Scientific Fraud

[Andre]

This world is fucked up, just look at the tobacco industry and cancers,agricultural chemicals and lymphomas, pharmaceuticals masking of root causes.The Sugar industry and diabetes!
They all have their own experts paid well to find shit out for the affirmative. Science and medicine is split legally by the buck.Doctors have calendars with chemical companies names printed on them sitting on their desks FFS. McDonalds build their restaurants in childrens hospitals out here .

[bcollins]

This world is fucked up, just look at the tobacco industry and cancers,agricultural chemicals and lymphomas, pharmaceuticals masking of root causes.The Sugar industry and diabetes!
They all have their own experts paid well to find shit out for the affirmative. Science and medicine is split legally by the buck.Doctors have calendars with chemical companies names printed on them sitting on their desks FFS. McDonalds build their restaurants in childrens hospitals out here .

You are correct in a lot of ways. Industry scientists are usually bought and paid for. I'm talking about true academics. We're usually the reason corporations have to hire their own 'experts' - we actually go by what the science says, instead of the man writing the checks. Those type of scientists are scum in my opinion. They confuse the laymen with complex terminology and a whole bunch of bullshit, which is clearly crap to someone in the field. Unfortunately, a lot of people nowadays just believe whatever side lines up with their personal ideology rather than trying to determine where the truth lies.

[El Kabong]

Well alright let's talk specifics

Atmosphere
Nitrogen - 78%
Oxygen - 21%
Argon - 1%
Trace Elements - 0.1%

Of that CO2 varies from 0.03% to 0.04%

Roughly 96% of THAT CO2 is produced by NATURE leaving around 3.5% produced by humans and it's destroying the entire world.


CO2 isn't even the most prevalent greenhouse gas, that title goes to H2O by a wide margin. But CO2 is destroying the climate..... or 3.5% of the CO2 released in to the atmosphere is. Seems legit

[bcollins]

Well alright let's talk specifics

Atmosphere
Nitrogen - 78%
Oxygen - 21%
Argon - 1%
Trace Elements - 0.1%

Of that CO2 varies from 0.03% to 0.04%

Roughly 96% of THAT CO2 is produced by NATURE leaving around 3.5% produced by humans and it's destroying the entire world.


CO2 isn't even the most prevalent greenhouse gas, that title goes to H2O by a wide margin. But CO2 is destroying the climate..... or 3.5% of the CO2 released in to the atmosphere is. Seems legit

Seems like you're dodging the challenge. I'm aware of the chemical composition of our atmosphere - I learned that in middle school. I want you to put up or shut up.

There has been 0 warming since 1998.

This is your claim. Show me evidence to support your claim. Find a source of data that you believe that is also reputable; i.e., I assume you won't choose NASA/NOAA. There are other sources of data from many other countries. The only criteria is that it must be a reputable source of data - not just a joe schmoe website.

Use this data to convince me of your claim. When I get some extra time, I'll use multiple data sources to rebut your claim. You must also detail your method of arriving at your conclusion.

Simply citing a website is not sufficient. I want to see the details. Since you pose this claim as true, then back it up.

[Andre]

This world is fucked up, just look at the tobacco industry and cancers,agricultural chemicals and lymphomas, pharmaceuticals masking of root causes.The Sugar industry and diabetes!
They all have their own experts paid well to find shit out for the affirmative. Science and medicine is split legally by the buck.Doctors have calendars with chemical companies names printed on them sitting on their desks FFS. McDonalds build their restaurants in childrens hospitals out here .

You are correct in a lot of ways. Industry scientists are usually bought and paid for. I'm talking about true academics. We're usually the reason corporations have to hire their own 'experts' - we actually go by what the science says, instead of the man writing the checks. Those type of scientists are scum in my opinion. They confuse the laymen with complex terminology and a whole bunch of bullshit, which is clearly crap to someone in the field. Unfortunately, a lot of people nowadays just believe whatever side lines up with their personal ideology rather than trying to determine where the truth lies.

Governing laws can get bought and sold.

[Andre]

I still think our biggest problem will come from the ocean because current change there means irreversible global climate change. We kill shit out there too, large amounts of it underwater forests, we kill the reefs that have taken hundreds of thousands of years to grow and we till underwater mountains like the earth with drag nets in search of orange roughy and other deep sea fish. Then theres the upper reefs bleached dry by the ozone layer depletion. We shave old forests bare for cash and turn it into fields with cows that release pure methane back up there and wonder why the rain clouds are attracted elsewhere. Meanwhile petrol is cheaper than bottled water.

We could now argue that by polluting the air with cars and industry we now create a barrier of smog that is protecting some things from the increased suns radiation from depletion .

Swings and roundabouts pay as you come pay as you leave,they'll tax you on what ever they can tax you on and try to balance the books with that percentage paying for people to back their cause; meanwhile the real issue is out there slowly grinding to a halt and about turn around and work in reverse.

[bcollins]

Here's a link to the UK's Hadley Centre site. I believe they have already compiled data sets, if you want to take a look.

Met Office Hadley Centre observations datasets

[bcollins]

World Meteorological Organization: (Lots of links to other datasets)

World Meteorological Organization Homepage | WMO

University of Virginia Climatology Office: (another link page)

Online Climate Data Sources

RealClimate.org: (See the contributors page for the administrators and their credentials, also with links to multiple datasets)

RealClimate: Rossby waves and surface weather extremes

[bcollins]

NOAA admitted to the warming "plateau" in their 2012 State of the Climate Address and RSS the satellite data backed up this claim. People no doubt say "It's nothing, it means nothing unless this plateau lasts 20 years". This warming "stagnation" is a model buster....but I suppose that means nothing.

I'm not going to launch a satellite, I'm not going to start collecting my own data because I'm not a scientist and while I suppose your point could be to get me to admit as much but again the professional scientists have been wrong which is why NASA and NOAA have revisited their computer models and made adjustments. Are the adjustments better? Closer to the truth? Who is to say? Scientists made predictions for an ice age in the 1970's that has not come to fruition. They've predicted warming and the stagnation poked holes in that theory. Now it's a general cover all of climate change by using hand picked random weather events....I mean what's the difference between Y2K and The Mayan Calendar and these Climate scientist when they are fudging data and/or skewing data to achieve the hypothesis they want. No empirical data, no correlations, models that are consistently wrong....why trust that science? If you're looking for answers and you're constantly wrong then you're no different than someone not looking for answers or one who is wrong on purpose.

But go ahead and ridicule me

Nope. Not getting off that easy. You come on here and start bashing scientists and making claims that you read on other websites and choose to believe based on your expert understanding of science. Then you make specious claims with absolutely no evidence whatsoever to back it up, again because you read it on a website somewhere. That's not good enough.

Your claim is this: There has been 0 warming since 1998.

I just gave you a wealth of places to search for data sets that are already compiled. It took me all of five minutes to find reputable sources who publish their data online free, with complete transparency, for all the world to see. That's how the scientific community works. Results must be independently verifiable. You now have access to every bit of the data used by both those who agree with your claim and those who rebut it.

You came on here bashing my profession. I'm calling you on it. Either you show me some kind of evidence - any kind of evidence - that is based on the data, or you quit acting like you're privy to information that the rest of the world isn't.

If you make a claim, you have to be able to support it. That's what science is. Your opinion is great and all, but it doesn't mean diddly squat without some concrete evidence. When you make a claim, you have to back it up. All you keep doing is blathering about how the science can't be trusted, that it's incorrect, that models don't work - with absolutely no understanding of how the science works.

"...when they are fudging data and/or skewing data to achieve the hypothesis they want. No empirical data, no correlations, models that are consistently wrong....why trust that science?"

You keep claiming they "fudged" data - that has already been shown to be a completely disingenuous claim, made by people with other agendas than pursuing the truth. You keep babbling about these things as if you understand them. You have already shown that you don't understand what a model is or does. I doubt you have any understanding of the relationship between data and correlation. I just provided you with multiple links to access all the empirical data you need.

I'm tired of your ignorant ranting. I'm asking you to do a very simple thing. Back up the claim you've made, using basic scientific techniques. This isn't graduate level work. Take the data and find a damn line of best fit. That's the most simple technique here - it's high school statistics. If you can't do that, find someone to help you do it. I would much rather you learn how to perform simple analysis for yourself - then maybe you can better discern the truth instead of relying on the interpretations of others.

[El Kabong]

NOAA admitted to the warming "plateau" in their 2012 State of the Climate Address and RSS the satellite data backed up this claim. People no doubt say "It's nothing, it means nothing unless this plateau lasts 20 years". This warming "stagnation" is a model buster....but I suppose that means nothing.

I'm not going to launch a satellite, I'm not going to start collecting my own data because I'm not a scientist and while I suppose your point could be to get me to admit as much but again the professional scientists have been wrong which is why NASA and NOAA have revisited their computer models and made adjustments. Are the adjustments better? Closer to the truth? Who is to say? Scientists made predictions for an ice age in the 1970's that has not come to fruition. They've predicted warming and the stagnation poked holes in that theory. Now it's a general cover all of climate change by using hand picked random weather events....I mean what's the difference between Y2K and The Mayan Calendar and these Climate scientist when they are fudging data and/or skewing data to achieve the hypothesis they want. No empirical data, no correlations, models that are consistently wrong....why trust that science? If you're looking for answers and you're constantly wrong then you're no different than someone not looking for answers or one who is wrong on purpose.

But go ahead and ridicule me