Global Warming HOAX Unravels

a reply to: the2ofusr1

I think that there are some people and institutions that used Michael Mann's hockey stick graph .Does that make those that have, questionable or loose confidence in ?

If a graph is debunked and afterwards it is regurgitated then it does make one lose confidence in the source using it.

Back to the point, My question was why should I believe James Corbett. If the best reason you can offer is that Corbett's reporting always had links to the sources he uses then I am not interested. His reporting would only be as good as his sources.

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Grimpachi


Its the missing heat that is the big question mark that the models can not make cognitive .

Local endothermic dark matter.

a reply to: Grimpachi

My question was why should I believe James Corbett

Nothing says you should believe anybody . I have self doubts about what I personally believe about me .Maybe it's more about how confident can a person be about anything . People go for many years believing their parents gave birth to them only to find out that they were switched at the hospital or they were adopted. a sample of the way he thinks and speaks

a reply to: the2ofusr1

I only wanted to know if there was a good reason to watch his videos. I am not trying to be rude, but I don't see that there is a good reason. I am not interested in his opinion on those matters. I rarely watch youtube videos, most of the ones I do watch are informational and I like them to be factual. The guy used a debunked graph which means he either intentionally or mistakenly used a bad source and I have no interest in checking sources of his claims for accuracy.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: the2ofusr1

I only wanted to know if there was a good reason to watch his videos. I am not trying to be rude, but I don't see that there is a good reason. I am not interested in his opinion on those matters. I rarely watch youtube videos, most of the ones I do watch are informational and I like them to be factual. The guy used a debunked graph which means he either intentionally or mistakenly used a bad source and I have no interest in checking sources of his claims for accuracy.

Well people seem to fanatically source an Australian psychology student (skepticalscience) as their authority on debunking climate deniers and such. If skeptical science is the source which you believe is debunking claims, you may want to go make sure you understand how NASA and the NOAA justify their filters.

Corbett is usually better at following the 'influence' or 'power' trail than interpreting science. He does good research on whisteblowers and reading through primary source documents from groups like the Club of Rome and political actors like (insert any P.O.S. American politician here).

In the end you have to decide what you believe, just thought I would drop a line on Corbett.

-FBB

If I had known there would be so much fuss over me asking why I should believe James Corbett I wouldn't have asked and simply moved on.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
If I had known there would be so much fuss over me asking why I should believe James Corbett I wouldn't have asked and simply moved on.

I've been there...

Over time I've learned to only let it get to me to a certain point, after that I walk away for a while.

You and I don't even have to agree on the OP in order for me to relate. Deep breaths help [Big Grin]. If we could all come to an agreement here ATS and fix all this, just think how smart everyone else would think we are. Shame it can't happen...

It's gonna play out how it plays out regardless of any us!

a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

He's not even a scientist bro. He is a political scientist...

John Cooke is an actual acientist. Physics was his masters. His doctorates is psychology, but he has a bachelor's and masters in physics.

Sorry I'm only 20 pages in, I know I'm lazy, but anyway - both sides to this debate are excellent at providing what they consider to be strong evidence that their stance is Right, but it's not been terribly effective, I think we can all agree. Perhaps it's been useful to some of us lurkers, but that's hard to say.

However - in the spirit of Science - I think it would be tremendously useful if both sides could clearly state what they consider to be evidence/proof that their stance is Wrong. And then to shift the argument to those specific lines of evidence. I'm just not sure of any other way to make this debate go anywhere.

Personally, I've been 100% comfortable being a fence-sitter on this one. It's too big, too many variables, that forming a strong opinion on either side seems dangerously naive. What's with the need for a strong stance? Is there a gun to your head making you impulsive and stupid? Your emotions are destroying what could have been an amazing debate filled with all the nerdy details and variables that form the dynamics of this amazing world.

Those James Corbett videos seem compelling to me, though I really don't know. He's the best journalist out there IMO, with absolutely must-see material on a wide range of topics, but his strong opinion on GW always bugged me a little.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

He's not even a scientist bro. He is a political scientist...

John Cooke is an actual acientist. Physics was his masters. His doctorates is psychology, but he has a bachelor's and masters in physics.

So, explain exactly how much of the actual science you are debating?

