Scientific Fraud

[El Kabong]

He's not the one coming across as a joke here.

Alright p4pking, buy into Anthropogenic Climate Change despite knowing that the "scientific numbers" are changed on a whim.

That seems like the wisest idea.

I'm not "buying" into anything. I'm not an ideologue, but I'm also not scientifically literate and therefore can't argue with, much less ridicule, people who are in good faith. I don't doubt there are countless examples of skewed numbers to support political beliefs or agendas, but it also seems like there is somewhat of a consensus in the scientific community which doesn't support your stance, which seems to be based on the same things. Asserting that the majority of scientists working in the field are more or less shills, without understanding the subject matter nearly enough to form your own opinion, isn't exactly the wisest idea either, surely?

Yup that's right, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain and listen to the great and powerful Oz.

[p4pking]

He's not the one coming across as a joke here.

Alright p4pking, buy into Anthropogenic Climate Change despite knowing that the "scientific numbers" are changed on a whim.

That seems like the wisest idea.

I'm not "buying" into anything. I'm not an ideologue, but I'm also not scientifically literate and therefore can't argue with, much less ridicule, people who are in good faith. I don't doubt there are countless examples of skewed numbers to support political beliefs or agendas, but it also seems like there is somewhat of a consensus in the scientific community which doesn't support your stance, which seems to be based on the same things. Asserting that the majority of scientists working in the field are more or less shills, without understanding the subject matter nearly enough to form your own opinion, isn't exactly the wisest idea either, surely?

Yup that's right, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain and listen to the great and powerful Oz.

I think you have good sense on a lot of things, and I'm not going to imply that you're some kind of dope because I disagree with you, would be nice to get the same courtesy given that I haven't even made a case one way or the other. What makes you think I'm even subscribing to anything, just out of curiosity? I have no idea how anthropogenic climate change(which is a ridiculous term as the climate always has changed) is, but I do have the utmost respect for science, and as I'm not well versed in it I'll respect the opinion of those who are over politicians who don't have any interest or motive in arriving at the truth. BCollins seems to know a thing or two on this subject, but he's a JOKE apparently. There's no reason to be such an affected political type, you're clearly smarter than that.

[El Kabong]

P4pking, I'm not saying you're dumb, I'm not saying you're ignorant, I'm just saying there's evidence of things that are specifically NOT SCIENCE being passed off as science.

Please look this over and see if you think it's kosher

"Subject: Re: Energy infrastructure fact sheet & KXL oped

Recirculating both the fact sheet and op-ed reflecting edits and comments from Jake, Nikki, and Joel. In answer to research: changed 20 to 40, and Trevor can provide calculations based on EIA data, if reporters need it, on the Mexico/Canada trade point. It isn't written up neatly in one place online, unfortunately. Joel, we pumped up the climate impacts but in discussing with Jake decided we do still need to address why she's making her position known, when she has previously said she will wait for the President to make a decision. Added a line about wanting to let voters know where she stands, and added a more expansive graf about making the US the leader in fighting climate change and becoming a clean energy superpower. Nipped and tucked elsewhere to keep the word count down. Knowing we are still working out rollout timing - comms, policy, political, do you clear these to go forward to the book? Thanks all."

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/8440


That look on the level to you? Does that come across as science which is interested in factual evidence or does that come across as politicians rigging the system?


And bcollins coming back and attacking my post about the article "Should We Be Having Kids In The Age of Climate Change?" is bush league....I'm poking fun of the hubris shown by the media...."Should We Be Having Kids?"....who the absolute FUCK is the government or the media to tell ME or anyone else what they should or should not be doing in regards to having kids? And bcollins wants to defend that

Yes that is total clown shoes crazy, but hey I'm the one who is off my rocker, I'm the one making a bigger deal over things like that....does bcollins have kids? Does bcollins believe that other people should be able to have families? If he has no problem with others having families then why pick that post out of all the others to harp on?


