# Scientists say more snow will be the norm.... for a while



## VTKilarney (Jun 10, 2014)

Scientists say that an effect of global warming will be more snow for the next 25 or so years.  But then the rains will come.

http://www.boston.com/news/weather/...fore-dearth/AVLh7Cnr2p1gkWiFCMlHfP/story.html

Science or psuedo-science?  Good news or bad?


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 11, 2014)

Out of all areas of science, climatology is the one I have the least amount of faith in regarding predicting the future.  

There are no trends over the last 100 years that suggest there will be more or less snow than there has been in the past. 

and I say this as someone in full support of the world eliminating fossil fuel reliance and shifting towards renewable forms of energy.


----------



## yeggous (Jun 11, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> Out of all areas of science, climatology is the one I have the least amount of faith in regarding predicting the future.
> 
> There are no trends over the last 100 years that suggest there will be more or less snow than there has been in the past.
> 
> and I say this as someone in full support of the world eliminating fossil fuel reliance and shifting towards renewable forms of energy.



There has been a trend toward more snow, but the records are very limited in spatial sampling and the impact of changing measurement techniques is unclear.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## skiNEwhere (Jun 11, 2014)

According to this article, ONLY Vt will be affected?? (Scratches head)

Edit: looking back I guess that study was just for the state, I'd like to see a similar assessment for the rest of New England plus northern New York


----------



## dlague (Jun 11, 2014)

Well I will put that in the stoke bank and hope for the best winters ahead!


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 11, 2014)

yeggous said:


> There has been a trend toward more snow, but the records are very limited in spatial sampling and the impact of changing measurement techniques is unclear.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone mobile app




There has?

http://www.killington.com/site/mountain/mountain-info/historical_weather

That's just Killington over the past 25 years, but I don't see any trends.  I'm sure you could find data for other mountains that show similar.

I guess I feel that since I started skiing in 1982, it doesn't feel like New England gets any more snow today than it did back then.  Some winters we get a lot, some years we get very little.


----------



## dlague (Jun 11, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> There has?
> 
> http://www.killington.com/site/mountain/mountain-info/historical_weather
> 
> ...



If you pull that data into Excel it actually has been trending down slightly!  I think the article is talking about the future though and not looking at the past.


----------



## VTKilarney (Jun 11, 2014)

I notice that they used the ice-out date for Joe's Pond.  I could be mistaken, but I am pretty sure that the location of the cinder block was moved a few years ago.  I wonder if they took that into account.

Put me in the "nobody can know for sure" camp.


----------



## mbedle (Jun 12, 2014)

I'm not sure about that, it looks to have a light upward trend. Albeit pretty small R-0.00207 

View attachment Killington Trend.pdf




dlague said:


> If you pull that data into Excel it actually has been trending down slightly!  I think the article is talking about the future though and not looking at the past.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Jun 13, 2014)

Makes sense to me warming = more snow


----------



## dlague (Jun 13, 2014)

mbedle said:


> I'm not sure about that, it looks to have a light upward trend. Albeit pretty small R-0.00207
> 
> View attachment 12793



That is because your data is backwards.  If you apply the data labels then you will see the direction of the years - see below.


----------



## mbedle (Jun 13, 2014)

Son of a BITCH.... Don't tell my boss. LOL


----------



## dlague (Jun 13, 2014)

mbedle said:


> Son of a BITCH.... Don't tell my boss. LOL



However, if you look at the trend short term we have been getting snowfall amounts at or below the trend line.  What does that mean?  Well, based on the longer term history we are due for a heavy hitting winter, hence the prediction that we will be having more snow in the upcoming years.


----------



## Abubob (Jun 13, 2014)

Meteorologists can't even get the weather right for tomorrow half the time let alone a week in advance. They want to predict 25 or 50 years ahead? Forget about it!


----------



## Cannonball (Jun 13, 2014)

Abubob said:


> Meteorologists can't even get the weather right for tomorrow half the time let alone a week in advance. They want to predict 25 or 50 years ahead? Forget about it!



No kidding right!!  I seriously hope they didn't have meteorologists do this climate study (luckily it sounds like they didn't).


----------



## Not Sure (Jun 13, 2014)

Cannonball said:


> No kidding right!!  I seriously hope they didn't have meteorologists do this climate study (luckily it sounds like they didn't).


I'll see if my Sunny side Bathroom bug theory holds up....stink bugs in the fall ...crappy skiing .
Lady bugs , lots of snow. 100% so far 14yrs in the house.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jun 13, 2014)

If it's warmer, it's because of Global Warming.
If it's colder, it's because of Global Warming.
If there's no snow, it's because of Global Warming.
If it snows a ton, it's because of Global Warming.
If there's a bad hurricane season, it's because of Global Warming.
If there's a light hurricane season, it's because of Global Warming.
If it rains a lot, it's because of Global Warming.
If there's drought, it's because of Global Warming.

There is no weather pattern anywhere on earth that isnt attributed to the religious cult of the man-made Global Warming crowd.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jun 13, 2014)

Abubob said:


> *Meteorologists can't even get the weather right for tomorrow half the time let alone a week in advance. They want to predict 25 or 50 years ahead?* Forget about it!



And I put more faith in Meteorologists (who predict the weather every day), than Climatologists (who reside in Academia and theorize).


----------



## dlague (Jun 16, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> And I put more faith in Meteorologists (who predict the weather every day), than Climatologists (who reside in Academia and theorize).



+1


i typed with my i thumbs using AlpineZone


----------



## Rowsdower (Jun 16, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> And I put more faith in Meteorologists (who predict the weather every day), than Climatologists (who reside in Academia and theorize).



Climatology and meteorology are barely even remotely related.


----------



## Cannonball (Jun 17, 2014)

You are funny.  You always love to toss in this judgement 





BenedictGomez said:


> There is no weather pattern anywhere on earth that isnt attributed to the religious cult of the man-made Global Warming crowd.



But actually you're the one using faith-based decisions for your 'science' 


BenedictGomez said:


> And I put more faith in Meteorologists (who predict the weather every day), than Climatologists (who reside in Academia and theorize).


----------



## Puck it (Jun 17, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> If it's warmer, it's because of Global Warming.
> If it's colder, it's because of Global Warming.
> If there's no snow, it's because of Global Warming.
> If it snows a ton, it's because of Global Warming.
> ...




Wait, I thought it was Climate Change.

No, Climate Disruption.


I give up!!!


----------



## Abubob (Jun 17, 2014)

Cannonball said:


> No kidding right!!  I seriously hope they didn't have meteorologists do this climate study (luckily it sounds like they didn't).





BenedictGomez said:


> And I put more faith in Meteorologists (who predict the weather every day), than Climatologists (who reside in Academia and theorize).



I think we need a ski off. That'll prove things one way or another.


----------



## Highway Star (Jun 17, 2014)




----------



## RustyGroomer (Jun 17, 2014)

Siliconebobsquarepants said:


> I'll see if my Sunny side Bathroom bug theory holds up....stink bugs in the fall ...crappy skiing .
> Lady bugs , lots of snow. 100% so far 14yrs in the house.


  Most logical thing in this thread.


----------



## Savemeasammy (Jun 17, 2014)

Abubob said:


> I think we need a ski off. That'll prove things one way or another.



I second this motion!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Cannonball (Jun 17, 2014)

Loser buys the PBRs


----------



## dlague (Jun 17, 2014)

Cannonball said:


> Loser buys the PBRs



OK I will pre-order the PBRs!


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jun 17, 2014)

Rowsdower said:


> *Climatology and meteorology are barely even remotely related.*



Correct; the latter group works for a living.



Cannonball said:


> *You always love to toss in this judgement *



It's not a judgement, it's an observation. 

 Often these people possess almost a religious fervor for the subject rather than a scientific one.  Branding those who disagree _"non-believers"_ and _"skeptics"_, not willing to even debate, not wanting to even examine or explore other hypothesis, intentionally suppressing evidence that suggests your beliefs might be incorrect, etc... similar to the church of centuries ago.  

It's creepy; and I am unaware of any similar branch of science that behaves in such fashion.



Cannonball said:


> *
> 
> Loser buys the PBRs*



Loser _drinks_  the PBRs.


----------



## Savemeasammy (Jun 17, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> Loser _drinks_  the PBRs.



Better still:  The loser buys himself a PBR - and must drink it - and buys the winner a quality beer of his choice.  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## dlague (Jun 17, 2014)

I have just on thing to say "Al Gore"!


----------



## Cannonball (Jun 17, 2014)

Savemeasammy said:


> Better still:  The loser buys himself a PBR - and must drink it - and buys the winner a quality beer of his choice.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



That's a deal.  It's win-win!


----------



## Cannonball (Jun 17, 2014)

dlague said:


> I have just on thing to say "Al Gore"!



Is this retro Tuesday?


----------



## Edd (Jun 17, 2014)

dlague said:


> I have just on thing to say "Al Gore"!



That might not be the zinger you imagine.


----------



## fbrissette (Jun 17, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> Often these people possess almost a religious fervor for the subject rather than a scientific one.  Branding those who disagree _"non-believers"_ and _"skeptics"_, not willing to even debate, not wanting to even examine or explore other hypothesis, intentionally suppressing evidence that suggests your beliefs might be incorrect, etc... similar to the church of centuries ago.
> 
> It's creepy; and I am unaware of any similar branch of science that behaves in such fashion.



