Scientific Fraud

[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]

The IPCC's Climate Science CHAIRMAN Dr. Rajendra Pachauri admitted to NO Global Warming for 17 years and said "People have to question these things and science only runs on questioning."


Sooooo listen to bcollins or IPCC Climate Science chairman


I guess you're right man. So about the 3.5% of CO2 humans produce?

[bcollins]

The IPCC's Climate Science CHAIRMAN Dr. Rajendra Pachauri admitted to NO Global Warming for 17 years and said "People have to question these things and science only runs on questioning."


Sooooo listen to bcollins or IPCC Climate Science chairman


I guess you're right man. So about the 3.5% of CO2 humans produce?

I see why you're on a boxing forum. I haven't seen this much ducking, dodging, and running since the last Laras fight. Still waiting for a simple, straight piece of evidence to support your claim.

The IPCC's Climate Science CHAIRMAN Dr. Rajendra Pachauri admitted to NO Global Warming for 17 years and said "People have to question these things and science only runs on questioning.

Interesting - a two-minute internet search debunks this statement. I believe once again, as usual, you get your information from sources with only one point of view. This statement seems to originate from an article by Graham Lloyd in The Australian. Unfortunately, you have to pay to see the full article, but apparently the actual statement is that global surface air temperatures have plateaued. That is not the same thing. Show me an audio or video link where Dr. Pachauri makes that claim - then I'll listen.

Either way, the claim is independently verifiable. That's the great thing about science. I will do my own analysis as soon as I get a chance (a little busy this weekend between writing code and family visiting from out of town and arguing with you) and present my own findings with evidence and methodology. More and more it seems like you are not inclined to do the same.

Do it yourself. Make the claim, then back it up. Until you do that, all you are doing is flapping your gums in the wind and looking more and more incapable of reason.

There has been 0 warming since 1998.

I'm not ridiculing you. I just want to see your evidence to support this claim. Period.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Andre]

The IPCC's Climate Science CHAIRMAN Dr. Rajendra Pachauri admitted to NO Global Warming for 17 years and said "People have to question these things and science only runs on questioning."


Sooooo listen to bcollins or IPCC Climate Science chairman


I guess you're right man. So about the 3.5% of CO2 humans produce?

Well this cool .

What was he going off mate? Surly someone questioned him on it and he came up with real figures? I mean its some claim,so he would of backed it yeah?

[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

[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]

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

Answers/Solutions aren't the point Andre