But we already knew that, didn't we?
Noteworthy:
"By now you should have figured this one out. Recent years have witnessed a series of fear-mongering alarmist fads in pseudo-scientific meteorology and climatology, each promoted in succession by news media and mainstream science publications. Perhaps the most expensive example of these mass-hysterias is the pseudoscientific fad of 'global warming'. The present article is an examination of the science behind the ideology of 'global warming', as well as the social and political forces driving its promotion."
"Present-day climatology is vulnerable to these kinds of faddist dogmas - pushed forward as part of a political and media-driven agenda - because it lacks a functional, comprehensive, systematic and interconnected understanding of the nonlinear system formed by the atmosphere, the oceans, the land mass and the biosphere, and their interaction with solar radiation."
"There is perhaps no clearer example of the arbitrary vagaries of mainstream peer-review and its promotion of non-scientific fads, driven by political and economic interests, than the recent promotion of the pseudoscientific myth of 'global warming', systematically accompanied by the recurrent fits of public hysteria it engenders amongst scientists, politicians, environmentalists (another type of politico), mainstream science journals and mass-media."
"But since these fads are supposed to be 'scientific', they are compelled to search for pseudo-evidence which may serve as the excuse (the 'scientific reason') for their promotion in mainstream journals and the media. Typically there is a little truth in this pseudo-evidence, but its generalization or interpretation falsifies the facts and the data, undermining both the value and the quality of the latter."
And those are just from page one......
Take the time to read the whole thing.
In other words, you can't dispute the information provided.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the validation, Stew. I can always count on you to help me out.
"Not trying to dispute it..."
ReplyDeleteSpare us all, please. Of course you are trying to dispute it. why even bother to make a comment like yours if you're in agreement?
Typical Stew response, and it's typically not good enough to pass muster. It's the usual attempt to deflect attention away from the points discussed by the author.
"Uncritical of your sources", indeed.
Specifically, what parts of the linked material do you disagree with, and why do you disagree with them?
I doubt if you will answer my question. That would require some actual intellectual consideration and work on your part.
Your intention is to dispute the assertion because it challenges something you believe in. You're unable to provide specifics, except for your vague disagreement for equally vague reasons: hence, the deflection tactic. You chose the easy way to dispute the issue, as is your usual operating procedure.
Your line of questioning has no credibility. It's long on rhetoric, and as always, short on specific facts to support your (in this case, hidden) contention.
Same Stew Stuff, Different Day.
It's just useless noise. It will treated as such here.
"Your intention is to dispute the assertion because it challenges something you believe in. You're unable to provide specifics, except for your vague disagreement for equally vague reasons:"
ReplyDeleteWhat a joke. You said in reply to my post that Gore's 1000 year temperature chart was disproved as false and yet YOU provided no specifics pointing to where it was disproved. And now YOU want to have Stew provide the same for a bunch of people who think that "Massfree energy" is a reality???
What planet are you on? Where do you come from?
You are a hypocrite of the highest order.
"What a joke. You said in reply to my post that Gore's 1000 year temperature chart was disproved as false and yet YOU provided no specifics pointing to where it was disproved."
ReplyDeleteYou are not paying attention, little buddy.
Try reading a few other blogs before you run your mouth. Or try improving your understanding of the issue.
You are indeed a sorry excuse for a blog poster.
The quality of your thought and substance of your contribution to the blogosphere is in dire need of upgrading.
The quality of my substance is perfectly in line with established FACTS Bubba. It is you are the lazy, disingenuous blogger.
ReplyDeleteIf you had actually SEEN An Inconvenient Truth, then you would have known that that that Medvial Warming Period you are so fond of spouting about is addressed in the film, as it is in the graph I posted (the small red bump in the center left). You just didn't care to address this fact.
I agree with Stew that you are a waste on this issue, and as bloggers go quite inconsequential as well. The scientific community has indeed reached a consensus on this issue, as have most Americans, the President of the United States and almost all nations of the world. You are in the distinct minority here, which frankly is a blessing from heaven.
Ignore facts and post pseudoscience all you want it still doesn't change what is actually happening around the globe. Good luck in fantasy land.
Tim Lambert? TIM LAMBERT, as an authoritative and credible source? Contradict?
ReplyDeleteThat's too funny!
Nice try, Stew.
Excerpt:
"Lambert, on the other hand, uses lies of omission to attempt to make a link that isn't there. He's not to be trusted, ever."
And Caruba handled your little "contradict" pout quite well in the comments.
"No substance" responses, indeed!
As far as the hockey stick goes, it's clearly been discredited....on more than one occasion, by many sources.
Here's one of them.
Excerpt:
"On July 20, a second analysis requested by Congress was released at a hearing concerning the validity of the Hockey Stick findings. According to Edward Wegman, his team's research found serious statistical flaws that undermine the main conclusion of the hockey stick study. Mr. Wegman and his colleagues concluded, based on the evidence cited and the methodology used by the hockey stick researchers, the idea that the planet is experiencing unprecedented global warming 'cannot be supported.' Mr. Wegman and his team also concluded that the close ties between scientists in the small paleoclimatology community prevented true peer review of the hockey stick and related analyses."
"Lazy bloger" indeed! Classic example of Projection Disorder by the so-called "author" of those words.
Stew says....
"So I see no point in actually attempting to engage you on the details of the issue anymore."
...of course you don't, Stew. You're losing the debate.....badly. It's standard procedure for you.
Whatshisname says....
"The scientific community has indeed reached a consensus on this issue, as have most Americans....."
Not a chance, little buddy.
Once again, there is no such thing as "Scientific consensus" on "Global Warming", despite your protests.
But please, continue to post. If you two insist, I'll continue to make you look like the clowns you are on this issue.
More noise, this time from Stew.
ReplyDelete"The numbers he gives, that I quoted, come from two scientists with the National Center for Atmospheric Research and a geophysicist (a fact that would have been easy to find if you had bothered to follow the links involved, as I did with your article). They certainly are qualified to speak in their areas of expertise."
And of course, you expect me to accept those at face value as "expertise"? Especially coming from Lambert? A perfect example of the "global warming modeling" scenario that's been thoroughly discredited.
No thanks.
Your biases are showing, no matter how carefully you attempt to paint them with the veneer of neutrality.
You are one of the worst people at avoiding the meat of the issues raised I've never seen. At no point have you (or your little buddy) posted anything that actually rebuts the points I've made.
You are welcome to keep posting here. However, I will not engage in your peculiar type of gamesmanship in reply.
That's a waste of my time and energy, and adds nothing of value or substance to the discussion.
Once again, there is no such thing as "scientific consensus" on "global warming".
The left-wing alarmists insisted that the horrendous 2005 hurricane season was the result of "global warming."
ReplyDeleteThe 2006 season was virtually non-existent.
So I guess we solved the problem.
Next topic, please.