I pick on the "science" when I see shit like "we pumped up the climate impacts" or like the emails from East Anglia where it clearly showed scientists fudging the data. Other times and MOST time I pick on the "journalists" who are driving a media narrative for politicians who simply want more power....and if bcollins took the time to read he might understand that, but he doesn't. He takes personal offense to me questioning those things...and the fucking sad part is, IF bcollins is indeed working with scientists and he doesn't care about the bullshit peddled by the media and politicians (and either he knows it's bullshit and doesn't care, or he's in too deep to see it for what it is) then he's a part of the problem not a part of the solution and it casts a shadow over any scientific work he might be a part of.

[TitoFan]

I don't normally talk for other people, but I don't think bcollins was defending the premise of not having kids due to climate change. I think he's always been focused on defending the scientists, and arguing with you that not all of them subscribe to data fudging, paranoia, or have some kind of hidden agenda. The not having kids due to climate change issue is ridiculous, and I'd bet that's pretty much unanimous among logical people.

[El Kabong]

I don't normally talk for other people, but I don't think bcollins was defending the premise of not having kids due to climate change. I think he's always been focused on defending the scientists, and arguing with you that not all of them subscribe to data fudging, paranoia, or have some kind of hidden agenda. The not having kids due to climate change issue is ridiculous, and I'd bet that's pretty much unanimous among logical people.

That's quite fair TitoFan, but bcollins can defend the scientists AND have a go at the ridiculous media who may very well twist and turn real science in order to sell more papers/create more ad revenue. Those positions are not mutually exclusive. But he didn't decide to do that did he?

It's not as if bcollins is an idiot, he can separate the science from the media. He could have said "Well that not having kids is really fucking idiotic and that article should be panned by any scientist worth their salt" but he didn't. He likewise doesn't separate politicians who bastardize (apparently) the science bcollins is so proud of....why?


Just seems to me that the only reason bcollins would not attack such is because he either agrees with it or he knows it's helping fund the "science" in which case the "science" is compromised.



I routinely post the most outrageous shit people on the Global Warming Alarmist side write and say and try to get the public to believe for a reason....it's over the top ridiculous. "Don't have children because the climate" The Syrian Civil War was caused by the climate? We're (humans) going to start brewing killer hurricanes like we have a fucking weather machine and we've got it set to "destroy everything"....but nah, bcollins doesn't say "Yeah man, there are some crazy folks out there" he just comes right at me and that doesn't really help matters does it, kind of makes him look like he buys into what those crazies are saying.

[bcollins]

I wasn't commenting on that article in particular. Politicians in general seem to be a bunch of lying windbags who would sell their own family for a dollar. Of course they routinely twist scientific study for personal and professional gains - this is well documented throughout our history.

My problem is that Lyle continually attacks scientific findings using illogical arguments. Oftentimes the source of his counterargument can be traced back to a politician, a fossil-fuel shill, or an Alex Jones-type crackpot who wouldn't know science if it fell out of the sky and hit him in the head. If you want to dispute science, do it like a scientist - with logical arguments, evidence, and transparent methodologies.

And for the love of all that is holy, please quit saying that "the data has been fudged." It has not. It has been updated to incorporate improved technology, rendering the data *more* accurate. Not only that, but I posted a link to the debunking of "Climategate" waaaay back early on during this discussion. Feel free to believe whatever fits your personal narrative.

Lyle essentially posits that climate scientists are engaged in a global conspiracy to twist data (which is all freely available from multiple, independent sources) to show that AGW is happening, and that it is due to man-made influences. Keep in mind, these are scientists from different countries, with different systems of academia in place - yet all the scientists who agree on this point are somehow doing this to keep that grant money rolling in. Again, as I tried to explain to him a long time ago - that isn't even how it works here in the US, much less in other nations.

I find that scenario much less likely than the one where the fossil-fuel industry plants misinformation, buys contrary studies (that are routinely dismissed by credible academic journals, due to a lack of sound scientific technique - Lyle would have you believe that's part of the conspiracy too), and essentially engages in a massive propaganda campaign to protect revenues.

Scientists who make $50-75K a year, get grant money and get to spend almost none on themselves vs. global conglomerate corporations with billions to spend on skewing public perception on this issue.

It seems easy to me where the source of the misinformation is.

Now I have to get back to grading linear algebra exams - oh, sorry, perpetuating the vast left-wing conspiracy to destroy world economies by teaching SCIENCE.

[El Kabong]

Oh so you quoted that post from me just because?? How nice of you.


I love that you show back up here, you don't deny the craziness of what the Climate Change Alarmists are doing: Should We Be Having Kids In The Age Of Climate Change? : NPR, Al Gore at SXSW: We Need to 'Punish Climate-Change Deniers' and 'Put a Price on Carbon' - EcoWatch, Landmark California bill would allow prosecution of climate-change skeptics - Washington Times, AG Lynch: DOJ Has Discussed Whether to Pursue Civil Action Against Climate Change Deniers, Bill Nye open to criminal charges, jail time for climate-change dissenters - Washington Times, and there's another article suggesting we tax meat until it's too expensive to eat.


Those things MEH, you don't have an issue with, but me saying this is all a fucking hoax oooooh that gets your ire up and you just have to take a break from grading papers to lecture me. Because as wrong as those people may be, they're on the right side of history in your eyes. So bully for them!


"Scientists who make $50-75K a year, get grant money and get to spend almost none on themselves vs. global conglomerate corporations with billions to spend on skewing public perception on this issue."
The government takes in taxes and they'll take in more takes than companies will bring in revenue because....they tax every company in the nation along with every citizen in the nation. The government can waste billions of dollars, most businesses can't afford that.

[bcollins]

I don't normally talk for other people, but I don't think bcollins was defending the premise of not having kids due to climate change. I think he's always been focused on defending the scientists, and arguing with you that not all of them subscribe to data fudging, paranoia, or have some kind of hidden agenda. The not having kids due to climate change issue is ridiculous, and I'd bet that's pretty much unanimous among logical people.

That's quite fair TitoFan, but bcollins can defend the scientists AND have a go at the ridiculous media who may very well twist and turn real science in order to sell more papers/create more ad revenue. Those positions are not mutually exclusive. But he didn't decide to do that did he?

It's not as if bcollins is an idiot, he can separate the science from the media. He could have said "Well that not having kids is really fucking idiotic and that article should be panned by any scientist worth their salt" but he didn't. He likewise doesn't separate politicians who bastardize (apparently) the science bcollins is so proud of....why?


Just seems to me that the only reason bcollins would not attack such is because he either agrees with it or he knows it's helping fund the "science" in which case the "science" is compromised.



I routinely post the most outrageous shit people on the Global Warming Alarmist side write and say and try to get the public to believe for a reason....it's over the top ridiculous. "Don't have children because the climate" The Syrian Civil War was caused by the climate? We're (humans) going to start brewing killer hurricanes like we have a fucking weather machine and we've got it set to "destroy everything"....but nah, bcollins doesn't say "Yeah man, there are some crazy folks out there" he just comes right at me and that doesn't really help matters does it, kind of makes him look like he buys into what those crazies are saying.

Most people in the media know fuck all about science - kind of like you. They typically miss the point - scientists have to be very careful to try and get our point across because people who don't understand science usually have a hard time with the terminology involved. And that's fair - it takes a lot of training to understand these things. This is another reason why it is foolish to second guess the people who devote their lives to studying climate change - unless you are an expert, you aren't equipped to even join the discussion.

I didn't read the article you posted, but I assume that overpopulation is the key theme? If so, then yes, there are dangers to having too many people on the planet. That is painfully obvious. Competition for resources isn't a vast left-wing conspiracy, it's basic ecology. There could very well be consequences to the climate from having an overpopulated planet - I don't know. I would have to look at the literature and see what the people who study such things are saying.

