Patterico's Pontifications

10/4/2016

The Dangerous Hypocrites On The Left

Filed under: General — Dana @ 7:00 am



[guest post by Dana]

As if America being stuck with two utterly awful candidates for the presidency isn’t enough, we now have a Hollywood notable showing his fascist underpants while spouting off spectacularly silly nonsense. Silly, yet dangerous when the implications of such a statement are fully considered:

“The scientific consensus is in and the argument is now over,” DiCaprio said at the White House’s South By South Lawn event.

“If you do not believe in climate change, you do not believe in facts, or in science or empirical truths and therefore, in my humble opinion, should not be allowed to hold public office.”

And you thought we were against religious tests…

Other than star-struck Obama, does anyone take DiCaprio seriously given that his favorite mode of transportation is a gas-guzzling private jet?

–Dana

90 Responses to “The Dangerous Hypocrites On The Left”

  1. Good morning!

    Dana (995455)

  2. Now, what I hope for is simple: Leo has to answer high school questions about science in front of a camera.

    Because he isn’t talking science. He doesn’t know any.

    It’s politics.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  3. I don’t think this has much to do with this post, but I’m about to read a column by Hiltzik at the DogTrainer….

    G (f85a02)

  4. Greetings:

    it’s always nice hearing from people proficient at repeating the words and portraying the emotions of others.

    11B40 (6abb5c)

  5. And you thought we were against religious tests…

    There is a dangerous built-in fascism that liberalism carries into everything it touches.

    Rev. Hoagie® (785e38)

  6. How about this:

    “If you do not believe in climate change The Law of Supply and Demand, you do not believe in facts, or in science or empirical truths and therefore, in my humble opinion, should not be allowed to hold public office”.

    Fools like DiCaprio typically don’t even understand what science is. They typically think it’s an opinion expressed by one or more scientists, or by the majority of scientists. It’s neither.

    Gerald A (a48c32)

  7. Leo might have made a good prince if he hadn’t had to swallow the Hollywood mindset whole in a mad quest for Oscar validation.

    Get good at it, but don’t let your profession take over your life, kids.

    Dystopia Max (76803a)

  8. i liked him in that johnny depp movie he was really boisterous and believable

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  9. I enjoy DiCaprio’s acting but like most Hollywood actors he’s a complete idiot on just about any other subject. I really hate it when an actor gets political causing me to see him as an enemy rather than an entertainer. I’ve known this about DiCaprio for quite some time so he’s been on my “avoid” list for a while. I don’t need Target, don’t want Starbucks and can live without DiCaprio. The list grows.

    Rev. Hoagie® (785e38)

  10. Ironic. So he sides with the Church against Galileo, since the Church’s position at his trial was the settled science or consensus of the time, the position of most scholars and scientists. It was Galileo that tried to defend his position with scripture, the Church stayed with science.

    Sad that these people claiming to defend or advocate “science” don’t understand that science above all else keeps an open mind and always doubts. When science believes it has unquestionable knowledge it becomes religion.

    machinist (4332ef)

  11. I thought he went down with the Titanic.

    AZ Bob (d6a3a9)

  12. How could that be? Wasn’t there a consensus that it was unsinkable?

    machinist (4332ef)

  13. So remember this idiot’s fascism – because that is what he is supporting – everytime he is involved in any film or TV show. Why give this self-impressed moron another single penny of your hard-earned money?

    And make sure to let other people know precisely WHY you won’t go see anything he is in. Same with that hypocritical moron Matt Damon.

    And unfortunately, almost every bloviating airhead in any movie.

    Read a book. Learn a new language. Spend quality time discussing topics of import with your family and friends, and stop paying for the continued Gramscian brainwashing of America.

    Pete (ceb4bf)

  14. I prefer Phineas and Ferb, actually. Not that Bugs Bunny will not always be my favorite. Hollywood sissy-boys are only as important as you think they are.

    nk (dbc370)

  15. Always been on my crap list ever since there was an urban legend out that he refused to kiss Salma Hayek in a role because, in his words mind you, “kissing a Mexican was like kissing a cow”. And mind you this was late 90s, her being fresh off the snake dance scene!

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  16. The “consensus” thing has been so over hyped and distorted now.

    Climate change is not accepted because of the consensus. Climate change is accepted because of the evidence, and that is what the “consensus” is, that the science is supported by the available evidence.

    I understand that the vast majority of people here disagree with that, fine. Just pointing out the distortion of the real position. It’s merely a statement that vast majority of the people who are best qualified to know the most about it accept it.

    Similarly there is a scientific consensus that if you release a 1 lb rock from a height and a 2 lb rock from a height they’ll both fall at 32 feet per second per second. But that does not mean it is taken on faith.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  17. @machinist: Wasn’t there a consensus that it was unsinkable?

    There may have been advertisements that said Titanic was unsinkable. I do not believe there was ever some formal board of experts who examined it and made that pronouncement. If you have evidence to the contrary, would love to see it.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  18. Only whitey can put a stop to this hypocrisy. Boycott everything and anything to do with these punks.

    mg (31009b)

  19. BTW – if you need actors and actresses to get through life.
    Your flucked

    mg (31009b)

  20. A single co2 molecule is heavier than a single n2 or o2 molecule which make up the majority constituent particles of air. It therefore uses up more energy (becomes a heat sink) to remain airborn and acts as a coolant in the open atmosphere.

    Just like water vapor.

    papertiger (82d7e8)

  21. Many of us here do not believe AGW is “supported by the available evidence” because the “experts” keep changing the model to achieve the desired goal.

    Many of us here do not believe many “experts” are as expert as they claim and are subject to personal prejudices and findings to validate their continued employment.

    May of us here have read about and seen many “settled science” arguments turn to crap too like: spontaneous generation, the expanding earth theory, the phlogiston theory, Martian canals, the blank slate theory, Einstein’s static universe theory (disproved by Edwin Hubble)and Fleischmann and Pons cold fusion. All accepted at the time by “experts” and all wrong. Science is a constantly expanding endeavor which is why AGW used to be global cooling then global warming and now the “experts” have been caught so many times holding their d!cks it’s just “climate change”.

    The only “faith” observed here is the “faith” that AGW is real, irrefutable and catastrophic. I would go so far as to suggest the very idea has become so politicized the scientific truth if ever known won’t be believed. Too many agenda’s.

    Rev. Hoagie® (785e38)

  22. But I will guarantee you one thing, Leonardo DiCaprio knows as much about “climate science” as I know about transplanting a brain. people like him make the entire theory unbelievable simply because he knows nothing even to the most casual observer.

    Rev. Hoagie® (785e38)

  23. yeah Starbucks is just ruined

    that whole brand is cringe-worthy anymore

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  24. @Hoagie: Well, Hoagie, I know where you’re coming from, but the thing is the prominent climate skeptics, guys like Steven Hayward, disagree with pretty much all you said there. Their position is much, much more nuanced than they like to have it thought: they accept the science nearly totally but reject the policy prescriptions, and that’s pretty much where I am with it.

    If you’d really like to know where things are with climate science itself, and what the real history of climate science is, you can check out the American Institute of Physics articles on the topic, I learned a lot from it.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  25. @Hoagie:I will guarantee you one thing, Leonardo DiCaprio knows as much about “climate science” as I know about transplanting a brain.

    Agree 100% here.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  26. The consensus, such as it is, is bought and paid for. The irony of liberals arguing for climate change was at a fever pitch when Obama looked upon the Mendenhall Glacier and proclaimed that its receding was proof of the consensus. Overlooked by this fool, this man-child who struts about pretending to be a leader in the Western World, was the fact that the remains of a forest, dating to about 1000 AD, has been uncovered as the ice retreats. This forest flourished during the Medieval Warm Period in Alaska, which is a no-no for the Michael Mann arm of the AGW army. Their “consensus” is that the MWP never existed, and the temperatures we see today are proof of the significance of CO2 in warming the earth. These temperatures have been experienced, and enjoyed, before. They led to the Renaissance. The temperature increases generally precede increases in CO2, which makes the causal linkage advanced by the AGW crowd a little less convincing than the penumbric emanations that are in such favor by our leading jurists. And receding ice on other continents has revealed wells dug a thousand years ago that are still frozen. But, logically, they weren’t always were they? Details, details.

