Scientific Fraud

[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.

[El Kabong]

Shot....

[El Kabong]

Chaser...

[El Kabong]

Said he would stop the seas from rising and heal the Earth.....8 years later complains seas are rising.


Yeah I've got an issue with that coming from a politician. It either means Barack Obama has done a shitty fucking job OR he can't make the change he told people he'd make and those options are pretty damned close to being one and the same

[walrus]

Said he would stop the seas from rising and heal the Earth.....8 years later complains seas are rising.


Yeah I've got an issue with that coming from a politician. It either means Barack Obama has done a shitty fucking job OR he can't make the change he told people he'd make and those options are pretty damned close to being one and the same

If we take all the rocks off the ocean floor wouldn't the water level go down. It really seems simple to me. Or we could just scoop some water out and put it somewhere else

[El Kabong]

Said he would stop the seas from rising and heal the Earth.....8 years later complains seas are rising.


Yeah I've got an issue with that coming from a politician. It either means Barack Obama has done a shitty fucking job OR he can't make the change he told people he'd make and those options are pretty damned close to being one and the same

If we take all the rocks off the ocean floor wouldn't the water level go down. It really seems simple to me. Or we could just scoop some water out and put it somewhere else

Wouldn't the extra water, if the world is warming and maybe it is, just evaporate and we'd have more humidity?

[El Kabong]

Top University Stole Cash From Taxpayer By Faking Research | The Daily Caller

File that under scientists behaving badly.


If you're going to take money for research you kinda HAVE to actually do the research...I think we can all agree on this