????????  Have you even meet one climatologist ?  Ever ?   'These people' ???   I know a lot of them.  I work and collaborate on a regular basis with them.  I co-supervise graduate students with them.  Funny, none of them  possess a religious fervor.  They are some of the most critical people I know about their own research and other people research.   

What you describe is above is your own crowd, the one unwilling to do ANY research, unwilling to read ANY scientific paper, the one that puts Al Gore and scientists in the same basket, the one that uses youtube and dubious websites as your main source of information.

You do realize that you are saying that thousands of climate scientists working in labs, universities and private companies are ALL a bunch of fraudulent crazy lunatics ????


----------



## Edd (Jun 17, 2014)

Doesn't prove anything but funny in the context of this conversation...if I can manage to properly embed a video.


----------



## dlague (Jun 17, 2014)

Edd said:


> Doesn't prove anything but funny in the context of this conversation...if I can manage to properly embed a video.



That was pretty funny!

But those who are interested in climate change like minded - go here Protect Our Winters  at least everyone will agree!


----------



## Puck it (Jun 17, 2014)

I would like to say it is the fault of Bush and the Koch Brothers.


----------



## dlague (Jun 17, 2014)

Puck it said:


> I would like to say it is the fault of Bush and the Koch Brothers.



That is too easy!  Then prior to them no one did anything wrong!  And that would be giving society as a whole a way out with out taking responsibility!


----------



## Puck it (Jun 17, 2014)

dlague said:


> That is too easy!  Then prior to them no one did anything wrong!  And that would be giving society as a whole a way out with out taking responsibility!



It was a joke.  I wanted to say before someone else did.


----------



## dlague (Jun 17, 2014)

Puck it said:


> It was a joke.  I wanted to say before someone else did.



And don't get confused with a GW person.


----------



## Puck it (Jun 17, 2014)

dlague said:


> And don't get confused with a GW person.



As in George W. or Global Warming.


----------



## dlague (Jun 17, 2014)

Puck it said:


> As in George W. or Global Warming.



Glob, globa, global warming - there I said it!


----------



## Puck it (Jun 17, 2014)

dlague said:


> Glob, globa, global warming - there I said it!




Disruption. Get it right.


----------



## dlague (Jun 17, 2014)

Puck it said:


> Disruption. Get it right.



I will work on it!


i typed with my i thumbs using AlpineZone


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jun 17, 2014)

fbrissette said:


> You do realize that *you are saying that thousands of climate scientists working in labs, universities and private companies are ALL a bunch of fraudulent crazy lunatics ?*???



First off, while we're getting crazy with the hyperbole, it's probably a good time to point out that there aren't "thousands" of "climate scientists" on the entire planet.   

And it's the politicians and the IPCC who are pulling the strings, not individual scientists.  Frankly, whatever 99% of them "say" (however many there are) is completely irrelevant.  There is a relatively small cadre of KOLs that have most of the power, influence, and citations, and whether it's 2, 22, 222, or 2222, none of that changes the fact that their models have failed miserably for the better part of 2 decades now, nor the fact that CO2 has risen even more than they predicted (i.e. they were wrong about that too) and the earth has not warmed as much as it should have given that fact.

ENTER: The oceans are absorbing much more heat than we thought!  Because god knows, the hypothesis cannot possibly be wrong.



Puck it said:


> I would like to say *it is the fault of Bush and the Koch Brothers*.



And "Big Oil", and "Fox News" and "the 1%" with "Big Business", dont forget the other far-left Boogey Men.   

That new Koch Brothers boogey-man, however, is instructive of just how easily you can make lemmings of people with a targeted propaganda campaign.  A relatively frew months ago practically nobody knew who the Koch Brothers were, but DNC talking points instructed politcal operatives to talk about them as much as they can to "create an adversary" to harness anger against, and VOILA - enemy created.  That, and a few millions of dollars (literally) in funding to create said boogey-man of course.  You cant go but a day or two without a new Huffington Post piece "informing" their readers about them. lol.  Psychologically, I find it somewhat fascinating, though a bit scary.


----------



## St. Bear (Jun 17, 2014)

Someone say more snow?

We're loving the snow in June! @snowbasinresort pic.twitter.com/aCUyen5Mqy


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jun 17, 2014)

And to the people who in the past here have said politicians don't use Global Warming for money or carve-outs to political friends and donors etc....   This example just happened this week.

*Obama diverts $1 BILLION in Hurricane Sandy relief fund to fund Global Warming preparedness*

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2014/06/sandy_resliency_competition.html#incart_river_default


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jun 17, 2014)

St. Bear said:


> Someone say more snow?
> 
> We're loving the snow in June! @snowbasinresortpic.twitter.com/aCUyen5Mqy



OMG,  It SNOWED.......in JUNE!!!!!! 

That's an_ "extreme"_ weather event, thus it's surely due to Climate Change (a.k.a. Global Warming re-branded).


----------



## moresnow (Jun 17, 2014)

St. Bear said:


> Someone say more snow?



Yep.


----------



## witch hobble (Jun 17, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> That new Koch Brothers boogey-man, however, is instructive of just how easily you can make lemmings of people with a targeted propaganda campaign.  A relatively frew months ago practically nobody knew who the Koch Brothers were, but DNC talking points instructed politcal operatives to talk about them as much as they can to "create an adversary" to harness anger against, and VOILA - enemy created.  That, and a few millions of dollars (literally) in funding to create said boogey-man of course.  You cant go but a day or two without a new Huffington Post piece "informing" their readers about them. lol.  Psychologically, I find it somewhat fascinating, though a bit scary.



Benny, if your posts didn't possess a glint of humor, they could be dismissed as knee jerk reactionary drivel, composed by talking point spouting conservobots.

But seriously here, anybody with even a minor interest in the flow of money into politics, and how it all works in our post Citizens United, "Tea Party" candidate world has known about the Koch bros since at least the 2010 election cycle.  Freedomworks.....Americans for Prosperity.....etc.  Give people a little more credit dude.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 17, 2014)

witch hobble said:


> Benny, if your posts didn't possess a glint of humor, they could be dismissed as knee jerk reactionary drivel, composed by talking point spouting conservobots.
> 
> But seriously here, anybody with even a minor interest in the flow of money into politics, and how it all works in our post Citizens United, "Tea Party" candidate world has known about the Koch bros since at least the 2010 election cycle.  Freedomworks.....Americans for Prosperity.....etc.  Give people a little more credit dude.



I'd say 2010 is way too recent for most people paying attention.

The Koch brothers have been the conservative buying political influence boogeymen to liberals for pretty much my entire voting life.  

I definitely remember the controversy in 2004 in Oregon with them pushing to get Nader on the ballot in Oregon to take votes away from Kerry and I know I heard/read about them well before that.


----------



## Puck it (Jun 18, 2014)

Pow Day at Alta


----------



## Puck it (Jun 18, 2014)

For all of you talking about the Koch Brothers and their political agenda for the right.  The left has even a smarier one.


George Soros.

He should be the poster child for all of what the liberals hate.  But he is the backer of pretty much everything liberal.


----------



## yeggous (Jun 18, 2014)

The slanted ruler marketing measurements of a ski resort like Killington are hardly something to depend on for trends.

If you want to do some real analysis, use actual records. There is an upward trend at Burlington of 0.27 inches per year with a very, very significant p-value of 1.97e-05. The correlation coefficient is not important and should be system with variability.

http://www.weather.gov/btv/climo_snowfall

Copy that table into Excel and save as a CSV, then using R:

> s <- read.csv('BTV_snow.csv')
> reg <- lm(s$Season ~ I(1:nrow(s)))
> summary(reg)

Call:
lm(formula = s$Season ~ I(1:nrow(s)))

Residuals:
    Min      1Q  Median      3Q     Max 
-50.967 -13.764   1.241  10.812  67.760 

Coefficients:
             Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)    
(Intercept)  60.15987    3.77799  15.924  < 2e-16 ***
I(1:nrow(s))  0.26893    0.06017   4.469 1.97e-05 ***
---
Signif. codes:  0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1

Residual standard error: 19.49 on 106 degrees of freedom
Multiple R-squared:  0.1586,	Adjusted R-squared:  0.1506 
F-statistic: 19.98 on 1 and 106 DF,  p-value: 1.972e-05


----------



## Puck it (Jun 18, 2014)

yeggous said:


> The slanted ruler marketing measurements of a ski resort like Killington are hardly something to depend on for trends.
> 
> If you want to do some real analysis, use actual records. There is an upward trend at Burlington of 0.27 inches per year with a very, very significant p-value of 1.97e-05. The correlation coefficient is not important and should be system with variability.
> 
> ...



There is a positive slope to the data but a R^2 of 0.15 is not a strong correlation.


----------



## steamboat1 (Jun 18, 2014)

Puck it said:


> For all of you talking about the Koch Brothers and their political agenda for the right.  The left has even a smarier one.
> 
> 
> George Soros.
> ...


Lets just have a look shall we? 

This is taken directly from forbes top 15 richest in America. 

DEMOCRATS
D-Bill Gates 56 Billion
D- Warren Buffett $50.0 billion:
D- Lawrence Ellison $39.5 billion
D- Jim Walton 20.1 billion
D- Alice Walton 20 billion
D- S. Robson Walton 20 billion
I- Michael Bloomberg 18 billion (was a D for 20 yrs then became a RINO and is now an I):
D- Larry Page – Google – 15 billion
D- Sergey Brin – Google – 15 million

_*D to R – Sheldon Adelson – 14.7 billion is now 23 billion

*_
_*D- George”Spooky Dude” Soros – Crime Inc,.14.2 billion
D- Mark Zuckerberg $13.5 billion
D- Dustin Moskovitz $2.7 billion
D- Sean Parker $1.6 billion
D- Peter Thiel $1.6 billion
D- Yuri Milner $1 billion
D- Eduardo Saverin $1.6 billion*_
_*REPUBLICAN
R- Michael Dell 14 billion
R- Charles Koch 21.5 billion
R- David Koch 21.5 bllion

What? You mean there are far more uber wealthy democrats than Republicans? NO Say it isn't so. 