Exactly, you have been engaging in the political rhetoric of a courtroom where you provide "expert" witnesses to make the case for the outcome you desire.

I explicitly stated he was not a scientist and that Corbett was a journalist.

Also, where did you discover that Mr. Cook earned their Master's degree in? It certainly is NOT on the information page of skepitcalscience.

-FBB

//edit
As I understand Cook earned a BS in physics in 1989, then operated a web comic from 1995-2010.

To say that he is an actual scientist conducting research is not an honest statement in regards to climate change.

//edit

a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

You've obviously never read any of my posts. I'm an actual scientist and have posted more scientific peer reviewed papers than anyone else :-)

It seems obvious you don't even know where I stand on this issue.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

You've obviously never read any of my posts. I'm an actual scientist and have posted more scientific peer reviewed papers than anyone else :-)

It seems obvious you don't even know where I stand on this issue.

Sorry man, perhaps it just the mathematician in me, but' Are you aware of the probabilities of your statement above being true? Seriously...probability is not your friend here. Maybe you could back that up with something tangible.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

You've obviously never read any of my posts. I'm an actual scientist and have posted more scientific peer reviewed papers than anyone else :-)

It seems obvious you don't even know where I stand on this issue.

General linking to sources is not something I consider in regards to gauging understanding of whatever branch of 'science' you practice.

I don't know anyone involved in research or development that tells people they are an "actual scientist." The only people that I have seen do that are usually the same people saying things like 'I am going to science this.' I may only be completing an engineering (EE) degree (which counts as a masters for some strange reason as my previous BS was consumer science which is just psychology and math), but I tutor a large number of budding physics students (mostly climate as that group seems to struggle greatly in that area) and participate as a research assistant for studies on EM wave applications.

Inter-discipline studies are extremely useful for gauging what pressures outside of pure scientific inquiry may affect the perception and conclusions of the studies.

If you discovered that every single member of a research paper was a member of the Galton Institute you may at first think they are math junkies without realizing that they are actually members of a eugenics organization and miss the cultural influences that affect their world view and thus direction of study.

Most of the academics I talk to about climate activism have no idea who Maurice Strong was, let alone of any of the sketchy activities he was involved in. Hell a lot of them didn't know that a transportation engineer was in running the IPCC.

So my point, in conclusion is that even if you consider yourself competent on the issue, the information provided by those like Corbett shines a light on areas you may have overlooked.

-FBB

a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

So you will have an engineering degree and don't even have reading comprehension? Where did I disagree with points corbett has made? You used him as a source while claiming Cook only had a psychology degree...I pointed out your error.

You didn't research well enough. Cook's post graduate honors degree (equivalent of masters when progressing to PHD) is in Solar Physics.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

So you will have an engineering degree and don't even have reading comprehension? Where did I disagree with points corbett has made? You used him as a source while claiming Cook only had a psychology degree...I pointed out your error.

No . . . I said he is pursuing a PhD in psychology, he is not a climate scientist and his physics degree is from 1989 (nearly 30 years ago).

The only research done by Cook is a meta analysis of published climate research, he was a web master for almost twenty years before returning study psychology.

You claimed Cook has a Master's in physics and engages in actual "science" and never provided evidence for your claim that he has such qualifications.

Where did I say that Cook only had a psychology degree?

-FBB

a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

I linked the post where you chose to ignore his scientific degree, and I added in an update of my last post to include his post graduate degree. If you want to act like you didn't just call him "a psychology student" then you are dishonest.

I also now know you are also full of it about being on your way to an engineering degree. One does not discount the education of a fellow based on when they graduated. Many of your professors no doubt obtained their degree during the same time period.

You also seem to be ignorant on what qualifies someone as a scientist.

Edit: here is your post in question since you have a short memory.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I think it's quite hilarious you think I'm playing "courtroom rhetoric". You still haven't put in the effort to check my post history to see my stance.

I used to be shocked at the facial expression I got when someone wanting to argue this issue found out that the IPCC is NOT a conglomerate of scientists. Over time I've come to accept that the amount of enthusiastic argument is almost proportional to the lack of effort to self-educate on this topic.

For instance:
Christmas Eve 1955 Was Much Warmer

To the best of my knowledge this hasn't been linked to at ATS yet, so I thought I'd put it up. There is a lot of good information in here but, as always, weigh it against what you already know and then make up your own mind. Enjoy!

The Great Global Warming Swindle Full Movie

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

I linked the post where you chose to ignore his scientific degree, and I added in an update of my last post to include his post graduate degree. If you want to act like you didn't just call him "a psychology student" then you are dishonest.

I also now know you are also full of it about being on your way to an engineering degree. One does not discount the education of a fellow based on when they graduated. Many of your professors no doubt obtained their degree during the same time period.

You also seem to be ignorant on what qualifies someone as a scientist.

Edit: here is your post in question since you have a short memory.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I think it's quite hilarious you think I'm playing "courtroom rhetoric". You still haven't put in the effort to check my post history to see my stance.

He is a psychology student . . . post-graduate student . . . of psychology . . .

You still have not linked to the verification of your claim that he has a Master's in physics.

As to the rest of what you have to say, enjoy your opinions.

-FBB

//edit
From what I gather from the web Australia offers 6 month to 24 month masters programs. It seems he pursued a 12 month curriculum and decided to work in IT as an independent web master following his studies.

I will agree to that, I am more used to the lengthy programs from my university. It is nice to know that I would have earned a Msc in Australia with the coursework I completed last semester.
//edit

a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

Yes, and you intentionally left off his scientific degree to indicate he didn't have a leg to stand on because he was "just a psychology student". It's a logical fallacy. Don't be like that, it's unbecoming. There are plenty of ways to argue the facts without resorting to tricks of the type.

Looking and trying to understand just what is going on (not with the weather or climate) but with the said scientist trying to settle the issue is the real story ,..for me anyway . I think its a battle between humility and arrogance . It surely couldn't be knowledge could it ? I mean its the 21st century after-all .....

Limits of Knowledge: On a philosophical level (in the mid-1800s what is now called science was often called natural philosophy), and for a different purpose, writing in American Thinker, physicist Thomas Sheahen briefly reviews the great strides science made over the past century, including recognizing the limits to scientific knowledge. He writes:

“We have indeed come a long way over a century, and physicists, chemists and biologists know a lot more than in the past. But the most important thing a physicist learns is about the limits of our knowledge. There are things that scientists do not know and we can be sure that we are not going to know these things via science – human knowledge comes with limitations. One major advance of 20th century science was Quantum Mechanics, which includes the Uncertainty Principle, which sets a limit on how well you can possibly know extremely simple things, like where something is or how fast it’s moving.”

Perhaps it is the false assertions of certainty used by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the entities that rely on it, such as the UNFCCC, that motivates many skeptics of the claims that human emissions of CO2 are causing unprecedented and dangerous global warming/climate change. Certainly, claims that CO2 is the control knob of the earth’s temperatures, as made by Gavin Schmidt and his colleagues at NASA-GISS, is without scientific justification to those who have studied the large variations of the earth’s temperatures, with past warming and cooling periods.

Sheahen mentions the important philosophical step, the abandonment of determinism, that followed the abandonment of 19th Newtonian mechanics in the early part of the 20th century. Some global warming skeptics may consider the use of long-term projections from un-validated global climate models to be little more than a return of 19th century determinism, using 21st century technology. As Sheahen writes:

“We gradually realized that our viewpoint is terribly limited – that we can only grasp a small fraction of reality. It was a big dose of humility for scientists, but it was necessary. We understand now that there is a big difference between the very little human mind and ‘the intelligence capable of grasping the whole of truth and knowledge.”

The limits to knowledge need to be more fully explored and understood.

wattsupwiththat.com...


A recent piece seems to me to illiterate the back and forth and what we and they may be missing .

A recent exchange in the Boston Globe clearly illustrated the sophistic nature of the defense of global warming alarm.

In the December 3, 2015 edition of the Boston Globe, the distinguished physicist, Freeman Dyson, had on op-ed, “Misunderstandings, questionable beliefs mar Paris climate talks.” His main point, stated immediately, is that any agreement reached in these talks would “likely do more harm than good.” In an otherwise, thoughtful commentary, however, Dyson begins with a common error. He attributes the basis for climate alarm to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

For reasons that I will address shortly, this is an entirely understandable error. Dyson’s description of the IPCC position is

Guest essay by Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT wattsupwiththat.com... warming-alarm/