Global Warming Denialism at the New York Times

_{Barry Arrington

September 6, 2016

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Who knew?

From Jan. 25, 1989:

After examining climate data extending back nearly 100 years, a team of Government scientists has concluded that there has been no significant change in average temperatures or rainfall in the United States over that entire period.

Of course, this is before those same scientists began cooking the books in the service of expanding government power.

Comments

gratuitous insult
I guess you bags of meat don't get that I find the Global Warming propaganda that I've had to endure for 20 years offensive. Andrewasauber_{September 11, 2016
September
09
Sep
11
11
2016
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PDT}

Andrew: The climate can’t be fooled. However, a progwashed bag of meat can easily be. Andrew Funny thinking exactly the same thing except for the gratuitous insultvelikovskys_{September 11, 2016
September
09
Sep
11
11
2016
12:14 PM
12
12
14
PM
PDT}

wd400: No good deed goes unpunished!PaV_{September 11, 2016
September
09
Sep
11
11
2016
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PDT}

Seems the hoax even fooled the climate
The climate can't be fooled. However, a progwashed bag of meat can easily be. Andrewasauber_{September 11, 2016
September
09
Sep
11
11
2016
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PDT}

taking this two complimentary perspectives into consideration, AGW is clearly seen for what it truly is: the greatest scientific hoax in history.
. I find this very offensive. Us evolutionary biologists having been hoaxing so hard for so long, and even here we are being rated behind the climate folks!wd400_{September 10, 2016
September
09
Sep
10
10
2016
11:33 PM
11
11
33
PM
PDT}

pav:Taking this two complimentary perspectives into consideration, AGW is clearly seen for what it truly is: the greatest scientific hoax in history. Seems the hoax even fooled the climate into record setting warmth.velikovskys_{September 10, 2016
September
09
Sep
10
10
2016
09:59 PM
9
09
59
PM
PDT}

wd400:
It should be obvious that the results they reported were not at odds with the modern understanding of climate science.
No, they're not "at odds" with the modern understanding of climate science; just ignored.
If you’re un-cited physicist really does think the greenhouse effect is at odds with conservation of energy he’s wrong.
Here's the essay: Watts Up With That. I think his argument is rather straightforward and compelling. Hansen used what is called Bode's formula, which applies to electronic systems. White shows how electronic systems and climate systems are not the same, and cannot be compared. Two years ago, IIRC, there was a simple climate model based on a very different electronic feedback rule, one that found applications elsewhere outside of electronics. It was able to match recorded temperatures over the last twenty years. Taking this two complimentary perspectives into consideration, AGW is clearly seen for what it truly is: the greatest scientific hoax in history.PaV_{September 10, 2016
September
09
Sep
10
10
2016
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PDT}

Of course, this is before those same scientists began cooking the books in the service of expanding government power.
Is there something in the article that's at odds with what current believers in global warming claim? (It's certainly not in the quoted portion. That the US lagged behind most of the rest of the world in experiencing significant warming is well established. The US didn't begin warming until the late 90s. If that is global warming denialism, then I guess everyone is a global warming denialist.)goodusername_{September 10, 2016
September
09
Sep
10
10
2016
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT}

pav, I think you probably wasted more time talking about something you literally hadn't read, but ok. It should be obvious that the results they reported were not at odds with the modern understanding of climate science. If you're un-cited physicist really does think the greenhouse effect is at odds with conservation of energy he's wrong. Asauber, If you read the thread you'll it was Andre that lead it away from climate data and science into Bob's mental states. bb, Climate is certainly complex, but that doesn't prevent single variables having a large effect on a particular change or trend in climate. If you doubt this, ask yourself why summer are reliably warmer than winters...wd400_{September 10, 2016
September
09
Sep
10
10
2016
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT}

wd400: I've read the article. I was hoping not to have to waste my time reading it; but, now, I've had to. And, yes, it was a big waste of time, thank you. Is your trifling point the difference between a 'study' and what scientists think? And that the 'study' can stand and scientists can continue to think whatever they like? Well, yes. That's what unfortunately happens too often these days when 'ideological' purity is required. Facts simply become inconvenient, and are then rationalized away. The Devil is a liar. God is truth. When the world abandons God, then it abandons the truth. This is what we see more and more. As to AGW, I read a new critique by a scientist who was addressing the 'forcing' of temperature that CO2 supposedly causes. He points out that this premise, used by James Hansen, who is mentioned in the above 1989 article, violates the principle of Conservation of Energy. Uh oh. That's not good. But why let something like that deflect us from spending hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars on a fanciful crisis? All those corporations receiving this government handout will gladly help out the elected officials that helped pave the way for this great largesse they've received. Meanwhile, let the peasants "eat cake."PaV_{September 10, 2016
September
09
Sep
10
10
2016
09:19 AM
9
09
19
AM
PDT}

you might think of refugees coming out of Syria
In a thread about climate data, its not the first thing that comes to mind. Thinking about climate data would seem more appropriate. Andrewasauber_{September 10, 2016
September
09
Sep
10
10
2016
06:47 AM
6
06
47
AM
PDT}

