Scientific Fraud

[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]

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

No, because, as usual, your kneejerk reaction is to badmouth science and scientists when you are clearly ignorant about what science even is, much less how it is conducted.

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.

I love how you capitalize Climate Change Alarmists - and then have the gumption to say that *I'm* the one blindly listening to the media. Has it never occurred to you that there *might* be a reasonable cause for alarm? Or do you discredit that notion because the politicians who you seem to agree with do so as well? I am telling you as a scientist - the science is there. The scientists who devote their lives to this topic are telling you - the science is there. The findings are quite clear and published in many, many reputable journals. Yet you dispute these because you don't like Al Gore? Hell, I don't like him either. Yes, he profited from bringing the science on this issue to the public's attention. But THAT does not discredit the science, simply because he's a scumbag. Even an asshole like that can be right.

I don't believe imprisonment is the correct route for climate change deniers (specifically the ones in the scientific community). I think the loss of professional credibility is punishment enough for those who push forward results that are pretty obviously bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industry. If the results are correct, they stand on their own - but there is a reason why some of the results by certain climate change scientists are ridiculed by their peers, and (I hate to dispute your narrative) it ain't because of the vast left-wing conspiracy here, bud. It's because the science the shills put forth is bogus. Their peers call them out on it.

Verifiable, correct results stand on their own. THAT is science. I don't care who funds it - if it is verifiable by independent sources, then it is almost always correct.

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!

I'm not lecturing you. I'm honestly trying to let others know that you are full of shit on this topic, since you have nothing of any substance whatsoever to contribute to the discussion. Just because you *believe* that the scientists are wrong (or corrupt, or what the fuck ever it is that you blather on about) doesn't mean that you are right. The scientists have logic and science on their side. If their results start to back up your position, then I'll agree with them - I don't have the scientific means to dispute them.

All you have to support your position is a lot of propaganda and a lot of hot air. I still have yet to see anything even vaguely resembling a valid scientific argument coming out of you. So yeah - I'll listen to the smart people on this one.

"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.

The US government does make more in tax revenue than most "companies", but not all. The government also does *not* tax every company in the nation - or they tax them, but allow enough loopholes so that some corporations end up with an effective tax rate of zero. The government can and does waste billions of dollars, sure - but the multi-billion dollar fossil-fuel corporations can absolutely "waste" (read: invest) billions in order to protect future revenue. Come on man - are you *really* that fucking stupid? Where is the money here? It sure as hell isn't in the pockets of the scientific community.

[El Kabong]

Yup, got it....Climategate doesn't prove anything it makes the data "more accurate" so I'll just be here waiting for the "more accurate" data to come back which will be different the next year, the year after, the next 10 years after, it's a constant moving of the goalposts....and that's science, that's unaltered and 100% good to go for consumption by politicians who write the laws and the media who do their damnedest to incite fear.

But I question it and I'm bad for doing so. I'm just saying if a scientist can be bought out by a corporation (which you imply that they can be) then perhaps a scientist or two could be bought by the government as well....or are government scientists always on the up and up?

And if other scientists disagree with you then what? Are they dumb or are they just corrupt?

[bcollins]

Yup, got it....Climategate doesn't prove anything it makes the data "more accurate" so I'll just be here waiting for the "more accurate" data to come back which will be different the next year, the year after, the next 10 years after, it's a constant moving of the goalposts....and that's science, that's unaltered and 100% good to go for consumption by politicians who write the laws and the media who do their damnedest to incite fear.

Climategate was yet more propaganda. How is it hard to understand that technological advances can improve the quality of observed data? Have you ever had a CAT scan? Maybe a PET scan? Both are technological advances that allow for collection of data that is more precise than the old method of "cut open the skull and root around to see what we find" method.

I don't see you blathering about those and how they are a vast left-wing conspiracy created by scientists to increase the profits of medical corporations. I guess you haven't heard that one yet.

But I question it and I'm bad for doing so. I'm just saying if a scientist can be bought out by a corporation (which you imply that they can be) then perhaps a scientist or two could be bought by the government as well....or are government scientists always on the up and up?

Now here is where you misunderstand. The WHOLE FREAKING POINT of science is to question. It is *not* bad for doing so - it is essential. But the question should be asked, and then you should try to collect evidence and interpret your findings. You know, the whole scientific method? Did you ever learn that? This is what the scientific community is doing in pursuit of better understanding of what is going on.

Of course a scientist or two can be bought by the government. But to claim that the vast majority of scientists - worldwide, no less - are bought out? That's getting pretty close to tinfoil hat territory. And - here's the kicker - even if the scientist is paid for, the science still has to stand up to scrutiny. So yeah, several scientists in the climate science community do seem to be bought and paid for - but it ain't by the government. Any guess which side of this argument they seem to be on?

There's a reason why the vast majority consensus among climate scientists leans one way. Because the science leans that way. It has to be verifiable.

And if other scientists disagree with you then what? Are they dumb or are they just corrupt?

Well, they could be dumb and not corrupt, not dumb and corrupt, not dumb and not corrupt, dumb and corrupt, or possibly some shades of all that.

If a scientist disagrees with me, then it is his or her responsibility to disprove my contention using facts, logic, and solid evidence. Once I see any of that, I am bound to adapt my position based on the evidence, or else I am a pureblinded idiot.

The point that you seem unable to accept is that the science is quite clear about this topic. There is an overwhelming consensus among climate scientists. Of course there are a few who stand opposed to that consensus, but so far they have been unable to present solid evidence against the position of the majority. If they do, then the consensus will change. That's how science works.

It's also interesting to see how popular many of the climate scientists who stand opposed have become, thanks to people like you. They are raking in the cash from speaking engagements and media appearances - instead of working hard to produce, you know, science, that would back up their position.

[El Kabong]

The problem with 'Climategate' explained by a scientist (whom, before you have a stroke eventually ended up doing his own studies on Climate Change and he thinks it's the real deal...only after having done his OWN research into the matter).



So there it is laid out as a scientist would lay it out no? He's a scientist, he looked at the data, he disagreed with it, and thought Michael Mann et al pulled some very shady shit....but it's "propaganda"?



Guys like Freeman Dyson, he's no dummy....he thinks CO2 is causing for greater crop yields and a greening of Earth and thinks climate change is no big deal....is he wrong about that?

Piers Corbyn thinks the ocean temperatures are driving things and not man.

And there are others out there who are saying yes there's fluctuation but not anything out of the ordinary or they don't take water vapor into account or "there was a pause in warming for about 20 years" and then people disagree with that too.

And to put this in perspective, in the 1970's everything was Global COOLING, then it was Global WARMING, and now we have the catch all Climate Change.....so do you understand why someone might be skeptical about people "fine tuning the data"?? It's a boy who cried wolf scenario and I'm not answering the call anymore...I'm just 1 person...my carbon footprint is a fuck ton smaller than any of these politicians who want more control over me and it's plenty smaller than the media who are telling me not to have kids.....so pardon me if I'm not thrilled about anything they are attempting to do.


Now that said, I understand that it's not a black and white either it's happening and it's going to be catastrophic or it's not happening at all. I'm saying the climate changes (it's never static) but it's not due to man, man's CO2 is nothing compared to what Mother Nature does....so when politicians are attempting to keep people from driving and the media is saying "don't have kids" I get a little irked...I'm not saying dump nuclear waste into the oceans and shit where we eat I'm saying let's have a little common fucking sense about things...."don't have kids" because there's a global warming boogey man that's going to get them...HORSE SHIT and yes even when scientists are presenting GOOD FACTUAL data the politicians will use it for control and the media will use it to sell their papers.



The scientists may agree on a few things, but on Climate Change there are a number of things they do not agree on: is it man made, is the IPCC right in their predictions, is a natural process causing climate change, is the cause of climate change actually known, will there actually be negative impacts if the climate is changing?

And again who are we as inhabitants of the Earth to say this climate is good and that climate is not good? Whats' the scientific protocol for that? If we change the climate to suit us and kill off millions of beings (millions and millions of humans among them) are we doing that for good or for bad? If politicians DO attempt to "fix" Anthropogenic Global Warming, I'll tell you this much, millions and millions of people will die...that's a plain simple truth and if you're alright with that fine, but it isn't going to be me or my family.

[TitoFan]

Lyle, I think deep down we all have a common thread.... and none of us are as extremist as we may be coming off to each other. Don't be guilty of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The Al Gores, the DiCaprios.... they're not representative of the scientific community bcollins keeps referring to. As with other debates, you can't just take the words of a distorted few and use them to counter what could be some very good arguments.

IMO, it does no good to flock to one extreme or the other. Those flockers usually have personal agendas, and all they do is confuse the issues.

A good point bcollins makes is regarding the more advanced technology with which environmental conditions are now monitored. Granted..... and I'll bold this next statement..... it's also important to be extremely careful when interpreting weather data. Scientists should be like reporters and not editorial column writers.... reporting the news..... not rushing to judgments based on insufficient data. Even scientists can fall prey to that. I myself am not a scientist, although I do have a technical background and nature. But in any science, even climate science, professionals can make mistakes and be swayed by a number of factors, such as other studies, previously published trends, and even a little bias. Scientists are human also, after all.

Are humans capable of affecting the environment and even the weather to some extent? I'm not qualified one way or the other to even have an opinion on that question. If we do... we certainly haven't had that capability for a very long time in the context of "Earth time". I do know this: There are certain things I do believe in. Such as the finite supply of petroleum in the world. It only makes sense. A lot of very fast withdrawals, versus a very slow rate of deposit. Does that mean we're going to run out of petroleum in 10 years? 50 years? 200 years? Never? Who knows. Such it goes with global temperatures, the melting of the ice caps, etc, etc. Is man doing something to cause it? Is man doing something to affect it? If so... is it a 10% effect? A 20%? A 0.00000000001% effect? Is it enough to even worry about? Are we just seeing something cyclical and mistakenly attaching man's hand to it? For the record, I don't like the doomsdayers who would have humanity thrown into a panic and running for higher ground. They just rub me the wrong way.

I think we're all intelligent enough. Matter of fact, I believe there are more than a few extremely capable minds on this forum. I think we're all intelligent enough to ponder these and other climate issues without bias, and with an open mind. Ideally we should be open to say.... "Damn... I guess I was wrong about that." Or... "Gee, I didn't know that. That throws a brand new perspective on what I was thinking."

The enemy of all this is ignorance, coupled with hidden agendas and our own egos. Nobody likes to change direction midstream.

[bcollins]

Lyle, I think deep down we all have a common thread.... and none of us are as extremist as we may be coming off to each other. Don't be guilty of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The Al Gores, the DiCaprios.... they're not representative of the scientific community bcollins keeps referring to. As with other debates, you can't just take the words of a distorted few and use them to counter what could be some very good arguments.

IMO, it does no good to flock to one extreme or the other. Those flockers usually have personal agendas, and all they do is confuse the issues.

A good point bcollins makes is regarding the more advanced technology with which environmental conditions are now monitored. Granted..... and I'll bold this next statement..... it's also important to be extremely careful when interpreting weather data. Scientists should be like reporters and not editorial column writers.... reporting the news..... not rushing to judgments based on insufficient data. Even scientists can fall prey to that. I myself am not a scientist, although I do have a technical background and nature. But in any science, even climate science, professionals can make mistakes and be swayed by a number of factors, such as other studies, previously published trends, and even a little bias. Scientists are human also, after all.

Are humans capable of affecting the environment and even the weather to some extent? I'm not qualified one way or the other to even have an opinion on that question. If we do... we certainly haven't had that capability for a very long time in the context of "Earth time". I do know this: There are certain things I do believe in. Such as the finite supply of petroleum in the world. It only makes sense. A lot of very fast withdrawals, versus a very slow rate of deposit. Does that mean we're going to run out of petroleum in 10 years? 50 years? 200 years? Never? Who knows. Such it goes with global temperatures, the melting of the ice caps, etc, etc. Is man doing something to cause it? Is man doing something to affect it? If so... is it a 10% effect? A 20%? A 0.00000000001% effect? Is it enough to even worry about? Are we just seeing something cyclical and mistakenly attaching man's hand to it? For the record, I don't like the doomsdayers who would have humanity thrown into a panic and running for higher ground. They just rub me the wrong way.

I think we're all intelligent enough. Matter of fact, I believe there are more than a few extremely capable minds on this forum. I think we're all intelligent enough to ponder these and other climate issues without bias, and with an open mind. Ideally we should be open to say.... "Damn... I guess I was wrong about that." Or... "Gee, I didn't know that. That throws a brand new perspective on what I was thinking."

The enemy of all this is ignorance, coupled with hidden agendas and our own egos. Nobody likes to change direction midstream.

I agree with this. I get frustrated with Lyle not because of him personally, but because he echoes the sentiments of so many people I do know in my personal life. I have apologized to him in the past for letting my mouth (in this case fingers) get the better of me - and that's a standing apology, since I seem incapable of being fully civil.

Tito, in terms of the science, I am not an expert on climate science, but I do know a lot about the types of models they use. The people who devote their lives to climate science rely on people like me to create better modeling techniques - especially better ways to implement the weather simulations on a computer. The models they use are not deterministic (meaning the result of a model is the same each time you run it); instead, the most advanced models include stochastic processes (meaning randomness in the results). These models typically consist of systems of stochastic partial differential equations, which are extremely hard to work with. This is why climate models are not "perfect," as the naysayers would have it. The thing they don't understand is that such a model is impossible, as in it doesn't exist. However, another thing that seems to be misunderstood is that the uncertainty inherent in a model is also quantifiable and can thus be measured.

Now even in this context, there are "good" and "bad" models. But when different models (with the uncertainty built in to each model) from different scientists from different parts of the world all produce results that differ by only a very small degree, then the consensus result is one that should be respected. However, a lot of the naysayers point to the differences and say "See? They can't all be exactly the same - therefore they must be wrong!" This is fallacious reasoning, perpetuated by those who don't understand how these processes work.

And you are absolutely right - scientists are 100 percent human (even though a lot of my students contend that mathematicians are all aliens). The bias that you described absolutely exists. This is why the peer-review process is so important - when you go to publish your findings, those results must be examined by anywhere from two to four referees - also experts in the field - who will try their best to poke holes in your work. Speaking from experience, they try just as hard as Lyle to poke holes in your arguments - sometimes much harder, since they know where the weak points are! Before a paper is published, it must be revised to account for the questions raised by the referees. If this is done to their satisfaction, the paper is usually published; otherwise, it is sent back for more revisions until everyone agrees that it is correct. In this way, the bias is kept as small as humanly possible, since the results must stand up to scientific scrutiny, which is a MUCH higher level of rigor than standing up to media or political scrutiny.

[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.