jonessed
Footballguy
They are lightweights. The Feds could pull that off in a few years.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
The Science is Settled: GW is Conspiracy/Fraud (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter jon_mx
- Start date
Bonzai
Footballguy
Marketing problem? What do these guys expect to get out of all this? Who are the "powers that be"? Are all climatologists in on it?
Power, money, prestige. The leaders of the IPCC are in charge of Billions of dollars in research dollars and as long as the hysteria exists over global warming, they will be high on the hog. The US alone has contribute nearly $80 billion on climate change research. The first time the IPCC put out a report, it was mostly a conspiracy of one. One guy without any consensus wrote much of the summary which had greatly exagerated the science and put in a lot of the scare-mongering language that was widely reported. It seems like this inner-circle has grown over the years and includes about a dozen people now. Most scientist who contribute to this feel they are doing good work, but they are being bullied around by the lure of huge dollars. You write good articles, you get published and the research money flows. Your write negative articles and you are attacked and ridiculed. They have Science Magazine and the New York Times completely in their pocket. Some of the global warming scientists around the world are starting to speak out and the house of cards is being exposed.
Bonzai
Footballguy
Thousands of people in the climatology field around the world are being bullied by these twelve guys? If the "circle of twelve" are motivated by power, money and prestige, what are the thousands that fall in line motivated by? Why are they afraid of them? Are you suggesting that climatologists are pocketing their research money? If not, what do they get out of falling in line? Why horde research money if you're doing research that you don't believe in? I mean, climatologists can't be very wealthy folks, and now they're stuck grinding out research they don't believe in because they'll get made fun of?
Last edited by a moderator:
I make lots of legitimate points and post lots of legitimate sources. You ignore me because you can't refute the facts. Global Warming is an embarrassment to science. Even pro-global warming scientists are beginning to be ashamed of the 'science'.
Hacked E-Mail Data Prompts Calls for Changes in Climate Research
By ANDREW C. REVKIN
Published: November 27, 2009
The scientists say that the e-mail messages, which have circulated on the Internet and which disclose the inner workings of a small network of climatologists who chart the planet’s temperature, have damaged the public’s trust in the evidence that humans are dangerously warming the planet, just as many countries are poised to start reining in greenhouse gas emissions.
“This whole concept of, ‘We’re the experts, trust us,’ has clearly gone by the wayside with these e-mails,” said Judith Curry, a climate scientist at Georgia Institute of Technology.
She and other scientists are seeking more transparency in the way climate data is handled and in the methods used to analyze it. And they argue that scientists should re-evaluate the selection procedures used by some scientific journals and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the panel that in 2007 concluded that humans were the dominant force driving warming and whose findings underpin international discussions over a new climate treaty.
Hacked E-Mail Data Prompts Calls for Changes in Climate Research
By ANDREW C. REVKIN
Published: November 27, 2009
The scientists say that the e-mail messages, which have circulated on the Internet and which disclose the inner workings of a small network of climatologists who chart the planet’s temperature, have damaged the public’s trust in the evidence that humans are dangerously warming the planet, just as many countries are poised to start reining in greenhouse gas emissions.
“This whole concept of, ‘We’re the experts, trust us,’ has clearly gone by the wayside with these e-mails,” said Judith Curry, a climate scientist at Georgia Institute of Technology.
She and other scientists are seeking more transparency in the way climate data is handled and in the methods used to analyze it. And they argue that scientists should re-evaluate the selection procedures used by some scientific journals and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the panel that in 2007 concluded that humans were the dominant force driving warming and whose findings underpin international discussions over a new climate treaty.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
In today's world, isn't the fed and corporate America one and the same?
He turned me off right away when he started with:"Climate sceptics have lied, obscured and cheated for years. That's why we climate rationalists must uphold the highest standards of science"
There are lots of honest skeptics out there, and to lump them all as liars and cheaters is just a continuation of the smear tactics. There are very serious flaws in the man-made global warming theory that are ignored. Continuing to degrade the opponents is not the way to win the debate.
