Thread: Scientific Fraud

Humans are responsible for 3.5% of CO2 emissions which make up a smidgen of the 0.03-0.04% of CO2 that makes up a teeny tiny little speck of the Earth's climate....so again what is the end game here? Do you guys want humans to produce 0% of the CO2 emissions That would mean everyone would have to stop exhaling or do we want to cut that CO2 emission level down to a "reasonable level" which begs the question "What's a reasonable level"? 3.0% 2.5%? 2.0%?

You keep using these percentages of CO2 as if they are insignificant. By doing so, you are again revealing how little you understand about science.This "teeny little speck" is quite significant. Our planet and its atmosphere represent one of the most complex dynamical systems in existence. The very fact that we are able to breathe, exist, and have this discussion is due to a very delicate balance. Dynamic systems IS my area of specialty, and I can tell you in no uncertain terms that even the tiniest adjustment to a system parameter can have drastic ramifications for the behavior of the system as a whole.

I've done a lot of work on tumor modeling, with interactions between chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and the body's immune system. By barely tweaking a single parameter by a fraction of a percent, simulations vary from complete remission to rapid death. Our planet's system is MUCH, MUCH more complex - so saying something like "teeny little speck" reflects that you simply do not understand how fragile the equilibrium that enables existence is. It certainly is worth a little discomfort on your end to preserve it.

And then allow me to ask...since you are a man of science and you know the dangers waiting for man in the very near future due to this unholy Anthropogenic Global Warming...what prey tell does YOUR carbon footprint look like? Shrank that down have you? Knowing what you know, surely you must have....I mean if not we're all doomed.

I'm trying. My wife and I drive a Prius, I almost always take public transportation to school, and I walk everywhere possible. We recycle, try to use as little electricity as possible, and in general do the best we can. I would be willing to sacrifice much more if it ensured the continued existence of the species.

I understand that it is difficult to ask people to give up comforts. I understand that the process of curbing emissions is potentially damaging to the economy. But honestly, I don't buy into the economy as the be all end all of existence. I think that its inherent value to the worth of our nation has been dramatically overstated by those who manipulate the system to accumulate wealth.

If economic strength is bought only at the cost of destroying the quality of life for the people of the earth, then what the hell is the point? Is it just a matter of "I'm American, so I've got mine - to hell with the rest of you?" We are all on the same planet. If we don't get our shit together, we are going to render this planet uninhabitable by human life. Then all this blather doesn't really matter anyway.

But why take the chance? Oh that's right. Your all-important "comfort."

And I still want to see your argument to support your claim.

The percentages ARE insignificant when compared to how much CO2 is naturally pumped into the atmosphere.

According to CO2now.org as of 2010 humans emitted 36.7 Billion Metric Tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere. Which wow...that seems like a whole lot of CO2 coming from humans until you understand that's only 3.5% of what is naturally going into the atmosphere already which is (correct me if my math is wrong, I know you will) 1011.87 Billion Metric Tonnes of CO2. In total 1048.57 Billion Metric Tonnes of CO2 is 0.003 to 0.004% of our atmosphere. Meaning our atmosphere has 34952333.33 to 26214250 Billion Metric Tonnes of other gases in the atmosphere (using their percentages and numbers to calculate).

There's kind of a reason the graph of Earth's atmosphere goes from Nitrogen to Oxygen to Argon to TRACE gases. Trace - noun: a very small quantity, especially one too small to be accurately measured

But CO2 a "trace" gas in the Earth's atmosphere is going to destroy us all rather than the regular natural ups and downs of Earth's climate which has had this very planet see unreasonable warm and unbearably cold temperatures well before anyone had ever even thought of the SUV.


But I digress, you're the man with the knowledge, you're the scientist, so I reckon we're all doomed to be burned and or frozen to death from our unholy excesses which have angered our Mother Earth.

Originally Posted by bcollins

And I still want to see your argument to support your claim.

You'll be waiting for my own personal data for a while chief...but I could just throw random numbers out there and it would be just as wrong as all these disaster predicting computer models.

Here I was thinking that you knew propaganda when you saw it....seems you only recognize it when you want to

Originally Posted by El Kabong

The percentages ARE insignificant when compared to how much CO2 is naturally pumped into the atmosphere.

According to CO2now.org as of 2010 humans emitted 36.7 Billion Metric Tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere. Which wow...that seems like a whole lot of CO2 coming from humans until you understand that's only 3.5% of what is naturally going into the atmosphere already which is (correct me if my math is wrong, I know you will) 1011.87 Billion Metric Tonnes of CO2. In total 1048.57 Billion Metric Tonnes of CO2 is 0.003 to 0.004% of our atmosphere. Meaning our atmosphere has 34952333.33 to 26214250 Billion Metric Tonnes of other gases in the atmosphere (using their percentages and numbers to calculate).

