NASA faked the moon landing|Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax:
An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science


Quote:

Abstract Although nearly all domain experts agree that human CO2 emissions are altering the world's climate, segments of the public remain unconvinced by the scientific evidence. Internet blogs have become a vocal platform for climate denial, and bloggers have taken a prominent and influential role in questioning climate science. We report a survey (N > 1100) of climate blog users to identify the variables underlying acceptance and rejection of climate science. Paralleling previous work, we find that endorsement of a laissez-faire conception of free-market economics predicts rejection of climate science (r ~ .80 between latent constructs). Endorsement of the free market also predicted the rejection of other established scientific findings, such as the facts that HIV causes AIDS and that smoking causes lung cancer. We additionally show that endorsement of a cluster of conspiracy theories (e.g., that the CIA killed Martin-Luther King or that NASA faked the moon landing) predicts rejection of climate science as well as the rejection of other scientific findings, above and beyond endorsement of laissez-faire free markets. This provides empirical confirmation of previous suggestions that conspiracist ideation contributes to the rejection of science. Acceptance of science, by contrast, was strongly associated with the perception of a consensus among scientists.

Stephan Lewandowsky - The Mind of the Conspiracy Theorist

Quote:

From 9-11, to the death of Osama bin Laden, to the Boston Bombings, there's been a consistently bizarre and troubling reaction by some members of the public. We're referring to the people—a minority, to be sure, but a surprisingly large one—who always seem to think there's some kind of cover up. The U.S. government, they feel, was really behind the attacks on, uh, itself. And as for Bin Laden—well, he isn't really dead. These people are called conspiracy theorists, and, their particular form of irrationality is uniquely befuddling. It has been often denounced, but rarely understood. That's too bad, because conspiratorial thinking clearly plays an important role in science denial, on matters ranging from the connection between HIV and AIDS, to the safety of vaccines, to global warming. Fortunately, conspiracy mongers are now becoming the subject of research and study—and our latest guest is helping to lead this inquiry. His name is Stephan Lewandowsky, and he's a professor at the school of psychology at the University of Western Australia, and at the University of Bristol in the UK. And he's the author of a recent study with the delicious title "NASA Faked the Moon Landings, Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science (PDF)"—which drew some small amount of attention, especially when it was followed by a second study of the conspiracy theorists who rejected the first study for, yes, conspiratorial reasons.

http://traffic.libsyn.com/pointofinquiry/POI_2013_06_03_Stephan_Lewandowsky.mp3

Recursive fury: Conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in response to research on conspiracist ideation


Stephan Lewandowsky1*, John Cook1, 2, Klaus Oberauer1, 3 and Michael Marriott4

    1Psychology, University of Western Australia, Australia
    2Global Change Institute, The University of Queensland, Australia
    3Psychology, University of Zurich, Switzerland
    4 Climate Realities Research, Australia

This article, first published by Frontiers on 18 March 2013, has been the subject of complaints. Given the nature of some of these complaints, Frontiers has provisionally removed the link to the article while these issues are investigated, which is being done as swiftly as possible and which Frontiers management considers the most responsible course of action. The article has not been retracted or withdrawn. Further information will be provided as soon as possible. Thank you for your patience.

Conspiracist ideation has been repeatedly implicated in the rejection of scientific propositions, although empirical evidence to date has been sparse. A recent study involving visitors to climate blogs found that conspiracist ideation was associated with the rejection of climate science and the rejection of other scientific propositions such as the link between lung cancer and smoking, and between HIV and AIDS (Lewandowsky, Oberauer, & Gignac, in press; LOG12 from here on). This article analyzes the response of the climate blogosphere to the publication of LOG12. We identify and trace the hypotheses that emerged in response to LOG12 and that questioned the validity of the paper's conclusions. Using established criteria to identify conspiracist ideation, we show that many of the hypotheses exhibited conspiratorial content and counterfactual thinking. For example, whereas hypotheses were initially narrowly focused on LOG12, some ultimately grew in scope to include actors beyond the authors of LOG12, such as university executives, a media organization, and the Australian government. The overall pattern of the blogosphere's response to LOG12 illustrates the possible role of conspiracist ideation in the rejection of science, although alternative scholarly interpretations may be advanced in the future

Keywords: Science denial, Conspiracy theories, conspiracist ideation, Internet blogs, Climate Change

Citation: Lewandowsky S, Cook J, Oberauer K and Marriott M (2013). Recursive fury: Conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in response to research on conspiracist ideation. Front. Psychol. 4:73. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00073

Received: 05 Nov 2012; Accepted: 02 Feb 2013.

Edited by:
Viren Swami, University of Westminster, United Kingdom

Reviewed by:
Viren Swami, University of Westminster, United Kingdom
Elaine McKewon, University of Technology, Sydney, Australia 

Copyright: © 2013 Lewandowsky, Cook, Oberauer and Marriott. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

* Correspondence: Dr. Stephan Lewandowsky, University of Western Australia, Psychology, 35 Stirling Hwy, Crawley, 6027, WA, Australia, lewan@psy.uwa.edu.au

Wow, or perhaps I should say 'oh dear'....you've scrape the bottom of the barrel and found Lewandowsky AND Cook  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Embarrassment much....

Rider wrote on Sep 6^th, 2013 at 3:04pm:

... Lewandowsky AND Cook ...

And your qualifications are?  ::)

The draft of the second paper, as it was following peer review.

# wrote on Sep 6^th, 2013 at 3:08pm:

Rider wrote on Sep 6th, 2013 at 3:04pm: ... Lewandowsky AND Cook ... And your qualifications are?  ::)

Motivated rejection of idiocy. You qualify.

your peer reviewed nonsense has been seriously debunked and reclassified as junk science.

Seriously, you'd have to be paid to push this tripe, are you?

This paper is about psychology. I'm no expert on psychology, so I can't comment on its validity or otherwise.

There are no conspiracy theories my friend just facts.

