I'm a Denier!

[Guest 6.8 AR]

That's where we're in disagreement. My opinion is it's real, and that's where I'll leave it. To me, our two party system is the political/economic con game.

No worries.

Your two party system may be a political/ economic con game, but it's a real game

compared to phony science. Cap and Trade is supposed to be a way to fix our climate,

so they say, but it is a part of the same con that AGW is. Al Gore and his Democrat

progressives have been working on this new and improved taxation for years.

With the exception of Lindsey Graham and maybe John McCain, I can't recall a Republican

signing on to this silliness. Your idea of a two party system may be a con game but one

of those parties is causing the damage supporting the AGW crowd. It isn't in your favor,

either, but it is politics. With global warming you aren't given a choice, but you should be

given good science. Where's the beef?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Hey, Ewokpoacher has the maturity to avoid personal attacks in lieu of data favorable to his argument. Bonus points for not quoting a t-shirt designer as a credible source.

He is entitled to his opinion, and lets' face it - there has been a lot of garbage pushed as 'scientific proof'. Heck, given the last 5 years (and our wonderful publick ejucation sistom), I am unsurprised that so many laymen confuse 'consensus' with the scientific method.

It was a sad day when scientists started using consensus, rather than scientific evidence. I remember lab

too well, that the professor allowed data to be collected the old fashioned way. It wasn't by concensus, either.

[Mark@Sea]

Cap and tax took a real hit this week with the collapse of the Chicago carbon trading exchange.

It is difficult to separate politics and the AGW 'science' - intentionally so. Those behind the global warming scheme linked their 'science' to politics, social agendas, and funding from the outset in order to muddy the waters enough to keep their fiddling with the data hidden. That whole 'consensus' thing was just a big noise to cover the fact that a small number of politically connected administrators were using their positions to grant (or deny) funding to researchers (depending on how willing the researchers were to agree with the agenda). The researchers who got in on the gravy train 'adjusted', 'normalized' and cherry-picked the data in order to support their positions, and bringing it full circle the administrators used their positions to deny those who disagreed with the findings the ability to publish their contradictory results. They went so far as to take concerted action to ruin the careers of people who were willing to even consider contradictory data.

There are lemmings in every crowd, just as there are those who are skeptical of 'established wisdom' and 'consensus'. (We refer to the second type as 'scientists'). Ewok may not have an open mind to the facts, but at least he isn't trying to shove his opinion as proven fact.

[EwokPoacher]

Your two party system may be a political/ economic con game, but it's a real game

compared to phony science.

So you're saying don't trust NASA, who has been studying weather patterns and climate for years, all because of Al Gore, gov't grants, and the media...

Please, don't confuse my belief that global warming exists with agreeing in how our politicians choose to handle it.

[EwokPoacher]

There are lemmings in every crowd, just as there are those who are skeptical of 'established wisdom' and 'consensus'. (We refer to the second type as 'scientists'). Ewok may not have an open mind to the facts, but at least he isn't trying to shove his opinion as proven fact.

Hey now. I'm trying to look at all the facts, and the problem is, the facts I've seen don't lean your direction. Don't blame me for that. I don't think anyone can claim the "right" view on this issue.

[Mark@Sea]

Which part of NASA? The part controlled by James Hansen, who heads the Goddard Institute of Space Studies (whose US Historical Climatology Network surface temperature data has been shown to be flawed)? The same James Hansen who was crying wolf in the early '70's about the coming Ice Age? The activist who has been arrested several times for his publicity-stunt protests?

I'm assuming you were not referring to the NASA research report that solar cycles are responsible for warming trends, or the guy that runs NASA, who downplays the global warming 'consensus'.

I don't mean to insult you, sorry about that. The global warming climate models have been (thoroughly) discredited. The data used to support their positions has been proven to be cherry-picked. The temperatures used to 'prove' global warming have been shown to be 'massaged', 'adjusted', 'normalized' (meaning, faked) in order to keep their own studies from proving them wrong. The top UN administrators have been linked to heavy financial gains if they can pass their regulatory schemes. The researchers have been caught red handed hiding their methods and raw data (going so far as to destroy it rather than share it).

What, exactly, are you looking for? A big flashing neon confession from Al Gore?

Look, the heart of the 'global warming' argument is the paleoclimatology studies conducted using tree ring data. Here is a little information on that study which might start you in the right direction.

Edited November 8, 2010 by Mark@Sea

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I didn't confuse anything, but I did explain their connections, which are numerous. The head global

warming expert at NASA is in up to his ears in the corruption. He is not the be all, end all of NASA,

however. That is one area NASA studies, but their primary mission, until lately being changed to

praise muslim educational strides, whatever they are, is space exploration.

The problem with the global warming crowd is that they left out key answers to simple questions.

When something is so complex it can't be explained, unless you are a phD, it should be suspect.

When Al Gore says it's irrefutable, it's refutable. When Hadley CRU, NASA and college professors were

caught flat out lying about data sets, and they used predictions based on those data sets to create

computer models, how much exposure will it take to prove to you you've been lied to by these cretins?

I got that file with all those emails that showed the "experts" trying to cover their tracks, and trying to

get rid of the dissenters, otherwise known as peers until they dissented on the dirt. Didn't have to read

very much to persuade me that my model made more sense than theirs. It overloaded BS detectors

around the world. And I never had a model!

Yeh, when it comes to global warming, don't trust NASA. Because of the politics.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

What "facts" have you seen? That's the whole problem. They drag out ice core samples on some NGEO

special and some announcer is saying what he is paid to say. They talk about glaciers melting faster, when

the scientific data shows arctic ice is actually expanding. Al Gore does a cute little documentary and wins a

Nobel prize for a summary of all the lies, instead of providing any honest scientific information, and shows a

polar bear clinging to a piece of an iceberg. What kind of evidence have you seen? Choosing to believe is okay,

but don't bet the bank on it with my tax dollars until you provide a bit sturdier foundation. The debate ain't over,

Al.

Hey, I'm not blaming you for anything. Just asking you to look a little harder

for the truth.

[Guest clsutton21]

Thread recap:

Facts that prove global warming is real are the fake facts.

Facts the prove global warming isn't real are the real facts.

Why do you think your facts are better than our facts?

And don't say none have been presented; they have and in just as great a number as yours.

[EwokPoacher]

dead horse is beat

[Mark@Sea]

You know, you promised you wouldn't post again.

But let me take a stab at answering your question... In this thread, you haven't posted any facts. You've posted a link to a T-shirt artist whose environmental credentials are somewhat less than impeccable. If you're referring to the general AGW argument - how many times do I have to rehash this? Starting with the tree-ring data which is the basis for the theory, continuing with surface temperature studies with faked datasets, and ending with a computer climate model which has been shown to produce 'global warming' even with random numbers as the data input, the argument for AGW is (at best) inconclusive, and taken with the political/financial/social agenda of those who are attempting to drown out skeptics, at worst is something worthy of prison sentences. Those the facts you are talking about? Or are we back to 'my argument is heavier on paper than your argument, therefore mine is true and yours is false'? Because I seem to recall that argument went out with Monty Pythons' witch trials.

dead horse is beat

Well, somebody here is getting beat like a rented mule.

[EwokPoacher]

[Guest mosinon]

It was a sad day when scientists started using consensus, rather than scientific evidence. I remember lab

too well, that the professor allowed data to be collected the old fashioned way. It wasn't by concensus, either.

AR, I love you man, but that is the craziest thing I have ever heard. Scientist always use consensus over lab data. If they didn't my measurement of the speed of light would be just as valid and Morleys.

This is peer review stuff. At no time in your life did scientists ever go by anything but consensus. It is kind of how science works.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Concensus meaning the agreement of findings of real data. This stuff has been twisted and convoluted

so much that any consensus has no basis in reality. You are right about consensus in studying data, but proving it

by consensus. Just because a bunch of people agree doesn't make it scientific, nor does it prove anything,

just that they agree. in the case of global warming the consensus is bogus. BTW I love you too, man:D

Also when peers review, and the peer rejects it and the reviewee takes it somewhere else to get it reviewed

for the sake of consensus, where's the science in that? Not too much objectivity in that, nor honesty. Peer reviewers

have been cast out because they rejected the science behind the data. More like junk science.

[Guest clsutton21]

What's your take on theoretical physics, AR?

[Mark@Sea]

AR, I love you man, but that is the craziest thing I have ever heard. Scientist always use consensus over lab data. If they didn't my measurement of the speed of light would be just as valid and Morleys.

This is peer review stuff. At no time in your life did scientists ever go by anything but consensus. It is kind of how science works.

Umm, sorry, no.

Science works by observing data, formulating a hypothesis that accounts for the data, constructing a means to test the hypothesis against empirical results, modifying the hypothesis to account for those results, then reaching a conclusion.

In your case, if your measurement of the speed of light used valid data (which could, using accepted methods of observation by others, be duplicated), if your experiment could be repeated by others with the same results, and if your hypothesis accounted for the results, then your measurement would be correct.

So, repeatability and accounting for (all the) data seem to be the key.

Let us apply this to the AGW theory. First the conclusion (mankind is causing global warming) was reached. Then a methodology was decided (mankind is causing global warming through production of carbon dioxide). Then data which supported the methodology was used, while data which disagreed was discarded (tree ring data, surface temperature measurements, etc.). Then a model was constructed which, regardless of what data was input, supported the desired result. Finally the conclusion was published. Independent researchers were denied access to raw data, methodology, and the source code for the computer model. Anyone who disagreed with the conclusion was labeled a denier, and their results were ignored, not accounted for.

That isn't science, that is a political campaign.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Is that what you are studying, sutton? Do well, and try not to change the subject. I'm not a theoretical physicist, are you?

[Guest clsutton21]

Is that what you are studying, sutton? Do well, and try not to change the subject. I'm not a theoretical physicist, are you?

I dabble. Seriously though, theoretical physics is only consensus. Is it real to you?

[Mark@Sea]

Did you dabble in debate and scientific method?

Edited November 8, 2010 by Mark@Sea

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I don't. The study of it is real, as far as I'm concerned. Since it is theoretical it's only a study, and do you mean

that only by consensus can it be useful or studied? You are using consensus wrong if you are saying there has

to be consensus for a discipline to be studied. Theory doesn't require consensus, nor does proof. They stand

separate. Consensus is gained only when parties agree to the results, even if the results are wrong. In other

words, consensus can be as corrupt as a politician.

[Guest clsutton21]

I don't. The study of it is real, as far as I'm concerned. Since it is theoretical it's only a study, and do you mean

that only by consensus can it be useful or studied? You are using consensus wrong if you are saying there has

to be consensus for a discipline to be studied. Theory doesn't require consensus, nor does proof. They stand

separate. Consensus is gained only when parties agree to the results, even if the results are wrong. In other

words, consensus can be as corrupt as a politician.

Consensus is why we have string theory, and by extension, M-theory. No one can prove it's right or wrong, but a group of physicists agree that the theory is correct.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

That's a good way to use consensus, but it still doesn't prove something. When you're seeking the truth,

I agree that a consensus is helpful sometimes, but isn't the end of the game. It may guide you to the truth

and it may guide you away.

No, sutton I admit to knowing very little, if anything, about theoretical physics, and I enjoyed Physics more

than most of my studies.

I imagine you would enjoy a conversation with my son. I believe he's had a class or

two in that area, but not me. He's a TA at UTK and working on his master's in Engineering, primarily focused

on heat flow dynamics. It's amazing we can still have a conversation, sometimes. J/K

But to get to the real meat and potatoes, consensus can be found in areas of philosophy, science and mathematics.

It can be a useful tool, or it can be squandered by politics. The consensus has to be honest and objective or it has

no value except to the people manipulating it and for the wrong reasons. When something is pure, no consensus

is needed. It will eventually happen without the rest. Just because you agree doesn't make something right and

disagreeing doesn't make it wrong. It is either right or wrong, regardless of consensus.

Actually, all I know about string theory is what I've seen on some shows with Michio Kaku, and others. The stuff is

fascinating, and it's way above me. Didn't Stephen Hawking come up with something, years ago and gain a consensus,

only to end up rejecting his own work? I remember hearing that come from a disappointed Kaku, on one of his shows.

That makes me think, more so, that consensus can do great things to advance or destroy.

The global warming crowd is a great example of destroying good science for non-scientific goals.

But that is just my opinion, and I've enjoyed this. Even if we disagree, it still makes me think.

Like Leroy says, "Keep up the good work"

[Armed Aviator]

I'm a Denier!

I also am a Denier and am proud of it. Ok, EwokPoacher and CLSutton. I have yet to read a good fact-based argument from either of you. Here I am. Convince me to not be a denier. I'm open to good scientific facts and proof!

[EwokPoacher]

I also am a Denier and am proud of it. Ok, EwokPoacher and CLSutton. I have yet to read a good fact-based argument from either of you. Here I am. Convince me to not be a denier. I'm open to good scientific facts and proof!

Why waste my time? What have you or 6.8 brought to this debate to prove YOUR side? The only links I've seen posted from the skeptics are from the conservative Huffington Post equivalent and paid schill Monckton (Monckton's errors - July 2008). It's like clsutton21 said "Facts that prove global warming is real are the fake facts. Facts the prove global warming isn't real are the real facts." You guys have your minds made up, and apparently we have ours. I might as well be debating carry laws on some lib forum, or the bible with an atheist.

[safeandsecure]

I ain't smart enough to know who's right and who's wrong. I will say that I don't trust much of anything the politicians (from either party) tell us.

Mark, I liked the vid. The fact that it was a take-off of a Monkee's tune, a band that was "put together" for TV (and not for their musical genius) wasn't

lost on me, either.

Trouble now is that I've got that tune stuck in my head ... ...