There's kind of a reason the graph of Earth's atmosphere goes from Nitrogen to Oxygen to Argon to TRACE gases. Trace - noun: a very small quantity, especially one too small to be accurately measured

But CO2 a "trace" gas in the Earth's atmosphere is going to destroy us all rather than the regular natural ups and downs of Earth's climate which has had this very planet see unreasonable warm and unbearably cold temperatures well before anyone had ever even thought of the SUV.


But I digress, you're the man with the knowledge, you're the scientist, so I reckon we're all doomed to be burned and or frozen to death from our unholy excesses which have angered our Mother Earth.

I know what a trace is - I mean really. I also understand that what seems like a completely miniscule amount can make all the difference in the world, which is a concept you seem to have trouble grasping. It's cracking me up how you're showing your lack of understanding of, well, just about everything to do with this topic. But I guess that's because you lack a solid scientific background.

This is one of the reasons I'm happy to be able to teach people to think for themselves and develop solid logical skills. It seems like it is a skill that is underdeveloped in a lot of our citizens.

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Originally Posted by bcollins

And I still want to see your argument to support your claim.

You'll be waiting for my own personal data for a while chief...but I could just throw random numbers out there and it would be just as wrong as all these disaster predicting computer models.

Here I was thinking that you knew propaganda when you saw it....seems you only recognize it when you want to

That's where you are monumentally incorrect. Throwing out random numbers is the equivalent of the science being bandied about on a lot of the websites you frequent. Mathematical modeling is a very precise science. A good modeler is acutely aware of the limitations of the model, all simplifying assumptions being taken into account, etc. We perform rigorous sensitivity analysis on all parameters (to see if that miniscule "trace" you like to babble about actually matters or not). The modeling techniques of this decade are already light years ahead of what were used last decade - and it will be the same for the next decade. The models are only getting more and more accurate.

But you just go ahead and discount the countless hours put in by people whose IQ is higher than your body weight.

Here I was thinking that you knew propaganda when you saw it....seems you only recognize it when you want to

Propaganda can be tricky to recognize. But that's the nice thing about science, if you have a modicum of understanding about it: it speaks for itself. That's why I wanted you to do your own analysis, in order to see what the data tells you.

That's the difference between you and me here. I can distinguish between good science and bad science to a much greater degree than you (thank God). I can also determine for myself when someone is presenting bad science in a purposefully misleading way. This is propaganda, and the fact that you can't see it is very understandable. You can't even do simple high school level data analysis.

Oh, but of course you are qualified to judge the correctness of an entire professional scientific community.

If it's so precise then why have they not been accurate? IE all these scientists are shocked and amazed that the warming trend had not continued in decades (as shown by the aforementioned link to NOAA admitting such)....why were they caught so off guard...I mean IF those models are so accurate that is

Yes, most of them are up to this kind of stuff.

Study casts doubt on rate of Antarctic sea ice growth - LA Times

From the LA Times a paper which has BANNED editorials which question Anthropogenic Global Warming.


My favorite part?

"The paradox of expanding Antarctic sea ice has troubled scientists for many years. Although climate models predict southern sea ice should shrink, it has stubbornly refused to do so. In fact, between the last two reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which came out just seven years apart, the rate of Antarctic sea ice growth more than doubled."

Computer Models predicted something and the OPPOSITE happened?!?! Well I am just shocked, SHOCKED I say!!!

Keep on getting your information from the media. I'm sure they understand what's going on so much better than the scientists, especially considering the experts are misquoted, misrepresented and misunderstood.

If you ever have to have major surgery, I really hope you don't get an expert opinion from the internet or media articles. If you do, let me know how that works out for you.

The LA Times is BIG into this whole "Global Warming, we're all doomed, stop everything" mentality so much so they won't even let someone write an op-ed questioning if humans are changing the climate. Yet even they give space to scientists who are baffled by Antarctic ice when their computer models said there would be less.


But I should pay no attention to that because why? Did these things never happen? Did the LA Times make them up?

I listened to the audio and I wouldn't say that was a misrepresentation at all. It sounded more like a man moving goal posts. Anyway, naturally the trend is upward just as it has since the end of the last ice age and just as it did after every ice age. That being said if we aren't in at least a much slower state of global warming then why are researchers such as David Pierce and Kevin Trenberth then providing studies as to why we have seen a large departure from climate models? Splitting hairs over surface temperature and holistic warming seems pedantic. We have not experienced the climate changes and corresponding secondary/tertiary effects that were predicted at the beginning of the century. This by no means damns the science or scientists but it does suggest a great deal of further research is necessary before using this science to make/change public policy.