Like for example,


Quote:

1. There is no hot spot in the tropopasue, this is the mantle piece of the AGW religion take that away and what are you left with.......a big fat zero. The only place you're likely to find this hot spot is in the computer circulation models of the IPCC & others. In the real world thousands of weather balloons and satellite data simply cant find this hot spot that will cause a runaway greenhouse effect. The theory is that the extra CO2 man sends up accumulates at the tropapause about 10 to 12 klms around the equator this in turn produces more water vapour in the immediate surroundings. Water vapour by the way is the most prominent greenhouse gas we have on Earth, it accounts for 95% of the greenhouse effect here on Earth. Funny how the alarmists never mention this fact, all they ever mention is manmade CO2 which accounts for a very small percentage of global warming. 2. Sea levels aren't rising at the rate the IPCC keeps telling us they are. Sea levels are rising at approximately 1.7mm/year which equates to about 100mm - 150mm per century. This is quite normal since we're coming out of the mini ice age, and temperatures are on the way up, just look at temperature over a period of time it sea saws up and down like a jaggered edge of a knife. There is no point in our history where the temperature has flat lined that also applies to CO2 concentrations. 3. The amount of CO2 in our atmosphere today is the lowest it has ever been, only one time in the last 550 million years of our history has CO2 in the atmosphere been as low as it is today. The alarmists all act as though this is one of the highest amounts of CO2 we have ever had, they fail to tell the average person that we once had 20 times the amount of CO2 we have in our atmosphere today. 4. CO2 & temperature donot correlate at all, on a short time scale (11000 years), on a long time scale (millions of years). But the alarmists like to use the medium time scale (400000 years) which makes CO2 and temperature look like they correlate. Its a well known fact that CO2 lags temperature by about 800 years. That is first the temperature goes up and then about 800 years later the concentration of CO2 goes up.

Now about the moon landing did that really happen...??

Well between the Earth and the moon there is a radiation belt was the lunar module insulated to stop this radiation passing through.....??

Well it must of been cause the astronauts are still alive today.

The lunar module had a rocket propellant device under its fuselage as it descended to make the landing this rocket should have dug out a little bit of a crater directly under it.

But guess what no crater of any size to report of.

This would have caused a lot of sand particles to become air borne (rocket pressure) even though the moon has only one sixth of the earth's gravity, eventually all these sand particles would have eventually settled back down again.

If one looks at the lunar module after it landed it looks like the astronauts have taken a rag and Mr. Sheen to its exterior, its squeaky clean.

But hell what do I know.......??

Now where the twin towers demolished or did they fall in accordance with the official story the authorities gave.

What pulverises steel reinforced concrete........????

What can melt steel....???

You know we may not be as educated as you would like us to be, but we're not smacking stupid either..... :D ;D

Ajax wrote on Sep 6^th, 2013 at 3:31pm:

1. There is no hot spot in the tropopasue, this is the mantle piece of the AGW religion take that away and what are you left with.......a big fat zero. The only place you're likely to find this hot spot is in the computer circulation models of the IPCC & others. In the real world thousands of weather balloons and satellite data simply cant find this hot spot that will cause a runaway greenhouse effect. The theory is that the extra CO2 man sends up accumulates at the tropapause about 10 to 12 klms around the equator this in turn produces more water vapour in the immediate surroundings. Water vapour by the way is the most prominent greenhouse gas we have on Earth, it accounts for 95% of the greenhouse effect here on Earth. Funny how the alarmists never mention this fact, all they ever mention is manmade CO2 which accounts for a very small percentage of global warming. 2. Sea levels aren't rising at the rate the IPCC keeps telling us they are. Sea levels are rising at approximately 1.7mm/year which equates to about 100mm - 150mm per century. This is quite normal since we're coming out of the mini ice age, and temperatures are on the way up, just look at temperature over a period of time it sea saws up and down like a jaggered edge of a knife. There is no point in our history where the temperature has flat lined that also applies to CO2 concentrations. 3. The amount of CO2 in our atmosphere today is the lowest it has ever been, only one time in the last 550 million years of our history has CO2 in the atmosphere been as low as it is today. The alarmists all act as though this is one of the highest amounts of CO2 we have ever had, they fail to tell the average person that we once had 20 times the amount of CO2 we have in our atmosphere today. 4. CO2 & temperature donot correlate at all, on a short time scale (11000 years), on a long time scale (millions of years). But the alarmists like to use the medium time scale (400000 years) which makes CO2 and temperature look like they correlate. Its a well known fact that CO2 lags temperature by about 800 years. That is first the temperature goes up and then about 800 years later the concentration of CO2 goes up[/size].

Why do you continue to post that series of strawmen, half truths and outright lies, when they have been explained to you more than once?

muso wrote on Sep 6^th, 2013 at 3:38pm:

Why do you continue to post that series of strawmen, half truths and outright lies, when they have been explained to you more than once?

Dude you can jump up and down until the cows come home but thems is the facts.....?????........ :P

The hotspot in the tropopause is not a crucial factor. Even your denialist friend said that any kind of warming would cause it. It's not specific to CO2.

muso wrote on Sep 6^th, 2013 at 3:38pm:

Ajax wrote on Sep 6th, 2013 at 3:31pm: 1. There is no hot spot in the tropopasue, this is the mantle piece of the AGW religion take that away and what are you left with.......a big fat zero. The only place you're likely to find this hot spot is in the computer circulation models of the IPCC & others. In the real world thousands of weather balloons and satellite data simply cant find this hot spot that will cause a runaway greenhouse effect. The theory is that the extra CO2 man sends up accumulates at the tropapause about 10 to 12 klms around the equator this in turn produces more water vapour in the immediate surroundings. Water vapour by the way is the most prominent greenhouse gas we have on Earth, it accounts for 95% of the greenhouse effect here on Earth. Funny how the alarmists never mention this fact, all they ever mention is manmade CO2 which accounts for a very small percentage of global warming. 2. Sea levels aren't rising at the rate the IPCC keeps telling us they are. Sea levels are rising at approximately 1.7mm/year which equates to about 100mm - 150mm per century. This is quite normal since we're coming out of the mini ice age, and temperatures are on the way up, just look at temperature over a period of time it sea saws up and down like a jaggered edge of a knife. There is no point in our history where the temperature has flat lined that also applies to CO2 concentrations. 3. The amount of CO2 in our atmosphere today is the lowest it has ever been, only one time in the last 550 million years of our history has CO2 in the atmosphere been as low as it is today. The alarmists all act as though this is one of the highest amounts of CO2 we have ever had, they fail to tell the average person that we once had 20 times the amount of CO2 we have in our atmosphere today. 4. CO2 & temperature donot correlate at all, on a short time scale (11000 years), on a long time scale (millions of years). But the alarmists like to use the medium time scale (400000 years) which makes CO2 and temperature look like they correlate. Its a well known fact that CO2 lags temperature by about 800 years. That is first the temperature goes up and then about 800 years later the concentration of CO2 goes up[/size]. Why do you continue to post that series of strawmen, half truths and outright lies, when they have been explained to you more than once?

and yet you posted up the video time serious of the artic ice melting as though it had some sort of credibility ..... but that's ok cause you believe in the 'cause' .... pardon me whilst I wipe the tears of derision from my eyes  ;D ;D

Rider wrote on Sep 6^th, 2013 at 5:30pm:

and yet you posted up the video time serious of the artic ice melting as though it had some sort of credibility ..... but that's ok cause you believe in the 'cause' .... pardon me whilst I wipe the tears of derision from my eyes  ;D ;D

So you have comprehension difficulties? I already explained that it was just a nice video to start the discussion with. The only deduction I made was humorous.  Look at the post if you don't believe me.

muso wrote on Sep 6^th, 2013 at 3:29pm:

This paper is about psychology. I'm no expert on psychology, so I can't comment on its validity or otherwise.