I feel suffering is a bad thing. that would still be true of anthropogenic climate change wasn’t happening
Why bring up a personal impulse that's admittedly irrelevant to the subject being discussed? Please, materialists, if you are going to invoke science as some kind of authority, please stick to discussing science. Andrewasauber_{September 10, 2016
September
09
Sep
10
10
2016
05:55 AM
5
05
55
AM
PDT}

Bob: To bring it back to the OP, it’s clear to me that Barry’s argument is fallacious – he conflates the US with the world, The scientists in the article make the same point.velikovskys_{September 10, 2016
September
09
Sep
10
10
2016
05:31 AM
5
05
31
AM
PDT}

bb:I don’t have the means to collect the data myself and don’t have the faith to trust the irrational, and cherry-picked, claims of a modern, so far gulag-free, Lysenkoism. Whether it’s a coming ice age, or warming, there is no credibility on your side. The link you provided used that data , you seem able to use the data when it suits your purposes. What is a hiatus without data? It’s a single-factor theory about a multi-factor world, as Dr. Sowell so concisely put. It doesn’t work Actually it is not a single factor,the climate is complex. . It’s too simplistic, like all political manipulation schemes. We’ll all die under a global, socialist dictator before the unsubstantiated and trumped up fears of AGW materialize. Sorry, if all data is invalid, you have no way to objectively judge whether you are the one being manipulated. But I agree that most of us will be dead before the full affect of Climate Change would occur.velikovskys_{September 10, 2016
September
09
Sep
10
10
2016
05:27 AM
5
05
27
AM
PDT}

That’s something we experience everyday, v. From recipes to space shuttles to synthetic elements. It all begins with an immaterial thought. In that way we are in God’s image. Perhaps,then it seems chemical ingestion should have no effect on thought production Not able to create ex-nihilo, but able to create something new, immaterially conceived and brought into being with existing matter that would never self-organize into what was imagined. True , but the problem for me still remains, the immaterial is able to interact with the material , how?velikovskys_{September 10, 2016
September
09
Sep
10
10
2016
04:58 AM
4
04
58
AM
PDT}

asauber - you might think of refugees coming out of Syria (for example) as hypothetical. But I think they actually exist.
The point being you seem to think your personal impulses are an important component of your belief in imaginary Global Warming.
Huh? this doesn't follow from my argument (from 44 on), which was about why I feel suffering is a bad thing. that would still be true of anthropogenic climate change wasn't happening. Of course, "the point" is trivially true that my personal impulses are an important component of my belief in things - that's true for anyone, surely? How could it be otherwise? Of course, that's not the only component - for climate change (for example) there is also a lot of judgment over whether the evidence and arguments makes sense. To bring it back to the OP, it's clear to me that Barry's argument is fallacious - he conflates the US with the world, and then makes a political accusation for which I dont think there is any credible evidence.Bob O'H_{September 10, 2016
September
09
Sep
10
10
2016
04:34 AM
4
04
34
AM
PDT}

"Do it yourself ,get a graph of global temps and a ruler. Best fit to the data. " I don't have the means to collect the data myself and don't have the faith to trust the irrational, and cherry-picked, claims of a modern, so far gulag-free, Lysenkoism. Whether it's a coming ice age, or warming, there is no credibility on your side. It's a single-factor theory about a multi-factor world, as Dr. Sowell so concisely put. It doesn't work. It's too simplistic, like all political manipulation schemes. We'll all die under a global, socialist dictator before the unsubstantiated and trumped up fears of AGW materialize. I know I'll never convince you. You're too religious, and your religion is incoherent. Good-bye v. I'm done with this thread.bb_{September 9, 2016
September
09
Sep
9
09
2016
06:30 PM
6
06
30
PM
PDT}

"But immaterial processes are able to create material?" That's something we experience everyday, v. From recipes to space shuttles to synthetic elements. It all begins with an immaterial thought. In that way we are in God's image. Not able to create ex-nihilo, but able to create something new, immaterially conceived and brought into being with existing matter that would never self-organize into what was imagined.bb_{September 9, 2016
September
09
Sep
9
09
2016
06:02 PM
6
06
02
PM
PDT}

I’m afraid I don’t understand your question. I was making a general point.
Bob, I guess you just aren't very smart. So you have occasional sympathy for hypothetical people suffering from something you can't articulate. The point being you seem to think your personal impulses are an important component of your belief in imaginary Global Warming. It ain't science, though. Duh. Andrewasauber_{September 9, 2016
September
09
Sep
9
09
2016
05:12 PM
5
05
12
PM
PDT}

bb:link I'll look at itvelikovskys_{September 9, 2016
September
09
Sep
9
09
2016
01:27 PM
1
01
27
PM
PDT}

bb, : That’s bunk v. For every bit of propaganda you want to put up to support this claim, I can find research to counter it. Do it yourself ,get a graph of global temps and a ruler. Best fit to the data. So how does one know which side is right? It isn’t the side supported by the power-grabbing, socialist politicians that seek to shut down debate. It isn’t the one dishonestly invoking a mythical “consensus” as if it meant something. Maybe less jargon is a start, all politicians no matter which side are power-grabbing . If you think otherwise, you believe what your side says no matter what. Mythical, any evidence? Consensus, if the reason people belief something is because it is the consensus ,then I agree with you that provisional belief is less supported, if at all. However, if a large majority of specialized group has been led to the same conclusion thru various methodologies , then that provisional belief is supported by the expertise of that group, not because it is the consensus. In that case it does matter it is the consensus.velikovskys_{September 9, 2016
September
09
Sep
9
09
2016
12:34 PM
12
12
34
PM
PDT}

You don’t have to be an expert to know that material processes are incapable of creating anything non material… Empathy is not material Bob just like logic, reason and morality… Material processes can only work with material Bob….. But immaterial processes are able to create material?velikovskys_{September 9, 2016
September
09
Sep
9
09
2016
12:01 PM
12
12
01
PM
PDT}

Bob O'H You don't have to be an expert to know that material processes are incapable of creating anything non material... Empathy is not material Bob just like logic, reason and morality... Material processes can only work with material Bob.....Andre_{September 9, 2016
September
09
Sep
9
09
2016
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT}

The hiatus never existed , it required a cherry picked start date. Pick the year before or the year after as a start date and the hiatus disappears.
That's bunk v. For every bit of propaganda you want to put up to support this claim, I can find research to counter it. So how does one know which side is right? It isn't the side supported by the power-grabbing, socialist politicians that seek to shut down debate. It isn't the one dishonestly invoking a mythical "consensus" as if it meant something.
It has been claimed that the early-2000s global warming slowdown or hiatus, characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming, has been overstated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is unsupported by observations. The evidence presented here contradicts these claims.
This one has a pay wall: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n3/full/nclimate2938.html?WT.ec_id=NCLIMATE-201603&spMailingID=50767823&spUserID=MTI0NzgyNDMwMjA2S0&spJobID=862987827&spReportId=ODYyOTg3ODI3S0 This one doesn't: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/24/new-paper-shows-global-warming-hiatus-real-after-all/bb_{September 9, 2016
September
09
Sep
9
09
2016
07:52 AM
7
07
52
AM
PDT}

Andre - I'm not aware of any reason why it shouldn't have evolved, but the hows and whys are not something I would know enough to comment on. It's not my area of expertise. Sorry.Bob O'H_{September 9, 2016
September
09
Sep
9
09
2016
06:56 AM
6
06
56
AM
PDT}

Bob O'H So where does empathy come from Bob? Did it evolve?Andre_{September 9, 2016
September
09
Sep
9
09
2016
02:42 AM
2
02
42
AM
PDT}

asauber @65 - I'm afraid I don't understand your question. I was making a general point. I hope it's obvious that people suffer from all sorts of things (I think Pindi is suffering from reading this thread). Andre @ 67 - I try to have empathy, sometimes I fail of course (I'm only human, after all). I'm not sure why you ask what meaning empathy has for me. Its part of who I am as a person. Pidi @ 68 - it will not surprise you to learn that I'm sympathetic.Bob O'H_{September 9, 2016
September
09
Sep
9
09
2016
01:33 AM
1
01
33
AM
PDT}

Hi asauber and Andre, I don't know about Bob, but I am starting to suffer from severe boredom at your inane questions.Pindi_{September 8, 2016
September
09
Sep
8
08
2016
08:30 PM
8
08
30
PM
PDT}

Bob O'H So do you have empathy with other or are you trying to have empathy? I am confused? What meaning does empathy have then for you? And if you don't like them suffering what exactly is it that you would do to aleviate their supposed suffering?Andre_{September 8, 2016
September
09
Sep
8
08
2016
08:04 PM
8
08
04
PM
PDT}

bb :No it hasn’t. It has been slowed back to statistical insignificance since 1998. Big deal. Climate does that. Nothing world ending about it. Especially when you remember the plethora of failed predictions. I mean, we were just missing the “coming anthropogenic ice age” of the ’70’s and it had the same cause and identical promises of doom and gloom. The hiatus never existed , it required a cherry picked start date. Pick the year before or the year after as a start date and the hiatus disappears. The sixteen warmest years from 1880- 2015 includes every year from 2001- 2015. Global monthly temperatures have set all time highs for the last 15 consecutive months thru July 2016. It is true some scientists predicted cooling based on the a high levels of particles being emitted into the atmosphere, but since the 70's we have decreased the levels by pollution controls. But those prediction were not universal, many scientists believed that warming was happening, somewhat masked by the particles. Those scientist's predictions have not failed.velikovskys_{September 8, 2016
September
09
Sep
8
08
2016
03:23 PM
3
03
23
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply