Paths To Knowledge (dot Science)

What is actually real in Objective Reality? How do you know? Now, prove it's real!

The Real Climate Deniers Are Those That “X”

Posted by pwl on March 28, 2010

The real climate “deniers” are the ones denying access to the data.

The real climate “deniers” are those that say the science is settled when it’s notl

The real climate “deniers” are those that deny the problems with the wild claims alleged.

The real climate deniers are those that allege the AGW hypothesis based upon flawed statistical pseudo-science.

The real climate deniers are those that deny that at the heart of the scientific method is criticism that can falsify the alleged hypotheses put forward by supporters of a hypothesis.

The real climate deniers are those that deny the cold hard reality of the sun Sol and it’s influence upon the planet.

The real climate deniers are those that think the science is settled when we know very little about the Earth, Moon, Sol system and how the interactions unfold.

The real climate deniers are those that deny the results of the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment satellite that shows that ~7x more (heat) radiation leaves the Earth than was thought to which nullifies all climate models.

The real climate deniers are those that deny that models are essentially equalivent to soothsaying from dead tree ring entrails.

The real climate deniers are those that deny requests for freedom of information.

The real climate deniers are those that deny valid criticisms.

The real climate deniers are those that deny that The Objective Reality of Nature has falsified their projections and their core ability to make projections.

The real climate deniers are those that deny that Nature has proven that their projections are nothing more than soothsaying from dead tree entrails.

The real climate deniers are those that BELIEVE that their projections will actually occur and that Nature has nothing to say about it.

The real climate deniers are those that think that their projections determine what happens in Nature rather than Nature determining what happens in Nature.

The real climate deniers are those that deny the Arctic sea ice recovery in 2008 and 2009.

The real climate deniers are those that blindly put politics ahead of science.

The real climate deniers are those that say lets use the precautionary principle rather than actually making scientific observations in more depth.

The real climate deniers are those that use one temperature station to represent 1200km radius in the Arctic to record the temperature and thereby fabricate temperature data with statistical interpolation.

The real climate deniers are those that still think the hockey stick graph has merit even after it’s been shown to have falsely represented the facts by “hiding the decline” which is really about “hiding the growing lack of correlation” in tree ring width and temperature data.


5 Responses to “The Real Climate Deniers Are Those That “X””

  1. Mordecai said

    You’ve been duped, dude.

    It’s always going to be difficult for people to get their heads around a subject as complicated as this one. In this case in particular there’s a coordinated and determined effort by business interests to discredit the work of climate scientists, since delaying environmental legislation pays; they’re good enough at it that even determined and intelligent laypeople can be drawn off course by all this. It seems you’re one of them.

    True, no matter is settled in science, but there’s a difference between the genuine controversy at the heart of living science and the manufactured controversy thrown up by moneyed interests to confuse and delay. What we’re saying is that the global warming ‘controversy’ is the latter, not the former. I don’t know what you’ve been reading, but climate science has moved on.

    Climategate is a nonscandal. Science departments have organizational politics, like any other organization. Scientists are clannish and hostile towards those who challenge their work without their expertise and without cause, just like any other group of experts would be in their shoes. None of this is surprising, it’s just how people work, and you’d know this if you had more experience with science and with working scientists.

    Maybe you don’t like environmentalists, maybe you don’t like the current culture of climate science, maybe you’re uncomfortable with a discipline whose policy implications your political opponents embrace. But what motive do they have to deceive you? What could possibly unite all these ambitious, backstabbing, bridge-burning scientists to lobby for something as politically unattractive as a tax on carbon, if not the facts? Clannishness does not suffice — if there were really a compelling body of evidence that a trained climate scientist could use to undermine the current consensus, that presents a HUGE opportunity for someone young and ambitious and sufficiently hard-headed. What could compel an entire generation to ignore it?

    And on the other side, the absence of a price on carbon is clearly a huge windfall for extractive and manufacturing industries. Since they fund their own research, and clearly understand the need for effective PR, what could compel them NOT to try to mislead you? To stick slavishly to the evidence, and do a stunning disservice to their bottom line by not distorting what they produce?

    Yet you treat them with at least equal skepticism. Why?

  2. Tom M said

    You want to wear the mantle of objectivity, yet you have made your mind up.
    Why ?

    Also you misrepresent what climate scientists are saying.
    How do you excuse this to yourself, with your views ?

  3. pwl said

    I don’t misrepresent what anyone is saying. I’m telling it like it is.

    You do know that scientists have a long tradition of being wrong tomm174?

    The alleged core climate scientists have it wrong, as their own temperature and CO2 data show very clearly.

  4. pwl said

    It is certainly a complex topic to get into. There are so many points of view, claims and counter claims, debunkings and counter debunkings, and counter debunkings of counter debunkings that it can easily boggle the mind.

    However, there are simple reasons as shown by the actual data that the claims of climate scientists are not true.

    130 years of temperature data from the end of the Little Ice Age show a slow linear + cyclic increase in temperatures 70 years BEFORE CO2 rates began to rise just after WWII 60 years ago during which the exact same linear + cyclic rate has been maintained. Should CO2 have caused any temperature rise it would have shown up as increased temperatures and the linear + cyclic rate would have changed. It hasn’t thus the data observed in Nature has falsified the alarmist AGW hypothesis.

    See Girma Orssengo’s articles on the topic. I suggest these two for starters:

    Sometimes a simple back of the envelope “check” calculation is all one needs to dethrone a widespread belief such as the alarmist AGW hypothesis. It also hasn’t hurt that the key scientists involved documented their own slimy practices so well and that a whistle blower had the guts to release those facts to the public.

  5. pwl said

    I’d like to point out Mordecai that there wasn’t a single actual element of science in your reply, it was all politics of denying the real climate that exists in the objective reality of Nature which is where weather, and abstracted climate, exists. Climate as a mathematical abstraction (typically 30 years of weather data) is just that, an abstraction.

    You’re full of unsubstantiated “conspiracy” theories Mordecai. I’d check again in the mirror to see who’s been duped.

    In science you must PROVE that your claims are really what is happening, so far the climate scientists have failed to do so.

    If you think they have got evidence them please present the HARD EVIDENCE with repeatable verification tests and the full RAW DATA plus all their modifications to that data along with all the reasons they modified that data, plus all their computer programs in source and binary forms. Plus their notes. Papers. Emails. Everything used or done during their work that would provide actual “proof” of their claims. Oh don’t forget to include all the counter evidence that they themselves “keep to” themselves.

    Oh wait, that’s what Climate Gate was about, emails revealing that they are not even convinced of their own hypotheses of alarmism. How about that. Actual evidence of their conspiracy to suppress and fabricate data.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: