MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus:         Newsletters 
Thursday, December 18, 2014 |  Madison, WI: 26.0° F  Light Snow
Collapse Photo Bar

Klimate Kooks Kaught

Races for the Senate, U.S. House, etc. and other issues of national importance.

Re: Klimate Kooks Kaught

Postby mrak » Mon Dec 07, 2009 2:19 pm

fisticuffs wrote:Ned is just a drive by spambot who isn't contributing in any way to any discussion on this board. He should be removed.

Of course, you're under no obligation to lavish so much time and attention on such an obvious troll.
mrak
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2393
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2004 2:26 pm

Re: Klimate Kooks Kaught

Postby ilikebeans » Mon Dec 07, 2009 2:29 pm

Ned Flanders wrote:What part of "raw data" don't you understand Dorothy? Anyone can make a pretty chart using doctored data....

Tell you what, Peanut-- we'll all wait while you find "raw" data that meets your approval. Go ahead. We'll be riiight here.
ilikebeans
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2867
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2007 2:23 am

Re: Klimate Kooks Kaught

Postby Ned Flanders » Mon Dec 07, 2009 2:39 pm

It's not my job to "prove" anything. It's the job of "climate scientists". So far they've been shown to be so insecure about their "data" that they conspired to manipulate data and destroy any other scientists that dare question their "research".

Not very reassuring, huh?
Ned Flanders
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 13533
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2001 2:48 pm

Re: Klimate Kooks Kaught

Postby fisticuffs » Mon Dec 07, 2009 2:48 pm

It's not my job to "prove" anything.


Thanks god. Becasue you haven't. Ever. Only it IS your job to prove something. You bring up a subject and state your position you have something to prove.
fisticuffs
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 7855
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 2:49 pm
Location: Slightly outside of Madison

Re: Klimate Kooks Kaught

Postby DCB » Mon Dec 07, 2009 3:38 pm

Ned Flanders wrote:It's not my job to "prove" anything. It's the job of "climate scientists". So far they've been shown to be so insecure about their "data" that they conspired to manipulate data and destroy any other scientists that dare question their "research".

Not very reassuring, huh?


Translation:

"climate scientists" [in quotes] == Scientists with doctorates in climatology, meteorolgy, chemistry, physics.

'conspire' == "Have discussions at a level that I couldn't possibly understand".

'manipulate data' == "present data in a format intelligible to actual climate scientists"

'destroy other scientists' == "not publish articles lacking any scientific credibility"

ooh, so scary!
DCB
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2798
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 5:08 pm

Re: Klimate Kooks Kaught

Postby ilikebeans » Mon Dec 07, 2009 3:58 pm

Ned, we're still waiting on the "raw" climate data you approve of.
ilikebeans
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2867
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2007 2:23 am

Re: Klimate Kooks Kaught

Postby pjbogart » Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:16 pm

I think it's unfortunate that scientists were caught burying data to reinforce their case for global warming, but it's a bit ironic that the criticism is coming from people who bury data to reinforce their case against global warming. Isn't that why they were burying the data in the first place? "If we release this data the Oil industry lobbyists will simply use it to try to claim all of our other data is flawed, and let's face it, they bury any information that doesn't support their case anyway." Passionate scientists acting not-so-scientific, but they're up against people who have been acting not-so-scientific every step of the way.
pjbogart
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6188
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 4:57 pm

Re: Klimate Kooks Kaught

Postby DCB » Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:26 pm

ilikebeans wrote:Ned, we're still waiting on the "raw" climate data you approve of.


It was cold today! QED.
DCB
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2798
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 5:08 pm

Re: Klimate Kooks Kaught

Postby Galoot » Mon Dec 07, 2009 7:25 pm

Ned's committing two common logical fallacies here, which isn't surprising. The first is the fallacy of "poisoning the well"--claiming that because a small and insignificant group of climate scientists were possibly in error, that all climate science is therefore wrong.

The 2nd is shifting the goalposts--it is no longer sufficient to provide peer-reviewed scientific studies that show human-caused global climate change (and there are hundreds of such studies, if not thousands). He now insists on the raw data that these studies are based on, as if he is more qualified to sift through these data than the scientists themselves.

