Scientific Fraud

[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.

[El Kabong]

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

[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.

[Kirkland Laing]

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?

[El Kabong]

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?

[bcollins]

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.

[El Kabong]

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

[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.