Scientific Fraud

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

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.

---

Fact? Gotta be careful with those. That's the whole point. Even more important is to check your sources.

Fox's Doocy: NASA fudged data to make the case for global warming | PunditFact

Again, the experts are experts for a reason. Rather than jumping on every story that shares your belief, the better idea is to keep an open mind and not try to arrive at erroneous conclusions. All scientists do make mistakes, but the community as a whole is just waiting for such high profile mistakes - that's the stuff careers are made of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bcollins

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

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.

---

Fact? Gotta be careful with those. That's the whole point. Even more important is to check your sources.

Fox's Doocy: NASA fudged data to make the case for global warming | PunditFact

Again, the experts are experts for a reason. Rather than jumping on every story that shares your belief, the better idea is to keep an open mind and not try to arrive at erroneous conclusions. All scientists do make mistakes, but the community as a whole is just waiting for such high profile mistakes - that's the stuff careers are made of.

---

They've used COMPUTER MODELS which have....has one been right yet? Anyway they used those computer models rather than the actual data. Sorry, they've been lying and skewing the numbers, and shit if THAT doesn't sway you look at the laws the "green" politicians try to pass to curb CO2 emissions....anything WE (the United States) doesn't put in the atmosphere China, Russia, and India have no problem picking up that slack AND THEN SOME!!!


It's a hoax, a façade, a flimflam, bogus, untrue, etc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bcollins

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

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.

---

Fact? Gotta be careful with those. That's the whole point. Even more important is to check your sources.

Fox's Doocy: NASA fudged data to make the case for global warming | PunditFact

Again, the experts are experts for a reason. Rather than jumping on every story that shares your belief, the better idea is to keep an open mind and not try to arrive at erroneous conclusions. All scientists do make mistakes, but the community as a whole is just waiting for such high profile mistakes - that's the stuff careers are made of.

---

They've used COMPUTER MODELS which have....has one been right yet? Anyway they used those computer models rather than the actual data. Sorry, they've been lying and skewing the numbers, and shit if THAT doesn't sway you look at the laws the "green" politicians try to pass to curb CO2 emissions....anything WE (the United States) doesn't put in the atmosphere China, Russia, and India have no problem picking up that slack AND THEN SOME!!!


It's a hoax, a façade, a flimflam, bogus, untrue, etc

---

Ok - now we are into my realm of expertise. I think you have some fundamental misconceptions about the science here. I'll try to explain it a little, without getting into the math too much.

With "pure" mathematics, results are proven using nothing but logic, beginning with a fundamental collection of axioms. This is pretty much the only type of hard "proof" in any physical science.

With applied mathematics - which the science of climatology relies upon - the results are more along the lines of "evidence" that supports a conclusion. This is the type of result you can expect to see in the other physical sciences - physics, chemistry, biology, geology, etc. There are some exceptions, but pure mathematics is pretty much the sole bastion of "proof".

Now, the (classical) modeling process essentially consists of using systems of differential equations to simulate a physical process. There are a wealth of DEs out there that apply to a given physical process and many of these have been around for centuries. These descriptions of physical phenomenon in such a precise characterization are among some of the crowning achievements of humankind and rational, logical thinking. What's nice about these equations is that anyone on the planet with an understanding of how they work can use them to predict a given phenomenon - it has been independently verified so many times that they are beyond reproach. There are entire buildings filled with literature on these partial differential equations. If you don't believe this, I'll be happy to provide more details.

When creating a mathematical model of this type, the adaptation to a particular scenario is usually done through modification of parameter values. This is where the data comes in. When creating a model of the type used by climate scientists, the data will be used to give a range of parameter values. The scientist will then run a large number of simulations on the computer, typically varying the parameters in a systematic manner and observing the prediction of the model. In other words, the computer models depend on the data - there can be no separation of the two!

Any time a new and more accurate way of generating data comes into play, the models are typically adjusted to take into account any new information. Thus, the science here isn't the type of pure mathematics, where it is proven once and that's it - here, the results are constantly updated as new information comes to light.

What's cool is that this is only the "classical" approach to modeling. The guys on the cutting edge are working on newer and more accurate modeling techniques. One newer method is called stochastic modeling (newer means the last century or so) which incorporates uncertainty quantification into the differential equations themselves. This allows for the concept of "randomness" to be built into the model itself - which is obviously useful in a field such as climatology! The downside is that the mathematical analysis becomes much, much more difficult, as well as the computational methods of simulation. One of my advisers runs a group at the Oak Ridge lab in this area. It is very cutting edge and very new and EXTREMELY difficult. With the advent of supercomputers, this approach will hopefully yield more and more accurate models in the future. There are even more modeling techniques coming up the pipe - data driven modeling techniques are another bright light - so this is a continually evolving science.

Now, you can see how complex this can all be, so when you say that NASA/NOAA have been "fudging" the data, it is an incorrect statement, or at least a very inaccurate one. As the report above indicates, they have updated techniques used to derive that data, but now it matches data found INDEPENDENTLY by multiple other sources.

It is interesting to note that the source of the claim that NASA/NOAA "fudged" data has been called out by other climate change skeptics as using shoddy analysis.

You are correct in your statement that we have no control over the emission regulations in place for other countries. However, this has no effect on the data itself and is furthermore irrelevant to the conversation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bcollins

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bcollins

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

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.

---

Fact? Gotta be careful with those. That's the whole point. Even more important is to check your sources.

Fox's Doocy: NASA fudged data to make the case for global warming | PunditFact

Again, the experts are experts for a reason. Rather than jumping on every story that shares your belief, the better idea is to keep an open mind and not try to arrive at erroneous conclusions. All scientists do make mistakes, but the community as a whole is just waiting for such high profile mistakes - that's the stuff careers are made of.

---

They've used COMPUTER MODELS which have....has one been right yet? Anyway they used those computer models rather than the actual data. Sorry, they've been lying and skewing the numbers, and shit if THAT doesn't sway you look at the laws the "green" politicians try to pass to curb CO2 emissions....anything WE (the United States) doesn't put in the atmosphere China, Russia, and India have no problem picking up that slack AND THEN SOME!!!


It's a hoax, a façade, a flimflam, bogus, untrue, etc

---

Ok - now we are into my realm of expertise. I think you have some fundamental misconceptions about the science here. I'll try to explain it a little, without getting into the math too much.

With "pure" mathematics, ......................

---

You can stop right there. Do you know who you're talking to?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bcollins

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bcollins

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

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.

---

Fact? Gotta be careful with those. That's the whole point. Even more important is to check your sources.

Fox's Doocy: NASA fudged data to make the case for global warming | PunditFact

Again, the experts are experts for a reason. Rather than jumping on every story that shares your belief, the better idea is to keep an open mind and not try to arrive at erroneous conclusions. All scientists do make mistakes, but the community as a whole is just waiting for such high profile mistakes - that's the stuff careers are made of.

---

They've used COMPUTER MODELS which have....has one been right yet? Anyway they used those computer models rather than the actual data. Sorry, they've been lying and skewing the numbers, and shit if THAT doesn't sway you look at the laws the "green" politicians try to pass to curb CO2 emissions....anything WE (the United States) doesn't put in the atmosphere China, Russia, and India have no problem picking up that slack AND THEN SOME!!!


It's a hoax, a façade, a flimflam, bogus, untrue, etc

---

Ok - now we are into my realm of expertise. I think you have some fundamental misconceptions about the science here. I'll try to explain it a little, without getting into the math too much.

With "pure" mathematics, results are proven using nothing but logic, beginning with a fundamental collection of axioms. This is pretty much the only type of hard "proof" in any physical science.

With applied mathematics - which the science of climatology relies upon - the results are more along the lines of "evidence" that supports a conclusion. This is the type of result you can expect to see in the other physical sciences - physics, chemistry, biology, geology, etc. There are some exceptions, but pure mathematics is pretty much the sole bastion of "proof".

Now, the (classical) modeling process essentially consists of using systems of differential equations to simulate a physical process. There are a wealth of DEs out there that apply to a given physical process and many of these have been around for centuries. These descriptions of physical phenomenon in such a precise characterization are among some of the crowning achievements of humankind and rational, logical thinking. What's nice about these equations is that anyone on the planet with an understanding of how they work can use them to predict a given phenomenon - it has been independently verified so many times that they are beyond reproach. There are entire buildings filled with literature on these partial differential equations. If you don't believe this, I'll be happy to provide more details.

When creating a mathematical model of this type, the adaptation to a particular scenario is usually done through modification of parameter values. This is where the data comes in. When creating a model of the type used by climate scientists, the data will be used to give a range of parameter values. The scientist will then run a large number of simulations on the computer, typically varying the parameters in a systematic manner and observing the prediction of the model. In other words, the computer models depend on the data - there can be no separation of the two!

Any time a new and more accurate way of generating data comes into play, the models are typically adjusted to take into account any new information. Thus, the science here isn't the type of pure mathematics, where it is proven once and that's it - here, the results are constantly updated as new information comes to light.

What's cool is that this is only the "classical" approach to modeling. The guys on the cutting edge are working on newer and more accurate modeling techniques. One newer method is called stochastic modeling (newer means the last century or so) which incorporates uncertainty quantification into the differential equations themselves. This allows for the concept of "randomness" to be built into the model itself - which is obviously useful in a field such as climatology! The downside is that the mathematical analysis becomes much, much more difficult, as well as the computational methods of simulation. One of my advisers runs a group at the Oak Ridge lab in this area. It is very cutting edge and very new and EXTREMELY difficult. With the advent of supercomputers, this approach will hopefully yield more and more accurate models in the future. There are even more modeling techniques coming up the pipe - data driven modeling techniques are another bright light - so this is a continually evolving science.

Now, you can see how complex this can all be, so when you say that NASA/NOAA have been "fudging" the data, it is an incorrect statement, or at least a very inaccurate one. As the report above indicates, they have updated techniques used to derive that data, but now it matches data found INDEPENDENTLY by multiple other sources.

It is interesting to note that the source of the claim that NASA/NOAA "fudged" data has been called out by other climate change skeptics as using shoddy analysis.

You are correct in your statement that we have no control over the emission regulations in place for other countries. However, this has no effect on the data itself and is furthermore irrelevant to the conversation.

---

Alright so the Earth is Warming/Cooling/The Climate of Earth is Changing SOLELY due to humans releasing more CO2 into the atmosphere true or false?

I still think you're asking the question in the wrong way. When you say true or false, you're implying that it is possible to know for an indisputable fact that said event is occurring. That's not how science works, unless you're a pure mathematician/logician.

First off, I'm not a climatologist, so I'm no expert on that particular question. But if you're asking me if it's true that roughly 97% of the world's leading experts in the field believe that, with current information, there is enough evidence to support a claim that the Earth's climate is experiencing a warming trend that is due to humans' impact on the planet, then you should see the first link I posted. That study answers that question in the affirmative.

Oversimplifying what the data suggests is a double edged sword. It makes it easier for laymen to understand, but it also forces a "dumbing down" of the information presented. When you hear politicians and media outlets blathering on about this, trying to spin it one way or the other, the bottom line is that they are quite simply unequipped to discuss the topic with any degree of accuracy. That's why we should leave it to the experts and not try to corner them into providing a response that is so watered down that it is essentially worthless. The better plan is to educate ourselves more so that we are able to understand what's really going on, instead of asking for the "I drew this with my crayon!" interpretation.

On a related note, I do know some people who know some people who are actual experts in the field, working at Oak Ridge. I'll see if I can get a simplified answer to your question - I'm actually curious to what the response is myself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bcollins

When you say true or false, you're implying that it is possible to know for an indisputable fact that said event is occurring.

---

Yup, that is EXACTLY my point. So all the Al Gore types who say AND I QUOTE "The Science is settled" and who are crushing people economically by pushing this bullshit agenda on government so that it becomes policy can all go eat a bag of dicks

Saying the science is settled is NOT the same as saying that it is an indisputable fact. This is YOUR error, YOUR misconception of what science is. Saying that "the science is settled" reflects the fact that the people who know what they are doing are almost unanimously in agreement, which is a true statement. In the scientific community, such a consensus might as well be regarded as fact. Just because it is impossible to show with one hundred percent certainty does not imply that you should just disregard the result, or science as a whole. Without science, you'd still be living in the damn Dark Ages.

People effing baffle me. You have no trouble trusting certain science, science that is not used as a political prop, but as soon as some nitwit who probably flunked middle school math and science (but had wealthy friends or family who helped them get in office) starts to question the science, you think that is a perfectly reasonable objection. Do you trust a heart or a brain surgeon to know more about their job than you? Do you believe that a politician has a better understanding of something so complex? That idea is LAUGHABLE, period. The idea that someone with no expertise can stand over an expert's shoulder and tell him or her how to do their job better is downright idiotic. Do you agree that this is so? If you contest this idea, then I'm afraid I have to stop talking about this, as I no longer have any respect for your opinion on the matter. This seems to me to be a self-evident truth, one that requires no discussion - but maybe I'm wrong.

Maybe now people value their own opinion so highly that the voice of expertise is no longer important. I find that to be one of the greatest problems facing our country, much more so than which political party holds power in Washington, or even the influence of giant corporations in government. People have become delusional about the value of their own opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bcollins

Saying the science is settled is NOT the same as saying that it is an indisputable fact. This is YOUR error, YOUR misconception of what science is. Saying that "the science is settled" reflects the fact that the people who know what they are doing are almost unanimously in agreement, which is a true statement. In the scientific community, such a consensus might as well be regarded as fact. Just because it is impossible to show with one hundred percent certainty does not imply that you should just disregard the result, or science as a whole. Without science, you'd still be living in the damn Dark Ages.

People effing baffle me. You have no trouble trusting certain science, science that is not used as a political prop, but as soon as some nitwit who probably flunked middle school math and science (but had wealthy friends or family who helped them get in office) starts to question the science, you think that is a perfectly reasonable objection. Do you trust a heart or a brain surgeon to know more about their job than you? Do you believe that a politician has a better understanding of something so complex? That idea is LAUGHABLE, period. The idea that someone with no expertise can stand over an expert's shoulder and tell him or her how to do their job better is downright idiotic. Do you agree that this is so? If you contest this idea, then I'm afraid I have to stop talking about this, as I no longer have any respect for your opinion on the matter. This seems to me to be a self-evident truth, one that requires no discussion - but maybe I'm wrong.

Maybe now people value their own opinion so highly that the voice of expertise is no longer important. I find that to be one of the greatest problems facing our country, much more so than which political party holds power in Washington, or even the influence of giant corporations in government. People have become delusional about the value of their own opinion.

---

Bad science can be worse than no science and we're dealing with bad science. Because the first response (not just yours but everyone has bought into Anthropogenic Global Warming/Cooling/Climate Change) is to malign and ridicule.

Bring up that professors have been caught fudging data and you get attacked.

Bring up that NASA & NOAA changed their data to be factual because their computer models were found to be outrageously skewed and you get attacked.

Bring up ANY professor, scientist, whoever who disagrees with or is even skeptical about Anthropogenic Global Warming/Cooling/Climate Change and THEIR character(s) is/are attacked.


Al Gore IS a hypocrite, he flies around in private jets, uses more energy than 99% of the population but it's all good because the man buys "Carbon Offsets" from a company he fucking owns!

Take a good hard look at "Carbon Offsets" and then a good hard look at The Catholic Church selling Indulgences and remind me about the difference between the two!

But it's not JUST the hypocrites like Gore I want to bring out into the light it's people who WILL starve in developing countries, people WILL die because they won't have jobs, they won't have money, they won't have food, they won't have drugs, they won't have power, they won't have plumbing....the policies produced by this pseudoscience WILL KILL PEOPLE scores of people!!!


Climate Scientist Who Got It Right Predicts 20 More Years of Global Cooling | CNS News

Sure CNS is a right leaning news site BUT if you look at Dr. Easterbrook's prediction of temperature vs the IPCC's there's no fucking contest, Dr. Easterbrook got it bang on the money and the IPCC was a FULL DEGREE OFF which is mighty huge.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LkMweOVOOI

We had 30 years of global COOLING after 1945 when CO2 was being poured into the climate every year.....how does a rapid release of CO2 for 30 years not produce warming UNLESS CO2 HAS NO IMPACT ON CLIMATE CHANGE???

1978-1998 temperatures rose when CO2 was rising....only time it's happened, sorry that is a FACT


In the last 500 years there have been 20 "Warm periods" with about 30 years between each one....it's a cycle. 0 repeat 0 correlation between Anthropogenic release of CO2 and those warm periods.


But hey, I guess my take isn't popular, I guess I'll take heat for it but I'm not going to waiver because actual fact speak against it. 1936 was the warmest year of the 20th Century AND was warmer that any time in the 21st century FACT....hottest decade??? 1930's....FACT....consider how much CO2 has been released into the atmosphere since then and tell me I'm wrong.

One at a time:

Bad science can be worse than no science and we're dealing with bad science.

I agree with the first part. The second part, "we're dealing with bad science," is your opinion, and as you are not an expert in the field, I give no weight to your opinion.

Because the first response (not just yours but everyone has bought into Anthropogenic Global Warming/Cooling/Climate Change) is to malign and ridicule.

The majority of responses I have seen in academic journals and conference proceedings are not malign and ridicule, but rather disagreement and rebuttal. Again, I think you get this more from news sources from anyone within the scientific community.

Bring up that professors have been caught fudging data and you get attacked.

Your definition of "fudging data" is unclear. Do you mean updating data to reflect newer and more accurate means of collection? If so, then this is a common and vital component of scientific inquiry. For example, compare the means to collect medical data in the eighteenth century to modern means. The technology is better, so the data is now more accurate.

Bring up that NASA & NOAA changed their data to be factual because their computer models were found to be outrageously skewed and you get attacked.

Again, the data was updated due to new collection processes. With new data comes new predictions from the models. The incident to which you refer has been THOROUGHLY debunked by the scientific community. Media outlets still cling to propaganda, yet the facts are now clear. See previous link to punditfact for more info.

Bring up ANY professor, scientist, whoever who disagrees with or is even skeptical about Anthropogenic Global Warming/Cooling/Climate Change and THEIR character(s) is/are attacked.

It is not the character which is attacked usually, but rather the results and methods used. This is an integral part of scientific research - if someone presents something that is incorrect, it is the job of other researchers to point this out. Some people take it personally, but results stand on their own scientific merit. This is the very heart of peer-reviewed academic research (and the whole point). Results MUST stand up to scrutiny.


Al Gore IS a hypocrite, he flies around in private jets, uses more energy than 99% of the population but it's all good because the man buys "Carbon Offsets" from a company he fucking owns!

No argument there. I agree 100% - Al Gore used scientific information for his own gain. It is good to get the information out there, but his purposes, I believe, were purely political and profit-driven.

Take a good hard look at "Carbon Offsets" and then a good hard look at The Catholic Church selling Indulgences and remind me about the difference between the two!

This has nothing to do with the debate about the validity of climate science and is irrelevant. In fact, I feel that the selling of indulgences is just plain silly at best.

But it's not JUST the hypocrites like Gore I want to bring out into the light it's people who WILL starve in developing countries, people WILL die because they won't have jobs, they won't have money, they won't have food, they won't have drugs, they won't have power, they won't have plumbing....the policies produced by this pseudoscience WILL KILL PEOPLE scores of people!!!

