Scientific Fraud

[bcollins]

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




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.

[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.

[El Kabong]

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.

[bcollins]

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?

[El Kabong]

No but catchy studies lead to lots of money

In some cases people with decades of experience are telling me I'm right

If what your doctor said killed your baby what would you say?

Ask that last question to yourself

[bcollins]

No but catchy studies lead to lots of money

Great job repeating what I just mentioned a few posts ago. Of course they lead to grants. As usual, I think you have a misconception - this time about how grants work. A university PI on, say an NSF grant for example, can only receive monetary compensation for two months of his or her normal salary. All budgets proposed for a grant must be meticulously outlined and submitted with the grant proposal. Any and all traveling done on grant money must be outlined and included in the proposal. Grants aren't awarded for profit, at least to university academics - which comprise the greatest majority of climate scientists - they are awarded to facilitate research. Most of the money goes toward the research - lab materials, salary for lowly grad students, post-docs, etc. - and traveling is usually only green-lighted for conferences, or travel to a research site. If you have never been to an academic conference, it isn't exactly what you'd call a vacation. Think insurance seminar in terms of fun. It's work related, no matter where you go. Most time is spent in the hotel and at the talks.

Writing a grant proposal usually takes a couple of months at a bare minimum and potentially much longer. Here's a link to the NSF guidelines and policies for their grants (they are one of the primary sources of scientific grants in the US):

http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/p...1/gpgprint.pdf

It's worth two month's salary to subject yourself to this process, for which the prime beneficiaries are typically student researchers. Those damn greedy scientists!

In some cases people with decades of experience are telling me I'm right

Good for you. I work in a professional scientific environment surrounded by international experts in their respective fields. UTK keeps close ties with the Oak Ridge National lab, so some of these people were world famous scientists when you were cutting teeth. You'll forgive me if I defer to their expertise in these matters. Or not. Don't really care either way.

If what your doctor said killed your baby what would you say?

Wow. I've always heard that empathy is a strong indicator of character. Since I don't know you personally, I can only hope for your sake that is a fallacy.

To answer your question, the issue is not the doctor's fault. If something does happen to our baby, it will be from natural causes. If a doctor did something that led directly to harm the baby, through carelessness or deliberate misconduct, I would first pursue all legal options, then go back to my country roots if needs be. I would hold the doctor accountable - much like the scientific community holds its members accountable for the results they publish.

Ask that last question to yourself

I have been asking myself more questions in that regard during the last few weeks than you can possibly imagine. I've certainly spent more thought on that than you seem to have spent on understanding anything about climatology, or science in general.

[El Kabong]

My question regarding the doctor was a hypothetical and certainly not aimed at your one on the way. My point being even in the medical field mistakes get made even though everyone studied, they had the best intentions, etc....Thalidomide was once prescribed by doctors who were smart and well intentioned but it didn't turn out to be a safe/harmless drug.

There are loads of examples like that...yes odds are you still trust your doctors and rightly so but doctors and scientists are not perfect they are still learning (I hope).

You feel free to trust your scientists, I don't mind. But I don't buy what they are selling because it's been wrong in the past. They said Ice Age then we started warming and they changed their tune to Warming which stopped in 1998 and then they thought up the catch all Climate Change...it's the boy who cried wolf. They never want to account for the Sun and how hot it's burning, Orbital Forcing, Milankovitch Cycles.... nope JUST Anthropogenic CO2 that's it. And why? Coal power plants produce CO2, cars produce CO2, factories produce CO2.... and policies have been made which hamstring our economy while China and other developing industrial nations more than make up what CO2 we try to keep out of the atmosphere so again what is the point of this? Save the world? The world will be here looooong after we're gone. Save human life? Actually if enacted and enforced Green policies will kill more people than help.

But hey you buy the bill of goods the scientists sell you. Maybe they are right this time.... I'll wait for the next tweak to their hypothesis which will be along any year now