Scientific Fraud

[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.

[bcollins]

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.

Muller's early reasoning for his skepticism was roundly rejected by his colleagues. Freeman Dyson is absolutely brilliant, yet he is not a climate scientist. Piers Corbyn isn't even a scientist, or an amateur scientist, at best.

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 in science, it is easy to "say" something. It's much more difficult to present solid evidence that is accepted by peers. These sound like hypotheses that have yet to be supported by evidence.

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.

Ah - that old chestnut again. A few magazine articles post a few headlines and you say the scientific community said these things? Try again. There were no peer-reviewed papers supporting that contention in the 70's, much less a global consensus as there is now. You're using the media to support your claim again - something you say is bad 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.

Science disagrees with you.

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.

You're just wrong here, Lyle - you're believing the propaganda. Here's a link to yet another paper, from this year, that disputes that argument.

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience

Highly respected, peer-reviewed journal, meta-analysis of the literature. What is your source?

[El Kabong]

Alright, so humans are 100% behind the change in climate despite producing a whopping 3.75% of CO2 emissions
http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/1605/archive...t/pdf/tbl3.pdf ... I just want to make sure that this is the case, and I'm not being mean, facetious, sarcastic, at all....just asking, just legitimately wondering. At the end of the day if that's what we're talking about then, Apparently the Earth can handle Mother Nature's 770,000 metric tons of CO2, but humanity's 23,100 metric tons of CO2 is a bridge too far and we're all doomed. It seems a bit much....yes there's the whole "the straw that broke the camel's back" and after a certain point yes Earth wouldn't be able to take the CO2 emissions but when that sort of catastrophe is talked about it's gigantic volcanoes that are doing the damage no? Now over time are we as humans not progressing with our technology? Is the fuel not cleaner, the factories not placed under more stringent environmental restrictions? Perhaps not in China and India but certainly in the West. And if those precautions are being taken is that having any impact at all on Climate Change and if not why continue going down that road if it's not producing positive results?

Do you understand how the layman might be skeptical of such, ESPECIALLY considering the media and political angles? No, I'm not a scientist, and YES the media and politicians DO pump things up. "A few magazine articles post a few headlines" ....bcollins, millions of people read or at the very least have access to such headlines...how many people are going to slog through the tedium of peer reviewed papers and it's not like peer reviewed studies can't be compromised either (not saying that's the norm, just saying the average man who might have doubts about such things would ask about it).



I am glad that you have responded in a civil manner and not been a prick to me this time. I do genuinely appreciate that regardless of whether we end up agreeing or not. So at the very least I respect you for taking the time and having the patience to respond in that manner.....and yeah I can get very short in my arguments, but in this response I am trying to meet you on that same level of respect.

[bcollins]

Alright, so humans are 100% behind the change in climate despite producing a whopping 3.75% of CO2 emissions
http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/1605/archive...t/pdf/tbl3.pdf ... I just want to make sure that this is the case, and I'm not being mean, facetious, sarcastic, at all....just asking, just legitimately wondering. At the end of the day if that's what we're talking about then, Apparently the Earth can handle Mother Nature's 770,000 metric tons of CO2, but humanity's 23,100 metric tons of CO2 is a bridge too far and we're all doomed. It seems a bit much....yes there's the whole "the straw that broke the camel's back" and after a certain point yes Earth wouldn't be able to take the CO2 emissions but when that sort of catastrophe is talked about it's gigantic volcanoes that are doing the damage no? Now over time are we as humans not progressing with our technology? Is the fuel not cleaner, the factories not placed under more stringent environmental restrictions? Perhaps not in China and India but certainly in the West. And if those precautions are being taken is that having any impact at all on Climate Change and if not why continue going down that road if it's not producing positive results?

Do you understand how the layman might be skeptical of such, ESPECIALLY considering the media and political angles? No, I'm not a scientist, and YES the media and politicians DO pump things up. "A few magazine articles post a few headlines" ....bcollins, millions of people read or at the very least have access to such headlines...how many people are going to slog through the tedium of peer reviewed papers and it's not like peer reviewed studies can't be compromised either (not saying that's the norm, just saying the average man who might have doubts about such things would ask about it).



I am glad that you have responded in a civil manner and not been a prick to me this time. I do genuinely appreciate that regardless of whether we end up agreeing or not. So at the very least I respect you for taking the time and having the patience to respond in that manner.....and yeah I can get very short in my arguments, but in this response I am trying to meet you on that same level of respect.

Sorry I'm late in responding - my week decided to get crazy all of a sudden.