Two strikes and you're out, Neddie boy. The scientific case has already been made, and the burden of proof is on YOU if you want to try to challenge that scientific consensus.
Galoot
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1457
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 1:10 pm

Re: Klimate Kooks Kaught

Postby Madsci » Mon Dec 07, 2009 8:27 pm

Ned Flanders wrote:I'd like to see the raw data.



fisticuffs wrote:Unintelligible gibberish. Where does one begin?



Kopenhagen Klitoris Knocks Klimate
Madsci
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1053
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 7:47 pm

Re: Klimate Kooks Kaught

Postby pjbogart » Mon Dec 07, 2009 11:57 pm

Galoot wrote:Ned's committing two common logical fallacies here, which isn't surprising. The first is the fallacy of "poisoning the well"--claiming that because a small and insignificant group of climate scientists were possibly in error, that all climate science is therefore wrong.

The 2nd is shifting the goalposts--it is no longer sufficient to provide peer-reviewed scientific studies that show human-caused global climate change (and there are hundreds of such studies, if not thousands). He now insists on the raw data that these studies are based on, as if he is more qualified to sift through these data than the scientists themselves.

Two strikes and you're out, Neddie boy. The scientific case has already been made, and the burden of proof is on YOU if you want to try to challenge that scientific consensus.


I think those are both good points but let's remember that the argument isn't always won by the person who's right but rather by the person who more effectively employs their rhetorical skills, logical fallacies or otherwise. The goal of the industries isn't to prove that global warming is a hoax so much as to create enough doubt that fixing the problem, a painful and costly process, seems unnecessary if there are still questions as to the validity of the research. Yes, the actions of a few, ie "poisoning the well" is plenty of evidence to cast some doubt, especially if you have enough money to convince the media outlets to march to your orders.

The burden is on the global warming proponents. If they want to make the changes and spend the money, they need to defeat the global warming deniers in the court of public opinion. Proving that something is true is much more difficult than proving that it might be false.
pjbogart
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6188
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 4:57 pm

Re: Klimate Kooks Kaught

Postby Henry Vilas » Tue Dec 08, 2009 11:39 am

Raw data.

Happy reading, Ned.
Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 20258
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all

Re: Klimate Kooks Kaught

Postby cloudy » Tue Dec 08, 2009 1:13 pm

pjbogart wrote:... let's remember that the argument isn't always won by the person who's right but rather by the person who more effectively employs their rhetorical skills, logical fallacies or otherwise...The burden is on the global warming proponents. If they want to make the changes and spend the money, they need to defeat the global warming deniers in the court of public opinion.

We're talking about science here, objective truths, not "winning" some idiot pundit roundtable on cable teevee. So the value of scientific evidence is now reduced to the whims of our gong show public discourse? God help us.
cloudy
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 128
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 3:01 pm

Re: Klimate Kooks Kaught

Postby rabble » Tue Dec 08, 2009 1:47 pm

cloudy wrote:So the value of scientific evidence is now reduced to the whims of our gong show public discourse?

In this country, yes. We've been depending on memes and sound bytes for some time now.

cloudy wrote:God help us.

I am not certain She intends to. Haven't been for an even longer time.
rabble
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6528
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:50 pm

Re: Klimate Kooks Kaught

Postby DCB » Thu Feb 04, 2010 4:36 pm

DCB wrote:
I'm not usually given to making predictions. But I'm going to predict that Penn State will determine that Mann didn't exagerrate anything, and his work is just fine.


like I said:
A Penn State inquiry panel investigating "Climategate" professor Michael Mann dismissed three of the four claims against him, the Daily Collegian reports.

"I am very pleased that, after a thorough review, the independent Penn State committee found no evidence to support any of the allegations against me," Mann wrote in a statement on Wednesday. "This is very much the vindication I expected since I am confident I have done nothing wrong."



http://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/p ... laims.html

more here:

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/ ... anns-fate/
DCB
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2798
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 5:08 pm

PreviousNext

Return to National Politics & Government

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

moviesmusiceats
Select a Movie
Select a Theater


commentsViewedForum
  ISTHMUS FLICKR
Created with flickr badge.

Promotions Contact us Privacy Policy Jobs Newsletters RSS
Collapse Photo Bar