|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 09/14/2007 : 20:57:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
It is refreshing to see the reality of science debunk the political propaganda. AGAIN! |
From the tone of the press release, it seems like the authors have "re-interpreted" 500 scientists' results to agree with their own outlook. If my hypothesis is correct, publication of this list of name will be followed by many complaints from the scientists themselves that their work has been misrepresented. If I'm right, this is the same political propaganda tool used by creationists for decades, by the Discovery Institute many times in recent months (any biology paper that uses the word "design" is re-interpreted to be in favor of Intelligent Design), and fairly often in the past (check out the book, "That Their Words Be Used Against Them," by I-forget-whom, a book of quotes of biologists taken out of context attempting to prove that evolution is false).
Please note that the press release does not include any mention of where one might read the "new analysis" by the authors of the book, or even the list of names. The press release instead offers implied false dichotomies and long-debunked anti-AGW arguments. There certainly is no science there. And so, regardless of whether or not my above hypothesis is correct, it is obvious that Jerome's claim that this press release represents "the reality of science" only means that Jerome has once again fallen for the anti-AGW political propaganda. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Ghost_Skeptic
SFN Regular
Canada
510 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2007 : 05:04:58 [Permalink]
|
| |
"You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. / You can send a kid to college but you can't make him think." - B.B. King
History is made by stupid people - The Arrogant Worms
"The greater the ignorance the greater the dogmatism." - William Osler
"Religion is the natural home of the psychopath" - Pat Condell
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter" - Thomas Jefferson |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2007 : 06:46:42 [Permalink]
|
G_S wrote:| Rat - exactly - We are looking at the risk of perhaps minor damage to the economy versus major damage to the planet. |
And maybe major pluses for the economy, particularly if we go to electric vehicles and thus largely insulate ourselves from the economical devastation of 1970's-style oil embargoes.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2007 : 07:17:51 [Permalink]
|
| From the tone of the press release, it seems like the authors have "re-interpreted" 500 scientists' results to agree with their own outlook. |
And Dave hits another home run!
Looks like you are dead on based on this list of research and authors.
Basically if there is research that shows that there are temperature cycles in the past then global warming is not man made - end of story.
I LOVE this little qualifier in the paper, "**Citation of the work of the following scientists does not imply that they necessarily support our conclusions."
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2007 : 07:39:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by furshur
| From the tone of the press release, it seems like the authors have "re-interpreted" 500 scientists' results to agree with their own outlook. |
And Dave hits another home run!
Looks like you are dead on based on this list of research and authors.
Basically if there is research that shows that there are temperature cycles in the past then global warming is not man made - end of story.
I LOVE this little qualifier in the paper, "**Citation of the work of the following scientists does not imply that they necessarily support our conclusions."
|
Bingo, furshur!
So, really, all the new "study" says is what has been know for many, many decades: There are natural cycles of climatic change. Which in itself says nothing about the reality of MMGW.
I would like to know how many of the cited researchers actually support the consensus on MMGW. I bet either: 1) Nearly all, or 2) Every damned one of them.
What a slimy, dishonest trick to pull! The new "study" is merely the willful misrepresentation of the good work of real scientists, twisted to make it appear (to non-scientists) to be contradictory to MMGW, when it just ain't so.
Looks like Jerome has once again read some "clear" writing that really said something entirely different.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 09/17/2007 07:40:38 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2007 : 12:05:01 [Permalink]
|
It's not that they're re-interpreting, so I wasn't quite correct. Instead, the authors have pulled a bait-and-switch. First, it'sThe List of More Than 500 Scientists Documenting Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares but then they follow that up with "Studies Finding Evidence of the Climate Cycle" (111 of them) and then other (much shorter) lists of studies supporting their other individual hypotheses:- 13 "Studies on the Sun-Climate Connection,"
- 4 studies showing "Sea Levels Not Rising Rapidly,"
- 13 studies showing "Storms Not Worsening," and
- 23 studies showing "Wild Species Adapting to Climate Change."
Except that's only five. Where are studies supporting the other two hypotheses, that there will be fewer human deaths due to warming, and that "Food production is likely to thrive?" Beats me. Maybe they're in the "additional studies" that they'll publish as time permits.
At any rate, it looks little different from the Discovery Institute's list of "Scientific Dissent from Darwinism," except the Hudson Institute didn't go the extra mile and get the scientists to actually sign anything. They've just inferred "doubt" on the scientists' part. The DI's list has already generated complaints from people who signed but then found out how the DI used their signatures. The Hudson list ought to generate even more complaints, with or without the lame disclaimer. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2007 : 12:14:13 [Permalink]
|
That's what I was trying to get across to Jerome. It doesn't matter that the original science was peer-reviewed, since this conclusion is based on a shady "re-analysis" of those scientists' work, i.e. it's nothing but dishonest spin.
And instead he chose to purposely misrepresent my position in a transparent (and humorless) attempt to mock me. Why he thinks repeatedly failing to understanding plain English reflects poorly on others is beyond me, since it really only serves to demonstrate his own intellectual failings. Well, that's not entirely true. It also serves to demonstrate his dishonesty, but his bold, brazen, unmistakable lying should already have made his lack of morals plain, as well as his subsequents attempts to spin his lies as mere "mistakes."
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2007 : 13:41:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
And, of course, he's been conspicuously absent from this thread for three days.
|
The DATA presented in the studies contradict the "world wide scientific consensus". What more is there to say.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2007 : 13:42:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
That's what I was trying to get across to Jerome. It doesn't matter that the original science was peer-reviewed, since this conclusion is based on a shady "re-analysis" of those scientists' work, i.e. it's nothing but dishonest spin.
And instead he chose to purposely misrepresent my position in a transparent (and humorless) attempt to mock me. Why he thinks repeatedly failing to understanding plain English reflects poorly on others is beyond me, since it really only serves to demonstrate his own intellectual failings. Well, that's not entirely true. It also serves to demonstrate his dishonesty, but his bold, brazen, unmistakable lying should already have made his lack of morals plain, as well as his subsequents attempts to spin his lies as mere "mistakes."
|
Childish name caller. How do you function in society?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2007 : 14:10:31 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Childish name caller. How do you function in society? |
Oh, I leveled more serious accusations at you than just name calling. I'm impeaching your honesty and integrity, and backing up my accusations with textual evidence. Trying to reduce the impact of this criticism by referring to it as merely childish name calling is a transparent attempt to deflect criticism and to avoid meaningfully answering the charges against you. This habit you have of accusing your accusers of the very misdeeds you commit is a very poor smokescreen and fools no one.
When are you going to learn, Jerome? You're just digging your own hole deeper.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2007 : 14:38:03 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
And, of course, he's been conspicuously absent from this thread for three days. |
The DATA presented in the studies contradict the "world wide scientific consensus". What more is there to say. |
There in lies your problem Jerome. The data does NOT contradict the "world wide scientific consensus".
It is only flawed conclusion (which is different than the actual scientist that did the research) of the biased website that contradicts the "world wide scientific consensus".
But you won't let that fact, or any other facts get in the way of your beliefs.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2007 : 14:49:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Childish name caller. How do you function in society? |
Oh, I leveled more serious accusations at you than just name calling. I'm impeaching your honesty and integrity, and backing up my accusations with textual evidence. Trying to reduce the impact of this criticism by referring to it as merely childish name calling is a transparent attempt to deflect criticism and to avoid meaningfully answering the charges against you. This habit you have of accusing your accusers of the very misdeeds you commit is a very poor smokescreen and fools no one.
When are you going to learn, Jerome? You're just digging your own hole deeper.
|
Your insults are tired. The ironic thing is that you believe yourself to be bright and original.
You are an admitted instigator. You follow me around like a lost puppy attempting to pee on my leg. Go find a hydrant.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2007 : 14:51:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by furshur
There in lies your problem Jerome. The data does NOT contradict the "world wide scientific consensus".
It is only flawed conclusion (which is different than the actual scientist that did the research) of the biased website that contradicts the "world wide scientific consensus".
But you won't let that fact, or any other facts get in the way of your beliefs.
|
Define "world wide scientific consensus".
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2007 : 14:58:11 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
The DATA presented in the studies contradict the "world wide scientific consensus". What more is there to say. |
There is quite a lot more, actually. Since the authors of the Hudson list fail to demonstrate that any data in any study contradicts the consensus (they simply claim it does), you should begin by explaining how you have come to the conclusion that the data in those studies contradicts the consensus, as you have boldly claimed (in partial all-caps, even). Right now, it looks like you're doing nothing but taking the Hudson Institute's assertions as fact, despite their failure to adequately describe their methods and data set.
On another note, calling H. a "childish name caller" is an example of you doing nothing but calling someone a name. If you think name-calling is a bad thing, you should quit doing it. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Consensus Falling Apart by the Day