Challenge Everything
Footballguy
The points you make are simply you saying, "You [scientists, Climatologists, Others] are wrong". The sources you use are, ironically, using the data from the emails and not taking all of that into account as well as science jargon.You have proposed one idea and that was to do nothing. While doing nothing is something that is definitely not the direction the World needs to go in to help us save resources, water, air and the like as well as keeping the effects of those resources being used at an exponential rate here and world wide.
jonessed
Footballguy
It's good to see other scientists that agree with Global Warming step up and acknowledge the obvious; the data was being distorted and it hurts everybody to falsify results. Perhaps the scientific community will step back, oust the frauds, and tackle the Global Warming issue with science again.
the moops
Footballguy
Yes.And this is something that would not have happened without governmental intrusion.
jonessed
Footballguy
Yes and no. The special interests that rule government are much broader than corporate America. They still hold a great deal of influence, but there are a lot of other players.
I haven't advocated no government intrusion. But it has to make sense and the benefit should outweigh the costs. In global warming, the proposed solutions are extremely expensive and there are legitimate doubts that it will provide any benefit.
Last edited by a moderator:
Phurfur
Footballguy
Yes it is.
My arguments go much deeper than simply saying they are wrong and I know enough scientific jargon to know using a 'trick... to hide a delcine' is unacceptable data manipulation. I would have gotten an "F" in any lab which i did that.
If you truly believe that, you would have to be insane to want 'cap and trade'. It is empowering both the feds and corporate America by taking billions and billions of dollars from the consumer.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
What you fail to understand is that "cap and trade" is not a tree hugging liberal proposal but the conservative corporate solution. Liberals want to outright tax carbon emissions, Congressional Democrats and this White House have so far done little other than traditional conservative, corporate solutions. Whether it be the environment, health care, or the stimulus bill. For true liberals it is painful to watch this government try to govern from the center, yet we have the right constantly screaming "socialism" over everything being done with knee jerk precision. Is there any wonder that those in the middle just shake their heads in disbelief?
Last edited by a moderator:
Challenge Everything
Footballguy
Great and wonderful news to read. Knowing the state of the Earth and the amount of resources we use and the dependence on these resources we have... what should we begin doing on a micro and macro scale, respectively, to decrease each and thus decrease all to better tomorrow?Micro:- ---Macro:- ---
Class Dismissed
Footballguy
So when Al Gore said during his 2007 Congressional testimony that the science is settled on Global Warming was he right or wrong?
"The planet has a fever," Gore said. "If your baby has a fever, you go to the doctor. If the doctor says you need to intervene here, you don't say, 'Well, I read a science-fiction novel that tells me it's not a problem.'"
The science is settled, Gore told the lawmakers. Carbon-dioxide emissions — from cars, power plants, buildings and other sources — are heating the Earth's atmosphere.
Gore said that if left unchecked, global warming could lead to a drastic change in the weather, sea levels and other aspects of the environment. And he pointed out that these conclusions are not his, but those of a vast majority of scientists who study the issue.
"This is not a partisan issue, this is a moral issue," Gore said. "And our children are going to be demanding this.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9047642
It's a simple yes or no question, Does Climategate invalidate Gores testimony on Global Warming? If it does, it means cap and trade is dead, and cap and trade is legislation specifically targeted to address for Global Warming. Not cigarette warnings, not recycling efforts, not plastic in landfills issue, not corporate pollution and corporate greed, not executive pay, not the breeding patterns of Red Herring.
Is the science on Global Warming settled or not?
"The planet has a fever," Gore said. "If your baby has a fever, you go to the doctor. If the doctor says you need to intervene here, you don't say, 'Well, I read a science-fiction novel that tells me it's not a problem.'"
The science is settled, Gore told the lawmakers. Carbon-dioxide emissions — from cars, power plants, buildings and other sources — are heating the Earth's atmosphere.
Gore said that if left unchecked, global warming could lead to a drastic change in the weather, sea levels and other aspects of the environment. And he pointed out that these conclusions are not his, but those of a vast majority of scientists who study the issue.
"This is not a partisan issue, this is a moral issue," Gore said. "And our children are going to be demanding this.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9047642
It's a simple yes or no question, Does Climategate invalidate Gores testimony on Global Warming? If it does, it means cap and trade is dead, and cap and trade is legislation specifically targeted to address for Global Warming. Not cigarette warnings, not recycling efforts, not plastic in landfills issue, not corporate pollution and corporate greed, not executive pay, not the breeding patterns of Red Herring.
Is the science on Global Warming settled or not?
Last edited by a moderator:
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
By the way, I realize that these predictions did not happen exactly as written above. And that they were way off in scope. But I personally find the 35,000 people, 85% of which are children that die each an every day numbers of "unbelievable proportions". And while I am in no position to tell you with any kind of intellectual honesty that global warming/climate change/CO2 has any real impact on these numbers, I personally don't want to be dismissive of 12 million horrible deaths a year of mostly children because it isn't the 100 predicted.Phurfur said:
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
It is a gray world."Is the science on Global Warming settled or not?" is a loaded question. The answer is yes, no, maybe.
timschochet
Footballguy
If I knew nothing about any of the science involved, I would find these two facts rather interesting:
1. The notion that climate change is a serious problem, caused by humans, and that something needs to be done about it, is accepted by about 80% of scientists around the world, all of the credible scientific institutions, almost all well-read people around the world, almost all liberals and independents in the United States, and about 30% of conservatives in the United States, including most VIPs of the Bush Administration.
2. The notion that climate change is a myth is accepted by a small minority of scientists, almost all of which connected with the oil industry, the oil industry itself, and around 50% of conservatives in the United States (not conservatives around the world). These same conservatives are the ones who tend to have skeptical views on evolution as well.
Why is this?
1. The notion that climate change is a serious problem, caused by humans, and that something needs to be done about it, is accepted by about 80% of scientists around the world, all of the credible scientific institutions, almost all well-read people around the world, almost all liberals and independents in the United States, and about 30% of conservatives in the United States, including most VIPs of the Bush Administration.
2. The notion that climate change is a myth is accepted by a small minority of scientists, almost all of which connected with the oil industry, the oil industry itself, and around 50% of conservatives in the United States (not conservatives around the world). These same conservatives are the ones who tend to have skeptical views on evolution as well.
Why is this?
Let's do it for the children.... 
If all the money spent on global warming went towards medicine and food, lives could be saved for real.I really doubt the 80% figure or that it means what you think it means. I think the vast majority believe the earth is warming slightly and that CO2 probably contributes, but there is huge disagreement if it is a significant factor or a very minor factor....what will soon be a consensus is that the IPCC numbers are gross exaggerations which can't be trusted.From the WSJ a couple months ago....
Joanne Simpson, the world's first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak "frankly" of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming "the worst scientific scandal in history." Norway's Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the "new religion." A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton's Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists' open letter.)
The collapse of the "consensus" has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth's temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02. Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. A global financial crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon.
timschochet
Footballguy
I think one of the main reasons that conservatives are skeptical of climate change is that all of the proposed solutions, such as cap and trade, tend to draconian, and anti-capitalism. (Oh and stop giving us BS about how cap and trade is a "market" solution. If it involves government restrictions on industry, it's hardly a "market" solution.) Not to mention the fact that no scientist or politician has been able to come up with any evidence at all that cap and trade or any other proposed solution will have an effect on climate change. This part of the science is missing.
IMO, conservatives have a point here, and it is a strong one. It's the one they should be focusing on, rather than on the existence of climate change itself, which I for one do not doubt. The question is, what to do about it, and are there ways to avoid these rather hastily proposed burdens on our way of life?
