3 ms·

The worse problem these days is knowing what articles or even research to believe, because it is so damn easy to write anything on the internet that recognizing

The worse problem these days is knowing what articles or even research to believe, because it is so damn easy to write anything on the internet that recognizing BS or truth is becoming almost impossible. When the web appeared many of us thought that truth would be easier to see, but in reality it just meant that the noise was more easily generated.

merpnderp 11y ago
I just downloaded the RSS data and wrote an R script to find the trend. It's fun to play with the numbers yourself and get an idea of the only hard temperature numbers we have. The web allowed me to get the data in a matter of seconds. https://gist.github.com/merpnderp/91646625546cba7a1e70 https://gist.github.com/merpnderp/91646625546cba7a1e70
- MCRed 11y ago
  How do you get access to numbers that are not corrupted by the Mann "Algorithm" which applies "corrections"? (these corrections force growth in temperature results starting in the industrial era... which, it so happens to turn out, account for the warming.) If your data is really hard numbers (and from sources not subject to the heat island effect) I'd guess you'd find no warming. (Well other than solar cycles, etc.) Edit: Yes, yes, please down vote this comment talking about actual science stuff. Keep up the brigade. I'm not spamming, I'm just making points that make you unhappy because they disagree with your political dogma. I'm not sorry. You are being anti-intellectual. Your anti-intellectualism doesn't shame me. It should shame you.
  - merpnderp 11y ago
    The RSS data is just since 1979 and is based on radiation given off by different levels of the atmosphere. There have been some adjustments to the data based on changes in the satellites' heights, but this is mostly non-controversial. Download the data and run my script. It will be fun and "sciencey". http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurem... [EDIT] I don't have to the mod points to downvote anyone :)
MCRed 11y ago
You can tell truth by looking at the tactics. The global warming proponents changed the name of the movement to "Climate Change" because, as the earth got cooler despite rising CO2 levels after the end of the recent solar maxima, it was undeniable that the plant wasn't warming. But you can't deny the climate is changing! In fact, look at their use of the word "denier". Calling your opponents names-- and all the other demonization tactics you see in this thread-- tells you that they know their position is completely political and not scientific. If the science was on their side, they wouldn't need to call people names (And censor those who disagree, which on this site means down voting into invisibility.) Notice how this article barely made the front page, while the most spurious pro-global warming article makes it to the top 10. (not to mention anything about Basic Income or other pro-marxist propaganda.)
- tim333 11y ago
  >You can tell truth by looking at the tactics. You can't really in this case. Both sides have iffy tactics. You really need to look at the scientific evidence.
- Daishiman 11y ago
  Yes, the stuff that doesn't fit your political agenda and with which most people disagree with is purposely hidden because of some conspiracy. Or you should consider your position to be blidingly, obviously wrong in the face or evidence.
isho 11y ago
Recognizing BS from truth has always been difficult. The only way I know of is to take the time to think for your self and come up with your own opinions, get information from different sources and contemplate the arguments from both sides before forming your own opinions. Personally the article seems like a bunch of BS to me. The author is basically saying that climate scientists are wrong because they have been corrupted by the multi-billion dollar green industry. With out providing any evidence of corruption or any new scientific evidence against global warming. The author then adds a whole bunch of other distracting bits of information that don't really support his core thesis. For example specific climate change research that turned out to be flawed doesn't really make a difference since there's already a huge body of evidence stretching back over half a century. It's basically just a straw man argument.

merpnderp 11y ago

I just downloaded the RSS data and wrote an R script to find the trend. It's fun to play with the numbers yourself and get an idea of the only hard temperature numbers we have. The web allowed me to get the data in a matter of seconds. https://gist.github.com/merpnderp/91646625546cba7a1e70 https://gist.github.com/merpnderp/91646625546cba7a1e70

MCRed 11y ago
How do you get access to numbers that are not corrupted by the Mann "Algorithm" which applies "corrections"? (these corrections force growth in temperature results starting in the industrial era... which, it so happens to turn out, account for the warming.) If your data is really hard numbers (and from sources not subject to the heat island effect) I'd guess you'd find no warming. (Well other than solar cycles, etc.) Edit: Yes, yes, please down vote this comment talking about actual science stuff. Keep up the brigade. I'm not spamming, I'm just making points that make you unhappy because they disagree with your political dogma. I'm not sorry. You are being anti-intellectual. Your anti-intellectualism doesn't shame me. It should shame you.
- merpnderp 11y ago
  The RSS data is just since 1979 and is based on radiation given off by different levels of the atmosphere. There have been some adjustments to the data based on changes in the satellites' heights, but this is mostly non-controversial. Download the data and run my script. It will be fun and "sciencey". http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurem... [EDIT] I don't have to the mod points to downvote anyone :)

MCRed 11y ago

You can tell truth by looking at the tactics. The global warming proponents changed the name of the movement to "Climate Change" because, as the earth got cooler despite rising CO2 levels after the end of the recent solar maxima, it was undeniable that the plant wasn't warming. But you can't deny the climate is changing! In fact, look at their use of the word "denier". Calling your opponents names-- and all the other demonization tactics you see in this thread-- tells you that they know their position is completely political and not scientific. If the science was on their side, they wouldn't need to call people names (And censor those who disagree, which on this site means down voting into invisibility.) Notice how this article barely made the front page, while the most spurious pro-global warming article makes it to the top 10. (not to mention anything about Basic Income or other pro-marxist propaganda.)

tim333 11y ago
>You can tell truth by looking at the tactics. You can't really in this case. Both sides have iffy tactics. You really need to look at the scientific evidence.
Daishiman 11y ago
Yes, the stuff that doesn't fit your political agenda and with which most people disagree with is purposely hidden because of some conspiracy. Or you should consider your position to be blidingly, obviously wrong in the face or evidence.

isho 11y ago

Recognizing BS from truth has always been difficult. The only way I know of is to take the time to think for your self and come up with your own opinions, get information from different sources and contemplate the arguments from both sides before forming your own opinions. Personally the article seems like a bunch of BS to me. The author is basically saying that climate scientists are wrong because they have been corrupted by the multi-billion dollar green industry. With out providing any evidence of corruption or any new scientific evidence against global warming. The author then adds a whole bunch of other distracting bits of information that don't really support his core thesis. For example specific climate change research that turned out to be flawed doesn't really make a difference since there's already a huge body of evidence stretching back over half a century. It's basically just a straw man argument.