Scientific Fraud

I believe the big issue here is that many people who say "science is wrong" or this is "scientific fraud" don't understand the science to begin with.

What do we know about the models that were "fraudulent"?

The beauty of science is it's falsifiability. Scientists will regularly try to make existing theories fail so we can whittle down to the best possible understanding we can about the natural world. If a scientist is found to intentionally make false claims or misrepresenting facts their career is over, it's a one strike system. The importance of this skepticism is paramount because we have to always add new data and methods to make sure the models are still as accurate as possible.

Now does that make the data less real? Does that make the evidence less real? No

Climate science in particular is a very complicated model and I of course am not an expert in it. But to the best of our understanding now, based on the evidence at hand and correlated with the historical record, there is a robust view that man's impact on the earth is real. You are free to disbelieve or suspend belief all you want, until the model is shown to be false it's all academic.

I know a few things....I know I can MAYBE trust the weatherman to give me a 5 day forecast. I know the climate has changed many times BEFORE the Industrial Revolution. I know when people are adamant enough about something due to pride they don't wish to be questioned. And I know that right now there's a Russian ship full of tree huggers that has become trapped in the very ice they were CERTAIN was melting and that ship may get crushed or it might just be frozen there for YEARS.


But hey let's all ASSUME Anthropogenic Global Warming is real. It's not like people fudged data on purpose for years in order to receive grants from various government....oh they did? Well even so let's just "be safe" and regardless if that "safety" will cost families living paycheck to paycheck more money, keep 3rd world countries from developing, and keep starving people hungry at least we'll have an Earth that's habitable to humans because that's what MOTHER NATURE INTENDED and we know because Al Gore told us. Al Gore who runs this giant scheme to line his pockets....oh I'm sorry because Al gore "Cares about the Earth" :rolleyes:

It's a scam and I'm hoping Mother Nature sinks that fucking ship and teaches those scientists a cruel ironic lesson!

The Earth hasn't seen a period of warming in how long? 15 years?

Why wasn't that predicted in ANY of the models?

Why in 1977 were we told to prepare for another ICE AGE and then in the 1990's it's all about WARMING?

The environmentalists have cried "wolf" for far too long...it's over, the jig is up. They lied and people have suffered because of their lies! Higher taxes, keeping people poor, keeping people hungry, all to line their own pockets.....I don't know how you side with them to be honest.

All these predictions of doom and humanity is still here...bad news for the Climate Change set

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/...101/312300134/

....but just to be safe let's buy some of those curly q light bulbs you know, the eco friendly kind with the mercury inside them! Everything is better with mercury! ;D

I agree Al Gore is a douche of the highest order.

Thank you for making my point on the rest of it though.

Some interesting articles I've seen on models and the science of it.

IPCC Lead Author Says Climate Models Are Failing | Heartlander Magazine

EPIC FAIL: 73 Climate Models vs. Observations for Tropical Tropospheric Temperature « Roy Spencer, PhD

Climate Study: Evidence Leans Against Human-Caused Global Warming

I think what is definitely settled is we don't know shit when it comes to our ever present and always changing climate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VictorCharlie

Some interesting articles I've seen on models and the science of it.

IPCC Lead Author Says Climate Models Are Failing | Heartlander Magazine

EPIC FAIL: 73 Climate Models vs. Observations for Tropical Tropospheric Temperature � Roy Spencer, PhD

Climate Study: Evidence Leans Against Human-Caused Global Warming

I think what is definitely settled is we don't know shit when it comes to our ever present and always changing climate.

---

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/servic...201-201212.png

This is where politics and science collide. Evolution and Cosmology are where science and religion collide. There are high stakes here. How do you eliminate bias?

The first article if we go to the source produces an interesting quote.
"SPIEGEL: That sounds quite embarrassing for your profession, if you have to go back and adjust your models to fit with reality…

Storch: Why? That's how the process of scientific discovery works. There is no last word in research, and that includes climate research. It's never the truth that we offer, but only our best possible approximation of reality. But that often gets forgotten in the way the public perceives and describes our work." That really says it all.

The question here isn't whether or not global warming exists, it does. The question is if it's man made or not. Roy Spencer is an evangelical, and that influences him he has signed this Cornwall Alliance :: Articles :: Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming
He believes Genesis as fact based on "evidence" these are not the actions or observations of a natural scientist, rather one that has an agenda to push.

Come on Killer, his data is either right or its wrong. His religious convictions are irrelevant. I'm not disputing global warming. It has been happening since the last ice age ended and happened before that as well. But the statement that the science is settled on how much human behavior has on it is unequivocally not settled. Damn near every model for AWG has been wrong. Damn near every prediction has been wrong. If I used data to create a predictive model and was wrong 98% of the time you'd either tell me my data was wrong, the theory behind my model was flawed or a combination of both. You'd be right and I should go back to square one. That is what the world's climate science community needs to do.

Killer, the main point I'm attempting to make is that people who carry a lot of weight politically (and otherwise Al Gore I'm looking at you) have been attempting to call this Anthropogenic Global Warming "case closed" for a mighty long time and now we see their past models and we see just how wrong they are, they aren't "a little off" they are INDEFENSIBLY wrong. I mean you could have grabbed temperatures out of thin air and been more accurate.

And not only that Al Gore has pushed his weight around PLENTY bullying Reddit to BAN discussion on whether or not Global Warming is caused by humans or even happening at all. Gore has threatened lawsuits....LAWSUITS against "deniers"....does that sound to you like a happy environment for discussion?


Obviously with 15 years under our belts with 0 warming AT ALL this issue is not cut and dry 100% settled science. None of those experts saw that coming and NOW they are being called on it and NOW they are getting offended and why? Because their data was waaaaay off base or that we caught them like Lance Armstrong doping? Because to me these squealing pigs are trying to shut down discussion and dissent and I'm sorry that's not SCIENCE that's more like religion and that's what has been the argument from day 1 against these idiots.

As long as we are doing graphs though

http://ts4.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.46372...25155&pid=15.1

http://cloudfront-media.reason.com/m...ng?h=260&w=450

http://forgottenliberty.com/wp-conte...mperatures.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VictorCharlie

Come on Killer, his data is either right or its wrong. His religious convictions are irrelevant. I'm not disputing global warming. It has been happening since the last ice age ended and happened before that as well. But the statement that the science is settled on how much human behavior has on it is unequivocally not settled. Damn near every model for AWG has been wrong. Damn near every prediction has been wrong. If I used data to create a predictive model and was wrong 98% of the time you'd either tell me my data was wrong, the theory behind my model was flawed or a combination of both. You'd be right and I should go back to square one. That is what the world's climate science community needs to do.

---

No, there is relevance he has signed a statement that says

"WHAT WE DENY
We deny that Earth and its ecosystems are the fragile and unstable products of chance, and particularly that Earth’s climate system is vulnerable to dangerous alteration because of minuscule changes in atmospheric chemistry. Recent warming was neither abnormally large nor abnormally rapid. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human contribution to greenhouse gases is causing dangerous global warming.
We deny that alternative, renewable fuels can, with present or near-term technology, replace fossil and nuclear fuels, either wholly or in significant part, to provide the abundant, affordable energy necessary to sustain prosperous economies or overcome poverty.
We deny that carbon dioxide—essential to all plant growth—is a pollutant. Reducing greenhouse gases cannot achieve significant reductions in future global temperatures, and the costs of the policies would far exceed the benefits.
We deny that such policies, which amount to a regressive tax, comply with the Biblical requirement of protecting the poor from harm and oppression."

Which implies bias, the data is the same for everyone, the predictive model is what needs to be changed. We agree on pretty much everything really except for this one thing. When you have given up falsifiability, you have given up the scientific method. The editor in chief resigned because he allowed the paper to be published under his watch.

BBC News - Journal editor resigns over 'problematic' climate paper

I don't care what he signed or believes if his data is right. Can you show that it is wrong? If he is nothing more than a shill then it shouldn't be a problem. This is indicative of every discussion about this topic. Someone shows data questioning the status quo and the dialogue revolves around the veracity of the author and not the accuracy of the data.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VictorCharlie

I don't care what he signed or believes if his data is right. Can you show that it is wrong? If he is nothing more than a shill then it shouldn't be a problem. This is indicative of every discussion about this topic. Someone shows data questioning the status quo and the dialogue revolves around the veracity of the author and not the accuracy of the data.

---

Again, the data is the same for everyone. It's the model that we are looking at.
To show how he's wrong, we have to look at the model he proposes.
Which can be found here:
Simple Climate Model Release, Version 1.0 « Roy Spencer, PhD
Let me know when you have the spread sheet loaded.

Why is it even shocking that I question these "scientists"....the Climate-gate emails should have been enough to hit the reset button on the discussion of Anthropogenic Global Warming.

They ADMITTED fudging information.

I opened it and admittedly it is all Greek to me. For argument sake lets agree he has a bad model. That makes him in line with 98% of all climate models promoting 100% AGW. Why is his hypothesis any less valid than theirs?