I believe there are. As discussed earlier in the thread, nuclear energy is one solution. Yesterday, I heard on the radio an interview with the author of Superfreakonomics, and he had some other alternative solutions to cap and trade, which are gaining ground within the scientific community. I'll try to post those here if I can find them.
In summary, I find myself belonging to a third group here, somewhere between the "True Believers" and the "Skeptics". I believe climate change exists and is a serious problem, and we'd better do something. We can't just pretend it doesn't exist, and stick our heads in the sand. But I don't want solutions that hurt us and our economic system. I am suspicious of environmentalists whose number #1 priority appears to be trying to punish mankind (and America) rather than trying to solve the problem in a way that maintains our way of life.
Anyone share this position?
IMO, conservatives have a point here, and it is a strong one. It's the one they should be focusing on, rather than on the existence of climate change itself, which I for one do not doubt. The question is, what to do about it, and are there ways to avoid these rather hastily proposed burdens on our way of life?
I believe there are. As discussed earlier in the thread, nuclear energy is one solution. Yesterday, I heard on the radio an interview with the author of Superfreakonomics, and he had some other alternative solutions to cap and trade, which are gaining ground within the scientific community. I'll try to post those here if I can find them.
In summary, I find myself belonging to a third group here, somewhere between the "True Believers" and the "Skeptics". I believe climate change exists and is a serious problem, and we'd better do something. We can't just pretend it doesn't exist, and stick our heads in the sand. But I don't want solutions that hurt us and our economic system. I am suspicious of environmentalists whose number #1 priority appears to be trying to punish mankind (and America) rather than trying to solve the problem in a way that maintains our way of life.
Anyone share this position?
Not much to disagree with except I have doubts it is a serious problem. I think there is a bigger chance of slipping into an ice age based on declining solar activity. I really wish man could control the climate by regulating CO2, I just think that is preposterous.
Class Dismissed
Footballguy
But that's not what Al Gore said. Nothing gray about that.
MasterofOrion
Footballguy
MasterofOrion
Footballguy
When it gets down to it the left opposes most energy solutions even relatively green solutions: Nuclear Power, Hydro-power (electricity from damns) and photovoltaics in the Mohave Desert.
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
As a general rule, I believe the opposite of whatever the Discovery Institute says.
Didn't most of the known world believe the world was flat at one point? I guess it took some hard work and persistence by a few in the "minority" to overturn that.
timschochet
Footballguy
I keep hearing this analogy brought up, and it's really flawed. The "world is flat" people were not scientists. They didn't come up with this proposal, subject it to tests, and reach the conclusion that the world was flat. They were just ordinary folk who were skeptical of science they could not understand. If your point is that scientists can be wrong, and that a majority does not equal proof, both are certainly true. This is why scientists constantly test their theories. But the email story doesn't prove anything about the science of climate change. The only thing it proves is that some scientists, trying to convey what they know is true to a public that doesn't always want to accept it, are having trouble dealing with skeptics who take advantage of the ignorance of lay people. This has been an age old problem with scientists: how to take what you know is true and convey it to the public in a way they will understand? It may be that some scientists chose to cheat to do so, and if so, that is regrettable. But it has no effect on the underlying facts.
Dear (EPA) Administrator Jackson:
I write in regard to the Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, Proposed Rule, 74 Fed. Reg. 18,886 (Apr. 24, 2009), the so-called "Endangerment Finding."
It has been often said that the "science is settled" on the issue of CO2 and climate. Let me put this claim to rest with a simple one-letter proof that it is false.
The letter is s, the one that changes model into models. If the science were settled, there would be precisely one model, and it would be in agreement with measurements.
Alternatively, one may ask which one of the twenty-some models settled the science so that all the rest could be discarded along with the research funds that have kept those models alive.
We can take this further. Not a single climate model predicted the current cooling phase. If the science were settled, the model (singular) would have predicted it.
Let me next address the horror story that we are approaching (or have passed) a "tipping point." Anybody who has worked with amplifiers knows about tipping points. The output "goes to the rail." Not only that, but it stays there. That's the official worry coming from the likes of James Hansen (of NASA GISS) and Al Gore.
But therein lies the proof that we are nowhere near a tipping point. The earth, it seems, has seen times when the CO2 concentration was up to 8,000 ppm, and that did not lead to a tipping point. If it did, we would not be here talking about it. In fact, seen on the long scale, the CO2 concentration in the present cycle of glacials (ca. 200 ppm) and interglacials (ca. 300-400 ppm) is lower than it has been for the last 300 million years.
Global-warming alarmists tell us that the rising CO2 concentration is (A) anthropogenic and (B) leading to global warming.
(A) CO2 concentration has risen and fallen in the past with no help from mankind. The present rise began in the 1700s, long before humans could have made a meaningful contribution. Alarmists have failed to ask, let alone answer, what the CO2 level would be today if we had never burned any fuels. They simply assume that it would be the "pre-industrial" value.
The solubility of CO2 in water decreases as water warms, and increases as water cools. The warming of the earth since the Little Ice Age has thus caused the oceans to emit CO2 into the atmosphere.
(B) The first principle of causality is that the cause has to come before the effect. The historical record shows that climate changes precede CO2 changes. How, then, can one conclude that CO2 is responsible for the current warming?
Nobody doubts that CO2 has some greenhouse effect, and nobody doubts that CO2 concentration is increasing. But what would we have to fear if CO2 and temperature actually increased?
A warmer world is a better world. Look at weather-related death rates in winter and in summer, and the case is overwhelming that warmer is better.
The higher the CO2 levels, the more vibrant is the biosphere, as numerous experiments in greenhouses have shown. But a quick trip to the museum can make that case in spades. Those huge dinosaurs could not exist anywhere on the earth today because the land is not productive enough. CO2 is plant food, pure and simple.
CO2 is not pollution by any reasonable definition.
A warmer world begets more precipitation.
All computer models predict a smaller temperature gradient between the poles and the equator. Necessarily, this would mean fewer and less violent storms.
The melting point of ice is 0 ºC in Antarctica, just as it is everywhere else. The highest recorded temperature at the South Pole is -14 ºC, and the lowest is -117 ºC. How, pray, will a putative few degrees of warming melt all the ice and inundate Florida, as is claimed by the warming alarmists?
Consider the change in vocabulary that has occurred. The term global warming has given way to the term climate change, because the former is not supported by the data. The latter term, climate change, admits of all kinds of illogical attributions. If it warms up, that's climate change. If it cools down, ditto. Any change whatsoever can be said by alarmists to be proof of climate change.
In a way, we have been here before. Lord Kelvin "proved" that the earth could not possibly be as old as the geologists said. He "proved" it using the conservation of energy. What he didn't know was that nuclear energy, not gravitation, provides the internal heat of the sun and the earth.
Similarly, the global-warming alarmists have "proved" that CO2 causes global warming.
Except when it doesn't.
To put it fairly but bluntly, the global-warming alarmists have relied on a pathetic version of science in which computer models take precedence over data, and numerical averages of computer outputs are believed to be able to predict the future climate. It would be a travesty if the EPA were to countenance such nonsense.
Best Regards,
Howard C. Hayden
Professor Emeritus of Physics, UConn
I write in regard to the Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, Proposed Rule, 74 Fed. Reg. 18,886 (Apr. 24, 2009), the so-called "Endangerment Finding."
It has been often said that the "science is settled" on the issue of CO2 and climate. Let me put this claim to rest with a simple one-letter proof that it is false.
The letter is s, the one that changes model into models. If the science were settled, there would be precisely one model, and it would be in agreement with measurements.
Alternatively, one may ask which one of the twenty-some models settled the science so that all the rest could be discarded along with the research funds that have kept those models alive.
We can take this further. Not a single climate model predicted the current cooling phase. If the science were settled, the model (singular) would have predicted it.
