• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged AGW without HADCRUT3

Father Dagon said:
Ever heard about Richard Walther Darré and Artamanen? (So let's just drop the right-left axis, shall we? It confuses more than it clarifies and has to be recalibrated for every country and every time.)
Click to expand...

WTF? Why don't we talk about the man in the moon? The logic, as far as I can understand it, is that because it is you think that some scientists could be influenced by a Nazi, we should seriously consider the possibility.
 
Last edited:
A.A.Alfie said:
Even if they are supressing evidence?

Correct. But is does raise a lot of suspicions, especially when other information is shown (or attempted to be supressed) that contradicts their scientific claims.
Click to expand...
That is totally vague.

Who is "they"? If you mean the "the scientific establishment" can you give the name of the official body set up to suppress evidence? Or do you mean every scientist in the world? A random subset of scientists in the world? Just scientists working at universities? A small number of maverick scientsts?

What evidence have you that "they" are supressing evidence, i.e. not allowing papers to be published? Or do "they" have control over all of the public media in the world?
 
Reality Check said:
That is totally vague.

Who is "they"? If you mean the "the scientific establishment" can you give the name of the official body set up to suppress evidence? Or do you mean every scientist in the world? A random subset of scientists in the world? Just scientists working at universities? A small number of maverick scientsts?

What evidence have you that "they" are supressing evidence, i.e. not allowing papers to be published? Or do "they" have control over all of the public media in the world?
Click to expand...

Vague is right however it was not mine. I was referring to the "they" (as in their) in this post...

lomiller said:
Peer review and official statements by authorities bodies are always up in the air (snip)... for the ones claiming “the scientific establishment” is suppressing their evidence.
Click to expand...
 
A.A. Alfie, editing peoples posts to change their meaning and then quoting it as if they wrote it that way seems to becoming quite a habit with you. Here is the original quote clearly I was not suggesting peer review is really up in the air, save in the minds of the crackpots.

lomiller said:
Peer review and official statements by authorities bodies are always up in the air as far as the whack-a-doodles are concerned. This is the common thread that runs though all woo, and the best way to spot the crackpots on any issue is usually to look for the ones claiming “the scientific establishment” is suppressing their evidence.

Which such a conspiracy may be possible, surely it counts as an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary proof. Before anyone starts reaching for straws, scientists disliking crackpots who harass them and try to obstruct the scientific process is not evidence of a global scientific conspiracy.
Click to expand...
 
a_unique_person said:
WTF? Why don't we talk about the man in the moon? The logic, as far as I can understand it, is that because it is you think that some scientists could be influenced by a Nazi, we should seriously consider the possibility.
Click to expand...
My point is that the right-left axis should be left out of this discussion.
 
A.A.Alfie said:
Vague is right however it was not mine. I was referring to the "they" (as in their) in this post...
Click to expand...
The post was
Originally Posted by lomiller
Peer review and official statements by authorities bodies are always up in the air as far as the whack-a-doodles are concerned. This is the common thread that runs though all woo, and the best way to spot the crackpots on any issue is usually to look for the ones claiming “the scientific establishment” is suppressing their evidence.

Which such a conspiracy may be possible, surely it counts as an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary proof. Before anyone starts reaching for straws, scientists disliking crackpots who harass them and try to obstruct the scientific process is not evidence of a global scientific conspiracy.
Click to expand...
(emphasis added)
Ahh - you were referring to the crackpots!

What evidence are the crackpots suppressing :D?
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
Ahh - you were refering to the crackpots!
Click to expand...

Well, paraphrasing them anyway. Crackpots don’t always use that exact wording. In my post “their” is how the crackpots are referring to themselves so it’s “the scientific establishment” suppressing the crackpots evidence.

Of course the whole point of the process is to filter out the crap, so not only do scientists “suppress” bad science it’s their job to do so.
 
lomiller said:
A.A. Alfie, editing peoples posts to change their meaning and then quoting it as if they wrote it that way seems to becoming quite a habit with you. Here is the original quote clearly I was not suggesting peer review is really up in the air, save in the minds of the crackpots.
Click to expand...

That wasn't my intention and I think you know it. I was merely showing the word "their" in context of the question.
 
lomiller said:
Well, paraphrasing them anyway. Crackpots don’t always use that exact wording. In my post “their” is how the crackpots are referring to themselves so it’s “the scientific establishment” suppressing the crackpots evidence.

Of course the whole point of the process is to filter out the crap, so not only do scientists “suppress” bad science it’s their job to do so.
Click to expand...
It was a bit of a joke.
A.A.Alfie says that his "they" is the "their" in your post. But the only "their" in your post refers to the alleged suppression of the crackpot's evidence. So it is obvious to me that A.A.Alfie's "they" are the crackpots.

A.A.Alfie: Maybe you would like to state exactly who "they" are?
 
Reality Check said:
It was a bit of a joke.
A.A.Alfie says that his "they" is the "their" in your post. But the only "their" in your post refers to the alleged suppression of the crackpot's evidence. So it is obvious to me that A.A.Alfie's "they" are the crackpots.