    Gabriel, it’s rather clear you consider yourself amongst the “best qualified”. I, for one, am not pleased to have you exercise your imagined authority to straighten out all our unfortunate misunderstandings. Present an argument that is logically consistent and doesn’t rely on claims of authority. Pretend it’s a conversation. Socrates would have a field day with you.

    BobStewartatHome (a52abe)

  27. global warmers subscribe to a theory of back radiation, which means that the heavier co2 molecule bounces the lighter o2 and n2 molecules back at the earth at a higher (warmer) velocity.

    You can prove this wrong with a Bunsen burner. With a Bunsen burner heating a beaker of water on the table, wave your hand over the top and you will feel heat. Move the burner away and feel the table in the spot where it sat, it will feel cold.

    No back radiation.

    papertiger (82d7e8)

  28. Well, Gabriel Hanna, thanks for the link. I noticed it’s from this February so I know it’s current. I’ll nose around it.

    I’m not a “denier” which is the usual name-calling leftists use when you don’t agree with some preposterous statement or policy of theirs. I’m a skeptic. There seems to be entirely too much leftist politics-i.e. science by force (as displayed by DiCaprio’s comment, too much alarmism, too much ant-capitalism involved with the subject. And as DiCaprio proves it’s a cause celeb, not real science.

    But the one overwhelming reason I’m a skeptic of AGW is: It seems the people peddling this stuff are all the people who disagree with me on every single issue from God to guns so why would they be right this time? Most of them are liars of convenience to make a point or gain some power and all of them seem very shallow and looking for something to believe in since few of them believe in God. They seem to be rich, empty souls wandering around trying to find a meaning to their privileged millionaire existence so they latch on to AGW as a means of feeling important an belonging to “something bigger than themselves” (one of their favorite phrases right behind “speaking truth to power” neither of which they have the balls to do).

    Rev. Hoagie® (785e38)

  29. OT: It’s good to see you back Hoagie! I had a little quintuple bypass operation about five weeks ago, and in addition to saving my life, it has begun to change a year long period of declining energy and increasing depression. I hope your plans for the future are still on track.

    BobStewartatHome (a52abe)

  30. Gabriel did nothing in my view to indicate he believes himself amongst the “best qualified”, BobStewartatHome. I thought he was having a conversation and he politely offered some links. We can’t have a conversation if Gabriel isn’t allowed to speak. Then it’s just a monologue.

    Rev. Hoagie® (785e38)

  31. And speaking of climate, models of the sun are strongly supportive of the notion that we are headed for a Maunder Minimum in the next three decades. It will be interesting to watch the AGW types holding festivals on a rock solid, frozen Delaware River showing solidarity with their compatriots in the UK as they play on a rock solid Themes. Or not.

    BobStewartatHome (a52abe)

  32. Good to hear you’re recouping well. That’s tough surgery but you’ll feel 20 years younger now. I’m doing okay. Still on the transplant list. Waiting. Good luck my friend.

    Rev. Hoagie® (785e38)

  33. Hoagie, his #16 was nothing but an appeal to authority with a nonsensical analogy that suggested gravity was as readily experienced as “climate change”. One could only argue with his claim of consensus. Which would be to concede the basic point that this is about science and not consensus.

    BobStewartatHome (a52abe)

  34. Being from Philly, I’ve seen somewhere around her old pictures of the Delaware frozen around South Street with big sailing ships stuck there.

    Rev. Hoagie® (785e38)

  35. Thanks Hoagie. We live in an age of miracles. I can’t say enough to express my thanks to the surgeons who saved me. To devote your life to such a calling is beyond anything we can expect of someone else. Adam Smith’s invisible hand is actually readily identified in the ICU.

    BobStewartatHome (a52abe)

  36. Scientific Consensus – Climate Change – NASA
    climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

    “…good night, good luck, a Merry Christmas, and God bless all of you – all of you on the good Earth.” – Frank Borman, from Apollo 8 orbiting the moon, December 24, 1968

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  37. “We need to persecute the Christian churches…not just Jews.” Martin Bormann, 1942

    Rev. Hoagie® (785e38)

  38. Scientific consensus- 100% of Nazi scientists determined Jews to be untermensch, sub-human thereby paving the way for the elimination of these undesirables since they were technically not human.