Let me next address the horror story that we are approaching (or have passed) a "tipping point." Anybody who has worked with amplifiers knows about tipping points. The output "goes to the rail." Not only that, but it stays there. That's the official worry coming from the likes of James Hansen (of NASA GISS) and Al Gore.
But therein lies the proof that we are nowhere near a tipping point. The earth, it seems, has seen times when the CO2 concentration was up to 8,000 ppm, and that did not lead to a tipping point. If it did, we would not be here talking about it. In fact, seen on the long scale, the CO2 concentration in the present cycle of glacials (ca. 200 ppm) and interglacials (ca. 300-400 ppm) is lower than it has been for the last 300 million years.
Global-warming alarmists tell us that the rising CO2 concentration is (A) anthropogenic and (B) leading to global warming.
(A) CO2 concentration has risen and fallen in the past with no help from mankind. The present rise began in the 1700s, long before humans could have made a meaningful contribution. Alarmists have failed to ask, let alone answer, what the CO2 level would be today if we had never burned any fuels. They simply assume that it would be the "pre-industrial" value.
The solubility of CO2 in water decreases as water warms, and increases as water cools. The warming of the earth since the Little Ice Age has thus caused the oceans to emit CO2 into the atmosphere.
(B) The first principle of causality is that the cause has to come before the effect. The historical record shows that climate changes precede CO2 changes. How, then, can one conclude that CO2 is responsible for the current warming?
Nobody doubts that CO2 has some greenhouse effect, and nobody doubts that CO2 concentration is increasing. But what would we have to fear if CO2 and temperature actually increased?
A warmer world is a better world. Look at weather-related death rates in winter and in summer, and the case is overwhelming that warmer is better.
The higher the CO2 levels, the more vibrant is the biosphere, as numerous experiments in greenhouses have shown. But a quick trip to the museum can make that case in spades. Those huge dinosaurs could not exist anywhere on the earth today because the land is not productive enough. CO2 is plant food, pure and simple.
CO2 is not pollution by any reasonable definition.
A warmer world begets more precipitation.
All computer models predict a smaller temperature gradient between the poles and the equator. Necessarily, this would mean fewer and less violent storms.
The melting point of ice is 0 ºC in Antarctica, just as it is everywhere else. The highest recorded temperature at the South Pole is -14 ºC, and the lowest is -117 ºC. How, pray, will a putative few degrees of warming melt all the ice and inundate Florida, as is claimed by the warming alarmists?
Consider the change in vocabulary that has occurred. The term global warming has given way to the term climate change, because the former is not supported by the data. The latter term, climate change, admits of all kinds of illogical attributions. If it warms up, that's climate change. If it cools down, ditto. Any change whatsoever can be said by alarmists to be proof of climate change.
In a way, we have been here before. Lord Kelvin "proved" that the earth could not possibly be as old as the geologists said. He "proved" it using the conservation of energy. What he didn't know was that nuclear energy, not gravitation, provides the internal heat of the sun and the earth.
Similarly, the global-warming alarmists have "proved" that CO2 causes global warming.
Except when it doesn't.
To put it fairly but bluntly, the global-warming alarmists have relied on a pathetic version of science in which computer models take precedence over data, and numerical averages of computer outputs are believed to be able to predict the future climate. It would be a travesty if the EPA were to countenance such nonsense.
Best Regards,
Howard C. Hayden
Professor Emeritus of Physics, UConn
bueno
In a class by himself
What do you mean if?
Why do people insist on putting false motives to skeptics. There are many legitimate questions that real scientists should be asking. They are just not trying to take advantage of ignorant lay people. Many of these skeptics are prominent scientists who are not making a dime off their opposition to the global warming alarmism. I wish global warmers were constantly testing their theory, but as the emails show, decent is not allowed. It is rooted out. It is a pathetic example of science. On one hand you seem to agree with the position of many skeptics, but then on the other hand you still insist on trashing them with a broad brush. I don't get that.
