The KGB Oracle Forums General Public Discussion (SPECIAL ACCESS) KGB Political Debate Central Warmest temperatures in 4k yrs claim = bad science

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.