https://issuepedia.org/mw/index.php?title=Global_warming/claims/junk_science&feed=atom&action=historyGlobal warming/claims/junk science - Revision history2024-03-29T12:23:03ZRevision history for this page on the wikiMediaWiki 1.35.0https://issuepedia.org/mw/index.php?title=Global_warming/claims/junk_science&diff=34887&oldid=prevWoozle: tweaks2014-07-12T00:01:47Z<p>tweaks</p>
<table class="diff diff-contentalign-left diff-editfont-monospace" data-mw="interface">
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<tr class="diff-title" lang="en">
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">← Older revision</td>
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">Revision as of 00:01, 12 July 2014</td>
</tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno" id="mw-diff-left-l1" >Line 1:</td>
<td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 1:</td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>[[Category:claims]]</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>[[Category:claims]]</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">==Overview==</del></div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">'''claim''': </ins>[[<ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">Global </ins>warming]] <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">is </ins>[[junk science]].</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">One widely-propagated opinion is that arguments for </del>[[<del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">global </del>warming]] <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">are </del>[[junk science]]<del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">, i</del>.<del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">e. either</del>:</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">==About==</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">This claim states that various conclusions under the general header of "global warming" are</ins>:</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>* based on spurious reasoning but including scientific-sounding phrases and figures designed to sound believable</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>* based on spurious reasoning but including scientific-sounding phrases and figures designed to sound believable</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>* (or) deliberately selecting only data that agree with pre-determined conclusions</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>* (or) deliberately selecting only data that agree with pre-determined conclusions</div></td></tr>
<!-- diff cache key ispda_en_mw:diff::1.12:old-34877:rev-34887 -->
</table>Woozlehttps://issuepedia.org/mw/index.php?title=Global_warming/claims/junk_science&diff=34877&oldid=prevWoozle: Woozle moved page Global warming is junk science to Global warming/claims/junk science: reorganizing denialist claims2014-07-11T22:26:33Z<p>Woozle moved page <a href="/Global_warming_is_junk_science" class="mw-redirect" title="Global warming is junk science">Global warming is junk science</a> to <a href="/Global_warming/claims/junk_science" title="Global warming/claims/junk science">Global warming/claims/junk science</a>: reorganizing denialist claims</p>
<table class="diff diff-contentalign-left diff-editfont-monospace" data-mw="interface">
<tr class="diff-title" lang="en">
<td colspan="1" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">← Older revision</td>
<td colspan="1" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">Revision as of 22:26, 11 July 2014</td>
</tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-notice" lang="en"><div class="mw-diff-empty">(No difference)</div>
</td></tr></table>Woozlehttps://issuepedia.org/mw/index.php?title=Global_warming/claims/junk_science&diff=31803&oldid=prevWoozle: /* Editorials */ moved to new gw/hockey stick/deception page2013-07-11T22:49:42Z<p><span dir="auto"><span class="autocomment">Editorials: </span> moved to new gw/hockey stick/deception page</span></p>
<table class="diff diff-contentalign-left diff-editfont-monospace" data-mw="interface">
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<tr class="diff-title" lang="en">
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">← Older revision</td>
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">Revision as of 22:49, 11 July 2013</td>
</tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno" id="mw-diff-left-l63" >Line 63:</td>
<td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 63:</td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>===Reference===</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>===Reference===</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>* [http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/ Greenhouse, global warming - and some facts] at [http://junkscience.com junkscience.com]</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>* [http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/ Greenhouse, global warming - and some facts] at [http://junkscience.com junkscience.com]</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><del style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">===Editorials===</del></div></td><td colspan="2"> </td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><del style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">* '''2007-03-04''' [http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2007-03-04-1.html All in a Good Cause] ([http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/070313goodprint.html alt]) by [[Orson Scott Card]]: the story of the [[wikipedia:Hockey stick controversy|Hockey stick controversy]], in somewhat simplified and dramaticized form, with links to a couple of books for supporting evidence (but nothing online). OSC's claim (which repeats what has been said elsewhere) is that all the claims of global warming are based on this one heavily-biased faulty analysis.