You are here: Home › News › International Skeptics Day

International Skeptics Day

Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

11 Responses to "International Skeptics Day"

Aardvark says:

October 13, 2012 at 3:48 pm

Skepticism is bullshit.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Log in to Reply
Canison says:

October 13, 2012 at 5:30 pm

I see no evidence that it’s sceptics day.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Log in to Reply
ACEwoK says:

October 13, 2012 at 7:49 pm

That guy was really quite eloquent…

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Log in to Reply
Leonid says:

October 13, 2012 at 9:05 pm

So James Lovelock’s not invited?

Bugger.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Log in to Reply
Leonid says:

October 14, 2012 at 8:21 am

James Lovelock wasn’t into science? O_o

You’re not a pathetic anti-science denialist douchebag? O_o

These are amazing words for someone who rejects ‘proving’ and ‘disproving’ the null hypothesis by a post-high-school level implementation of the scientific method.

For you – a table even 12 year olds can understand:
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-SoAW93L3xTk/UG3Htr1_hHI/AAAAAAAACLU/Kmq61o83jdU/Science%2BPseudoscience%2BReligion.jpg

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Log in to Reply
cranky says:

October 14, 2012 at 8:49 am

This site needs a stupid jew filter.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Log in to Reply
Leonid says:

October 14, 2012 at 9:18 pm

So how many guys’ opinion to you base your opinion on?

What scientific method have they applied to back up that procedure?

Has time shown their predictions to be correct or not?

Did peer review of their work catch the fact that they have almost all been universally outside the margin of error on their predictions?

You ask if Lovelock was credible… That’s fair. Are predictions reflected in the IPCC AR4 credible and exactly how accurate is it based on the thousands of man hours not spent in verifying, testing and observing on a control Earth?

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Log in to Reply
Leonid says:

October 15, 2012 at 10:25 am

No my dear "pathetic anti-science denialist douchebag", I keep coming back to the fact that you believe in spite of the following things:
1. The vast majority of published scientists have no stated opinion on global warming
2. There has not yet been a successful model that can forecast climate, natural or anthropogenic, within any acceptable CI
3. The models that have by some fluke of nature forecast something close to observations, fail the hindcasting test (proving the thousand monkeys and the Encyclopedia Britannica proverb)
4. The very basic steps of the scientific method have not been applied to climate science and just like pseudoscience, the predicted results are non-repeatable, claimed to be widely useful and any attempt to show that the results are false by observational comparison to the real world – is viewed as a conspiracy.

If you want to believe, that’s your problem, but it’s your religion. It’s not a fact. It’s a curious hypothesis with some supporting evidence. There are two facts: in the last 150-250 years or so, climate’s warmed. In the last 50-60 years, CO2 atmospheric content has been increasing by ~2ppmv. These are the only empirical non-modelled, observed, tested facts/axioms that we have. They are not in dispute.

A further non-empirical axiom is that climate change has a human component. This axiom has not yet been quantified in terms of volume of our impact – because each time we model it, the models fail to forecast AND hindcast properly, though they sometimes fluke one or the other.

Belief trumps scientific processes each and every time, right?

I’ll leave you with this:

That’s not some sceptic derived graph. It’s from woodfortrees.com – an aggregator site that takes publicly available indexes from the Met Office, UAH, NASA/GISS, etc and builds the plots for you.

The trend for the last 16 years is statistically indistinguishable from 0. Climate, according the WMO specification (and the IPCC) is narrowly defined as average weather over 30 years. To achieve a minimum temp (no carbon action, BAU) prediction of the IPCC by 2030 (their AR4 prediction models use 2000 as the baseline year) the temperature would have to increase by 0.6C above current temps in 14 years based on their stated 0.2C decadal trend.

In other words, in the next 14 years the temperature will have to rise by 80% of the total rise since measurement in 1880, on the back of 25% extra CO2 than the rise between 1880 and now (111ppmv) – and this would violate the very laws put down by Svante Arrhenius – the father of Greenhouse Theory who stated that temperature response to greenhouse is logarithmic and not linear or exponential – meaning that for increasing concentrations of CO2, the rate of temperature increase should decrease.

That leaves two options – the models, and thus the scientists you believe, are wrong. Or the real world is wrong.

Do you understand what I’m saying? Or are you still going to believe models that violate everything we know about CO2-Temp and have already violated observed data, leading plenty of scientists to admit that they don’t know everything and are not as confident as they used to be?

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Log in to Reply
Leonid says:

October 15, 2012 at 4:24 pm

Off course you hold an opinion at odds with the scientific community. You’re a climate change alarmist and the wide scientific community, in every poll, has shown there to be a majority of scientists who refuse to state their opinion on the matter.

The flaw you make is that you believe scientists. Not science.

If I didn’t understand E=mc^2 and was interested, I’d learn about it, have a look how it is applied in the real world by reading about it in scientific journals and doing a basic sniff test for bullshit.

You on the other hand would believe in E=mc^2 without knowing why you believe in it.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Log in to Reply
Leonid says:

October 15, 2012 at 6:13 pm

I have never ever anywhere on here else where in my real life every said anything that could classify me as a climate change alarmist.

1. "In reality the last decade the planet warmed almost twice as much as the decade before. Which warmed about twice as much as the decade before it."

2. "If it had the oceans wouldn’t still be warming at an ever increasing rate."

That’s from today. And both wrong.

No I trust scientists to do science better than me, because they are trained professionals where I am not.

So basically you believe because they believe and you were told they were the authority. Good to know.

Can I sell you a great religion? It’s called Scientology. I take your money and you go to heaven with Xenu.

You do realize it’s quite possible to research a topic thoroughly and be completely wrong due to not being an expert.

You do realise it’s quite possible to research a topic thoroughly and be completely wrong even as an expert?

Seen the AR4 IPCC predictions? There’s your evidence of experts being wrong.

[Like all the anti-global warming stuff. I can poke a hole in it in about 1 second.]

Yes. By lying.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Log in to Reply
Leonid says:

October 16, 2012 at 1:25 pm

[The fact you’re trying to make an argument I’m being a hysterical alarmist just shows how out of touch with reality you are when it comes to facts.]

Ok denier… Lets see you explain your false statement that this decade warmed by twice as much as the previous one and that one by twice as much as the decade before. Lets see you explain it as anything else than outright alarmism and denial of climate change observations over the last 30 years as defined by the WMO and the IPCC as a valid observational range for climate.

[It’s just pathetic. It’s on the level of pathetic as when you claimed I had been saying anti-semetic stuff because I criticized Israel. Then when challenged and after you spent ages trying to find a single post to back up your conclusion and you couldn’t. You then made the claim I was too clever to actually provide any evidence, but you really knew. LOL. Pathetic.]

Wake up to yourself you sad pathetic little man.

You called me a racist, a bigot, a genocide supporter. When asked to find the evidence of any of these – you couldn’t.

Your fascination with Israel as a ‘human rights abuser’ to the exclusion of almost everyone else shows you for who you are. You hold Israel to a standard you hold no-one else to.

[You’re clearly trying to same pathetic failed tactic here. In fact I don’t think in any of the discussions on here, the effect or result of global warming has even been discussed. I’ve just tried to counter the nonsense of the claims it’s not happening, it’s cooling, it’s not man made. Or whatever variation is being discussed at the time]

No – what you’ve done is lied. Brazenly. Even in the above paragraph. Who on here has ever said it’s not happening? Who said it’s cooling? Who said it’s not man-made?

Are you actually literally insane? All you’ve ever done on this site is rehash the same tired old talking points of alarmism. Seriously – do you actually expect people to believe stuff like this decade warming by twice as much as the last and four times as much as the decade before the last?

Seriously? Who are you trying to fool? It may work with your family – Dawkins knows, your lying had to come from somewhere, but here on the Internet, we can check almost every bit of data from the same sources you just be using to make these claims.

You don’t need to be a scientist to verify your claims as bullshit. Just like you don’t need to be a scientist to find a flaw in scientific data (McKitrick, GISS). If you have access to the same data, you can run the same procedures on it as any scientist if you’re able to follow the information. Scientists may be able to decide what data is relevant, but anyone can follow their routines, everyone can find maths mistakes, everyone can find invalid statistical procedures. It just takes knowledge, and some of it is high-school level, some of it is university level.

[It’s also pathetic to call someone in line with the main stream scientific community a denialist. Even using that language. You’d be better to just say, I like the experts are wrong. You just come off bad, especially after I tried to explain your own personal opinion is not necessarily science.]

You are not in line with the mainstream scientific community. Every poll you care to name, of the scientific community, has more people abstaining from voting than those that do actually vote, for or against. The overwhelming mainstream opinion is silence. BECAUSE most scientists believe only in what they can observe and test against certain criteria – it’s why they became scientists and not rabbis or priests or imams. And so they keep quiet. And produce thousands of peer reviewed papers that never get reported on because they’re not vocal, and lots of these papers provide observational and theoretical observational evidence on climate or short term warming that calls into question the feasibility of models.

But you wouldn’t have read those papers because like you said – you’re in touch with the mainstream political democratic opinion.

Notice how I didn’t say scientific opinion? That’s because science isn’t a democracy. The majority aren’t right because they’re in the majority.

When will you understand that or is the science denial absolutely genetic, ideological, or what?

[If you’re going to play such childish and immature games.]

Oh that’s a bit rich.

[Clearly you’re not interested in a civil debate like adults and I shall just have to leave it here]

Civil debate with you? Fuck that. I don’t have civil debates with people who hate me and whom I’ve no respect for.

See I ain’t much of a believer in tolerance. I acknowledge you as a an apartheid supporting anti-Zionist nationalist who supports the establishing of a Sharia state. I acknowledge you asa committed human rights fighter – as a promoter of same-sex rights, equal opportunity and all the other stuff – except when the perpetrators of such abuses are brown – let’s give them everything they want even thought hat pretty much ends any discussion of rights in those countries because they invariably become closed and don’t need anything from the west any more so they don’t even have to payslip service to the things you believe.

I acknowledge you as a science denialist. This is what you are. You prefer models to reality and observation. You lie or misrepresent evidence. You overestimate conclusions. You never acknowledge fault when you make a seriously idiotic mistake – you blame observed, tested, peer reviewed and quality controlled evidence for not supporting your view.

I acknowledge all these things that you are. I don’t tolerate them. And I’m not civil to people I don’t tolerate. To use your own words – life’s to short.

[Life’s too short. I’m sure you’re only a couple posts away from bringing up again how even though you know nothing about me, you do better with the ladies than me and some how that means you’re right. Or what ever the fuck you were going on about when you pulled that chestnut out.]

That was in reply to your statement that I mustn’t have a girlfriend with views like mine. Or something like that.and it wasn’t about my success with ladies – just that I’ve been married and have a girlfriend.

I now expect your pro-forma reply which involves your visions of me masturbating in a basement. I appreciate that you think of me in that way, but I’m sorry – I’m just not into you.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Log in to Reply

Login
Password

Leave a Reply Cancel reply