    Todays Nazi’s, the left, would declare third world people as untermensch and not deserving of heat, air conditioning, refrigeration and all the other trappings of progress and modernity because of climate change. How much longer before DiCaprio recommends the elimination of “deniers” to save the world for those more worthy?

    Rev. Hoagie® (785e38)

  39. When they built the Six Frigates for the U. S. Navy, the United States was built in Philadelphia. An epidemic of yellow fever plus a launching accident caused the construction to be delayed, and the frigate was trapped in Philadelphia over the winter of 1797-98 by heavy ice that blocked passage as late as January and February of 1798. It wasn’t until June of 1798 that the frigate was in the Delaware Bay and more or less ready for sea.

    BobStewartatHome (a52abe)

  40. SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS: EARTH’S CLIMATE IS WARMING

    Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. – NASA

    Of course NASA personnel still get to and fro in jet planes. Even cars. Sometimes by rocket, too. No budget for horses. Hypocrites?

    “I got rocket in my pocket and I’m rarin’ to go…” – ‘ I Got A Rocket In My Pocket’ – Jimmy Lloyd, 1958

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  41. @BobStewart:Which would be to concede the basic point that this is about science and not consensus.

    It always was about the science. But the consensus is not being substituted for the science, at least not by scientists. There are activists and airheads like DiCaprio who are trying to use it to bludgeon people, I agree.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  42. @bobStewart@home: Yes, we know Earth’s climate has been different in the past. You know that largely to the efforts of climate scientists, who are well aware of it and always have been, and so pointing to it is not a slam-dunk argument. They already knew, they’re the ones who published it in the journals for the climate skeptics to publicize.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  43. Leo thinks he’s “King of the world!” (LOL)

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  44. @Hoagie: We can’t have a conversation if Gabriel isn’t allowed to speak. Then it’s just a monologue.

    There is a significant percentage of regulars who would prefer that. We can thank Patterico for not yielding to the temptation.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  45. How much longer before DiCaprio recommends the elimination of “deniers” to save the world for those more worthy?

    Pfft. What are you expecting, some kind of Spanish inquisition?

    NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!” – Monty Python’s Flying Circus, BBC TV, 1970

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  46. @19.BTW – if you need actors and actresses to get through life. Your flucked

    Pfft. Take a bow, flucker. =applause, applause=

    All the world’s a stage, And all the men and women merely players; They have their exits and their entrances, And one man in his time plays many parts, His acts being seven ages. At first, the infant, Mewling and puking in the nurse’s arms. – William Shakespeare, ‘As You Like It’, Act II, Scene VII

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  47. I realize I’m preaching to the choir here, but there’s something very Orwellian about Leo suggesting climate change “deniers” are unfit to hold office.
    He really doesn’t understand the premise of representative democracy. While there are citizenship and age requirements to hold public office, there’s no test for ideological fitness.
    Whomever wins the election gets to hold the office.
    In fact, one could argue that the test for ideological fitness is the campaign itself. Although, that’s not necessarily always the case. Again, it just comes down to math; the candidate with the most votes wins the office. That’s how we roll, Leo.

    By the way, for a guy who is certain that the sky is falling on Chicken Little, he sure does take a lot of trips to Europe on chartered jets.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  48. .But I will guarantee you one thing, Leonardo DiCaprio knows as much about “climate science” as I know about transplanting a brain.

    Actually, given your current circumstances, you probably know far more about transplanting any organ than Leo knows about any scientific topic.

    I don’t claim the merit of boycotting him. The last movies I saw in theater at time of release were Junior, Star Trek VI, and Schindler’s List. As someone I know says, it would be about as effective as giving up Peking Duck for Lent.

    Kishnevi (5a999e)

  49. They already knew, they’re the ones who published it in the journals for the climate skeptics to publicize.

    You are aware that Michael Mann and his hockey stick were regarded as definitive by the climate community until two Canadians who are not of the climate scientist flock dismantled the algorithm and have since shown the data to be tortured. The climate community has been bought and paid for, and they will stay bought. Those who dare to publish inconvenient truths pay a real price professionally.

    BobStewartatHome (a52abe)

  50. BTW, Rev Hoagie, what are the actual first names of you and your mother?

    I’d like to get you on the list of people we pray for in my synagogue, and the proper way involves those two things (x son of y).

    Kishnevi (5a999e)

  51. @BobStewart@home:You are aware that Michael Mann and his hockey stick were regarded as definitive by the climate community until two Canadians who are not of the climate scientist flock dismantled the algorithm and have since shown the data to be tortured.

    That actually didn’t happen.

    Those who dare to publish inconvenient truths pay a real price professionally.

    Climate scientists continually criticize and correct one another’s work. This is done openly in the journals, like in any other science.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  52. 47.I realize I’m preaching to the choir here, but there’s something very Orwellian about Leo suggesting climate change “deniers” are unfit to hold office.

    Ask Galileo. Heliocentrism was considered quite ‘Orewellian’ in it’s day by the Papal powers that be.

    “Galileo… Galileo…” – ‘Bohemian Rhapsody,’- Queen, 1975

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  53. @BobStewart: Virtually no skeptic of climate science does any actual work in the field. What they do instead is pick things out of the journals that climate scientists contribute to.

    Almost everything you have ever heard of as being some kind of flaw in climate scientists was published first by a climate scientist for the climate science community.

    So your characterization of the field is simply false. And you wouldn’t have a lot of context to know it was false, unless you’d been a scientific researcher yourself.

    Before you accuse me of argument by authority, let me say that it would not occur to me to tell an auto mechanic or a plumber or the people who empty the trash cans where I work that I know more about how he should do his job than he does.

    Nobody can be expert at everything. Nothing wrong with that.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  54. That actually didn’t happen.

    Your ignorance of the hockey stick controversy, and apparently of the ClimateGate emails, is breathtaking. A week or two browsing ClimateAudit would be time well spent if you want to broaden your understanding of just how badly we have been served by NSF and agency funding of “science”.

    Again, you resort to authority by presuming I am not a “scientific researcher”. I present ideas and facts here, and I present them in a form that can be understood by my readers. My credentials are not part of the argument. Nor should they be. I will let the reader decide.

    BobStewartatHome (a52abe)

  55. The real flaw in “climate science” is methodological.

    Climate change per se is a natural phenomenon which has been ongoing throughout the existence of this planet.

    Scientists actually know rather little about all the natural (meaning non human) factors which have an effect on changes in climate. Which means they have no way of knowing how little or how much human action impacts the process.

    Kishnevi (5a999e)

  56. Kishnevi, That is so very kind of you. I am John, son of Mary. Thank you so much and the other members of your synagogue. I appreciate all the prayers I can get.

    Rev. Hoagie® (785e38)

  57. Ahh, those “peer-reviewed” journals. I remember something about those that dared to publish the “wrong” kind of climate article. courtesy of Mr. Mann’s emails

    There have been several papers by Pat Michaels, as well as the Soon and
    Baliunas paper, that couldn’t get published in a reputable journal.
    This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in
    the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that—
    take over a journal!
    So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering Climate
    Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should
    encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer
    submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider
    what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit
    on the editorial board

    And what kind of peer-reviewed scientist interested in the truth, rather than political positions, would explicitly withhold his supporting calculations from the “wrong” people?

    Tim Osborn writes to Mike Mann, trying to make sense of some of Mann’s data, which
    appear to have simplistic estimates of uncertainties. After an exchange in which Mann
    attempts to explain what he has done, he adds:

    Tim,
    Attached are the calculations requested …
    p.s. I know I probably don’t need to mention this, but just to ensure
    absolutely clarity on this, I’m providing these for your own personal use,
    since you’re a trusted colleague. So please don’t pass this along to others
    without checking with me first. This is the sort of “dirty laundry” one
    doesn’t want to fall into the hands of those who might potentially try to
    distort things…

    Gabriel, you can rely on “scientists” like this if you like. You can purge from your memory the fact that these same people were at one time warning of a new ice age. You can conveniently forget that they told us that after Katrina, we would be having a much higher frequency and severity of hurricanes due to global war.. I mean, climate change. If you’ve gone to the seashore for the last 30-50 years, you can forget that they have predicted coastal encroachment due to rising sea levels, yet the boardwalks are no close to the sea now than they were then. And you can ignore the fact that they have worked tirelessly to “hide the decline” in temperatures (that shouldn’t happen with increasing CO2), as well as appending observed temperatures (corrected, of course, with no raw data or methodology available) to tree ring data and pretending that there was no medieval warm period (something born out by historical writings, not climate science) and presenting it as a single data set? Didn’t you ever wonder why? After all, trees still have rings. If they are an accurate measure of temperature in the distant past, why not the more recent past? Or do you just accept “consensus”?

    The only thing that their claims have in common (besides being wrong) is that they use it to advocate for larger and more intrusive government. Even your wonderful scientists try to browbeat others into petitioning the US Congress into “taking action”.

    Dear fellow Eos co-authors,
    Given the continued assault on the science of climate change by some on
    Capitol Hill, Michael Oppenheimer and I thought it would be worthwhile
    to send this letter to various members of the United States Senate,
    accompanied by a copy of our Eos article.
    Can we ask you to consider signing on with Michael and me (providing
    your preferred title and affiliation). We would like to get this out as soon
    as possible.

    prowlerguy (fa36d8)

  58. @prowlerguy: Yeah I read all Climategate. Thanks for the update.

    @BobStewart@Home:Again, you resort to authority by presuming I am not a “scientific researcher”.

    Question 1: Are you a scientific researcher? If you name some journals you published in I’ll believe you.

    Question 2: If a plumber tells you that contrails are really mind-controlling chemical residues, and an aviation engineer tells you they are water vapor, is it an invalid argument from authority to say that the aviation engineer is more likely to know?

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  59. I will let the reader decide.
    BobStewartatHome (a52abe) — 10/4/2016 @ 1:27 pm

    I have decided:
    BobStewartathome – 1
    Gabrial Hanna – 0

    I found this statement to be insultingly weak: “So your characterization of the field is simply false. And you wouldn’t have a lot of context to know it was false, unless you’d been a scientific researcher yourself.”

    So let me FIFY: “So your characterization of the field is simply false. And you wouldn’t have a lot of context to know it was false, unless you’d been a scientific climate science researcher yourself.

    felipe (023cc9)

  60. Well of course aviation engineers WOULD deny chemtrails. They’re getting all that corporate and government money.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  61. Question 2: If a plumber tells you that contrails are really mind-controlling chemical residues, and an aviation engineer tells you they are water vapor, is it an invalid argument from authority to say that the aviation engineer is more likely to know?
    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 10/4/2016 @ 2:38 pm

    Gabriel, we know that you see yourself as the aviation engineer – BobStewartathome is pointing out that you are, instead, the plumber.

    felipe (023cc9)

  62. @felipe: I found this statement to be insultingly weak:.. unless you’d been a scientific climate science researcher yourself.

    That doesn’t change anything. And if you’re “insulted” by a statement of fact about relevant qualifications, I don’t know how you don;t go through life offended by plumbers, auto mechanics, lawyers and dentists.

    Lots of things sound plausible if you don’t know anything about a field. That’s not insulting or controversial to emotionally balanced people. No one has time to become expert in everything.

    I’m sure if you got in real trouble with the law you would hire a lawyer and if you got really sick you get a doctor. But plenty of people don’t. Most of them don’t do too well, but a tiny fraction of them get better results without involving the advice of experts. But it’s not the smart way to bet.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  63. @felipe: BobStewartathome is pointing out that you are, instead, the plumber.

    I’ve never said different. My Ph.D. is an entirely different field as is my published scientific work. As far as climate science is concerned I am indeed a plumber.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  64. That doesn’t change anything
    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 10/4/2016 @ 2:43 pm

    Why am I not surprised? And the insult lies not in the facts themselves, but in your poor use of them. Further, “plumbers, auto mechanics, lawyers and dentists,” could not help but offer insult if they were as careless with facts as you.

    Then we agree: You are the plumber.

    felipe (023cc9)

  65. Ahh, those “peer-reviewed” journals.
    prowlerguy (fa36d8) — 10/4/2016 @ 2:23 pm

    That is it, in a nutshell.

    felipe (023cc9)

  66. Then we agree: You are the plumber.

    yay consensus

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  67. yay consensus
    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 10/4/2016 @ 3:01 pm

    You say it as though it were “science.”

    felipe (023cc9)

  68. The trouble for those like you Gabriel, is that unlike vapor trails behind a jet, climate is something that we all can observe. After all, we live in the climate, and some of us have been around longer than 20 years. And since a large part of climate science is the use of models to show future effects of climate change, we can go back a few years, read their predictions, and compare it to reality. I don’t need to be able to do multivariate analysis of data sets(although I can) to judge whether the predictions made by those models have come to pass. No ice on the Arctic by 2013. Polar bears extinct. Sea level rises of enough to swamp all major coastal cities (despite it being measured at .5 to 3mm per year). THe list goes on and on. Only kids too young to remember these past claims and progressives believe this tripe any more.

    I can also judge whether the claims of “warmest year ever” are plausible, given that large swaths of land currently under snow and ice were once green and fertile. I don’t need any special knowledge to know that Greenland was once green and colonized by Vikings, and now it is cold and not green. If is warmer now than ever before, then how did that happen?

    I note you dismiss the emails with a wave of your hand, while avoiding addressing the issues raised by what I cited. You claimed that there was never any manipulation of data, nor reprisals against scientists (and publishers) who published peer-reviewed work that went against their dogma. I provided evidence that just that had occurred, in Mann’s own words. You say “didn’t happen”. I would love to see you explain away the contents of those emails.

    prowlerguy (fa36d8)

  69. OK Gabriel, let’s try this. You claim to have a PhD and have done scientific research. Let me post a basic question about the scientific method.

    After putting forth your hypothesis, collected data, and analyzed that data. You find that the data does not support your hypothesis. Do you:
    a) publish your finding that your data did not support your hypothesis,
    b) form a new hypothesis, analyze the data again to test that hypothesis, or
    c) working backwards from your desired outcome, “correct” or discard data to reach that outcome, then refuse to release that part of your research?

    Since c) is what climate “scientists” do routinely, how can a fellow scientist not only refuse to condemn that work, but praise it?

    prowlerguy (fa36d8)

  70. Peace be with you, Gabriel. And with you, too, BobStewartathome.

    felipe (023cc9)

  71. @prowlerguy: c) is what climate “scientists” do routinely, how can a fellow scientist not only refuse to condemn that work, but praise it?

    Because they don’t do this, actually. This is somewhere between a distortion and a lie. You want climate data, you can get it. You want climate models, they’re available. Analyze away.

    Like BEST did: and got indistinguishable results. The skeptic community made a big deal about BEST but now it’s in the memory hole.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  72. prowlerguy (fa36d8) — 10/4/2016 @ 3:10 pm

    I must look away. In fact, I’m off.

    felipe (023cc9)

  73. Here’s a link to BEST in case you forgot about it.

    Anthony Watts said about it, at the time:

    ” I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong. I’m taking this bold step because the method has promise. So let’s not pay attention to the little yippers who want to tear it down before they even see the results. I haven’t seen the global result, nobody has, not even the home team, but the method isn’t the madness that we’ve seen from NOAA, NCDC, GISS, and CRU, and, there aren’t any monetary strings attached to the result that I can tell. If the project was terminated tomorrow, nobody loses jobs, no large government programs get shut down, and no dependent programs crash either. That lack of strings attached to funding, plus the broad mix of people involved especially those who have previous experience in handling large data sets gives me greater confidence in the result being closer to a bona fide ground truth than anything we’ve seen yet. Dr. Fred Singer also gives a tentative endorsement of the methods.”

    But that was before it confirmed the mainstream climate work.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  74. I didn’t read everything,
    but to say the skeptics don’t work in the field is not true, Lindzen from MIT and that woman from Alabama Huntsville were climate scientists practically before there was a name for it. There was the European scientist who choose to shut up when attacked.

    Steyn has a book with quotes of 100 scientists, many in the field, all saying what bunk Mann pushed with his hockey stick, even people who think there is warming think Mann is a fraud.

    I find it amazing that fundamental issues of sample size, reliability of data, inherent errors in measuring and statistical significance, and assuming a theory that essentially cannot be disproven, all are necessary features of AGW.
    Maybe I will apply to grad school and do my thesis in history of science on the mass hysteria that is AGW.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  75. @MD in Philly:but to say the skeptics don’t work in the field is not true,

    I qualified appropriately. There are exceptions. And those people you mentioned accept virtually all of what the mainstream climate scientists have to say.

    Maybe I will apply to grad school and do my thesis in history of science on the mass hysteria that is AGW.

    And when you do that, you will find that a lot of your preconceptions will change.

    Check out my AIP link above for a start.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  76. seriously nasa, james hansen is the sack cloth and ashes minister to the skydragon, the maunder minimum, the medieval warming, the little ice age, all things left out of mann and oppenheimer’s trick bag,

    narciso (d1f714)

  77. Great to hear how you are doing, Bob, back at home.

    PhD scientists…
    Duesberg was faculty at Berkley in biochemistry or molecular biology and should have known better, but for some reason went on a crusade to claim HIV was not causative of AIDS, using half truths of Koch’s postulates and enzymology and I forget what else. People stopped taking their meds because of him.I wonder how many died unnecessarily.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  78. just as many as those taken in by the lancet and arianna huffington, re vaccines, honestly they need to be flayed for that level of malpractice,

    narciso (d1f714)

  79. I don’t have preconceptions, I have conclusions based on reviewing data and claims of conclusions. Sure there are tons of related issues I don’t understand, but what I have seen that I understand is quite underwhelming and tenuous.

    If someone can convince me why the satellite data is incorrect I would listen.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  80. Not to mention the atrocious article in Lancet by people from Hopkins spouting nonsense about supposed infant mortality in Iraq due to the US.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  81. yes, I think they should be given the sweeney todd treatment on principle, but I was speaking to epidemiological impact,

    narciso (d1f714)

  82. We didn’t need climate scientists to tell us about the medieval warm period and little ice age,
    We needed climate scientists to tell us they didn’t exist.

    My daughters physics book shows 2 pictures of glaciers and suggests one can make conclusions.
    Bunk, hogwash, and educational malpractice.
    2 data points and your conclusion is set.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  83. because they are climate alchemists,

    narciso (d1f714)

  84. Thanks Doc. Each day is a gift. I always enjoy your comments and Mike K’s. I appreciate your point of view that we all can understand these things, and we actually have a responsibility to do so. The “consensus” silliness is both false as it applies to AGW, and ultimately fatal to any concept of democratic governance. Margaret Thatcher latched on to AGW because she thought this would be a way of popularizing nuclear power. Winston would have looked a little deeper and concluded that good policy must not be based on false premises. But here we are.

    By the way, the September Hillsdale Imprimis has a very interesting discussion of economic mobility in the U. S. I was reminded of this by the frequent resort to “authority” and the presumption of elite knowledge in our current discussion. Our current topic is just a symptom of the malaise that has gripped our country, which has coincidentally resulted in our current political situation. The article argues that we have been transformed into a classed society by the failure of our K-12 system, plus a feckless [my take] immigration system, in addition to other things. The presumption that an educated audience of citizens is incapable of understanding and issue that threatens the very basis of their society is the height of elite arrogance.

    BobStewartatHome (a52abe)

  85. Doc, (#83), and those receding glaciers are exposing a buried forest that proves that the MWP was not a local aberration in London. So the evidence that would disprove one of their core beliefs is right before their eyes, but they have decided to let someone else do their thinking. This is public education in the U. S.

    BobStewartatHome (a52abe)

  86. My guess was that Thatcher put too much trust in people being “scientists” and didn’t look critically. That was just a guess.
    I assume that is what many people have done.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  87. she was trained as a chemist before she read law, there was a point under callender and revere, (sic) they were interested in science,

    narciso (d1f714)

  88. True, Bob, it is so sad, a culture responsible for saving billions from tyranny, committing suicide.

    Yes, the culture has birthed terrible things and is far from perfect,
    Still, what other nation in the history of the earth could have conquered the entire known world, and didn’t but helped their defeated foes rebuild

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  89. Yes, “I’m a scientist too, I can trust them”.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1079 secs.