Scientific Fraud

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VictorCharlie

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?

---

I don't know of ANY models that promote 100% AGW, any at all. I would like for you support that claim to start with. Let's look at this another way to make this clearer..............

What these guys all agree on Spencer and the majority
1. Global Warming is real. The earth is getting warmer.
2. Natural causes can effect global warming.
3. Man has an effect on CO2 emissions.
4. Man has an effect on global warming.
Spencer agrees with all these things and has put forth these things on the record.

What they disagree on Spencer vs. the majority.
1. The degree and net effect of CO2 emissions.
2. If man's effect on CO2 and global warming is nullified by natural cycles
3. Spencer claims (and this is part of his predictive model) that clouds CAUSE climate change rather than being a result of the weather.

NOW before I beg the question too much and answer the implied question of why should we accept the status quo?

The status quo are working on a model that is being tuned to match reality by adding inputs and refining inputs as we learn more on the science. Is it abhorrent that data was misused? Of course all of those should be shunned by the community at large. But what if we were to take honest data and enter it into the models that exist. Well then we are at a good starting point. If the output says no hockey stick, then so be it. If regressive testing shows inconsistencies then we adjust the model and move on, this is science. The foundation of these models is okay, but garbage in, garbage out.
These models have been tested and retested more recently than climategate in three independent studies that are peer reviewed and published. I can link to these if you are actually interested in reading them.

In opposition to this, the Spencer model is based on false premises from the start, go ahead open that spread sheet again, look for the excel function RAND (which generates a random number) it is used four times in his calculations to represent a real input, FOUR TIMES (2 randomized numbers per input for two inputs). We can see that each data point on his graph is created from calculations using a random number generator four times over. It is also based on the dismissed conclusion that clouds CAUSE climate change as highlighted above. So three of the four primary inputs (proofs in action of his hypothesis) are inconclusive.

I hope I illustrated this to your satisfaction without being too dickish.

Killer, do not the majority of climate studies state that our current warming trend is due to human behavior? Hence AGW?

You seem to critique Spencer's model pretty well thus showing why his hypothesis is incorrect. Why not take this same skepticism towards the utter failure of models suggesting that human behavior is the major driver of global warming?

Again if my predictive analysis for a problem set was off 98% of the time either my data set is wrong, my model is faulty or a combination of both and I should totally re-look my data, what I think my data says and the theories behind my model. The entire scientific community should be doing a total mea culpa instead of doubling down on wrong. The climate change community has been predicting doom and gloom for decades only to be utterly incorrect. Pardon me for taking an interest in studies that break from the status quo. The AGW community is reminiscent of human arrogance. We are a young species in the history of Earth but somehow are surprised that it is a fluid system that has warmed and cooled multiple times in our own history. We look at this most recent warming and are positive that despite being billions of years old it must be 200+/- years of fossil fuel use that caused it. What the scientific community should be telling policy makers is that we really have no idea how much human behavior affects climate change or if there is anything we can do about it anyway.

Its a good thing they changed the moniker to climate change. That way they can take credit regardless

And now it's global COOLING! Return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 29% in a year | Mail Online

Global warming? No, actually we're cooling, claim scientists - Telegraph

www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/05/26/to-the-horror-of-global-warming-alarmists-global-cooling-is-here/1/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VictorCharlie

Killer, do not the majority of climate studies state that our current warming trend is due to human behavior? Hence AGW?

You seem to critique Spencer's model pretty well thus showing why his hypothesis is incorrect. Why not take this same skepticism towards the utter failure of models suggesting that human behavior is the major driver of global warming?

Again if my predictive analysis for a problem set was off 98% of the time either my data set is wrong, my model is faulty or a combination of both and I should totally re-look my data, what I think my data says and the theories behind my model. The entire scientific community should be doing a total mea culpa instead of doubling down on wrong. The climate change community has been predicting doom and gloom for decades only to be utterly incorrect. Pardon me for taking an interest in studies that break from the status quo. The AGW community is reminiscent of human arrogance. We are a young species in the history of Earth but somehow are surprised that it is a fluid system that has warmed and cooled multiple times in our own history. We look at this most recent warming and are positive that despite being billions of years old it must be 200+/- years of fossil fuel use that caused it. What the scientific community should be telling policy makers is that we really have no idea how much human behavior affects climate change or if there is anything we can do about it anyway.

Its a good thing they changed the moniker to climate change. That way they can take credit regardless

And now it's global COOLING! Return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 29% in a year | Mail Online

Global warming? No, actually we're cooling, claim scientists - Telegraph

www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/05/26/to-the-horror-of-global-warming-alarmists-global-cooling-is-here/1/

---

I understand your position, but let me try yet another way to explain this. We need to apply accurate date and apply it to the models that exist to prove OR disprove existing AGW hypotheses. This is precisely because we KNOW the input data was corrupted. Now as I said their have been subsequent models that have been established and retested to make sure it works. From this testing phase we can then regressively study how accurately the model mimics what really happens, from there we adjust until the model mimics what reality is. From THERE, we reevaluate the hypotheses adjust and attempt to use the model to prove or disprove what we know.

My lack of skepticism is strictly a matter of timing. Once this process matures we can really evaluate what the data is telling us. At this point however and this gets all the way back to where I first jumped in on here. And yes I'm quoting myself "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". Once refine the model we can define how much or how little that impact is. Even Spencer himself agrees with this in his view, there has been no dissent from this view in the current scientific community to my knowledge.

What may surprise you is that I agree that policy makers should be nowhere near this topic right at this moment.

As an aside it was 73° here today. I'm ready for winter.

How do you reconcile the fact that our current warming trend is not out of the normal bounds of the Earth's historic warming and cooling cycles with AGW theories?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VictorCharlie

How do you reconcile the fact that our current warming trend is not out of the normal bounds of the Earth's historic warming and cooling cycles with AGW theories?

---

Reconcile what? That I'm waiting for a model to give data points that accurately reflect reality so I can make a more informed decision? That we are biological reactors and by definition we affect our environment? That chemical reactions we do as humans in our daily lives change things? That it was 73° today?

What are you contesting?

Sorry I probably won't be able to reply right away as the Metro Phoenix Transit system is free tonight and gives me access to a bar where I plan to get annihilated. If I don't see you before tomorrow, thank you for helping me exercise my brain. I sincerely hope you and yours have a great new year.

And Lyle I'm not forgetting you either, hope you have a great New Year!

My point is that our current warming period is not out of the planets norms when looking at its other warming periods. This would suggest that human behavior is not the major driving factor. Anyway I hope you have a great night. I'm up on you by 4 pints so hurry up and get busy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VictorCharlie

My point is that our current warming period is not out of the planets norms when looking at its other warming periods. This would suggest that human behavior is not the major driving factor. Anyway I hope you have a great night. I'm up on you by 4 pints so hurry up and get busy.

---

Ah I see, I have not claimed that human behavior is the major driving factor, simply that we affect our environment. I'm in the everyone agrees on these things camp as outlined in the 4 points above.
To the rest of the things such as to what degree we affect the environment, if it's actually a problem and the like as I mentioned before I am waiting for a model that more accurately reflects reality (read as we're not there yet). I reject what Spencer claims because his hypothesis relies on premises that have already been falsified and his model is as useful as a sniper rifle without a trigger. I think if you go back and read my posts I've been consistent in these statements.

World's climate warming faster than feared, scientists say - Telegraph

Repent you sinners, the end is nigh!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsNY4uKXXL8#t=161

Yuuuuup, but hey let's lower CO2 emissions just because I mean it's not like it would hurt people attempting to heat/cool their homes, people who work in coal mines/for power companies, people who only have a limited budget to spend on energy....because even if Anthropogenic Global Warming is a liberal lie at least we're preparing just in case....and remember Results don't matter...intentions do

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsNY4uKXXL8#t=161

Yuuuuup, but hey let's lower CO2 emissions just because I mean it's not like it would hurt people attempting to heat/cool their homes, people who work in coal mines/for power companies, people who only have a limited budget to spend on energy....because even if Anthropogenic Global Warming is a liberal lie at least we're preparing just in case....and remember Results don't matter...intentions do

---

They always did want to tax the air we breathe mate and they couldnt,so they have devised the next best thing tax your emissions.

Government thanking us for the money that comes from our farts ->:kissasskc4:

As an scientist, I have to say that the lack of a single link to a peer-reviewed academic journal in this entire thread is pretty indicative of the problem with the relationship between scientists and everyone else.

There is, unquestionably, corruption in research science. That is what makes peer-reviewed publication such a vital component in maintaining the integrity of the scientific community. It's easy to pay off a handful of scientists and almost impossible to buy off a majority. Fortunately, at the end of the day, scientific claims must be supported by convincing evidence. With a lack of such evidence, the community will turn on specious claims like a school of hungry piranha.

While it is nice to have opinions, it is also important to respect expertise. I know a lot about mathematical modeling, but very, very little about climatology. Therefore, I am forced, as a reasonable person, to defer to those who have dedicated decades of study to the topic at hand. If the climatology community says there is sufficient evidence to support the claim of man made climate change, then it is the very definition of hubris for me to think that I have sufficient expertise to gain say them, just on the basis of a few articles posted on the internet.

Here's a link to an interesting 2010 study outlining a process for determining credibility on the topic, for anyone interested.

Expert credibility in climate change

And I'd say the lack of empirical evidence to backup claims of Anthropogenic Global Warming/Cooling/Climate Change shows that these "scientists" (and I use the term loosely) have an agenda

Miami, the great world city, is drowning while the powers that be look away | World news | The Observer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bcollins

Here's a link to an interesting 2010 study outlining a process for determining credibility on the topic, for anyone interested.

Expert credibility in climate change

---

The thing is NASA and NOAA got caught fudging the numbers as have other "scientists" ....so what do they have to do to get you to question them? They got caught LYING, FACT.