Scientific Fraud

[bcollins]

Dr. Pachauri said it doesn't disprove anthropogenic global warming but surface temperature remained level. He said it would have to continue for 30 years. Could you imagine just for 1 second what it would be like if the head of the IPCC said "There is ABSOLUTELY NO anthropogenic global warming"? Just imagine it....funding pulled, lawsuits, jobs destroyed (only this time in the science sector).... think scientists would allow that? Think the people involved in carbon offsets would take that lying down?

I'm pragmatic, so when IPCC's Kevin Trenberth says that he can't account for surface temperature remaining the same despite an increase in CO2 emissions for circa 17 years and then laments it as a "travesty" (his word) I don't believe it matters if he meant "Scientifically its a shame we can't account for where the extra energy/ heat is going" or "it's a shame there's no connection between CO2 emissions and warming" the take away is THE SURFACE TEMPERATURE DID NOT RISE for reasons anthropogenic or not....but whatever you are 100000000% right I'll wait for global warming apocalypse as predicted by your buddy Al Gore....we have 1 and 1/2 years to go.

Again dancing like a grease drop on a hot skillet. The claim is straightforward, the data already compiled - all that remains is your evidence to support your claim.

You are doing an awful lot of squirming around to avoid backing up your statement.

Claim: There has been 0 warming since 1998.

Argument in support of claim:

[IamInuit]

People are so busy bickering about the origin of cause that they are ignoring the effects. That is actually the story of our species. Extinction just cant come soon enough. The ultimate measure of our successes.

[bcollins]

People are so busy bickering about the origin of cause that they are ignoring the effects. That is actually the story of our species. Extinction just cant come soon enough. The ultimate measure of our successes.

I couldn't agree more. We shouldn't waste time arguing about the cause when we should be discussing ways to reverse the trend. But there's clearly a lot of money influencing opinions,
and unfortunately, a lot of people care more about their precious wealth than the well-being of the species and the planet. All it takes is some big words, a few pretty graphs, and the uneducated among us feel like there's nothing to worry about. Halting the spread of scientific misinformation and the manipulation it engenders requires basic scientific education. People need to learn how to recognize good science from bad science - and that isn't easy.

[Andre]

People are so busy bickering about the origin of cause that they are ignoring the effects. That is actually the story of our species. Extinction just cant come soon enough. The ultimate measure of our successes.

I couldn't agree more. We shouldn't waste time arguing about the cause when we should be discussing ways to reverse the trend. But there's clearly a lot of money influencing opinions,
and unfortunately, a lot of people care more about their precious wealth than the well-being of the species and the planet. All it takes is some big words, a few pretty graphs, and the uneducated among us feel like there's nothing to worry about. Halting the spread of scientific misinformation and the manipulation it engenders requires basic scientific education. People need to learn how to recognize good science from bad science - and that isn't easy.

So have real scientists proven without doubt that it is co2 thats the problem what about other gases?

You just said we shouldnt waist time arguing the cause, we have real problems and we need to reverse the trend.

I agree. But we have Jets and people to move, thousands of them running 24 hours a day all year, it isnt going to stop. We have shaved lands, filled with beef that emit pure methane and we have no trees there to reproduce oxygen.

Taxing carbon emissions from industry isnt going to fix any of that stuff in reality; because industry and transport will plough on regardless and pay their cash in fines and buy credits from companies who have access ones who havent reached their quota.

Then we have a fair few continual volcanoes per year that produce all sorts of other gasses into the air and others lately that just go off, we cant do zip about them.

Do they count in the figures and do they outweigh industry?

Being theres a number of problems and anyone with half a brain can see that nature is dieing off and in the least,forms of it are changing all around us.

So as 'real scientists' (not paid off ones from within industry).

Aside from figures, have you guys got any real working answers yet?

[El Kabong]

That's the RSS providing that information the IPCC uses RSS data to provide them data to compare and contrast their computer models with

Professor Myles Allen has said "The idea of producing a document of near-biblical infallibility is a misrepresentation of how science works, and we need to look very carefully about what the IPCC does in future."





So it SEEMS to me from graphs, and what the scientists themselves are saying is that there has been a PAUSE in warming....since around 1997-1998, but I suppose I'm STILL wrong according to you

[bcollins]

That's the RSS providing that information the IPCC uses RSS data to provide them data to compare and contrast their computer models with

Professor Myles Allen has said "The idea of producing a document of near-biblical infallibility is a misrepresentation of how science works, and we need to look very carefully about what the IPCC does in future."





So it SEEMS to me from graphs, and what the scientists themselves are saying is that there has been a PAUSE in warming....since around 1997-1998, but I suppose I'm STILL wrong according to you

Still missing the point. Instead of thinking for yourself, you continue to cite websites that are not reputable sources of scientific information.

The first graphic is posted here:

Global Temperature Update: No global warming at all for 17 years 8 months – No Warming Since August 1996 | Climate Depot

Hmm. Scientific credibility? Do the people hosting this site have credible academic credentials? Hmmm...

Climate Depot - SourceWatch

Maybe not.

The second is a meme that may or may not depict accurate quotes from these three people. Also not what I challenged you to do. This is second hand information, at best. You would fail any course on research methods at any university in the world. Do you simply not know what a reputable source is? Memes, Wikipedia, and random websites do not constitute reputable sources. In order for these to count, you need to first establish the credibility of these people and then post audio or video links of them making these statements. These are hearsay. I'm not saying they aren't accurate, but the way you have presented them is very weak.

The third graphic is the most puzzling. Here is your claim again, to refresh your memory:

There has been 0 warming since 1998.

And you then post a graph with a line of best fit that clearly shows a positive increase, albeit small. I hate to break it to you, but by no measure on the planet is a positive number equal to zero (that's due to the trichotomy property of real numbers). Essentially you posted a graph that rebuts your claim as evidence of your claim. Wow.

All this is still beside the point. I want YOU to analyze any of the data sets published at any of the numerous links I provided for you. All of those are reputable sources; i.e., the data is made public with complete transparency so that anyone who wishes to contest the validity may do so. This is essential for "good" science.

I didn't ask you to post graphs from a website to go along with the quotes you've posted from yet other websites. I've seen these graphs before and here's the thing. I can explain why these are misrepresentations and - as you so eloquently put it - "bad science." Hell, one of em still has the link at the top! This is the whole point. You seem to have ZERO expertise to tell if these are "good" graphs or "bad" graphs.

You cannot tell me if these graphs are accurate or not. What was the methodology used to create the "line" that fits the data depicted in these graphs? This is where you provide an explanation: what methods were used to fit the data here (and you must be able to verify the authenticity of your answer)?

You cannot tell me if the data depicted in these graphs is accurate. I provided you with numerous links to verify the data for yourself, yet you persist in showing me things posted on a website. You should provide justification that this data is correct, or at least that it corresponds with publicly published data that is out there for the whole world to see, transparently. This is where you provide an answer: Does this data agree with that published by any reputable scientific source? (Again, you must provide some type of justification - "I got it from a website I trust" doesn't cut it. Compare this data with that published and verify its authenticity.)

You say you don't trust scientists, yet you trust the scientists that created these graphs - enough so that you present them as evidence. See the double standard?

Since I also have internet access, I too can visit the skeptic websites and see these graphs in all their glory. The issue is that you have ZERO expertise to ascertain if these graphs are accurate representations of the data or not. This is your challenge.

Use the published data to make a logical, scientific argument to support your case. Don't post someone else's results - that's plagiarism, and usually gets you a failing grade. I want to see your argument that supports your claim. So far all you've done is visited a bunch of websites with the same opinion as you. That's not evidence. That's lame.

I'm prepared to perform my analysis and present my conclusions, complete with logical arguments, empirical data, and statistical analysis. As soon as you make an honest effort to do the same, I'll present mine.

It is simple. Quit dancing around. Playing keyboard warrior doesn't cut it here. You bash my profession, so I'm calling you out.

Claim: There has been 0 warming since 1998.

Any time now.

[El Kabong]

Allow me to retort....


Why did Earth’s surface temperature stop rising in the past decade? | NOAA Climate.gov


Climate.gov ....that a credible site? Hmmm?


And if I read this article correctly it says "Since the turn of the century, however, the change in Earth’s global mean surface temperature has been close to zero"....hmmm well that's just curious that is.

But I suppose I'll be outside with a thermometer for 15 years...I'll let you know when I shoot up my personal satellite as well

[El Kabong]

Aside from figures, have you guys got any real working answers yet?

Answers/Solutions aren't the point Andre

[IamInuit]

People are so busy bickering about the origin of cause that they are ignoring the effects. That is actually the story of our species. Extinction just cant come soon enough. The ultimate measure of our successes.

I couldn't agree more. We shouldn't waste time arguing about the cause when we should be discussing ways to reverse the trend. But there's clearly a lot of money influencing opinions,
and unfortunately, a lot of people care more about their precious wealth than the well-being of the species and the planet. All it takes is some big words, a few pretty graphs, and the uneducated among us feel like there's nothing to worry about. Halting the spread of scientific misinformation and the manipulation it engenders requires basic scientific education. People need to learn how to recognize good science from bad science - and that isn't easy.

Its a double edged sword. Science and technology has replaced God in matters of faith. Our arrogance that somehow it will prevail is off the charts. One could almost argue that that line of thought has imprinted and will soon be genetic.

I just cant understand why we have to be so reactive as a species to the point that we start dusting the atmosphere with sulpher or iron into the oceans. Why the fuck don't we do something so we don't have to? The end of fossil fuels means the end of empires. We are no more enlightened then the cave man. We just dress better and have nicer tools.

