Cameron Slater thinks he is being stalked by global warming religionists.
Whale bleats: ”Global Warming … have taken upon themselves to try to “convert” me to their religion of snake-oil and false deities who spout inconvenient truths that are actually proven lies.”
They’re wasting their breath. One thing’s for sure; Whale is likely to keep yelling “black is white” till his dying day. The best that one can expect is to put on record that Whale is wrong.
Hockey stick as ‘snake oil’
Whale’s ‘snake oil’ link refers to the now-famous ‘hockey stick’ graph about paleoclimate. The “hockey stick” model created by Mann &et al in 1998 is not ‘snake oil. There is a continuing scrap over that single study, published in 1998, started by economist (note: not a scientist) Ross McKitrick and mining industry shill Steven McIntyre (M&M). Numerous other papers debunk M&M’s rejection of the Mann hypothetis.
If anyone feels the original ‘hockey stick’ study may be tainted, simply ignore it. But don’t ignore the numerous other temperature reconstructions that come to similar conclusions. Although they tend to show more variability than the original hockey stick (their sticks are not as straight), they all support the general conclusions the IPCC Third Assessment Report presented in 2001. The essence of those conclusions:
- late 20th century warming is anomalous compared to the last one or two thousand years,
- the 1990s were likely warmer than any other time in that period (including the medieival warm period).
Twitter – bombing.
Whale: I have been bombarded [by Tweets] … blah blah blah …”
No you haven’t. You’re following their posts. They aren’t bombarding you; you’re sucking up their tweets. If you don’t like it, un-follow them.
Sad certainty in pathetic denial
Whale bleats: “…in response to empirical data that shows the opposite of what they believe and “ The evidence is very clear for anyone who actually wants to look at it and understand it. If 30,000 don’t, too bad.” in response to evidence of more than 30,000 scientists who aren’t in agreement with “consensus.”
*sigh*.
- Jennifer Marohasy – subject of the first link to evidence. Marohasy’s scientific background is in biology. I grant that’s a science, but it’s not exactly an ideal foundation for authoritative pronouncements on climate change. Is it? She used to work for the sugar cane industry, which is interested in people believing AGW is untrue. Also, her current context is that she’s a shill for a herd-right-wing think tank (Australia’s Institute of Public Affairs) , which keeps its funding sources highly secret. Who would believe that she’s unbiased? Be honest.
- The Oregon Petition – the subject of second two links to support denial. Oh. Dear. It is a massive fraud. The Oregon Petition is a project by biochemist Arthur B. Robinson, head of the tiny (ie, one-man operation), industry funded so-called Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (see http://tinyurl.com/qxyz9). But don’t believe me or other people of my ilk; believe the Skeptics Society: http://tinyurl.com/8zvbso. Most of the names on the list (of those that are legit) date back to 1998, in some cases to the early 90s. Like there’s been no updates in the science in the past ten years?
Science and proof
Whale: “Two things is for sure [sic], the science is most definately [sic] not settled and there is no such thing as scientific consensus when it comes to the new religion called Climate Change.”
Whale, my little cetaecean comrade, science is never settled. That’s the thing about science. Policy can be settled. Decisions can be settled. Court cases can be settled. Babies can be settled.
True scientists WILL admit to being wrong, if they find evidence that contradicts their findings. That’s what it is to be a scientist; all of your conclusions have to be deniable, otherwise you aren’t doing science. If you are saying absolutely that your position is totally certain (isn’t that your position?) then you are either doing mathematics or promoting an idealogy. Which is it for Cameron and the other denial wingnuts? Clue: not many of them are mathematicians.
It’s interesting that there are very very few scientific papers emerging in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Why do you think papers challenging the climate cange hypothesis are:
- rare as hens’ teeth in peeer reviewed scientific journals and
- quite common on self-published websites, right-wing non-scientific journals and corporate-sponsored propaganda? LOL!
I was Twitter bombed…Those weren’t random tweets they were directed to @whaleoil specifically, in fact @juhasarinen specifically sent a link to me to read
Who decides that someone is biased or a shill. Mann is most assuredly biased and a shill by your definition because of the millions he receives for continuing his falsification of data.
Labelling someone a shill doesn’t negate that she has published the data form the buoys that show that sea temperature has in fact dropped. Attack the data Harpoon don’t attack the person.
Only in your mind is the Oregan Petition a fraud. The fact remains that more than 32,000 scientists HAVE signed it. More than enough to contend that there isn’t a consensus.
Regarding shills. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill. “A shill is an associate of a person selling goods or services or a political group, who pretends no association to the seller/group and assumes the air of an enthusiastic customer. The intention of the shill is, using crowd psychology, to encourage others unaware of the set-up to purchase said goods or services or support the political group’s ideological claims.”
Regarding the ocean temperature data. Why the heck does anyone think that (a) data from a fraction of the 3000 buoys is statistically significant enough, and (b) indication of a long-term cooling in the oceans? What’s more, the analysis is published in the ‘Energy and Environment’ journal, which is NOT a peer reviewed scientific journal. It is peer reviewed but by sociologists, and is a bolt-hole for AGW cynics whose papers don’t cut the scientific mustard.
Re the oregon petition. Do some reading about it for yourself. The ’32,000 scientists’ figure is:
– doubtful on the number.
– doubtful on them all being scientists
– doubtful on the remainder being relevantly qualified
– ten years old