http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/...ming-alarmists/

Even as MSM and extreme lefties go about foaming at the mouth to confirm their bias, luckily there is some real science still occurring on the topic.

Global warming denials are out there with evolutionary denials. Go buy oceanfront property if you are so sure.

Article read fail. Comprehension fail. You shouldnt be so scared of assimilating new info just because it isnt pre-approved for extremist consumption by the mouth foamers over at Mother Jones.

If one to read only Mother Jones or opinion section of WSJ, I'd bet MJ reader would be more informed.

I read somewhere about conservative media conference where all lead conservative voices got together and were discussing return to journalism. Last I hear, they decided to blame lack of journalistic integrity on the right on Obama.

A point that might (for the sake of argument) hypothetically have relevance if the OP was a WSJ article.

If you actually read the article - it does not refute the study in any form. It mostly criticizes media, does couple weak character assassination attempts, and cites some methodology concerns (that would not invalidate the study) from the previous study.

This type of "impossible standard" attack is the only way they can attempt to discredit what is now very uncontroversial scientific consensus.

Consider this: Any study that could soundly disprove "global warming" would not only have unlimited budget from Big Oil, Big Coal and such, but would also guarantee publications for life, probably a Nobel, tenure, and more fame than could be had anywhere else in the climate science field.

I suggest googling up the references, heck it actually linked to several works cited criticizing the study. I suggest you read again.

That you even think that the refutation was of "global warming" shows that you either did not read the article, or have a very low level of reading comprehension.

What this article was highlighting, is the refutation of an "alarmist" study that had gotten media attention for the study, but not the refutation when it turns out to be bad science.

The article was not about refuting global warming , it was about how certain sectors hyperventilate over untested claims that end up withering under peer review simply because it makes for titillating news.

You are reading too much into that article. It boils down to "media on the right always wrong, they report it, so this must be wrong". It was a anti-global warming hit article.

The burden of proof is on the alarmists, not those calling for rational thought. The petroleum industry will reap little if any benefit from disproving global warming. Even if you had concrete proof today that humans were causing the earth's fever to elevate, people would still have to heat/cool their homes and drive their cars. All the alarmism does is drive up the cost of those products, which doesn't hurt the energy producers in the slightest. Why on earth would they want to discredit it?

Like Al Gore maybe ?

Burden of proof was more than adequately met. The theory is now scientific consensus backed by data and multiple publications. "Rational" thought you mention is nothing more than unscientific denialists like you and Derid that chose to ignore this without any credible counter-evidence.

Scientific theory isn't always right, it isn't always perfect, but the best known way to accumulate knowledge and progress forward. Moment you decide to act outside of its bonds, moment you lose any claim to rationality.

Hrm, ignore? The only person who ignored scientific theory here was the guy who decided to use Oceanic currents to build an atmospheric model.

Consensus is not scientific. Science is fact.

I have given you plenty of world renowned, noble prize winning scientist that have said man-made global warming is false.
That group could be called a consensus as you define it, but yet you decide to not listen to them because it goes against your social liberal elite agenda.

Once again good job on following the progressive playbook.

You don't understand what science is.

Are you an expert? If so, what is the valid model to use in this circumstances? With what parameters? What is the proper statistical analysis should be applied?

No, nether you nor I are specialists. So we can only play numbers game. Listen to overwhelming majority of specialists that say it is happening or listen to tiny minority of with one or another conflict of interest that tell you it isn't.

You could also read the studies. While finer points might be lost on you, it doesn't take sophistication to understand them. Looking at ice cores. Looking at tree rings. Looking at STUFF, all that tells us it is happening.

Thank you for showing us all how smart you are.

What I am an expert on is usage of English, and I can say with full confidence that what I have attacked this entire thread is a particular model that makes unproven assumptions that the particular Oceanic measurements used for the model had the same temperature relationship with atmospheric conditions over the course of 4k years as it does today. Which is silly on the face of it, and also being brought to light during the peer review process by people who are experts in the field.

On the other hand, what you have defended the entire thread is the concept of "global warming" in general. Aka a straw man. You are asserting that because "global warming" has not been disproven, that this study must also be correct since its claims fall in line with the general concept of global warming. This is an obvious fallacy.

Derid, you started this thread with "Warmest temperatures in 4k yrs claim = bad science" title.

Warmest temperatures = global warming
bad science = not true

So just in your title you say just that and now you are claiming that I'm attacking a straw man.

To further demonstrate my point - your fellow conservatives rallied to "no global warming" claim and are not even subtle in outright denying it happening and you are not in any way or form correcting them.

Just admit that your dogma is unscientific and ride your horse-and-buggy over to the nearest town to register your "no global warmish" religion.

Have you done it?
Cause I read some. A lot lack data and rely on citing other studies without checking the data and statistical analysis.
And yup, science does not work by consensus.

Also: making big decision which can kill a lot of people using models which failed is a bad thing.

/facepalm

Yes the fact that the earth is currently on warming trend does not mean that the paper claiming that we are currently the warmest in 4k is correct.

So you are asserting that the paper *is* correct? Lets be clear on this.

Because if you are not asserting that, then yes you are in fact attacking a straw man. The "4k year" claim in title was a direct reference to the contents of the post , which referenced a particular paper that made rounds through a particular news cycle. If you are talking about anything other than this , you are talking about something I am not.

He's not correcting the rest of us because none of us have denied that the global temperature (which is a hinky term to begin with) has increased. Every last one of us who brought it up did so in the context that man isn't causing it. Didn't Derid post you a link to Rosetta Stone English? Or, do you just enjoy making slanderous statements in hopes that no one else has read what actually was said?

Ok, so finally I managed to coax out of local troglodytes that indeed, they did manage to internalize that climate change is happening.

Change-a-happening. Earth is warming up.

Is it warmest in 4K years? I don't think we have precision to confidently state that for all definitions of now and then, but we can clearly state that averages are increasing and trending upwards.

What are you talking about? Making things up again.

If you want to toss out insults , and not have it backfire horribly like usual - you should consider ranting against things people actually say sometime.

Things like this are why it is such an irony when you ever talk about "willful denial" regarding how others perceive your views.

I fixed that for you.

ManBearPig Alert...

The sky will be falling if we don't spend all of our money on Inefficient expensive means to create and use power. Let's all drink the kool-aid and become retarded...

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/fea...6-1226609140980