This is a complex issue and dangerous to oversimplify. If the climate changes in a catastrophic manner - note the if, because I can't say for certain - then all these other issues are moot anyway. People will die, for sure. On the other hand, embracing renewable energy sources has the potential to create jobs and economic strength in developing countries. Your classification of "pseudoscience" is again not an expert opinion, so I will (again) do the reasonable thing and listen to the experts rather than media blatherers and politicians, who seem to be the primary source of the misinformation.


Climate Scientist Who Got It Right Predicts 20 More Years of Global Cooling | CNS News

Sure CNS is a right leaning news site BUT if you look at Dr. Easterbrook's prediction of temperature vs the IPCC's there's no fucking contest, Dr. Easterbrook got it bang on the money and the IPCC was a FULL DEGREE OFF which is mighty huge.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LkMweOVOOI

Aha! Finally a reference to someone with the credentials to be an expert in the field. Unfortunately, he is widely regarded as incorrect at best:

Don Easterbrook's Heartland Distortion of Reality

or even potentially duplicitous:

Don Easterbrook’s Academic Dishonesty | Global Warming: Man or Myth?

His own department thinks he is incorrect:

"Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes. The Geology Faculty at WWU concur with rigorous, peer-reviewed assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed significantly and that human activities (mainly greenhouse-gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s. If current trends continue, the projected increase in global temperature by the end of the twenty-first century will result in large impacts on humans and other species. Addressing the challenges posed by climate change will require a combination of adaptation to the changes that are likely to occur and global reductions of carbon dioxide emissions from anthropogenic sources."


We had 30 years of global COOLING after 1945 when CO2 was being poured into the climate every year.....how does a rapid release of CO2 for 30 years not produce warming UNLESS CO2 HAS NO IMPACT ON CLIMATE CHANGE???

1978-1998 temperatures rose when CO2 was rising....only time it's happened, sorry that is a FACT

In the last 500 years there have been 20 "Warm periods" with about 30 years between each one....it's a cycle. 0 repeat 0 correlation between Anthropogenic release of CO2 and those warm periods.

Again, I defer to the experts to provide me with information here, since I have no expertise. Just a ten minute search of the topic on Google Scholar provides dozens of expert, peer-reviewed studies who contradict your beliefs.

But hey, I guess my take isn't popular, I guess I'll take heat for it but I'm not going to waiver because actual fact speak against it. 1936 was the warmest year of the 20th Century AND was warmer that any time in the 21st century FACT....hottest decade??? 1930's....FACT....consider how much CO2 has been released into the atmosphere since then and tell me I'm wrong.

No sense in wavering in the face of overwhelming expert opinion, huh? You keep saying fact, but I don't think that word means what you think it means. When you say 1936 was the warmest year of the 20th century, in what sense are you speaking? You have to be much, much more precise if you want to have a serious discussion based on ACTUAL facts. Do you mean absolute temperature? Globally averaged annual mean surface temperature? Again, I think you must have about thirty years more training in the field before you can say FACT, period, like you are an expert. We'll continue this discussion once you have your doctorate and have published several results in respected peer-reviewed journals.

I am betting the Pigeon League gave Galileo a similar amount of flack for his view on heliocentrism.


Why do I question the "science" you tout?

....well

http://raymondpronk.files.wordpress....ime_covers.jpg


Cooling....Warming.....Climate Change


Just on verbiage alone the "scientists" have now found a way to cover their asses. Now the data doesn't matter as much because the media is feeding hysteria based on weather rather than climate....I've provided examples of why there are/were no correlations between the Anthropogenic release of CO2 and the climate getting warmer or cooler but as is usual my data doesn't come from "respected" scientists.....are any of the 30,000 scientists suing Al Gore respected? Are any that deny Anthropogenic climate change respected? Or is their act of accepting Anthropogenic climate change what makes them "respected"

There are variables which affect climate more than the Anthropogenic release of CO2....but I guess that's erroneous to discuss.

The simple truth is this, "Climate Change" is a catch all...if a hurricane happens, Humans did it, if hurricanes DON'T happen, Humans did it, if tornadoes happen, Humans did it, if they DON'T Humans did it, if it snows, freezes, rains, gets warm, doesn't rain, etc.....if weather in general happens HUMANS ARE BLAMED...Hurricane Katrina....man made??? Did CO2 output cause that? The news certainly pushes that agenda, the politicians push that agenda, the "well respected" scientists push that agenda.....those same bastards who adjust the data in those computer models....they push that agenda.


Why?

The reasons are simple...money for the scientists, awards for the scientists, awards even for politicians like Al Gore AND also for the politicians POWER, CONTROL....through legislation backed up with the data provided by the scientists who are getting their grants from the government.

But hey, your data is clean, uncorrupted, and it's always.....look at me....ALWAYS.....been right....just like when we had that scare with the "Population Bomb" am I right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

I am betting the Pigeon League gave Galileo a similar amount of flack for his view on heliocentrism.


Why do I question the "science" you tout?

....well

http://raymondpronk.files.wordpress....ime_covers.jpg


Cooling....Warming.....Climate Change


Just on verbiage alone the "scientists" have now found a way to cover their asses. Now the data doesn't matter as much because the media is feeding hysteria based on weather rather than climate....I've provided examples of why there are/were no correlations between the Anthropogenic release of CO2 and the climate getting warmer or cooler but as is usual my data doesn't come from "respected" scientists.....are any of the 30,000 scientists suing Al Gore respected? Are any that deny Anthropogenic climate change respected? Or is their act of accepting Anthropogenic climate change what makes them "respected"

There are variables which affect climate more than the Anthropogenic release of CO2....but I guess that's erroneous to discuss.

The simple truth is this, "Climate Change" is a catch all...if a hurricane happens, Humans did it, if hurricanes DON'T happen, Humans did it, if tornadoes happen, Humans did it, if they DON'T Humans did it, if it snows, freezes, rains, gets warm, doesn't rain, etc.....if weather in general happens HUMANS ARE BLAMED...Hurricane Katrina....man made??? Did CO2 output cause that? The news certainly pushes that agenda, the politicians push that agenda, the "well respected" scientists push that agenda.....those same bastards who adjust the data in those computer models....they push that agenda.


Why?

The reasons are simple...money for the scientists, awards for the scientists, awards even for politicians like Al Gore AND also for the politicians POWER, CONTROL....through legislation backed up with the data provided by the scientists who are getting their grants from the government.

But hey, your data is clean, uncorrupted, and it's always.....look at me....ALWAYS.....been right....just like when we had that scare with the "Population Bomb" am I right?

---

Have there been erroneous conclusions throughout history in the scientific arena? Absolutely! Look up how Georg Cantor was ostracized by his peers for his beliefs on the nature of the relative sizes of infinity. The poor guy ended up in the insane asylum a broken man as a result - and now his ideas are widely accepted as correct.

Does the possibility that your contention is correct exist? 100 percent! Of course the possibility exists. Science is a slave to the data. One of the reasons that I'm a mathematician is that in our field, it is much easier to prove a result - everything is based on logical arguments, so if the chain of logic can be shown to hold, then the result must hold as well. Climate science is a much, much different beast. I understand the ideas of their modeling techniques extremely well, but the methods used to collect data and the underlying geology are almost completely unknown to me. As a reasonable man, I must defer to those who have spent their entire lives studying these topics - it would be tantamount to me claiming to know more about brain surgery than a brain surgeon. It's ridiculous.

It bothers me that you rebut the arguments of experts with magazine covers. The media spins things however it wants, with very little understanding of the actual science. Were you studying climate science in the 70s? What makes you an expert to judge if the media depicted correctly what the science showed then? Do you see my problem with your contention? Show me journal articles from the 70s - my guess is that the methodology of data collection has improved as technology has improved. It really isn't correct to judge scientists for deriving results based on the data that was available to them at that time.

As for your provided "examples" - again, come on man! You are relying too much on the University of Google, something that makes professional scientists and educators like myself want to weep. YOU HAVE NO EXPERTISE OR UNDERSTANDING OF THE SCIENCE OF CLIMATOLOGY. YOU CANNOT ACCOUNT FOR THE VERACITY OF YOUR EXAMPLES.

Your claim of corruption within the scientific community is one that must be honestly addressed, however. This is a legitimate concern, and you are correct to worry about it. I want to know what the point would be. If there is a GLOBAL conspiracy - and there must be, since the community of climate experts extends all over the world - then governments from countries such as China, Russia, and India must be in on it as well. What's the payoff? Why would the government work so hard to make people believe that global warming is occurring and furthermore man-made? Considering the power and influence of Big Oil, it would be logical to assume that any conspiracy by the government would contend an opposite claim. I suppose the payoff might be to push through alternative energy solutions. But since these energy sources are less controllable, I don't see a logical profit motive there that would push Big Oil out of the way.

I can understand your reluctance to believe everything you hear, and I even applaud it, because I am similarly cynical. For beginning scientists, getting grants is easier if the topic is "flavor of the day." For example, a few years ago anything concerning mathematical modeling of biological systems got green-lighted very quickly (I worked on a few of those grants). The difference is that experts in the field are given grants regardless of a particular viewpoint. Dr. Easterbrook, your example of an expert who goes against the grain, so to speak, receives most of his funding from the NSF, just like his colleagues. If there is a giant conspiracy, wouldn't he lose his funding as well? Reputations greatly facilitate the funding process. If a scientist falsifies results knowingly, reputation is damaged and it becomes more difficult to obtain funding. Scientists are very careful about results for this reason - I'm not saying deliberate falsification doesn't happen, but if it does, other scientists are quick to point it out. Falsification on the scale of which you believe would be incredibly difficult to pull off.

One other thing - the terminology change from "global warming" to "climate change" was made because of cretins with IQs lower than their shoe size. The argument of "It's cold outside! Where is that global warming?" is precisely why the change was made. Global warming was used to describe aggregate global data - uneducated people thought it meant that every day should be hot. Lack of understanding of scientific terminology - and I agree that the first choice of global warming was unfortunate, for this very reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bcollins

One other thing - the terminology change from "global warming" to "climate change" was made because of cretins with IQs lower than their shoe size. The argument of "It's cold outside! Where is that global warming?" is precisely why the change was made. Global warming was used to describe aggregate global data - uneducated people thought it meant that every day should be hot. Lack of understanding of scientific terminology - and I agree that the first choice of global warming was unfortunate, for this very reason.

---

...the first choice was Global COOLING


Also those magazine covers didn't happen out of nowhere studies were used, projections were used.

So you think that the media's interpretation of scientific results is always correct? And the data they had available at the time may have led to incorrect assumptions. It IS possible that this is happening now, as well. Science is almost NEVER incontrovertible. What worries me is that you have made your mind up without doing any actual scientific research. Especially now that access to academic literature is a few clicks away! You keep using media interpretations as examples, but these are always seen through a smeared lens. I'm not asking you to agree with me - I'm personally not sure what to believe, since I haven't done enough research - but I am asking you to keep an open mind to what experts are saying. I just can't understand willfully putting your fingers in your ears and chanting LALALALALA when someone with DECADES of experience is telling you what they believe.

My wife and I are expecting a baby. There are some complications with the pregnancy - we're both over 40 - so I am a nervous wreck about what is going on. I have been reading journal after journal to better understand what the issue is, but at the end of the day, I'm gonna listen to what the doctors say. You know why? They spent over ten years in school, with residencies and all that, and now have years and years of professional experience. I can educate myself to a certain point, but do I really think that I know what's going on better than they do? Hell no. I'm not that stupid. I'm going to trust that they have had a lot more experience in the matter than I have. As a logical man, I have no other choice.

It's the same issue here. When you pick and choose what science you believe, you lose credibility as a reasonable human being. It's natural to question, but there has to be a point at which you say "I don't know, because I don't have the knowledge to offer an educated opinion." You can believe all you want, but without evidence and understanding, what usefulness does your belief offer?