Lindzen got his @$$ kicked!

[_Chap]

Would it be possible for some of the posters on this thread to give at least some outline of an indication of what qualifications or experience they have that justifies the confidence with which they evaluate the current state of research in the fields to which reference has been made?

Why don't you start?

- Doc

Happy to - but only in general and limited terms, since I am committed to not giving too many pointers to my in real life identity, for reasons that you will understand.

I have a degree in a subject that combines technology and mathematical methods. I have successfully pursued advanced doctoral research, and have taught hard science. My more recent work reaches out into wider issues connected with science. I have a position that gives me easy and informal contact with active specialists in a wide range of scientific fields, and instant access to most important research publications. I travel quite a lot.

Of course, I am an anonymous coward, so that may well be a pack of lies written from the cell in which I am serving a life sentence for cutting up innocent people and eating them. You just can't tell, can you?

Next?

[_Water Dog]

Just using proof in contrast with dismissal. One puts too much weight on the study. The other too little.

RI, you gotta stop messing with DT's emotions like this.

This is why the backdrop of Mormonism should be useful for a discussion like this. The matter with this paper is every bit the same as Word Print Studies or whatever latest the Claremont crowd has come up with. DT has it in his head that this paper is gospel until proven false. Yeah, that's not how this works. You've got it backwards, buddy. That paper isn't even worth the PDF file it's distributed on. It is nothing but noise in a room full of chatter. I do not dismiss the paper, I simply have no reason whatever to pay it any heed.

Why are we talking about it at all? Because DT doesn't know his own ass from a hole in the ground. He thought he was being a smarty pants and was going to defeat me with "duh sciance" or something. He was going for a gotcha moment, and failed spectacularly. He was trying to counter my point that hurricanes are politicized and conflated as proof of global warming when they aren't. Not only that, but, if substantial warming did in fact happen, the opposite would be true.

So he shows up with this paper citing it as proof that Lindzen and others who have made this point are wrong. One, he doesn't even understand what the paper actually says because it does in fact acknowledge that original point being made by Lindzen et al. Two, he doesn't realize that this paper is nothing more than one guy's random conjecture and isn't proof of jack crap. But, humorously, even if it were proof, lol, it proves the original point!

I'm bored, what next?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Why don't you start?

- Doc

Happy to - but only in general and limited terms, since I am committed to not giving too many pointers to my in real life identity, for reasons that you will understand.

I have a degree in a subject that combines technology and mathematical methods. I have successfully pursued advanced doctoral research, and have taught hard science. My more recent work reaches out into wider issues connected with science. I have a position that gives me easy and informal contact with active specialists in a wide range of scientific fields, and instant access to most important research publications. I travel quite a lot.

Of course, I am an anonymous coward, so that may well be a pack of lies written from the cell in which I am serving a life sentence for cutting up innocent people and eating them. You just can't tell, can you?

Next?

Neat! Can you offer up a tightly written retort to Lindzen that concisely summarizes current global warming trends, and whether or not they're anthropomorphic and most importantly 'catastrophic'?

- Doc

[_Res Ipsa]

Just using proof in contrast with dismissal. One puts too much weight on the study. The other too little.

RI, you gotta stop messing with DT's emotions like this.

This is why the backdrop of Mormonism should be useful for a discussion like this. The matter with this paper is every bit the same as Word Print Studies or whatever latest the Claremont crowd has come up with. DT has it in his head that this paper is gospel until proven false. Yeah, that's not how this works. You've got it backwards, buddy. That paper isn't even worth the PDF file it's distributed on. It is nothing but noise in a room full of chatter. I do not dismiss the paper, I simply have no reason whatever to pay it any heed.

Why are we talking about it at all? Because DT doesn't know his own ass from a hole in the ground. He thought he was being a smarty pants and was going to defeat me with "duh sciance" or something. He was going for a gotcha moment, and failed spectacularly. He was trying to counter my point that hurricanes are politicized and conflated as proof of global warming when they aren't. Not only that, but, if substantial warming did in fact happen, the opposite would be true.

So he shows up with this paper citing it as proof that Lindzen and others who have made this point are wrong. One, he doesn't even understand what the paper actually says because it does in fact acknowledge that original point being made by Lindzen et al. Two, he doesn't realize that this paper is nothing more than one guy's random conjecture and isn't proof of jack ____. But, humorously, even if it were proof, lol, it proves the original point!

I'm bored, what next?

This is typical denier schtick right down to the last sentence. There is no reason not to treat this new paper the same as science treats any new paper: Dog hasn't actually identified any methodological flaws: he's just thrown up a bunch of smoke. He can't identify those flaws because he hasn't even read the paper. But Dog can't muzzle his inner denier: he has to invent excuses to ignore the paper. That's what science deniers do with science: they invent excuses not to consider it. Dog does it with the entire body of evidence: he simply refuses to consider it because it's got UN cooties.

What does he rely on? Go look at his posts in the IPCC report thread. Political cartoons, dishonest graphs, single studies, cherry picked contrarian "experts," blogs published by retired engineers, some random guy's tweet. Now, go look at who else uses this type of anti-science attack: Young earth creationists, anti-vaxxers, moon landing hoaxers, the tobacco lobby, anti-GMO crusaders. The tactics are identical.

And to properly use his analogy, he's the guy pushing the word print studies. He's the guy ignoring the extensive body of evidence. He's acting as apologist for a cluster of quasi-religious ideas that he clings to so tightly he won't even consider contrary evidence. What are those quasi-religious beliefs?

The free market is good.
International cooperations is bad.
Government is bad.

Just like a TBM who rejects even looking at "anti" literature to protect his testimony of Joseph Smith, Dog rejects looking at the scientific evidence to protect his testimony of Adam Smith. That's exactly what he's doing when he says:

I do not dismiss the paper, I simply have no reason whatever to pay it any heed.

Ignorant and proud: that's our Dog.

[_Res Ipsa]

Neat! Can you offer up a tightly written retort to Lindzen that concisely summarizes current global warming trends, and whether or not they're anthropomorphic and most importantly 'catastrophic'?

- Doc

The latter part of what you are asking for is the Working Group 1 section of the IPCC AR 5 report. As for the former, do you think it's reasonable for scientists to drop what they're doing and draft a response every time a contrarian makes a youtube? There have been lots of responses to Lindzen's schtick over the years. You can find them using the Google if you're interested.

[_Water Dog]

Here goes RI in his TBM mode. This is how the TBM does. They try to control the conversation by getting you to play their game. If you do not accept their truth, it's obviously due to some ulterior motive, the "denier" just wants to sin or something. If only they were honest of heart. That's the problem, they aren't honest. They don't want to cooperate and be a part of Zion. Satan has got them. Nope, it couldn't possibly be their inability to produce any evidence of Nephites. Nothing whatsoever to do with that. Here, read another paper, why won't you consider it? Must considerz all the paperz. And then pray about it. Feel how hot this summer is, you can "feel" the truth!

Gawd.

[_Chap]

Would it be possible for some of the posters on this thread to give at least some outline of an indication of what qualifications or experience they have that justifies the confidence with which they evaluate the current state of research in the fields to which reference has been made?

Why don't you start?

- Doc

Happy to - but only in general and limited terms, since I am committed to not giving too many pointers to my in real life identity, for reasons that you will understand.

I have a degree in a subject that combines technology and mathematical methods. I have successfully pursued advanced doctoral research, and have taught hard science. My more recent work reaches out into wider issues connected with science. I have a position that gives me easy and informal contact with active specialists in a wide range of scientific fields, and instant access to most important research publications. I travel quite a lot.

Of course, I am an anonymous coward, so that may well be a pack of lies written from the cell in which I am serving a life sentence for cutting up innocent people and eating them. You just can't tell, can you?

Next?

Neat! Can you offer up a tightly written retort to Lindzen that concisely summarizes current global warming trends, and whether or not they're anthropomorphic and most importantly 'catastrophic'?

- Doc

The latter part of what you are asking for is the Working Group 1 section of the IPCC AR 5 report. As for the former, do you think it's reasonable for scientists to drop what they're doing and draft a response every time a contrarian makes a youtube? There have been lots of responses to Lindzen's schtick over the years. You can find them using the Google if you're interested.

Well, yes. And I've referred to some in other threads.

As my original post hinted, I am hoping that some of the other posters on this thread will state what actual formal study of science they have undertaken, and whether they have any experience of doing it at a level requiring postgraduate study.

That would be helpful in deciding whether they have any real capacity for forming independent judgements on the questions being discussed, as opposed to just reposting stuff from their favourite websites and shouting loudly about it.

Water Dog - how about you go next?

[_Water Dog]

whether they have any experience of doing it at a level requiring postgraduate study.
...
Water Dog - how about you go next?

yes

[_Chap]

whether they have any experience of doing it at a level requiring postgraduate study.
...
Water Dog - how about you go next?

yes

Could you manage just a leetle more detail than that, perhaps? Maybe about as detailed as what I wrote in reply to my query above:

I have a degree in a subject that combines technology and mathematical methods. I have successfully pursued advanced doctoral research, and have taught hard science. My more recent work reaches out into wider issues connected with science. I have a position that gives me easy and informal contact with active specialists in a wide range of scientific fields, and instant access to most important research publications. I travel quite a lot.

[_Res Ipsa]

Here goes RI in his TBM mode. This is how the TBM does. They try to control the conversation by getting you to play their game. If you do not accept their truth, it's obviously due to some ulterior motive, the "denier" just wants to sin or something. If only they were honest of heart. That's the problem, they aren't honest. They don't want to cooperate and be a part of Zion. Satan has got them. Nope, it couldn't possibly be their inability to produce any evidence of Nephites. Nothing whatsoever to do with that. Here, read another paper, why won't you consider it? Must considerz all the paperz. And then pray about it. Feel how hot this summer is, you can "feel" the truth!

Gawd.

Always remember: deniers accuse others of what they do themselves.

Think about what Dog is saying when he says: " Here, read another paper, why won't you consider it? Must considerz all the paperz." "A'll the paperz" is where the science is! Not in Dog's cartoons, blogs and youtubes. Dog simultaneous says that he doesn't see any evidence at the same time he closes his \eyes and refuses to read it. Dog is seriously comparing looking at all the evidence to praying! That's how desperate a denier gets when his lies and dishonesty are laid bare for all to see.