A.A.Alfie: Maybe you would like to state exactly who "they" are?
Click to expand...


You might want to re-read the posts again.
I could point it out to you; however, each time I do the work for you, I rob you of an opportunity to learn.:)
 
A.A.Alfie said:
You might want to re-read the posts again.
I could point it out to you; however, each time I do the work for you, I rob you of an opportunity to learn.:)
Click to expand...
I re-read the posts. They tell me that you think "they" (as in their in the post you reply to) are the crackpots.

Am I right?
 
A.A.Alfie said:
Hang on a second. Wasn't peer review supposed to be the 'holy grail' for the warmers as to why we had to listen to the science. Now peer review has always had problems?
Wow!
Click to expand...
I feel like slapping you upside the head with a couple volumes of the Homeopathy Journal right now. Then maybe a copy of Wakefield's study that was published in an extremely prestigious journal.
 
Last edited:
A.A.Alfie said:
No.
Now you obviously don't get it. Let's move on.
Click to expand...
I am trying to get what you said in your post correct so that I can "get it".

The post was
A.A.Alfie said:
Originally Posted by lomiller
Peer review and official statements by authorities bodies are always up in the air as far as the whack-a-doodles are concerned. This is the common thread that runs though all woo, and the best way to spot the crackpots on any issue is usually to look for the ones claiming “the scientific establishment” is suppressing their evidence.
Click to expand...
Even if they are supressing evidence?

Originally Posted by lomiller
Which such a conspiracy may be possible, surely it counts as an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary proof. Before anyone starts reaching for straws, scientists disliking crackpots who harass them and try to obstruct the scientific process is not evidence of a global scientific conspiracy.
Click to expand...

Correct. But is does raise a lot of suspicions, especially when other information is shown (or attempted to be supressed) that contradicts their scientific claims.
Click to expand...

The first quote from Iomiller has
  • "authorities bodies"
  • "whack-a-doodles"
  • "crackpots" (not "they" as above)
  • “the scientific establishment” is suppressing their evidence.
Since you mention supressing evidence, I would think that they are “the scientific establishment”.

But it looks like your question is pointing out the "even paranoids have enemies" position, i.e. the crackpots would be right in their claim if “the scientific establishment” was actually suppressing the crackpot's evidence. A pity that there is no evidence for this widespread suppression in the scientific establishment.
 
CoolSceptic said:
Hey, cool - Ben is doing some SCIENCE. Let's check it out!
... [words] ...
Sorry Ben. I've got to grade you with an F on this one. But since it is be nice to Ben day, I'll bump it up to an E. :)
Click to expand...

I've not posted in these AGW threads all too often. Those times that I have, I've argued that those with oppositional views be treated with respect, as better conclusions are far more easily swallowed when not accompanied by ego. I've argued against comparing AGW "skeptics" to despised groups, such as Young Earth Creationists and/or Holocaust Deniers. Indeed, I've specifically argued against using the term "denier".

I was wrong. I apologize for wasting everyone's time.

I've lurked in many of these threads, and I've learned one thing: it doesn't matter.

It is commonly, easily demonstrated that:

1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
2. CO2 has increased dramatically from human activities.
3. The Earth is warming.

It has been pointed out multiple times-- at least once by myself-- that paleoclimatic data reject the notion that there are any processes on which we can rely to mitigate extra energy (yes, some processes CAN, but there are none that respond to extra energy in order to "keep the balance", so-to-speak). It has also been pointed multiple times that oceanic acidification appears to be an increasing threat, which is a depressing topic of its own.

The default position is quite clear. We know:

that CO2 is a greenhouse gas,
that we've increased CO2 composition dramatically,
that lest other processes exist to mitigate the extra energy, we ought expect some warming,
that paleoclimate data reject the notion that such mitigating processes exist,
that the Earth is getting warmer,
and that oceans are becoming more acidic.

It's always possible that we missed something. I guess. Whatever. That's not the problem. The problem is that the same folk look at these data over and over, and repeatedly conclude that AGW is a hoax.

And this brings me back to the point of my post. I wasted everyone's time. I argued that these folk ought be treated seriously, because from respectful dialogue we ought expect the most objective, reasonable conclusions. My predictions failed. I've not once seen an AGW denier treat this subject seriously, and move beyond the simple talking points trumpeted about by the wolves. And it's depressing.

And I'm through being respectful, because, frankly, the tone from the deniers has been overwhelming condescending, despite the fact that these armchair, internet scientists are trying to usurp authority from the expert consensus. And that's why I've responded to this post specifically.

CoolSceptic, you sound as though you're auditioning to replace Penn in a ******** episode. It may make you feel confident by posting in such a condescending manner, and it may be entertaining, but it is not how Scientific Skepticism is conducted. You care more about winning your internet points than you do about the topic of debate. And that's fine. That's your right. Great. But please don't preach about how science ought be conducted.

I'm going to go back to lurking; I need some method by which my hopes of a brighter future can be utter crushed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom