You wouldn’t know science if it crawled up your leg and wiggled. I, on the other hand, have no time to wrestle with a pig, since I have actual science to go and do.
Truth, that.
I just have to say that I am impressed by you, and even more so by GIGObuster, in your tenacity in arguing with intention. I, myself, just can’t bring myself to do it. It’s like arguing with a creationist or a birther; interesting on the one hand (kind of like watching a train wreck in slow motion), but overall it’s just frustrating in the extreme. Watching you two debate with this guy (and JShore in GD for that matter) really reminds me of the myth of Sisyphus.
Yes, and I note that neither you nor L. G. have said a single word about the science in the many citations I have posted. All you do is appeal to authority and attack me … which is kind of fun watching you squirm and run away, but is not a scientific discussion.
Lindzen makes a whole host of scientific arguments in the post I cited, you guys attack his funding source, and then you want to lecture me about what science it?
Well, it starts with discussing the science, not the personalities or the funding sources, but you and L. G. have better things to do than discuss the science, it seems.
Man, you guys love appeals to authority … so how about these authorities?
Steve McIntyre of ClimateAudit.org, who you guys love to hate, was an expert reviewer for the IPCC AR4, so he gets 1/4000 of the Nobel Peace Prize as well … funny how life works.
Another “Nobel Laureate”, Vincent Gray, climate scientist, expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports:
Another Nobel Laureate, Richard Courtney, a UN IPCC expert reviewer, climate/atmospheric science consultant:
Another Nobel Laureate, David Wojick, UN IPCC expert reviewer, co-founded the Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie-Mellon University:
None of these Nobel Laureates agree with you, or with Susan Solomon … so whether they are right or wrong, do you see why appealing to authority in the form of the Nobel Peace Prize is a pathetic fallacy?
I would have to say that the Nobel Peace prize says nothing about the scientific credentials of a recipient, since it is in fact not awarded for scientific work.
Sorry this is delayed, but I just noticed this one.
Curiously, heatmiserfl, far from proving what you believe it proves, your example is perfect for showing how the “consensus” is formed. It’s simple. You just bar anyone from attending your meeting if they disagree with you.
In this case it was Mitch Taylor, one of the premier polar bear specialists on the planet. He’s gotten in hot water before because he has pointed out the ugly truth. This is that polar bear numbers in general are rising, and that where they are falling, it is from hunting.
As a result, the organizers of the “scientific” IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (Copenhagen, 2009), simply told him not to come to the meeting. Typical of climate “science” these days, just like “science” is practiced at realclimate. You just censor opposing views, and voila! Instant consensus!
So rather than proving that scientists don’t lie, all you’ve proved is how scientists lie. They lie by omission. You want to know the truth about polar bears? Try this for starters. I weep for the foolishness of those that think that polar bears are threatened by something other than hunting. They have survived in warmer times and colder times than we have now.
I don’t see anywhere, except for rightwing, anti-climate scientist, sources that Taylor was banned from that meeting. In fact, a quick search for participants of the meeting shows that Elisabeth Peacock, a biologist from the Nunavaut government was there (http://pbsg.npolar.no/en/meetings/participants.html). Another quick search showed me that she was a biologist on the study that polar bears were increasing in one population out of 19 polar bear populations (http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=b318f830-e958-41ae-b9fd-38f308dba25e&k=37418). Clearly, she must be a colleague of Taylor’s, and perhaps the source of the one increasing population in the statistics in that meeting.
To sum up my interactions with you:
-
You misrepresent a Science article, precisely cutting off the very point of that article that puts your perspective in question. I suspect you didn’t count on anyone having a subscription.
-
You explain grade school-level scientific concepts of complexity to me as though it would be a revelation. Again, I suspect you don’t think anyone on this board is a scientist.
-
You consistently throw out names of so-called ‘scientists’ as though they have authority. All of these contrarians (even Lindzen, the only real atmospheric scientist) have ties to mining, coal, oil and natural gas industries. Some of them, like McIntyre actually worked for the mining industry for decades. Even so, I don’t give a shit about their opinion (the IPCC generously allows them to review the huge manuscript and make comments, refuting your charges of censorship, BTW) because they’re not climate scientists. There are other climate scientists that have challenged some of the uncertainty in Mann’s data from prior to 1600. None of them think there is no global warming.
-
You give me your ‘paper’ to make me think you have some expertise. Your ‘paper’ was not a research article AND it was not in a reputable science research journal. Energy & Environment is a social/political science journal with a self-described climate skeptic as chief editor (Energy & Environment - Wikipedia).
-
Now you’re trying to misrepresent what’s going on with polar bear research.
This is the last post I’ll waste addressing you. You may sincerely believe what you’re saying but you argue dishonestly (whether or not it’s intentional is irrelevant to me).
I claim no expertise in climate science. However, I do know the peer-review process and am willing observe the debate among scientists. I have no interest in opinions from you or other contrarians who have no expertise and am not swayed by your appeals to some sense of fairness or freedom of speech.
From the noted anti-science organization, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation …
So you support someone who is one of the world’s foremost authorities on polar bears being disinvited to a scientific meeting because he doesn’t follow the party line on global warming … why am I not surprised in the least? And I am shocked, shocked I say, to note that some of the mainstream media ignore a story that casts AGW supporters in a bad light.
Your attempt to claim that this is how science should work is a pathetic joke.
