Report: No "Global Warming" for 325 Months...

[rhino]

Last night I started to post my thoughts on a discussion board assignment I graded Monday morning for an online class. The ostensible topic was energy, but the problem statement was dominated by the course creator's religious beliefs about global warming. Then I realized it would eventually get me in trouble, so I chose to not post it.

Summary: there are a lot of college instructors pushing their global warming religion under the canard of "science." Most of the students are lack the motivation or facility for questioning anything or doing any significant research themselves. The end results are predictable and sad.

But what do I know? I'm a well known "science denier."

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

Last night I started to post my thoughts on a discussion board assignment I graded Monday morning for an online class. The ostensible topic was energy, but the problem statement was dominated by the course creator's religious beliefs about global warming. Then I realized it would eventually get me in trouble, so I chose to not post it.

Summary: there are a lot of college instructors pushing their global warming religion under the canard of "science." Most of the students are lack the motivation or facility for questioning anything or doing any significant research themselves. The end results are predictable and sad.

But what do I know? I'm a well known "science denier."

You know a tangential subject thesis - not that hard to research or prove - is energy consumption and current energy capabilities, production, predictions and viable replacements. That bottom line is much more compelling.

 

[rhino]

You know a tangential subject thesis - not that hard to research or prove - is energy consumption and current energy capabilities, production, predictions and viable replacements. That bottom line is much more compelling.

Well, then you'd be talking about logic and facts, not feelings and unsubstantiated opinions.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

Well, then you'd be talking about logic and facts, not feelings and unsubstantiated opinions.

True.
True.

No place for that in science.

 

[rhino]

True.
True.

No place for that in science.

Well, certainly not after the science is settled. SETTLED.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

How about Dr. Koonin? Dr. Koonin was undersecretary for science in the Energy Department during President Barack Obama’s first term and is currently director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University:

?Climate science is NOT settled? - Headline in Wall Street Journal

 

[chipbennett]

True.
True.

No place for that in science.

Well, certainly not after the science is settled. SETTLED.

The only purpose of scientific pursuit today is self-perpetuation through procurement of public (or, occasionally, private) research funding. The Scientific Method now merely produces grant proposals.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Bill Nye, the consensus-science-guy reminds MSNBC it's climate change.

Bill Nye Tells MSNBC To Say Climate Change, Not Global Warming, When It?s Cold Out | The Daily Caller

 

[jamil]

Bill Nye, the consensus-science-guy reminds MSNBC it's climate change.

Bill Nye Tells MSNBC To Say Climate Change, Not Global Warming, When It?s Cold Out | The Daily Caller

This paragraph struck me. Is he serious?

"I will say to the conservatives, we need you. this is to say, we can't have everybody be a progressive, liberal bleeding heart and so on and so on. We need people on both sides. But if the conservative side are going to continue to deny what 97 percent of the scientists in the world are saying, we're not going to reach a consensus. We're not going to make progress."
​

I want to say to Bill Nye, and really all the believers, here's the deal. Maybe it's true that 97% of the scientist say the science is settled. Fine. But only 0.008% of all employed people in the US are atmospheric scientists, who should be in the best position to understand global temperature. The rest of us 99.992%, including Bill Nye, including other scientists, including the politicians, must rely on the work of these scientists to at least some extent to form an opinion about it.

So it's not a shocker that progressives believe the scientists, who themselves are overwhelmingly progressive. But we all are getting our opinions from something other than first hand knowledge. Some on both sides of the argument pull their opinions from their ideological beliefs (IOW, their ass). Some from several sources, including the opinions of scientists.

So here's the point. Since I'm not a scientist with first hand knowledge about the science, and since I don't have an ideological axe to grind, I derive my opinion from the body of information that's available to me. I'm not going to blindly believe scientists just because they have a bandwagon. I look at what I do understand to get clues about who is telling the truth. I look at what I can understand from the science. I look at behavior. I look at the reliability record of science. I look at the stakes. I look at human nature, among other things. If you want non-scientist skeptics (not surprisingly there are no progressive skeptics) to take you seriously you need to do some things to help the credibility gap.

1. Stop making it political.
   1. Stop marginalizing skeptics. SKEPTICS HELP ENSURE INTEGRITY. If you marginalize them, it makes skeptics distrust you more. If you want to get skeptics on your side, marginalizing us won't help that.
   2. Stop allowing politicians to make statements your own science doesn't even support. Tell John Kerry to shut the **** up when he blabbers on about "global warming" because he's making a fool of himself.
2. Stop funneling tax dollars into the green energy industrial complex. Green politicians giving my money away to green energy companies, who've donated heavily to those same green politicians, understandably makes me skeptical about the motives.
3. Stop being secretive. What about the emails? Maybe there's nothing to it. Behaving like there's something to hide makes me suspect you're hiding something.
4. Stop being alarmists without substance. Every predicted sky falling disaster that never comes to pass makes you lose credibility. When you say your models predict really bad ****, and the really bad **** never happens, it's reasonable to conclude you don't understand enough about global temperature to make a reliable model. If the models aren't reliable, neither are your alarmist predictions.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

This paragraph struck me. Is he serious?

"I will say to the conservatives, we need you. this is to say, we can't have everybody be a progressive, liberal bleeding heart and so on and so on. We need people on both sides. But if the conservative side are going to continue to deny what 97 percent of the scientists in the world are saying, we're not going to reach a consensus. We're not going to make progress."
​

I want to say to Bill Nye, and really all the believers, here's the deal. Maybe it's true that 97% of the scientist say the science is settled. Fine. But only 0.008% of all employed people in the US are atmospheric scientists, who should be in the best position to understand global temperature. The rest of us 99.992%, including Bill Nye, including other scientists, including the politicians, must rely on the work of these scientists to at least some extent to form an opinion about it.

So it's not a shocker that progressives believe the scientists, who themselves are overwhelmingly progressive. But we all are getting our opinions from something other than first hand knowledge. Some on both sides of the argument pull their opinions from their ideological beliefs (IOW, their ass). Some from several sources, including the opinions of scientists.

So here's the point. Since I'm not a scientist with first hand knowledge about the science, and since I don't have an ideological axe to grind, I derive my opinion from the body of information that's available to me. I'm not going to blindly believe scientists just because they have a bandwagon. I look at what I do understand to get clues about who is telling the truth. I look at what I can understand from the science. I look at behavior. I look at the reliability record of science. I look at the stakes. I look at human nature, among other things. If you want non-scientist skeptics (not surprisingly there are no progressive skeptics) to take you seriously you need to do some things to help the credibility gap.

1. Stop making it political.
   1. Stop marginalizing skeptics. SKEPTICS HELP ENSURE INTEGRITY. If you marginalize them, it makes skeptics distrust you more. If you want to get skeptics on your side, marginalizing us won't help that.
   2. Stop allowing politicians to make statements your own science doesn't even support. Tell John Kerry to shut the **** up when he blabbers on about "global warming" because he's making a fool of himself.
2. Stop funneling tax dollars into the green energy industrial complex. Green politicians giving my money away to green energy companies, who've donated heavily to those same green politicians, understandably makes me skeptical about the motives.
3. Stop being secretive. What about the emails? Maybe there's nothing to it. Behaving like there's something to hide makes me suspect you're hiding something.
4. Stop being alarmists without substance. Every predicted sky falling disaster that never comes to pass makes you lose credibility. When you say your models predict really bad ****, and the really bad **** never happens, it's reasonable to conclude you don't understand enough about global temperature to make a reliable model. If the models aren't reliable, neither are your alarmist predictions.

Tigers are tigers. Snakes are snakes. You're asking snakes to no longer be snakes. It is their nature. I think Rush was right, years ago, when he said the radical environmentalist movement is the new home of communist party.

 

[smokingman]

THIS NEXT ROUND OF ARCTIC AIR MAY BE ENOUGH TO
COMPLETELY FREEZE OVER LAKES...ERIE....HURON AND SUPERIOR BY THE
WEEKEND.
Great Lakes Ice Forecasts - Text

It looks like ice records are shattering(most set in 2014).If superior is over 90% coverage it will be the earliest it has ever happened by over 4 weeks.

 

[rhino]

Gee, I thought the only ice left on the planet was in freezers. After all, the polar bears are dying. And they like Coca-Cola.

 

[JTScribe]

http://vencoreweather.com/2015/02/17/29475/

 

[chipbennett]

One: science is not a matter of "consensus". If Bill Nye really were a "Science Guy", he would know that.

Two, the claim of 97% "consensus" is a hoax, and has been thoroughly debunked.

 

[smokingman]

http://vencoreweather.com/2015/02/17/29475/

You mean that big orange ball in the sky can effect our climate!
I thought the IPCC had determined the orange round thingy had no impact on global temperatures!

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Blog: Bad news for warmists: Sun has entered 'weakest solar cycle in a century'

 

[pudly]

Blog: Bad news for warmists: Sun has entered 'weakest solar cycle in a century'

Sorry, there are no "warmists" any more. There are only those who believe in man-made climate change and science deniers.

 

[buckstopshere]

Tigers are tigers. Snakes are snakes. You're asking snakes to no longer be snakes. It is their nature. I think Rush was right, years ago, when he said the radical environmentalist movement is the new home of communist party.

Green is the new Red

 

[jamil]

Progressives like to complain about the military industrial complex, and rightly so. But the Green industial complex is just fine with them.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Progressives like to complain about the military industrial complex, and rightly so. But the Green industial complex is just fine with them.

Yes sir. It is the new way to control capitalism, freedom, and redistribute wealth.