RDent wrote:
"marcodbeast" wrote in message ...
RDent wrote:
"Mr Right" wrote in message
...
On Apr 29, 7:17 pm, "Seon Ferguson" wrote:
"What A. Fool" wrote in
messagenews:hh2gv4lj5d09vmjffvaip64fhqtdnl89vn@4ax .com...



On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 13:24:42 +1000, "Seon Ferguson"
wrote:
"Peter Webb" wrote in
message ...
"Seon Ferguson" wrote in message
...
You will need to stop using science that belongs to the 1970's
first and
by the way global cooling wasn't as widely accepted by the
SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY as global warming is.
The article is dated April 24th 2009.
Has climatology really advanced so much since last Friday?
Well I dunno has the opinion of the majority of scientists changed
since last year (that global warming was real) I decided not to go
up against the
majority of scientists. My debating isn't that good for starters.
How about your heating bill, isn't AGW supposed to cost
more to heat the house?
I guess so. I don't know about that stuff I've just gotten into
global warming. All I know is all the burning of oil over the years
can't be good for the environment and we have to find alternative
energy sources. Also I was watching Glen Beck and the global warming
sceptic....wait for it....worked for the oil companies.
Also I was watching Glen Beck and the global warming
sceptic....wait for it....worked for the oil companies.

Who do you think the AGW Alarmists work for (get paid by)?


You mean proponents, yes? "Alarmists" is, afterall...nothing more
than a propagandized adaptation applied by the righties,
conservatives, denialists, skeptics, etc. In actuality, it is they
who are alarmed. One of their most generous benefactors...Exxon
Mobil...finally decided to get with the program and do the
responsible thing by shifting their focus to cleanup...instead of
coverup. Altruistic? Not necessarily. Go where the "green" is...in
a different, more constructive form.
I would imagine AGW proponent professionals, scientists,
physicists...spokespeople... are funded by science grants...(how
novel...real scientific studies, instead of Dr. Fronkinshteen, mad
scientist types working in laboratories staffed by part-timers and 3
blind mice for effect, ala Dr. Arthur "fraudulent Oregon Petition"
Robinson!!). University arctic, oceanography study departments, who
are recipients of budgeted allocations...government entities.
Organizations/companies concerned with the health and welfare of the
earth and ways of marginalizing the effects of GW and foreign oil
energy dependence. (Free market capitalism might sneak in there, and
result in some making money on the deals and their products. Got a
problem with that?)
On the other side of the issue...you have the friends of Big Oil, Big
Coal and the tobacco industry...who are paid to lie about the
negligible to zero effects of emissions on air quality and the
climate. And proclaim C02 isn't a greenhouse gas. And some who
absurdly poo-poo the harmful effects of smoking on lungs and other
organs. "Exaggerated"...is the favorite adjective. See "Heartland
Institute". Same one as is applied to the reality of global
warming...climate change...whatever, by any other name. Remember the
presidents of the large tobacco companies, nodding in unison when
asked if they believed cigarette smoke was harmful? "Not I."! said
Liar # 1. "Nor I"! proclaimed Liar #2, and so forth. Straight-faced.
So...on the S/D team, we have the likes of some legit scientists and
climatologists with illegitimate claims, weather forecasters, OpEd
writers, various journalists...one of the most infamous palming
himself off as a climate expert and the former "scientific" advisor
to the Queen (Lord Christopher "Fraudulent Triple Counting C02 Study"
Monckton, who was no such thing and who includes the fraudulent
results of his fraudulent analysis in his presentations.) He
invented a puzzle and advised on matters of state, 20 years ago...NOT
science or climate), Glen "I Love America" Beck, Sean "I'm a
Christian and I Love America" Hannity, Rush "Come on folks...you're
all gonna die!" Limb-O, Senator Inhofe and his bogus list of
"400/650" who allegedly all agree that GW is a hoax (not true, if
anyone bothers to check out "the list"), Dr. Arthur "Fraudulent
Oregon Petition" Robinson refereneced above, Bolt the Dolt, mentioned
elsewhere on this board, two physicists...Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D.
Tscheuschner...who wrote a worthless paper entitled Falsification Of
The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics,
clearly based on an improvable, unproven theory that if it were
correct, would ensconce the world in a sheet of ice...the entire
world...including bodies of water...ocean bottom up...Marc Morano,
former publicist for Inhofe...2004 Election Swift boater and promoter
and former script writer for Out-on-a-Limb-O.
They...and virtually every other skeptic/denier....far too numerous to
mention...are easily debunked. One only has to take note that the
same S/D's are dredged up time and time again...spouting the same
nonsense and distorted, unproven claims. Do a little research into
their "backgrounds". Easy to recognize: "The ice is thickening, not
thinning." "There's been no warming since 1998.", "The earth is flat
and the moonwalk was staged.", "The sun did it.", "Look at these
photos from the 1950's, proving stuff melted then, when the air was
clean and you were a teenage queen."
They sit down in front of a bowl of selectively-picked cherries (known as
cherry-picking, for the uninitiated and/or slow to catch
on)....do the tongue knot thing because that's what sophomoric types
do...and then make mumfering noises about global warming being a
conspiratorial hoax...a liberal, money-making machine....worldwide. And
you have to believe them because...well...they are truth-tellers.
And how do you know that? Because they say so. Even though their
resultant charts and graphs with the squiggly red, glue and green
lines are error-ridden. And they're notorious for using insufficient
data points...usually no more than 2...to prove their baseless claims
and theories.
So very "Wizard of Oz". Look behind the curtain. Melting...or no
melting?
Nice job. =)



Thanks...an outlet.

The flat-earthers...and (OT, though one in the same)..."birthers" are mind-boggling puzzlements, though not really.


Identifying pseudoscience / global warming alarmists.

A field, practice, or body of knowledge might reasonably be called
pseudoscientific when (1) it is presented as consistent with the
accepted norms of scientific research; but (2) it demonstrably fails to
meet these norms, most importantly, in misuse of scientific method.[28]

Subjects may be considered pseudoscientific for various reasons; Karl
Popper considered astrology to be pseudoscientific simply because
astrologers keep their claims so vague that they could never be refuted,
whereas Paul R. Thagard considers astrology pseudoscientific because its
practitioners make little effort to develop the theory, show no concern
for attempts to critically evaluate the theory in relation to others,
and are selective in considering evidence. More generally, Thagard
stated that pseudoscience tends to focus on resemblances rather than
cause-effect relations.

Science is also distinguishable from revelation, theology, or
spirituality in that it offers insight into the physical world obtained
by empirical research and testing.[29] For this reason, both creation
science and intelligent design have been labeled as pseudoscience by the
mainstream scientific community.[30] The most notable disputes concern
the effects of evolution on the development of living organisms, the
idea of common descent, the geologic history of the Earth, the formation
of the solar system, and the origin of the universe.[31] Systems of
belief that derive from divine or inspired knowledge are not considered
pseudoscience if they do not claim either to be scientific or to
overturn well-established science.

Some statements and commonly held beliefs in popular science may not
meet the criteria of science. "Pop" science may blur the divide between
science and pseudoscience among the general public, and may also involve
science fiction.[32] Indeed, pop science is disseminated to, and can
also easily emanate from, persons not accountable to scientific
methodology and expert peer review.

If the claims of a given field can be experimentally tested and
methodological standards are upheld, it is not "pseudoscience", however
odd, astonishing, or counter-intuitive. If claims made are inconsistent
with existing experimental results or established theory, but the
methodology is sound, caution should be used; science consists of
testing hypotheses which may turn out to be false. In such a case, the
work may be better described as ideas that are not yet generally
accepted. Protoscience is a term sometimes used to describe a hypothesis
that has not yet been adequately tested by the scientific method, but
which is otherwise consistent with existing science or which, where
inconsistent, offers reasonable account of the inconsistency. It may
also describe the transition from a body of practical knowledge into a
scientific field.[33]

The following have been proposed to be indicators of poor scientific
reasoning.

[edit] Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims

* Assertion of scientific claims that are vague rather than
precise, and that lack specific measurements.[34]
* Failure to make use of operational definitions (i.e. publicly
accessible definitions of the variables, terms, or objects of interest
so that persons other than the definer can independently measure or test
them).[35] (See also: Reproducibility)
* Failure to make reasonable use of the principle of parsimony,
i.e. failing to seek an explanation that requires the fewest possible
additional assumptions when multiple viable explanations are possible
(see: Occam's Razor)[36]
* Use of obscurantist language, and misuse of apparently technical
jargon in an effort to give claims the superficial trappings of science.
* Lack of boundary conditions: Most well-supported scientific
theories possess well-articulated limitations under which the predicted
phenomena do and do not apply.[37]
* Lack of effective controls, such as placebo and double-blind, in
experimental design. (see Scientific control)

[edit] Over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation

* Assertions that do not allow the logical possibility that they
can be shown to be false by observation or physical experiment (see
also: falsifiability)[38]
* Assertion of claims that a theory predicts something that it has
not been shown to predict[39]
* Assertion that claims which have not been proven false must be
true, and vice versa (see: Argument from ignorance)[40]
* Over-reliance on testimonial, anecdotal evidence or personal
experience. This evidence may be useful for the context of discovery
(i.e. hypothesis generation) but should not be used in the context of
justification (e.g. Statistical hypothesis testing).[41]
* Pseudoscience often presents data that seems to support its
claims while suppressing or refusing to consider data that conflict with
its claims.[42] This is an example of selection bias, a distortion of
evidence or data that arises from the way that the data are collected.
It is sometimes referred to as the selection effect.
* Reversed burden of proof. In science, the burden of proof rests
on those making a claim, not on the critic. "Pseudoscientific" arguments
may neglect this principle and demand that skeptics demonstrate beyond a
reasonable doubt that a claim (e.g. an assertion regarding the efficacy
of a novel therapeutic technique) is false. It is essentially impossible
to prove a universal negative, so this tactic incorrectly places the
burden of proof on the skeptic rather than the claimant.[43]
* Appeals to holism as opposed to reductionism: Proponents of
pseudoscientific claims, especially in organic medicine, alternative
medicine, naturopathy and mental health, often resort to the "mantra of
holism" to explain negative findings.[44]

[edit] Lack of openness to testing by other experts

* Evasion of peer review before publicizing results (called
"science by press conference").[45] Some proponents of theories that
contradict accepted scientific theories avoid subjecting their ideas to
peer review, sometimes on the grounds that peer review is biased towards
established paradigms, and sometimes on the grounds that assertions
cannot be evaluated adequately using standard scientific methods. By
remaining insulated from the peer review process, these proponents forgo
the opportunity of corrective feedback from informed colleagues.[46]
* Some agencies, institutions, and publications that fund
scientific research require authors to share data so that others can
evaluate a paper independently. Failure to provide adequate information
for other researchers to reproduce the claims contributes to a lack of
openness.[47]
* Assertion of claims of secrecy or proprietary knowledge in
response to requests for review of data or methodology.[47]

[edit] Absence of progress

* Failure to progress towards additional evidence of its
claims.[48] Terence Hines has identified astrology as a subject that has
changed very little in the past two millennia.[49] (see also: Scientific
progress)
* Lack of self correction: scientific research programmes make
mistakes, but they tend to eliminate these errors over time.[50] By
contrast, theories may be accused of being pseudoscientific because they
have remained unaltered despite contradictory evidence. The work
Scientists Confront Velikovsky (1976) Cornell University, also delves
into these features in some detail, as does the work of Thomas Kuhn,
e.g. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) which also discusses
some of the items on the list of characteristics of pseudoscience.

[edit] Personalization of issues

* Tight social groups and granfalloons, authoritarian personality,
suppression of dissent and groupthink can enhance the adoption of
beliefs that have no rational basis. In attempting to confirm their
beliefs, the group tends to identify their critics as enemies.[51]
* Assertion of claims of a conspiracy on the part of the scientific
community to suppress the results.[52]
* Attacking the motives or character of anyone who questions the
claims (see Ad hominem fallacy).[51]

[edit] Use of misleading language

* Creating scientific-sounding terms in order to add weight to
claims and persuade non-experts to believe statements that may be false
or meaningless. For example, a long-standing hoax refers to water as
dihydrogen monoxide (DHMO) and describes it as the main constituent in
most poisonous solutions to show how easily the general public can be
misled.
* Using established terms in idiosyncratic ways, thereby
demonstrating unfamiliarity with mainstream work in the discipline.