</del></div></td><td colspan="2"> </td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><del style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">** Like many of Card's essays, this one draws a very strong conclusion from a long chain of facts that are difficult to confirm. His main argument seems to be that all of the so-called "consensus" on the existence of global warming is based on one single paper whose conclusions he throws into serious doubt. In defense of this position, he offers links to two books, neither of which appear to be online (i.e. you have to buy the books just to follow to the next link in the chain -- which may or may not yield actual data or solid arguments). My first reaction is that I am extremely skeptical of this; you just don't '''get''' a global scientific consensus based entirely on one paper, much less one whose conclusions are so easily shot down. Card's argument is also a sort of [[ad hominem]] in that it doesn't actually offer specific counter-arguments but merely tries to discredit the source. However, as usual, Card is performing a useful service by at least showing some of the basis behind the claims that GW is pseudo-scientific; some progress can now be made in understanding those claims.</del></div></td><td colspan="2"> </td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><del style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">** On a very brief reading of the Wikipedia article, it looks like the "hockey stick" conclusion probably exaggerated the data somewhat but ''still came to the correct conclusion''. Further reading and research is still needed. Surely this one set of graphs is not the ''only'' hard data strongly supporting GW?</del></div></td><td colspan="2"> </td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><del style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">** [http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/03/hockey-stick-is-broken.html The Hockey Stick is Broken], part of an FAQ refuting GW skepticism, says:</del></div></td><td colspan="2"> </td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><del style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">{{excerpt}}</del></div></td><td colspan="2"> </td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><del style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">I think the most critical point to remember, if you are researching this in the context of determining the validity of [[anthropogenic global warming|AGW]] theory, is that this row is about a single study that was published 8 years ago. This is starting to be ancient history. If you feel it is tainted (as I prefer to just assume, because as I said I do not want to put the required effort into unraveling it all for myself) then simply discard it.</del></div></td><td colspan="2"> </td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><del style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></del></div></td><td colspan="2"> </td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><del style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">The fact is there are dozens of other reconstructions. These other reconstructions do tend to show some more variability than MBH98, ie the handle of the hockey stick is not as straight, but they *all* support the general conclusions that the IPCC TAR came to in 2001: the late 20th century warming is anamolous in the last one or two thousand years and the 1990's are very likely warmer than any other time in the last one or two thousand years.</del></div></td><td colspan="2"> </td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><del style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">{{-excerpt}}</del></div></td><td colspan="2"> </td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><del style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">** In other words, deleting this entire set of data and all its conclusions would not seriously affect the strength of the arguments for [[anthropogenic global warming]]. Any attack on the "hockey stick" graph which claims to thereby refute the existence of global warming is a [[red herring]].</del></div></td><td colspan="2"> </td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><del style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">** '''2007-08-10''' [http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=266463&cid=20186351 slashdot] has a point-by-point response</del></div></td><td colspan="2"> </td></tr>
</table>Woozlehttps://issuepedia.org/mw/index.php?title=Global_warming/claims/junk_science&diff=7063&oldid=prevWoozle: /* Editorials */ format tweak; slashdot2007-08-12T13:32:32Z<p><span dir="auto"><span class="autocomment">Editorials: </span> format tweak; slashdot</span></p>
<table class="diff diff-contentalign-left diff-editfont-monospace" data-mw="interface">
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<tr class="diff-title" lang="en">
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">← Older revision</td>
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">Revision as of 13:32, 12 August 2007</td>
</tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno" id="mw-diff-left-l65" >Line 65:</td>
<td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 65:</td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>===Editorials===</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>===Editorials===</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>* '''2007-03-04''' [http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2007-03-04-1.html All in a Good Cause] ([http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/070313goodprint.html alt]) by [[Orson Scott Card]]: the story of the [[wikipedia:Hockey stick controversy|Hockey stick controversy]], in somewhat simplified and dramaticized form, with links to a couple of books for supporting evidence (but nothing online). OSC's claim (which repeats what has been said elsewhere) is that all the claims of global warming are based on this one heavily-biased faulty analysis.