Quote from: Solar on September 09, 2013, 01:08:39 PM
According to libs, Capitalists control the thermostat and that's just not fair.

I quit being concerned about this some time ago. There are enough "hand wringers" out there to take care of the matter. I learned a long time ago not to get in the way of other people's misery.

Did you ever learn that if you don't get in their way, you'll turn over 85% of your income to support their agenda?

Quote from: Yawn on September 09, 2013, 01:23:48 PM
Did you ever learn that if you don't get in their way, you'll turn over 85% of your income to support their agenda?

All science begins with common sense.  It doesn't always end there, but liberals have a rather pathetic tendency to skip past everything that takes actual mental discipline, and plow right ahead to the point where they scream:  "Eureka!  See how much smarter I am than everyone who's actually graduated from school?"

There is a huge difference between common sense and communal sense.  An indispensable element of the former type of sense (a.k.a. reason) is something called a burden of proof.

If somebody says:  "Global Warming is a 'real' and 'existent' 'scientific' 'consensus';" (however a random libtard would go about defining any of those terms) "...ergo, America should revert to a medieval standard of living."  I'm going to need a lot more than an arbitrarily-truncated time-temperature graph and an assertion that a group of apocryphally self-selected "smart people" believe in it.

On the other hand, if somebody tells me: "Global Whatever is Something Or Other, ergo we should license a hundred nuclear power plants tomorrow and strangle all the neo-hippies who - by their own admission - have been working to destroy the human race for the past half-century...." you can sign me up as a certified True Believer.

I am fully aware that blunting Occam's Razor is the first step in every liberal's version of scientific methodology.  But to anyone who still subscribes to the old-fashioned notion of logic, there's a pretty simple acid test:  Just ask if he'd be willing to do away with the Income Tax, and substitute a carbon tax?  That wouldn't necessarily be proof that Global Warming will end all life on earth.  But at the very least it would prove that he believes in that theory MORE than he believes in the "economic" "theory" of Communism.

Quote from: Yawn on September 09, 2013, 01:23:48 PM
Did you ever learn that if you don't get in their way, you'll turn over 85% of your income to support their agenda?

Unfortunately you missed my point. It is not that I don't want to fight their agenda, I will just not buy into their BS.

So you ARE "concerned" about the issue?  Good. If you're not, they'll win and you'll lose a lot more than your income.

Quote from: mhughes on September 09, 2013, 12:57:28 PM
Do you mean the IPCC?  I'm not talking about the IPCC. You brought that up.  The consensus is far bigger than it.

You mean the OSIM list?

31k sounds like a lot huh?  Well, the criteria they use to decide who a scientist includes would only represent 0.3% of the US scientists. 

The statement they sign only deals with catastrophic heating.  Given my degree, I could even sign onto it and still be making the argument that AGW is real and happening.  So it's not a very good indicator that global warming isn't occurring.

Plus, it's got a few problems...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/OISM-Petition-Project-intermediate.htm


I never claimed 97% - I claim a vast scientific consensus.  But regardless...

The survey in that study was just a verification tool used to verify the results of the study.  It gave similar results to the main part of their paper.  What the study was actually about was a reading of of the abstracts of 12,000 papers written on the subject over 20 years.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

There were two other meta-studies on the subject with similar results.  One by James Lawrence Powell in 2012 and one by Naomi Oreskes in 2004.  All three came to similar conclusions.  All three actually published all of their raw data, unlike the OISM list.

So we've got 3 studies, peer reviewed and published with full data all saying similar things.

There's an additional survey being conducted by John Cook at the University of Queensland right now, who's preliminary results are also consistent.

Don't like studies?  Prefer lists?  Then how about a giant list of scientific organizations supporting the theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Concurring


And you have one OISM list saying the opposite.  If I brought data like the OISM list to this thread I'd be laughed out of the board. 


That's an example of the scientific method working.  A mistake was found.  Studies were done to figure out how & why.  And it was corrected in the record.

Science is messy, and self correcting.

One mistake does not invalidate dozens of studies all trying to reconstruct an accurate historical temperature record.  Some use direct measurement, some use proxy measurements (from tree rings to ice cores to the decay rate of certain isotopes), some focus on land temperatures, some focus on sea temperatures.  But all of that data points to the same conclusions.



Again.   I'm only arguing the purely scientific point that AGW is real and is happening.  There are very specific, coherent hypothesis that have been repeatedly validated by experimentation.  When you move away from the scientific literature, and into what people are saying about it, it gets noisy.  When you move away from the theory that AGW is happening, and into the realm of the consequences of it, it gets murky too.

Ok, that's twice you've brought up a meta-study as evidence. Allow me to enlighten you on the current state of the "scientific" community:

I am a year away from earning my doctorate in psychology (hence the preemptive name). I am a member of the APA. I go to a medical school and have many colleagues who are members of the AMA and ADA. Here's the low-down on modern "science": every leader of every scientific organization lets his or her ego guide their decision making. If a researcher wishes to submit a paper for publication to a peer-reviewed journal that contains strong evidence contrary to mainstream "consensual" thought, it will be rejected. In fact, myself and many other researchers simply will not submit such a paper out of fear of being ostracized by the community and made to look a "fool" (your words).

