Australian Politics Forum - Why is this statement true, but irrelevant?

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Why is this statement true, but irrelevant?
Reply #105 - Nov 22^nd, 2009 at 9:44am

muso wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2009 at 9:43am:

Soren wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2009 at 9:34am:

[quote author=muso link=1257561346/90#99 date=1258807757]

I very much doubt if there is a single honest person among them. They are certainly not worth hearing. The reason that they are treated as being part of a sinister plot is because they are part of a sinister plot.

Calling 31 thousand scientists (and that's jut in the US) sinister liars is laughable, Muso.

You have drunk far too much Al Gore Kool Aid, as they say.

http://www.petitionproject.org/

Oh the great OREGON Petition - yeah

Scientists schmientists. Hawkeye Pierce from MASH is a scientist?

You're not dragging that one up again are you? You have a very short memory.

This time, please watch the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5P8mlF8KT6I

Quote:

Scientific American took a sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages.

http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=OISM

Back to top

« Last Edit: Nov 22^nd, 2009 at 10:03am by muso »

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Why is this statement true, but irrelevant?
Reply #106 - Nov 22^nd, 2009 at 10:26am

Muso, are you saying that all 31000 + names on that list have no scientific qualifications to reasonably evaluate the data and at last express their doubt honestly? Are you saying they are all pranksters?

Are you saying that greenman3610 and his little youtube clip has conclusively proved to you that all sceptics are sinister liars? That all (and not just a couple of pranksters) on that list are unqualified to express scepticisms? Or that they are not entitled to put thir nam to it?

You are cught up in the Leninist midset of the politics of AGW.

Back to top

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Why is this statement true, but irrelevant?
Reply #107 - Nov 22^nd, 2009 at 10:32am

Soren wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2009 at 10:26am:

Muso, are you saying that all 31000 + names on that list have no scientific qualifications to reasonably evaluate the data and at last express their doubt honestly? Are you saying they are all pranksters?

Are you saying that greenman3610 and his little youtube clip has conclusively proved to you that all sceptics are sinister liars? That all (and not just a couple of pranksters) on that list are unqualified to express scepticisms? Or that they are not entitled to put thir nam to it?

You are cught up in the Leninist midset of the politics of AGW.

No. The video was for your benefit. I already understand the scientific basis, so I don't have a need for such videos.

Because I understand the science, I have an enhanced ability to smell a rat.

As far as your political name-calling is concerned, please continue if it entertains you, but I find that any political slant gets in the way of the science, so I tend to block it out as irrelevant.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Why is this statement true, but irrelevant?
Reply #108 - Nov 22^nd, 2009 at 10:38am

muso wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2009 at 9:44am:

Quote:

Scientific American took a sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages.

http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=OISM

And what is your interprtation of that data?

Out of 30 signatories, 26 were on databases checked by SA.

11 of the 26 stood by their decision to sign.
6 changed their minds.
3 didn't remember signing it.
1 has died since.
5 couldn't be bothered to talk to SA about it (some fearing bullying, no doubt).

And what does all this signify to you, scietifically-like?

What else but that all 26 are sinister liars, 6 of whom have repented since , 3 have lost their minds and 1 died of shame.

Grin

Back to top

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Why is this statement true, but irrelevant?
Reply #109 - Nov 22^nd, 2009 at 11:22am

Soren wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2009 at 10:38am:

muso wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2009 at 9:44am:

Quote:

Scientific American took a sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages.

http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=OISM

And what is your interprtation of that data?

Out of 30 signatories, 26 were on databases checked by SA.

11 of the 26 stood by their decision to sign.
6 changed their minds.
3 didn't remember signing it.
1 has died since.
5 couldn't be bothered to talk to SA about it (some fearing bullying, no doubt).

And what does all this signify to you, scietifically-like?

What else but that all 26 are sinister liars, 6 of whom have repented since , 3 have lost their minds and 1 died of shame.

Grin

Well for a start, the 1400 who claimed to have PhD's in climate science is a very small proportion of 32,000. The Scientific American study was enough to show that the petition was invalid. That's all it needed to do. If you continue to pick through the trash looking for diamonds, then that would be your problem.

The verbage of the petition itself is riddled with scientific inaccuracies and untruths.

