Scientific Fraud

[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.

[killersheep]

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.

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.

[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.

[VictorCharlie]

As long as we are doing graphs though

[killersheep]

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

[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.

[killersheep]

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.

[El Kabong]

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.

[El Kabong]

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.