• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Here’s how you school climate deniers: The anti-science movement’s biggest fallacies,

Page 20 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Continuing to read thru, this paper adjusted buoy data up to match ship water bucket data. That I find remarkable as it seems to indicate that using various types of water buckets dropped from ships is more accurate the buoy data. By +.12C. I think that needs serious review.
 
PokerGuy said:
The point is that many people fall back on the notion that scientific consensus means something is right. Showing how often such "consensus" has been shown to be wrong in the past is a good way to show that simply saying "consensus" doesn't mean something is correct, especially when politics and agendas are involved.

Yes, science self corrects over time. That doesn't mean at any point in time a particular conclusion is correct, nor does it mean it is not subject to the influence of politics or agendas.
Click to expand...

Again, it is about the evidence in each particular case. Everyone already knows science adjusts to the best evidence we have at the time. Using the errors of the past to demean current research is a dishonest method to cast doubt because that system is already built into science, it is intrinsic. It is the foundation of science. It keeps people skeptical of new data, which is a good thing. However, it shouldn't be used to throw everything out or belittle many scientist's conclusions.

Of course it doesn't mean at any point in time we are absolutely correct, but you must show evidence as to why we aren't correct not broadly equate the past to the current debate. :thumbsup:
 
I'm really struggling with this study as it essentially implies that the data from all the other various temperature datasets is not correct. How can that be?
 
Subyman said:
Again, it is about the evidence in each particular case. Everyone already knows science adjusts to the best evidence we have at the time. Using the errors of the past to demean current research is a dishonest method to cast doubt because that system is already built into science, it is intrinsic. It is the foundation of science. It keeps people skeptical of new data, which is a good thing. However, it shouldn't be used to throw everything out or belittle many scientist's conclusions.

Of course it doesn't mean at any point in time we are absolutely correct, but you must show evidence as to why we aren't correct not broadly equate the past to the current debate. :thumbsup:
Click to expand...
Most telling is that PokerGuy, Jaskalas, et al. will unquestioningly accept any data or science that tells them what they want to hear but reject any data or science that contradicts them as questionable. They can't successfully refute any of it of course, but they just know it is questionable.
 
Paratus said:
Plus the most obvious thing here is that direct measurement of .2W/m^2 was for CO2 only. It neglects all the other greenhouse gases and feedbacks.
Click to expand...

I wanted to correct you on multiple errors in your reply that misrepresented the numbers... 5 years not 10, 0.6c not 0.2c, two locations not one, but this alone trumps any other consideration. They measured solely CO2, don't we have measurements of all radiative forcing changes?

Is this model estimated / simulated, or actual measurement?
^ The above seems to estimated calculations based on gas concentration.
I need a source for measured radiative forcing changes.
 
Last edited:
Subyman said:
Again, it is about the evidence in each particular case. Everyone already knows science adjusts to the best evidence we have at the time. Using the errors of the past to demean current research is a dishonest method to cast doubt because that system is already built into science, it is intrinsic. It is the foundation of science. It keeps people skeptical of new data, which is a good thing. However, it shouldn't be used to throw everything out or belittle many scientist's conclusions.

Of course it doesn't mean at any point in time we are absolutely correct, but you must show evidence as to why we aren't correct not broadly equate the past to the current debate. :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

I never said past errors should be interpreted to mean that science is invalid or that there's anything wrong with the scientific method. I also don't belittle any particular scientist. It's simply a very logical rebuttal to the idiots that do the opposite, they take "there is consensus" to mean the current reasoning is infallible and no discussion or further analysis is warranted. Anyone who doesn't toe the line is a "denier".
 
dank69 said:
Most telling is that PokerGuy, Jaskalas, et al. will unquestioningly accept any data or science that tells them what they want to hear but reject any data or science that contradicts them as questionable. They can't successfully refute any of it of course, but they just know it is questionable.
Click to expand...

Uh, apparently you haven't read my posts.... or if you have, you haven't understood what was posted.

I don't "unquestioningly" accept anything.
 
PokerGuy said:
Uh, apparently you haven't read my posts.... or if you have, you haven't understood what was posted.

I don't "unquestioningly" accept anything.
Click to expand...
There is a vast amount of data supporting man made climate change which you dismiss because data corrections "just so happens to then support a pre-determined conclusion." Of course, you have never bothered to understand how the data corrections were made. So yeah, you certainly question sources that don't tell you what you want to hear.

On the flip side, there is a relatively small amount of data that contradicts man made climate change, most of which has been shown to be inaccurate. In order for you to think that there is still a debate to be had, you would have to lend much more weight to the accuracy of this data.
 
dank69 said:
On the flip side, there is a relatively small amount of data that contradicts man made climate change, most of which has been shown to be inaccurate. In order for you to think that there is still a debate to be had, you would have to lend much more weight to the accuracy of this data.
Click to expand...

I am aware of many studies on both sides. Could you provide 1 example that is inaccurate and the study that refutes the inaccuracy and reestablishes your premise? I would like to review it as I may have missed such an important study.
 
dphantom said:
I am aware of many studies on both sides. Could you provide 1 example that is inaccurate and the study that refutes the inaccuracy and reestablishes your premise? I would like to review it as I may have missed such an important study.
Click to expand...

Wasn't there already a source linked in this very thread that explained why the satellite data was inaccurate and/or didn't provide the whole picture?
 
looks like we have been warming all along. But dont let that stop you deniers. You wont have to deal with the full brunt of mass extinction and all the other fucked up things that are going to happen. Whats going to be funny is the people who will read back what you all said in like 300 years. They are gonna fucking hate us. lol.
 
Evidently the .12C upward to buoy data was to homogenize that data set with engine intake temperature monitors. That assumes buoy data, designed for environmental monitoring/data collection, is less accurate than a ships engine intake thermometer (EIT). Highly suspect I would think.
 
dank69 said:
Wasn't there already a source linked in this very thread that explained why the satellite data was inaccurate and/or didn't provide the whole picture?
Click to expand...
Not that I can see. perhaps you could repost if there in fact is one that show that satellite data is inaccurate.
 
dphantom said:
Highly suspect I would think.
Click to expand...

And thats all your handlers need. doubt. Once the polar ice caps are fully melted they get access to lots of fresh oil. Pretty cool eh? The use of your product makes it so you have access to more to produce? Just gotta push doubt for a little while longer.
 
JSt0rm said:
And thats all your handlers need. doubt. Once the polar ice caps are fully melted they get access to lots of fresh oil. Pretty cool eh? The use of your product makes it so you have access to more to produce? Just gotta push doubt for a little while longer.
Click to expand...
Damn...he's on to us!
 
dank69 said:
Since you didn't read post 206 the first time I am going to assume reposting it won't help this time either.
Click to expand...
I did read it and do not disagree with it. Christy along with Spencer are two of the most respected climate scientists in the world. I follow Spencer's blog regularly.

edit: That is the charts showing temperature trends across surface and satellite that is.
 
JSt0rm said:
You? No. you are a peasant. I'm talking about the guys who know and dont care. You? No. You just believe the bullshit because its comforting. Same with an afterlife. 😉
Click to expand...

I see you have entered another thread to add nothing to the discussion. 😱
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top