The fact that both papers survived peer review is good enough for me.

Almost three decades ago, I was trained in psychology. Nothing fancy, just enough for basic accept/undecided/reject triage of job applicants. Certainly not a formal qualification, by any stretch of the imagination.

I stayed in that job for more than four years and got pretty good at it. The ones I classified acceptable went on to the next phase: formal evaluation by qualified psychologists. At the time, the job market was such that we never got to the ones I classified undecided.

Feedback from the psychologists was that I  was pretty good at weeding out psychotics, but often let psychopaths slip through. Truth be known, even the best had difficulty with the latter. From a labour market perspective, the difference as it was explained to me is that, while a psychotic can affect the profitability of a business, a psychopath can destroy it. The purpose of all that expensive testing was to minimise disruptive (and potentially destructive) influences in the workplace.

Anyway, in Ajax, I recognise something familiar. That set me searching to find out whether anyone else had made the connection. Hence this topic.

The description of conspiracy theories as "self-sealing" is particularly interesting. Anything that contradicts the theory becomes part of the conspiracy. There's a certain psychotic brilliance in that.

The upshot is that, while one such on a forum is not unhealthy, there are too many here. I don't have the time or patience to play this game. I might drop by occasionally, to see whether the lunatics have taken over the asylum.

Muso, if this was a workplace, my advice would be: RUN! As it stands, all I can do is wish you good luck.

# wrote on Sep 7^th, 2013 at 12:09pm:

[quote author=muso link=1378442417/6#6 date=1378445344] Almost three decades ago, I was trained in psychology. Nothing fancy, just enough for basic accept/undecided/reject triage of job applicants. Certainly not a formal qualification, by any stretch of the imagination. .

What sort of training?

How long did it take to train you?

Quote:

Feedback from the psychologists was that I  was pretty good at weeding out psychotics, but often let psychopaths slip through. Truth be known, even the best had difficulty with the latter. From a labour market perspective, the difference as it was explained to me is that, while a psychotic can affect the profitability of a business, a psychopath can destroy it. The purpose of all that expensive testing was to minimise disruptive (and potentially destructive) influences in the workplace. Anyway, in Ajax, I recognise something familiar. That set me searching to find out whether anyone else had made the connection. Hence this topic.

I know what you mean. Most people will at least listen to rational argument. He's a true faithful. No amount of logic will prevail.

What is psychosis?

Quote:

When someone experiences psychosis they are unable to distinguish what is real — there is a loss of contact with reality.

# wrote on Sep 7^th, 2013 at 7:54pm:

What is psychosis? Quote: When someone experiences psychosis they are unable to distinguish what is real — there is a loss of contact with reality.

Can you provide an example of a person who is in contact with reality?

what is reality?

You may be confusing a psychotic episode with a schizophrenic episode. Schizophrenia is a mental state whereby the perception of reality is split or torn (often confused with a split personality which is totally unrelated)

Ajax wrote on Sep 6^th, 2013 at 3:31pm:

There are no conspiracy theories my friend just facts. Like for example, Now about the moon landing did that really happen...?? Well between the Earth and the moon there is a radiation belt was the lunar module insulated to stop this radiation passing through.....?? Well it must of been cause the astronauts are still alive today. The lunar module had a rocket propellant device under its fuselage as it descended to make the landing this rocket should have dug out a little bit of a crater directly under it. But guess what no crater of any size to report of. This would have caused a lot of sand particles to become air borne (rocket pressure) even though the moon has only one sixth of the earth's gravity, eventually all these sand particles would have eventually settled back down again. If one looks at the lunar module after it landed it looks like the astronauts have taken a rag and Mr. Sheen to its exterior, its squeaky clean. But hell what do I know.......?? Now where the twin towers demolished or did they fall in accordance with the official story the authorities gave. What pulverises steel reinforced concrete........???? What can melt steel....??? You know we may not be as educated as you would like us to be, but we're not smacking stupid either..... :D ;D

Oh wow...that's just an.....amazing(ly silly) argument.
Please stop, you're making it very embarassing to be a climate skeptic when you post stuff like that..

# wrote on Sep 6^th, 2013 at 2:40pm:

NASA faked the moon landing|Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science Quote: Abstract Although nearly all domain experts agree that human CO2 emissions are altering the world's climate, segments of the public remain unconvinced by the scientific evidence. Internet blogs have become a vocal platform for climate denial, and bloggers have taken a prominent and influential role in questioning climate science. We report a survey (N > 1100) of climate blog users to identify the variables underlying acceptance and rejection of climate science. Paralleling previous work, we find that endorsement of a laissez-faire conception of free-market economics predicts rejection of climate science (r ~ .80 between latent constructs). Endorsement of the free market also predicted the rejection of other established scientific findings, such as the facts that HIV causes AIDS and that smoking causes lung cancer. We additionally show that endorsement of a cluster of conspiracy theories (e.g., that the CIA killed Martin-Luther King or that NASA faked the moon landing) predicts rejection of climate science as well as the rejection of other scientific findings, above and beyond endorsement of laissez-faire free markets. This provides empirical confirmation of previous suggestions that conspiracist ideation contributes to the rejection of science. Acceptance of science, by contrast, was strongly associated with the perception of a consensus among scientists. Stephan Lewandowsky - The Mind of the Conspiracy Theorist [quote] From 9-11, to the death of Osama bin Laden, to the Boston Bombings, there's been a consistently bizarre and troubling reaction by some members of the public. We're referring to the people—a minority, to be sure, but a surprisingly large one—who always seem to think there's some kind of cover up. The U.S. government, they feel, was really behind the attacks on, uh, itself. And as for Bin Laden—well, he isn't really dead. These people are called conspiracy theorists, and, their particular form of irrationality is uniquely befuddling. It has been often denounced, but rarely understood. That's too bad, because conspiratorial thinking clearly plays an important role in science denial, on matters ranging from the connection between HIV and AIDS, to the safety of vaccines, to global warming. Fortunately, conspiracy mongers are now becoming the subject of research and study—and our latest guest is helping to lead this inquiry. His name is Stephan Lewandowsky, and he's a professor at the school of psychology at the University of Western Australia, and at the University of Bristol in the UK. And he's the author of a recent study with the delicious title "NASA Faked the Moon Landings, Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science (PDF)"—which drew some small amount of attention, especially when it was followed by a second study of the conspiracy theorists who rejected the first study for, yes, conspiratorial reasons.