Most politicians know fuck all about science - kind of like you. It seems you can expect scientists to support science when it works for them and deride it when it works against them. They typically have little concern in the greater good. As a scientist, I am concerned about the global system.

I don't have time to sit around and debate every single article you post - most of them are populist garbage that have no real bearing on the discussion. If you want to have a debate, then pick a point, stick to it, and use *credible* sources in support of your arguments. Or do the science yourself. Some of the things you have disputed are painfully easy to do, even for a non-scientist. The linear regression of the climate data is one of those. If you do that analysis and come to a different conclusion than the vast majority of the climate science community, I would love to hear your reasoning. Explain why it is wrong. Don't use media sources as your supporting arguments - on one hand you deride them (if their position is contrary to yours), but when they support your arguments you embrace them. I understand that - we're all guilty of that kind of bias - but when you are talking about scientific findings, the media as a source is complete and utter crap.

[bcollins]

I don't normally talk for other people, but I don't think bcollins was defending the premise of not having kids due to climate change. I think he's always been focused on defending the scientists, and arguing with you that not all of them subscribe to data fudging, paranoia, or have some kind of hidden agenda. The not having kids due to climate change issue is ridiculous, and I'd bet that's pretty much unanimous among logical people.

Yes. This. I tend to get a little verbose talking about this and forget to get right to the point

[bcollins]

P4pking, I'm not saying you're dumb, I'm not saying you're ignorant, I'm just saying there's evidence of things that are specifically NOT SCIENCE being passed off as science.

Please look this over and see if you think it's kosher

"Subject: Re: Energy infrastructure fact sheet & KXL oped

Recirculating both the fact sheet and op-ed reflecting edits and comments from Jake, Nikki, and Joel. In answer to research: changed 20 to 40, and Trevor can provide calculations based on EIA data, if reporters need it, on the Mexico/Canada trade point. It isn't written up neatly in one place online, unfortunately. Joel, we pumped up the climate impacts but in discussing with Jake decided we do still need to address why she's making her position known, when she has previously said she will wait for the President to make a decision. Added a line about wanting to let voters know where she stands, and added a more expansive graf about making the US the leader in fighting climate change and becoming a clean energy superpower. Nipped and tucked elsewhere to keep the word count down. Knowing we are still working out rollout timing - comms, policy, political, do you clear these to go forward to the book? Thanks all."

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/8440


That look on the level to you? Does that come across as science which is interested in factual evidence or does that come across as politicians rigging the system?


And bcollins coming back and attacking my post about the article "Should We Be Having Kids In The Age of Climate Change?" is bush league....I'm poking fun of the hubris shown by the media...."Should We Be Having Kids?"....who the absolute FUCK is the government or the media to tell ME or anyone else what they should or should not be doing in regards to having kids? And bcollins wants to defend that

Yes that is total clown shoes crazy, but hey I'm the one who is off my rocker, I'm the one making a bigger deal over things like that....does bcollins have kids? Does bcollins believe that other people should be able to have families? If he has no problem with others having families then why pick that post out of all the others to harp on?


I pick on the "science" when I see shit like "we pumped up the climate impacts" or like the emails from East Anglia where it clearly showed scientists fudging the data. Other times and MOST time I pick on the "journalists" who are driving a media narrative for politicians who simply want more power....and if bcollins took the time to read he might understand that, but he doesn't. He takes personal offense to me questioning those things...and the fucking sad part is, IF bcollins is indeed working with scientists and he doesn't care about the bullshit peddled by the media and politicians (and either he knows it's bullshit and doesn't care, or he's in too deep to see it for what it is) then he's a part of the problem not a part of the solution and it casts a shadow over any scientific work he might be a part of.

Yes - I have a beautiful daughter. She's almost two. I would love it if the world she grows up in is better than the one I did, but the likelihood of that is low.

I chose that post because your response was to attack "SCIENCE". Your focal point is all wrong. It should have been "MEDIA."