Saturday, April 22, 2017

The March For Science - All You Need To Know

Advocates fan out in global show of support for science
The second sentence contains these words: Michael Mann. Here's the scoop on Michael Mann:
A Disgrace to the Profession: the World Scientists, on Michael Mann, his Hockey Stick, and Their Damage to Science
Here's a little more info:
The March for ... What?
And just remember this: NO one sees Michael Mann's data, but Michael Mann. NO ONE.

The human essence of Fraud is asserting his phony god: Science, in which he does not even believe.


Jist said...

Sure, attack the people since you cannot use facts to argue. Science doesn't care what you believe.

Cyrus said...

Joe Bastardi is wrong, it is in fact anti-science to deny AGW. He makes great points and expresses himself well, but he still denies decades od research. Michael Mann is but just 1 scientist. There are thousands involved across hundreds of organizations. Not 100% agree, just like anything else, but the 2 sides are ridiculously imbalanced.

Rick said...

Why are conservatives so much against the science behind Climate Change studies? I don't get it...
And it's so long to debunk... look at that video for instance:

Stan said...

Jist: your mommy is calling; better get back to the basement.

If it can't be proven true, then it can't be proven false. Thus it cannot rise to the status of knowledge, much less truth. That is a fundamental axiom error that underlies the so-called science.

No one can objectively test the results of the predictions, because the results won't happen for decades. So there can be no current knowledge in support of or against the claims of the computer-herders.

Therefore, they are in the same class as the snake-oil salesmen, who make claims that can't be proven either true or false, but people buy into it, "just in case". The snake-oil salesman is gone, and the computer-herders will be dead, and the true believers will be left holding the bag by the time the truth of the matter is known.

Snake-oil was 25 cents; the global warming scam will cost $ billions if the scammers get their way.

Ask Judith Curry, ex-climate scientist, about the integrity of the climate science crowd.

BTW, people who don't know what the issue is with climate "science" don't have a clue what "Empirical Science" stands for.

It's not conservatives, it's people who study and are involved in science who can see the blatant fraud of the AGW scam.

If you want to assert the Fallacy: Appeal to Authority (ad verecundiam) then you choose to show that you don't know the details so you argue from total intellectual weakness and ignorance. Michael Mann controls the media who wants his fraud to be true, so that the Leftist dream of massive resource transfers of wealth occur under climate "congress" hegemony.

There is no reason NOT to engage a scientist on any subject. That is part of the scientific method. There is every reason to engage Mann because he created the infamous hockey stick graph, but will NOT release his data for objective expert examination. That is professional misconduct of the most egregious sort, and it is plainly indicative of fraud.

If you don't know what the hockey stick graph is, then you are totally out of the loop.

Rick said...

Hum there is an extremely strong correlation between being a Conservative and rejecting the science behind Climate Change. Why are you denying that?

Why don't you follow the empirical evidence if it has nothing to do with your politics? Climate Change is old news, established science that is just refined more and more. It does not mean we all need to turn into tree hugging hippies and not wash our hair, but the claims of the Right on that topic are appalling. That's what the video I linked to shows for instance. There are so many false claims like that and it's impossible to follow through, because there is so much noise from the Right side of the political spectrum.

Stan said...

"Hum there is an extremely strong correlation between being a Conservative and rejecting the science behind Climate Change. Why are you denying that? "

You are observing an epiphenomenon. The proper way to say it would be this:

"There is a 100% correlation between being a Leftist and accepting the output of a corrupt activity called "science" which is attached to climate change."

The purpose of science is to generate objective - repeat: objective - knowledge of physical phenomenon. In order to be objective, any hypothesis must be testable, experimentally. That condition was added by Francis Bacon in order to rid bias, ideology, religion, personal vendetta and Appeal to Authority from the process of generating scientific (contingent) knowledge. Testing is the only possible way to do that.

Evidence is not empirical if it is controlled and not replicable. The international data is both controlled and not replicable. It is also modified, for reasons known only to the possessor. If an individual in some other science acted in this manner, that person would be eliminated as a scientist.

However, when the "science" is a large, lucrative industry, embedded in institutions dedicated to its "existence" and supported by huge infusions of Leftist support for political gain, that "science" can perform the most egregious of fraudulent pursuits with impunity from professional punishment.

Why are the sea levels not rising? Why was it historically hotter with less CO2? Why is our time on the earth enjoying more moderate climate than much of the past? Why did the hiatus correlate so well with the lack of sunspot activity?

Those questions are rejected by climate activists. Rejecting questions that falsify the "science" is, itself, a logical falsifier of the "science".

Stan said...

The attack on dissent, and its resolution is discussed Here:

and here:

The comments in both are interesting and to the point.

Rick said...

Meh, you're linking to a blog... of course you can find blogs that agree with you. Big deal. Find data, evidence, that agrees with you. Good luck! That will be hard though as there is none... You are just using hyperboles to pretend that everybody on the Left is wrong. What rubbish! There is a significant proportion of people on the Left who don't believe Climate Change is cause by humans and vice versa for the Right. It's nowhere near 100% either way. Such BS you're writing...

Stan said...

Rick, first you claim that it's correlated with conservatism, now you claim that it is not. That's remarkable. What changed in the past few days? Where's your data? You're just here to spout crap, whatever pops into your head at the moment, that is obvious.

Rick said...

You said 100% correlation between Leftists and accepting bad science. That's absurd. It's not close to 100% on either side. You know which groups is close to 100% agreement though? Right? You do know, I am sure, I'll let you answer that one.

Nothing changed! Science is not based on politics, yet the majority of the Right, people like you, reject the scientific evidence because of politics. It shouldn't correlate but it does.