http://traffic.libsyn.com/pointofinquiry/POI_2013_06_03_Stephan_Lewandowsky.mp3[/quote]

Sorry #, can you link an actual skeptic website that uses the 'moon hoax = no ACC' argument??? Because I've never seen it listed before.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 8^th, 2013 at 12:14am:

... Oh wow...that's just an.....amazing(ly silly) argument. Please stop, you're making it very embarassing to be a climate skeptic when you post stuff like that..

On the evidence of his ineptitudes, Ajax is poorly educated and of below average intelligence. His grasp on reality is questionable. This is the company you choose to keep.


gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 8^th, 2013 at 12:29am:

... Sorry #, can you link an actual skeptic website that uses the 'moon hoax = no ACC' argument??? Because I've never seen it listed before.

It's called "humour"
Quote:

2. Also called sense of humour the ability to appreciate or express that which is humorous

Denial of climate science is a joke. A very bad joke.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 8^th, 2013 at 12:14am:

Oh wow...that's just an.....amazing(ly silly) argument. Please stop, you're making it very embarassing to be a climate skeptic when you post stuff like that..

So what are your thoughts on Ed Caryl's little piece Gizmo? Did you also cringe when you read that? How well calibrated is  your "sillyness meter" ? 

Do you agree with his point that the oceans are warming? 

http://notrickszone.com/2013/08/30/university-of-colorado-admits-radar-altimetry-is-pretty-much-useless-for-measuring-sea-level/

You have always struck me as being objective. Let's see if I'm right. 

... but I also think you're scared to think through every post objectively in case you're proven wrong. Prove me wrong.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Sep 7^th, 2013 at 8:27pm:

# wrote on Sep 7th, 2013 at 7:54pm: What is psychosis? Quote: When someone experiences psychosis they are unable to distinguish what is real — there is a loss of contact with reality. ... You may be confusing a psychotic episode with ...

Did you follow the link to the source of the quote? Made a fool of yourself, haven't you?

Strangely enough the diagnosis of mental illness seems to be, to a large extent, geographically determined. The same symptoms are interpreted differently in different countries. They have some completely different ideas in the US for example.

That, admittedly was the viewpoint of one single psychiatrist whom I met at dinner once. I haven't really  delved into the subject enough to determine the validity of his viewpoint.

A few years ago, I completed a short course on cognitive psychology applied to the workforce.  That's about my limit.

Edit: Just found this. It seems that there are two main classification systems, so my psych. acquaintance was probably on the ball:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_of_mental_disorders
 

DSM Group (US): Schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders

You guys never question these things like you question the pros and cons of the AGW religion.....????

Strange........................!!!!!

That you would accept one thing at face value and not the other....????


Quote:

Now about the moon landing did that really happen...?? Well between the Earth and the moon there is a radiation belt was the lunar module insulated to stop this radiation passing through.....?? Well it must of been cause the astronauts are still alive today. The lunar module had a rocket propellant device under its fuselage as it descended to make the landing this rocket should have dug out a little bit of a crater directly under it. But guess what no crater of any size to report of. This would have caused a lot of sand particles to become air borne (rocket pressure) even though the moon has only one sixth of the earth's gravity, eventually all these sand particles would have eventually settled back down again. If one looks at the lunar module after it landed it looks like the astronauts have taken a rag and Mr. Sheen to its exterior, its squeaky clean. But hell what do I know.......?? Now where the twin towers demolished or did they fall in accordance with the official story the authorities gave. What pulverises steel reinforced concrete........???? What can melt steel....??? You know we may not be as educated as you would like us to be, but we're not smacking stupid either.....

Ajax wrote on Sep 8^th, 2013 at 1:02pm:

You guys never question these things like you question the pros and cons of the AGW religion.....????

I hope you mean Chimp and #. They're the ones arguing about whether you're Psychotic or Schizophrenic. I was the one who gave you the benefit of the doubt.

muso wrote on Sep 8^th, 2013 at 1:06pm:

Ajax wrote on Sep 8th, 2013 at 1:02pm: You guys never question these things like you question the pros and cons of the AGW religion.....???? I hope you mean Chimp and #. They're the ones arguing about whether you're Psychotic or Schizophrenic. I was the one who gave you the benefit of the doubt.

thanks dude......... 8-)

Sounds like the other guys believe everything George Bush said..........!!!

muso wrote on Sep 8^th, 2013 at 10:37am:

... the viewpoint of one single psychiatrist ... A few years ago, I completed a short course on cognitive psychology applied to the workforce.  That's about my limit. ...

Conflating psychology and psychiatry is probably unwise. Though related, they're not the same.

My job was to detect, not to treat. In Ajax, I see some of what I was trained to detect. Psychiatry is more about detailed diagnosis and treatment.

We progressives have had to abandon our postmodern view of the world that views science as "just one interpretation amongst multiple interpretations" and embrace hard empiricism. It was a hard choice, but it will help in smashing the bourgeois, so it'll be worth it in the end.

We Conservatives quite like hard facts too. Brain food, old chap. The nutritional value of facts is considerably more than that of bullsh1t.

Relieved to hear that the truth is not a partisan issue.

Let me guess - Business and Government?

# wrote on Sep 8^th, 2013 at 1:29pm:

My job was to detect, not to treat. In Ajax, I see some of what I was trained to detect. Psychiatry is more about detailed diagnosis and treatment.

Oh well, we'll have to settle on just detection then.  It's a pity though. ECT is definitely indicated for the subject.

