Select to expand quoteParadox said..Chris 249 said..
Dunno if all of Paradox' stuff comes from charlatans. On the other hand, the "skeptic" side seems to be split between those who say there is no warming trend, and those who say there is. Such a contradiction must surely show that at least one section of the "skeptic" side is incorrect.
Surely it is also reasonable to point out that someone like Spencer admits to beliefs that cannot really be aligned with science. It's more reasonable than the denialist line that climate scientists are charlatans who distort science because of the lure of grant money that they won't actually get.
As far as I can tell, very few scientists actually believe there is no warming. Some may have some issues with the way the homegenisation of the data occurs but thats just an argument over the data manipulation process, which does influence the magnitude of change. Healthy skpticism on a process to be transparent, but no denial of an upward trend in most cases.
Regarding Spencer, you can't paint a scientists work as tainted just because he has religous faith. Not that i'm even aware of what Spencers faith is, ive not looked into it. He is certainly a respected scientist with significant published work, and there is no basis to HG's claims of dodgy results. However irrespective of that, what HG has done is tried to discredit all 5 of the seperate sources I provided by attacking one (without any actual evidence I might add). It's a tactic employed by the desperate or those trying to force a particular view without considering facts.
Irrespective of any of that, you need to understand that the argument I was presenting was that there is evidential substantiation for both CO2 and natural variance hypothesis influencing the observed temperature increases. At no time have I said that one or the other isn't occuring.
What scientists don't actually know is how much each is contributing, and that is why even the IPCC, CSIRO and other agencies all refer to the "likely" contribution of CO2 in thier statements. They don't know, its all guesses and modelling of a samll change in a very complex system.
Missing the point entirely. I don't have a problem with Spencer's faith so long as it stays in the congregation. The trouble is in this case, he's a signatory to a religious declaration that claim essentially, no matter what damage humans do to the environment, god will fix everything.
That's a serious problem.
He's also made some seriously bad errors with his measurements and had to correct.
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..Paradox said..Chris 249 said..
Dunno if all of Paradox' stuff comes from charlatans. On the other hand, the "skeptic" side seems to be split between those who say there is no warming trend, and those who say there is. Such a contradiction must surely show that at least one section of the "skeptic" side is incorrect.
Surely it is also reasonable to point out that someone like Spencer admits to beliefs that cannot really be aligned with science. It's more reasonable than the denialist line that climate scientists are charlatans who distort science because of the lure of grant money that they won't actually get.
As far as I can tell, very few scientists actually believe there is no warming. Some may have some issues with the way the homegenisation of the data occurs but thats just an argument over the data manipulation process, which does influence the magnitude of change. Healthy skpticism on a process to be transparent, but no denial of an upward trend in most cases.
Regarding Spencer, you can't paint a scientists work as tainted just because he has religous faith. Not that i'm even aware of what Spencers faith is, ive not looked into it. He is certainly a respected scientist with significant published work, and there is no basis to HG's claims of dodgy results. However irrespective of that, what HG has done is tried to discredit all 5 of the seperate sources I provided by attacking one (without any actual evidence I might add). It's a tactic employed by the desperate or those trying to force a particular view without considering facts.
Irrespective of any of that, you need to understand that the argument I was presenting was that there is evidential substantiation for both CO2 and natural variance hypothesis influencing the observed temperature increases. At no time have I said that one or the other isn't occuring.
What scientists don't actually know is how much each is contributing, and that is why even the IPCC, CSIRO and other agencies all refer to the "likely" contribution of CO2 in thier statements. They don't know, its all guesses and modelling of a samll change in a very complex system.
Missing the point entirely. I don't have a problem with Spencer's faith so long as it stays in the congregation. The trouble is in this case, he's a signatory to a religious declaration that claim essentially, no matter what damage humans do to the environment, god will fix everything.
That's a serious problem.
He's also made some seriously bad errors with his measurements and had to correct.
Its very hard to argue against that logic though. If we really stuff it up and "god decides to smite the earth", who can really argue that's not what happened?
'Fix everything' can have a different meaning based on perspectives.
