Why the AGW religion is false

It's no use Ajax, I've posted Burt Rutan's presentation about 50 times since becoming a member here. They refuse to read it, what they do is they go on skeptical science and if they can't find a dodgy rebuttal by Dana they flat out refuse to acknowledge it. Ad Hominems and fallacies are then thrown around including my new favorite "Gish Gallop", because they're being "drowned" in so much information, to hard to cope

MAYBE they might give it a go since it's in video formation, but I highly doubt it. It would require them to look at pictures and actually think for themselves, but without skepticalscience to give them fallacious excuses, you're probably out of luck.

Just a reminder there's no rebuttal on the internet I've found, besides a single open letter literally addressing 1 or 2 points.

They'd rather blame kids lighting fires on Abbott and have nice circle jerk over energy alternatives.

Burt Rutan and John Christy make every alarmist / global warming zealot look like the dodgiest of dodgy used car salesmen....standing in front of a whole yard of Leyland p76's.

Apologies to the Leyland p76 btw, I just couldn't think of another lemon in the available time, but if there was a worse car, then that is the alarmist position.

Do these guys disect the deniers graphs and data. That is so obviously cherry picked and manipulated its not funny.

Didnt Screaming (not-a) Lord Monckton actually invert real data to fit one of his graphs ?

What do you think about this? Any thoughts?

- Deleted data
- Computer that produce a hockey stick even with random input
- Completed data a lot less ridiculous

In subsequent slides he event puts the scary hockey stick against historic data and it is no where near as ridiculous as Mr Gore's graph that goes off the chart. That being despite the cherry picking.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2013 at 2:47pm:


What graphs are you referring to? He hasn't done anything recently AFAIK. However self criticism is essential I agree, however he doesn't really make claims, he says he isn't qualified to make claims only qualified to analyze data. When he did that presentation in 2011 it was out of inconsistencies he started to see in "the inconvenient truth" and the IPCC.

It's like noticing something is really wrong and then setting out to look into it as deep as possible. That doesn't mean he's made it his job to analyze every claim in the debate. Though either way it ignores the fact that data was selected for a specific agenda and the rest ignored. Whatever he doesn't do , has no bearing on what he does do. Unless you want to Ad Hominem attack his credibility (which can be relevant if he is wrong) instead of his actual analysis.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2013 at 3:05pm:


Seems more impartial to me due to 0 vested interest but okay.
Is 2011 out of date when looking at the IPCC and past claims still used today?

Quote:


For sure totally agree.
The thing to understand is skepticism is like the null-hypothesis, the whole point for the majority is to be a sort of devil's advocate and the burden of proof is on the AGW supporters as it's their idea that's being put forward, if it's wrong then that's it.

However yes some skeptics have put forward their own claims and AGW supporters do the same analysis in return to defend their position/ disprove a skeptic position. Of course someone skeptical should look into claims made by skeptics.

The thing you seem to forget though is, Skeptics VS IPCC for example is two sides using the same data, from the same papers. The issue isn't usually with the data in the paper but it's interpretation and potential manipulation. Unless looking at say the ocean cooling data that was claimed to be faulty due to a flaw in the ARGO buoys, but usually it's the same data.

http://rps3.com/Files/AGW/Rutan.AGWdataAnalysis%20v11.pdf Quote:
Quote:
So his view, on a field in which he has no qualifications, is influenced by ideology.

Worth keeping in mind.