Above: A.O. Spades expressing dumbness
It’s hard to keep track of all of Ace’s miniature nephews these days, but among the Hueys, Pipeyes, Deweys, Louies, Peepeyes, and Poopeyes now posting on the site, one continues to distinguish himself in the flailingly arrogant wrongness that is, by common reckoning, the site’s trademark and chief source of appeal.
It’s one of life’s small tragedies that smart people are usually painfully aware of how little they really know, and are forced to confront their own humility day after day, whereas guys like Dogstar, eh, not so much. Tomorrow it’ll be something else, but today he’s happy to issue pronouncements on science, specifically climate science:
Hey, it’s been a while since we checked in with the Global Warming eco-kids. They’ve taken some hits lately- the IPCC dropped the “hockey stick” graph and NASA was forced to recalculate all post-2000 US temperature data. The results- they lost two of their best talking points.
Um, yeah. Here are some questions for Dogstar: What does that matter*, what exactly do you think is the significance of that recalculation, and have you ever read a single sentence of an actual scientific article — as in like one single one, ever?
Actually, it looks like the last question is about to answer itself.
However, they still had their A-1, die-hard fallback position- “There’s a CONSENSUS of scientists!!!”
Well, sorry to be the party pooper, kiddos, but you just lost your ace in the hole…
I don’t know how they do it or what it means for the rest of us, but the guys at Ace HQ manage to make everything sound like a 10-year-old’s misconception of gay sex. Now we’re thinking about Ace’s hole pooping at a party. Next it’ll be gerbils and Rod Stewart choking on a gallon of semen.
And I didn’t even touch ‘die-hard fallback position.’ We’re talking about a context of only two consecutive sentences.
So wait. Let me pour this bleach into the hole I drilled in my skull, and we’ll forget all about the preceding. . .gub, ug, fnah. I smell roses — no, hot tar. Where were we?
Oh right, here’s how the, uh, scientists have lost their ‘ace in the hole’ as regards the consensus of scientists:
SURVEY: LESS THAN HALF OF ALL PUBLISHED SCIENTISTS ENDORSE GLOBAL WARMING THEORY; COMPREHENSIVE SURVEY OF PUBLISHED CLIMATE RESEARCH REVEALS CHANGING VIEWPOINTS
In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of research papers on climate change. Examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003, she found a majority supported the “consensus view,” defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change. Oreskes’ work has been repeatedly cited, but as some of its data is now nearly 15 years old, its conclusions are becoming somewhat dated.
Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising.
Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers “implicit” endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no “consensus.”
The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the “primary” cause of warming, but it doesn’t require any belief or support for “catastrophic” global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.
It will be interesting to see how the “Inconvenient Truthers” handle this.
Um, so there was a press release announcing a climate science paper by a non-climate-scientist, generated by certain usual suspects, and intended for publication in a famously shoddy journal. This paper is apparently supposed to suggest, counterintuitively, that a lot of scientists doubt global warming, and is apparently going to do this through some new and creative redefinition of the word, ‘consensus.’ We’ve actually been through this once before, when a character named Benny Peiser hatched up a similar study and was run off with his underwear in flames.
And yet, knowing nothing about any of this, and without even looking at this as-yet-unpublished paper, Dogstar is confident in pronouncing its data to be sound and indeed revolutionary. Unlike puny real scientists, who have to actually read or at least skim a paper in order to evaluate it, Dogstar is able to endorse it with a mighty ‘bwahaha’ based only on a press release from Senator James Inhofe’s office. Bold thinking indeed.
Above: ZOMG! I haven’t actually quote-unquote ‘learned the secret’ yet, but I am so totally buying a Ferrari.
Then he decided not to even bother finding out what ‘the inconvenient truthers’ (i.e. scientists) were already saying about it.
There’s a lot of talk about creating a new Manhattan Project for alternative energy. An argument in favor of such an idea is the glowing success of the Skunkworks For Alternative Stupid at ace.mu.nu.
Astounding advances are no doubt still on the drawing boards.
* CCE comments over at Deltoid:
A pet peeve of mine: the proper response to “The IPCC dropped the Hockey Stick graph,” is “no they didn’t.” It’s on page 467, AR4 WGI Chapter 6 along with 11 other reconstructions, none of which show any time in the past 1300 years warmer than today. AR4 rejects the criticism of the Hockey Stick on page 466. Furthermore, the SPM specifically states: “Average Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the second half of the 20th century were very likely (>90% probability) higher than during any other 50-year period in the last 500 years and likely (>66% probability) the highest in at least the past 1,300 years.”