# Thread: Disparity Between Scientists and General Public on Scientific Views

1. Originally Posted by sprinkles
Basically it looks like this:
That graph is nonsense as is every "reconstructed" temperature record. These records are "reconstructed" by measuring tree ring widths. This is pseudoscientific nonsense because it ignores nutrition, water and drought conditions, and presumes perfect correlation between temperature and tree ring width. Last time I looked at my trees, they were not perfect cylinders. If you take a core sample from one side, you'll get very different measurements compared to a core sample from another side.

Dr. Michael Mann refused to divulge the correlation statistic (the linear regression coefficient, the "r" value), but others who reproduced his work came up with r values of 0.2. A perfect correlation is a 1.0; no correlation is a 0. A 0.2 correlation is basically worthless and yet, these paleoclimatologists still peddle this nonsense.

Originally Posted by sprinkles
Also look at it like this. If you have a balloon that goes around the earth in one day vs a rocket that only goes halfway around the earth in one second, the rocket is the vehicle that has more change because it is doing more in any given frame than the balloon is, even though the balloon got further by simply travelling for longer.
There is no evidence of accelerated climate change because every reconstructed temperature record is a crock.

2. Originally Posted by Tellenbach
That graph is nonsense as is every "reconstructed" temperature record. These records are "reconstructed" by measuring tree ring widths. This is pseudoscientific nonsense because it ignores nutrition, water and drought conditions, and presumes perfect correlation between temperature and tree ring width. Last time I looked at my trees, they were not perfect cylinders. If you take a core sample from one side, you'll get very different measurements compared to a core sample from another side.

Dr. Michael Mann refused to divulge the correlation statistic (the linear regression coefficient, the "r" value), but others who reproduced his work came up with r values of 0.2. A perfect correlation is a 1.0; no correlation is a 0. A 0.2 correlation is basically worthless and yet, these paleoclimatologists still peddle this nonsense.

There is no evidence of accelerated climate change because every reconstructed temperature record is a crock.
If you can figure out this much then why did you pretend to not understand what was meant?

Even if the data is a crock, your statement about what scientists believe was still incorrect, and that is what I was explaining to you.

3. Originally Posted by sprinkles
If you can figure out this much then why did you pretend to not understand what was meant?

Even if the data is a crock, your statement about what scientists believe was still incorrect, and that is what I was explaining to you.
Tellenbach does not believe nor regard scientific consesus, and cherry picks data that supports his claims while ignoring mass data. As such, I really wouldn't take what he says seriously.

4. Originally Posted by sprinkles
If you can figure out this much then why did you pretend to not understand what was meant?
I wasn't pretending;you were not clear.

Even if the data is a crock, your statement about what scientists believe was still incorrect, and that is what I was explaining to you.
I'm less interested in what scientists believe than why they believe. Basically, that entire poll was useless because we don't know how much those scientists studied the issues.

5. Originally Posted by Hard
Tellenbach does not believe nor regard scientific consesus, and cherry picks data that supports his claims while ignoring mass data. As such, I really wouldn't take what he says seriously.
As I mentioned before, herd behavior is not science. In the past, scientists have believed in bloodletting, trepanation, phrenology, eugenics, and all manner of nonsense.

In "Falling Into the Fire" by Christine Montross, the author describes how vulvar massage was standard treatment for hysteria and anxiety in women in the 19th century. Psychiatrists would spend about an hour fingering their clients and this was considered a successful treatment.

6. Originally Posted by Tellenbach
I wasn't pretending;you were not clear.

I'm less interested in what scientists believe than why they believe. Basically, that entire poll was useless because we don't know how much those scientists studied the issues.
Originally Posted by Tellenbach
Do these people believe there was no climate change 10 million years ago?
The answer to this was "No". If you don't care then don't ask.

And this:
Originally Posted by Tellenbach
So are they suggesting that those forces which affected climage change 10 million years ago are no longer present or that they pale in comparison to humanity's use of fossil fuels? It strikes me as odd that anyone would claim that humanity was mostly responsible for climate change when we've had climate change for millions of years.
I answered this one as well. If you don't care then don't ask.

If you thought the poll and the data was bunk, you could have come out and said so instead of making these absurd misrepresentations and causing me to waste my time.

7. Originally Posted by sprinkles
If you thought the poll and the data was bunk, you could have come out and said so instead of making these absurd misrepresentations and causing me to waste my time.
I apologize. Those were rhetorical questions. I wasn't expecting anyone to answer.

8. Originally Posted by Tellenbach
As I mentioned before, herd behavior is not science. In the past, scientists have believed in bloodletting, trepanation, phrenology, eugenics, and all manner of nonsense.

In "Falling Into the Fire" by Christine Montross, the author describes how vulvar massage was standard treatment for hysteria and anxiety in women in the 19th century. Psychiatrists would spend about an hour fingering their clients and this was considered a successful treatment.
That doesn't invalidate consensus.

I'm sorry, but you really have the complete inability and refusal to reason with scientific material. I have seen it time and time again, and you are just reaffirming it in this thread.

9. Originally Posted by Hard
That doesn't invalidate consensus.
There is consensus that's backed up by thousands of experiments as with the laws of thermodynamics and then there's pseudoscientific nonsense peddled by lefties paid \$100 billion to come up with alarmist computer models that have failed every time. Surely, you see the difference.

10. Originally Posted by Tellenbach
There is consensus that's backed up by thousands of experiments as with the laws of thermodynamics and then there's pseudoscientific nonsense peddled by lefties paid \$100 billion to come up with alarmist computer models that have failed every time. Surely, you see the difference.
No. You're politically bais, and can't be taken seriously because of it. The science behind climate change is largely sound. This is why the vast majority of scientists support it. You operate under the delusion that everyone is an idiot but yourself. You don't know how to interpret scientific information.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO