[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Science isn't a popularity contest

No, it isn't.

And a consensus of people who hide their data and who refuse to publish their methodologies is not science, either.

You are quite right. And the Heartland Institute never publishes either of them.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Carl Sagan

[BartSimpson]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Science isn't a popularity contest

No, it isn't.

And a consensus of people who hide their data and who refuse to publish their methodologies is not science, either.

You are quite right. And the Heartland Institute never publishes either of them.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Carl Sagan

I'm not sure why the Heartland Institute has to publish any research given that they don't perform research. They question it.

$1:

The Heartland Institute is "the world’s most prominent think tank promoting skepticism about man-made climate change.”

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

No, it isn't.

And a consensus of people who hide their data and who refuse to publish their methodologies is not science, either.

You are quite right. And the Heartland Institute never publishes either of them.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Carl Sagan

I'm not sure why the Heartland Institute has to publish any research given that they don't perform research. They question it.

$1:

The Heartland Institute is "the world’s most prominent think tank promoting skepticism about man-made climate change.”

Questioning science isn't science. Proving or disproving hypotheses using data or experiments, then having your peers review it, then publishing the results is Science. That requires research and methodologies. Otherwise, what they are doing is just a popularity contest.

[BartSimpson]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Questioning science isn't science.

The fuck it isn't. It's the very heart of science.

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Proving or disproving hypotheses using data or experiments, then having your peers review it, then publishing the results is Science. That requires research and methodologies. Otherwise, what they are doing is just a popularity contest.

If you posit a theory then I don't have to prove you wrong. You have to prove you're right.

It's your theory after all so do your own damned work.

Carl Sagan Carl Sagan:

9.Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified. Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much. Consider the grand idea that our Universe and everything in it is just an elementary particle — an electron, say — in a much bigger Cosmos. But if we can never acquire information from outside our Universe, is not the idea incapable of disproof? You must be able to check assertions out. Inveterate skeptics must be given the chance to follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the same result.

Hard to do that last part when the 'scientists' keep their data and methodologies a secret because the bad old boogeymen of skepticism might point out some flaws in the assumptions about global warming.

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Questioning science isn't science.

The fuck it isn't. It's the very heart of science.

I beg to differ. Questioning hypotheses is the heart of science, but questioning results requires peer reviewed papers. "Your conclusion is not supported by the data, and here's why . . . ". That is science.

Saying "James Hansen wet his bed as a child" isn't a peer reviewed study disproving global warming.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Proving or disproving hypotheses using data or experiments, then having your peers review it, then publishing the results is Science. That requires research and methodologies. Otherwise, what they are doing is just a popularity contest.

If you posit a theory then I don't have to prove you wrong. You have to prove you're right.

It's your theory after all so do your own damned work.

Carl Sagan Carl Sagan:

9.Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified. Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much. Consider the grand idea that our Universe and everything in it is just an elementary particle — an electron, say — in a much bigger Cosmos. But if we can never acquire information from outside our Universe, is not the idea incapable of disproof? You must be able to check assertions out. Inveterate skeptics must be given the chance to follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the same result.

That's the heart of the 'peer review' process. And Global Warming has mountains of peer reviewed studies that prove beyond a doubt of it's effects. The Heartland Institute has nothing approaching that volume of Science to counter it. All they do is cast doubt on the science, they never give their evidence as to what the data shows. They prefer the 'there is no data' tactic.

The data has been collected, the hypotheses tested, peer reviewed and published. The Heartland only has 'doubt'. All they offer is popularity contest based on who do you trust, when it's data that matters not trust. Ask Phillip Morris.

[OnTheIce]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

That's the heart of the 'peer review' process. And Global Warming has mountains of peer reviewed studies that prove beyond a doubt of it's effects. The Heartland Institute has nothing approaching that volume of Science to counter it. All they do is cast doubt on the science, they never give their evidence as to what the data shows. They prefer the 'there is no data' tactic.

The data has been collected, the hypotheses tested, peer reviewed and published. The Heartland only has 'doubt'. All they offer is popularity contest based on who do you trust, when it's data that matters not trust. Ask Phillip Morris.

I have no "skin" in this game, beyond sitting back and watching the debate but why is it that scientists don't publish their data and methodologies?

[BartSimpson]

Sorry to bail from this but I have an epic migraine starting and I can barely see the keyboard.

[N_Fiddledog]

I was going to leave this one alone because it's just more silliness, but I see Andy wanted to Beetlejuice me with an insult.

Very well, far be it from me to disappoint a psychotic. I'm always willing to help the intellectually deprived (or did I mean depraved )in their attempts to rediscover reality when they ask for help.

So let's begin.

The first thing I notice in the OP is although that piece is posted as news and it's in the news section it's actually just a blog from the blog section of the far-left Huffington Post website.

Basically though, all it is, is a hyperventilating exercise in poo flinging from the Climate Chimps.

It reeks of desperation as this whole Paris conference does, and right now the true failure looks like it's going to be that parent conference.

Now as to the sparse attendance of climate skeptics - what else is new? They've attended every conference since Rio. Their presence has always been small, but they've always punched above their weight.

Witness to how great the effect of their tiny and often humourous displays have often been is the backlash against them this time. They tried to have them delisted but the little band of skeptic heroes managed to operate a small kiosk, and have been holding events (not just the one mentioned) throughout the conference.

In the meantime yes the tiny coterie of merry pranksters turn up at climate conferences interjecting bits of humor and dollops of truth at the carbon fueled celebrations called Climate Conferences.

