Ok, let's assume for a moment that humans cause global warming. Not by making God angry, the way the evangelists claim that the gays and lesbians in New Orleans made God angry prior to hurricane Katrina. Not by offending Allah, the way the Iranian mullahs claim that women exposing too much of their breasts causes earthquakes.
Let's assume that humans cause global warming in the way that Al Gore - The Goracle Of Music City Tennessee - claims that we cause global warming: our "carbon footprints" are too big. Our homes require too much heat and air conditioning. We waste water.
Next, let's assume that this article in The L.A. Times is not filled with typos. Let's assume that the person who wrote it wasn't drunk.
Former Vice President Al Gore and his wife, Tipper, have added a Montecito-area property to their real estate holdings, reports the Montecito Journal.I have no idea how many square feet of house are required to accomodate 6 fireplaces. I don't know why Al and Tipper need five bedrooms. But I do have theories about Big Al's biological composition, and why nine bathrooms are a requirement. The man is full of more shit than the latrines at Fort Pemberton.
The couple spent $8,875,000 on an ocean-view villa on 1.5 acres with a swimming pool, spa and fountains, a real estate source familiar with the deal confirms. The Italian-style house has six fireplaces, five bedrooms and nine bathrooms.
My online friend in Korea, Cedric Katesby, recently mailed me a treasure-trove of good books. The one I'm currently reading is called "Why People Believe Weird Things".
I don't have a copy in front of me right now, but one of the great chapter headings goes something like this: "Smart people often believe weird things, because they're so good (smart) at defending beliefs they adopted for non-smart reasons".
A lot of people side with The Goracle on global warming simply because he's a Democrat. To oppose him is to give aid and comfort to the enemy. Well, whatever floats your boat. Yeah, we should protect the environment. But we can safely discount Gore's claims that unless we give him money, the oceans will boil.
He. Does. Not. Believe. It.
You can hit the "Al Gore" label at the bottom of this post and see that Gore doesn't believe any of this mess. Not a word.
He's all set to become the world's first carbon-control billionaire.
He calls his investments "putting his money where his mouth is".
Bullshit.
He wants to require YOU to put YOUR money where his mouth is.
The scale and magnitude of the scam he's trying to execute is beyond anything we've ever seen before.
He's the most hypocritical son of a bitch that God put guts in.
The smart people who continue to defend him should admit that they do so for non-smart reasons.
47 comments:
Wow, that was the best post of yours I've ever read.
Well, I was a tad angry.
Allen, that post was sheer brilliance.
Well said my friend.
Or well wrote.
Or something.
Awesomeness! Saint Al of the Gore is a phony =)
But we can safely discount Gore's claims that unless we give him money, the oceans will boil.
The problem is that the claims of Al Gore do not matter.
Nor does it matter that he's fat.
Al Gore is (for better or for worse) a high-profile populariser of global warming.
Nothing more.
The scale and magnitude of the scam...
No. There is no "scam".
There is no global conspiracy.
Al Gore is not some "Dr Evil" in some secret lair giving all of the world's scientists their marching orders.
Al Gore does not control NASA.
Nor does he control all of the scientific communities on the planet.
Even if you press a magic button and make Al Gore and his house and his public statements vanish in an instant...the reality of global warming and climate change is still going to be around.
To refuse to look at the science just because you want to obsess over a politician that you don't like is not rational.
You don't like Al Gore?
Fine.
You don't want to listen to a word he says?
Fine. Don't listen to him. No problem.
However, not listening to NASA because you don't like Al Gore is just weird.
"Smart people often believe weird things, because they're so good (smart) at defending beliefs they adopted for non-smart reasons".
Yep.
Not accepting good science because you have a hang-up about Al Gore sounds like a perfect example of somebody "defending beliefs they've adopted for a non-smart reason".
Even if you press a magic button and make Al Gore and his house and his public statements vanish in an instant...
There will be thousands more self-absorbed, hypocritical, elitist, socialist butt-pounders still spreading the LIE of anthropogenic global warming.
There IS NO EVIDENCE. It's a lie, contrived to attack production through its lifeblood - energy, and thus attack capitalism.
Every day we learn that one more IPCC proclamation has been supported by non-scientific, non-peer-reviewed, propaganda from some political, social, or trade interest group. All the "science" has been corrupted by preconceived conclusions in search of supporting data.
The "decline" in global temperatures that CRU hid was the retreat from the Medieval Warming Period. By erasing that period from existence, they literally changed a thousand-year trend line to make it appear like temperatures were declining right up until we started burning oil.
I suppose Fred Flintstone ended the last major ice age with his foot-powered SUV.
There's observed global warming on 5 planets, four of which have no humans.
There will be thousands more self-absorbed, hypocritical, elitist, socialist butt-pounders still spreading the LIE of anthropogenic global warming.
Global warming is a lie?
And you know this...how?
Do you honestly believe that NASA is...lying to you?
Perhaps they are also lying to you about the moon-landings?
There IS NO EVIDENCE. It's a lie...
No evidence?
And you know this...how?
Do you really believe in your heart of hearts that every single scientific community on the planet is...lying to you?
Think about it.
What evidence do you have that scientists all over the planet, covering all of the Earth Sciences, have collected...no evidence.
That's an astounding claim.
