It was flagged, I looked back at posts from other threads and you are repeating yourself in multiple threads. Maybe not cut and paste but still repetition.
Man, the crazy astroturfers LOVE BB recently…
On another note, TPP sucks. What can I do about it right now?
In my mind, it’s the old divide that accurately describes geeks as wannabee nerds who have actual advanced technical degrees. That means they are not actually very scientifically savvy in a street smart sense and so have been extremely slow to actually confront the Space Age satellite data that show utterly no continued warming for two decades (!) compared to the original Jim Hansen claims to reporters in the 1980s that the highly speculative hypothesis of a water vapor amplified greenhouse effect would have led to several degrees extra warming in that time. He has changed his own tune, but activists ignore him:
“The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slow down in the growth rate of net climate forcing.” - Jim Hansen, 2012
Early Hansen (1986): “Average global temperatures would rise by one-half a degree to one degree Fahrenheit from 1990 to 2000 if current trends are unchanged, according to Hansen’s findings. Hansen said the global temperature would rise by another 2 to 4 degrees in the following decade.”
[Reference: http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=m90eAAAAIBAJ&sjid=x2kEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6732,129845&dq=hansen+sea+level+rise&hl=en ]
It’s called having an opinion, Falcor. Get over it.
And my opinion was that the person who flagged it was right.
I can please some of the flaggers some of the time and some of the posters some of the time but not all of the flaggers and posters all of the time.
Claiming scientific fraud is slander, which you have done repeatedly based only on your own inability to understand statistics and not, you know, evidence of fraud. Or I suppose it might be libel - I’m open to correction.
Mann more than anyone else I know of in science has been called out for wrong-doing again and again, investigated again and again, and exonerated again and again. Vultures like Watt who casually accuse him have been caught lying again and again, but Mann is the one who gets death threats. And the slander continues, because assholes would rather see someone honest disgraced than admit that when nearly all climate scientists agree on something, it might have merit. It’s infuriating.
Not hosting someone on your blog is not the same thing as censoring them; they can always find their own platform. BoingBoing has an admirable don’t-spam-talking-points rule that I think they’ve been very generous on, and if they do decide someone has violated it, it’s their prerogative.
You didn’t give a link for this one. It’s available here from NASA (pdf), for those interested in looking at the significance of the apparent lack of warming, what might have been learned since the 1980s, or who generally prefer to see quotes in context rather than mined.
1). I don’t think that accurately describes hipsters. They are not “wannabe nerds.”
2). I don’t see how being anti-fracking is
a). indicative of lack scientific savvy
b). the exclusive domain of hipsters
I do think, however, that you are revealing yourself to be a sloppy arguer and prone to overgeneralization and histrionics.
I also don’t see what announcing your PhD in “Carbon Chemistry” does for your argument. What does your degree have to do with the relevant debate? (Honest question; I just don’t tend to see people announcing their credentials, except on reddit, so whenever I see someone do so, it makes me quite skeptical of their claims.)
Here’s a nice article from the Atlantic.
The long-term warming trend, including continual warming since the mid-1970s, has been conclusively associated with the predominant global climate forcing, human-made greenhouse gases, which began to grow substantially early in the 20th century. - J. Hansen
From the intro to the paper you cited. Continual warming, conclusively associated. And “Nearly all conservatives in Western nations” dispute global warming do they? I’ll add that to my “reasons for not being a conservative” list just above Big Business Good, Any Government Bad and just below Texas, The Wand of Shame State.
No, it’s not. It’s called whistleblowing. I back it up with facts, in the above link to a thread on Phys.org in which the whole Hockey Stick Team narrative is set down.
Be careful what you define as mere “talking points” as you repeat yourself, declaring the same opinion, again and again.
Oh come on. This is just silly. An ivy league degree in carbon chemistry has no merit in a debate about carbon dioxide? That’s your counter argument to my original post revealing brazen scientific fraud directly from this year’s major headline news announcements? Really? The referee of public opinion is holding my hand up now.
It’s called being a stooge, witting or otherwise.
Here’s my opinion: it’s past time to take up arms against this scumbag elite waging war on us all.
Yeah, damn straight. Organic chem has sweet fuck-all to do with climate science. Disingenuous troll.
I don’t know. Perhaps you studied the effects of Carbon in marine mammal bloodstreams. “Carbon Chemistry” is not a major at either of the Ivies I attended. People don’t say “I got a degree in Russian Constructivist Film,” rather “I got a degree in Film” or something similar. So, until you can tell me what “Carbon Chemistry” is, and until you stop claiming victory without substantive effort to quell your critics, I call Ivy BS.
@Kimmo explains my position much more, ahem, succinctly.
The elite are the ones supporting debased environmentalism. Your argument is backwards. The war being waged is against cheap energy, needlessly. Those same elite created our high emissions era by destroying the Atomic Age, the very core of the original BoingBoing vibe, as illustrated by artist Kenny Scharf and as embodied in nostalgia here for old Atomic Energy science kits:
The tone of a death threat is noted, but boring, since they follow skeptics around quite predictably. It’s the cry of the psychopath in you, the one who longs for Cory’s Singularity, you know the one that toy versions of old 1990s era 3D printing technology will bring any day now.
“Yeah, damn straight. Organic chem has sweet fuck-all to do with climate science.”
A troll BTW, is someone posting mainly to upset the thread, which exactly defines your name calling and call for violence. I read BB every day, having been an original print zine subscriber and having had my own product design featured here too. Studying a true hard physical science is alone what prepares somebody to judge not just the content but the scientific behavior of those in a related field. There is no such thing as climate science as a separate discipline. Gavin Schmidt, who I posted a video of above, Jim Hansen’s closest collegue, was trained in no hard science at all, just mathematics! Michael Mann was a geologist/mathematics major, again not a hard physical scientist, well, close enough, if you count rocks.
Ahhh, cheap energy. Nuclear, the “you can never, ever, get rid of the incredibly toxic and lethal waste products” cheap energy. Cheap energy, sure. Byproducts that remain lethal for 20,000 years? Not so much.
So you expect us to accept a disingenuous claim that you have a degree relevant to the field and not consider you a troll? If you were just a lay person stating an opinion, that would be fine. But to actually lie or be deceptive about your training, it really undermines all of your evidence, even if it is all true.
Homework: fourth generation reactors, Bill Gates, and thorium reactors that were only abandoned since they can’t make bombs.
Actually if you’ve been keeping up with thorium reactor tech you’d know that isn’t true, and you would also know that gen 4 reactors are theoretical and won’t be ready for construction to begin until at least 2035, besides which their waste will still be incredibly lethal and toxic for centuries. Can we store it your childrens back yard?
When the facts aren’t on your side…
Please call my old lab mate who was recently chairman of the Columbia department of chemistry, Colin Nuckolls, one of the best nanotechnologists in the world. Ask him why he thanked Nik in the intro to his own thesis:
He didn’t win the top Ph.D. student Hammett Award though, like I did though, his year, after there was a future Nobelist (Chalfie) and future president of the American Chemical Society on my thesis defense committee (Breslow).
On mainstream skeptical blogs, you have about thirty thousand propeller heads from a vast array of fields, crowd sourcing a knowledge base. That’s powerful.
You indeed remind me I have my own homework to do still, and here my facts become indeed mere opinion, based on an old Bucky Fuller tutored Whole Earth Catalog view of the untrammeled march of technology, one that Stewart Brand himself still embodies in his pro-nuclear outlook.