Formula, you appear to like thinking....read this and see if your assumptions about Spencer still hold.
Remember, Spencer is a signatory.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornwall_Alliance
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..
Formula, you appear to like thinking....read this and see if your assumptions about Spencer still hold.
Remember, Spencer is a signatory.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornwall_Alliance
Yes, i was talking in general, but yes, i wouldnt expect anything other than excuses after reading that.
I just watched an interesting V-Sauce YouTube about how it's actually impossible to prove that yesterday ever happened. Now I don't know what to believe anymore.
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..Yes, i was talking in general, but yes, i wouldnt expect anything other than excuses after reading that.holy guacamole said..
Formula, you appear to like thinking....read this and see if your assumptions about Spencer still hold.
Remember, Spencer is a signatory.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornwall_Alliance
And that is the so called "expert" paradox puts forward to counter hundreds of government scientific organisations and universities.
Misinformation is dangerous. That's core business for these doubt merchants. I wouldn't be surprised if many believe they are actually doing the work of god.
Select to expand quotelog man said..Kamikuza said..log man said..
What do they agree on????? Pretty much the same thing......FFS......People have caused GW.......we need to do something to rectify the problem......There done!!!.
I'm so not interested in the silly hairsplitting.
Yeah stupid details, what's the point of them? Can't invent the narrative if you insist on the details. Too hard to understand what those boffins are on about anyway, let's just dumb it all down... Close enough is good enough, and is it's not then you're an evil person.
So you're tripling down on being clueless? I'm not surprised.
mate, I don't need to know the chemical composition of dog **** to know that it stinks. You can send the poo off to forensics if you like.........but it's dog ****.
It's not a thing to be wasting your brain power on.
I'm not saying your "argument" is dog ****......it's more like cat sick
So when someone tells you your breath smells like dog ****, the only conclusion can be you've been eating dog **** again. Yeah that makes sense.
I'm not actually making an argument: I'm asking you what the 97% consensus actually *is*.
Being unable to understand ... well anything ... is not an explanation. Neither is your Divine Revelation way of knowing.
Also: the list of things that smell like your breath but aren't dog **** is extensive and includes innocuous things you may actually enjoy, like cheese and fruit.
Perhaps you just need to lay off the durian...?
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..
And that is the so called "expert" paradox puts forward to counter hundreds of government scientific organisations and universities.
Misinformation is dangerous. That's core business for these doubt merchants. I wouldn't be surprised if many believe they are actually doing the work of god.
I like this. You call me out for misinformation, yet all you have done is taken one of the five seperate papers I provided you (that you asked for) and you have systematically attacked one of the authors on a personal basis and used that as the basis for dismissing everything. You have not responded to any of the science provided whatsoever.
Here is the definition of ad homin em you continually deny doing:
"ad hominem: You attacked your opponent's character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument. Ad hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit their argument. The result of an ad hom attack can be to undermine someone's case without actually having to engage with it."
Now that is misinformation at it's best. You have no interest in science or facts, just tear down anything and anyone who doesn't agree with your view irrespective of the strength of thier argument.
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..log man said..Kamikuza said..log man said..
What do they agree on????? Pretty much the same thing......FFS......People have caused GW.......we need to do something to rectify the problem......There done!!!.
I'm so not interested in the silly hairsplitting.
Yeah stupid details, what's the point of them? Can't invent the narrative if you insist on the details. Too hard to understand what those boffins are on about anyway, let's just dumb it all down... Close enough is good enough, and is it's not then you're an evil person.
So you're tripling down on being clueless? I'm not surprised.
mate, I don't need to know the chemical composition of dog **** to know that it stinks. You can send the poo off to forensics if you like.........but it's dog ****.
It's not a thing to be wasting your brain power on.
I'm not saying your "argument" is dog ****......it's more like cat sick
So when someone tells you your breath smells like dog ****, the only conclusion can be you've been eating dog **** again. Yeah that makes sense.
I'm not actually making an argument: I'm asking you what the 97% consensus actually *is*.
Being unable to understand ... well anything ... is not an explanation. Neither is your Divine Revelation way of knowing.
Do you read a book and need to know how the ink is made?
The story is:
we're affecting our climate and we need to do something to remedy it. All the scientists agree..........so lets get on with it.
If you want to do a deep dive into the manufacturing process of the ink, that's up to you.
Select to expand quoteParadox said..holy guacamole said..
And that is the so called "expert" paradox puts forward to counter hundreds of government scientific organisations and universities.
Misinformation is dangerous. That's core business for these doubt merchants. I wouldn't be surprised if many believe they are actually doing the work of god.
I like this. You call me out for misinformation, yet all you have done is taken one of the five seperate papers I provided you (that you asked for) and you have systematically attacked one of the authors on a personal basis and used that as the basis for dismissing everything. You have not responded to any of the science provided whatsoever.
Here is the definition of ad homin em you continually deny doing:
"ad hominem: You attacked your opponent's character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument. Ad hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit their argument. The result of an ad hom attack can be to undermine someone's case without actually having to engage with it."
Now that is misinformation at it's best. You have no interest in science or facts, just tear down anything and anyone who doesn't agree with your view irrespective of the strength of thier argument.
Oh FFS paradox there's nothing personal about exposing Spencer's true beliefs. He signed the religious declaration that strayed into science and this tells us a lot about the misjudgement of such frauds.
I also pointed out serious errors in Spencer's work, which adds incompetence to the obvious issue with religious ideology mixing with science.
Here are just a few blundering quotes from Spencer.
skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Roy_Spencer.htm
Select to expand quotelog man said..Kamikuza said..log man said..Kamikuza said..log man said..
What do they agree on????? Pretty much the same thing......FFS......People have caused GW.......we need to do something to rectify the problem......There done!!!.
I'm so not interested in the silly hairsplitting.
Yeah stupid details, what's the point of them? Can't invent the narrative if you insist on the details. Too hard to understand what those boffins are on about anyway, let's just dumb it all down... Close enough is good enough, and is it's not then you're an evil person.
So you're tripling down on being clueless? I'm not surprised.
mate, I don't need to know the chemical composition of dog **** to know that it stinks. You can send the poo off to forensics if you like.........but it's dog ****.
It's not a thing to be wasting your brain power on.
I'm not saying your "argument" is dog ****......it's more like cat sick
So when someone tells you your breath smells like dog ****, the only conclusion can be you've been eating dog **** again. Yeah that makes sense.
I'm not actually making an argument: I'm asking you what the 97% consensus actually *is*.
Being unable to understand ... well anything ... is not an explanation. Neither is your Divine Revelation way of knowing.
Do you read a book and need to know how the ink is made?
The story is:
we're affecting our climate and we need to do something to remedy it. All the scientists agree..........so lets get on with it.
If you want to do a deep dive into the manufacturing process of the ink, that's up to you.
Apples and oranges. Or rather, your example is apples and minerals LOL what a chump.
No, the story here is there you don't understand what you're talking about, and you don't understand what the number you use to give authority to your proclamations actually means
.
Wait you're right - your ignorance isn't a story, it's old news.
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..Paradox said..holy guacamole said..
And that is the so called "expert" paradox puts forward to counter hundreds of government scientific organisations and universities.
Misinformation is dangerous. That's core business for these doubt merchants. I wouldn't be surprised if many believe they are actually doing the work of god.
I like this. You call me out for misinformation, yet all you have done is taken one of the five seperate papers I provided you (that you asked for) and you have systematically attacked one of the authors on a personal basis and used that as the basis for dismissing everything. You have not responded to any of the science provided whatsoever.
Here is the definition of ad homin em you continually deny doing:
"ad hominem: You attacked your opponent's character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument. Ad hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit their argument. The result of an ad hom attack can be to undermine someone's case without actually having to engage with it."
Now that is misinformation at it's best. You have no interest in science or facts, just tear down anything and anyone who doesn't agree with your view irrespective of the strength of thier argument.
Oh FFS paradox there's nothing personal about exposing Spencer's true beliefs. He signed the religious declaration that strayed into science and this tells us a lot about the misjudgement of such frauds.