Yeah, right, in all of my postings here on the Dope I’ve never found anyone who would either check my cites or has a subscription to Science. :rolleyes: Are you really that stupid a person, or do you just play one on TV?
The part I left out said that scientists think the warming will start again. That’s peachy … but it’s not science. While we know it hasn’t warmed in the last decade, what will happen in the next decade is pure speculation. Everyone knows that the models are useless at a decadal level, so the scientists are just guessing. Yes, it could warm, but saying so is not science, it is a guess. And you want to bust me for leaving out their guesses? Go ahead.
Unlike some scientists who want to baffle people with their bullshit, I try to write so that my ideas can be understood by everyone. Heck, I even try to reach people like yourself who never discuss the science, only the funding and who people work for and where they publish.
I try to write as clearly as possible for a mixed audience of scientists and non-scientists. So sue me.
Authority? I don’t give a shit about authority, and neither should you. Nor do I “throw out names”. I provide citations from people like Lindzen, so we can discuss his ideas … a novel thought for you, and one you haven’t picked up on. Instead, you ignore the ideas and say things like:
“All of these contrarians (even Lindzen, the only real atmospheric scientist) have ties to mining, coal, oil and natural gas industries.”
Man, that’s the dumbest claim I ever heard. All of them? Every one? Christy? Singer? Pielke Jr. and Sr? Akasofu? McKitrick? I wouldn’t mention to John Christy that he’s not an atmospheric scientist, but you could mention it to the noted AGW supporter Gavin Schmidt, since he isn’t one …
But even if such an asinine claim were true, SO WHAT? Do you truly not understand the concept of an “ad hominem” argument?
I don’t give a shit if a scientific claim is made by someone funded by Exxon or funded by Greenpeace, and neither should anyone. I don’t care if it was published in Nature Magazine or written on a bathroom wall, and neither should anyone. The question to ask is, is the scientific claim true? That is the only question worth asking, the rest is smoke and persiflage … I put that last word in just to make you happy, because you say my writing is too simple and clear.
And if you think the IPCC pays any attention to the review comments that they don’t like, you are even dumber than I thought.
Next, very few skeptical scientist that I either read or correspond with think that the earth has not warmed over the last few centuries. I think it has, and I stated so above. I don’t know why you keep beating this straw man. Read what I said above. I both believe the earth is warming and that humans have had a hand in that. I also believe (along with Science Magazine) that at the moment, it hasn’t warmed in the last ten years.
And of course you “don’t give a shit” about the opinion of the scientists like Lindzen and Christy and Spencer and Singer and Pielke … they disagree with the holy writ according to heatmiserfl, so you dismiss them. Glad to see what science looks like in your world …
Oh my goodness, a “self-described skeptic”? That’s awful …
I see. Every journal with an editor who is a climate skeptic is useless, but journals with editors who are AGW believers are perfectly fine. And research articles that you disagree with are not research articles, just “papers”. The heatmiserfl scientific method at work.
Well, I also have a peer reviewed “Communications Arising” in Nature Magazine … but I suppose you’ll find some way to diss that as well. Nothing is good enough for you. Ummm … how many peer reviewed publications on climate science do you have in any magazine? Serious question, I don’t have a clue about the answer. But if you want to play dueling publications on climate science, bring it on.
More to the point, however, my publications are out there for anyone to find fault with. If you find problems with my science, let me know where I have made any errors. That’s how science progresses. I make a claim, and it is either disproven or not.
But you don’t want to engage on the scientific issues. You just want to complain about where they were published. But despite your ineffectual sniping on meaningless points, the issue is whether what I wrote is true. The issue is not (as you believe) where it was published, whether I agree with the consensus, who funded my work, or anything other than the scientific question — are my claims true?
Misrepresent? I sent you Dr. Taylor’s response to the ridiculous EPA claim that they were going extinct. Rather than debate a single scientific point that he made, you (like L. G. and GIGO who believes in AGW) want to whine about meaningless shit like where it is published, and who the editor is, and who funded it, and who in the media reported it, and waaa, waaa, I didn’t quote enough of it. In fact, you are willing to talk about anything but the science.
If you think my work is wrong, or Lindzen’s work is wrong, or Taylor’s work is wrong, man up, grow a pair, and point out the errors. These ad hominem attack on funding and who published it and how I quoted it are merely your boring, puerile, infantile, nauseating attempt to avoid actually discussing the science involved.
I certainly hope so, but given the truth content of your previous posts, I doubt it very much. We’ll see if you can actually keep your word or not.
Yeah, stuff like quoting Science Magazine and asking people to actually discuss the science, that’s dishonest shit all right.
“Fairness or freedom of speech”? You must be off your meds again, the issue is not fairness or freedom of speech, nor have I claimed it is. The issue is scientific truth.
In fact, you are not interested in opposing opinions at all. You mock and ridicule them on a host of immaterial grounds, like who funded the person that wrote them or where they published them, but you never quite get around to actually discussing the ideas and the science in them. Funny, that …
But at least we will be spared any more of your bullshit in this thread … unless you are lying to us above when you say this is “the last post [you’ll] waste addressing [me]”. But you’ll probably find some jiveass way around that as well, you’ll claim it’s not valid because it was a promise you made on the Straight Dope and not in Nature Magazine, and besides it wasn’t peer reviewed …
Er, what conservative economic ideas are there you support & find scientific? As a former Republican, I find that anti-science attitudes, willful optimism, & laissez-faire are all of a piece.