Scientific Fraud

[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

[bcollins]

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

The thing that bothers me is the contradiction you don't even seem to be aware of making. On one hand you say "odds are you trust your doctors and rightly so" even though they have been wrong in the past. I trust that in a serious medical situation that you would do the same - even though they have been wrong in the past.

Why does that same rationale not extend to climate scientists? Since they have been wrong in the past (and I still argue that a better phrase is that they made the best conclusions the could with the data they had available at the time), you are deadset against giving them the benefit of the doubt.

Why the double standard? I'm very confident you would defer to the expertise of a doctor, yet you have made it clear that you do not defer to the expertise of a climatologist. Imagine you had a condition and you didn't believe the first doctor, so you get a second opinion. Then a third. Then you get the opinion of all leading specialists in that field and 97% concur about your condition. Do you still disbelieve? That seems highly illogical to me, and I just can't understand it.

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.

So has medical science, but I bet you buy that one.

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.

Come on. Really? So you truly believe that the world's leading experts in climatology haven't considered these effects in their research? Are you the only person who has access to Google, and thus are the only person who has heard of these phenomenon? Most of these experts also teach, and my guess is that they've taught these topics so long they no longer need any notes to do so. And yet you, with the power of the internet, have uncovered possibilities that - again - world's leading experts haven't yet considered? Do you know enough about these topics off the top of your head to discuss them with people who hold PhDs in the field? I'll wait while you consult Google again.

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.

Again, this is all your opinion. History is absolutely littered with dire economic predictions which - gasp - didn't come true. You attack climatologists for making erroneous predictions, but apparently economists never make a mistake. This is the part where I get to roll my eyes.

Your arguments are filled with double standards. You can repeat them all you like - you've made it clear that your mind is made up - but when you try to make the same argument apply to two logically different conclusions, you just look like you don't know what the hell you're talking about.