Conservatives and climate change

[lomiller]

3. I don't know. One innocent interpretation: if someone uses Wikipedia for background and then writes for publication, it's quite possible that the publication would exhibit some parallel structure.

More then just the "structure" was copied. It was nearly an exact quote.

Remember the Journals legal department looked at the evidence and withdrew the paper, so this isn't just some misunderstanding or accident.

Some people at Wikipedia are AGW partisans, so it might not take much to get them to make the accusation.

By "AWG partisan" do you perhaps mean publishing climate scientist? "Conservatives" do struggle to understand such distinctions

http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?as...as_sdt=1.&as_sdtp=on&as_sdtf=&as_sdts=5&hl=en

Does the presumed Wikipedia ancestry enhance or degrade the credibility of the Wegman, Said, Scott

Yes, having their paper withdrawn for plagiarism degrades their credibility, not that their analysis was anything more than a conspiracy theory to begin with.

 

[Furcifer]

Shuffling the gaolposts any here, Furcifer? Yeah, I'd say so.

I will repeat this:

Can you, in any way, shape, or form, disprove the testable, verifiable measurements of CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere, or their testable, verifiable effects on IR vs. wavelength.

Just yes or no. That's all you need to say, you can leave the insults and the evasions, stop with your politics, and just answer the question.

Best non sequitur of the thread I've seen yet. How did you get here from China? Just curious.

Anyhoo, greenhouse gases and their "testable, verifiable" effects in the lab or as part of the Earth's atmospheric system dynamic?

What do you mean by "disprove" measurements? A data set doesn't need to be "proven", it either exists or it doesn't.

I'd love to give you a yes or no answer but your question doesn't make any sense. Plus from what I can discern it's really two questions.

 

[DC]

The most bothersome aspect of the climate discussion is the close connection between political orientation and acceptance or rejection of the theory. If astronomers predict a reasonable chance (greater than, say, 0.01) that a specific asteroid of diameter greater than, say, 300 m. will impact the Earth in, say, ten years, programs to address the threat will find support across the political spectrum. It's partly the perceived uncertainty of climate science AND the stridency of proponents (including rhetorical style) that fosters suspicion on the part of skeptics, seems to me. Steven Schneider went from recommending action against an impending Ice Age to recommending action against global warming. Sad that he was so indifferent to irony. Climate predictions are rife with uncertainty. To the self-aware, that should counsel tolerance. It does not seem to.
Richard Alley spoke at the UH. During the Q&A, in response to a question about biological sequestration by fertilization of tropical ocean deserts, as an alternative to wrenching economic change, he dismissed the suggestion on the grounds that this would buy no more than 200 years. That's a lot of time to find a better solution. Why impoverish today's population for uncertain science when, even if the threat is real, there's a less disruptive stop-gap?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Yz8UwRsWPA


yeah good old uncertainty.

 

[DC]

1. Me, too. A friend of mine is up to 50 or so articles (Plant taxonomy). A Math professor opened an article on Jordan Normal form. He recommended to me an article on Group Rings. For partisan material, it's iffy.
2. That depends on the editors.
3. I don't know. One innocent interpretation: if someone uses Wikipedia for background and then writes for publication, it's quite possible that the publication would exhibit some parallel structure. Some people at Wikipedia are AGW partisans, so it might not take much to get them to make the accusation. It's a grey area.

Does the presumed Wikipedia ancestry enhance or degrade the credibility of the Wegman, Said, Scott social network analysis?

so you see no problem with their dishonesty. very telling.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

so you see no problem with their dishonesty. very telling.

So you see that in what I wrote. Very telling.

 

[DavidJames]

So you see that in what I wrote. Very telling.

I missed it as well. Can you quote where you expressed there was a problem with their dishonesty?

 

[DC]

The most bothersome aspect of the climate discussion is the close connection between political orientation and acceptance or rejection of the theory. If astronomers predict a reasonable chance (greater than, say, 0.01) that a specific asteroid of diameter greater than, say, 300 m. will impact the Earth in, say, ten years, programs to address the threat will find support across the political spectrum. It's partly the perceived uncertainty of climate science AND the stridency of proponents (including rhetorical style) that fosters suspicion on the part of skeptics, seems to me. Steven Schneider went from recommending action against an impending Ice Age to recommending action against global warming. Sad that he was so indifferent to irony. Climate predictions are rife with uncertainty. To the self-aware, that should counsel tolerance. It does not seem to.
Richard Alley spoke at the UH. During the Q&A, in response to a question about biological sequestration by fertilization of tropical ocean deserts, as an alternative to wrenching economic change, he dismissed the suggestion on the grounds that this would buy no more than 200 years. That's a lot of time to find a better solution. Why impoverish today's population for uncertain science when, even if the threat is real, there's a less disruptive stop-gap?

are you opposed to the LHC experiments? because there are uncertainties about it causeing blackholes.

 

[DC]

So you see that in what I wrote. Very telling.

aah you have a problem with their dishonesty. sorry that i missed that from your post, english is not my first language

 

[bit_pattern]

aah you have a problem with their dishonesty. sorry that i missed that from your post, english is not my first language

 

[mhaze]

Regardless of your personal biases and perceptions the poll indicates quite the opposite summation:

agreement increased after the debate 30% -> 46% - an increase of 53%
undecided stayed roughly the same 13% -> 12% - a decrease of 8%
disagreement decreased 57% -> 42% - a decrease of 24%

Personally, I wouldn't read too much into such surveys, but if you are going to try and use such to support an assertion, the results should at the least support your assertion. Prior to the debate, the audience was disbelieving of AGW by a ratio of almost 2-1, after the debate the audience supported AGW by convincing majority.

Wrong.

Question that was debated was:

"Global Warming Is Not a Crisis."

And the Faithful shall study the evidence, and if it is supportive, pronounce it loudly to the multitude. But if it is not supportive, claim that it is, and pronounce it loudly to the multitude.

Inscription on the head of a pin, one of a set of 12 pins found in the cell of eco-fascist anarchist Zachariah Duhh who died in prison in 2019 for torching Hummers.

 

[bit_pattern]

Wrong.

Yes. Yes you were. It takes a real man to admit it.

 

[DC]

Wrong.

Question that was debated was:

"Global Warming Is Not a Crisis."

And the Faithful shall study the evidence, and if it is supportive, pronounce it loudly to the multitude. But if it is not supportive, claim that it is, and pronounce it loudly to the multitude.

Inscription on the head of a pin, one of a set of 12 pins found in the cell of eco-fascist anarchist Zachariah Duhh who died in prison in 2019 for torching Hummers.

how do you plan to continue spreading your religion of scinece denial? Will you send missionaries overseas?

 

[mhaze]

Yes. Yes you were. It takes a real man to admit it.

"Global Warming Is Not a Crisis."

...before the debate, about 30 percent of the audience agreed ...Afterward, about 46 percent agreed

Brothers, if when defending the Faith you are caught in a lie, respond with yet a bigger lie, for this is the Way of the Faithful. And never cease from calling the Deniers liars, for repetition creates certainty.

From a Youtube Greenpeace training film archived in 2019 and entitled "Freedom in Chains are your Chains of Freedom".

 

[bit_pattern]

<blah blah blah>

 

[DC]

"Global Warming Is Not a Crisis."

...before the debate, about 30 percent of the audience agreed ...Afterward, about 46 percent agreed

Brothers, if when defending the Faith you are caught in a lie, respond with yet a bigger lie, for this is the Way of the Faithful. And never cease from calling the Deniers liars, for repetition creates certainty.

From a Youtube Greenpeace training film archived in 2019 and entitled "Freedom in Chains are your Chains of Freedom".

Most people on this planet know AGW to be true.
what is your chruch planning to do against this blasphemy? more bible quoting or more pseudoscienceblogs?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Regardless of your personal biases and perceptions the poll indicates quite the opposite summation:

agreement increased after the debate 30% -> 46% - an increase of 53%
undecided stayed roughly the same 13% -> 12% - a decrease of 8%
disagreement decreased 57% -> 42% - a decrease of 24%

Personally, I wouldn't read too much into such surveys, but if you are going to try and use such to support an assertion, the results should at the least support your assertion. Prior to the debate, the audience was disbelieving of AGW by a ratio of almost 2-1, after the debate the audience supported AGW by convincing majority.

No. As mhaze has now said several times, you are misinterpreting the proposition. Before the debate, only 30% agreed that "Global warming is not a crisis", while 57% disagreed with that proposition. After the debate, the audience was pretty evenly divided on that question: 46% said global warming is not a crisis, while 42% said it is a crisis.

There was no 2-1 in the debate results. You are misinterpreting the percentage change in position.

mhaze is right on this one.

For the full video and a written transcript that ends with the moderator stating the results of the audience poll, see the official intelligence² web site for this debate:
http://intelligencesquaredus.org/index.php/past-debates/global-warming-is-not-a-crisis/

 

[mhaze]

Most people on this planet know AGW to be true.
what is your chruch planning to do against this blasphemy? more bible quoting or more pseudoscienceblogs?

Anything that is a scientific hypothesis has two characteristics. (1) it can be tested (2) it may be rejected after critical examination.

Clearly, you are correct. Science is blasphemy to your AGW religion.



From the tip of this receeding glacier, soon to be lost forever, I bring you a new science, and a new hope. This is the science of Earth Truth, which starts with the Word of MannJonesPig, which evidence cannot destroy, for which doubt cannot be brought, and which ye shall Belie...

Recorded by avid worshippers and placed on Youtube in 2021, before tip of glacier broke off, sending the Priest and worshippers to the GreenHeaven, the Promised Land with no CO2.

 

[DC]

Anything that is a scientific hypothesis has two characteristics. (1) it can be tested (2) it may be rejected after critical examination.

Clearly, you are correct. Science is blasphemy to your AGW religion.

sure you would say that, that is the position of your church.
shame it has nothing to do with reality.

and just like the Evolution deniers, the AGW deniers have no working alternative hypothesis that would explain the observed phenomena, so they have to stick to the "finger in the ears and LALALALALA your theory is wrong" tactic.
whats next, will you claim, doh, its just a theory?

 

[BenBurch]

Most people on this planet know AGW to be true.
what is your chruch planning to do against this blasphemy? more bible quoting or more pseudoscienceblogs?

I think their next step, after breaking and entering to steal email didn't work, is executions and torture. Religions all revert to that when pressed.

 

[mhaze]

sure you would say that, that is the position of your church.
shame it has nothing to do with reality.

and just like the Evolution deniers, the AGW deniers have no working alternative hypothesis that would explain the observed phenomena, so they have to stick to the "finger in the ears and LALALALALA your theory is wrong" tactic.
whats next, will you claim, doh, its just a theory?

So you don't understand the scientific method?

I gather that from your buzzword-level use of the phrases phenomena, theory, hypothesis, as well as misunderstanding the needs and purpose or lack of of "alternative hypothesis".