Fora

WORDT DEEL VAN DE COMMUNITY
REGISTREERINLOGGEN

Conspiracy Theory? by Leilani Münter, Race car driver, environmental activist.

gone;
evidence that AGW is happening could consist only of predictions that held up. Batting far below the Mendoza line, to the point of being 180° off most of the time. So many have a stake in pushing it that science by Press Release is now common. Journals have debased themselves by shilling and gatekeeping shamelessly. Mitigations proposed would at best cost only 50-100X what adaptation to hypothetical challenges would.

In 3rd world environments especially, green power kills wholesale. The retail fuel poverty deaths in the UK are just a wee taste. "Con-damning" is the least that the Consensus deserves.

Brian,

Where are new carbon sinks? Get busy digging, instead of slanderous insinuations.

P_D:

They were real scientists. You are an oyster farmer.

Grandiose hallucinations of self importance aside, if there are no new sinks, the overflow affects everyone in the 'garage'.

Hey Brian H, to my surprise we agree, so far as I understand what you are saying here (which is suspicious in and of itself ;-) especially your first and your final sentence.

@ PD,

With all due respect, Copernicus and Galileo were true scientists in a sea of religious dogma. The other "real scientists" you speak about were nothing more than mouth pieces for the Catholic Church or had to recant their findings under threat of death. Real scientists with real data and with real information about how the universe works were regularly proclaimed heretics and were executed. Even Galileo recanted some of his findings because he knew that if he did not, the Church would have him killed.

Is this the kind of real science you're talking about?

Thank you Brian. I give you credit for stirring my nascent skepticism on this topic. I also admit that I have much personal reading and research to do before deciding where I stand on the topic.

Cheers!

PD, I have to say you are very kind to discuss this with these Religious experts.

I have followed this discussion with interest as an environmentalist and a scientist. Unfortunately I have no expertise in the science of global warming. As best as I can tell the consensus of experts is that global warming is real. Intuitively polluting the air doesn't seem good. @DP you have an impressive track record although you do spend a lot of time and effort in informing us about it. As a scientist you have the right to question. I would be willing to listen to your side of the argument. Although in science a majority decision doesn't make it correct I believe as a dissenting opinion the onus is on you to at provide us with some good science to support your clams. I agree with the other posters that most of your statements consist of paragraphs of self praise and denial without much support.

@Pungoteague_Dave
@BrianH
@goneskiian
@jjs

From the Wikipedia page on skepticism:
“Philosophical skepticism is an overall approach that requires all information to be well supported by evidence”

From the Wikipedia page on denialism:
“In human behavior, denialism is exhibited by individuals choosing to deny reality as a way to avoid dealing with an uncomfortable truth.[1] Author Paul O'Shea remarks, "[It] is the refusal to accept an empirically verifiable reality. It is an essentially irrational action that withholds validation of a historical experience or event".[2] Author Michael Specter defined group denialism as “when an entire segment of society, often struggling with the trauma of change, turns away from reality in favor of a more comfortable lie.”[3]”

Skepticism requires supporting evidence, it is not the rejection of evidence, that is denialism.

@Pungoteague_Dave
From this thread:

You said “You attempt to say I have no answer because I didn't respond when it was as simple as I don't have time to read every thread on every forum in which I participate.”. I d did not attempt to say that, you made it up. I said that you had not responded and requested that you respond. I actually said “I made the effort to provide the facts about the cost of solar when requested by you. Please return the favour.” and followed it up with “I provided my facts, and showed that 10 years was conservative, but you did not even acknowledge them.” And then followed that up with “I did provide the facts on solar PV. Other posters responded. You did not. Have another read of the thread where you asked me for the facts.”

You said “I doubt normally jump through other peoples hoops, and definitely not demands on an Internet forum”. You asked me for evidence and I provided it. You have not provided evidence a single time when I have requested it. That is hypocrisy.

You said “I have now responded in full on your solar panel question over there.” In the other thread you implied that I was a liar. I have responded to that accusation in the other thread. That is casting dispersions on people’s integrity with no basis.

You said “If you have any intellectual honesty, and are a scientist as you state, you would not be linking or sourcing full left blogs.” I did not state I was a scientist, you made that up too. As I have already told you, the links I posted have links to the source science papers. You are lacking intellectual honesty in repeating your claim when I have already shown you why it is false.

You said “Have you now reduced your debating thesis to saying that far beyond simple consensus thought, that every single peer reviewed paper on climate science, no matter the source, has no serious research or conclusion errors?” That is a straw man argument. I did not, and would not, say that. What I said was “To dismiss Climate Change requires you to dismiss all of the evidence. Not just one piece, not just 100 pieces, but every single piece.” If you accept that even a single piece of the evidence of Climate Change is true then you accept that Climate Change is true. To give you an example, if 99 out of 100 people say that 2+2=4 because it sounds nice, but one person presents mathematical proof that 2+2 does equal 4, then it does not matter that the other 99 were arguing a load of bollocks for the same end result.

You say “You are unaware of the many internal scandals and internecine battles within the warming science sector? The investigations? The half truths? The cover-ups, intimidations, email chains regarding professional ostricization and research suppression? If you are inside the warmist scientific community, you are surely aware of these issues. If not, then you are not inside.” You are simply adding to your pile of accusations without any evidence to support it. To give you an example of your approach: You, Pungoteague_Dave, are a poor example of a chat-bot, and not a real person at all.

From the other thread:
You said "I said I accepted it because it am not prepared to call you a liar, but your numbers beggar belief."
If find that statement both personally repugnant and intellectually stupid.
Rupugnant - because I did not lie, and you have no basis upon which to imply that I did lie. As I see it, because the figures contradict your opinion, rather than asking me to provide verifiable evidence for them, you imply that I am lying. This is the same tactic that you use to deny Climate Change. Some may see it as skepticism. I see it as both obnoxious and ignorant. Skepticsm requires evaluating the evidence for it's veracity. Skepticsm is not simply rejecting the evidence because it does not agree with your opinion.
Stupid - because I can provide verifiable evidence for my figures. Just let me know which figure or figures you doubt, and I will provide links to the source data.

You said “BUT you have to know how to navigate the vagaries of government grant and renewable credits applications. I doubt many newbie laymen can navigate the resale of renewable energy credits. My wife and I are both CPA's, and we initially had difficulty getting the concept, much less wading through the process, finding a broker, executing documents, etc.” This is another irrelevent strawman argument as I had already told you “There are zero subsidies or incentives or tax breaks etc.”

You said “but that install is handled by our property managers) have averaged six inspections each, and twelve separate paper and internet applications. At least in the U.S, if you want all the benefits, this is not like any other form of construction.”. Do you not understand that this is irrelevant to what I am paying? In my case, there is no inspection or permit required for mounting the panels on the roof. The electrical work needs an inspection and is around $200. The network company has a free email application for connection to their network. The power company has no charge.

You say “Costs cannot go down further in this area - they have already bottomed and rebounded now that we have burned off the overseas inventory that was dumped here.” This is unsubstantiated, and easily falsified. Just read my previous paragraph.

You say “not amateur backyard tinkertoy systems with cables hanging over eaves, etc.” On what basis did you make this statement? I have already told you that the electrical work is done by an electrician so there will be no “cables hanging over eaves, etc”. The panels and inverters mount on 4 rails attached to the roof. It is that simple. Even if I got someone else to do that bit, it is a few hours work at most. I really don’t know what you mean by tinkertoy. I can only assume it was a baseless condescending comment.

You say “My solar panel installation and ongoing power purchase and credit brokerage documents fill an entire file cabinet, including the legal documents (at least four for each system) that go along with doing it right.” My paperwork consists of a few emails. All done properly. All signed off. But then again, I am not getting the taxpayer to subsidise me.

Since it is Xmas here is a story for you:
Peter: Avocadoes are too expensive and will never be affordable
Bob: I can buy avocadoes for less than 50c
Peter: I have bought avocadoes and they cost two dollars from the supermarket. I do not believe you.
Bob: I buy my avocadoes from the local market and they cost 28c. There are other markets where you can get them for less than 50c too.
Peter: Well, mine cost two dollars from the supermarket and I know other people who have spent just as much. You are a liar and I don’t believe that you bought them for less than 50c. And even if you did, I buy mine from the supermarket.
Bob: WTF?

bb0tin, I never said that YOU cannot do an installation on the cheap. What I said was that costs are generally multiples of what you claim, and backed it up with real numbers from real installers, applicable anywhere in the U.S, which you do nothing to refute or even comment on. I have no time for the rest of your bipolar diatribe above, but each point is beyond absurd. And yes you did claim to be a warming scientist in the other thread. Perhaps you are schizophrenic to boot.

I'm really dismayed at the perception here and the way we view scientists that are involved in serious research.

From my experience as an engineer and test manager, I didn't really give a fig what the answer was. I was testing functionality, user acceptance, or compliance. My goal was to find out what WAS, not what we'd like. We have a saying, "A defect is neither good nor bad. It just is."

It's not a bad thing. Our goal is to find the truth, not assign blame.

I believe scientists are of a similar mind. Like we do, they follow the truth wherever it leads. The scientific method has been the most significant advancement in human history.

@Pungoteague_Dave
You may have noticed that I supply a quote whenever I respond to something you said. It is evidence to support my statement. You said "And yes you did claim to be a warming scientist in the other thread." That statement is untrue. Please supply a quote from me that leads you to make that statement.

You just said "I never said that YOU cannot do an installation on the cheap". What else did you intend to mean when you said "I said I accepted it because it am not prepared to call you a liar, but your numbers beggar belief". We all know what the meaning of "Liar" is. The meaning of "Beggar belief" is: To defy or go beyond what is believable.
Are you now claiming to simply be extremely careless with your words?

In this entire thread you have never once backed up any of your Climate Change opinions with verifiable evidence. You therefore fail the definition of skepticism which includes "to be well supported by evidence".

And yes you did claim to be a warming scientist in the other thread. Perhaps you are schizophrenic to boot.

Pungoteague_Dave, I flagged that filthy comment of yours as inappropriate, because it was. You have been for a while sorely testing my patience on this thread, teetering at the brink of the obscenely stupid. And now you just took one giant leap forward. Why didn't you simply stop?

Debate: your doin it rong.

And good will to all men (as well as women, children, etc).

O carp, html: I'm doin it rong. That first para was a blockquote when it left my keyboard. Dunno what happened - solar flare? ;-)

Gee, that Leilani's a cutie, ain't she?

Sorry guys, just thought we needed a break there...

Carry on...

Wow so I guess there really is a conspiracy....usually when conspiracy theories are accurate
the bad guy send in their messageboard army to derail it with arguments.

Think about who has everything to lose in this scenario if the 30k model E drives a major part of the population to go electric. Those are some pretty powerful people who've had it their way for quite some time.
When gas stations start to look like Blockbuster video, yes I do believe a small but (soon no longer) powerful few out there might begin to feel their Kodak moment.

Haha, Lycanthrope, you are objectively correct on both counts. Thanks.

David has a good point too (but better not say which; never know who's listening in ;-) ). In other news, the huge local Kodak facility near where I used to live is being converted into a third super-mall or something like that.

(And I almost accidentally revealed my BESTest ever winning vanity licence, long before the order is even in. THAT close. Whew ':-) )

@NKYTA

I thought of you when I saw this:

http://people.howstuffworks.com/privacy-quiz.htm

@Pungoteague_Dave
And now for a little background...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1295

PS:
You seem to be quite shameless. I thought you had stopped posting on this thread, and that I could therefore stop responding. But you seem incapable of honest reasoned debate. You make accusations and refuse to back them up. You state opinion as if it is fact, do not provide any evidence, and seem to think you should not even be expected to do so.
You have repeatedly posted a statement which you have been told is false. You also implied I was lying when my facts contradicted your opinion.

Please respond to this post:
@Pungoteague_Dave
You may have noticed that I supply a quote whenever I respond to something you said. It is evidence to support my statement. You said "And yes you did claim to be a warming scientist in the other thread." That statement is untrue. Please supply a quote from me that leads you to make that statement.

You just said "I never said that YOU cannot do an installation on the cheap". What else did you intend to mean when you said "I said I accepted it because it am not prepared to call you a liar, but your numbers beggar belief". We all know what the meaning of "Liar" is. The meaning of "Beggar belief" is: To defy or go beyond what is believable.
Are you now claiming to simply be extremely careless with your words?

I think this is the most persistent claim i hear. "global warming has stopped!" i don't understand how these views persist.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/02/05/global-warming-has-st...

A sample from a article from Independent (UK):

the critics pointed time and again to graphs showing the rise in the world’s average surface temperatures has slowed down since 1998 – a fact extensively interpreted by many vocal opponents as a fundamental failure in the basic science of climate change.

Now the scientists appear to have come up with an explanation. That much-vaunted “pause” in global warming can be largely explained by a failure to record an unprecedented rise in Arctic temperatures over the past 15 years, a study has found.
...
Their study, to be published in the Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, found that if these Arctic surface temperatures were included in global temperature estimates, then the average global increase went from 0.05C per decade to 0.12C per decade – effectively eliminating the “pause”.

---
Lesson to learn from this: Don't make statistical conclusions from too small sample! It is equally foolish to calculate probability for MS to catch fire after three battery fires in six weeks.

That worked. I tried with link and failed. I'll try to post link separately. Not accepted... Denialist spam filter!

Search for pause-in-global-warming-8945597


X Deutschland Site Besuchen