The reason this research is rejected is simply because it does not play into the narrative that they have built for themselves. They cannot accept or allow any evidence that goes contrary to what they have accepted as "fact" for several years because they believe they will be the ones to look "foolish". Through fear, intimidation, and manipulation they have effectively stymied any real chance of scientific growth and understanding in a variety of fields.

Science used to be all about questioning the status quo. About the never-ending search for knowledge, truth, and understanding. It has become bastardized into a "go along with what we say, or else" dictatorship led by the licensing boards. To me, this renders your argument about scientific consensus moot.

How does all this relate to your meta-study "evidence"? A meta-analysis is nothing more than research that examines multiple studies that have been published in peer-reviewed journals. If all of these peer-reviewed journals only accept for publication articles which play into the narrative, guess what? Your meta-analysis will too. You need to understand the current state of the scientific community and how it is far different than it ever used to be. It is no longer welcoming of seemingly outlandish theories. Rather, it only accepts whatever the current paradigm of the time is and the researchers are expected to focus their efforts solely on identifying "evidence" that fits within the paradigm. Hence the reason we had global cooling, global warming, climate change, and now global cooling again.

I suggest your buddies who mock conservatives should take some of their own hippy advice and become free-thinkers. Examine the evidence. I mean, really examine it. Don't just read headlines or conclusions. Look at what being a part of a scientific community really entails. Then examine the methodologies of the studies you cite. Look for potential errors. Examine their assumptions found in the literature review. Check to see if those assumptions perhaps lead to bias results (hint: 90% of the time, they do). Note the limitations of the studies (any researcher worth his salt will list the study limitations near the end). Don't accept science as gospel truth. It is a very fluid and fickle thing to put your trust in.

Quote from: Dr. Meh on September 09, 2013, 04:30:52 PM
If a researcher wishes to submit a paper for publication to a peer-reviewed journal that contains strong evidence contrary to mainstream "consensual" thought, it will be rejected. In fact, myself and many other researchers simply will not submit such a paper out of fear of being ostracized by the community and made to look a "fool" (your words).

The reason this research is rejected is simply because it does not play into the narrative that they have built for themselves. They cannot accept or allow any evidence that goes contrary to what they have accepted as "fact" for several years because they believe they will be the ones to look "foolish". Through fear, intimidation, and manipulation they have effectively stymied any real chance of scientific growth and understanding in a variety of fields.

Great stuff! I didn't know that.

Quote from: Yawn on September 09, 2013, 04:38:14 PM
Great stuff! I didn't know that.

Mind you, they may publish articles that provide evidence of difference in the minute details of things but anything more drastic or paradigm shifting in nature is shunned.

Quote from: Dr. Meh on September 09, 2013, 04:30:52 PM
Ok, that's twice you've brought up a meta-study as evidence.

Of course I understand why hallucinogenic drugs were such a huge hit in the Seventies.  But it's appalling to me that people are still using the term "meta study" with a straight face.

In REAL science, one carefully-conducted experiment is worth infinitely more than ten thousand disparate studies all sort of lumped together into a giant blob of "consensus."

As with so many other words in the LiberalSpeak dictionary, what liberals call "science" is really the exact opposite of what any normal person means when he says that word.

Get out your winter coats, boys--It seems the all-knowing scientists could have been wrong.  But I could have told you that.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10294082/Global-warming-No-actually-were-cooling-claim-scientists.html

Quote from: Charliemyboy on September 09, 2013, 05:59:35 PM
Get out your winter coats, boys--It seems the all-knowing scientists could have been wrong.  But I could have told you that.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10294082/Global-warming-No-actually-were-cooling-claim-scientists.html

Imagine that, climate cycles. Who'd a thunk it....

Quote from: Solar on September 09, 2013, 06:06:12 PM
Imagine that, climate cycles. Who'd a thunk it....

  So I get to play in the snow with my quad this winter.   

Quote from: walkstall on September 09, 2013, 07:03:41 PM

  So I get to play in the snow with my quad this winter.   

Yes you will, and get to use the snow blower too.

ST is happy since I got her the Forester, the Legacy was just too low to the ground and she wound up plowing snow.
But now that she took a supervisor position, she can just stay home, the other job demanded she be there unless she was dying.

Quote from: Solar on September 09, 2013, 07:08:58 PM
Yes you will, and get to use the snow blower too.

ST is happy since I got her the Forester, the Legacy was just too low to the ground and she wound up plowing snow.
But now that she took a supervisor position, she can just stay home, the other job demanded she be there unless she was dying.

What ST has 2 years to go yet?

Somebody tell Al Gore...


all these Pseudo "scientist's" would be better off flipping a coin.