Here's Marc Morano in Paris mugging next to a poster the desperate Chicken Littles pasted throughout Paris damning him and the others in his merry little band of rebels as "climate criminals" for critiquing the prophecies of Catastrophe the carbon spewing, champagne swilling fatcat scammers attending the parent conference were hoping to push on an unsuspecting public.



As I told you these guys are famous for their pranks at these billion dollar conferences for the pampered left and their hangers on. They punch well above their weight class.

One of my favorites was when Christopher Monkton crashed one of the main conference centres at Doha. He saw an open Mic and hijacked it.



That was one of Lord Monckton's many 'drop the mic' moments.

So what's the point of Huffpo's blogging bedwetter? (love that you guys don't love that term Thank Monckton for that one. )

Is his point that the skeptic groups attending climate conferences are small? Then yes, and they always have been. Is it that they are ineffective, though? Not hardly. The evidence against that are the counter-measures the behemoth of Political Warmism finds it necessary to launch against them and how they are beaten at every turn by the tiny band of Davids facing the Warmist Goliath.

[PluggyRug]

The climate will keep going along is it's own merry way despite what all the clowns in Paris decide.
In fact it wouldn't surprise me at all if mother nature gave those pumpernickel fools a swift kick up the ass.

[Lemmy]

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

The climate will keep going along is it's own merry way despite what all the clowns in Paris decide.

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

In fact it wouldn't surprise me at all if mother nature gave those pumpernickel fools a swift kick up the ass.

[N_Fiddledog]

Yup, natural climate change. It just keeps on keeping on...

And it will for long after we're gone, for reasons having the sum total of nothing to do with how we heat our homes or what we fuel our cars with.

Hate to disappoint Gore and the overdressed, jetsetting clowns of climate alarmism - especially after what looks like another failure for them - but the boiling ocean, chicken little climate catastrophe is not coming.

Warmist Faithful go thru 5 stages of grief for the climate change campaign

[BRAH]

Leo DiCaprio’s Got This

$1:

When Leonardo DiCaprio private jets into Paris to knock heads with the head of the UN on halving carbon emissions, you feel covered.

http://www.wwtdd.com/2015/12/leo-dicaprios-got-this/
______

[sandorski]

Just think what all those $millions being spent on the Denial Industry could accomplish. Hell, those companies could be doing R&D with that $ developing Green Technology of the future. Instead they will just flush $millions down the drain while slowly, but surely their Product becomes obsolete leaving them holding an empty bag.

[N_Fiddledog]

Worst Deal In History: $1.5 Trillion A Year To Reduce Global Warming By 0.048°C

by JAMES DELINGPOLE10 Nov 2015

$1:

Bjørn “Skeptical Environmentalist” Lomborg has been doing the math on global warming – and it’s worse than we thought.

Even if every nation in the world adheres to its climate change commitments by 2030 the only difference it will make to “global warming” by the end of this century will be to reduce the world’s temperatures by 0.048°C (0.086°F).

That’s 1/20th of a degree C.

Let’s put this into perspective.

Earlier this year, Climate Change Business Journal calculated that the annual cost of the global warming industry is $1.5 trillion.

If you want to know what that looks like in numerals it is:

$1,500,000,000,000

And if you want a better idea of how it looks conceptually, I highly recommend this infographic visualisation.

To put it another way, even if you’d spent $1 million a day every day since the birth of Jesus, you’d still be less than half the way to reaching $1.5 trillion.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... ng-0-048c/

I can link you to the Climate Change Business Journal where that figure (works out to 4 billion dollars a day) sources. But it costs $995 for the full consulting report.

http://www.climatechangebusiness.com/

This is cheaper:

http://joannenova.com.au/2015/07/spot-t ... -industry/

[DrCaleb]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

That's the heart of the 'peer review' process. And Global Warming has mountains of peer reviewed studies that prove beyond a doubt of it's effects. The Heartland Institute has nothing approaching that volume of Science to counter it. All they do is cast doubt on the science, they never give their evidence as to what the data shows. They prefer the 'there is no data' tactic.

The data has been collected, the hypotheses tested, peer reviewed and published. The Heartland only has 'doubt'. All they offer is popularity contest based on who do you trust, when it's data that matters not trust. Ask Phillip Morris.

I have no "skin" in this game, beyond sitting back and watching the debate but why is it that scientists don't publish their data and methodologies?

They do. One of the ways the deniers try to say climate scientists 'wet the bed' is to say they don't publish those. But a quick online search will show you the data published by NASA, NOAA, NOAA Satellite measurements, UK Met Office, Japan Meteorlogical, Agency, Environment Canada, . . . What they really mean is 'Why don't they published the raw data', because things like satellites have a problem differentiating air temperature on the ground and the air temperature between them and the ground. So it's usually a measurement of ground temperature, and a calculation to come up with air temperature. As far as recording with an actual thermometer by an actual person - some stations have moved over the decades, or a parking lot was put up beside them and skews the temperature reading - so a calculation is sometimes used to make the new data 'fit' the old data so that statistical analysis still works between the data sets. There are also records that can be implied by other means. Deniers like to imply that they are 'cooking' the numbers to reflect greater warming than we are actually seeing, but if that were the case then data from different sources, even from historical sources, would not agree like they do.

The best science is when unrelated sources say the same thing, like tree core samples and glacial ice cores, plus weather stations and satellites. When all of them say the same thing, we know that the conclusions that can be drawn are accurate.

Methodologies are generally included in papers. 'Blending' data so it's all consistent is an art in itself. It's a required part of the peer review process, because if science isn't reproducible then it's not science.

Saying that they don't publish their data and methodologies is false.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Sorry to bail from this but I have an epic migraine starting and I can barely see the keyboard.

Hope you are feeling better sir.