Liberals love science - until it proves them wrong.

[seanD]

Confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance is not the same thing as conspiracy theory. We wouldn't assume all the cases of science being wrong about things in the past was based on conspiracy theory. It was just the norm at the time. Scientists believed it to be true, thus this belief dictated how they viewed and analyzed the data. Then for some reason, the norm was challenged with new information, followed by much debate and contention, until the new norm replaced the old. Wash, rinse, repeat. Sometimes the old norms lasted for many decades if not centuries. I'm not saying climate change science isn't true, I'm just saying that using conspiracy theory is too simplistic of a way to dismiss that it might not be true.

[Starlight]

If its a hoax done for the sake of keeping climatologists employed, then its got to be the dumbest ponzi scheme in the history of the universe, executed by the most brilliant people in the world who've hidden all tracks of it being a several thousand man strong conspiracy.

According to Trump, it's a hoax done by the Chinese. Probably at the climate change conferences for the last 50 years there's been Chinese agents there dosing all the scientists with secret mind-control drugs (that they reserve solely for use at climate change conferences mind you).

...I'm not quite sure what the Chinese get out of this though. Maybe they enjoy getting embarrassed in front of the rest of the world community for their country's high pollution rate? Maybe they enjoy having to spend all that money to transition themselves over from coal to solar?

The most fundamental thing a good conspiracy theory needs is a motive. And that's what's always been consistently missing on the climate change conspiracy theory. Whereas with the moon landings, the US had motive to fake them to win prestige points during the Cold War, and with 9/11 the Bush administration had motive to want to have a reason to start some wars, whereas with climate change the motive is absent. Tens of thousands of scientists in hundreds of countries spontaneously decided to commit scientific fraud, without a reason for doing so. That's some conspiracy theory.

[firstfloor]

From trolling?

Well the trolling thing is very much in the eye of the beholder I would say.

We had a nice bike ride up to Ballater today along the old railway, about 23 miles round trip which is not too bad for an old codger like me. I now have a very sore • Edited by a Moderator •.

[rogue06]

So trolling is just a hobby now?

[Mountain Man]

"Dumbass"? You're the conspiracy theorist. There's nothing you suggest here that is any less outragious than NASA faking the moon landing, 9/11 being an inside job, or the holocaust being only ten thousand people.



The hockey stick has been vindicated time and again, by multiple institutes across the planet. Several temperature reconstructions, from several different kinds of proxies yield the same basic outline. A mostly flat line for the past few centuries (the most fine grained have a small hump around the middle ages), followed by a sharp rise around the seventies.



Actually all of the problems you're handwaving at have already been addressed. Yes data is adjusted, and no, there is no evidence of fraud. All the archives, datasets and programs used, are freely available to the public. You can go there yourself and see what was done. Typically the datasets I've found have featured lengthy explanations of the adjustments made, which ranged from something simple such as bouyes timing being off, to calibration (which is an adjustment always made).

These adjustements are perfectly justifiable. In fact not doing them would render the datasets less reliable and trustworthy.

If you want me to address specifics, mention them. I can also give a long list of links to answer yours, but that's argument by weblink, which is tasteless.

To dismiss the fact-based debunking of "climate change" as some wild-eyed conspiracy theory shows how ignorant you really are. I guarantee that if the raw data was in line with the liberal agenda then they would never dream of "adjusting" it, but it's not, so to keep the con going, they're forced to manipulate the facts. This is all well-documented by a number of sources, so the question is not are liberals manipulating the data but to what extent are they manipulating it.

[Mountain Man]

...especially since we always have satellite data to keep everybody honest.

You mean the same satellite data that shows no warming for nearly two-decades?

Monckton-No-Warming-18-years-five-months.jpg
http://www.globalwarming.org/2015/05...past-18-years/

You mean Michael Manns report that has been reproduced in other proxies countless times?

Michael Mann? You're talking about Michael "Hockey Stick" Mann, correct? The same Michael "Hockey Stick" Mann who's infamous hockey stick graph has been thoroughly debunked?

Yeah, O.K.

[Cow Poke]

So trolling is just a hobby now?

It's not just a hobby - it's an adventure!

[Sea of red]

You mean the same satellite data that shows no warming for nearly two-decades?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]15995[/ATTACH]
http://www.globalwarming.org/2015/05...past-18-years/


Michael Mann? You're talking about Michael "Hockey Stick" Mann, correct? The same Michael "Hockey Stick" Mann who's infamous hockey stick graph has been thoroughly debunked?

Yeah, O.K.

I kind of have a lot to do this weekend, so I don't have the time to respond tonight - it's a big weekend for motorsports.

Can you wait?

[shunyadragon]

Science does not prove anything.

[rogue06]

Although at various times different scholars and theologians debated whether or not it constituted murder, from the days of early Christianity abortion was regarded as wrong and sinful and the Protestant Church continued in this tradition. In his commentary on Exodus 21:22, the 16th century Reformation leader John Calvin wrote:

...the unborn, though enclosed in the womb of his mother, is already a human being, and it is an almost monstrous crime to rob it of life which it has not yet begun to enjoy. If it seems more horrible to kill a man in his own house than in a field, because a man's house is his most secure place of refuge, it ought surely to be deemed more atrocious to destroy the unborn in the womb before it has come to light.

Around the same time Martin Luther said

"Surely at such a time (conception), the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed."

A century later the Church of Scotland minister John Wemyss wrote

The Presbyterians here in the U.S. were particularly outspoken about it, at a convention in Pittsburgh in 1869 they issued the following statement:

"We regard the destruction by parents of their offspring, before birth, with abhorrence, as a crime against God and against nature."

And in 1962 and reaffirmed in 1965 they issued following statement:

"The fetus is a human life to be protected by the criminal law from the moment when the ovum is fertilized.... [A]s Christians, we believe that this should not be an individual decision on the part of the physician and couple. The decision should be limited and restrained by the larger society."

The Protestant churches in general continued this opposition to abortion until 1970 when some churches -- ironically including Presbyterian Church (USA) -- started becoming pro-abortion. One, the Southern Baptist Convention, supported abortion in 1971 but reversed that decision in 1980 and are now staunchly pro-life.

So starlight do you want to continue to maintain that "being anti-abortion was considered to be one of those weird catholic things"?

[Starlight]

So starlight do you want to continue to maintain that "being anti-abortion was considered to be one of those weird catholic things"?

Certainly there were individual theologians who were exceptions to this at various times.

But as you point out, by 1971 even the Southern Baptists were pro-abortion.

From here

That article goes on to discuss how subsequently in the US, various forces turned US evangelicals against abortion. However those forces weren't present in other protestant countries (eg my own), so there was never the same level of anti-abortion sentiment here in the 80s as there was in America. Although, of course, pervasive American attitudes still influence the church here today in moderate amounts.

[shunyadragon]

I bet you're getting paid by the climate scientists, aren't you?

The Republic of Texas is bought and paid for by the anti-global climate change petroleum industry. Double

[Cow Poke]

The Republic of Texas...

At least you got THAT part right!

[Cow Poke]

But as you point out, by 1971 even the Southern Baptists were pro-abortion.

A) That is a GROSS misstatement of the facts.... a resolution "to allow the possibility" under very specific conditions is hardly "pro-abortion".
2) That was during the liberal drift of the Convention, just prior to (and partly as a motivation for) the conservative resurgence of the late 70's / early 80's.

[shunyadragon]

At least you got THAT part right!

The Republic of Texas is bought and paid for by the anti-global climate change petroleum industry.