Ajax wrote on Sep 8^th, 2013 at 1:02pm:

You guys never question these things like you question the pros and cons of the AGW religion.....???? Strange........................!!!!! That you would accept one thing at face value and not the other....???? Quote: Now about the moon landing did that really happen...?? Well between the Earth and the moon there is a radiation belt was the lunar module insulated to stop this radiation passing through.....?? Well it must of been cause the astronauts are still alive today. The lunar module had a rocket propellant device under its fuselage as it descended to make the landing this rocket should have dug out a little bit of a crater directly under it. But guess what no crater of any size to report of. This would have caused a lot of sand particles to become air borne (rocket pressure) even though the moon has only one sixth of the earth's gravity, eventually all these sand particles would have eventually settled back down again. If one looks at the lunar module after it landed it looks like the astronauts have taken a rag and Mr. Sheen to its exterior, its squeaky clean. But hell what do I know.......?? Now where the twin towers demolished or did they fall in accordance with the official story the authorities gave. What pulverises steel reinforced concrete........???? What can melt steel....??? You know we may not be as educated as you would like us to be, but we're not smacking stupid either.....

You wouldn't like to rethink the highlighted bit would you??

muso wrote on Sep 8^th, 2013 at 3:08pm:

... ECT is definitely indicated for the subject.

Perhaps the problem stems from the subject failing to take his med's.

muso wrote on Sep 8^th, 2013 at 3:03pm:

We Conservatives quite like hard facts too. Brain food, old chap. The nutritional value of facts is considerably more than that of bullsh1t. Relieved to hear that the truth is not a partisan issue. Let me guess - Business and Government?

The truth will be what we progressives say it

# wrote on Sep 8^th, 2013 at 4:53pm:

muso wrote on Sep 8th, 2013 at 3:08pm: ... ECT is definitely indicated for the subject. Perhaps the problem stems from the subject failing to take his med's.

I think I should take mine and spend some time horizontal. I have the mother of all stomach bugs so I might be absent for a few days. Keep up the good work.

Postmodern Trendoid wrote on Sep 8^th, 2013 at 5:59pm:

muso wrote on Sep 8th, 2013 at 3:03pm: We Conservatives quite like hard facts too. Brain food, old chap. The nutritional value of facts is considerably more than that of bullsh1t. Relieved to hear that the truth is not a partisan issue. Let me guess - Business and Government? The truth will be what we progressives say it

is

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 8^th, 2013 at 3:23pm:

You wouldn't like to rethink the highlighted bit would you??

Nope not at all.....!

Ajax wrote on Sep 9^th, 2013 at 8:35am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 8th, 2013 at 3:23pm: You wouldn't like to rethink the highlighted bit would you?? Nope not at all.....!

Hmm, so you are quite happy to let stand a comment about sand particles becoming 'air borne' on the Moon, which doesn't actually have any 'air', or other type of atmosphere ?

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 9^th, 2013 at 8:56am:

Ajax wrote on Sep 9th, 2013 at 8:35am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 8th, 2013 at 3:23pm: You wouldn't like to rethink the highlighted bit would you?? Nope not at all.....! Hmm, so you are quite happy to let stand a comment about sand particles becoming 'air borne' on the Moon, which doesn't actually have any 'air', or other type of atmosphere ?

Quite happy indeed, because if the rocket under the fuselage had any sort of pressure dust would definitely be kicked up and then it would settle again.

More than likely the dust would've settled on the lunar module.

Ajax wrote on Sep 9^th, 2013 at 9:02am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 9th, 2013 at 8:56am: Ajax wrote on Sep 9th, 2013 at 8:35am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 8th, 2013 at 3:23pm: You wouldn't like to rethink the highlighted bit would you?? Nope not at all.....! Hmm, so you are quite happy to let stand a comment about sand particles becoming 'air borne' on the Moon, which doesn't actually have any 'air', or other type of atmosphere ? Quite happy indeed, because if the rocket under the fuselage had any sort of pressure dust would definitely be kicked up and then it would settle again. More than likely the dust would've settled on the lunar module.

Quite possibly a small amount it might have, however, saying that the whole lunar landing didn't happen because you can't see that dust on the lander or see the crater on footage taken with Westinghouse Apollo Lunar Television Camera is as silly as saying the troposphere hot spot does exist, but is just invisible.

NONE of the reasoning you've used makes the Apollo lunar landings (all 6 of them) impossible, or faked.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 9^th, 2013 at 9:14am:

Quite possibly a small amount it might have, however, saying that the whole lunar landing didn't happen because you can't see that dust on the lander or see the crater on footage taken with Westinghouse Apollo Lunar Television Camera is as silly as saying the troposphere hot spot does exist, but is just invisible.

The lunar module looks like someone had taken a rag and Mr.sheen to it.

Do you know if the lunar module was insulated against the radioactive belt between the Earth & the moon....???

If the hot spot in the tropopause existed then our weather balloons and satellite data would've detected it.

As it stands there is no hot spot in the real world proved by empirical methods.

The hot spot exists in computer circulation models.



Quote:

NONE of the reasoning you've used makes the Apollo lunar landings (all 6 of them) impossible, or faked.

True I agree, still the question needs to be asked...???

OR

Are you happy to accept........

"Because they said so"..........?????

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 9^th, 2013 at 8:56am:

Ajax wrote on Sep 9th, 2013 at 8:35am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 8th, 2013 at 3:23pm: You wouldn't like to rethink the highlighted bit would you?? Nope not at all.....! Hmm, so you are quite happy to let stand a comment about sand particles becoming 'air borne' on the Moon, which doesn't actually have any 'air', or other type of atmosphere ?

cheese particles  ;)

Ajax wrote on Sep 9^th, 2013 at 9:51am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 9th, 2013 at 9:14am: Quite possibly a small amount it might have, however, saying that the whole lunar landing didn't happen because you can't see that dust on the lander or see the crater on footage taken with Westinghouse Apollo Lunar Television Camera is as silly as saying the troposphere hot spot does exist, but is just invisible. The lunar module looks like someone had taken a rag and Mr.sheen to it. Do you know if the lunar module was insulated against the radioactive belt between the Earth & the moon....??? If the hot spot in the tropopause existed then our weather balloons and satellite data would've detected it. As it stands there is no hot spot in the real world proved by empirical methods. The hot spot exists in computer circulation models. Quote: NONE of the reasoning you've used makes the Apollo lunar landings (all 6 of them) impossible, or faked. True I agree, still the question needs to be asked...??? OR Are you happy to accept........ "Because they said so"..........?????