It's truely jaw-dropping.
Can you defend such a claim?
Or do you want to let that clanger slide?
...contrived to attack production through its lifeblood - energy, and thus attack capitalism.
Ah, yes. It's the commies.
First they came for your "precious bodily fluids", now they are coming for your capitalism.
When did NASA become sekritly infiltrated by...the commies?
Did this happen before or after NASA helped the free world win the cold war?
All the "science" has been corrupted by preconceived conclusions in search of supporting data.
Ok.
You can prove this...how?
Where are you getting this paranoid nonsense from?
The "decline" in global temperatures that CRU hid...
They did?
Your evidence for this is...what?
How exactly does one go about hiding something so massive as a decline in global temperatures?
That's an extraordinary feat.
The logistics alone would be awesome.
Spell it out for us.
Given any and all resources you like, how can anybody hide a decline in global temperatures.
We're talking about the temperature of the entire planet.
It's pretty big.
HUGE, as a matter of fact.
If the global temperature really was in decline, how is it physically possible to hide it?
For example, could you hide the decline in temperatures of Mexico from say, 1960 to 1965?
Is that physically possible?
Not the world, just Mexico.
A more reachable goal.
Use any and all the resources you like.
Imagine that all Mexican scientists are involved in a secret conspiracy to make that data disappear.
Even with their help and support,is such a thing possible...or would it be an exercise in futility?
Heck, throw in the full support of the Mexican government.
Would it be possible then?
Or can you see how such a wonderous conspiracy would fall flat on it's face?
Now apply the basic logistical problems that leap up at you with trying to hide Mexico's temperature decline over a certain period and multiply them by an order of magnitude for hiding...the entire planet's temperature record.
By erasing that period from existence...
Amazing. How did "they" manage this?
Don't spare us the details.
I suppose Fred Flintstone ended the last major ice age with his foot-powered SUV.
This is a PRATT.
There's observed global warming on 5 planets, four of which have no humans.
Another PRATT.
A real goodie.
Who says that global warming is happening on 5 planets?
Who is making these "observations"?
Who?
How are the observations being made?
How?
Why are you prepared to accept wholeheartedly these observations?
If, hypothetically speaking, the same scientific community that made these observations said that our own Earth was warming...then would you accept that too?
Or would you decend deeper into paranoia?
Confused? Unwilling to give a straight answer?
Let me help you out with that.
Funny timing, I was just admiring the Criplet's t-shirt posting, giggling about the one that said "Al Gore didn't invent the internet, he invented global warming"
I can only speak for myself, but the way I know there is no evidence of human-caused global warming is by looking at what has been presented and described as evidence for it and finding the flaws in it, whether those flaws derive from statistical malfeasance, cherry-picking of data, flat-out fabrication of data, or whatever.
The theory of human-caused global warming arose out of thin air. Credible scientific theories arise due to empirical data that disagrees with extant models of how things work. AGW is not credible.
Does NASA lie? NASA comprises many human beings, each capable of lying. In the case of James Hansen and Gavin Schmidt, I will say that they either lie or they are incompetent - choose whichever you like.
...the way I know there is no evidence of human-caused global warming is by looking at what has been presented and described as evidence for it and finding the flaws in it...
You haven't actually described "a way". There is no actual method that anybody can follow based on what you have said.
I can accept that you personally believe that you yourself have found flaws with NASA but without evidence and corroberation...well...(shrug)...
How do you you know that the flaws you find are actually flaws?
People have found tonnes of flaws with the moon landings too.
The theory of human-caused global warming arose out of thin air.
You know this...how?
When did it start?
Was it before or after the Cold War?
Who started it?
How did "they" succeed in creating a global conspiracy?
Why is every single scientific community on the planet part of this conspiracy?
How do "they" get all the Earth sciences to go along with it and contribute?
Is it...the Communists?
Does NASA lie? NASA comprises many human beings, each capable of lying.
(...awkward silence...)
Yeah...but...do you think that NASA is lying to you?
Seriously, give a straight answer.
Are they also lying to you about the moon landings?
In the case of James Hansen and Gavin Schmidt...
Nope. Doesn't work.
NASA is bigger than two scientists.
A lot bigger.
Much, much bigger.
How do they get all the other scientists to keep their secret?
Indeed, how do they coerce/bribe/laser mind-control all the other scientists to actively aid and abet their dastardly deeds?
What is the mechanism?
On a day to day basis, how does NASA keep the conspiracy going?
Remember, this conspiracy has been up and running now for decades.
Covering multiple White House administrations, including the eight years of the George W. Bush administration, Bush Snr and the Reagan years. Why did nobody in all of those years blow the whistle on this vast NASA conspiracy?
After all, NASA is bought and paid for by the American taxpayer.
It's work is a matter of public record.
How do you hide such a conspiracy yet keep it working?
Scientists come in all types of political flavours.
What stops a scientist who happens to be a Libertarian or a Republican from working at NASA and not spill the beans?
Or do they somehow...weed them out by some mysterious, sneakly mechanism?
How do you stop a "bleeding heart liberal traitor" who is in deep within the conspiracy from secretly switching political stances to a Libertarian postion?
People do change.
Why should he/she keep the conspiracy under wraps?
What about the retirees?
There must be thousands of them over the years.
After they have left the fetid corridors of NASA corruption, what stops them from releasing smuggled out photocopies of tampered data and taped telephone conversations?
This isn't as simple as say...faking a moonlanding.
That's a one-off event.
Some actors, a few bribes and ka-pow the entire planet is tricked into thinking that the Yanks went to the moon.
Yeah, right.
To the MOON?!!!
Pshaw.
Pshaw, I say.
Yet the grand NASA global warming conspiracy is bigger.
Moreover, it's longer-term.
It's a continuous, sustained effort.
The "moon-landings" were finished decades ago. Few witnesses are left. The CIA and their "heart attack" drugs have made sure of that.
Nice and small, relatively speaking.
Yet the NASA conspiracy is, by necessity, going to require regular input from all the Earth Sciences. Continuous input covering decades that is only going to get bigger and bigger over time carrying over into the present day!!
Say what you like about sprawling government agencies filled with scientist nerds working under public scrutiny, they really know how to keep a global conspiracy going.
Here's an excellent summary of why a conspiracy at NASA doesn't work, no matter how you try to square the circle.
A sense of scale.
Nick Rowe referred to "self-absorbed, hypocritical, elitist, socialist butt-pounders still spreading the LIE of anthropogenic global warming."
Gosh they sound horrible.
Can't have those "butt-pounders".
Oh no.
Let's have a look at what they get up to.
(Though maybe we should just call them "fags" instead of "butt-pounders"? After all, if it's good enough for Phelps then...)
They keep sending up satellites to fool us. Sneaky. Very sneaky.
How about one of those sissy Air Force Brigadier-General butt-pounders that work for NASA?
Damn liar. What a disgusting guy, right Nick?
A real butt-pounder of butt-pounders.
Yet another butt-pounder.
I guess she uses a strap-on or something.
She's a total socialist liar. Really..
No doubt Nick will give us the details since he seems to be a butt-pounder detector expert.
Ugh... The funny thing is - really, the ironic thing is, Cedric gives TWS a book called "Why Smart People Believe Weird Things". Honestly, the more I see and read, the less "ever-so-slowly-warming-water' the "Anthropogenic Warmers" arguments hold. And yet, their religion forbids them from the sin of disbelief - even if reasonable explanations are made to discredit their belief system.
Cedric's (and many others') arguments tend to center around this line of reason: "Surely, all these people who are scientists and wear lab coats and have PhD's couldn't ALL be wrong and doing anything nefarious." Just as many of the faithful say "Surely ALL of these priest can't be getting all that handsy with ALL of those alter boys!"
Well, yeah - many, if not all of them have a job that are paid, if not all, in great part to government grants. NASA, who typically get the short shrift from Democrats, has wisely created a Democrat-proof method of funding: Creating some special Democrat-friendly services that only they can provide (space studies of climate stuff) showing that weather changes. And finding ways to link changes to the activities of vile humans. Although none of these ways can be proven. Again, just like many of the faithful can rightly say "Oh yeah? Prove there ISN'T a God!!"
Again, I'm wondering how global warming and cooling - which naturally happens... sometimes faster... sometimes slower - - took place without the help of cars many millions of years ago. When Fred Flinstone used his car powered by the courtesy of Fred's two feet - did it increase Bedrock's carbon footprint all that much?
Is it that far-fetched to believe that like any other money manking activity by humans, the Global Warming Industry operates through the self-intrests of the fudees, at the expense of the funders?
Consider, very recently, Dr. Michael Mann, recipient of almost $500K in government funding has been blasted for using overly dramatic stats and utilized very inaccurate data collection techniques. The AG of Virginia is performing an investigation right now and has requested even more emails from the good doctor. With that said, the GOP AG has to look good to their voting block too, so I know that has some political currency attached to that as well.
Various shamed scientists who have been caught with their fake stat writing hands in the government cookie jars have fessed up that they wrote startling projections of catastrophic polar melt downs to get cash or notoriety.
Al Gore, with his huge stake in the carbonon offset trading market, has a billion dollar payday riding on his salesmanship... and he's pretty good. But like any good televangelist, he shows a lot of "F.O.B." film footage, collects all the cash in the plates, and gets on the private jet and flies to the Caribbean.
My assumption is that Cedric will try to attack my screed sentence by sentence, but I find that super tiresome and leads to "OH YEAH!" and an attack on his attack, line by line. I'm not going to write another sentence on this post after I hit "enter". BTW, I still think it was nice for Cedric to send TWS the books o' irony.
Cedric,
Just wanted to get this in before your next 700 word non sequitur straw man attack: You sound reasonable...Time to up my medication.
And yet, their religion forbids them from the sin of disbelief - even if reasonable explanations are made to discredit their belief system.
Religion? Sin? Disbelief? Belief System?
How about calling NASA scientists "cultists"? How about labeling NASA as a church?
Go for gold.
Just as many of the faithful say "Surely ALL of these priest can't be getting all that handsy with ALL of those alter boys!"
No. People have done the detective work on the Vatican.
They have brought forward the thousands of witnesses.
They have uncovered the official secret letters and exposed the chain of command.
People have spend a lot of hard work to demonstrate who, how and when the Vatican aided and abetted the rapes of children in it's care.
They have dates, names, addresses, criminal procecutions, admissions, resignations, payouts, etc.
Evidence that has stood up repeatedly in many courts of law.
You want to say that NASA is involved in hanky-panky?
Put up or shut up.
Do the work.
It's that simple.
They've done it for the Vatican.
What's the hold-up on NASA?
If investigators can crack the conspiracy of silence of a genuine religous group with real political connections and tonnes of money and corridors of power not beholden to the public in any way...then how come NASA has yet to fall?
A sprawling scientific agency filled with science geeks bought and paid for by the American taxapayer is evidently better at keeping a global conspiracy alive that...the Vatican.
Wow.
Who knew they were that good?
Well, yeah - many, if not all of them have a job that are paid, if not all, in great part to government grants.
This proves precisely...nothing.
Innuendo is not evidence.
Put up or shut up.
Creating some special Democrat-friendly services that only they can provide (space studies of climate stuff) showing that weather changes.
So...Reagan and Bush Senior and George W. were all....Democrats?
Socialist butt-pounders?
Wow. Who knew?
Again, I'm wondering how global warming and cooling - which naturally happens... sometimes faster... sometimes slower - - took place without the help of cars many millions of years ago.
Google the scientific community! Go ahead. Ask 'em.
Be daring and check out a science website run by the science community. They won't bite or charge you money.
Don't just sit helplessly on your hands. ASK 'EM!
You'll find out that...it's a PRATT.
Is it that far-fetched to believe that like any other money manking activity by humans...
I'm sorry. What was that word you used?
"Believe"? You "believe" something?
This is from the guy that uses religious terminology to paint NASA as religious nuts?
Wow.
The irony.
Your "beliefs" and your "innuendo" and your "speculation" and your "musings" and your "ponderings" do not add up to evidence.
My assumption is that Cedric will try to attack my screed sentence by sentence, but I find that super tiresome and leads to "OH YEAH!" and an attack on his attack, line by line.
Yeah, I'm "attacking" you.
Sentence by sentence.
With reason and logic and demands for actual evidence.
Tiresome?
Sometimes getting at the truth requires a little effort.
BTW, I still think it was nice for Cedric to send TWS the books o' irony.
Thank you.
Seriously, I appreciate it.
I wish I could get you to read them too and perhaps engage seriously with me on this.
Can't you see how nutty it is to believe that NASA is lying to you...and that they are more effective at it than...the Vatican?
Really, Cedric, you're engaging in nothing but rhetoric. You keep asking, "You know this - how?" Here's how: I can read and I can think. How do you know anything?
All,
Thanks for the comments.
The issue here (and Cedric, I retract the "boiling oceans" hyperbole) is whether or not Al Gore is full of shit.
I believe that he is.
He is not a mere popularizer, but because of his political expertise, he is the man who holds the Keys To The Kingdom. Wealth beyond all imagination.
That's what he is about. TLG nailed it.
If I could interject one observation into the bidness about NASA.... NASA doesn't care about getting more men to the moon, more space travel, or getting somebody to Mars. Just like the NEA, the Department of Education, the Department of Homeland Security, or the Abbot, Texas, Post Office, they want funding.
They will cheerfully discover evidence of little green men on Mars if that'll get 'em another year's worth of funding. Confirmation Bias (see the Shermer book), in my opinion, kicks in at the billion dollar level.
...and more about NASA. That's a clever way to frame the question, to call it "lying", but the real question is whether NASA might be wrong regardless of the reason for the error.
Has NASA ever been wrong before? We can all name a number of people who died because NASA was wrong - one Apollo and two shuttle "accidents" that would not have happened had NASA listened to its own experts. While some individuals were right and others were wrong, the institution listened to the wrong voices and people died.
We can cite failed missions that happened because NASA was wrong. How about mixing up metric and non-metric units in the Mars Climate Orbiter? What about an incorrect mirror shape in the Hubble telescope?
Sorry, NASA can be wrong. Appeal to authority really doesn't work that well anyway.
They will cheerfully discover evidence of little green men on Mars if that'll get 'em another year's worth of funding.
We never went to the moon: America's Thirty Billion Dollar Swindle.-Bill Kaysing.
Link.
Confirmation Bias (see the Shermer book), in my opinion, kicks in at the billion dollar level.
Think about what you have said.
You have made a claim.
That NASA is suffering from Confirmation Bias.
That's a scientific claim.
A testable claim.
Either your claim is true or it's false.
Are you willing to seriously examine your claim or is it just a way of smearing NASA in a vauge way and then running away?
Scientists are aware of confirmation bias.
It happens.
Thats why scientists are expected to meticulously record every detail of their work.
That's why there are protocols to prevent such things from happening.
Welcome to the wonderful world of peer-review.
Scientists are human. They make mistakes.
If you genuinely believe that the whole of NASA is suffering from confirmation bias then...there are logical and reasonable steps you can take to demonstrate that this is so.
This is demonstrable.
This is testable.
You are not meant to use the phrase "Confirmation Bias" like Abracadabra just to magically wish away stuff that you don't want to accept.
If you truely believe that there is Confirmation Bias then...demonstrate it.
Otherwise, you are just a guy claiming to have a dragon in his garage.
...and more about NASA. That's a clever way to frame the question, to call it "lying"...
If you object to NASA being called liars, then say so.
Tell the world.
Stand up and defend NASA and say that they are not liars.
I look forward to it.
If you want to say that NASA has made a scientific mistake, then stand up and say so.
Then demonstrate it.
Nick believes that they are liars.
Here's what he said..
There will be thousands more self-absorbed, hypocritical, elitist, socialist butt-pounders still spreading the LIE of anthropogenic global warming.
Let me walk you through this slowly:
According to Nick, AGW is a lie.
NASA is spreading AGW information.
In fact, they are leading the charge with spreading AGW information. They have done so now for decades.
NASA is 100% on board with global warming and climate change.
Really!
Therefore...NASA is lying.
(Plus they're probably socialist butt-pounders)
Has NASA ever been wrong before? We can all name a number of people...
Logic fail.
"Yes, the history of science has documented many blunders made by scientists, which usually are redressed by the built-in self-correcting mechanisms of science itself. But to imply that therefore the idea of human-caused global warming is another of these mistakes is like saying >“Van Gogh was a great artist and he died penniless; I am penniless, therefore I am a great artist.” It is a non sequitur."
You missed. It falsifies the inference "It's NASA, it must be right."
"It's NASA, it must be right."
Strawman.
I'm not saying that NASA must be right...simply because it's NASA.
Read what I wrote, not what you wish I had written.
The theory of human-caused global warming arose out of thin air.
That's a claim.
A verifiable claim.
Where is your evidence for this?
How did this happen?
When?
At one time there was not a fake theory of AGW, right?
Then, later, the theory popped into existence, right?
Ok.
When?
Was it before or after the Cold War?
Who concocted this tissue of lies?
How did NASA get on board with it all...or are they the one's behind it?
Was it...the Commies?
When? When it popped into existence, obviously.
Here's how: I can read and I can think. How do you know anything?
...later...
When? When it popped into existence, obviously.
Poe Worthy.
The scale and magnitude of the scam...
...thousands more self-absorbed, hypocritical, elitist, socialist butt-pounders still spreading the LIE of anthropogenic global warming.
It's a lie, contrived to attack production through its lifeblood - energy, and thus attack capitalism.
The theory of human-caused global warming arose out of thin air.
...NASA, who typically get the short shrift from Democrats, has wisely created a Democrat-proof method of funding: Creating some special Democrat-friendly services that only they can provide...
They will cheerfully discover evidence of little green men on Mars if that'll get 'em another year's worth of funding.
"...NASA doesn't care about getting more men to the moon..."
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."
— Christopher Hitchens
Cedric, you're quite interesting, and I mean that sincerely. But since I'm not a rhetorician, I'll defer to you as the grand master. I would demonstrate how easy it is to turn your favorite tactic against you, but I don't have the time or patience to find where you've actually stated anything.
But carry on, it's entertaining.
I would demonstrate how easy it is to turn your favorite tactic against you, but I don't have the time or patience to find where you've actually stated anything.
Then I can only be thankful that you have mercifully stayed your hand.
:)
But carry on, it's entertaining.
If you want real entertainment, then let's hope Nick comes back.
That would be...FUN.
He's got some 'splaining to do.
Like how somebody can hide global temperatures.
That's a doozy.
Everybody has given that one a very wide berth.
For good reason.
Even when I scale it back to just Mexico, not the entire planet, nobody wants to touch than one with a ten-foot pole.
Not even with the guaranteed support of the entire Mexican government and all of Mexico's scientists.
Heck, for the sake of good solid fantastic speculation, I'd even throw in the FBI and every 70's rock band that made the big time.
I've got a lot of imagination but even I struggle to grasp how anybody can swallow the meme that there's "somebody out there going around hiding global temperatures".
That's awesome.
The "observed global warming on 5 planets" PRATT is probably my favourite though.
Who does he think goes around studying planets in our solar system in the first place?
The NEA, perhaps?
The Department of Education?
The Department of Homeland Security?
The Post Office?
Who?
Who ya gonna call if you want to check out planets?
Hmm.
Tough one.
Well, whoever they are, they certainly are more trustworthy than those lying socialist butt-pounders at NASA.
:)
p.s.
Al Gore is fat. Just sayin'.
Neil deGrasse Tyson: What NASA Means to America's Future
and here's one addressing Allen's concerns about Confirmation Bias.
Neil deGrasse Tyson: Does bias play a role in science?
"Hiding" global temperatures seems a stretch. Given the low specific heat of air and the challenge of doing humidity-biased temporal and spatial integrations of temperatures with samples that are absurdly sparse - both temporally and spatially - it seems the only logical conclusion is that we don't know enough to be in the business of making grand pronouncements.
Sorry, back under my rock.
"Hiding" global temperatures seems a stretch.
Yes.
Thank you.
Yes.
Finally.
Somebody other than me has noticed!
(Damn but that took long enough.)
Hiding global temperatures does indeed seem to be a bit of a stretch.
Just a bit.
Just a teeny, tiny bit.
...it seems the only logical conclusion is that we don't know enough to be in the business of making grand pronouncements.
We?
(...awkward silence...)
We?
Who is this "we" that you speak of, Kimosabe?
What do you mean by "grand pronouncements"?
If you want to say that YOU (not "we") don't know enough about the science to make a comment then...fine.
That's a modest and reasonable thing to say.
If you want to say that "The theory of human-caused global warming arose out of thin air." is a grand pronouncement that you can't possibly back up with evidence because it requires a pure, gigantic stretch of imagination...then by all means retract it and we'll let it end peacefully.
Yet if by "we" you really mean NASA and all of the other scientific communities on the planet then...congratulations!
You have just made a scientific claim.
A testable claim.
A verifiable claim.
Back it up with evidence.
Otherwise you are just falling for an Argument from Incredulity.
It's the ol' "The Science isn't settled" PRATT.
Not good enough.
You are entitled to your own opinions.
You are not entitled to your own facts.
Science belongs to everybody.
The truth may be puzzling. It may take some work to grapple with. It may be counterintuitive. It may contradict deeply held prejudices. It may not be consonant with what we desperately want to be true. But our preferences do not determine what's true. We have a method, and that method helps us to reach not absolute truth, only asymptotic approaches to the truth — never there, just closer and closer, always finding vast new oceans of undiscovered possibilities. Cleverly designed experiments are the key.
Carl Sagan.
OK, here's the deal. You describe the process by which NASA collects temperature data and processes it prior to release and I'll tell you what's wrong with the process.
OK, here's the deal. You describe the process...
Nope.
No deal.
You make a crazy claim.
You get to do the running around to support said crazy claim.
I don't have to do a damn thing.
It's not my dog and pony show, it's yours.
"semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit"
...describe the process by which NASA collects...
If you want to know how NASA does it's job, then using some anonymous guy over the internet as your primary source of information is just absurd.
If you want to know how NASA does it's job...then ask NASA.
Directly.
Do not pass go.
Do not collect $200.
Ask NASA.
They do the work.
"The theory of human-caused global warming arose out of thin air."
That's the claim.
I have no idea how you think you can back it up.
You certainly don't seem to be very keen on doing so.
The problem you have is that, in science, people write things down.
Really!
Scientists write down their research.
Other scientists read it.
Work is produced.
Man hours are spent.
Witnesses are created.
A paper trail is left behind.
Paychecks are earned.
Discoveries are made.
Peer-reviewed research is published in science journals.
Mountains and mountains of it.
NASA is a government agency.
Government agencies are run by paperwork.
That's no secret.
Lots and lots and lots and lots of paperwork.
Covering decades.
Evidence.
Further, there are these people called "science historians". Their job is to record this kind of stuff.
And they do.
That's why I don't believe you for a second when you say that "The theory of human-caused global warming arose out of thin air."
I don't think you even believe it yourself. It's just something you make up on the spot.
Go ahead and prove me wrong.
Where's your scholarship?
Cite your sources.
I'm ready to listen to you but I'm not just going to take your word for it.
I want to know how you found out that "The theory of human-caused global warming arose out of thin air.".
This idea must have come from ...somewhere.
At one time, you didn't think this was so, right?
Yet then somebody told you something or you were listening to the radio or something and then, kapow!!!, the truth hits you.
Right?
Them there durned NASA scientists have made it all up out of thin air.
Ok, go ahead. Expose the conspiracy that has every single scientific community on the planet in it's thrall.
Or do the honest, responsible thing and just retract your statement.
Retract it.
I promise I won't gloat.
I promise not to rub your nose in it.
Let's leave bruised egos out of it.
This is not about petty point scoring.
To hell with that.
This is about something more important.
This is about the truth.
This is about reality.
Do the honest, responsible thing and retract your statement.
Please.
That's what I thought. Rhetorical devices don't work so well when what you need is logic.
Rhetorical devices don't work so well when what you need is logic.
No.
Asking somebody to back up their claim with evidence is not a "rhetorical device".
It's not some sneaky, tricksy thing.
It's not just playing with words.
It's an example of critical thinking.
Somebody makes a claim.
They get to back it up.
It doesn't get any simpler and more straight forward than that.
"semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit"
"The theory of human-caused global warming arose out of thin air."
This is your turkey.
You created it.
You get to clean up after it.
You must have your reasons for saying something this bizzare.
Reveal the conspiracy.
Provide evidence for this or admit that you are just full of hot air and you have no idea what you are talking about.
"In the book, The Demon-Haunted World" Sagan states that if a new idea continues in existence after an examination of the propositions, it should then be acknowledged as a supposition. Skeptical thinking essentially is a means to construct, understand, reason, and recognize valid and invalid arguments. Wherever possible, there must be independent validation of the concepts whose truth should be proved. He believes that reason and logic would succeed once the truth is known. Conclusions emerge from premises, and the acceptability of the premises should not be discounted or accepted because of bias.
As an example, Sagan relates the story of the invisible fire-breathing dragon living in his garage. He asks, "what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true."
"The theory of human-caused global warming arose out of thin air."
You can't back this up.
You are yelling "Snap" at a poker game.
Retract your statement.
Show some integrity.
Sorry, I'm not going to play that game, which consists of the following tactics:
- Ask mocking questions
- Use questions that create the appearance of appeal to authority (logical fallacy, anyone?), which position can always be denied due to it being couched in the form of a question
- Never make an actual statement pertaining directly to the subject at hand, as doing so would make one vulnerable to one's own tactics
So, here's the deal: describe how temperature data is collected and modified by James Hansen and Gavin Schmidt of NASA/GISS, and I'll tell you what's wrong with it.
If you want to play poker, you're going to have to put some chips into play. You can't call without skin in the game.
Sorry, I'm not going to play that game, which consists of the following tactics...
This is just whining on your part.
Spare me.
You have made a claim.
Nobody put a gun to your head.
You did it all by yourself.
"The theory of human-caused global warming arose out of thin air."
There it is.
It's all yours.
Nothing to do with me.
I'm just an innocent bystander.
It's your turkey.
If you make a claim...then you get to back it up.
That's not "rhetoric".
That's just reality.
If you realise that you were just passing gas, then the reasonable thing to do is to retract your claim and politely move on to something else.
It's ok.
Sometimes we say something in the heat of the moment and...it's out there.
It happens to the best of us.
You're supposed to take back your statement, give a quick reason for doing so and then...move on.
No harm, no foul.
Then you are free to maybe introduce a new, modified claim.
One that you will be able to manfully defend.
You don't seem to be able to do that.
That's a sign of immaturity.
Somehow, it's all my fault that you have said something stupid.
It's not.
You have dug your own hole.
Whatever I say or don't say, whatever I do or don't do has NOTHING to do with your responsibility to back up your own statements.
Your claims are independent from me.
They are separate from me.
They are yours.
100% yours.
Not mine.
Yours.
"The theory of human-caused global warming arose out of thin air."
This is your problem.
Not mine.
You gave it birth.
Now it is squalling for attention.
All I am doing is quoting it in full, repeatedly.
(Just so that you don't conveniently forget that it's there.)
Either defend your statement or officially abandon it.
Crap or get off the pot.
"The theory of human-caused global warming arose out of thin air."
If you want to play poker, you're going to have to...stop yelling "Snap" all the time.
I know your game. There is no evidence that you will consider. Your response will be, "And you know this - how?", just like a two-year-old asking "Why" recursively. Maybe we should just go straight to the epistemology and not waste so much time.
So, here's the deal. You tell me why NASA's treatment of climate data is defensible, which you almost slipped and asserted, and I'll tell you why it isn't
There is no evidence that you will consider.
You have yet to provide any evidence in the first place, so you wouldn't know.
"And you know this - how?", just like a two-year-old asking "Why" recursively.
No.
All I'm doing is keeping you honest.
The only reason why I am repeatedly forced to ask you to defend your statement is because you are repeatedly dodging.
Asking someone to back up an extraordianary statement is...normal.
It's expected in civil dicourse.
Not letting them off the hook when they try to slyly weasel away or shift the burden of proof is also to be expected in civil discourse.
"The theory of human-caused global warming arose out of thin air."
As claims go, that's a whopper.
It begs to be challanged.
It's got a sign hanging off it saying "Go ahead, ask me for details."
It's up there with..."I didn't come from no monkey".
Or HIV has no connection to AIDS.
Or "The medical establishment is lying to us about the safety of vaccines".
Or "We never went to the moon."
"The theory of human-caused global warming arose out of thin air."
Anybody comes up with something like that and I'm the last person to try and shut them up.
Let 'em talk, I say.
Freedom of speech and all that.
It can make for a fun evening.
It can't be that hard for you to support your own beliefs.
You could start with the "when" part.
One minute, you naively believed that scientific theories were developed by sober-minded scientists following the scientific method...but then...(drumroll please)... you discovered the shocking TRUTH.
Ok.
So when did this happen? What year?
Was it before or after the Cold War?
Did somebody tell you this or was it something you heard on the radio or read somewhere in a newspaper or something?
"The theory of human-caused global warming arose out of thin air."
Come on.
Reveal all.
I promise I will be very polite and only ask basic, reasonable questions that one would normally expect given the circumstances.
Pops: The null hypothesis of AGW is that there is no empirical evidence of climate change that cannot be attributed to natural mechanisms.
Cedric: Prove it.
Pops: You don't prove a null hypothesis. There is no basis for AGW if you cannot disprove the null hypothesis.
Cedric: NASA and the scientific societies have disproved the null hypothesis.
Pops: No, they haven't. NASA has claims to have provided data that negates the null hypothesis, but a careful analysis of the data invalidates that conclusion. Scientific societies haven't analyzed the data, so what they have to say has no bearing.
Cedric: How can you say that NASA's data is wrong?
Pops: How can you say that NASA's data is right?
Cedric: I call.
Pops: Go fish.
...is that there is no empirical evidence of climate change that cannot be attributed to natural mechanisms.
Nope, that's not what you said.
You made a different claim.
"The theory of human-caused global warming arose out of thin air."
See?
You claim that there's a theory of AGW...and that it arose out of (and I quote) "thin air".
Demonstrate that this is true.
If it is true, it would be scandalous.
It would be Big News.
Very Big News.
Everybody that denies global warming would be shouting it from the tree tops.
Somebody somewhere would have noticed.
(Hint: Science historians.)
Normally, scientific theories do not just arise out of thin air.
In fact, they never do.
They have baggage.
Even if a theory is just flat out wrong or superceded or discredited it comes from...somewhere. It's formulated by somebody. Something happens for it to pop into being.
This kind of stuff gets recorded.