Examine this as well: 7of the top ten richest people in congress are ...... you guessed it. Democrats. *_


----------



## yeggous (Jun 18, 2014)

Puck it said:


> There is a positive slope to the data but a R^2 of 0.15 is not a strong correlation.



I think you're missing the point. Let's frame this in terms of the physical interpretation:

The correlation is a measure of the percentage of the variance that is explained by the trend. What that R^2 means is that 15% of the total variance is explained by the upward trend. That does not mean the trend is not real.

The p-value says that there is a 0.002% chance that the trend is from random chance.

This is illustrated using the idealized case below with a trend plus some variability.

> x <- 1:100
> y <- x/100 + sin(x)

> reg <- lm(y~x)
> summary(reg)

Call:
lm(formula = y ~ x)

Residuals:
     Min       1Q   Median       3Q      Max 
-1.04535 -0.69689  0.00216  0.73422  1.03857 

Coefficients:
            Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)    
(Intercept) 0.058347   0.144154   0.405 0.686542    
x           0.008819   0.002478   3.559 0.000576 ***
---
Signif. codes:  0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1

Residual standard error: 0.7154 on 98 degrees of freedom
Multiple R-squared:  0.1144,	Adjusted R-squared:  0.1054 
F-statistic: 12.66 on 1 and 98 DF,  p-value: 0.0005764


----------



## Puck it (Jun 18, 2014)

steamboat1 said:


> Lets just have a look shall we?
> 
> This is taken directly from forbes top 15 richest in America.
> 
> ...




Evil Republicans!!!


----------



## dlague (Jun 18, 2014)

Puck it said:


> There is a positive slope to the data but a R^2 of 0.15 is not a strong correlation.



Actually that data is very encouraging!  Of the top ten snowiest years 4 of them are within the past 20 years.  In fact of the top 25 snowiest years about half are in the past 21 years.  The second highest snowfall amount was 2010-2011 (also the peak for the most skier/snowboarder visits) and the second lowest snow fall year was 2011-2012 (which we regrettably remember) .  Interestingly the data ranges prior to the sixties were actually pretty consistent/boring then the data range widened up a lot.  Eighties were boring as well!


----------



## dlague (Jun 18, 2014)

steamboat1 said:


> Lets just have a look shall we?
> 
> This is taken directly from forbes top 15 richest in America.
> 
> ...



And they plan in keeping it that way by oppressing our culture and making people dependent on government!


----------



## yeggous (Jun 18, 2014)

dlague said:


> Actually that data is very encouraging!  Of the top ten snowiest years 4 of them are within the past 20 years.  In fact of the top 25 snowiest years about half are in the past 21 years.  The second highest snowfall amount was 2010-2011 (also the peak for the most skier/snowboarder visits) and the second lowest snow fall year was 2011-2012 (which we regrettably remember) .  Interestingly the data ranges prior to the sixties were actually pretty consistent/boring then the data range widened up a lot.  Eighties were boring as well!
> 
> View attachment 12836



I'm not sure how much faith I would put in those numbers due to changes in how we measure snow. Way back in the olden days snowfall measurements were taken as a storm total where the snow was allowed to settle and compact under its own weight. Practices gradually changes to the modern standard of clearing the board and taking a new measurement every 6 hours. Unfortunately this transition was inconsistently applied across the country from the 1970s to 1990s and there is no way to account for settling other than perhaps to take the liquid equivalent measurements for snow storms (and make some assumptions about constant water ratios).

It seems very likely that the trend is at least partially because of this change in measurement practices. This is almost certainly a major cause of the increased variability later in the record.


----------



## Puck it (Jun 18, 2014)

yeggous said:


> I think you're missing the point. Let's frame this in terms of the physical interpretation:
> 
> The correlation is a measure of the percentage of the variance that is explained by the trend. What that R^2 means is that 15% of the total variance is explained by the upward trend. That does not mean the trend is not real.
> 
> ...



I did not say the trendline was not real.  The correlation is not strong.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jun 18, 2014)

witch hobble said:


> But seriously here, *anybody with even a minor interest in the flow of money into politics, and how it all works in our post Citizens United, "Tea Party" candidate world has known about the Koch bros since at least the 2010 election* cycle.  Freedomworks.....Americans for Prosperity.....etc.  Give people a little more credit dude.



First off, congratulations and thank you for mentioning the "Tea Party", I'm not sure how I failed to leave that left-wing Boogeyman off my list.

Secondly, you're not reading carefully enough and failed to grasp the point.  The point is/was, that there has been a relatively recent full-court press with significant funding behind it by liberal groups and DNC strategists to create a boogeyman out of the Koch Brothers.  Because of this, now even people who watch _"Dancing With the Stars"_ know who they are.  



Puck it said:


> For all of you talking about the Koch Brothers and their political agenda for the right.  The left has even a smarier one.
> 
> 
> *George Soros. He should be the poster child for all of what the liberals hate.  But he is the backer of pretty much everything liberal.*



Correct, except it's incorrect to call Soros "similar" to the Koch Brothers in terms of relative power & donations, because while they do have a similar net worth, Soros gives WAY more money to liberal causes than the Koch Brothers give to conservative causes.  

And THAT'S the great irony and hypocrisy of the liberals recent "Koch Brothers Boogey Man campaign".   

You'll also note that while Soros funds _"pretty much everything liberal"_, you almost NEVER hear his name mentioned on MSNBC, CNN, etc...... and certainly not NEARLY as often as the less influential Koch Brothers.  Soros' name is typically unmentioned like Voldemort on left-leaning networks.  Why?  Because the hypocrisy is palpable, and media liberals dont want voting liberals to know just how much power and $$$$ a "rich elitist white guy" has over the Democratic Party.  Because that would be exactly why they tell common voters to vote Democrat rather than Republican.  Irony.



steamboat1 said:


> _*
> What? You mean there are far more uber wealthy democrats than Republicans? NO Say it isn't so.
> 
> Examine this as well: 7of the top ten richest people in congress are ...... you guessed it. Democrats. *_



 To be fair, BOTH parties have over-expressed "rich folk" representation in Congress, but yeah, another irony is that the above probably only comes as a shock to the average Democrat voter.


----------



## bigbog (Jun 18, 2014)

Unfortunately for the majority of the Congressional votes, the under-the-table _rich(es)_ are the only things they seem to study the most.....either side.


----------



## witch hobble (Jun 18, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> First off, congratulations and thank you for mentioning the "Tea Party", I'm not sure how I failed to leave that left-wing Boogeyman off my list.
> 
> Secondly, you're not reading carefully enough and failed to grasp the point.  The point is/was, that there has been a relatively recent full-court press with significant funding behind it by liberal groups and DNC strategists to create a boogeyman out of the Koch Brothers.  Because of this, now even people who watch _"Dancing With the Stars"_ know who they are.
> 
> .



Hey bubble boy,  connecting the dots between between  Freedomworks and Americans for Prosperity to the "tea party" takes no outside the box cognitive skill. 

I fully grasped your point.....there is a new expose movie about the Kochs.  Tar and feather job.  Big whoop.  That type of movie, with a conservative slant about Hilary, is what brought us the Citizens United SCOTUS ruling in the first place.  Try to step out in the light and realize that just because you are being called out, doesn't mean that your entire belief system is.  Just your silly tactics.

And although I was already familiar with the brothers Koch, I must say that Maks and Meryl's artistry this season was on another level.  Anyone who can't appreciate that is likely Cro-magnon.


----------



## witch hobble (Jun 18, 2014)

dlague said:


> And they plan in keeping it that way by oppressing our culture and making people dependent on government!



Yeah!  Like Cannon skiers!!!


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jun 18, 2014)

witch hobble said:


> I fully grasped your point.....there is a new expose movie about the Kochs.  Tar and feather job.  Big whoop.



While I'm not convinced you "fully grasped" my point, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.  At any rate, you are certainly helping to prove my point.  

I wasn't even aware there was an anti-Koch Brothers smear movie coming out, so chock another one up for the far-left propaganda machine.  Hope the liberal mind-lemmings enjoy the buttery popcorn and Mike and Ikes.


----------



## Puck it (Jun 18, 2014)

witch hobble said:


> Yeah! Like Cannon skiers!!!



Leave us out of this.  I pay for an out of state season pass.


----------



## fbrissette (Jun 18, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> First off, while we're getting crazy with the hyperbole, it's probably a good time to point out that there aren't "thousands" of "climate scientists" on the entire planet.



Wrong.  There are a few hundreds in Canada only.  



BenedictGomez said:


> And it's the politicians and the IPCC who are pulling the strings, not individual scientists.



Thanks for pointing out that individual scientists are not a bunch of fraudulent crazy lunatics, despite what you've been implying in many of your previous posts.



BenedictGomez said:


> none of that changes the fact that their models have failed miserably for the better part of 2 decades now, nor the fact that CO2 has risen even more than they predicted (i.e. they were wrong about that too) and the earth has not warmed as much as it should have given that fact.



If it is so evident, so simple, why is it that the very large majority of climate scientists (the individual scientists not connected to the fraud), all disagree with you ?   The models have failed miserably ?  Considering the amount of parameterization and computational grid size, I would say that the model have done admirably !    Those who know nothing about climate models expect them to be perfect, whereas those who know climate models fully expect them to be flawed.  



BenedictGomez said:


> ENTER: The oceans are absorbing much more heat than we thought!  Because god knows, the hypothesis cannot possibly be wrong.



The problem is that all other hypothesis (i.e. natural variability, solar cycles, etc...) have been soundly investigated and rejected.  And if you would bother reading the literature you would find that there are lots of evidence pointing to the role of the oceans.   Science will be moving on, no matter what the Al Gore and Koch brothers of this world think.


----------



## witch hobble (Jun 18, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> While I'm not convinced you "fully grasped" my point, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.  At any rate, you are certainly helping to prove my point.



Now you're grasping, because aside from my overt love for the brutal, gulag style base lodge architecture found at state run ski areas, I don't wear my politics on my sleeve.


----------



## witch hobble (Jun 18, 2014)

Puck it said:


> Leave us out of this.  I pay for an out of state season pass.


Thank you for your contribution.  Please consider buying some liquor and cigarettes while you are here.  Perhaps go for dinner and drinks.  Buy a vacation home here.  Start a business.

thanks again!


----------



## Puck it (Jun 18, 2014)

witch hobble said:


> Thank you for your contribution. Please consider buying some liquor and cigarettes while you are here. Perhaps go for dinner and drinks. Buy a vacation home here. Start a business.
> 
> thanks again!



Always buy my booze in NH.  Love the rest stops on the way back from skiing.  I don't smoke.  We love the Common Man and Tuscan Kitchen and others.  Planning on buying after my so called rich ass pays for two college education.  I doubt about starting a business though.  Drive a groomer, hell yes.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 18, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> I wasn't even aware there was an anti-Koch Brothers smear movie coming out, so chock another one up for the far-left propaganda machine.  Hope the liberal mind-lemmings enjoy the buttery popcorn and Mike and Ikes.



plenty of shills on your side of the aisle too; sucking the koolaide from the teets of hannity, Limbaugh, savage and beck

It's goes both ways


----------



## AdironRider (Jun 18, 2014)

Except you dont have Senate majority leaders focusing on them on the senate floor when they should be doing real govt stuff.

It doesnt exactly go both ways, but in the end, you are arguing over a douche or a turd sandwich.


----------



## Cannonball (Jun 18, 2014)

And the climate change denier crowd finds success again!  A thread that started with the word "scientist"  has been successfully diverted on to a comedy of tired political stereotypes.   No need to worry about reality anymore, back to your regularly scheduled nightly fluff.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jun 18, 2014)

fbrissette said:


> The models have failed miserably ?  Considering the amount of parameterization and computational grid size, I would say that the model have done admirably !    Those who know nothing about climate models expect them to be perfect, *whereas those who know climate models fully expect them to be flawed.  *



Then_ "those who know"_ REALLY must not be shocked in the least bit.









fbrissette said:


> *The problem is that all other hypothesis* (i.e. natural variability,* solar cycles,* etc...)* have been soundly investigated and rejected.*  And if you would bother reading the literature you would find that there are lots of evidence pointing to the role of the oceans. *  Science will be moving on*, no matter what the Al Gore and Koch brothers of this world think.



That's horse-hockey.  Solar cycle, flame, variability, has not be studied to its' termination, any more so than the man-made Global Warming theory has.

And frankly my guess is it holds some promise.

I mean.... call me crazy but I think it's more likely (and less arrogant) of a hypothesis to assume that that giant burning ball of flame in the sky that controls such "insignificant" events such as Day and Night, Summer and Winter, and Hot and Cold, perhaps has a bit more to do with our warming (or cooling) planet than humans churning CO2 etc...  I'm at least open-minded to the idea anyway, which is more than can be said for some.



AdironRider said:


> *Except you dont have Senate majority leaders focusing on them on the senate floor when they should be doing real govt stuff.*
> 
> *It doesnt exactly go both ways, but in the end, you are arguing over a douche or a turd sandwich*.



Correct on both counts.  

For every insignificant and non-powerful, low-level House Republican that nobody has heard of and will likely (thankfully) only serve 1 two-year term and possesses some bat-**** crazy idea, you have a legitimately powerful left-wing extremist Senate/House Democrat who frighteningly actually do possess some national power.  I'm lookin' at you Nancy Pelosi.


----------



## Cannonball (Jun 18, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> Then_ "those who know"_ REALLY must not be shocked in the least bit.



Do you ever even try to think for yourself before you simply repost from the same old blogs over and over?  http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/95-of-climate-models-agree-the-observations-must-be-wrong/   I mean, If you aren't going to present your own thinking at least let us know who is doing the thinking for you.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 18, 2014)

Yeah really.  We do have no tolerance plagiarism policy here on AZ.


----------



## steamboat1 (Jun 19, 2014)

http://mycountdown.org/Other/Winter/


----------



## Puck it (Jun 19, 2014)

Models are not always accurate.  Most do not take into account all of the variables known and unknown.  At work, when a model agrees with experiemtation for our ion beams.  I am somewhat surprise.  I usually use them as a first order approximation to what is going on inside the beam line.  The actual measurements and models do show the same trend from this data. We need to listen to all theories in regards to this not just one.  The conversation between the two sides will need to civil to affect any change.

Again, I am not a GW'er but we need to do look at this and do something just not a knee jerk reaction.


----------



## Mapnut (Jun 19, 2014)

Quote: The conversation between the two sides will need to civil to affect any change.
Thank you very much. The problem is really the existence of two "sides".


----------



## fbrissette (Jun 19, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> Then_ "those who know"_ REALLY must not be shocked in the least bit.



I fully understand why anyone untrained (like you quite obviously) would look at this graph and say that models are really bad.  Yet, if you understood climate models a little bit more, you would end up saying, when looking at the above graph, that the climate models do indeed perform quite admirably well.   

If your crowd would bother to learn some stuff, you would find that there are lots legitimate reason to criticize climate models, but that the above graph is simply not the best target, not by a long shot.  But you're clearly not interested in any fruitful scientific endeavor.  




BenedictGomez said:


> That's horse-hockey.  Solar cycle, flame, variability, has not be studied to its' termination, any more so than the man-made Global Warming theory has.
> 
> And frankly my guess is it holds some promise.


Your guess ?  OK, that's how science works on your side of the fence ?

Not been studied to termination ?   Since Milankovitch breakthrough work, countless work has been done on solar activity.  We have satellites whose sole role is the sun observation.   Just a quick google scholar search for 'sunspots' returned 60000 journal papers. Certainly not all relevant, but it gives you a general idea.




BenedictGomez said:


> I mean.... call me crazy but I think it's more likely (and less arrogant) of a hypothesis to assume that that giant burning ball of flame in the sky that controls such "insignificant" events such as Day and Night, Summer and Winter, and Hot and Cold, perhaps has a bit more to do with our warming (or cooling) planet than humans churning CO2 etc...  I'm at least open-minded to the idea anyway, which is more than can be said for some.



If you were the least open-minded, you would bother reading the actual science.  I'm open-minded.  I have read the literature.  All of the work that has been done on the sun indicates that the sun is NOT responsible for the recent temperature increase.  Not only that, there is currently no ongoing unexplored theory about how the 'giant burning ball of flame' could be responsible.

What is your explanation ?   Do you at least have one serious alternative explanation that is backed with science ?   Of course you don't.  That's why your side only has only one option which is to throw mud at scientists saying that they're all biased arrogant lying scumbags, making a lot of money out of climate research.

The truth is that most climate scientists would be extremely happy to find an alternative explanation.  Any alternative explanation would be better than the current one which is that we are wrecking the planet - climate change being one of many ways in which we are achieving this goal.




BenedictGomez said:


> For every insignificant and non-powerful, low-level House Republican that nobody has heard of and will likely (thankfully) only serve 1 two-year term and possesses some bat-**** crazy idea, you have a legitimately powerful left-wing extremist Senate/House Democrat who frighteningly actually do possess some national power.  I'm lookin' at you Nancy Pelosi.



Being Canadian, I'll be happy to comment on US politics.  The truth is that US politics is currently the laughing stock of the planet. The bozos on both sides (yes on both sides) have managed to completely wreck a political system which gave rise to one of the best country in the world.  Your system is completely broken.  And you cannot blame only one side for that.   Nothing significant can be or will be achieved anytime soon the way things currently stand.  Heck, I'd take Italy's political mayhem over yours right now.   If you look at the recent Belgium example, you'd probably better off with no government for a while.

Politics ain't exactly rosy in Canada right now, but when we look south of the border, it makes us fell a bit better.

To a lot of people, US politics are now a new form of entertainment.  Beats a lot of comedy shows.  There are powerful idiots all over the world, but nowhere near as many as there are in the U.S. right now.


----------



## Cannonball (Jun 19, 2014)

Puck it said:


> We need to listen to all theories in regards to this not just one.  The conversation between the two sides will need to civil to affect any change.



Why do we need to listen to all theories? But if that is true then why only two sides??? Can't anyone with with no experience, training, or information make up their own "theory" and have a "side" of their own?  Should be a really productive debate.


----------



## Puck it (Jun 19, 2014)

Cannonball said:


> Why do we need to listen to all theories? But if that is true then why only two sides??? Can't anyone with with no experience, training, or information make up their own "theory" and have a "side" of their own? Should be a really productive debate.