I'm happy to accept it because IF it had been 'faked', it would have looked a lot better and there are far too many people (not employed by the government in any way) involved for a con or fake to have worked.

Gizmo,  Now you know how I feel. Hey Ajax! I saw the Apollo 11 burn that started its journey to the moon.

muso wrote on Sep 9^th, 2013 at 5:00pm:

Gizmo,  Now you know how I feel. Hey Ajax! I saw the Apollo 11 burn that started its journey to the moon.

I saw the launch, the landing, Armstrong coming down the ladder, the flag planting and the return.

Yeah, muso, I'm beginning to see your point.

muso wrote on Sep 9^th, 2013 at 5:00pm:

Gizmo,  Now you know how I feel. Hey Ajax! I saw the Apollo 11 burn that started its journey to the moon.

I saw it too muso, it interrupted the blonde & dagwood show.

My 2 cents is the landing and roaming around was filmed much earlier to take off.

The two astronauts spend most of their moonlanding time orbiting the Earth in the lunar module.

When the time came to show the world the US had indeed conquered the moon, Armstrong & Aldrin just popped the beta video taken of them in area 51 weeks before take off roaming around in the Nevada desert. :D ;D :-*

Ajax wrote on Sep 10^th, 2013 at 8:36am:

... the landing and roaming around was filmed much earlier to take off. The two astronauts spend most of their moonlanding time orbiting the Earth in the lunar module. When the time came to show the world the US had indeed conquered the moon, Armstrong & Aldrin just popped the beta video taken of them in area 51 weeks before take off roaming around in the Nevada desert. :D ;D :-*

Ajax, your lunacy knows no bounds. You do realise that the smileys could be interpreted as manic, don't you?

# wrote on Sep 10^th, 2013 at 8:57am:

Ajax wrote on Sep 10th, 2013 at 8:36am: ... the landing and roaming around was filmed much earlier to take off. The two astronauts spend most of their moonlanding time orbiting the Earth in the lunar module. When the time came to show the world the US had indeed conquered the moon, Armstrong & Aldrin just popped the beta video taken of them in area 51 weeks before take off roaming around in the Nevada desert. :D ;D :-* Ajax, your lunacy knows no bounds. You do realise that the smileys could be interpreted as manic, don't you?

Thanks i'll take that as a compliment.

I should have added.


Quote:

When the time came to show the world the US had indeed conquered the moon, Armstrong & Aldrin just popped the beta video taken of them in area 51 weeks before take off roaming around in the Nevada desert in slow motion.

Ajax wrote on Sep 10^th, 2013 at 8:36am:

muso wrote on Sep 9th, 2013 at 5:00pm: Gizmo,  Now you know how I feel. Hey Ajax! I saw the Apollo 11 burn that started its journey to the moon. I saw it too muso, it interrupted the blonde & dagwood show. My 2 cents is the landing and roaming around was filmed much earlier to take off. The two astronauts spend most of their moonlanding time orbiting the Earth in the lunar module. When the time came to show the world the US had indeed conquered the moon, Armstrong & Aldrin just popped the beta video taken of them in area 51 weeks before take off roaming around in the Nevada desert. :D ;D :-*

And do you truly believe that the thousands of ham radio operators, amateur astronomers and other assorted tech-heads who'd been following and monitoring the Apollo mission couldn't tell the origin of the signal??


p.s not to mention the entire USSR space program and monitoring stations.

# wrote on Sep 10^th, 2013 at 8:57am:

Ajax, your lunacy knows no bounds. You do realise that the smileys could be interpreted as manic, don't you?

Yes. He is really good at it. Does wonders for the credibility. I'm sure that your fellow denialists are really appreciative of your contributions.

Tell us more about the staged moon landing. Tell us about how the banks really have control of the Energy companies, and how the ocean is warming and is bulging outwards like Monckton's eyes.  We're all ears.

Here. Take as much as you want.

http://www.juliewinklegiulioni.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Tug_of_war_rope-300x240.jpg

muso wrote on Sep 10^th, 2013 at 11:31am:

# wrote on Sep 10th, 2013 at 8:57am: Ajax, your lunacy knows no bounds. You do realise that the smileys could be interpreted as manic, don't you? Yes. He is really good at it. Does wonders for the credibility. I'm sure that your fellow denialists are really appreciative of your contributions. Tell us more about the staged moon landing. Tell us about how the banks really have control of the Energy companies, and how the ocean is warming and is bulging outwards like Monckton's eyes.  We're all ears. Here. Take as much as you want. http://www.juliewinklegiulioni.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Tug_of_war_rope-300x240.jpg

I didn't actually do physics at school, other than as part of general science ( my elective was biology), but from memory, it seems that thermal expansion might be applicable to the sea level change.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 10^th, 2013 at 12:47pm:

muso wrote on Sep 10th, 2013 at 11:31am: # wrote on Sep 10th, 2013 at 8:57am: Ajax, your lunacy knows no bounds. You do realise that the smileys could be interpreted as manic, don't you? Yes. He is really good at it. Does wonders for the credibility. I'm sure that your fellow denialists are really appreciative of your contributions. Tell us more about the staged moon landing. Tell us about how the banks really have control of the Energy companies, and how the ocean is warming and is bulging outwards like Monckton's eyes.  We're all ears. Here. Take as much as you want. http://www.juliewinklegiulioni.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Tug_of_war_rope-300x240.jpg I didn't actually do physics at school, other than as part of general science ( my elective was biology), but from memory, it seems that thermal expansion might be applicable to the sea level change.

Correct. It's the main cause of it. I was referring to another previous point though.

muso wrote on Sep 10^th, 2013 at 1:01pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 10th, 2013 at 12:47pm: muso wrote on Sep 10th, 2013 at 11:31am: # wrote on Sep 10th, 2013 at 8:57am: Ajax, your lunacy knows no bounds. You do realise that the smileys could be interpreted as manic, don't you? Yes. He is really good at it. Does wonders for the credibility. I'm sure that your fellow denialists are really appreciative of your contributions. Tell us more about the staged moon landing. Tell us about how the banks really have control of the Energy companies, and how the ocean is warming and is bulging outwards like Monckton's eyes.  We're all ears. Here. Take as much as you want. http://www.juliewinklegiulioni.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Tug_of_war_rope-300x240.jpg I didn't actually do physics at school, other than as part of general science ( my elective was biology), but from memory, it seems that thermal expansion might be applicable to the sea level change. Correct. It's the main cause of it. I was referring to another previous point though.