[El Kabong]

Dr. Pachauri said it doesn't disprove anthropogenic global warming but surface temperature remained level. He said it would have to continue for 30 years. Could you imagine just for 1 second what it would be like if the head of the IPCC said "There is ABSOLUTELY NO anthropogenic global warming"? Just imagine it....funding pulled, lawsuits, jobs destroyed (only this time in the science sector).... think scientists would allow that? Think the people involved in carbon offsets would take that lying down?

I'm pragmatic, so when IPCC's Kevin Trenberth says that he can't account for surface temperature remaining the same despite an increase in CO2 emissions for circa 17 years and then laments it as a "travesty" (his word) I don't believe it matters if he meant "Scientifically its a shame we can't account for where the extra energy/ heat is going" or "it's a shame there's no connection between CO2 emissions and warming" the take away is THE SURFACE TEMPERATURE DID NOT RISE for reasons anthropogenic or not....but whatever you are 100000000% right I'll wait for global warming apocalypse as predicted by your buddy Al Gore....we have 1 and 1/2 years to go.

Again dancing like a grease drop on a hot skillet. The claim is straightforward, the data already compiled - all that remains is your evidence to support your claim.

You are doing an awful lot of squirming around to avoid backing up your statement.

Claim: There has been 0 warming since 1998.

Argument in support of claim:

I guess 2 IPCC chairmen admitting to 0 warming for 15-17 years is tumbleweed to you.... not my problem you tell me "Believe in global warming" and IPCC scientists guys on your side say "No warming in 15-17 years" ....don't get angry at me, your boys said it.

But I guess I need to shoot up a satellite and get my own data so I'll get back with you once I do that....think it'll be "warming" or "cooling" y'all are worried about by that time?



Reverse the effects See this is where the little issue of 96% of the CO2 released into the atmosphere is NOT man made comes into play...but I digress, obviously you guys are saving the world 1 CO2 molecule at a time

[bcollins]

Dr. Pachauri said it doesn't disprove anthropogenic global warming but surface temperature remained level. He said it would have to continue for 30 years. Could you imagine just for 1 second what it would be like if the head of the IPCC said "There is ABSOLUTELY NO anthropogenic global warming"? Just imagine it....funding pulled, lawsuits, jobs destroyed (only this time in the science sector).... think scientists would allow that? Think the people involved in carbon offsets would take that lying down?

I'm pragmatic, so when IPCC's Kevin Trenberth says that he can't account for surface temperature remaining the same despite an increase in CO2 emissions for circa 17 years and then laments it as a "travesty" (his word) I don't believe it matters if he meant "Scientifically its a shame we can't account for where the extra energy/ heat is going" or "it's a shame there's no connection between CO2 emissions and warming" the take away is THE SURFACE TEMPERATURE DID NOT RISE for reasons anthropogenic or not....but whatever you are 100000000% right I'll wait for global warming apocalypse as predicted by your buddy Al Gore....we have 1 and 1/2 years to go.

Again dancing like a grease drop on a hot skillet. The claim is straightforward, the data already compiled - all that remains is your evidence to support your claim.

You are doing an awful lot of squirming around to avoid backing up your statement.

Claim: There has been 0 warming since 1998.

Argument in support of claim:

I guess 2 IPCC chairmen admitting to 0 warming for 15-17 years is tumbleweed to you.... not my problem you tell me "Believe in global warming" and IPCC scientists guys on your side say "No warming in 15-17 years" ....don't get angry at me, your boys said it.

But I guess I need to shoot up a satellite and get my own data so I'll get back with you once I do that....think it'll be "warming" or "cooling" y'all are worried about by that time?



Reverse the effects See this is where the little issue of 96% of the CO2 released into the atmosphere is NOT man made comes into play...but I digress, obviously you guys are saving the world 1 CO2 molecule at a time

Can you be any more obtuse? Posting a quote from a dubious website that may or may not be true is in no way, shape, or form evidence that supports your claim. I'm not asking you to play keyboard warrior and find some article posted on some website that claims that one of these guys said something - any idiot can post something on the web. This is not evidence that holds for the challenge I've given you. Nor am I asking you to launch your own satellite. I'm asking you to use data already gathered and compiled - the exact same data used by both those who support and deny your claim - and show me a logical argument that supports your claim.

This is a very specific request. You have only danced around it and dodged addressing my very specific request. Show me your evidence that supports your claim. You stated it as if it were true, so now I ask you to argue why this is the case using not opinion, not second or third hand opinion, but good old solid data. Since you want to make a scientific claim, you have to support it using the scientific method.

There is no gray area here. Stop waffling and fidgeting. You made a very strong claim and I want you to make a very simple argument using well respected data to back it up. Simple as.

[bcollins]

Use the data found at the links I've already posted, or choose your own from any reputable site. Very straightforward claim. Very straightforward challenge. No more sidestepping.

I won't be back on until tomorrow afternoon. Hopefully you will have a response with some substance by then.