If you have to cling on to something like that as your last desperate plea then I'm sorry, but your argument is in a very bad way.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

pjb05

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 1404
Gender: male

Re: Why is this statement true, but irrelevant?
Reply #110 - Nov 22^nd, 2009 at 11:41am

muso wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2009 at 11:22am:

uote]

Well for a start, the 1400 who claimed to have PhD's in climate science is a very small proportion of 32,000. The Scientific American study was enough to show that the petition was invalid. That's all it needed to do. If you continue to pick through the trash looking for diamonds, then that would be your problem.

The verbage of the petition itself is riddled with scientific inaccuracies and untruths.

If you have to cling on to something like that as your last desperate plea then I'm sorry, but your argument is in a very bad way.

So how many of the World's Scientific Societies (which you say all support AGW), are actually made up of climate scientists?

PS: what is a climate scientist?

Back to top

IP Logged

Soren Gold Member Offline Posts: 25654 Gender:	Re: Why is this statement true, but irrelevant? Reply #111 - Nov 22^nd, 2009 at 12:05pm muso wrote on Nov 21^st, 2009 at 5:03pm: [quote] Within the past 50 years or so, the anthropogenic signature has become dominant. Prior to that, it was insignificant in the scheme of things. The most serious effects are yet to come. Remind me where this anthropogenic signature is.
Back to top	IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Why is this statement true, but irrelevant?
Reply #112 - Nov 22^nd, 2009 at 12:30pm

pjb05 wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2009 at 11:41am:

muso wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2009 at 11:22am:

uote]

Well for a start, the 1400 who claimed to have PhD's in climate science is a very small proportion of 32,000. The Scientific American study was enough to show that the petition was invalid. That's all it needed to do. If you continue to pick through the trash looking for diamonds, then that would be your problem.

The verbage of the petition itself is riddled with scientific inaccuracies and untruths.

If you have to cling on to something like that as your last desperate plea then I'm sorry, but your argument is in a very bad way.

So how many of the World's Scientific Societies (which you say all support AGW), are actually made up of climate scientists?

PS: what is a climate scientist?

A climate scientist is a person who is qualified in a discipline such as Climatology, or related fields such as Atmospheric Physics, Oceanography etc. Not every 'climate scientist' is qualified to conduct research on every aspect of climatology. For example, marine biologists may be able to conduct research on some of the effects of climate change, such as calcification rates, but they will generally know very little about Climate modelling. Virtually all Environmental Science degrees have a significant grounding in earth sciences that are relevant to climatology.

Like any Scientific discipline it has its specialists. For example, some Geologists are clastic sedimentologists, some are petrologists , while others are palaeontogists, paleonologists etc.

To understand enough to realise that it's a problem requires a very basic grounding in science indeed.

A good test is whether or not the individual has published any papers in established climatology journals.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Why is this statement true, but irrelevant?
Reply #113 - Nov 22^nd, 2009 at 12:50pm

Soren wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2009 at 12:05pm:

Remind me where this anthropogenic signature is.

I'm talking about a clear causality based on:

1. The undeniable fact that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas whose specific absorbance (for want of a better term) at infrared wavelengths, can be measured quite accurately and compared to other greenhouse gases.

2. The fact that energy is conserved, and that the net longwave radiation over time can be demonstrated to be decreasing as confirmation of the increasing radiative forcing of specific greenhouse gases, and that the major effect is due to carbon dioxide.

3. The undeniable fact that anthropogenic activities currently emit approximately 8 gigatonnes of carbon into the atmosphere every year, and that this value has been increasing almost every year.

4. The undeniable fact that the increased mass of Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has an isotope ratio indicatve of fossil fuel origins.

5. The undeniable fact that ocean acidification is rising as a result of increased dissolution of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Is that succinct enough for you?

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Why is this statement true, but irrelevant?
Reply #114 - Nov 22^nd, 2009 at 1:02pm

muso wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2009 at 11:22am:

...have to cling on...last desperate plea....

???

So there are no established, working climate scientists who are sceptical? There are no otherwise scientifically trained people who have followed the data and the arguments? Except desperate sinister liars clinging to whatever it is that sceptics are forever clinging to?
Is this what you call the 'science is settled'?

Back to top

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Why is this statement true, but irrelevant?
Reply #115 - Nov 22^nd, 2009 at 1:03pm

Quote:

Yes. The facts are that key climate researchers for the IPCC have been outed as doctoring the data to reach a conclusion.

Sounds like your 'scientists' aren't too scientific.

Although I understand you will likely dismiss this as your preconceived world would be shattered, you have no comment on this release?