So then the melting of the glaciers isn't the main cause of sea level rise....???!!!

Then we have nothing to worry about.....!!!!... :P ::) 8-) :D ;D

Ajax wrote on Sep 11^th, 2013 at 8:39am:

So then the melting of the glaciers isn't the main cause of sea level rise....???!!! Then we have nothing to worry about.....!!!!... :P ::) 8-) :D ;D

Which time scale are you talking about? The last 50 years, the last 10 years, the last 2 years,  the period following the last glaciation or  the next 80 or 90 years?

It's not a trick question.

Why were there no stars in the Apollo Moon photos? Please tell us.

muso wrote on Sep 11^th, 2013 at 9:27am:

Ajax wrote on Sep 11th, 2013 at 8:39am: So then the melting of the glaciers isn't the main cause of sea level rise....???!!! Then we have nothing to worry about.....!!!!... :P ::) 8-) :D ;D Which time scale are you talking about? The last 50 years, the last 10 years, the last 2 years,  the period following the last glaciation or  the next 80 or 90 years? It's not a trick question.

The melting of the arctic started about 200 years ago it has nothing to do with man's emissions of CO2.

Since we're coming out of a mini ice age it makes sense that there will be some melting of glaciers etc, that CO2 will rise and sea levels will rise.

That's the bottom line.

You didn't answer the question. Gizmo and I were talking about "the" sea level rise, where you were talking about sea level rise in general. You need to clarify what you mean.

muso wrote on Sep 11^th, 2013 at 9:33am:

You didn't answer the question. Gizmo and I were talking about "the" sea level rise, where you were talking about sea level rise in general. You need to clarify what you mean.

I'm not an oceanographer....???!!!!

Sure the oceans will be warmer around the equator and cooler at the poles.

In between........................!!!!!!!

The complexity of how the ocean absorbs and disperses heat is beyond me and I would say probably beyond your good self as well.

The general picture is what i'm after you know the bottom line.

Ajax wrote on Sep 11^th, 2013 at 9:41am:

The general picture is what i'm after you know the bottom line.

No. What you are after is anything that you can use to support your conspiracy theories. It doesn't matter how much you simplify things. If you can use semantics to support your case, you will dishonestly use semantics.

For example, taking about recent sea level rise in the context of the last 50 years, I said that the major effect is thermal expansion.  You jumped on this and said that "oh well if that's the only cause of sea level rise, then we have nothing to worry about."

No consideration of time scale. No consideration of the fact that when temperatures were last similar to those of today in the Eemian, Sea Levels were 5 to 7 metres higher globally than they are today, and that this was mainly due to Glacial meltwater. 

Ajax,

What do you think about Chemtrails?

muso wrote on Sep 11^th, 2013 at 8:37pm:

No. What you are after is anything that you can use to support your conspiracy theories. It doesn't matter how much you simplify things. If you can use semantics to support your case, you will dishonestly use semantics.

That sounds more like you, when you cannot defend the flimsy science AGW is based on you revert to ad hominem.


Quote:

For example, taking about recent sea level rise in the context of the last 50 years, I said that the major effect is thermal expansion.  You jumped on this and said that "oh well if that's the only cause of sea level rise, then we have nothing to worry about."

Thermal expansion of the ocean is not a new phenomenon, its been around as long as the oceans have been around, and yes we have had many sea level rises & drops.


Quote:

No consideration of time scale. No consideration of the fact that when temperatures were last similar to those of today in the Eemian, Sea Levels were 5 to 7 metres higher globally than they are today, and that this was mainly due to Glacial meltwater.

Then why aren't they 5 to 7 metres higher today...????

I agree sea levels are rising but not at the alarming rate the alarmists predict.

Sea levels are expected to rise somewhere between 100mm to 150mm by 2100.

This is pretty much in concert with the Earth's natural cycle of cooling and warming periods.

The alarmists in order to scare everyone to death and quickly pass a tax on the air we breath are telling us some ridiculous figures for sea level rises.

The medieval warm period was about as hot as today yet we didn't see 20 feet of sea level rise.

When I first came on here you guys made it sound as though sea level rises where due to glaciers and the arctic melting.

Now its thermal expansion of the oceans..... ;) 

muso wrote on Sep 11^th, 2013 at 9:49pm:

Ajax, What do you think about Chemtrails?

You mean contrails fro jet aircraft....???

They contribute to the albedo effect just like all other clouds do....!!!!

OK, so you don't buy the chemtrails conspiracy too.

Conspiracies fuel climate change denial and belief in chemtrails
By David Suzuki with contributions from Ian Hanington, Communications Manager
September 5, 2013

Ajax wrote on Sep 12^th, 2013 at 7:41am:

[quote author=muso link=1378442417/57#57 date=1378895854] Sea levels are expected to rise somewhere between 100mm to 150mm by 2100. This is pretty much in concert with the Earth's natural cycle of cooling and warming periods.

Can you describe this natural cycle? (its periodicity, intensity etc)

what is its underlying mechanism?

(I wonder which scientific discipline and which peer reviewed scientific journals you will refer to in order to entertain these questions, and support your statements? I hope you don't cite Bolt and Monckton as authorities or the Peabody Coal Company)

Chimp_Logic wrote on Sep 12^th, 2013 at 10:33pm:

Ajax wrote on Sep 12th, 2013 at 7:41am: [quote author=muso link=1378442417/57#57 date=1378895854] Sea levels are expected to rise somewhere between 100mm to 150mm by 2100. This is pretty much in concert with the Earth's natural cycle of cooling and warming periods. Can you describe this natural cycle? (its periodicity, intensity etc) what is its underlying mechanism? (I wonder which scientific discipline and which peer reviewed scientific journals you will refer to in order to entertain these questions, and support your statements? I hope you don't cite Bolt and Monckton as authorities or the Peabody Coal Company)

Look at our history.........????

There is nothing to worry about....sleep easy at night dude....its not the end of the world.....!!!

http://i39.tinypic.com/qx1mvb.gif

800,000 years of atmospheric CO2, showing two possible projections to 2100.

Entering unknown territory.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/album/forum-attachments/global-warming-timeline-future.jpg

---

Did you pull those graphs out of Jimmy Hansen's arsehole did ya....???

Cause that's where they look like they've came from....!!!... :D ;D :P

As usual, you come back with an ad hominem. 

muso wrote on Sep 15^th, 2013 at 7:17pm:

As usual, you come back with an ad hominem.

