John Cook returns with his usual unscientific propaganda

Since this blog watches those who watch the deniers, a post on the infamous suspected identity thief John Cook’s July 22 cnn.com piece “The 5 telltale techniques of Climate Deniers” seems in order.

(http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/22/opinions/cook-techniques-climate-change-denial/index.html)

His first claimed technique: Fake experts

This coming from a person who apparently photoshopped himself in a Nazi uniform then later posted comments under another’s name on the not-so-secret Skeptical Science forum. Comments attributed to Cook show he posted as Lobos Motl, a physicist who is skeptical of many of the claims of AGW. The idea that John could actually use the word “fake” seriously in a sentence says it all.

“Fake experts” means anyone who disagrees with any part of AGW, including the solutions proposed. So, besides parroting the proper attitude and allegiance, what makes someone an expert? It can’t be your degree–many acceptable and not acceptable experts have the same degrees. It’s not working in the field of climate science as there are several well-known persons who are working in the field who disagree with much of is claimed by climate science. It is belief in the entire AGW meme that makes you an expert. Not the science, not the degree. Just belief and agreement.

What makes climate science so special that only a few designated persons who all agree 100% on the meaning of climate change are the only experts? Answer: Nothing. It’s a smoke screen to silence any legitimate opposition (actually ALL opposition). What makes climate science special is it’s about agreement, not science and not about truth.

His second claimed technique:

Logical fallacies are used by climate deniers. He uses the fallacy of “jumping to conclusions” as an example. Climate change was natural in the past so it is now.

John’s analogy–you find someone dead with a knife in their back. You conclude they died of natural causes because people have done so in the past. I’m starting to see why John was a cartoonist. Rational thought is not required.  I know of no one who would jump to such a conclusion.  When someone says the climate has always changed, they are stating a fact.  The most egregious error in John’s claimed improper technique is that scientifically speaking, the person making the claim of “unnatural” has to prove their claim. The knife in the back is relatively solid proof of an unnatural death, unless someone just stabbed a knife into a dead person. Of course, if John knows the AGW scientists cannot prove that current warming or lack thereof is not natural, the smoke and mirrors game here does make sense.

His third claimed technique:

Impossible expectations. Like models that accurately predict? Really? Out of 102 models averaged, it seems none accurately predicted the leveling of temperatures over the past 18 years. None.

John, I have a great deal on a used car for you. About half the time it starts, sometimes it keeps running and sometimes not, it leaks anywhere from 1/2 to 3 quarts of oil, the wipers are random, tires hold air for a while and one or two doors open from the outside. Should work well if you don’t have impossible expectations of the car.

His fourth claimed technique:

Cherry picking. What’s this with the fruit fetish anyway?

Every single scientist on the planet picks and chooses the data he/she uses. If the data supports their theory/hypothesis with one selection but not another, the additional nonconforming data must be included. That’s not what climate scientists do, however. Often the values chosen seem to be chosen merely because they fit the theory. Then there is the constant adjusting of temperatures that goes on. While some adjustments may be needed, continual adjustment seems to point to making the data fit the theory.

Interestingly enough, John seems to be admitting there has been a leveling of off of temperatures in this statement: “For example, a persistent myth is that global warming stopped in recent decades. This is done by focusing on one slice of our climate system — the surface temperature record. Further, it relies on cherry-picking short time periods. This ignores the long-term trend and more importantly, ignores the many warming indicators telling us that our planet continues to build up heat.” There’s really no indication of what those many warming factors are nor why we should pay attention to something besides atmospheric temperatures. The global average temperature is the gold standard of climate change theory, yet suddenly we are to ignore it and move on?  Maybe.  After all, it didn’t cooperate and keep increasing.  Reality can be such a pain.

Climate scientists often do not start in the late 1800’s and run the entire record when demonstrating warming, so the claim of cherry-picking would apply to climate scientists as well.  Any elimination of any data can be claimed to be cherry-picking by someone, accurately or not.

John claims species are migrating to warmer climates yet there is scant if any evidence that this is occurring at a more rapid pace than in the past. Perhaps eyeballing some things are fine for climate science. Using actual data might result in fruit picking. He also mentions Greenland and Antarctica losing ice, but no mention of the Arctic. Do I smell pie baking?

His fifth technique:

Conspiracy theory beliefs. John complains skeptics claim there is a conspiracy of scientists and politicians to push AGW. (Coming from a person with virtually zero science knowledge and no advanced degrees who suddenly works for a university doing research studies, that might not be a really good idea.)

I’m following John’s lead here and going with an informal fallacy I am calling “the fallacy of self-delusion”. Global warming advocates constantly claim oil and gas are in a conspiracy to silence the AGW scientists. They are so incredibly self-deluded they do not see their own major conspiratorial claims. The good new is John’s fifth technique puts climate change advocates squarely in the science denier camp. Confirmation that climate change advocates are indeed science deniers.

img629c

Advertisements

Leapin Lizards Lilly, it’s cold!

