Global Warming Stuff

[demonfork]

Typical Neoteny posts in this debate...


Blah, blah, blah, blah, insert the word "science"... convoluted explanation for the justification of skewing "adjusting" data, insert the word "science" again. Blah, blah, blah, blah, I understand science and you don't, blah, blah blah, insert the word "science" again. Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah. Google searches are not science, blah, blah, blah blah. I'm so much smarter than you because I understand science and you don't. Blah, blah, blah, blah blah.

[Dukasaur]

Google searches are not science

Unfortunately, while Google is unquestionably a useful tool, it is also the world's biggest source of confirmation bias. Google learns what you like and it will give you more of the same. Make one search and some conspiracy theory might be one of a hundred options in your search; click on it and next time it will be twenty of a hundred items in your search; click on a few of those, and within half a dozen searches Google will provide you with only that conspiracy theory when you search with those terms.

Start out very slightly biased for or against anything, and Google will work pretty damn hard at making an absolute extremist out of you. If you want a balanced viewpoint, you have to fight Google every step of the way, and most people won't work that hard.

[demonfork]

Google searches are not science

Unfortunately, while Google is unquestionably a useful tool, it is also the world's biggest source of confirmation bias. Google learns what you like and it will give you more of the same. Make one search and some conspiracy theory might be one of a hundred options in your search; click on it and next time it will be twenty of a hundred items in your search; click on a few of those, and within half a dozen searches Google will provide you with only that conspiracy theory when you search with those terms.

Start out very slightly biased for or against anything, and Google will work pretty damn hard at making an absolute extremist out of you. If you want a balanced viewpoint, you have to fight Google every step of the way, and most people won't work that hard.

Obviously my point went over your head... Let me explain...


It's a type of "go to" phrase that Neoteny uses to try and establish that his comprehension of science is legitimate and that _sabatoge_, or whomever he is debating with, is lacking in scientific understanding because of his claim that their entire position on the matter is solely based on a graph from the internet.

It's like when Tom Cruise said to Matt Lauer "If you understood the history of psychology the same way that I did, then you wouldn't be acting so glib right now".

It's another bullshit "I'm right and you're wrong because your comprehension level is beneath mine" It's a position based on tunnel vision, Neoteny is so sure that he is right that he wont even consider the possibility that he could be wrong.

There is no substance to any of it, it's all just bullshit.

[Neoteny]

I reckon I've been away long enough for people to not remember that I do tend to counter bullshit with more bullshit, a tactic that Demonfork is extremely well versed in, as can be clearly seen by his last two posts. I do it for many reasons: it's fun, sabotage isn't going to respond with anything other than his usual ichor anyway, even if I were going to attempt a serious discussion, it's how every fucking person on this whole fucking site operates, and I really do like to hear myself talk. And it's not like I haven't demonstrated a willingness to engage in reasonable discussion. But that wasn't happening before I got here anyway.

Why Demonfork, of all people, is bitching about it, though, I have no idea. Like I mentioned, that's his whole persona. Vaccine injury, perhaps.

But seriously, the world is burning, and Anthony Watts' charts aren't going to put it out.

Thats lovely. You are more of a fuckwit than I thought.

Groovy.

[Army of GOD]

holy tittycocks is neoteny

[_sabotage_]

I reckon I've been away long enough for people to not remember that I do tend to counter bullshit with more bullshit, a tactic that Demonfork is extremely well versed in, as can be clearly seen by his last two posts. I do it for many reasons: it's fun, sabotage isn't going to respond with anything other than his usual ichor anyway, even if I were going to attempt a serious discussion, it's how every fucking person on this whole fucking site operates, and I really do like to hear myself talk. And it's not like I haven't demonstrated a willingness to engage in reasonable discussion. But that wasn't happening before I got here anyway.

Why Demonfork, of all people, is bitching about it, though, I have no idea. Like I mentioned, that's his whole persona. Vaccine injury, perhaps.

But seriously, the world is burning, and Anthony Watts' charts aren't going to put it out.

Thats lovely. You are more of a fuckwit than I thought.

Groovy.

I can't imagine data, taken at the actual sites using recognized tools, being adjusted to fit a theory and somehow being ok. I don't know why you need me or anybody to explain this. All adjustments were made with the same result, to make it appear that its getting hotter.