I also pointed out serious errors in Spencer's work, which adds incompetence to the obvious issue with religious ideology mixing with science.
Here are just a few blundering quotes from Spencer.
skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Roy_Spencer.htm
"obvious issues with religious ideology"
You're trying to make the point that good science and a religious conviction are mutually incompatible? That's a logical fallacy.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins
The most modern and prominent example I can think of, off the top of my head.
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..log man said..Kamikuza said..log man said..Kamikuza said..log man said..
What do they agree on????? Pretty much the same thing......FFS......People have caused GW.......we need to do something to rectify the problem......There done!!!.
I'm so not interested in the silly hairsplitting.
Yeah stupid details, what's the point of them? Can't invent the narrative if you insist on the details. Too hard to understand what those boffins are on about anyway, let's just dumb it all down... Close enough is good enough, and is it's not then you're an evil person.
So you're tripling down on being clueless? I'm not surprised.
mate, I don't need to know the chemical composition of dog **** to know that it stinks. You can send the poo off to forensics if you like.........but it's dog ****.
It's not a thing to be wasting your brain power on.
I'm not saying your "argument" is dog ****......it's more like cat sick
So when someone tells you your breath smells like dog ****, the only conclusion can be you've been eating dog **** again. Yeah that makes sense.
I'm not actually making an argument: I'm asking you what the 97% consensus actually *is*.
Being unable to understand ... well anything ... is not an explanation. Neither is your Divine Revelation way of knowing.
Do you read a book and need to know how the ink is made?
The story is:
we're affecting our climate and we need to do something to remedy it. All the scientists agree..........so lets get on with it.
If you want to do a deep dive into the manufacturing process of the ink, that's up to you.
Apples and oranges. Or rather, your example is apples and minerals LOL what a chump.
No, the story here is there you don't understand what you're talking about, and you don't understand what the number you use to give authority to your proclamations actually means
.
Wait you're right - your ignorance isn't a story, it's old news.
Kaboooommmmmm
haha!
Either are impressssive i can't wait to when the worl gets it down to a comp with them at mud wrestling.
Select to expand quotelog man said..Kamikuza said..log man said..Kamikuza said..log man said..Kamikuza said..log man said..
What do they agree on????? Pretty much the same thing......FFS......People have caused GW.......we need to do something to rectify the problem......There done!!!.
I'm so not interested in the silly hairsplitting.
Yeah stupid details, what's the point of them? Can't invent the narrative if you insist on the details. Too hard to understand what those boffins are on about anyway, let's just dumb it all down... Close enough is good enough, and is it's not then you're an evil person.
So you're tripling down on being clueless? I'm not surprised.
mate, I don't need to know the chemical composition of dog **** to know that it stinks. You can send the poo off to forensics if you like.........but it's dog ****.
It's not a thing to be wasting your brain power on.
I'm not saying your "argument" is dog ****......it's more like cat sick
So when someone tells you your breath smells like dog ****, the only conclusion can be you've been eating dog **** again. Yeah that makes sense.
I'm not actually making an argument: I'm asking you what the 97% consensus actually *is*.
Being unable to understand ... well anything ... is not an explanation. Neither is your Divine Revelation way of knowing.
Do you read a book and need to know how the ink is made?
The story is:
we're affecting our climate and we need to do something to remedy it. All the scientists agree..........so lets get on with it.
If you want to do a deep dive into the manufacturing process of the ink, that's up to you.
Apples and oranges. Or rather, your example is apples and minerals LOL what a chump.
No, the story here is there you don't understand what you're talking about, and you don't understand what the number you use to give authority to your proclamations actually means
.
Wait you're right - your ignorance isn't a story, it's old news.
Kaboooommmmmm haha!
Ladies and Gentlemen, a big round of applause for the speech writer for President Trump
Might explain paradox's confirmation bias.
www.ted.com/talks/j_marshall_shepherd_3_kinds_of_bias_that_shape_your_worldview?utm_campaign=tedspread&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=tedcomshare
