Reply #31: You're no trained scientist

[notesdev]

but you claim to speak with the authority of one.

That's the practice of a religion. You've turned 'science' into a god, ignoring what the word itself means. You spend more time ridiculing those who would challenge your beliefs than actually looking to see whether your beliefs are not well-grounded.

What I have learned as to how thin the actual scientific grounds for the AGW allegation are, I was amazed at the audacity. Apparently there is only one custodian of the global temperature record, which are the people whose sordid/illegal methods have been exposed to the world. It is on their word alone that the AGW alarmism is based.

What gives scientific credibility to their word? Is it the peer-review where they've arranged to be reviewed only by those who share their bias? Is it the deliberate intent to hide data and not to show their work? Is it the skill in fighting off FOIA requests, the declared intent to delete data before releasing it?

If this is how the 'authority' operates, any sane person would tell him to go fuck himself. George Bush was in authority for 8 years, if I need remind your selective memory. Goldman Sachs is the authority in investment banking. What makes scientists immune to the enticements of the short term gains to be found from cheating and lying?

Or is it that you've been brainwashed by repetition of ideas that you didn't bother to check out. The hockey-stick graph - the one that says the earth is getting hotter - has no independent verification. It's based on tree ring and pine cone dendrochronography that plant physiologists say is unequivocally counter to the accepted understanding.

And when you drill down into the data, you can see it right there - it's one damn tree Mann picked when he was cherry picking at the data, amplifying a stacked statistical technique that would produce a hockey stick even with white noise in it.

One fucking tree. Look it up your goddamn self, YAD061. One data point out of a statistically-insufficient 15 tree cores, on which the entire basis of the hockey stick, and thus the allegation of current global warming (which curiously contradicts directly measured instrumentation) is based. The entire 'global warming' branch of climate science is dominated by a handful of people deliberately collaborating in scientific fraud, backed by an industry fueled with hundreds of billions of dollars. None of this is independently verifiable, we're taking one group's word for it and that word alone.

We're going to make massive social and economic changes based on their word? And they won't show their data but all of humanity is supposed to change the way we live? If you find this logical, you need to examine what might be an appropriate burden of truth.

This is big business stuff. You think they could back down if they were honest about the data and said, hmm, well, it's not really warming now, is it? (please don't pepper me with cherry-picked anecdotes, exhibiting the same data selection error at issue here.)

So take your appeal to authority fallacy and stick it where the sun don't shine. Don't be a drone mindlessly regurgitating propaganda for your corporate masters. Dare to think for yourself for once.