After the disastrous climategate episode, I would expect people to be somewhat wary of climate scientists using tricks to further their own agenda. I wasn't taking into account your apparent willingness to utterly discount the scientific method in order to cling to a point of view that will lead us all to be taxed to the point where our behaviour is forcibly changed for no particular reason except to promote more central control and provide an income stream for the climate scientists who would be begging for pocket change without falsifying data.

[notyou2]

Ohh, here's some graphs


https://www.google.ca/search?q=world+te ... 7rFp83s%3D

[notyou2]

Ohhhh, I really like this one

https://www.google.ca/search?q=world+te ... 7rFp83s%3D

[notyou2]

I wish we could have two planets. One for the deniers and the oil companies and one for everyone else.

[_sabotage_]

Open a gofundme, I'll help send your ass to Mars.

[Neoteny]

I can't imagine data, taken at the actual sites using recognized tools, being adjusted to fit a theory and somehow being ok.

It isn't. Adjustments are made for a reason. Just ask Tzor. And the methodology behind the adjustments are made available.

I don't know why you need me or anybody to explain this.

I don't. I just like comedy.

All adjustments were made with the same result, to make it appear that its getting hotter.

They weren't. EG: http://judithcurry.com/2015/02/09/berke ... ture-data/

After the disastrous climategate episode, I would expect people to be somewhat wary of climate scientists using tricks to further their own agenda.

EL OH EL

I wasn't taking into account your apparent willingness to utterly discount the scientific method in order to cling to a point of view that will lead us all to be taxed to the point where our behaviour is forcibly changed for no particular reason except to promote more central control and provide an income stream for the climate scientists who would be begging for pocket change without falsifying data.

Oooh noooo... taxeeeessss...

Bro, the data are not being falsified by every climatologist. They were paid just fine before global warming was noticed. Just because you only care about money does not mean everyone else does.

[_sabotage_]

Ironically, I'm writing a study that will assume climate change as given and the reason for the study. It has nothing to do with climate change, but has a lot to do with efficient use of resources. So, yes, I guess I'll do anything for money.

[Neoteny]

That is pretty ironic.

[demonfork]

I reckon I've been away long enough for people to not remember that I do tend to counter bullshit with more bullshit, a tactic that Demonfork is extremely well versed in, as can be clearly seen by his last two posts. I do it for many reasons: it's fun, sabotage isn't going to respond with anything other than his usual ichor anyway, even if I were going to attempt a serious discussion, it's how every fucking person on this whole fucking site operates, and I really do like to hear myself talk. And it's not like I haven't demonstrated a willingness to engage in reasonable discussion. But that wasn't happening before I got here anyway.

Why Demonfork, of all people, is bitching about it, though, I have no idea. Like I mentioned, that's his whole persona. Vaccine injury, perhaps.

But seriously, the world is burning, and Anthony Watts' charts aren't going to put it out.

Thats lovely. You are more of a fuckwit than I thought.

Groovy.

Fair enough... Maybe we have more in common than I thought, as I also find it fun and like to hear myself talk.


On another note. Do you want to debate vaccine injury? Is vaccine injury a myth? Is the 3billion dollars that has been paid out, by the NVICP, to the victims of vaccine induced injuries a myth?

Is the NVICP http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/index.html a myth?

[Metsfanmax]

I find it amusing that the people who criticize scientists for calibrating raw data ("making adjustments") are, in the same breath, demanding that scientists adjust the temperature record downward to account for the alleged "urban heat island" effect.

[Metsfanmax]

On another note. Do you want to debate vaccine injury? Is vaccine injury a myth? Is the 3billion dollars that has been paid out, by the NVICP, to the victims of vaccine induced injuries a myth?

Is the NVICP http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/index.html a myth?

Are you willing to go on record and say that vaccines cause injuries because the US government says they do?

[demonfork]

On another note. Do you want to debate vaccine injury? Is vaccine injury a myth? Is the 3billion dollars that has been paid out, by the NVICP, to the victims of vaccine induced injuries a myth?

Is the NVICP http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/index.html a myth?

Are you willing to go on record and say that vaccines cause injuries because the US government says they do?

I'm willing to go on record and say that vaccines cause injury because it's a matter of fact.

To date, over 3 billion dollars has been paid out to the victims and the victims families of the vaccine injured.

These people had to prove in the special "vaccine court" that these deaths and injuries were caused by vaccines.

Ultimate i'm not sure where you're going with your question.

[Metsfanmax]

On another note. Do you want to debate vaccine injury? Is vaccine injury a myth? Is the 3billion dollars that has been paid out, by the NVICP, to the victims of vaccine induced injuries a myth?

Is the NVICP http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/index.html a myth?

Are you willing to go on record and say that vaccines cause injuries because the US government says they do?

I'm willing to go on record and say that vaccines cause injury because it's a matter of fact.

Of course vaccines cause injury. No medical treatment is without side effects. The issue is the extent of the injuries and what they are. That court compensates about 50 cases per year (with an average compensation in the ballpark of $1 million). The number of vaccinations per year in the US counts in the hundreds of millions. To say that vaccines are safe is about as safe of a statement as they come.

These people had to prove in the special "vaccine court" that these deaths and injuries were caused by vaccines.

Yes, and we all know that every time a settlement happens in court, it means that the losing party was truly guilty. (Due to the massive number of vaccinations, just by chance every once in a while, a child will get ill immediately after being vaccinated. Sometimes the government will choose to settle on a case rather than attempt to prove that there really wasn't a causative effect.)

Ultimate i'm not sure where you're going with your question.

Where I am going is that you seem to believe that government-funded scientists are engaged in a conspiracy to alter temperature data and disbelieve anything they say; whereas you are perfectly willingly to believe that a government court ruling proves that vaccines cause injuries. So are government pronouncements on science reliable or not?

[Neoteny]

I reckon I've been away long enough for people to not remember that I do tend to counter bullshit with more bullshit, a tactic that Demonfork is extremely well versed in, as can be clearly seen by his last two posts. I do it for many reasons: it's fun, sabotage isn't going to respond with anything other than his usual ichor anyway, even if I were going to attempt a serious discussion, it's how every fucking person on this whole fucking site operates, and I really do like to hear myself talk. And it's not like I haven't demonstrated a willingness to engage in reasonable discussion. But that wasn't happening before I got here anyway.

Why Demonfork, of all people, is bitching about it, though, I have no idea. Like I mentioned, that's his whole persona. Vaccine injury, perhaps.

But seriously, the world is burning, and Anthony Watts' charts aren't going to put it out.

Thats lovely. You are more of a fuckwit than I thought.

Groovy.

Fair enough... Maybe we have more in common than I thought, as I also find it fun and like to hear myself talk.


On another note. Do you want to debate vaccine injury? Is vaccine injury a myth? Is the 3billion dollars that has been paid out, by the NVICP, to the victims of vaccine induced injuries a myth?

Is the NVICP http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/index.html a myth?

We already have, if I recall correctly.

[_sabotage_]

I find it amusing that the people who criticize scientists for calibrating raw data ("making adjustments") are, in the same breath, demanding that scientists adjust the temperature record downward to account for the alleged "urban heat island" effect.

Yeah, I didn't say that. But thanks for the preemptive straw man.

[Neoteny]

Yeah, mets. You can't paint all denialists with the same brush. Having a multitude of nonsensical views is key to establishing as much misinformation as possible.

[Metsfanmax]

I find it amusing that the people who criticize scientists for calibrating raw data ("making adjustments") are, in the same breath, demanding that scientists adjust the temperature record downward to account for the alleged "urban heat island" effect.

Yeah, I didn't say that. But thanks for the preemptive straw man.

Which part of the statement does not apply to you?

[_sabotage_]

Try this:

"I find it amusing that the people who criticize scientists for: manipulating raw data, use of kriging to find the undiscovered hot spot, Mike's nature trick, hiding temperature proceeds CO2, ignoring the negative feedbacks, including skeptics in the consensus, ignoring the total failure to predict anything; also question how scientists may have manipulated temperature stations, height of meters, proximity to heat sources and sources to include.

"Because I'm ideologically blinded.

"Sincerely,

"Not a pork fan,"

Mets

[Neoteny]

"Including skeptics in the consensus."

What does that mean?

[_sabotage_]

That means that the 97% figure includes self-proclaimed skeptics.

For example I say something like this:

CO2 has been shown under isolated laboratory conditions to perceptively deflect some out-going radiation. In the real world, this result is negated by CO2 levels in the upper atmosphere which deflect 95% of incoming radiation, by water vapour of which there is 12625 times more of in the atmosphere per year than all man-made CO2 emissions, and by deforestation which releases CO2 but actually causes cooling. As such, the hypotheses of climate change have failed to materialize.

The IPCC, et al, read:

CO2 deflects out-going radiation.

And put it with the consensus.