Global Climate Change Science News

[JimC]

There was pop science speculation about a run away greenhouse effect at the time, but it was purely science fiction, not a serious suggestion by a reputable scientist.

[Seth]

There was pop science speculation about a run away greenhouse effect at the time, but it was purely science fiction, not a serious suggestion by a reputable scientist.

You are exactly correct. It was much like the hysteria we are seeing generated by today's pop science propaganda. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

[Animavore]

Fuck off with that bullshit.

Er...no.

From the article you just quoted.

But don't be overly concerned. The research suggests that Earth would not move into the runaway greenhouse stage for a billion and a half years or so. Previous studies placed the possible "runaway greenhouse" effect on Earth at happening in around 2 billion years.

This is a far cry from...

Because "climate science" has been caught in way too many lies lately for me to believe it anymore. I've been hearing the global warming propaganda since the 1970s. We're all supposed to be dead right now and the planet is supposed to have an 800 degree, lead-melting atmosphere just like Venus as of, oh, about 20 years ago.

But you keep clutching those straws.

And the irony of you, a person who still talks about those scary Marxists like some kind of throwback from the Red Scare days of the McCarthy era, calling anyone an "alarmist" is not lost on me either.

[Tyrannical]

Confirmation bias when it comes to adjusting and extrapolating the raw data from temperature measurement can explain all the supposed global warming "evidence".

[Animavore]

Confirmation bias when it comes to adjusting and extrapolating the raw data from temperature measurement can explain all the supposed global warming "evidence".

The confirmation bias of thousands of scientists in a multitude of fields from institutes all over the world, including the denialist scientists (Muller et al) who went in to look at the all data expecting to find flaws, but instead vindicated the theory? This is conspiracy theory talk.

The only confirmation bias is on the side of the denialists. After all, it is they who latch on to a single paper, like the recent one from Willie Soon, and flaunt it about as if it confirms everything they've been saying while rejecting or ignoring other evidence even, like in the case of Muller et al, when it comes from their own 'side'.

[Tyrannical]

The more sure they are, the more vulnerable they are to confirmation bias.

[Animavore]

The more sure they are, the more vulnerable they are to confirmation bias.

Richard Muller and his team of climate "skeptics" went in sure they were going to uncover flaws in the data and show that climate change wasn't a thing and yet came out thinking the opposite. Are you also saying that they had confirmation bias? It seems to me that if they did it would be in the opposite direction.

Scientists are trained to spot confirmation bias, and with thousands of scientists working bias is more likely to be uncovered, not less.

Confirmation bias is not an issue here.

[mistermack]

Confirmation bias IS a huge factor in climate science. Because of the special nature of climate science.
In proper sciences, confirmation bias is indeed weeded out. But not in climate science, because of the huge bias of climate scientists. What is often trumpeted as ''the consensus'' should be re-branded ''the bias'' and it is indeed huge, proudly claimed to be in the region of 99%.
They don't deny it, they brag about it.

Under those circumstances, confirmation bias is completely ignored by the already convince body of peers. Hardly anything gets criticised, and the most loony claims get through unscathed.

And the 99% bias figure is sure to hold up. Who in their right mind would say anything about doubts that they might have? They would be out on their ear and never work again, unless they were in their eighties or nineties, and independent of the rabid establishment.

And who in their right mind would choose climate science as a career, if they weren't already a convinced activist?

It's now much more like a religion than a science. What atheist would train to be a priest?

[Animavore]

Confirmation bias IS a huge factor in climate science.

Enough with the assertion. Merely repeating "confirmation bias" like some sort of deinailist Hodor does not make it so. Show the confirmation bias. Point it out.

And the 99% bias figure is sure to hold up. Who in their right mind would say anything about doubts that they might have? They would be out on their ear and never work again, unless they were in their eighties or nineties, and independent of the rabid establishment.

Conspricy theory.

And who in their right mind would choose climate science as a career, if they weren't already a convinced activist?

They say there's no such thing as a stupid question. They were wrong.

It's now much more like a religion than a science. What atheist would train to be a priest?

Blind assertion followed by loaded question.

Seriously. You denialist guys really need to up your game. Enough of the political and conspiratol shite.

[Animavore]

FFS! When I said you guys need to up your game, I didn't mean this.