</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>* '''2007-03-04''' [http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2007-03-04-1.html All in a Good Cause] ([http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/070313goodprint.html alt]) by [[Orson Scott Card]]: the story of the [[wikipedia:Hockey stick controversy|Hockey stick controversy]], in somewhat simplified and dramaticized form, with links to a couple of books for supporting evidence (but nothing online). OSC's claim (which repeats what has been said elsewhere) is that all the claims of global warming are based on this one heavily-biased faulty analysis.</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>** Like many of Card's essays, this one draws a very strong conclusion from a long chain of facts that are difficult to confirm. His main argument <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">seemed </del>to be that all of the so-called "consensus" on the existence of global warming <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">was </del>based on one single paper whose conclusions he throws into serious doubt. In defense of this position, he offers links to two books, neither of which appear to be online (i.e. you have to buy the books just to follow to the next link in the chain -- which may or may not yield actual data or solid arguments). My first reaction is that I am extremely skeptical of this; you just don't '''get''' a global scientific consensus based entirely on one paper, much less one whose conclusions are so easily shot down. Card's argument is also a sort of [[ad hominem]] in that it doesn't actually offer specific counter-arguments but merely tries to discredit the source. However, as usual, Card is performing a useful service by at least showing some of the basis behind the claims that GW is pseudo-scientific; some progress can now be made in understanding those claims.</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>** Like many of Card's essays, this one draws a very strong conclusion from a long chain of facts that are difficult to confirm. His main argument <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">seems </ins>to be that all of the so-called "consensus" on the existence of global warming <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">is </ins>based on one single paper whose conclusions he throws into serious doubt. In defense of this position, he offers links to two books, neither of which appear to be online (i.e. you have to buy the books just to follow to the next link in the chain -- which may or may not yield actual data or solid arguments). My first reaction is that I am extremely skeptical of this; you just don't '''get''' a global scientific consensus based entirely on one paper, much less one whose conclusions are so easily shot down. Card's argument is also a sort of [[ad hominem]] in that it doesn't actually offer specific counter-arguments but merely tries to discredit the source. However, as usual, Card is performing a useful service by at least showing some of the basis behind the claims that GW is pseudo-scientific; some progress can now be made in understanding those claims.</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>** On a very brief reading of the Wikipedia article, it looks like the "hockey stick" conclusion probably exaggerated the data somewhat but ''still came to the correct conclusion''. Further reading and research is still needed. Surely this one set of graphs is not the ''only'' hard data strongly supporting GW?</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>** On a very brief reading of the Wikipedia article, it looks like the "hockey stick" conclusion probably exaggerated the data somewhat but ''still came to the correct conclusion''. Further reading and research is still needed. Surely this one set of graphs is not the ''only'' hard data strongly supporting GW?</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>** [http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/03/hockey-stick-is-broken.html The Hockey Stick is Broken], part of an FAQ refuting GW skepticism, says:</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>** [http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/03/hockey-stick-is-broken.html The Hockey Stick is Broken], part of an FAQ refuting GW skepticism, says:</div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno" id="mw-diff-left-l73" >Line 73:</td>
<td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 73:</td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>The fact is there are dozens of other reconstructions. These other reconstructions do tend to show some more variability than MBH98, ie the handle of the hockey stick is not as straight, but they *all* support the general conclusions that the IPCC TAR came to in 2001: the late 20th century warming is anamolous in the last one or two thousand years and the 1990's are very likely warmer than any other time in the last one or two thousand years.</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>The fact is there are dozens of other reconstructions. These other reconstructions do tend to show some more variability than MBH98, ie the handle of the hockey stick is not as straight, but they *all* support the general conclusions that the IPCC TAR came to in 2001: the late 20th century warming is anamolous in the last one or two thousand years and the 1990's are very likely warmer than any other time in the last one or two thousand years.</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>{{-excerpt}}</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>{{-excerpt}}</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>In other words, deleting this entire set of data and all its conclusions would not seriously affect the strength of the arguments for [[anthropogenic global warming]]. Any attack on the "hockey stick" graph which claims to thereby refute the existence of global warming is a [[red herring]].</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">** </ins>In other words, deleting this entire set of data and all its conclusions would not seriously affect the strength of the arguments for [[anthropogenic global warming]]. Any attack on the "hockey stick" graph which claims to thereby refute the existence of global warming is a [[red herring]].</div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">** '''2007-08-10''' [http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=266463&cid=20186351 slashdot] has a point-by-point response</ins></div></td></tr>