Stan said...

Here's the problem with AGW "scientific evidence". The AGW activists claim that there is such evidence. But they are ignorant of the requirements that are involved for legitimate empirical scientific evidence to be considered valid.

You fit into that category. You keep referring to "evidence" as if there is actual cause and effect which is testable, replicable, falsifiable and which can be considered objective knowledge. There is no such thing for AGW. To claim that there is objective knowledge is false. I've explained to you what that is. You don't care. What you care about is the overall narrative, not the testable and tested cause and effect on a planet-wide basis.

As Karl Popper said, Modus Tollens determines whether a pursuit is a science, or whether it is a tautological set of definitions that are called "principles" but which cannot be proven either individually or in concert and which therefore are not objective knowledge but are actually dogma which has been declared Truth rather than discovered contingent consequences of cause and effect.

If you can produce such testable, tested and non-falsified conclusions, then you should do so; the entire AGW industry would be grateful to you. Because they cannot, they do not. Because they cannot argue with unquestionable objective knowledge, they have to attack critics, and generate a passion in their acolytes to also attack their critics. In other words, the resort to Ad Hominem is the consequence of having no firm basis from which they can confidently assert actual scientific contingent knowledge, because they have none.

What they have is opinion-based assertions, only - which cannot be proven until all of us are dead: "there will be 2 degrees rise in temperatures by year 2100." They might as well claim 20 degrees, or 12 degrees, or 35 degrees; the claims cannot be tested either way, no matter what they claim.

And the temperature data is fully suspect as well, with most of the earth not even monitored, and what temperature data exists is heavily modified to suit the "scientists" for reasons no objective observer is actually privy to.

You actually know these things, but don't care. For you, anyone who questions the dogma is wrong. Why? Because of Appeal to Authority, which is used to protect the dogma, which is precious to you. And it is precious to the Left for purposes of re-distributing wealth: the exact politics which you pretend to dislike, yet you defend.

Prove otherwise. Go AHEAD. DO IT. PROVE OTHERWISE. Or admit that you are merely spouting dogma without any facts to support it, scientific or otherwise.

Rick said...

I really don't care what your opinion is. And you didnt answer my question: who's the only group of people who agrer that it's pretty certain humans have an impact on the climate? Climate scientists! You know, the ones who actually know what they are talking about! They have seen it for over 40 years now, if not more. While the general public keeps being misled, as if there was even a debate on the issue. Go look for the facts yourself.

Cyrus said...

Insanity... why would anyone have to prove to YOU that Climate Change is, in part, caused by humans!?
Try to prove humans have NO impact!!

Bun said...

Got to love the arrogance of asking to prove why thousands of scientists are correct

Stan said...

That's a great trio of Fallacy: Appeal to Authority logic. Thanks for the demonstration of Leftist Lock Step Hive Mind, and keep it up. Please. You are poster children for anti-rational, dogmatic blind belief in what you are told.

The rest of us will continue to look at actual evidence, such as we have, and is not modified to suit the politics. We will think about the realities and how that maps onto the dogma.

No one here said that warming does not exist. No one here said that humans don't affect the climate. But you empty-science advocates presumed that to be the case.

What I said was that AGW is not a science because it is not testable, and it is a big money, Leftist wealth re-distributionist ideology. You have demonstrated the ideological, dogmatic-religious belief in the Papacy of Climate Science; in other words, you are intellectual drones, camp followers of the tent-preachers. So the rigid belief ideology is obviously working.

You have also proven that the claims cannot be falsified (try to prove that humans have no impact...). Of course, non-falsifiability is the precise demarcation of ideology as opposed to science (Karl Popper). Never mind, you don't care. You have your religion to keep you... warm.

Well, be happy and go your way in peace.

Rick said...

Nobody said what we should do about it, and you do link to articles pretending we aren't sure whether humans cause change.......... now you agree humans pumping sso much CO2 does have an impact!?

You also don't understand when to claim appeal to authority fallacy, it's a fact that over 90% of climate scientists agreed, and have agreed for years. It's just stating facts! Which you don't like !

Stan said...

It is ALWAYS an Appeal to Authority to claim that authority as evidence for your side. Authority is not evidence. When you actually have evidence you use it. When you don't, you appeal to authority. It's an official fallacy of rhetoric which is used to attempt to shut people up by intimidating them.

And you have not read the posts on this blog just today, have you? If you had, you would find the official science refuting the CO2 myth. Also you would find the absence of sea level rise because the Antarctic ice mass is NOT melting, and the science for refuting that salt causes hypertension and the science for refuting that saturated fat causes arteries to clog.

Every one of those has had huge masses of "scientific support".

How about the studies that show that less than one tenth of one percent of "science" papers use the scientific method? How about the reports that most "science" papers' claims cannot be reproduced experimentally?

The Appeal to Authority of Science has never been a weaker argument than in the 21st century. Now it is the fallacy of appealing to false claims as a substitute for actual evidence.

Steven Satak said...

Ah, yes, 'settled Science'. Just another in a long list of ways the Left has to 'shut up'.

"Insanity... why would anyone have to prove to YOU that Climate Change is, in part, caused by humans!?"

Why would they have to prove it? Good question. Why do you have to prove anything? Why couldn't they just say it was true and then take my money from me to save me from it?

Which is what they are doing. And since 'Cyrus' lives in a world where if you say a thing is so, it IS so, I can see why he would be confounded. Gosh, the nice science-type guys are telling us to pay them and they'll save us all. Why don't you people listen to them and quit asking question.

These critturs are hopeless, Stan. They will never learn because they think they have everything already figured out, with them at the top of the heap.