It leaves a paper trail.
People take credit for it.
Somebody has got to be the first to mention it etc, etc, etc.
Y'know, history and all that.
History.
As in "stuff that we have recorded about the past".
That kind of history.
The phrase that you are now using is that it's a "hypothesis".
A hypothesis and a theory are not synonymous.
They are different.
Cedric: How can you say that NASA's data is wrong?
Pops: How can you say that NASA's data is right?
Wow.
That's...
Wow.
I don't think I've ever seen somebody openly admit to this kind of thinking in public.
Wow.
Does this sound genuinely logical and reasonable to you...or are you just kidding around?
Can you see how a scientist might somehow...violently object to this kind of "thinking"?
(Hang on...
I HAVE seen somebody admitting to this kind of thinking before!)
Here's how: I can read and I can think. How do you know anything?
...later...
When? When it popped into existence, obviously.
This is a habit with you, yeah?
But seriously though, folks...
"The theory of human-caused global warming arose out of thin air."
So, how about it?
Reveal all.
Enough with the games.
Do it for real this time.
You need to brush up a little on what a null hypothesis is and how a theory arises from the negation of the null hypothesis. At least, that's how science used to work.
At least, that's how science used to work.
You want to talk about how science works?
Good.
We can start with this...
"The theory of human-caused global warming arose out of thin air."
Present your evidence.
How did this scandalous state of affairs come about?
Details please.
When?
When did this theory arise out of thin air?
Was it before or after the end of the Cold War?
Who got the ball rolling?
Did somebody tell you this or was it something you heard on the radio or read somewhere in a newspaper or something?
Where's your scholarship?
Cite your sources.
Why have climate deniers themselves kept quiet about this?
Don't you see?
By acting all coy and reticent and not exposing the trooth, you are ...helping the conspirators!
You are, in effect, playing their dastardly game.
They want you to keep their secret hidden.
Now is your time.
Seize the moment.
Reveal all.
Don't let "the man" keep you silent.
Go for it.
"The theory of human-caused global warming arose out of thin air."
(...waits patiently...)
Change that to waits in vain.
My interest is understanding and amicable relations. I remain confident in my assessment of the state of climate science. My guiding principle is "win-win or no deal."
The answers to your questions are readily available to those who care to study the issues. There are others at all levels of learning and accreditation who have reached the same conclusions I have.
I've attempted to assess your sincerity, but have received no indication that you seek anything other than hostile confrontation. I perceive that your modus operandi is appeal to authority. I see your motive as "win-lose" or "lose-lose."
There is no ball rolling.
No deal.
My interest is understanding and amicable relations.
Commendable. Bravo.
Doesn't help you much though.
We still have this dotty statement of yours that says...
"The theory of human-caused global warming arose out of thin air."
Pops continues...
I remain confident in my assessment of the state of climate science.
Then manfully demonstrate your confidence in your ludicrous assertion and SHARE YOUR EVIDENCE.
How hard can it possibly be?
Share.
Be a devil.
Tell the world.
Where is your evidence that the theory of global warming arose out of thin air?
The answers to your questions are readily available to those who care to study the issues.
Yet, mysteriously, you seem to be unable to provide those answers yourself.
(...awkward silence...)
No dates.
No names.
No links.
No particulars of any kind at all.
Lots of hand waving but not that much in the way of actual evidence.
Bugger all, really.
You don't even seem to be able to coherently explain how you initially found out about this secret history!
Double hmm.
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."
— Christopher Hitchens
There are others at all levels of learning and accreditation who have reached the same conclusions I have.
No doubt. No doubt at all.
Others.
Others Of Learning. Lots and lots of learning.
Others.
Others with Accreditations?
Wonderful things, accreditations.
Dare we say "impeccible accreditations"?
(Yes, why not?)
Cast caution to the winds!
Others with Impeccible accreditations.
Most certainly.
Hmm.
Yes.
Others.
If you say so, then well...it must be so.
(shrug)
I've attempted to assess your sincerity, but have received no indication that you seek anything other than hostile confrontation.
Oh dear. I have failed in your assessment?
Oh woe is me.
Clearly, evidence from you that the theory of global warming arose out of thin air will not be forthcoming today due to my "hostile confrontation".
Gosh darn it.
Darn it all to heck!
If only I had not been so mean in insisting that you back up your statement with evidence or simply retract it with dignity.
Darn.
I perceive that your modus operandi is appeal to authority.
Ah yes.
It's somehow all MY fault that YOU can't back up...your own words.
If only I had done something different, then it would have turned out much, much differently.
What a shame.
There is no ball rolling.
No deal.
And there you have it, folks!
The grand conspiracy of global warming remains intact.
The biggest scam in history came close to being exposed today but...at the last minute something came up and it all got cancelled.
The evidence for the theory of AGW arising out of thin air will remain hidden from inquisitive minds.
Unseen. Mysterious. Invisible.
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." - Delos B. McKown
You mistake unwilling for unable.
You mistake unwilling for unable.
Of course.
No doubt about that at all.
As long as you yourself believe it then that's the important thing.
You're slacking off. I was hoping for a much longer comment.
Cedric,
Furthermore, you appear to be one of Cass Sunstein's goons. I think The Sepulchre has been "cognitively infiltrated".
Post a Comment