Man-made global warming is a lie and not backed up by science, claims leading meteorologist.

[Padawanbater2]

"We argue that processes of constructing expert identities are political strategies that are parallel to the legitimation strategies found in public policy research (Van Leeuwen & Wodak, 1999) or in organization studies (Vaara & Monin, 2010; Vaara, Tienari & Laurila, 2006). These authors distinguish five main discursive strategies: authorization, rationalization, moral evaluation, mythopoiesis, and normalization, which we also expect to find, to varying degrees, in experts’ claims. These align with rhetorical modes of proof (Suddaby & Greenwood, 2005): authorization, rationalization, and normalization strategies are forms of logos, moral evaluation aligns with ethos, and mythopoiesis aligns with pathos. To undermine the claims and frames put forward by other members of the same professional group, individuals may also employ antagonistic identity framing of others as non-experts (destructive strategy per Van Leeuwen & Wodak, 1999) using oppositional strategies (cf. social identity threats per Branscombe, Ellemers, Spears, & Doosje, 1999). Berger and Luckmann (1967) especially point to annihilation, be it by outright denial of the validity or by downplaying and ridiculing the claim or by attempting to assign an inferior status to the claimant and her or his sources of information."

 

[spandy]

maybe not 50 years as our conservitive peirs probably have millions of bottles in storage..However the fact remains in time real bee honey will be worth its weight in gold,, maybe our children will get ritch from it,, just like if our fathers would have passed down the silver dollars, quarters, and even comic books they had as children...did u know in the late 40's it was illegal to own gold?? At that time our gov. confiscated all gold coins,, one was held onto by an arib and our gov couldnt take it from him, it was sold at auction in 2002 for 2.8 million..

So should I save gold or honey, I'm confused.

And what is an arib? Is that like a type of car or something? 28 million is a lot for a car to sell for. Was it a 2 door or 4?

 

[heckler73]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation

http://ppewww.physics.gla.ac.uk/preprints/95/06/rbates/node3.html

 

[NoDrama]

did u know in the late 40's it was illegal to own gold?? At that time our gov. confiscated all gold coins

Gold wasn't illegal to own, Gold was illegal to HOARD. Anyone could have gold, in fact up to $100 worth (which would be 5 gold eagles) was totally legal.

Most people did not have their gold confiscated unless they had it stored at a bank or were trading certificates on the markets.

Trading with the enemy act of 1917 was the law which made the confiscation legal, otherwise a executive order wouldn't have done anything since Executive orders can only be used to direct federal agencies and never apply to citizens.

 

[Dr Kynes]

"We argue that processes of constructing expert identities are political strategies that are parallel to the legitimation strategies found in public policy research (Van Leeuwen & Wodak, 1999) or in organization studies (Vaara & Monin, 2010; Vaara, Tienari & Laurila, 2006). These authors distinguish five main discursive strategies: authorization, rationalization, moral evaluation, mythopoiesis, and normalization, which we also expect to find, to varying degrees, in experts’ claims. These align with rhetorical modes of proof (Suddaby & Greenwood, 2005): authorization, rationalization, and normalization strategies are forms of logos, moral evaluation aligns with ethos, and mythopoiesis aligns with pathos. To undermine the claims and frames put forward by other members of the same professional group, individuals may also employ antagonistic identity framing of others as non-experts (destructive strategy per Van Leeuwen & Wodak, 1999) using oppositional strategies (cf. social identity threats per Branscombe, Ellemers, Spears, & Doosje, 1999). Berger and Luckmann (1967) especially point to annihilation, be it by outright denial of the validity or by downplaying and ridiculing the claim or by attempting to assign an inferior status to the claimant and her or his sources of information."

yes you copy/pasted a section of text from the study on the "consensus", how nice for you.

if only you could understand what they are talking about.

the study is about how large groups argue and agree. they chose the global warming pissing match because it was convenient, highly polarized, and participants were willing to tear into each other like rabid dogs over this issue from ALL sides.

funny thing is, you are in the defensive frame, shrilly screaming and calling others "climate deniers" in a desperate attempt to create an Identity for yourself

 

[Dr Kynes]

http://ppewww.physics.gla.ac.uk/preprints/95/06/rbates/node3.html

 

[Heisenberg]

A consensus in science is portrayed by denialists to be a reflection of researcher opinion; it is not. A consensus is subject to the harmony of the data that researchers are looking at. A consensus means that the data is now clear enough that experts (people who may not necessarily like or want to agree with each other) can look at it and interpret it the same way. It means possible points of division have been examined and resolved, and that efforts have converged on avenues of inquiry which continue to make sense. It doesn't mean all questions have been answered, but it does mean the current data no longer reveals contradictions or ambiguity on which to base argumentation.

Scientific consensus comes from intellectually honest evaluation, and as such, it can only be challenged by intellectually honest evaluation. Since intellectual honesty undermines a denialist position, the only recourse is to treat consensus as if it is nothing more than popular vote and attack it in the way such opinions can be attacked. To place a view that is not supported by evidence and expertise on the same level as those that are, we must pretend that consensus can develop independently of the data. We pretend that consensus can result from emotion and personal ideology, which is exactly the level on which denialism operates. Those that do this are, of course, no longer opposing science, but some weird caricature of science they have invented solely to make their position look better.

 

[CC Dobbs]

Ho Ho, good one sir.

 

[Dr Kynes]

A consensus in science is portrayed by denialists to be a reflection of researcher opinion; it is not. A consensus is subject to the harmony of the data that researchers are looking at. A consensus means that the data is now clear enough that experts (people who may not necessarily like or want to agree with each other) can look at it and interpret it the same way. It means possible points of division have been examined and resolved, and that efforts have converged on avenues of inquiry which continue to make sense. It doesn't mean all questions have been answered, but it does mean the current data no longer reveals contradictions or ambiguity on which to base argumentation.