</table>Woozlehttps://issuepedia.org/mw/index.php?title=Global_warming/claims/junk_science&diff=7061&oldid=prevWoozle: /* Editorials */ The Hockey Stick Is Broken, so what?2007-08-12T02:24:27Z<p><span dir="auto"><span class="autocomment">Editorials: </span> The Hockey Stick Is Broken, so what?</span></p>
<table class="diff diff-contentalign-left diff-editfont-monospace" data-mw="interface">
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<tr class="diff-title" lang="en">
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">← Older revision</td>
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">Revision as of 02:24, 12 August 2007</td>
</tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno" id="mw-diff-left-l64" >Line 64:</td>
<td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 64:</td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>* [http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/ Greenhouse, global warming - and some facts] at [http://junkscience.com junkscience.com]</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>* [http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/ Greenhouse, global warming - and some facts] at [http://junkscience.com junkscience.com]</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>===Editorials===</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>===Editorials===</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>* '''2007-03-04''' [http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2007-03-04-1.html All in a Good Cause] ([http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/070313goodprint.html alt]) by [[Orson Scott Card]]: the story of the <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">"hockey </del>stick <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">curve" hoax claims</del>, in somewhat simplified and dramaticized form, with links to a couple of books for supporting evidence (but nothing online). OSC's claim (which repeats what has been said elsewhere) is that all the claims of global warming are based on this one heavily-biased faulty analysis.</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>* '''2007-03-04''' [http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2007-03-04-1.html All in a Good Cause] ([http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/070313goodprint.html alt]) by [[Orson Scott Card]]: the story of the <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">[[wikipedia:Hockey </ins>stick <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">controversy|Hockey stick controversy]]</ins>, in somewhat simplified and dramaticized form, with links to a couple of books for supporting evidence (but nothing online). OSC's claim (which repeats what has been said elsewhere) is that all the claims of global warming are based on this one heavily-biased faulty analysis.</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>** Like many of Card's essays, this one draws a very strong conclusion from a long chain of facts that are difficult to confirm. His main argument seemed to be that all of the so-called "consensus" on the existence of global warming was based on one single paper whose conclusions he throws into serious doubt. In defense of this position, he offers links to two books, neither of which appear to be online (i.e. you have to buy the books just to follow to the next link in the chain -- which may or may not yield actual data or solid arguments). My first reaction is that I am extremely skeptical of this; you just don't '''get''' a global scientific consensus based entirely on one paper, much less one whose conclusions are so easily shot down. Card's argument is also a sort of [[ad hominem]] in that it doesn't actually offer specific counter-arguments but merely tries to discredit the source. However, as usual, Card is performing a useful service by at least showing some of the basis behind the claims that GW is pseudo-scientific; some progress can now be made in understanding those claims.</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>** Like many of Card's essays, this one draws a very strong conclusion from a long chain of facts that are difficult to confirm. His main argument seemed to be that all of the so-called "consensus" on the existence of global warming was based on one single paper whose conclusions he throws into serious doubt. In defense of this position, he offers links to two books, neither of which appear to be online (i.e. you have to buy the books just to follow to the next link in the chain -- which may or may not yield actual data or solid arguments). My first reaction is that I am extremely skeptical of this; you just don't '''get''' a global scientific consensus based entirely on one paper, much less one whose conclusions are so easily shot down. Card's argument is also a sort of [[ad hominem]] in that it doesn't actually offer specific counter-arguments but merely tries to discredit the source. However, as usual, Card is performing a useful service by at least showing some of the basis behind the claims that GW is pseudo-scientific; some progress can now be made in understanding those claims.</div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">** On a very brief reading of the Wikipedia article, it looks like the "hockey stick" conclusion probably exaggerated the data somewhat but ''still came to the correct conclusion''. Further reading and research is still needed. Surely this one set of graphs is not the ''only'' hard data strongly supporting GW?</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">** [http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/03/hockey-stick-is-broken.html The Hockey Stick is Broken], part of an FAQ refuting GW skepticism, says:</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">{{excerpt}}</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">I think the most critical point to remember, if you are researching this in the context of determining the validity of [[anthropogenic global warming|AGW]] theory, is that this row is about a single study that was published 8 years ago. This is starting to be ancient history. If you feel it is tainted (as I prefer to just assume, because as I said I do not want to put the required effort into unraveling it all for myself) then simply discard it.</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">The fact is there are dozens of other reconstructions. These other reconstructions do tend to show some more variability than MBH98, ie the handle of the hockey stick is not as straight, but they *all* support the general conclusions that the IPCC TAR came to in 2001: the late 20th century warming is anamolous in the last one or two thousand years and the 1990's are very likely warmer than any other time in the last one or two thousand years.</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">{{-excerpt}}</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">In other words, deleting this entire set of data and all its conclusions would not seriously affect the strength of the arguments for [[anthropogenic global warming]]. Any attack on the "hockey stick" graph which claims to thereby refute the existence of global warming is a [[red herring]].</ins></div></td></tr>
</table>Woozlehttps://issuepedia.org/mw/index.php?title=Global_warming/claims/junk_science&diff=7060&oldid=prevWoozle: /* Editorials */ alternate link2007-08-12T02:05:46Z<p><span dir="auto"><span class="autocomment">Editorials: </span> alternate link</span></p>
<table class="diff diff-contentalign-left diff-editfont-monospace" data-mw="interface">
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<tr class="diff-title" lang="en">
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">← Older revision</td>
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">Revision as of 02:05, 12 August 2007</td>
</tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno" id="mw-diff-left-l64" >Line 64:</td>
<td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 64:</td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>* [http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/ Greenhouse, global warming - and some facts] at [http://junkscience.com junkscience.com]</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>* [http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/ Greenhouse, global warming - and some facts] at [http://junkscience.com junkscience.com]</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>===Editorials===</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>===Editorials===</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>* '''2007-03-04''' [http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2007-03-04-1.html All in a Good Cause] by [[Orson Scott Card]]: the story of the "hockey stick curve" hoax claims, in somewhat simplified and dramaticized form, with links to a couple of books for supporting evidence (but nothing online). OSC's claim (which repeats what has been said elsewhere) is that all the claims of global warming are based on this one heavily-biased faulty analysis.</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>* '''2007-03-04''' [http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2007-03-04-1.html All in a Good Cause] <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">([http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/070313goodprint.html alt]) </ins>by [[Orson Scott Card]]: the story of the "hockey stick curve" hoax claims, in somewhat simplified and dramaticized form, with links to a couple of books for supporting evidence (but nothing online). OSC's claim (which repeats what has been said elsewhere) is that all the claims of global warming are based on this one heavily-biased faulty analysis.</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>** Like many of Card's essays, this one draws a very strong conclusion from a long chain of facts that are difficult to confirm. His main argument seemed to be that all of the so-called "consensus" on the existence of global warming was based on one single paper whose conclusions he throws into serious doubt. In defense of this position, he offers links to two books, neither of which appear to be online (i.e. you have to buy the books just to follow to the next link in the chain -- which may or may not yield actual data or solid arguments). My first reaction is that I am extremely skeptical of this; you just don't '''get''' a global scientific consensus based entirely on one paper, much less one whose conclusions are so easily shot down. Card's argument is also a sort of [[ad hominem]] in that it doesn't actually offer specific counter-arguments but merely tries to discredit the source. However, as usual, Card is performing a useful service by at least showing some of the basis behind the claims that GW is pseudo-scientific; some progress can now be made in understanding those claims.</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>** Like many of Card's essays, this one draws a very strong conclusion from a long chain of facts that are difficult to confirm. His main argument seemed to be that all of the so-called "consensus" on the existence of global warming was based on one single paper whose conclusions he throws into serious doubt. In defense of this position, he offers links to two books, neither of which appear to be online (i.e. you have to buy the books just to follow to the next link in the chain -- which may or may not yield actual data or solid arguments). My first reaction is that I am extremely skeptical of this; you just don't '''get''' a global scientific consensus based entirely on one paper, much less one whose conclusions are so easily shot down. Card's argument is also a sort of [[ad hominem]] in that it doesn't actually offer specific counter-arguments but merely tries to discredit the source. However, as usual, Card is performing a useful service by at least showing some of the basis behind the claims that GW is pseudo-scientific; some progress can now be made in understanding those claims.</div></td></tr>
</table>Woozlehttps://issuepedia.org/mw/index.php?title=Global_warming/claims/junk_science&diff=7058&oldid=prevWoozle: /* Editorials */ consolidated description from other page2007-08-12T02:04:52Z<p><span dir="auto"><span class="autocomment">Editorials: </span> consolidated description from other page</span></p>
<table class="diff diff-contentalign-left diff-editfont-monospace" data-mw="interface">
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<tr class="diff-title" lang="en">
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">← Older revision</td>
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">Revision as of 02:04, 12 August 2007</td>
</tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno" id="mw-diff-left-l64" >Line 64:</td>
<td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 64:</td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>* [http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/ Greenhouse, global warming - and some facts] at [http://junkscience.com junkscience.com]</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>* [http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/ Greenhouse, global warming - and some facts] at [http://junkscience.com junkscience.com]</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>===Editorials===</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>===Editorials===</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>* '''2007-03-04''' [http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2007-03-04-1.html All in a Good Cause] by [[Orson Scott Card]]: the story of the <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">hoaxing of global warming</del>, with links to a couple of books for supporting evidence (but nothing online).</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>* '''2007-03-04''' [http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2007-03-04-1.html All in a Good Cause] by [[Orson Scott Card]]: the story of the <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">"hockey stick curve" hoax claims, in somewhat simplified and dramaticized form</ins>, with links to a couple of books for supporting evidence (but nothing online)<ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">. OSC's claim (which repeats what has been said elsewhere) is that all the claims of global warming are based on this one heavily-biased faulty analysis</ins>.</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>** Like many of Card's essays, this one draws a very strong conclusion from a long chain of facts that are difficult to confirm. His main argument seemed to be that all of the so-called "consensus" on the existence of global warming was based on one single paper whose conclusions he throws into serious doubt. In defense of this position, he offers links to two books, neither of which appear to be online (i.e. you have to buy the books just to follow to the next link in the chain -- which may or may not yield actual data or solid arguments). My first reaction is that I am extremely skeptical of this; you just don't '''get''' a global scientific consensus based entirely on one paper, much less one whose conclusions are so easily shot down. Card's argument is also a sort of [[ad hominem]] in that it doesn't actually offer specific counter-arguments but merely tries to discredit the source. However, as usual, Card is performing a useful service by at least showing some of the basis behind the claims that GW is pseudo-scientific; some progress can now be made in understanding those claims.</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>** Like many of Card's essays, this one draws a very strong conclusion from a long chain of facts that are difficult to confirm. His main argument seemed to be that all of the so-called "consensus" on the existence of global warming was based on one single paper whose conclusions he throws into serious doubt. In defense of this position, he offers links to two books, neither of which appear to be online (i.e. you have to buy the books just to follow to the next link in the chain -- which may or may not yield actual data or solid arguments). My first reaction is that I am extremely skeptical of this; you just don't '''get''' a global scientific consensus based entirely on one paper, much less one whose conclusions are so easily shot down. Card's argument is also a sort of [[ad hominem]] in that it doesn't actually offer specific counter-arguments but merely tries to discredit the source. However, as usual, Card is performing a useful service by at least showing some of the basis behind the claims that GW is pseudo-scientific; some progress can now be made in understanding those claims.</div></td></tr>
</table>Woozlehttps://issuepedia.org/mw/index.php?title=Global_warming/claims/junk_science&diff=5543&oldid=prevWoozle: /* Editorials */ "Detect"? Where did I get that??2007-03-14T17:56:12Z<p><span dir="auto"><span class="autocomment">Editorials: </span> "Detect"? Where did I get that??</span></p>
<table class="diff diff-contentalign-left diff-editfont-monospace" data-mw="interface">
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<tr class="diff-title" lang="en">
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">← Older revision</td>
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">Revision as of 17:56, 14 March 2007</td>
</tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno" id="mw-diff-left-l65" >Line 65:</td>
<td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 65:</td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>===Editorials===</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>===Editorials===</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>* '''2007-03-04''' [http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2007-03-04-1.html All in a Good Cause] by [[Orson Scott Card]]: the story of the hoaxing of global warming, with links to a couple of books for supporting evidence (but nothing online).</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>* '''2007-03-04''' [http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2007-03-04-1.html All in a Good Cause] by [[Orson Scott Card]]: the story of the hoaxing of global warming, with links to a couple of books for supporting evidence (but nothing online).</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>** Like many of Card's essays, this one draws a very strong conclusion from a long chain of facts that are difficult to <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">detect</del>. His main argument seemed to be that all of the so-called "consensus" on the existence of global warming was based on one single paper whose conclusions he throws into serious doubt. In defense of this position, he offers links to two books, neither of which appear to be online (i.e. you have to buy the books just to follow to the next link in the chain -- which may or may not yield actual data or solid arguments). My first reaction is that I am extremely skeptical of this; you just don't '''get''' a global scientific consensus based entirely on one paper, much less one whose conclusions are so easily shot down. Card's argument is also a sort of [[ad hominem]] in that it doesn't actually offer specific counter-arguments but merely tries to discredit the source. However, as usual, Card is performing a useful service by at least showing some of the basis behind the claims that GW is pseudo-scientific; some progress can now be made in understanding those claims.</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>** Like many of Card's essays, this one draws a very strong conclusion from a long chain of facts that are difficult to <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">confirm</ins>. His main argument seemed to be that all of the so-called "consensus" on the existence of global warming was based on one single paper whose conclusions he throws into serious doubt. In defense of this position, he offers links to two books, neither of which appear to be online (i.e. you have to buy the books just to follow to the next link in the chain -- which may or may not yield actual data or solid arguments). My first reaction is that I am extremely skeptical of this; you just don't '''get''' a global scientific consensus based entirely on one paper, much less one whose conclusions are so easily shot down. Card's argument is also a sort of [[ad hominem]] in that it doesn't actually offer specific counter-arguments but merely tries to discredit the source. However, as usual, Card is performing a useful service by at least showing some of the basis behind the claims that GW is pseudo-scientific; some progress can now be made in understanding those claims.</div></td></tr>
</table>Woozlehttps://issuepedia.org/mw/index.php?title=Global_warming/claims/junk_science&diff=5540&oldid=prevWoozle: OSC article moved down to Editorials; commentary on same2007-03-14T17:50:15Z<p>OSC article moved down to Editorials; commentary on same</p>
<table class="diff diff-contentalign-left diff-editfont-monospace" data-mw="interface">
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<tr class="diff-title" lang="en">
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">← Older revision</td>
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">Revision as of 17:50, 14 March 2007</td>
</tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno" id="mw-diff-left-l1" >Line 1:</td>
<td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 1:</td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>[[Category:claims]]</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>[[Category:claims]]</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>==Overview==</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>==Overview==</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>One widely-propagated opinion is that arguments for [[global warming]] are [[junk science]], i.e. based on spurious reasoning but including scientific-sounding phrases and figures designed to sound believable<del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">.</del></div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>One widely-propagated opinion is that arguments for [[global warming]] are [[junk science]], i.e. <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">either:</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div> </div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">* </ins>based on spurious reasoning but including scientific-sounding phrases and figures designed to sound believable</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">Scientists "proving" global warming are purposefully lying and modifying </del>data <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">to achieve their </del>pre-<del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">drawn </del>conclusions <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">[http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2007-03-04-1.html].</del></div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">* (or) deliberately selecting only </ins>data <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">that agree with </ins>pre-<ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">determined </ins>conclusions</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div> </div></td><td colspan="2"> </td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>==Claims==</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>==Claims==</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>===at [http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/ junkscience.com]===</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>===at [http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/ junkscience.com]===</div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno" id="mw-diff-left-l61" >Line 61:</td>
<td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 60:</td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>** '''argument''': "...climate models are made interesting by the inclusion of 'positive feedbacks' (multiplier effects) so that a small temperature increment expected from increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide invokes large increases in water vapor, which seem to produce exponential rather than logarithmic temperature response in the models. It appears to have become something of a game to see who can add in the most creative feedback mechanisms to produce the scariest warming scenarios from their models but there remains no evidence the planet includes any such effects or behaves in a similar manner."</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>** '''argument''': "...climate models are made interesting by the inclusion of 'positive feedbacks' (multiplier effects) so that a small temperature increment expected from increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide invokes large increases in water vapor, which seem to produce exponential rather than logarithmic temperature response in the models. It appears to have become something of a game to see who can add in the most creative feedback mechanisms to produce the scariest warming scenarios from their models but there remains no evidence the planet includes any such effects or behaves in a similar manner."</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>** '''response''':</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>** '''response''':</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div> </div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">==Links==</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>==Reference==</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">=</ins>==Reference<ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">=</ins>==</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>* [http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/ Greenhouse, global warming - and some facts] at [http://junkscience.com junkscience.com]</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>* [http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/ Greenhouse, global warming - and some facts] at [http://junkscience.com junkscience.com]</div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">===Editorials===</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">* '''2007-03-04''' [http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2007-03-04-1.html All in a Good Cause] by [[Orson Scott Card]]: the story of the hoaxing of global warming, with links to a couple of books for supporting evidence (but nothing online).</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">** Like many of Card's essays, this one draws a very strong conclusion from a long chain of facts that are difficult to detect. His main argument seemed to be that all of the so-called "consensus" on the existence of global warming was based on one single paper whose conclusions he throws into serious doubt. In defense of this position, he offers links to two books, neither of which appear to be online (i.e. you have to buy the books just to follow to the next link in the chain -- which may or may not yield actual data or solid arguments). My first reaction is that I am extremely skeptical of this; you just don't '''get''' a global scientific consensus based entirely on one paper, much less one whose conclusions are so easily shot down. Card's argument is also a sort of [[ad hominem]] in that it doesn't actually offer specific counter-arguments but merely tries to discredit the source. However, as usual, Card is performing a useful service by at least showing some of the basis behind the claims that GW is pseudo-scientific; some progress can now be made in understanding those claims.</ins></div></td></tr>
</table>Woozlehttps://issuepedia.org/mw/index.php?title=Global_warming/claims/junk_science&diff=5538&oldid=prevMidian: lying2007-03-14T16:55:49Z<p>lying</p>
<table class="diff diff-contentalign-left diff-editfont-monospace" data-mw="interface">
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<tr class="diff-title" lang="en">
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">← Older revision</td>
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">Revision as of 16:55, 14 March 2007</td>
</tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno" id="mw-diff-left-l2" >Line 2:</td>
<td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 2:</td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>==Overview==</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>==Overview==</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>One widely-propagated opinion is that arguments for [[global warming]] are [[junk science]], i.e. based on spurious reasoning but including scientific-sounding phrases and figures designed to sound believable.</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>One widely-propagated opinion is that arguments for [[global warming]] are [[junk science]], i.e. based on spurious reasoning but including scientific-sounding phrases and figures designed to sound believable.</div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">Scientists "proving" global warming are purposefully lying and modifying data to achieve their pre-drawn conclusions [http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2007-03-04-1.html].</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>==Claims==</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>==Claims==</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>===at [http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/ junkscience.com]===</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>===at [http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/ junkscience.com]===</div></td></tr>
</table>Midian