Climate change denier Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) tossed a snowball on the Senate floor yesterday to illustrate his "point." “We hear the perpetual headline that 2014 has been the warmest year on record but now the script has flipped and I think it's important since we hear it over and over and over,” he said. “As we can see with the snowball out there, this is today. This is reality.”

http://boingboing.net/2015/02/27/climat ... nator.html

[Seth]

And the irony of you, a person who still talks about those scary Marxists like some kind of throwback from the Red Scare days of the McCarthy era, calling anyone an "alarmist" is not lost on me either.

Um...recent revelations and declassification of information in the last 20 years, including the Venona Transcripts, prove beyond any doubt at all that McCarthy was absolutely correct in every detail about the persons he accused of Communist activity.

You might want to read the book "Blacklisted by History" by M. Stanton Evans, which carefully documents the entire era and cites numerous recently-declassified documents in the National Archives and from the FBI proving that the US government was indeed infiltrated by Communist spies, sympathizers and fellow-travelers, and vital national secrets were stolen by these agents and sent to the Soviet Union, including critical classified information on both radar systems and nuclear weapons.

So, you see, such "conspiracies" are not "theories," they are facts.

I see no reason to believe that the AGW hysteria is not likewise a conspiracy in fact intended to facilitate all manner of centralized-government mischief.

[Animavore]

Um...recent revelations and declassification of information in the last 20 years, including the Venona Transcripts, prove beyond any doubt at all that McCarthy was absolutely correct in every detail about the persons he accused of Communist activity.

You might want to read the book "Blacklisted by History" by M. Stanton Evans, which carefully documents the entire era and cites numerous recently-declassified documents in the National Archives and from the FBI proving that the US government was indeed infiltrated by Communist spies, sympathizers and fellow-travelers, and vital national secrets were stolen by these agents and sent to the Soviet Union, including critical classified information on both radar systems and nuclear weapons.

No shit! The Commies were spying on you? You don't say.

Just because there were some real things going on doens't mean there wasn't hysteria and witch hunts.

I see no reason to believe that the AGW hysteria is not likewise a conspiracy in fact intended to facilitate all manner of centralized-government mischief.

Which AGW hysteria is that? I'm not hysterical. I'm cool as a cumcumber in fact. All I'm seeing is AGW hysteria hysteria coming from you.

[Rum]

Odd how 'communism' became so taboo in the land of free expression.

[Seth]

Um...recent revelations and declassification of information in the last 20 years, including the Venona Transcripts, prove beyond any doubt at all that McCarthy was absolutely correct in every detail about the persons he accused of Communist activity.

You might want to read the book "Blacklisted by History" by M. Stanton Evans, which carefully documents the entire era and cites numerous recently-declassified documents in the National Archives and from the FBI proving that the US government was indeed infiltrated by Communist spies, sympathizers and fellow-travelers, and vital national secrets were stolen by these agents and sent to the Soviet Union, including critical classified information on both radar systems and nuclear weapons.

No shit! The Commies were spying on you? You don't say.

Yes, I do say.

Just because there were some real things going on doens't mean there wasn't hysteria and witch hunts.

"Witch hunt" implies that the hunt is unjust because witches don't exist. Hunting Communists in the US government was a very real necessity, as the Communists were in fact working to destroy the United States and needed to be rooted out and prosecuted for doing so.

I see no reason to believe that the AGW hysteria is not likewise a conspiracy in fact intended to facilitate all manner of centralized-government mischief.

Which AGW hysteria is that? I'm not hysterical. I'm cool as a cumcumber in fact. All I'm seeing is AGW hysteria hysteria coming from you.

Useful idiots are often complacent and obedient. That's one of the purposes of Marxist propaganda and indoctrination: Never question Marxism, because questioning Marxism (or in this case AGW) is "counterrevolutionary" and will be punished.

[Seth]

Odd how 'communism' became so taboo in the land of free expression.

The Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact. Communists are enemies of the Republic and must be destroyed lest they destroy the Republic. The issue is not speech, it's espionage and fifth-column warfare. Speech only comes into it as a way of identifying communist agents and sympathizers for investigation, surveillance and arrest if they break the law or engage in espionage or treason.

You have a right to say what you like. You do not have a right to be free of the consequences of saying what you like, either legally or socially.

At the time, people recognized the clear and present danger that Communism posed to the United States, and public opinion was very much in favor of marginalizing those who were supporting the destruction of our way of life. If you "came out" as a Communist, you got shunned and marginalized, and there's not a damned thing wrong with that, any more than it's wrong of society to shun and marginalize the Westborough Baptist Church nutcases.

A right to freedom of speech does not infer a right to social acceptance of the message you send.