next 20 years down to 0.

And why, precisely, should anyone listen to your opinion that "it's not that bad"? Why should anyone pay even a shred of attention to it, least of all policy makers or the scientific community? Why should your opinion on this matter be given any more credence than your opinion on, say, the best procedure to land a jetliner in a strong crosswind, or your opinion on the best way to conduct open heart surgery, or your opinion on the best way for a catcher to call the pitches in a major league baseball game?

Why should your opinion be valued as equal to the opinion of those who are professional scientists working in the appropriate fields who have the requisite background and years of practical experience, and furthermore, who have painstakingly gathered lots of evidence to support their opinions?

Should I expect you to soon write the authoritative manual on who to land a commercial jetliner in a crosswind?

 

[DC]

You're supposed to be citing SPECIFIC examples of people denying climate science and what aspects of climate science they deny,and how it's been proven demonstrable false, and how they keep claiming the same thing ie; "denial".

It's laughable, basically the claim is anyone involved in the peer review process is a "denier".

no, i posted a very specific example, of a scientists that does deny the A of AGW.