They can but they will not be credible.


----------



## Cannonball (Jun 19, 2014)

Puck it said:


> They can but they will not be credible.



exactly.  And that's where we are in the 'debate' right now.


----------



## Puck it (Jun 19, 2014)

Cannonball said:


> exactly. And that's where we are in the 'debate' right now.


  There are some credilble counterpoints.


----------



## Abubob (Jun 19, 2014)

Global Problematic Thermal Rearrangement. or GPTR. (gip-TAR) Thanks to my brother Chris for coining the new "politically palatable" term.


----------



## Rowsdower (Jun 19, 2014)

Puck it said:


> There are some credilble counterpoints.



Go on...


----------



## VTKilarney (Jun 19, 2014)

fbrissette said:


> The truth is that US politics is currently the laughing stock of the planet.



I can't get over the fact that a Canadian (from Quebec no less!) feels entitled to make this claim.  When was the last time you opened a Macleans?  You should get outside and Windex your glass house before throwing stones!


----------



## dlague (Jun 19, 2014)

Puck it said:


> Models are not always accurate.  Most do not take into account all of the variables known and unknown.  At work, when a model agrees with experiemtation for our ion beams.  I am somewhat surprise.  I usually use them as a first order approximation to what is going on inside the beam line.  The actual measurements and models do show the same trend from this data. We need to listen to all theories in regards to this not just one.  The conversation between the two sides will need to civil to affect any change.
> 
> Again, I am not a GW'er but we need to do look at this and do something just not a knee jerk reaction.



Agreed!


----------



## fbrissette (Jun 19, 2014)

VTKilarney said:


> I can't get over the fact that a Canadian (from Quebec no less!) feels entitled to make this claim.  When was the last time you opened a Macleans?  You should get outside and Windex your glass house before throwing stones!



There is indeed a lot to laugh about in Canadian and Quebec politics.  Whenever I meet with international colleagues (mostly european) during dinner however, it seems there is always an 'american politics' discussion part.  

Having said that, my earlier comments were mostly tongue-in-cheek. 

Here's one of the most recent episode in the 'American politics comedy show':

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/gop-sen-thad-cochran-has-absolutely-no-idea-that-eric-cantor-lost/


----------



## VTKilarney (Jun 19, 2014)

No offense, but I think that your international colleagues talk about US politics over Canadian politics because they are familiar with the former and not the latter.  As a regular listener of CJAD, I know that Canadians are far from perfect in the political department - but that's true of most countries.


----------



## Cannonball (Jun 19, 2014)

Puck it said:


> Models are not always accurate.  Most do not take into account all of the variables known and unknown.  At work, when a model agrees with experiemtation for our ion beams.  I am somewhat surprise.  I usually use them as a first order approximation to what is going on inside the beam line.  The actual measurements and models do show the same trend from this data. We need to listen to all theories in regards to this not just one.  The conversation between the two sides will need to civil to affect any change.
> 
> Again, I am not a GW'er but we need to do look at this and do something just not a knee jerk reaction.





dlague said:


> Agreed!



What do you agree about?  That we have to listen to all theories?

In that case, I have to debate Puckit on his first point.  My theory is that your ion beam models don't fully account for variables in lunar activity and long-term hemline trends.  Therefore I can't believe in whatever it is you do.  This uninformed theory  of mine deserves to be considered equally against all of your training and experience.  And I know at least one former dog trainer that agrees with me.  So I guess we are at a standstill in this debate about ion beams and whatever.   And lastly TIPPER GORE!


----------



## Edd (Jun 19, 2014)

Guys, it is just science...so easy. For instance, I've decided that this definitely happened because I dislike other theories.


----------



## fbrissette (Jun 19, 2014)

VTKilarney said:


> No offense, but I think that your international colleagues talk about US politics over Canadian politics because they are familiar with the former and not the latter.  As a regular listener of CJAD, I know that Canadians are far from perfect in the political department - but that's true of most countries.



OK I'm sorry I made fun of US politics. There is a lot of crap in Canadian politics and we have our fair share of bozos.  But the system more or less works.  The majority party is able to rule and take decisions.   The counterweights built into the US system clearly don't work very well in the current political climate,  resulting in the impossibility of any form of bipartisanship.


----------



## dlague (Jun 19, 2014)

Cannonball said:


> What do you agree about?  That we have to listen to all theories?
> 
> In that case, I have to debate Puckit on his first point.  My theory is that your ion beam models don't fully account for variables in lunar activity and long-term hemline trends.  Therefore I can't believe in whatever it is you do.  This uninformed theory  of mine deserves to be considered equally against all of your training and experience.  And I know at least one former dog trainer that agrees with me.  So I guess we are at a standstill in this debate about ion beams and whatever.   And lastly TIPPER GORE!





> Again, I am not a GW'er but we need to do look at this and do something just not a knee jerk reaction.



I find that people are either way right or way left on this topic and that it is politically driven.  There are some moderates - I consider myself a moderate on this topic - then again, I am no expert either way.  However without getting political too much - there are decisions being made with respect to Global Warming that have become loss losers that are questionable.  I think that much of the political fighting is happening for the politicians gain rather then the countries gain!  Being for or against Global Warming is political currency.


----------



## fbrissette (Jun 19, 2014)

dlague said:


> I find that people are either way right or way left on this topic and that it is politically driven.  There are some moderates - I consider myself a moderate on this topic - then again, I am no expert either way.  However without getting political too much - there are decisions being made with respect to Global Warming that have become loss losers that are questionable.  I think that much of the political fighting is happening for the politicians gain rather then the countries gain!  Being for or against Global Warming is political currency.




Of course it is politically driven, like any decision that involves money.  Fact remains that almost all climate scientists from all country around the world (so neither democrats or GOPers) are saying the same thing.  

You're a moderate on this topic ?  Scientifically speaking, there's not much room to be a moderate on whether or not it is happening and as to the main cause.  

There is however a lot of room to be a moderate with respect to the actions that should or shouldn't be taken.

Which kind of moderate are you ?


----------



## dlague (Jun 19, 2014)

Well I am not driving a Prius!  I do drive all over the place to ski and to do summer activities as well.  Then again I know many diehard GW'ers that do the same.  In many countries where there are an abundance of smaller cars I would bet it is due to gas prices before trying to save the planet.  While I do believe there are some things we should do I do not think either argument for or against make a solid case.  Not like this planet never warmed up or cooled down before.  And predictions from twenty years ago are not as dramatic as expected.  IMO


i typed with my i thumbs using AlpineZone


----------



## Rowsdower (Jun 19, 2014)

See these scientific discussions always turn to politics...


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 19, 2014)

Rowsdower said:


> See these scientific discussions always turn to politics...




It's inevitable because even with proven science (not suggesting man made GW absolutely is, but I lean that way) people will focus on how policy/politics will affect the economy.  Money is what's important to most people.  Money = politics.


----------



## Edd (Jun 19, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> It's inevitable because even with proven science (not suggesting man made GW absolutely is, but I lean that way) people will focus on how policy/politics will affect the economy. Money is what's important to most people. Money = politics.



There's also a uniquely American issue that some folks just cannot stand being told what to do.  Recycle?  But my freedoms!!!  Use a different light bulb?  You're a fascist!!

That kind of attitude can be leveraged to push back on any policy suggestion, no matter how sensible.


----------



## Cannonball (Jun 19, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> It's inevitable because even with proven science (not suggesting man made GW absolutely is, but I lean that way) people will focus on how policy/politics will affect the economy.  Money is what's important to most people.  Money = politics.



QFT!  For work I have recently hired some economic-analysis firms to look at "environmental" projects I am working on.  I use quotes on "environmental" because these are basic human-benefit projects but since they also happen to benefit fish some people are skeptical of them.  The only way we can break the ice with some people is to show them the fact that these projects will SAVE THEM TAX DOLLARS.  Then they suddenly don't mind if a few fish get saved in the process.  Although my background is ecology, I have recently been looking into starting over on a grad degree in economics.  I believe it will be a far easier means to get to the same ends that I'm working towards.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 19, 2014)

maybe bit coins for fish and light bulbs is the future?


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jun 19, 2014)

Cannonball said:


> Do you ever even try to think for yourself before *you simply repost* from the same old blogs over and over?



 Yes, I have posted that graphic before, so what.  It was applicable to the conversation and demonstrates that while the trend is warming (as everyone knows), the models are friggin' horrendous.



fbrissette said:


> *If you were the least open-minded, you would bother reading the actual science.  I'm open-minded.  I have read the literature.  *



 I actually have read plenty of it, I actually do have two degrees in science, and I actually DID _once_ believe in man-caused global warming.  Thanks for red-lining the condescension needle though, that's a nice touch for the thread.



fbrissette said:


> The truth is that *most climate scientists would be extremely happy to find an alternative explanation.*



That's easily swatted-down as nonsense.  Were that true than some of the most influential and famed IPCC scientists wouldnt have (on MULTIPLE occasions now) been caught with their hands in the cookie jar suppressing information that is negative or contradictory to the man-caused Global Warming hypothesis.  The reality is _"most climate scientists"_ would be out of a job TOMORROW if AGW were definitely disproved. 




dlague said:


> I find that *people are either way right or way left on this topic and that it is politically driven. ....Being for or against Global Warming is political currency*.