As far as I'm aware, the IPCC doesn't employ any climate researchers. It's a panel. Your source is therefore suspect.

The Secretariat and the TSU's of the IPCC employ about 10 people.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Why is this statement true, but irrelevant?
Reply #116 - Nov 22^nd, 2009 at 1:10pm

Soren wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2009 at 1:02pm:

muso wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2009 at 11:22am:

...have to cling on...last desperate plea....

???

So there are no established, working climate scientists who are sceptical? There are no otherwise scientifically trained people who have followed the data and the arguments? Except desperate sinister liars clinging to whatever it is that sceptics are forever clinging to?
Is this what you call the 'science is settled'?

If there are, then they are not very vocal, with the exception of a few good old boys from the deep South.

If you can find some that have published in a reputable journal, let me know.

Energy and Environment is not a reputable journal. Grin

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

muso Gold Member Offline Posts: 13151 Gladstone, Queensland Gender:	Re: Why is this statement true, but irrelevant? Reply #117 - Nov 22^nd, 2009 at 1:12pm Quote: Where did I say they were employed by the IPCC? Pathetic attempt at a red herring On this thread, we're talking about the science. Let's keep to the topic.
Back to top	1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not IP Logged

mozzaok

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 6741
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: Why is this statement true, but irrelevant?
Reply #118 - Nov 22^nd, 2009 at 1:20pm

mozzaok wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2009 at 9:27am:

Quote:

It is not the vibe. There is an increasing number of scientists expressing scepticism about AGW. I am simply not dismissing them as you seem to expect. I am satisfied that honest, independent, qualified scientists can and do express scepticism about AGW. They are very much worth hearing. I am alo aware that their number is not going backwards.

Any dissenting voice is treated by warmerists as a deliberate, sinister plot. This gives me the sh!ts and I could not, in good conscience, side with such hysterical fools. Every intemperate tantrum by the Rudds, Mannes, Monbiots and the rest the opinionators is, to me, proof positive that they MUST be wrong.

They are political voices and they are shrill, dictatorial pricks. I do welcome sceptical opposition to them.

Well at last a degree of honesty is shining through about your reasons for supporting denialism.
Thank you for being forthright enough to openly express what so many feel, but so few admit to.

Now you put the fact that you find your truth in the arguments of denialist "scienticians" as your first reason for supporting denialism, but then go on to deride two intellectuals, and a politician, which indicates a far less scientific approach, which may signal that your personal ideological stance is the root cause of your true gripe with the whole Global warming issue.

Now to address the two factors in one briefish blog, I will provide the link to Monbiot's correspondence between himself( an intellectual you despise), and Ian Plimer (one of the "eminent" scientists you refer to as proof of dissenting voices of reason within the scientific community)

I would merely ask that you put aside an hour or two, and read the exchanges between Monbiot, and Plimer, and examine the linked to scientific data provided in those pages, and then return to tell us if you still believe that Plimer is a credible source for anchoring your denial of Global Warming science to.

As I have said before, I do respect your intelligence soren, and certainly do not think of you as a fool, so I am keen to see how someone who supports Plimer, can read the information supplied in those links, and not have serious concerns about his credibility.

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/09/14/correspondence-with-ian-plimer/

I should just add that I am no fan of Monbiot, and have never actually read anything of his apart from this single page I have linked to, he may be a total raving loony for all I know, but that does not alter the facts he has presented in this particular case.

I look forward to hearing your take on this exchange.

I just banned IQSRLOW from posting as Al Gore, and removed all the posts he added, if there are any more of his posts in any boards I have not seen, let me know and I will get rid of them.

I reposted this because I addressed it to soren, but he may have missed it, and after the last few posts where people are championing the credentials of the denying scientists, it will be very instructive to see what they make of this exchange, with one of their most well credentialed advocates, Ian plimer, and George Monbiot.

I cannot comprehend how anybody could look at all the emails, and subsequent links, and have any confidence at all in Ian Plimers integrity as a scientific contributor of value to this issue.

Back to top

OOPS!!! My Karma, ran over your Dogma!

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Why is this statement true, but irrelevant?
Reply #119 - Nov 22^nd, 2009 at 1:31pm

mozzaok wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2009 at 1:20pm:

I just banned IQSRLOW from posting as Al Gore, and removed all the posts he added, if there are any more of his posts in any boards I have not seen, let me know and I will get rid of them.

Thanks. I just recognised her style. I don't have the benefit of the IP address.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged