Washington Post: Skeptics Won’t Like This Study Or Something

Rather than providing rock solid studies, backed using actual data and the Scientific Method, members of the Cult of Climastrology have depended on computer models, massaged data, prognostications unable to be proven by Science, and spin machine studies. This one is part of the latter

Climate change doubters really aren’t going to like this study

Researchers have designed an inventive test suggesting that the arguments commonly used by climate change contrarians don’t add up, not only according to climate scientists (we know what they think already) but also in the view of unbiased experts from other fields.

The trick? Disguising the data — and its interpretation — as if it was part of an argument about something else entirely.

I’d prefer they offer up scientific proof that clearly shows that Mankind is mostly/solely responsible for the warming since 1850. Since that is clearly impossible, they’ll pull this kind of non-scientific stunt. Said stunt is propagated by Stephan Lewandowsky, long known as pushing shady science and pop climate psychology. The study itself is slammed by many who understand how studies are supposed to work. How does this one work?

First of all, consider that climate doubters (like scientists) often use objective data to back up their claims. They just tend to represent it in ways that scientists have long found objectionable.

Here’s an example: Data indicate that in the long run — over many decades — global temperatures have been rising. But over shorter periods, temperatures might fluctuate up and down quite a bit. Climate contrarians might exploit this fact by pointing to a small block of data from a short-term period when temperatures were on the downswing, or weren’t rising, and use it to suggest that global warming isn’t actually happening. It’s a tactic known as “cherry-picking” — selecting only data that suit one’s purposes, instead of data that reflect the whole story.

They Warmist scientists find it objectionable because it exposes exactly what the problem with Warmist science is. We’ll get to that in a minute. As far as cherry picking goes, Warmists are yammering about the hottest year ever, and the hottest month ever. Is that not cherry picking? How about when they look at the temperature data from 1980-today: is that not cherry picking? What Skeptics are saying is that Warmist models predicted ever rising doomy temperatures, yet, 95% of the models failed to predict the Pause. Furthermore, the models cannot even predict what happened in the past, for instance, the cooling from the 1940’s to 1979.

They found a way to let an unbiased group of expert scientists judge for themselves how sound climate-doubting arguments are by presenting them with real climate data — but labeling these data as something else. For instance, they presented data on trends in Arctic sea ice extent, but relabeled as data on the profits of a fictitious company. And they re-cast numbers on global sea-level rise as stats on world lithium production.

“So instead of saying, there’s a recovery of Arctic ice, we would say, there’s a recovery of our share prices,” Lewandowsky said.

There’s one thing missing in all this: the central argument. Anyone who tells you there has been no warming since around 1850, the end of the Little Ice Age, is wrong. There has been warming. Even taking away all the massaged, falsified, improperly gathered, and even created out of nothing data, there has still been warming. It matters not at all, because the central argument is not on warming, it is on causation. What is causing the warming. Warmists like Lewandowsky say it is mostly/solely the fault of mankind (yet won’t reduce their own use of fossil fuels and make their lives carbon neutral.) Skeptics say it is mostly/solely natural.

At the end of the day, Warmists have made a hypothesis: it is up to them to prove it. They can’t, so they rely on silly things like this Lewandowski “study”. Along with all the scaremongering, of course.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

19 Responses to “Washington Post: Skeptics Won’t Like This Study Or Something”

  1. Jeffery says:

    because the central argument is not on warming, it is on causation. What is causing the warming.

    Exactly. What is the physical cause of the rapid warming? You say it’s magic; scientists searched for and found a physical explanation.

    The Earth is warming from CO2 that we’re adding to the atmosphere.

    The “central argument” has left you and yours behind, and is now what, if anything, to do about the rapid warming we’ve caused.

  2. drowningpuppies says:

    The Earth is warming from CO2 that we’re adding to the atmosphere.</blockquote?

    -that little guy who exaggerates often

    Like the Captain said, prove it.

  3. Dana says:

    Jeffrey wrote:

    The “central argument” has left you and yours behind, and is now what, if anything, to do about the rapid warming we’ve caused.

    The obvious answer is, as we’ve told you many times before, lead by example!

    In fact, the warmists do lead by example, but so often it seems as though the example that they are setting is one which leads us to believe that they do not take their proclamations seriously.

  4. Liam Thomas says:

    From the study itself.

    Abstract

    Although virtually all experts agree that CO2 emissions are causing anthropogenic global warming, public discourse is replete with contrarian claims that either deny that global warming is happening or dispute a human influence. Although the rejection of climate science is known to be driven by ideological, psychological, and political factors rather than scientific disagreement, contrarian views have considerable prominence in the media.

    Lets look at this for a moment.

    Additionally he begins with a conclusion and then tries to persuade you that the conclusion is the truth. As in …..virtually all experts agree…

    He basically says that the deniers are not denying the science but rather the politics of the science. Ergo we have the basis for disagreement.

    Any time politics is injected INTO ANY SUBJECT lines will be drawn and the battles begin.

    He nails it by claiming that the so called deniers do not necessarily even reject the science but they reject the political motives behind the CURE.

    So his entire paper is flawed because he refuses to account for the politics of the topic and rather accuses the deniers of not being politically correct for believing what the AGW crowd believes.

    His entire premise is misguided and goes askew from the abstract to conclusion because he has proven nothing other then to say the deniers are politically motivated.

    Yet fails to account for the political motivations of the AGW believers.

    But once again we are hit with the assumed close paper……..Im assuming we all agree that the science is settled as in …….virtually all experts agree……

  5. Liam Thomas says:

    contrarian views have considerable prominence in the media.

    Additionally this is such a powerful statement because what he is fundamentally saying is that those who disagree with our findings are given too much creedance and by implication they should be silenced.

    The minute a researcher opens his mouth on AGW it begins going downhill and by the time it hits bottom its become an avalanche of propaganda interspersed with truths and half truths, science and conjecture and misinformation all designed to silence critics of AGW politics.

  6. Jeffery says:

    Yes! Deniers have the basis of a disagreement, but it is political, not scientific. And there’s nothing wrong with that.

    Deniers decided to use the tactic of denying the science supporting global warming, but most agree now that the Earth is warming, and many even grudgingly admit that mankind’s CO2 emissions are the cause. Only the scientifically illiterate would argue the other side now.

    But that’s OK; most vehement and illiterate deniers will eventually accept the truth, and those that don’t will be like the young-Earthers – cranks on the margins.

    But that’s OK, too. The debate now is properly about what to do about the rapid warming that humans have caused – if anything.

  7. david7134 says:

    Jeff,
    There is no direct link as you desire, otherwise, it would be all over the place.

    Is this the same data analysis that you use in your studies? No wonder that you require tax payer help in your company, at our expense.

  8. Jeffery says:

    dave,

    You’re such an old liar.

    No direct link? The links are all over the place! CO2 directly absorbs radiation in the infrared wavelengths. This directly keeps heat in the atmosphere where it directly warms the oceans and lands. Thermometers prove this directly. The retained heat is directly causing the sea levels to rise and the ice to melt.

    My company uses no taxpayer help. Why do you keep lying you old criminal you? (And you know what I’m talking about).

  9. alanstorm says:

    “Here’s an example: Data indicate that in the long run — over many decades — global temperatures have been rising. But over shorter periods, temperatures might fluctuate up and down quite a bit. Climate contrarians might exploit this fact by pointing to a small block of data from a short-term period when temperatures were on the downswing, or weren’t rising, and use it to suggest that global warming isn’t actually happening.”

    Exactly what the warmists are doing – in the opposite direction. Claiming that every short-term warm swing is a sign of doom, while discounting any short-term cold snap.

  10. alanstorm says:

    ” CO2 directly absorbs radiation in the infrared wavelengths.”

    Sorry, Jeffty, it ain’t that simple (except for the simple folk).

    Yes, CO2 absorbs in those wavelengths – but it can only absorb (and re-radiate) so much. Non-political research indicates that the effect is non-linear, and not is an ever increasing warming reat. in other words, for the simple folk, a 5% increase in CO2 results in a LESS than 5% increase in temperature. Which temperature, BTW, has been nil according to satellite records, which are reasonably accurate, unlike earth-bound thermometers located in increasingly-urban heat islands.

    IOW, you’re still wrong.

    you’re welcome.

  11. Jeffery says:

    alan,

    Scientists and science disagree with your simplistic notions.

    For all your flagellating Denialist mumbo-jumbo, it remains that the Earth is warming from the CO2 we’re adding to the atmosphere.

    IOW, you’re quite wrong. But I’m happy to straighten you out.

    You’re welcome!

  12. David7134 says:

    Jeff
    You haven’t straightened anyone out. Only made your self look stupid, again.

  13. Liam Thomas says:

    Back in 2011 I pointed out to NOAA that their temperature readings were inconsistent with what they were saying about global warming.

    Heat retention and not thermometer readings were a true indicator of global warming. By their own publicly posted readings since 1979 the earth had only warmed 4/10ths of one degree F in 32 years. At this astounding rate we were barely going to have a 1.4 degree (F) temperature rise in 100 years….which is basically consistent with the warming trends that are always mitigated by mini ice ages through out all warming periods during any epoch. After several months they took their website down for a week, and brought it back up and all the numbers had been changed.

    The earth heats up, the warming earth triggers the release of co2 which in turn causes the ocean currents to drastically shift as the oceans sink the carbon, causing a northern hemisphere cold spell which generally lasts for a couple 100 years. It is only the warm currents that move up along the East coast and over to England, and Northern Europe that keeps the northern hemisphere pleasant and a fertile crescent of civilization.

    This is based in scientific evidence and we are headed for the next mini ice age…….not a drastic life killing warm snap. And a mini ice age will be much harder to deal with when the left has shut down fossil fuels and depend on solar and wind to power the world when were facing blizzards and blowing wind which will shut down not only solar because of clouding but windmills because they do not operate in winds over 29 mph.

    Good luck with your Mitigation alternatives. Im sure your children will love and admire your staunch support for them freezing their Arses off……lolol…..warmists….the fools of the ages.

  14. Dana says:

    Jeffrey skipped the point that the warmists lead by example, but that their example is frequently to behave no differently than us Neanderthal Republicans.

    The debate is political, and will never get away from being political, as long as the warmists want to use the power of government to force other people to comply with their demands.

    Locally, a trucking company which hauled bottom ash away from a coal-burning power plant has closed, because Obumble regulations are forcing the power plant to cut way back, and eventually convert to natural gas. That has put 36 drivers, 4 mechanics and four office people out of work; two of the four office people are a married couple, so both husband and wife have lost their jobs. The husband is 58 years old, too young to draw Social Security, and too old to have a lot of hope of finding another job at anywhere close to what he earned before.

    Did any of these people vote for Barack Hussein Obama? I don’t know, but the chances are that at least some of them did. Do they care about global warming climate change? Some of them probably do, but their concerns about what might happen a hundred years from now have been replaced with concerns about how they are going to pay their mortgages next month.

    This is what Jeffrey can never seem to see: he doesn’t give a rat’s ass that some people are going to become poorer as the result of his policy proposals, because Jeffrey apparently already has his. He said that he grew up poor, but he seems to have forgotten what it was like to be poor.

  15. Dana says:

    The 36 drivers I mentioned will do OK: they all have Class A CDLs, and that puts them in demand. The others? They’ll have a rougher time of it.

  16. Jeffery says:

    Dana,

    We’re sympathetic to those who have lost jobs, but recognize that this happens in a market based system. My wife’s grandfather was an “ice-man”, delivering ice to customers to keep the foods cold in the “icebox”. Those jobs are long gone. Carriage makers too. When I was a kid, the milkman dropped milk, eggs, cottage cheese off a few times a week. We had typists years ago too in business. And stenographers. Corner grocers. We used to buy a few empty 55 gal barrels a year to burn trash in. No more. Men used to deliver coal to homes. There were chimney sweeps. Times change for sure. Coal was on the way out as an energy source before Obama took office. Should we go back to burning coal? We could if someone could create a way to burn it safely.

    The advantage of living in the US is that we have a fair social safety net to catch those that lose their jobs due to changing economics. To soften the blow, there are programs to supply cash payments to the unemployed, subsidized health insurance and programs for retraining.

    We wish everyone in America was working at a job they loved and they were paid enough to support their families and save for retirement. Unfortunately, our economy does not satisfy those requirements.

  17. Dana says:

    And now we see just how much sympathy the formerly-poor liberal has for the working people the Democrats claim to represent:

    The advantage of living in the US is that we have a fair social safety net to catch those that lose their jobs due to changing economics. To soften the blow, there are programs to supply cash payments to the unemployed, subsidized health insurance and programs for retraining.

    Translation: too bad, so sad, must suck to be them! Proud, hard-working people can just go on welfare until they turn 62, and then they can draw 75% of the Social Security into which they paid.

    I’m trying to think of how to tell the guy I know — he’s an acquaintance, not really a friend — not to worry, he can get unemployment for a year or so, then welfare and food stamps, and think that’ll somehow make him happy that he’s losing his job, now, to save the planet in 2104.

    And y’all wonder why the Democrats have lost the white working class voter!

    Trouble is, it isn’t the “economy” which is killing these jobs, but the policies of our nincompoop President and the leftists who support him.

    Make no mistake, Jeffrey: you cost that man his job, you put his wife out of work, and you cost the mechanics and other office workers their jobs. I hope that you’re proud of yourself.

  18. Jeffery says:

    Dada typed:

    Make no mistake, Jeffrey: you cost that man his job, you put his wife out of work, and you cost the mechanics and other office workers their jobs. I hope that you’re proud of yourself.

    Go fuck yourself. I didn’t cost him or his wife that job and you know it. We have over 100,000,000 workers in a volatile market based economy and sometimes jobs are lost. New jobs open up. Get over it. Do you think the people he worked for give a shit about him? Do you think they have to scrape to get by now, or do you think they lined their pockets before pulling out? Thank god he’s got the government I support to help him out since the economy abandoned him. As you’ve said more than once, it’s cruel but if he can’t cut it, he and his family should die. So, yeah, go fuck yourself you selfish asswipe. You’ve got your capitalist paradise, where you have yours and the rest can go suck it.

    He was just not clever enough to get paid from government largesse.

    Do you really want an economy that guarantees a job for life, comrade? Really?

    If you were really worried about the working classes and jobs you would have supported fiscal policies to pull us out of the last depression. You would have supported corporate regulations that could have PREVENTED the last depression. This depression decimated an already depressed middle class.

    So you, Dana, you, have caused millions of Americans to lose their jobs. You and the nincompoops Reagan and Bush and Gingrich and Ryan et al. We hope you’re proud of yourself.

    You have the America that modern conservatism built. Rewarding the wealthy at the expense of the working classes. We hope you’re proud of yourself.

  19. drowningpuppies says:

    Go fuck yourself.

    -that misanthropic little guy who exaggerates often loses it after costing people their jobs

Bad Behavior has blocked 9470 access attempts in the last 7 days.