I agree, but Global Warming SHOULDNT be a political topic at all.  It's science.  It became a "topic" when leftist politicians the world over started USING the science to inflict heavy taxation and increased regulation and control over businesses and citizens.  That is the reason why Global Warming is a "political" issue, and my chief concern.  We are on the verge of seriously harming our economy (which 100% will hurt everyone) over an issue that may or may not even be legitimate, and if you "read the science" (that's for fbrissette) we're already completely screwed if AGW is true.  There is NOTHING we can do about it IF the science is correct.  It is ALREADY too late.  This parrot is deceased.  It is an ex-parrot.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jun 19, 2014)

fbrissette said:


> Fact remains that *almost all climate scientists from all country around the world* (so neither democrats or GOPers) *are saying the same thing. * Scientifically speaking, *there's not much room to be a moderate on whether or not it is happening and as to the main cause.*



Well that settles it then.  If most scientists in the world at a given  point in time are in agreement then the science must be correct.

 I'm glad you didn't side with those silly heliocentric earth frauds. 

And that evolution nonsense was for morons too.  Darwin, sheesh, what a dope!

By the way, the last time you had a fever, did you make 4 or 5 incisions  in your neck to let the toxic poisons in your blood out?




Cannonball said:


> *Although my background is ecology, I  have recently been looking into starting over on a grad degree in  economics.  I believe it will be a far easier means to get to the same  ends that I'm working towards.*



Could you explain this?


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 19, 2014)

just an observation, but you are one angry dude Benedict.


----------



## fbrissette (Jun 19, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> I actually have read plenty of it, I actually do have two degrees in science,


If the above is true, then it should be relatively easy for you to cite a few papers explaining how the 'great big ball of fire' is responsible for the observed warming, since this is your alternative hypothesis.  Put your two science degrees to task.  Good luck.




BenedictGomez said:


> The reality is _"most climate scientists"_ would be out of a job TOMORROW if AGW were definitely disproved.



Since most climate scientists do work for the government or are in academia, and therefore have job security, this is incorrect.  Climate research existed long before AGW. 





BenedictGomez said:


> and if you "read the science" (that's for fbrissette) we're already completely screwed if AGW is true.  There is NOTHING we can do about it IF the science is correct.  It is ALREADY too late.  This parrot is deceased.  It is an ex-parrot.



This is such BS. While some lasting effects are inevitable,  minimally we can try to stop making things worse.  Technological advances may offer breakthough economical alternatives for the removal of CO2 somewhere down the line.  For a guy with two science degrees, you don't seem to have a lot of faith in science.


----------



## fbrissette (Jun 19, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> Well that settles it then.  If most scientists in the world at a given  point in time are in agreement then the science must be correct.
> 
> I'm glad you didn't side with those silly heliocentric earth frauds.
> 
> ...



If you equate middle age and renaissance pseudo science to modern age science, it explains a lot of things about your reasoning process.


----------



## Tin (Jun 20, 2014)

A formal fallacy is an error in logic that can be seen in the argument's form.[SUP][1][/SUP] All formal fallacies are specific types of non sequiturs.


Appeal to probability – is a statement that takes something for granted because it would probably be the case (or might be the case).[SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP]
Argument from fallacy – assumes that if an argument for some conclusion is fallacious, then the conclusion _itself_ is false.[SUP][4][/SUP]
Base rate fallacy – making a probability judgment based on conditional probabilities, without taking into account the effect of prior probabilities.[SUP][5][/SUP]
Conjunction fallacy – assumption that an outcome simultaneously satisfying multiple conditions is more probable than an outcome satisfying a single one of them.[SUP][6][/SUP]
Masked man fallacy (illicit substitution of identicals) – the substitution of identical designators in a true statement can lead to a false one.[SUP][7][/SUP]
*Propositional fallacies[edit]*

A propositional fallacy is an error in logic that concerns compound propositions. For a compound proposition to be true, the truth values of its constituent parts must satisfy the relevant logical connectives that occur in it (most commonly: <and>, <or>, <not>, <only if>, <if and only if>). The following fallacies involve inferences whose correctness is not guaranteed by the behavior of those logical connectives, and hence, which are not logically guaranteed to yield true conclusions.
Types of Propositional fallacies:


Affirming a disjunct – concluded that one disjunct of a logical disjunction must be false because the other disjunct is true; _A or B; A; therefore not B_.[SUP][8][/SUP]
Affirming the consequent – the antecedent in an indicative conditional is claimed to be true because the consequent is true; _if A, then B; B, therefore A_.[SUP][8][/SUP]
Denying the antecedent – the consequent in an indicative conditional is claimed to be false because the antecedent is false; _if A, then B; not A, therefore not B_.[SUP][8][/SUP]
*Quantification fallacies[edit]*

A quantification fallacy is an error in logic where the quantifiers of the premises are in contradiction to the quantifier of the conclusion.
Types of Quantification fallacies:


Existential fallacy – an argument has a universal premise and a particular conclusion.[SUP][9][/SUP]
*Formal syllogistic fallacies[edit]*

Syllogistic fallacies – logical fallacies that occur in syllogisms.


Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise (illicit negative) – when a categorical syllogism has a positive conclusion, but at least one negative premise.[SUP][9][/SUP]
Fallacy of exclusive premises – a categorical syllogism that is invalid because both of its premises are negative.[SUP][9][/SUP]
Fallacy of four terms (_quaternio terminorum_) – a categorical syllogism that has four terms.[SUP][10][/SUP]
Illicit major – a categorical syllogism that is invalid because its major term is not distributed in the major premise but distributed in the conclusion.[SUP][9][/SUP]
Illicit minor – a categorical syllogism that is invalid because its minor term is not distributed in the minor premise but distributed in the conclusion.[SUP][9][/SUP]
Negative conclusion from affirmative premises (illicit affirmative) – when a categorical syllogism has a negative conclusion but affirmative premises. [SUP][9][/SUP]
Fallacy of the undistributed middle – the middle term in a categorical syllogism is not distributed.[SUP][11][/SUP]
*Informal fallacies[edit]*

_Main article: Informal fallacy_
Informal fallacies – arguments that are fallacious for reasons other than structural (formal) flaws and usually require examination of the argument's content.[SUP][12][/SUP]


Argument from ignorance (appeal to ignorance, _argumentum ad ignorantiam_) – assuming that a claim is true because it has not been or cannot be proven false, or vice versa.[SUP][13][/SUP]
Argument from (personal) incredulity (divine fallacy, appeal to common sense) – I cannot imagine how this could be true, therefore it must be false.[SUP][14][/SUP][SUP][15][/SUP]
Argument from repetition (_argumentum ad nauseam_) – signifies that it has been discussed extensively until nobody cares to discuss it anymore.[SUP][16][/SUP][SUP][17][/SUP]
Argument from silence (_argumentum e silentio_) – where the conclusion is based on the absence of evidence, rather than the existence of evidence.
Argument to moderation (false compromise, middle ground, fallacy of the mean, _argumentum ad temperantiam_) – assuming that the compromise between two positions is always correct.[SUP][18][/SUP]
Argumentum ad hominem – the evasion of the actual topic by directing the attack at your opponent.
Argumentum verbosium – See Proof by verbosity, below.
Begging the question (_petitio principii_) – providing what is essentially the conclusion of the argument as a premise.
(shifting the) Burden of proof (see – _onus probandi_) – I need not prove my claim, you must prove it is false.
Circular reasoning (_circulus in demonstrando_) – when the reasoner begins with what he or she is trying to end up with; sometimes called _assuming the conclusion_.
Circular cause and consequence – where the consequence of the phenomenon is claimed to be its root cause.
Continuum fallacy (fallacy of the beard, line-drawing fallacy, sorites fallacy, fallacy of the heap, bald man fallacy) – improperly rejecting a claim for being imprecise.[SUP][19][/SUP]
Correlative-based fallacies
Correlation proves causation (_cum hoc ergo propter hoc_) – a faulty assumption that correlation between two variables implies that one causes the other.[SUP][20][/SUP]
Suppressed correlative – where a correlative is redefined so that one alternative is made impossible.[SUP][21][/SUP]

Equivocation – the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time).[SUP][22][/SUP]
Ambiguous middle term – a common ambiguity in syllogisms in which the middle term is equivocated.[SUP][23][/SUP]

Ecological fallacy – inferences about the nature of specific individuals are based solely upon aggregate statistics collected for the group to which those individuals belong.[SUP][24][/SUP]
Etymological fallacy – which reasons that the original or historical meaning of a word or phrase is necessarily similar to its actual present-day meaning.[SUP][25][/SUP]
Fallacy of composition – assuming that something true of part of a whole must also be true of the whole.[SUP][26][/SUP]
Fallacy of division – assuming that something true of a thing must also be true of all or some of its parts.[SUP][27][/SUP]
False dilemma (false dichotomy, fallacy of bifurcation, black-or-white fallacy) – two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there are more.[SUP][28][/SUP]
Fallacy of many questions (complex question, fallacy of presupposition, loaded question, _plurium interrogationum_) – someone asks a question that presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved. This fallacy is often used rhetorically, so that the question limits direct replies to those that serve the questioner's agenda.
Fallacy of the single cause (causal oversimplification[SUP][29][/SUP]) – it is assumed that there is one, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes.
False attribution – an advocate appeals to an irrelevant, unqualified, unidentified, biased or fabricated source in support of an argument.
Fallacy of quoting out of context (contextomy) – refers to the selective excerpting of words from their original context in a way that distorts the source's intended meaning.[SUP][30][/SUP]