All this talk of global warming and now we see this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2015/07/28/exceptional-cold-front-blankets-montana-wyoming-peaks-with-rare-july-snow/

and this:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/29/the-gore-effect-continues-down-under/

On the “hot side”:

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/07/29/new-york-today-ride-the-heat-wave/?_r=0

Wiki defines a heat wave as:

“A heat wave is a prolonged period of excessively hot weather”

AMS says it’s weather over 90F degrees.  In the Middle East, it’s considerably warmer that much of the time.  So many terms in climate have very, very fluid meanings.  If it’s over 85F and we need a reminder of how dangerous global warming is, then that’s a heat wave.  My question is “why do we care about the heat wave and then ignore the freezing temperatures”?  Because it doesn’t fit the global warming beliefs or because global warming is a hard sell to cold tourists visiting Jackson, Wyoming?  Probably both.  Talk about “cherry picking”.

UPDATE:

Off topic and truly frightening

From a comment section on a news site—”It is said by many scientists that we have already passed the tipping point and in roughly 100-125 years, there will be no humans left on the planet. We aren’t needed, we have nothing offer except harm, death and destruction. The earth doesn’t need us and would clearly be far better off without us. We are the most heinous and most malignant beings to ever happen to our mother.”

The self-louthing here is incredible.  How can anyone espouse a philosophy that says they are hideous parasites that would be better off dead?  I sincerely hope this person did not reproduce.  Think about this—warming belief can lead to self-hatred and despising of the human race.  Why in the world are we trying to save the planet for this?  Who in their right mind follows such a philosophy?  This is on the level of Jim Jones and his cult that killed themselves.  Be afraid.  Your future is being dictated by people who hate you and want you dead.

How to despise your children while pretending to care

The ultimate stupidity and lies of the global warming crowd–they are using CHILDREN for their court cases.
“http://heraldindependent.com/opinion/editorials/497/people-filing-lawsuits-over-global-warming” 

Worse, yet, some idiotic (and that is the only word applicable here–there are no polite terms that describe such behaviour) judge agrees. How stupid and uninformed and weak and spineless are adults now??? What have the environmentalists done to the country? How much do you have to HATE your children to allow this to happen and to participate in it.

The level of hatred and loathing is incredible. There was a time when adults actually cared about future generations, but I now see they care NOTHING WHATSOEVER about their or any other children.  It’s all about power and hatred and emotion.  No rational thought, no concerns beyond getting one’s face in the paper or on TV.  Feeling “good” while doing evil.

What a horrible future these people envision for their children.  Used and disposed of when no longer valuable. I pity the chldren and the empty future these people are using them to create.

Get your patches now—show you don’t understand science for all to see

Thumb1_e3888fb8-f213-4787-bb14-a62a9aa38565_1024x1024

Coming to you from the unscientific, fully political Obama action team.  For a mere $35, you can have these wonderful six patches to sew onto your jacket or whatever (or hire someone to sew it on if you lack that skill).  Let’s see-six for for $35.  That’s $5.80 apiece.  Saving the environment is pricey business, considering a Chinese factory can probably turn these out for a dime apiece.  Maybe a quarter, since China’s stock market’s in trouble.  That leaves $5.56 per patch for your political donation.  I don’t know if they charge sales tax for each locality as should be the case since the Democrats are all about taxes.  I wasn’t interested enough to find out if there were taxes and shipping costs.

I bet the science types could create six patches that show how foolish this whole thing is and sell them for much less.  Probably make them more colorful and appealing, too.  Perhaps I’ll come up with something or one of my readers can.  If what it takes to educate people are colorful patches, it’s time we got into the game, don’t you think?

Bring on the psychics

“a) No it’s not and b) you can’t make projections from long term past data. If you want to simulate what the future will do you have to build a model.”
From the comment section of the Daily Mail

There’s many insults about how skeptics don’t understand climate science. Here we have guy that apparently thinks you contact a psychic and get a model for climate change. Why a psychic? Well, you can’t make projections from long-term past data (I thought long-term made prediction easier. That’s why weather forecasts are hit and miss but climate science is gospel and absolutely true) and you can’t use short-term data (try mentioning the leveling of temperatures over the last 20 years and there will be no doubt of this). So we can’t use long-term data and we can’t use short-term data which means we can’t use data at all. That only leaves a psychic. A model might be able to be created using no data, though every time a skeptic suggests it, they are shredded for the notion, but such a method is really questionable, certainly not verifiable and not science. We see here a global warming advocate arguing that there is no science in global warming and believing it helps his argument. It does if you’re on the skeptic side.

Another story has come up about polar bears facing extinction in 10 years. Again, the climate crew must be employing a psychic for these prediction. Real polar bear scientists and those living in the North all say polar bears are doing fine–increasing in number actually. However, it seems those computer models say polar bears are going to be wiped out if we don’t stop burning fossil fuels. Truly, I think we should start substituting “psychic” for “computer model” since the models bear no resemblance to reality in any way. Predictions have been consistently wrong for decades. Psychics can get by with a record like that, but science cannot. If the predictions fail over and over, the model is wrong. It is not reality that is wrong, as the global warming advocates would have you believe.

Did someone request a psychic?

Did someone request a psychic?