I listened to the audio and I wouldn't say that was a misrepresentation at all. It sounded more like a man moving goal posts.

You attributed the following quote to Dr. Hansen:

"The 5-year running mean of global temperature has been flat for the past decade"

In the audio clip, he clearly states that the average rate of warming has slowed from 0.2ºC in the decade before last to 0.1ºC in the past decade. This statement is in direct contradiction to the quote. Flat and increasing are not the same thing. A man moving goal posts? Listen to more video of his comments on YouTube. His statements haven't wavered in years. Sounds like he's pretty consistently agreeing with what the scientific results show.

Anyway, naturally the trend is upward just as it has since the end of the last ice age and just as it did after every ice age. That being said if we aren't in at least a much slower state of global warming then why are researchers such as David Pierce and Kevin Trenberth then providing studies as to why we have seen a large departure from climate models? Splitting hairs over surface temperature and holistic warming seems pedantic.

There are so many misconceptions about this topic. It's almost as if there is an active effort to encourage scientific misrepresentation.

I can't say why David Pierce and Kevin Trenberth are claiming there has been a large departure from climate models - when I get a chance, I'll look at their research and see what they are saying in particular. Are they considering models that only track surface temperatures? This is another misconception that seems to perpetrate itself: the sum total of global warming can be measured by surface temperature trends.

This is obviously silly. To keep track of global warming, it is imperative to also consider atmospheric and oceanic temperatures in conjunction with surface data. It is also important to realize how these models work. The models must account for some variability, seeing as how we are considering an immensely complex, nonlinear dynamical system. I read a paper a few days ago that predicted the current warming slowdown in its model - I'll see if I can find it again and post a link. This slowdown is by no means a "model-breaker" as skeptics claim. The current rate of warming falls easily within bounds of variation.

We have not experienced the climate changes and corresponding secondary/tertiary effects that were predicted at the beginning of the century. This by no means damns the science or scientists but it does suggest a great deal of further research is necessary before using this science to make/change public policy

We have already established that there are an immense number of variables that play into this dynamic system. Of course it is complex! But to imply that this fact means scientists are unable to identify and predict global climate patterns with a large degree of confidence is just plain wrong.

Why haven't the drastic changes occurred yet? There are a lot of hypotheses for this, but one logical claim is the effect of La Niña conditions that have been in place for some time now. This could account for the slowdown in the surface and lower atmosphere warming. However, ocean temperatures have continued rising unabated.

The problem with waiting to make any policy changes is apparent: what if the science is correct? We could end up with a much greater loss in this scenario. Why not make some modest efforts now, just in case? If the trends worsen, then we can make stronger efforts. If the trends ease up, then we can lessen restrictions. Instead, as usual, people go for the all or nothing approach.

I personally don't understand why it's so difficult for people to believe that man-made global warming is possible. I don't think it's solely due to CO2, as Lyle wants to continually attack. But that, in combination with all the other ungodly chemicals we spray into the atmosphere - seems like a reasonable belief that these things could easily have a dramatic effect on our delicate atmosphere.

Or not. It isn't like the overwhelming majority of climate scientists believe they have sufficient evidence to make this claim. Let's just gamble with it, see where it goes.

Originally Posted by El Kabong

The LA Times is BIG into this whole "Global Warming, we're all doomed, stop everything" mentality so much so they won't even let someone write an op-ed questioning if humans are changing the climate. Yet even they give space to scientists who are baffled by Antarctic ice when their computer models said there would be less.


But I should pay no attention to that because why? Did these things never happen? Did the LA Times make them up?

What is your source that says Antarctic ice is not increasing? Which scientists are baffled? Just curious.

Originally Posted by bcollins

Originally Posted by El Kabong

The LA Times is BIG into this whole "Global Warming, we're all doomed, stop everything" mentality so much so they won't even let someone write an op-ed questioning if humans are changing the climate. Yet even they give space to scientists who are baffled by Antarctic ice when their computer models said there would be less.


But I should pay no attention to that because why? Did these things never happen? Did the LA Times make them up?

What is your source that says Antarctic ice is not increasing? Which scientists are baffled? Just curious.

The LA Times linked to 'The Cryosphere' as their source. 'The Cryosphere' is a peer-reviewed scientific journal established in 2007.