False authority (single authority) – using an expert of dubious credentials and/or using only one opinion to sell a product or idea. Related to the appeal to authority fallacy.
Furtive fallacy – outcomes are asserted to have been caused by the malfeasance of decision makers.
Gambler's fallacy – the incorrect belief that separate, independent events can affect the likelihood of another random event. If a coin flip lands on heads 10 times in a row, the belief that it is "due to the number of times it had previously landed on tails" is incorrect.[SUP][31][/SUP]
Hedging – using words with ambiguous meanings, then changing the meaning of them later.
Historian's fallacy – occurs when one assumes that decision makers of the past viewed events from the same perspective and having the same information as those subsequently analyzing the decision.[SUP][32][/SUP] (Not to be confused with presentism, which is a mode of historical analysis in which present-day ideas, such as moral standards, are projected into the past.)
Homunculus fallacy – where a "middle-man" is used for explanation, this sometimes leads to regressive middle-men. Explains without actually explaining the real nature of a function or a process. Instead, it explains the concept in terms of the concept itself, without first defining or explaining the original concept. Explaining thought as something produced by a little thinker, a sort of homunculus inside the head, merely explains it as another kind of thinking (as different but the same).[SUP][33][/SUP]
Inflation of conflict – The experts of a field of knowledge disagree on a certain point, so the scholars must know nothing, and therefore the legitimacy of their entire field is put to question.[SUP][34][/SUP]
If-by-whiskey – an argument that supports both sides of an issue by using terms that are selectively emotionally sensitive.
Incomplete comparison – in which insufficient information is provided to make a complete comparison.
Inconsistent comparison – where different methods of comparison are used, leaving one with a false impression of the whole comparison.
_Ignoratio elenchi_ (irrelevant conclusion, missing the point) – an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question.[SUP][35][/SUP]
Kettle logic – using multiple inconsistent arguments to defend a position.
Ludic fallacy – the belief that the outcomes of non-regulated random occurrences can be encapsulated by a statistic; a failure to take into account unknown unknowns in determining the probability of events taking place.[SUP][36][/SUP]
Mind projection fallacy – when one considers the way one sees the world as the way the world really is.
Moral high ground fallacy – in which one assumes a "holier-than-thou" attitude in an attempt to make oneself look good to win an argument.
Moralistic fallacy – inferring factual conclusions from purely evaluative premises in violation of fact–value distinction. For instance, inferring _is_ from _ought_ is an instance of moralistic fallacy. Moralistic fallacy is the inverse of naturalistic fallacy defined below.
Moving the goalposts (raising the bar) – argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded.
Naturalistic fallacy – inferring evaluative conclusions from purely factual premises[SUP][37][/SUP] in violation of fact–value distinction. For instance, inferring _ought_ from _is_(sometimes referred to as the _is-ought fallacy_) is an instance of naturalistic fallacy. Also naturalistic fallacy in a stricter sense as defined in the section "Conditional or questionable fallacies" below is an instance of naturalistic fallacy. Naturalistic fallacy is the inverse of moralistic fallacy.
Naturalistic fallacy fallacy[SUP][38][/SUP] (anti-naturalistic fallacy[SUP][39][/SUP]) – inferring impossibility to infer any instance of _ought_ from _is_ from the general invalidity of _is-ought fallacy_mentioned above. For instance, _is_






 does imply _ought_





 for any proposition 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




, although the naturalistic fallacy fallacy would falsely declare such an inference invalid. Naturalistic fallacy fallacy is an instance of argument from fallacy.
Nirvana fallacy (perfect solution fallacy) – when solutions to problems are rejected because they are not perfect.
_Onus probandi_ – from Latin "onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat" the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not on the person who denies (or questions the claim). It is a particular case of the "argumentum ad ignorantiam" fallacy, here the burden is shifted on the person defending against the assertion.
_Petitio principii_ – see begging the question.
_Post hoc ergo propter hoc_ Latin for "after this, therefore because of this" (faulty cause/effect, coincidental correlation, correlation without causation) – X happened, then Y happened; therefore X caused Y. The Loch Ness Monster has been seen in this loch. Something tipped our boat over; it's obviously the Loch Ness Monster.[SUP][40][/SUP]
Proof by verbosity (_argumentum verbosium_, proof by intimidation) – submission of others to an argument too complex and verbose to reasonably deal with in all its intimate details. (See also Gish Gallop and argument from authority.)
Prosecutor's fallacy – a low probability of false matches does not mean a low probability of _some_ false match being found.
Proving too much - using a form of argument that, if it were valid, could be used more generally to reach an absurd conclusion.
Psychologist's fallacy – an observer presupposes the objectivity of his own perspective when analyzing a behavioral event.
Red herring – a speaker attempts to distract an audience by deviating from the topic at hand by introducing a separate argument the speaker believes is easier to speak to.[SUP][41][/SUP]
Referential fallacy[SUP][42][/SUP] – assuming all words refer to existing things and that the meaning of words reside within the things they refer to, as opposed to words possibly referring no real object or that the meaning of words often comes from how we use them.
Regression fallacy – ascribes cause where none exists. The flaw is failing to account for natural fluctuations. It is frequently a special kind of the _post hoc_ fallacy.
Reification (hypostatization) – a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete, real event or physical entity. In other words, it is the error of treating as a "real thing" something that is not a real thing, but merely an idea.
Retrospective determinism – the argument that because some event has occurred, its occurrence must have been inevitable beforehand.
Shotgun argumentation – the arguer offers such a large number of arguments for their position that the opponent can't possibly respond to all of them. (See "Argument by verbosity" and "Gish Gallop", above.)
Special pleading – where a proponent of a position attempts to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule or principle without justifying the exemption.
Wrong direction – cause and effect are reversed. The cause is said to be the effect and vice versa.[SUP][43][/SUP]
*Faulty generalizations[edit]*

Faulty generalizations – reach a conclusion from weak premises. Unlike fallacies of relevance, in fallacies of defective induction, the premises are related to the conclusions yet only weakly buttress the conclusions. A faulty generalization is thus produced.


Accident – an exception to a generalization is ignored.[SUP][44][/SUP]
No true Scotsman – when a generalization is made true only when a counterexample is ruled out on shaky grounds.[SUP][45][/SUP]

Cherry picking (suppressed evidence, incomplete evidence) – act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.[SUP][46][/SUP]
False analogy – an argument by analogy in which the analogy is poorly suited.[SUP][47][/SUP]
Hasty generalization (fallacy of insufficient statistics, fallacy of insufficient sample, fallacy of the lonely fact, leaping to a conclusion, hasty induction, _secundum quid_, converse accident) – basing a broad conclusion on a small sample.[SUP][48][/SUP]
Inductive fallacy – A more general name to some fallacies, such as hasty generalization. It happens when a conclusion is made of premises that lightly support it.
Misleading vividness – involves describing an occurrence in vivid detail, even if it is an exceptional occurrence, to convince someone that it is a problem.
Overwhelming exception – an accurate generalization that comes with qualifications that eliminate so many cases that what remains is much less impressive than the initial statement might have led one to assume.[SUP][49][/SUP]
Thought-terminating cliché – a commonly used phrase, sometimes passing as folk wisdom, used to quell cognitive dissonance, conceal lack of thought-entertainment, move on to other topics etc. but in any case, end the debate with a cliche—not a point.
*Red herring fallacies[edit]*

A red herring fallacy is an error in logic where a proposition is, or is intended to be, misleading in order to make irrelevant or false inferences. In the general case any logical inference based on fake arguments, intended to replace the lack of real arguments or to replace implicitly the subject of the discussion.[SUP][50][/SUP][SUP][51][/SUP][SUP][52][/SUP]
Red herring – argument given in response to another argument, which is irrelevant and draws attention away from the subject of argument. _See also irrelevant conclusion._


_Ad hominem_ – attacking the arguer instead of the argument.
Poisoning the well – a type of _ad hominem_ where adverse information about a target is presented with the intention of discrediting everything that the target person says.[SUP][53][/SUP]
Abusive fallacy – a subtype of "ad hominem" when it turns into verbal abuse of the opponent rather than arguing about the originally proposed argument.[SUP][54][/SUP]

_Argumentum ad baculum_ (appeal to the stick, appeal to force, appeal to threat) – an argument made through coercion or threats of force to support position.[SUP][55][/SUP]
_Argumentum ad populum_ (appeal to widespread belief, bandwagon argument, appeal to the majority, appeal to the people) – where a proposition is claimed to be true or good solely because many people believe it to be so.[SUP][56][/SUP]
Appeal to equality – where an assertion is deemed true or false based on an assumed pretense of equality.[SUP][57][/SUP]
Association fallacy (guilt by association) – arguing that because two things share a property they are the same.[SUP][58][/SUP]
Appeal to authority (_argumentum ab auctoritate_) – where an assertion is deemed true because of the position or authority of the person asserting it.[SUP][59][/SUP][SUP][60][/SUP]
Appeal to accomplishment – where an assertion is deemed true or false based on the accomplishments of the proposer.[SUP][61][/SUP]

Appeal to consequences (_argumentum ad consequentiam_) – the conclusion is supported by a premise that asserts positive or negative consequences from some course of action in an attempt to distract from the initial discussion.[SUP][62][/SUP]
Appeal to emotion – where an argument is made due to the manipulation of emotions, rather than the use of valid reasoning. [SUP][63][/SUP]
Appeal to fear – a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made by increasing fear and prejudice towards the opposing side[SUP][64][/SUP][SUP][65][/SUP]
Appeal to flattery – a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made due to the use of flattery to gather support.[SUP][66][/SUP]
Appeal to pity (_argumentum ad misericordiam_) – an argument attempts to induce pity to sway opponents.[SUP][67][/SUP]
Appeal to ridicule – an argument is made by presenting the opponent's argument in a way that makes it appear ridiculous.[SUP][68][/SUP][SUP][69][/SUP]
Appeal to spite – a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made through exploiting people's bitterness or spite towards an opposing party.[SUP][70][/SUP]
Wishful thinking – a specific type of appeal to emotion where a decision is made according to what might be pleasing to imagine, rather than according to evidence or reason.[SUP][71][/SUP]

Appeal to motive – where a premise is dismissed by calling into question the motives of its proposer.
Appeal to novelty (_argumentum novitatis/antiquitatis_) – where a proposal is claimed to be superior or better solely because it is new or modern.[SUP][72][/SUP]
Appeal to poverty (_argumentum ad Lazarum_) – supporting a conclusion because the arguer is poor (or refuting because the arguer is wealthy). (Opposite ofappeal to wealth.)[SUP][73][/SUP]
Appeal to tradition (_argumentum ad antiquitam_) – a conclusion supported solely because it has long been held to be true.[SUP][74][/SUP]
Appeal to nature – wherein judgment is based solely on whether the subject of judgment is 'natural' or 'unnatural'.[SUP][75][/SUP]
Appeal to wealth (_argumentum ad crumenam_) – supporting a conclusion because the arguer is wealthy (or refuting because the arguer is poor).[SUP][76][/SUP] (Sometimes taken together with the appeal to poverty as a general appeal to the arguer's financial situation.)
Argument from silence (_argumentum ex silentio_) – a conclusion based on silence or lack of contrary evidence.
Bulverism (Psychogenetic Fallacy) – inferring why an argument is being used, associating it to some psychological reason, then assuming it is invalid as a result. It is wrong to assume that if the origin of an idea comes from a biased mind, then the idea itself must also be a false.[SUP][34][/SUP]
Chronological snobbery – where a thesis is deemed incorrect because it was commonly held when something else, clearly false, was also commonly held.[SUP][77][/SUP][SUP][78][/SUP]
Fallacy of relative privation – dismissing an argument due to the existence of more important, but unrelated, problems in the world.
Genetic fallacy – where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context.[SUP][79][/SUP]
Judgmental language – insulting or pejorative language to influence the recipient's judgment.
Naturalistic fallacy (is–ought fallacy,[SUP][80][/SUP] naturalistic fallacy[SUP][81][/SUP]) – claims about what ought to be on the basis of statements about what is.
_Reductio ad Hitlerum_ (playing the Nazi card) – comparing an opponent or their argument to Hitler or Nazism in an attempt to associate a position with one that is universally reviled. (See also – Godwin's law)
Straw man – an argument based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[SUP][82][/SUP]
Texas sharpshooter fallacy – improperly asserting a cause to explain a cluster of data.[SUP][83][/SUP]
_Tu quoque_ ("you too", appeal to hypocrisy, I'm rubber and you're glue) – the argument states that a certain position is false or wrong and/or should be disregarded because its proponent fails to act consistently in accordance with that position.[SUP][84][/SUP]
Two wrongs make a right – occurs when it is assumed that if one wrong is committed, another wrong will cancel it out.[SUP][85][/SUP]
*Conditional or questionable fallacies[edit]*



Broken window fallacy – an argument that disregards lost opportunity costs (typically non-obvious, difficult to determine or otherwise hidden) associated with destroying property of others, or other ways of externalizing costs onto others. For example, an argument that states breaking a window generates income for a window fitter, but disregards the fact that the money spent on the new window cannot now be spent on new shoes.[SUP][86][/SUP]
Definist fallacy – involves the confusion between two notions by defining one in terms of the other.[SUP][87][/SUP]
Naturalistic fallacy – attempts to prove a claim about ethics by appealing to a definition of the term "good" in terms of either one or more claims about natural properties (sometimes also taken to mean the appeal to nature) or God's will.[SUP][75][/SUP]
Slippery slope (thin edge of the wedge, camel's nose) – asserting that a relatively small first step inevitably leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant impact/event that should not happen, thus the first step should not happen. While this fallacy is a popular one, it is, in its essence, an appeal to probability fallacy. (e.g. if person x does y then z would [probably] occur, leading to q, leading to w, leading to e.)[SUP][88][/SUP] This is also related to the Reductio ad absurdum.
Unnatural fallacy - The argument that something (object, being, phenomenon, etc.) in existence is not a result of natural causes. Most often used when comparing man-made (artificial) phenomena to those that occur without human intervention.

I think I saw everyone one of these used at one point or another in this thread


----------



## Abubob (Jun 20, 2014)

Well that cleared things up. :razz: I'll take the if by whiskey fallacy please. Straight up - sort of.:roll:


----------



## Tin (Jun 20, 2014)

Abubob said:


> Well that cleared things up. :razz: I'll take the if by whiskey fallacy please. Straight up - sort of.:roll:



The Absinthe-Peyote-Quaalude Fallacy for me.


----------



## dlague (Jun 20, 2014)

Wow that was a long read - I will go with Appeal to Fear and even Appeal to Pity for $100.


i typed with my i thumbs using AlpineZone


----------



## fbrissette (Jun 20, 2014)

Tin said:


> I think I saw everyone one of these used at one point or another in this thread



You will see these in all internet forums.   This ain't the 'académie française'.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jun 20, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> just an observation, but you are one angry dude Benedict.



Couldnt be further from the truth.



fbrissette said:


> If the above is true, then it *should be relatively easy for you to cite a few papers explaining how the 'great big ball of fire' is responsible for the observed warming*, since this is your alternative hypothesis.  Put your two science degrees to task.  Good luck.



Surely you're aware that there is research that this could account for a decent chunk of global warming?  Note I did not say it was the ONLY answer or the totality or even a majority of the warming, but even in *pro-AGW* papers that support man-caused Global Warming some say the sun could account for "only" ~30% to ~50% of the warming.  The logical conclusion one should draw from that information that is oddly left out (especially in the media) is the fact that that's extremely significant if true.



fbrissette said:


> Since *most climate scientists do work for the government or are in academia, and therefore have job security, this is incorrect.*  Climate research existed long before AGW.



While I appreciate the fact that yes, sadly government jobs in America are protected regardless of incompetence or any act short of murder (with multiple witnesses), I think you're being extremely disingenuous to claim that the majority of the money, and a ton of jobs, in "Climate Research" would not instantly dry-up were man-caused Global Warming disproved.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jun 20, 2014)

fbrissette said:


> For a guy with two science degrees, you don't seem to have a lot of faith in science.



I have zero "faith" in science, I've already made the point that faith  doesn't exist in science.  I do, however, believe in testing a  hypothesis until it either falls apart or can no longer be disproved.  

What I do NOT believe in, however, is interjecting politics into  science, hiding data that either conflicts with or disproves your  hypothesis, tossing tons of money at specifically those who support a  favored conclusion, attempting to suppress those working on alternate  hypothesis to yours, and then stating that _"there can be no debate"_ (the opposite of science) and 100% accepting a theory that has not yet been conclusively proven (SEE: Hypothesis versus Law).



fbrissette said:


> If you equate middle age and renaissance pseudo  science to modern age science, it explains a lot of things about your  reasoning process.



I'll take the fact that you're intentionally misinterpreting what was written as evidence that you understood the point.


----------



## Cannonball (Jun 20, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> I have zero "faith" in science, I've already made the point that faith  doesn't exist in science.





BenedictGomez said:


> And I put more faith in Meteorologists (who predict the weather every day), than Climatologists (who reside in Academia and theorize).



Well at least we agree on where meteorologists fit in.


----------



## fbrissette (Jun 20, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> Surely you're aware that there is research that this could account for a decent chunk of global warming?  Note I did not say it was the ONLY answer or the totality or even a majority of the warming, but even in *pro-AGW* papers that support man-caused Global Warming some say the sun could account for "only" ~30% to ~50% of the warming.  The logical conclusion one should draw from that information that is oddly left out (especially in the media) is the fact that that's extremely significant if true.



30 to 50% of the warming ????  You're off by one order of magnitude.  The best estimates of radiative forcing from change in solar irradiance is 0.05 W/m2 out of a total estimated anthropogenic radiative forcing of 2.3 W/m2.   So about 2-3% of the warming.





BenedictGomez said:


> While I appreciate the fact that yes, sadly government jobs in America are protected regardless of incompetence or any act short of murder (with multiple witnesses), I think you're being extremely disingenuous to claim that the majority of the money, and a ton of jobs, in "Climate Research" would not instantly dry-up were man-caused Global Warming disproved.



Since your earlier comment was that almost all would lose their jobs - a typical black/white B.Gomez statement - I did not feel compelled to answer in shades of gray.   Climate change research (not climate research) has been funded largely by special funds through normal granting agencies (NSF, or NSERC in Canada).  If these funds were to dry up (as they have in Canada for example), very few climate scientists would lose their jobs.  Graduate students would be the first to suffer, closely followed by research assistants and government contract scientists.  Climate research (which has been ongoing) AND climate change research would continue to be funded through the normal channels.   While there would definitely be less money, smaller teams and less graduate students, the situation would never results in lies, cheating and global fraud to get money.  And this is a fact in Canada where (as mentioned above) all special climate change research initiatives have been cut by the current government who is a world leader in the fight against climate research.


----------