Scientific consensus comes from intellectually honest evaluation, and as such, it can only be challenged by intellectually honest evaluation. Since intellectual honesty undermines a denialist position, the only recourse is to treat consensus as if it is nothing more than popular vote and attack it in the way such opinions can be attacked. To place a view that is not supported by evidence and expertise on the same level as those that are, we must pretend that consensus can develop independently of the data. We pretend that consensus can result from emotion and personal ideology, which is exactly the level on which denialism operates. Those that do this are, of course, no longer opposing science, but some weird caricature of science they have invented solely to make their position look better.

and yet, "consensus" has not been reached as to the extent causes or possible methods of remediation in "Global Warming"

Mann et al displayed a distinct lack of scientific rigor, ethics and responsibility.
their results are un-reproduceable, and thus not merely suspect, but invalid, due to their own failure to keep their data.

the IPCC continues to build their house of cards on the rickety foundation of Mann and the CRU, and the loons in the popular press continue to make outrageous claims, while the "experts" who have proven themselves to be little more than touts never correct those assertions, even when it misrepresents their own research.

 

[UncleBuck]

Mann et al displayed a distinct lack of scientific rigor, ethics and responsibility.
their results are un-reproduceable, and thus not merely suspect, but invalid, due to their own failure to keep their data.

not according to 8 independent investigations, retard.

 

[NoDrama]

Meh, its really just Calculus. and all so you can figure out bandwidth requirements for your signal. Something I think heckler was working on for fun.

That girl in the .gif looks like the experiment she was working on contained either Ether, or perhaps some chloroform, hehe

 

[abandonconflict]

So when the science doesn't back your preconceived notions, just criticize scientists...

 

[Red1966]

Bitches about "global warming" when winters are colder and storms are stronger, science emphasizes "climate change", bitches about how scientists changed global warming to climate change for the sake of accuracy and to quell the retards like Kynes..

Meanwhile, everybody is laughing at you

Fun Fact: "climate change" has been around since the 60's, alongside 'global warming', and in more than 5 decades, your idiotic ass still hasn't recognized the difference

Fun Fact: "climate change" has been around 4.5 billion years

 

[Red1966]

"Former Republican House Science Committee chairman Sherwood Boehlert called the attacks a "manufactured distraction", and the dispute was described as a "highly orchestrated" and manufactured controversy by Newsweek and The New York Times. "

"An editorial in Nature stated that "A fair reading of the e-mails reveals nothing to support the denialists' conspiracy theories." It said that emails showed harassment of researchers, with multiple Freedom of Information requests to the Climatic Research Unit, but release of information had been hampered by national government restrictions on releasing the meteorological data researchers had been using."

"Nature considered that emails had not shown anything that undermined the scientific case on human caused global warming, or raised any substantive reasons for concern about the researchers' own papers. The Telegraph reported that academics and climate change researchers dismissed the allegations, saying that nothing in the emails proved wrongdoing. Independent reviews by FactCheck and the Associated Press said that the emails did not affect evidence that man-made global warming is a real threat, and said that emails were being misrepresented to support unfounded claims of scientific misconduct. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy#ICO_decisions_on_Freedom_of_Information_requests

There is no 'debate' about ACC. The only 'debate' exists inside your retard mind. Meanwhile, here in the real world, the science is settled, and you deny it, like the good little retard that you are

Sounds like religious dogma to me. hmmmmmmmmmm.............

 

[UncleBuck]

Fun Fact: "climate change" has been around 4.5 billion years

fun fact: anthropogenic climate change has been around for about 100 years, and has undone 5000+ years of colling and raised CO2 to levels not seen in 800,000 years!

isn't science fun, herr red?

 

[Red1966]

8 examples, here's what the cce review had to say;


Source?

Also, I wonder where you "thought" up that comparison...

https://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/2012/07/17/official-probe-shows-climategate-whitewash-link-to-sandusky-child-sex-case/

Also false comparison, both investigations are completely independent of each other and UPenn is backed up by 7 other independent investigations. You believe in another conspiracy to cover all of that up.

97% of scientists accept anthropogenic climate change, if you don't, you deny the scientific consensus, that makes you a climate change denier

97% of scientists DON'T. Repeating that lie even after it has been shown to be a lie many times shows the bankruptcy of your position.
that makes you a religious fanatic

 

[UncleBuck]

97% of scientists DON'T. Repeating that lie even after it has been shown to be a lie many times shows the bankruptcy of your position.
that makes you a religious fanatic

NASA too!

they have that 97% shit right on their website!

red1966 has blown the cover off NASA with his awesome post!

 

[Dr Kynes]

So when the science doesn't back your preconceived notions, just criticize scientists...

still cant figure out how this explicates your assertion that Mann was right and Letters of the Geophysical Union was "Infiltrated By The Baddies"

maybe it's in code...

 

[UncleBuck]

still cant figure out how this explicates your assertion that Mann was right and Letters of the Geophysical Union was "Infiltrated By The Baddies"

maybe it's in code...

is michael mann the only person ever to study this global warming thing?

because if this retarded goose chase of yours pans out and you discredit him (not gonna happen because you're a retard who can't do exponents and lies constantly), you still have about 10,000 more climate scientists to go.

 

[abandonconflict]

still cant figure out how this explicates your assertion that Mann was right and Letters of the Geophysical Union was "Infiltrated By The Baddies"

maybe it's in code...

But were they peer reviewed emails?