20% is not a small number and as more information is learned, that number is GROWING. Only 5% of scientist are skeptical of evolution, so saying these are the same people is mathematically absurd.
bueno
In a class by himself
There were way too many things that the AGW crowd didn't consider, or tried to explain away (often poorly).
For example, the reliance on computer models that were at best, imperfect. Now in observational science, it is difficult to experiment, but the models themselves failed to account for several key components, such as the effect of cloud cover. Often no one knows what the effects are, so what was programmed into the models were of necessity, preconceived notions.
For example, the cause-effect between solar activity and global temperature (the variable that most closely correlates with global temperature) was explained away or discredited. While it is true that the change in energy incident on the planet was insufficent by itself to explain temperature change, no one seemed to want to look at whether solar activity triggered other processes that may have raised temperatures. BTW: solar activity does explain the global temperature for the past decade, so it appears that there is definitely something to it.
For example, there are several period in the past century when CO2 was increasing, but the earth temperature was decreasing.
For example, increases in global temperatures almost invariably preceeded increases in CO2, not the other way around. This is a huge cause and effect problem.
As an author of over 20 peer-reviewed papers and abstracts in the earth sciences, I can tell you that scientists are definitely not the detached, rational people that we think of as the ideal. Scientists stake out their positions and argue passionately for them, even in the face of mountains of data to the contrary. They will fight for their positions in every way imagineable, including using the peer-review process to blackball dissenting opinions. It isn't about money - it is about ego. That is what drives the vast majority of them. In short, scientists have the same human failings as most of the rest of us.
Most scientists too are liberal by nature, in part because of their dependency on the governemnt for funding, and in part because face it, most universities are liberal in nature. So it is also human nature that most scientists will tend to embrace liberal causesd, even to the point to letting liberal causes influence their thinking (and their research). So when you have a field of study that is politicized, I don't see how you can not have the politics of the situation cloud the judgement of the scientists in that field of study. I thnk that is what happened with AGW.
It's a theory, but a theory based on imperfect computer modelling, cooking the data, and, sadly, the politics of the practioners. And it is being used by opportunists for a number of reasons from giving emerging economies an advantage over established ones to attacking the US industrial base.
A lot of good things have come out of the environmental movement. Better control of pollutants (controlling smokestack emissions and no dumping chemicals in rivers as examples), more efficent use of energy, and come to mind. But a lot of bad things have come out too, like setting back nuclear power 30 years or more, and the anti-development and anti-business laws passed in the name of environmental protection that enough confrontation rather than cooperation.
I for one have never believed the AGW arguement. The data just do not support it. I am just hoping the collapse of the model will lead to the collapse of some of the bad laws that were passed assuming the model was right.
For example, the reliance on computer models that were at best, imperfect. Now in observational science, it is difficult to experiment, but the models themselves failed to account for several key components, such as the effect of cloud cover. Often no one knows what the effects are, so what was programmed into the models were of necessity, preconceived notions.
For example, the cause-effect between solar activity and global temperature (the variable that most closely correlates with global temperature) was explained away or discredited. While it is true that the change in energy incident on the planet was insufficent by itself to explain temperature change, no one seemed to want to look at whether solar activity triggered other processes that may have raised temperatures. BTW: solar activity does explain the global temperature for the past decade, so it appears that there is definitely something to it.
For example, there are several period in the past century when CO2 was increasing, but the earth temperature was decreasing.
For example, increases in global temperatures almost invariably preceeded increases in CO2, not the other way around. This is a huge cause and effect problem.
As an author of over 20 peer-reviewed papers and abstracts in the earth sciences, I can tell you that scientists are definitely not the detached, rational people that we think of as the ideal. Scientists stake out their positions and argue passionately for them, even in the face of mountains of data to the contrary. They will fight for their positions in every way imagineable, including using the peer-review process to blackball dissenting opinions. It isn't about money - it is about ego. That is what drives the vast majority of them. In short, scientists have the same human failings as most of the rest of us.
Most scientists too are liberal by nature, in part because of their dependency on the governemnt for funding, and in part because face it, most universities are liberal in nature. So it is also human nature that most scientists will tend to embrace liberal causesd, even to the point to letting liberal causes influence their thinking (and their research). So when you have a field of study that is politicized, I don't see how you can not have the politics of the situation cloud the judgement of the scientists in that field of study. I thnk that is what happened with AGW.
It's a theory, but a theory based on imperfect computer modelling, cooking the data, and, sadly, the politics of the practioners. And it is being used by opportunists for a number of reasons from giving emerging economies an advantage over established ones to attacking the US industrial base.
A lot of good things have come out of the environmental movement. Better control of pollutants (controlling smokestack emissions and no dumping chemicals in rivers as examples), more efficent use of energy, and come to mind. But a lot of bad things have come out too, like setting back nuclear power 30 years or more, and the anti-development and anti-business laws passed in the name of environmental protection that enough confrontation rather than cooperation.
I for one have never believed the AGW arguement. The data just do not support it. I am just hoping the collapse of the model will lead to the collapse of some of the bad laws that were passed assuming the model was right.
Parrothead
Footballguy
MasterofOrion
Footballguy
The definition of "they".A collection of people, not including you or me, whose collective opinion carries authority.Science is about what you are able to prove. Science isn't a vote or a popularity contest. I hate the conscientious arguement. It takes the science out and replaces it with opinion.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
Nothing I said contradicts the assertion that Gore made that "science" (as in the 80% that Tim mentions) doesn't dispute that carbon dioxide emissions are the heating earth's atmosphere. What is far from settled is by how much and what if anything can or even should be done about it.
tommyboy
Footballguy
lets just stick to facts:
http://www.devilskitchen.me.uk/2009/11/dat...metxt-file.html
there's so many links and comments I couldn't copy/paste it all but here are a few gems:
http://www.devilskitchen.me.uk/2009/11/dat...metxt-file.html
there's so many links and comments I couldn't copy/paste it all but here are a few gems:
and
in a nutshell, the data coming out of CRU has been corrupted. This is significant because CRU is the primary body that supplies information to the IPCC by which decisions at the UN are made or recommended for all of us. In addition, decisions at the UN level have a tendency to warp around the world and apply pressure to the decision making process say, of The United States. People like Al Gore use the IPCC and the UN as the basis to form arguments by which they pressure the public to take certain actions. None of this would be a problem if it weren't for the fact that the data by which these decisions are being made is completely corrupted. Its worthless. So instead of flinging trillions of dollars at the problem, maybe we should take a step back, re-do the math and then move forward.
Last edited by a moderator:
Statorama
Footballguy
Good article on it
Secrecy and deception are the enemies of science. I'm glad to see the UK alllllllll over this. I wish our media would mention it even once on the news here. I think it got a general mention on the WSJ editorial pages, but others seem to act like it didn't even happen.
Secrecy and deception are the enemies of science. I'm glad to see the UK alllllllll over this. I wish our media would mention it even once on the news here. I think it got a general mention on the WSJ editorial pages, but others seem to act like it didn't even happen.
tommyboy
Footballguy
it gets worse.
they dumped the raw data.
they dumped the raw data.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/envi...icle6936328.ece
Brock Middlebrook
Footballguy
And I ahve been in favor of that, as well as recycling, and investinment in alternative energy sources.What I am not in favor of is the bad science that has been behind the AGW scam. Locking others out of the debate, hiding your data and abusing peer review to spike opposition is bad science. It's more reminiscent of the dark ages.
Last edited by a moderator:
Jobber
Footballguy
I'm stunned that a scientific organization would discard any kind of data at any time. This, IMO, proves there's something fishy with the GW information (notice I use the word "information" versus "data") the public has been fed all these years.
![[icon]](/data/avatars/s/5/5167.jpg?1660313464){kind=avatar}