I really am sorry that I get so contentious about this subject, Lyle. It really isn't you - it's that I have all these things pent up that I would like to say to the people in my personal life but never get the chance. It's clear we're both passionate about this topic and sometimes it gets away from us. I want to be clear that I think you are VERY intelligent. You've shown that with the quality of many of your other posts. That may be one of the primary reasons I get so frustrated!

I will come back to this discussion as soon as I can. I'm swamped at the moment, but I had to respond to that post.

[walrus]

Alright, so humans are 100% behind the change in climate despite producing a whopping 3.75% of CO2 emissions
http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/1605/archive...t/pdf/tbl3.pdf ... I just want to make sure that this is the case, and I'm not being mean, facetious, sarcastic, at all....just asking, just legitimately wondering. At the end of the day if that's what we're talking about then, Apparently the Earth can handle Mother Nature's 770,000 metric tons of CO2, but humanity's 23,100 metric tons of CO2 is a bridge too far and we're all doomed. It seems a bit much....yes there's the whole "the straw that broke the camel's back" and after a certain point yes Earth wouldn't be able to take the CO2 emissions but when that sort of catastrophe is talked about it's gigantic volcanoes that are doing the damage no? Now over time are we as humans not progressing with our technology? Is the fuel not cleaner, the factories not placed under more stringent environmental restrictions? Perhaps not in China and India but certainly in the West. And if those precautions are being taken is that having any impact at all on Climate Change and if not why continue going down that road if it's not producing positive results?

Do you understand how the layman might be skeptical of such, ESPECIALLY considering the media and political angles? No, I'm not a scientist, and YES the media and politicians DO pump things up. "A few magazine articles post a few headlines" ....bcollins, millions of people read or at the very least have access to such headlines...how many people are going to slog through the tedium of peer reviewed papers and it's not like peer reviewed studies can't be compromised either (not saying that's the norm, just saying the average man who might have doubts about such things would ask about it).



I am glad that you have responded in a civil manner and not been a prick to me this time. I do genuinely appreciate that regardless of whether we end up agreeing or not. So at the very least I respect you for taking the time and having the patience to respond in that manner.....and yeah I can get very short in my arguments, but in this response I am trying to meet you on that same level of respect.

Sorry I'm late in responding - my week decided to get crazy all of a sudden.

I really am sorry that I get so contentious about this subject, Lyle. It really isn't you - it's that I have all these things pent up that I would like to say to the people in my personal life but never get the chance. It's clear we're both passionate about this topic and sometimes it gets away from us. I want to be clear that I think you are VERY intelligent. You've shown that with the quality of many of your other posts. That may be one of the primary reasons I get so frustrated!

I will come back to this discussion as soon as I can. I'm swamped at the moment, but I had to respond to that post.

your swamped, are you in a coastal area? Is it erosion or water rising?

[El Kabong]

Sorry I'm late in responding - my week decided to get crazy all of a sudden.

I really am sorry that I get so contentious about this subject, Lyle. It really isn't you - it's that I have all these things pent up that I would like to say to the people in my personal life but never get the chance. It's clear we're both passionate about this topic and sometimes it gets away from us. I want to be clear that I think you are VERY intelligent. You've shown that with the quality of many of your other posts. That may be one of the primary reasons I get so frustrated!

I will come back to this discussion as soon as I can. I'm swamped at the moment, but I had to respond to that post.

No worries, I can certainly understand that you are proud of your work and as well you should be. I too care about the environment as I am an avid outdoorsman, I hunt, I fish, I'm starting a garden, I'll be starting an apiary in the spring as well.


I just don't appreciate (and you can see from the majority of stories I post in here) "journalists" and politicians spouting off nonsense about the climate and what needs to happen in order to turn things around: taxing red meat until nobody can afford it is a dumb idea, suggesting families shouldn't have kids is a dumb idea, wailing against sea level rises and then buying a beach front mansion is pretty hypocritical, giving speeches about anthropogenic global warming and then boarding your private jet is hypocritical, carbon offsets seem to me to be like paying for indulgences in the Catholic church, blaming wildfires started by an arsonist on 'Global Warming' is dumb, blaming the Syrian Civil War on 'Climate Change' is dumb, having summits on Anthropogenic Climate Change which sees all these world leaders coming in 1 by 1 on their big jets and having motorcades, that seems to be hypocritical when they are pursuing policies which will hurt the average man. Environmental Austerity for thee but not for me if you will....those kinds of things irk me a whole lot more than the scientific end of things and frankly that kind of stuff is why there will be more people denying Anthropogenic Global Warming, that dilutes anything someone doing any study is going to be able to achieve.

[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.