If its not Jimmy Hansens' arsehole it must be the IPCC's....??

Probably their computer circulation models.....???

Their hypothesis deserves the trash can.

Keep trying. Only 2500 climate scientists to go.

Specifically, what do you have a problem with?

muso wrote on Sep 15^th, 2013 at 7:52pm:

Keep trying. Only 2500 climate scientists to go. Specifically, what do you have a problem with?

Stop kidding yourself more like 77 or so.......!!!!!!



Quote:

That Scientific Global Warming Consensus…Not! – Forbes By Larry Bell So where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with. Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”. That anything-but-scientific survey asked two questions. The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”  Few would be expected to dispute this…the planet began thawing out of the “Little Ice Age” in the middle 19th century, predating the Industrial Revolution. (That was the coldest period since the last real Ice Age ended roughly 10,000 years ago.) The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” So what constitutes “significant”? Does “changing” include both cooling and warming… and for both “better” and “worse”? And which contributions…does this include land use changes, such as agriculture and deforestation? http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/

Another flawed opinion based survey.

muso wrote on Sep 16^th, 2013 at 1:41pm:

Another flawed opinion based survey.

Too right dude.......!!!!!

So you agree then that anything but a scientific consensus is rubbish at best.....!!!!

Good to see you're sticking up for the truth. :)

Ajax wrote on Sep 16^th, 2013 at 1:59pm:

muso wrote on Sep 16th, 2013 at 1:41pm: Another flawed opinion based survey. Too right dude.......!!!!! So you agree then that anything but a scientific consensus is rubbish at best.....!!!! Good to see you're sticking up for the truth. :)

A survey of opinions is worthless. A survey of papers is a totally different thing.

I know why you're concentrating so much on this bullsh1t survey. It's because you are clearly out of your depth on anything remotely technical.

muso wrote on Sep 16^th, 2013 at 4:26pm:

Ajax wrote on Sep 16th, 2013 at 1:59pm: muso wrote on Sep 16th, 2013 at 1:41pm: Another flawed opinion based survey. Too right dude.......!!!!! So you agree then that anything but a scientific consensus is rubbish at best.....!!!! Good to see you're sticking up for the truth. :) A survey of opinions is worthless. A survey of papers is a totally different thing. I know why you're concentrating so much on this bullsh1t survey. It's because you are clearly out of your depth on anything remotely technical.

This is how the 98% consensus originally came about.....!!!

With the technical stuff I do my best..... :D ;D :-*

Is this the original paper by John Cook that you're talking about?

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

You were going on about John Cook, and this seems to be the one as far as I can see.

muso wrote on Sep 16^th, 2013 at 5:45pm:

Is this the original paper by John Cook that you're talking about? http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article You were going on about John Cook, and this seems to be the one as far as I can see.

Yes i'm sure that is the one.

Look here
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/cooks-97-consensus-disproven-by-a-new-paper-showing-major-math-errors/

Ajax wrote on Sep 16^th, 2013 at 4:36pm:

muso wrote on Sep 16th, 2013 at 4:26pm: A survey of opinions is worthless. A survey of papers is a totally different thing. This is how the 98% consensus originally came about.....!!!

Well, you confirmed it was the right paper. I'll quote from the abstract:

Quote:

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

No survey of opinions there, it was a survey of peer reviewed papers. As I said, A survey of opinions is worthless. The paper you cited was just that.

What are you talking about?

The Cook et al survey is a survey of opinion by the reviewers, of those papers, with a minor contribution from the authors.

So if surveys of opinion don't matter, then maybe we can get back on track to how the story is playing out in 2013. As science changes every day.

The IPCC fifth assessment report is coming out, though I disagree with their methods and accuse them of cherry picking, there are many peer reviewed papers (like that matters these days) ,on many components of climate change we can be reading and quoting.

This year seems to show three things in my opinion; there are many drivers of the climate that we do not yet have enough information of (even solar irradiance and volcanic activity is still being reported and debated on), the real world evidence changing different to what we (and the IPCC) had anticipated, and also the fact that climate drivers are not independent and the role they play with each other is just being established now.

In this years report look at the image below of the working groups and their spheres of study/influence/reporting.

---

muso wrote on Sep 16^th, 2013 at 6:13pm:

Ajax wrote on Sep 16th, 2013 at 4:36pm: muso wrote on Sep 16th, 2013 at 4:26pm: A survey of opinions is worthless. A survey of papers is a totally different thing. This is how the 98% consensus originally came about.....!!! Well, you confirmed it was the right paper. I'll quote from the abstract: Quote: We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. No survey of opinions there, it was a survey of peer reviewed papers. As I said, A survey of opinions is worthless. The paper you cited was just that. What are you talking about?

What ever dude..........?????

http://i39.tinypic.com/250rx8j.png


Quote:

Cooks ’97% consensus’ disproven by a new peer reviewed paper showing major math errors UPDATE: While this paper (a rebuttal) has been accepted, another paper by Cook and Nuccitelli has been flat out rejected by the journal Earth System Dynamics. See update below. – Anthony “0.3% climate consensus, not 97.1%” PRESS RELEASE – September 3rd, 2013 A major peer-reviewed paper by four senior researchers has exposed grave errors in an earlier paper in a new and unknown journal that had claimed a 97.1% scientific consensus that Man had caused at least half the 0.7 Cº global warming since 1950. A tweet in President Obama’s name had assumed that the earlier, flawed paper, by John Cook and others, showed 97% endorsement of the notion that climate change is dangerous: “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” [Emphasis added] The new paper by the leading climatologist Dr David Legates and his colleagues, published in the respected Science and Education journal, now in its 21st year of publication, reveals that Cook had not considered whether scientists and their published papers had said climate change was “dangerous”. The consensus Cook considered was the standard definition: that Man had caused most post-1950 warming. Even on this weaker definition the true consensus among published scientific papers is now demonstrated to be not 97.1%, as Cook had claimed, but only 0.3%.    Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950. Cook himself had flagged just 64 papers as explicitly supporting that consensus, but 23 of the 64 had not in fact supported it. This shock result comes scant weeks before the United Nations’ climate panel, the IPCC, issues its fifth five-yearly climate assessment, claiming “95% confidence” in the imagined – and, as the new paper shows, imaginary – consensus. Read more here http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/cooks-97-consensus-disproven-by-a-new-paper-showing-major-math-errors/

The Ajax hypothesis seems to be resting on the hope that CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas