Science denialism: The problem that just won’t go away

They can't do it with statistics involving incomplete variables.

- - - Updated - - -

OK, so you did it yourself. How do we know you didn't make mistakes?

 

In the first place, of course you can. In the second place, which variable did they use that you claim is incomplete?

Because I cited my sources and my methods, so you can check for yourself.

 

You don't accept it when it comes from blogs you disagree with, or graphs like I make.

Hypocrisy anyone?

 

That is because the "graphs you make" are not peer reviewed and neither are blogs

 

I don't accept non-peer-reviewed junk, for valid scientific reasons. If you have a valid scientific reason for rejecting my sources or my methods, state it. Otherwise you're just blowing smoke.

 

Appeal to authority is a sure way to make sure you don't have to discuss valid issues.

 

What's wrong with turning your game back on you?

 

You know, I put the data link of what I use in my graphs.

i looked for the NOAA data set, information overload.

Would you please direct me to the links and data you used?

 

You're not. I reject junk for valid scientific reasons. You reject sound science for political reasons. See the difference?

 

CO2:
Keeling (Mauna Loa)
Etheridge (Law Dome)
Siegenthaler (DML, South Pole)

Temperature:
NASA-GISS land-ocean surface temps
Anderson 2013, and see supporting info for data.

Alternatively, if wading thru Anderson is a slog (and it is), just take data from 1958 forward, Keeling and GISS, and just plot that. You get much the same result, with a similar slope.

 

Sorry, I'm not wearing biased glasses like you.

 

Because that is not what you are doing. Making up charts and quoting blogs is not a valid scientific or even valid academic enterprise.
If you want to be listened to by people interested in science then you have to follow certain rules and the first of those is that you have to reference every point. validate your stance by comparing and contrasting from accepted sources explain your methodology in simple terms that anyone can follow and use validated and accepted statistical tools

 

You mean like quoting from the cartoonists blog? Bwahahahaha!!!

 

When I use a source I ensure it has academic credibility = far more than I can say for the majority of the denialist on this site

 

LOL, yes, John Cook is the epitome of academic credibility.

 

Ah! Godwin's law

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

And using a really obvious and badly photoshopped picture to do it

Mate truth is you have never been able to critique the science on that site

 

LOL, it is a picture that Cook himself posted on his website before he took it down.

You mean critique the misdirection on that website which, of course I have.

 

And with that post, you just destroyed any credibility you had left.

 

You have no proof of that but it is a badly photoshopped picture - same one in fact that has been used on Karl Rove

As for critiquing the website no you have not - you have linked to someone with a few gripes that were not referenced to academic sources but you have not critiqued the site

 

You mean posting the picture Cook put on his website? How so?

 

Pretty well known where the photo came from and it is the usual antics of Cook. Remember, he is a cartoonist. Sorry you can't read through criticism of your hero but there is plenty of valid criticism out there. Don't worry, it is OK to stick your head in the sand if it makes you feel more comfy.

Here is another from the site.

 

It doesn't matter where the image comes from because it has nothing to do with global warming or the accuracy of anything posted on SkepticalScience.com. But I guess when there is no actual science to back up your position, an ad hominem is about all you have.

 

This is worth repeating because apart from one link to an unreferenced blog I have never seen any actual critique of the science on that site

 

Nor will you ever understand it when presented. Such is the aura of misdirection for some.

 

The old secret evidence trick again. Oh yes, there's a devastating reply to Skeptical Science. But no, you can't see it. It's a secret!