rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 7^th, 2012 at 6:47am:

To me, it matters not that your beloved AGW scientists were/are trying to shut down debate, create a BS concensus, fiddling with data, dont have empirical evidence, crying wolf, crying godzilla, all for the public to see thanks to it being pointed out, shown, leaked for the good of truth.

You can thank your world's pseudo scientific community for the contempt for their opinion (thats all it is)

rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 7^th, 2012 at 8:03am:

In another thread perhaps. This thread is about why/how people reject climate science. I have given you a direct example from the idiot that may have falsified a peer-reviewed paper in order to get their answer. How is that hockey stick court case coming along.

It is up to your side to figure out what the hell I just said and you had better start cracking because more and more people are seeing the pseudo in climate science. In other words, I couldnt be bothered telling/showing once again. BTW, calling out name and expecting a full and frank answer just isnt going to happen.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 7^th, 2012 at 12:21pm:

It must be a secret to you.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 7^th, 2012 at 12:24pm:

keep re-reading. You will get there. Hold your own hand.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 7^th, 2012 at 12:47pm:

We know what sort of science you like, so hardly surprising that you would be upset, as AGW'rs are, when a supposed science paper is shown to be wanting. That happens alot in pseudo science dressing itself up as science.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 7^th, 2012 at 12:59pm:

Because they want to know how this shambles of a paper ever got through peer-review. They want the paper withdrawn in light of this damning information.

NASA has been openly attacked by its OWN scientists over its incredibly biased climate position. or did you miss the email and publicly released letter?

Confirmation bias also influences which sources of information we put our trust in. People tend to attribute greater expertise to people who share their values and beliefs. We’re drawn to those who tell us what we want to hear.

Almost exactly two years ago, John Cook wrote about the 5 characteristics of science denialism.  The second point on the list involved fake experts.

"These are individuals purporting to be experts but whose views are inconsistent with established knowledge. Fake experts have been used extensively by the tobacco industry who developed a strategy to recruit scientists who would counteract the growing evidence on the harmful effects of second-hand smoke."

We have seen many examples of climate denialists producing long lists of fake experts, for example the Oregon Petition and the Wall Street Journal 16.  Now we have yet another of these lists of fake experts.  49 former National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) employees (led by Harrison Schmitt, who was also one of the Wall Street Journal 16) have registered their objection to mainstream climate science through the most popular medium of expressing climate contrarianism - a letter.  As is usually the case in these climate contrarian letters, this one has no scientific content, and is written by individuals with not an ounce of climate science expertise, but who nevertheless have the audacity to tell climate scientists what they should think about climate science.

It's worth noting that when the signatories Meet The Denominator, as is also always the case, their numbers are revealed as quite unimpressive.  For example, over 18,000 people currently work for NASA.  Without even considering the pool of retired NASA employees (all signatories of this list are former NASA employees), just as with the Oregon Petition, the list accounts for a fraction of a percent of the available pool of people.

This letter, as these letters always do, has gone viral in the climate denial blogosphere, and even in the climate denial mainstream media (Fox News).  But why exactly is this letter being treated as major news?  That is something of a mystery.  Or it would be, if the behavior of the climate denial community weren't so predictable.

The Signatories
Obviously this letter first gained attention because the signatories are former NASA employees.  They are being touted as "top astronauts, scientists, and engineers" and "NASA experts, with more than 1000 years of combined professional experience."  Okay, but in what fields does their expertise lie?

Based on the job titles listed in the letter signatures, by my count they include 23 administrators, 8 astronauts, 7 engineers, 5 technicians, and 4 scientists/mathematicians of one sort or another (none of those sorts having the slightest relation to climate science).  Amongst the signatories and their 1,000 years of combined professional experience, that appears to include a grand total of zero hours of climate research experience, and zero peer-reviewed climate science papers.  You can review the signatories for yourself here.

I agree with the science and that humans cause some change.

I do not agree with some of you solution to just allow the worst polluters to keep increasing while we all try to reduce just because you feel sorry for them.