All Scientists are Sceptics ~Professor Bob Carter

Whenever someone asserts that a scientific question is “settled,” they tell me immediately that they don’t understand the first thing about science. Science is never settled. Dr David Deming

Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of the science of climate change is the lack of any real substance in attempts to justify the hypothesis ~Professor Stewart Franks

A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at:
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at:
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at:

Friday, 30 May 2014

Can Alarmists learn the truth about the falsified AGW hoax?

A respondent (let's call him "Jay") on a Climate Change Discussion forum has questioned some of this blog's positions.

The first was why do we use the pejorative (my word, not his) term Global Warming Nazis, a term first coined by Roy Spencer:

They indirectly equate (1) the skeptics’ view that global warming is not necessarily all manmade nor a serious problem, with (2) the denial that the Nazi’s extermination of millions of Jews ever happened. 
Too many of us for too long have ignored the repulsive, extremist nature of the comparison. It’s time to push back. 
I’m now going to start calling these people “global warming Nazis”.
Next, for some strange reason, he mentions the multi-flawed 97% myth.
I find the ethics of the argument against the 97% based on an economic argument. And you can claim the percentage hogwash but its a fact that there have been on 3 papers that countered the findings that have been peer reviewed.
Economic? Check the numbers, Jay. It's numeric. First, you have a flawed paper by

Dorian and Zimmerman which asked a stupid question
When compared with pre-1800s levels do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen or remain relatively constant?
A follow up study found that
'the phrasing is so poor' that 'the entire study' is 'flawed
In fact, the final figures came down to 79, and 77 agreed with the proposition. Why 2 did not agree is anyone guess, but 77 out of 79= 97%.

The other two papers are equally flawed. Cook et al's 97.1% morphed into 0.3% when his data was checked. Not a good number, wouldn't you agree, Jay?  And it was done scientifically.

See here, here, here, here, here, here, here, etc, etc, etc

And then Jay drags out the funded by BigOil idiocy. Hey, BigOil, the bank account details are at the top of the page! Send it down, baby.
Where as I find the once (sic) who claim science skepticism getting funding from oil and energy interests. 
Do you know, Jay, that BigOil funds the Alarmists?  See Jo Nova's facts here. See also: Skeptics are funded by Big Oil? NO, the Alarmists are.  Yet, the alarmists keep pushing the lie.

Hey, Jay, "who claim science skepticism?" I take it that this means "those who are sceptical of the falsified AGW hypothesis. We believe in real science, real world observational data and not in projections from flawed global warming models. (GCMs)

Jay, look at the science, not at economics or some other sidetrack. The real science of observational data.

The data that show no significant rise in temperature this century while the falsely accused (vital-to-life) atmospheric carbon dioxide thankfully keeps rising.


No comments:

Post a Comment

All serious comments published after moderation.
Comments should be polite, and respect all views.
No bad language. Spam never makes it!