Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Everyone can "Rashomon" for themselves here and read the original posts, which I managed to dig up.

First, Cal88 posts a faked Time cover that is a literal photoshop and is called out for it.

https://bearinsider.com/forums/2/topics/66429/replies/1380521

Here he posts more covers supposedly about global cooling:

https://bearinsider.com/forums/2/topics/66429/replies/1380710

Here is where I showed my work in looking up these articles and proving they were not what he said they were:

https://bearinsider.com/forums/2/topics/66429/replies/1380719

The only thing I was wrong about here was the date: it was really about three years ago, not five, that this exchange took place (though that thread was originally started five years ago).

I'd already been extremely skeptical of everything this guy posted about climate change science, but I completely gave up on his credibility after this. The guy who supposedly does all his own research and has great expertise on these matters apparently didn't even bother to read the articles he cited, more than once, to support his position. You are all free to make your own decisions on Cal88, but this is why I'm out.

---

This is why people hate lawyers, when you're losing an argument because you're on the wrong side of the truth, you resort to classic red herring misdirection and character attacks.

The argument here was whether there was a scientific consensus on global cooling in the 1970s.

I've posted and linked over 300 articles and studies in that thread, HERE and HERE. The second link is where I've laid to rest any doubts about the argument.

You pick one item, a Time magazine cover, and try to reduce this whole debate and make it all about that magazine (misdirection - red herring) and ignore the 300+ mountain of articles and studies I've provided.

I guess that's what lawyers do.

---

This is why people hate conspiracy theorist. They post all kind of pseudo science and claim to understand the scientific method and then play the victim when they are exposed as a fraud.

Which one of these 285 articles listed here is "pseudo science"?

https://notrickszone.com/285-papers-70s-cooling-2/#sthash.lRcCIvlK.dpbs

https://notrickszone.com/285-papers-70s-cooling-3/#sthash.Tw3Ix8qy.dpbs

Don't shoot the messenger, or use empty smears like "conspiracy theory", this is a list of 285 published, peer-reviewed scientific articles and research papers establishing the consensus on 1970s global cooling. Are these papers and articles "pseudo science"?

calpoly said:

---

sycasey said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

We've had numerous posts on these boards by Cal88 that have been proven to be false.

Cal88, the reason you aren't getting reasoned responses is because you lost your credibility on this topic long ago.

---

Yup. His claim about a scientific consensus on "global cooling" in the 1970s was based on Time Magazine articles that didn't exist. I know because I went and looked up the articles online. Total lie.

I completely stopped taking his arguments on climate change seriously after that. This was about 5 years ago.

---

Your wiser than me!

---

wiser than I, Doc.

Quite hysterically the first peer reviewed article i clicked on started with statement that the current scientific consensus was that the earth was warming.

Come on man. Your light is on but no ones home.

Cal88 said:

---

Which one of these 285 articles listed here is "pseudo science"?

https://notrickszone.com/285-papers-70s-cooling-2/#sthash.lRcCIvlK.dpbs

https://notrickszone.com/285-papers-70s-cooling-3/#sthash.Tw3Ix8qy.dpbs

Don't shoot the messenger, or use empty smears like "conspiracy theory", this is a list of 285 published, peer-reviewed scientific articles and research papers establishing the consensus on 1970s global cooling. Are these papers and articles "pseudo science"?

---

Did you read all of the articles you quote? Do you understand the scientific process that each article used? Are you ONLY using the hypothesis that someone else provided you? You don't understand the science of these articles and you rely on other people to support your agenda that have NO scientific background.

calpoly said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

Which one of these 285 articles listed here is "pseudo science"?

https://notrickszone.com/285-papers-70s-cooling-2/#sthash.lRcCIvlK.dpbs

https://notrickszone.com/285-papers-70s-cooling-3/#sthash.Tw3Ix8qy.dpbs

Don't shoot the messenger, or use empty smears like "conspiracy theory", this is a list of 285 published, peer-reviewed scientific articles and research papers establishing the consensus on 1970s global cooling. Are these papers and articles "pseudo science"?

---

Did you read all of the articles you quote? Do you understand the scientific process that each article used? Are you ONLY using the hypothesis that someone else provided you? Are you expecting me to read all of these papers and analyze them? You don't understand the science of these articles and you rely on other people to support your agenda that have NO scientific background.

---

Tedhead94 said:

---

Quite hysterically the first peer reviewed article i clicked on started with statement that the current scientific consensus was that the earth was warming.

Come on man. Your light is on but no ones home.

---

It's almost as if he doesn't actually read the articles he cites.

calpoly said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

Which one of these 285 articles listed here is "pseudo science"?

https://notrickszone.com/285-papers-70s-cooling-2/#sthash.lRcCIvlK.dpbs

https://notrickszone.com/285-papers-70s-cooling-3/#sthash.Tw3Ix8qy.dpbs

Don't shoot the messenger, or use empty smears like "conspiracy theory", this is a list of 285 published, peer-reviewed scientific articles and research papers establishing the consensus on 1970s global cooling. Are these papers and articles "pseudo science"?

---

Did you read all of the articles you quote? Do you understand the scientific process that each article used? Are you ONLY using the hypothesis that someone else provided you? You don't understand the science of these articles and you rely on other people to support your agenda that have NO scientific background.

---

Yes I did read the summaries provided and excerpts, as a whole they do confirm the cooling in the mid 20th century. And yes, having earned an MS from Cal, I do understand the scientific method. Perhaps I should try again, but this time with my old lab coat on?


Do you think Australian blogger Cook applied the scientific method in his construction of the 97% consensus for global warming? Here is its critique by MIT climate science prof Lindzen:

https://www.cfact.org/2016/02/17/propaganda-top-mit-climate-scientist-trashes-97-consensus-claim/

Quote:

---

"It was the narrative from the beginning," said Lindzen, a climatologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). "In 1998, [NASA's James] Hansen made some vague remarks. Newsweek ran a cover that says all scientists agree. Now they never really tell you what they agree on."

"It is propaganda," Lindzen said. "So all scientists agree it's probably warmer now than it was at the end of the Little Ice Age. Almost all Scientists agree that if you add CO2, you will have some warming. Maybe very little warming."

"But it is propaganda to translate that into it is dangerous and we must reduce CO2," he added.
Lindzen is referring to the often cited statistic among environmentalists and liberal politicians that 97 percent of climate scientists agree human activities are causing the planet to warm. This sort of argument has been around for decades, but recent use of the statistic can be traced to a 2013 report by Australian researcher John Cook.

Cook's paper found of the scientific study "abstracts expressing a position [url=][/url]on [manmade global warming], 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming." But Cook's assertion has been heavily criticized by researchers carefully examining his methodology. A paper by five leading climatologists published in the journal Science and Education found only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate studies examined in Cook's study explicitly stated mankind has caused most of the warming since 1950 meaning the actual consensus is 0.3 percent.

"It is astonishing that any journal could have published a paper claiming a 97% climate consensus when on the authors' own analysis the true consensus was well below 1%," said Dr. David Legates, a geology professor at the University of Delaware and the study's lead author.

A 2013 study by Andrew Montford of the Global Warming Policy Foundation found that Cook had to cast a wide net to cram scientists into his so-called consensus. To be part of Cook's consensus, a scientific study only needed to agree carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that human activities have warmed the planet "to some unspecified extent" both of which are uncontroversial points.
"Almost everybody involved in the climate debate, including the majority of sceptics, accepts these propositions, so little can be learned from the Cook et al. paper," wrote Montford. "The extent to which the warming in the last two decades of the twentieth century was man-made and the likely extent of any future warming remain highly contentious scientific issues."

Despite the dubious nature of the consensus, liberal politicians used the figure to bolster their calls for policies to fight global warming. President Barack Obama even cited the Cook paper while announcing sweeping climate regulations. Lindzen disagreed with politicians who cite Cook's paper to call for stricter energy regulations. He said it's part of a political machine that's used by scientists and politicians to direct more taxpayer dollars to pet projects.

---

smh said:

---

new cybers emoticon, blown up..

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warming_stripes

---

This is the "LP" version of that color chart, spanning the last 2000 years, based on Dr Roy Spencer's research, with the Roman Warm Period on the left, the Medieval Warm Period in the middle, the Little Ice Age on the right and the current period on the far right.

Cal88 said:

---

calpoly said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

Which one of these 285 articles listed here is "pseudo science"?

https://notrickszone.com/285-papers-70s-cooling-2/#sthash.lRcCIvlK.dpbs

https://notrickszone.com/285-papers-70s-cooling-3/#sthash.Tw3Ix8qy.dpbs

Don't shoot the messenger, or use empty smears like "conspiracy theory", this is a list of 285 published, peer-reviewed scientific articles and research papers establishing the consensus on 1970s global cooling. Are these papers and articles "pseudo science"?

---

Did you read all of the articles you quote? Do you understand the scientific process that each article used? Are you ONLY using the hypothesis that someone else provided you? You don't understand the science of these articles and you rely on other people to support your agenda that have NO scientific background.

---

Yes I did read the summaries provided and excerpts, as a whole they do confirm the cooling in the mid 20th century. And yes, having earned an MS from Cal, I do understand the scientific method. Perhaps I should try again, but this time with my old lab coat on?


Do you think Australian blogger Cook applied the scientific method in his construction of the 97% consensus for global warming? Here is its critique by MIT climate science prof Lindzen:

https://www.cfact.org/2016/02/17/propaganda-top-mit-climate-scientist-trashes-97-consensus-claim/

Quote:

---

"It was the narrative from the beginning," said Lindzen, a climatologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). "In 1998, [NASA's James] Hansen made some vague remarks. Newsweek ran a cover that says all scientists agree. Now they never really tell you what they agree on."

"It is propaganda," Lindzen said. "So all scientists agree it's probably warmer now than it was at the end of the Little Ice Age. Almost all Scientists agree that if you add CO2, you will have some warming. Maybe very little warming."

"But it is propaganda to translate that into it is dangerous and we must reduce CO2," he added.
Lindzen is referring to the often cited statistic among environmentalists and liberal politicians that 97 percent of climate scientists agree human activities are causing the planet to warm. This sort of argument has been around for decades, but recent use of the statistic can be traced to a 2013 report by Australian researcher John Cook.

Cook's paper found of the scientific study "abstracts expressing a position [url=][/url]on [manmade global warming], 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming." But Cook's assertion has been heavily criticized by researchers carefully examining his methodology. A paper by five leading climatologists published in the journal Science and Education found only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate studies examined in Cook's study explicitly stated mankind has caused most of the warming since 1950 meaning the actual consensus is 0.3 percent.

"It is astonishing that any journal could have published a paper claiming a 97% climate consensus when on the authors' own analysis the true consensus was well below 1%," said Dr. David Legates, a geology professor at the University of Delaware and the study's lead author.

A 2013 study by Andrew Montford of the Global Warming Policy Foundation found that Cook had to cast a wide net to cram scientists into his so-called consensus. To be part of Cook's consensus, a scientific study only needed to agree carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that human activities have warmed the planet "to some unspecified extent" both of which are uncontroversial points.
"Almost everybody involved in the climate debate, including the majority of sceptics, accepts these propositions, so little can be learned from the Cook et al. paper," wrote Montford. "The extent to which the warming in the last two decades of the twentieth century was man-made and the likely extent of any future warming remain highly contentious scientific issues."

Despite the dubious nature of the consensus, liberal politicians used the figure to bolster their calls for policies to fight global warming. President Barack Obama even cited the Cook paper while announcing sweeping climate regulations. Lindzen disagreed with politicians who cite Cook's paper to call for stricter energy regulations. He said it's part of a political machine that's used by scientists and politicians to direct more taxpayer dollars to pet projects.

---

---

you said "Yes I did read the summaries provided and excerpts, as a whole they do confirm the cooling in the mid 20th century."

Just what I suspected. You have NO idea what the papers confirm. A scientist does not read someones summary or excerpts because these summaries or excerpts might have a bias. They actually read the paper themselves and draw their own conclusions and try to determine if they can reproduce the scientific study. Look, I rather not wasted my time discussing this matter any further with you because you just want to take the easy way out on this topic by believing these conspiracy nuts rather than doing the hard and trying to fully understand the science involved. Good day!

Cal88 said:

---

Which one of these 285 articles listed here is "pseudo science"?

https://notrickszone.com/285-papers-70s-cooling-2/#sthash.lRcCIvlK.dpbs

https://notrickszone.com/285-papers-70s-cooling-3/#sthash.Tw3Ix8qy.dpbs

Don't shoot the messenger, or use empty smears like "conspiracy theory", this is a list of 285 published, peer-reviewed scientific articles and research papers establishing the consensus on 1970s global cooling. Are these papers and articles "pseudo science"?

---

The summaries of the papers that you provide are most likely pseudo science. You have no idea if these summaries are actually true or not unless you study the papers.

sycasey said:

---

Everyone can "Rashomon" for themselves here and read the original posts, which I managed to dig up.

First, Cal88 posts a faked Time cover that is a literal photoshop and is called out for it.

https://bearinsider.com/forums/2/topics/66429/replies/1380521

Here he posts more covers supposedly about global cooling:

https://bearinsider.com/forums/2/topics/66429/replies/1380710

Here is where I showed my work in looking up these articles and proving they were not what he said they were:

https://bearinsider.com/forums/2/topics/66429/replies/1380719

The only thing I was wrong about here was the date: it was really about three years ago, not five, that this exchange took place (though that thread was originally started five years ago).

I'd already been extremely skeptical of everything this guy posted about climate change science, but I completely gave up on his credibility after this. The guy who supposedly does all his own research and has great expertise on these matters apparently didn't even bother to read the articles he cited, more than once, to support his position. You are all free to make your own decisions on Cal88, but this is why I'm out.

---

I'll also note for everyone that if you read through that old thread, you'll find myself and others pointing out that Cal88 won't really acknowledge any time one of his claims is debunked, he'll merely move on to the next bit of misinformation he can try to bury us with.

We see the same trend continuing here.

More of your lawyer BS tactics, avoid the content and smear instead. Busy week, I'll come back and summarize this weekend.

Cal88 said:

---

More of your lawyer BS tactics, avoid the content and smear instead. Busy week, I'll come back and summarize this weekend.

---

Do you have the idea in your head that I'm a lawyer? I'm not.

Cal88 said:

---

More of your lawyer BS tactics, avoid the content and smear instead. Busy week, I'll come back and summarize this weekend.

---

No need to summarize this weekend. I, for one, have seen enough of you pseudo-science crap to last a lifetime!

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

More of your lawyer BS tactics, avoid the content and smear instead. Busy week, I'll come back and summarize this weekend.

---

Do you have the idea in your head that I'm a lawyer? I'm not.

---

I think he's implying that your tactics resemble that of BSing lawyer speak (not saying I agree, just trying to help clarify the misunderstanding)

Revealed: quarter of all tweets about climate crisis produced by bots


https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/feb/21/climate-tweets-twitter-bots-analysis?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

bearister said:

---

Revealed: quarter of all tweets about climate crisis produced by bots

---

huh, dint know that, tanks bearister. buried lede..

Quote:

---

"These findings suggest a substantial impact of mechanized bots in amplifying denialist messages about climate change, including support for Trump's withdrawal from the Paris agreement," states the draft study, seen by the Guardian.

On an average day during the period studied, 25% of all tweets about the climate crisis came from bots. This proportion was higher in certain topics bots were responsible for 38% of tweets about "fake science" and 28% of all tweets about the petroleum giant Exxon.

Conversely, tweets that could be categorized as online activism to support action on the climate crisis featured very few bots, at about 5% prevalence. The findings "suggest that bots are not just prevalent, but disproportionately so in topics that were supportive of Trump's announcement or skeptical of climate science and action", the analysis states.

---

once upon a time i read a really ugly sf short story -- maany hundreds actually but who's counting -- imagining a post-warming dystopia where remnants of civilization pursued and punished fugitives who'd led and profited from global warming denial. where by punished is meant torture onto death. sorry, no, can't remember the author or title.
# nbc friends repeating laugh line: not that there's anything wrong with that

signed, not coincidentally childless in cupertino

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/feb/21/climate-tweets-twitter-bots-analysis?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

bearister said:

---

Revealed: quarter of all tweets about climate crisis produced by bots


https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/feb/21/climate-tweets-twitter-bots-analysis?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

---

They have a denialist Greta Next level.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2020/02/23/meet-anti-greta-young-youtuber-campaigning-against-climate-alarmism/%3foutputType=amp

Interesting to see climate change denial dead-enders here.

Saddam Hussein in an underground bunker comes to mind.