The Science is Settled: GW is Conspiracy/Fraud (1 Viewer)

[jonessed]

Their models have always been held relatively secret (it took a Freedom iof Information suit to even get them to release the data, much less the models). They are releasing them now for the first time because of all of the scrutiny they are under. This shouldn't be proprietary information. It's built off of the public dime with data centers funded by public monies. If they want to be held up as scientists they need to subject their work to the scientific process. That means skeptics and those with differing opinions on what is causing Global Warming need to have access to the studies.

Again, the CRU's research is available to the scientific community and is heavily peer reviewed.

The results have always been available, but no, the code has never been made publicly available. It's not really peer review to have people that agree with you rubber stamp the process. If you want to claim you are peer reviewed then it all of it needs to be available to all of your peers. You don't get to pick and choose.

Please. Their research is made available to the vast majority of the scientific community. There's no secret club. To paint them as "picking and choosing" is misleading. There's really only two that I'm aware of that the CRU has issue with. One is with the journal Climate Research. In 2003, the credibility of the journal took a dive when editor Chris de Freitas accepted an article funded by the American Petroleum Institute. Much of the staff left after that, and De Freitas went on to advise the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which is partly funded by Exxon Mobil. Not exactly a conspiracy to have issue with these guys. The other is with Stephen McIntyre, the guy who runs ClimateAudit.org. This is the guy that's really gotten under their skin and that they probably just should've gone along with. He's not in the scientific community; he was in the mineral biz and was a strategic advisor for the oil and gas exploration company CGX Energy Inc. from 2000 through 2003. He's been riding a wave of credibility since he got NASA to adjust their temperature records in 2007. The changes were small, but give the guy credit. I'm not aware of any other beefs. If you have any, link them up.

No, the data and the code were never made available outside of a select group of people. Their results and methodology were made available but there is no way to review that. Why do you think it's now just coming to light that the raw data has been lost for decades? How did it go through peer review without the original data?They also have a beef with Willie Soon, an astrophysicist from Harvard University-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, who happens to believe Global Warming has more to do with solar activity. Why would the idea that the sun has more to do with climate change than man-made CO2 be so far fetched as to deny him access to data/models?

Old thread, but Wei-Hock 'Willie' Soon was being funded by fossil fuel companies all along.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html?_r=0

He has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers. At least 11 papers he has published since 2008 omitted such a disclosure, and in at least eight of those cases, he appears to have violated ethical guidelines of the journals that published his work.

Why would that exclude him from having access to the data and the models? This is information that should be available to everybody.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Why would that exclude him from having access to the data and the models? This is information that should be available to everybody.

Disagree that they should share the code. If they were savvier they'd work to completely and utterly discredit this guy for the unscientific fully-bought shill he is. Acting as a punching bag just encourages more cranks and frauds to try and punch you.

 

[jonessed]

Why would that exclude him from having access to the data and the models? This is information that should be available to everybody.

Disagree that they should share the code. If they were savvier they'd work to completely and utterly discredit this guy for the unscientific fully-bought shill he is. Acting as a punching bag just encourages more cranks and frauds to try and punch you.

Yes. Clearly they should only reveal their scientific methods and base data with people that agree with the results. If all science worked this way the world would be a better place.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Why would that exclude him from having access to the data and the models? This is information that should be available to everybody.

Disagree that they should share the code. If they were savvier they'd work to completely and utterly discredit this guy for the unscientific fully-bought shill he is. Acting as a punching bag just encourages more cranks and frauds to try and punch you.

Yes. Clearly they should only reveal their scientific methods and base data with people that share their world view. If only all science could work this way.

Everyone serious scientist should have access to the data unless they abuse the privilege. They they should pay a price. Not sure why that upsets people.

 

[jonessed]

Why would that exclude him from having access to the data and the models? This is information that should be available to everybody.

Disagree that they should share the code. If they were savvier they'd work to completely and utterly discredit this guy for the unscientific fully-bought shill he is. Acting as a punching bag just encourages more cranks and frauds to try and punch you.

Yes. Clearly they should only reveal their scientific methods and base data with people that share their world view. If only all science could work this way.

Everyone serious scientist should have access to the data unless they abuse the privilege. They they should pay a price. Not sure why that upsets people.

 

[proninja]

I don't know why we bother at this point, if you don't believe humans are causing global warming there's absolutely nothing that's going to convince you otherwise.

 

[skol asylum]

Do the global warming scientist disclose that their funding is from government and that their future funding is dependent upon being on the pro side of the theory? Or is this type of disclosure only for those who disagree with the theory?

Peer review in the academic community requires funding disclosure and a conflict statement.

Never knew who this guy was or ever quoted any of his work. But I really don't see how private-sector money is that much more tainted than government money. Those doling out government money have an agenda too unfortunately and it influences what gets funded and what doesn't.

There's a difference between the government choosing what gets funded and the private sector telling the people they funded what the results need to be.

/endthread

 

[jon_mx]

Why would that exclude him from having access to the data and the models? This is information that should be available to everybody.

Disagree that they should share the code. If they were savvier they'd work to completely and utterly discredit this guy for the unscientific fully-bought shill he is. Acting as a punching bag just encourages more cranks and frauds to try and punch you.

Yes. Clearly they should only reveal their scientific methods and base data with people that share their world view. If only all science could work this way.

Everyone serious scientist should have access to the data unless they abuse the privilege. They they should pay a price. Not sure why that upsets people.

If the guy is full of crap, he is full of crap. If he has a legitimate point, then he can advance the science. Global Warming has a history of giving data to only those who agree with the agenda. Skepticism is the bloodline of science.

 

[skol asylum]

It's interesting to me that scientists who base their whole career on the scientific method and evidence based conclusions can be so universally involved in committing such fraud and conspiracy.

 

[Mr. Retukes]

It's interesting to me that scientists who base their whole career on the scientific method and evidence based conclusions can be so universally involved in committing such fraud and conspiracy.

And their fakery is so good that they've been able to fool thousands of other scientists for years.

 

[matuski]

Why would that exclude him from having access to the data and the models? This is information that should be available to everybody.

Disagree that they should share the code. If they were savvier they'd work to completely and utterly discredit this guy for the unscientific fully-bought shill he is. Acting as a punching bag just encourages more cranks and frauds to try and punch you.

Yes. Clearly they should only reveal their scientific methods and base data with people that share their world view. If only all science could work this way.

Everyone serious scientist should have access to the data unless they abuse the privilege. They they should pay a price. Not sure why that upsets people.

If the guy is full of crap, he is full of crap. If he has a legitimate point, then he can advance the science. Global Warming has a history of giving data to only those who agree with the agenda. Skepticism is the bloodline of science.

How do they determine who agrees with the "agenda"? What test do they take to pass?

Oh.. and what agenda?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Funny thread title, because "the science is settled" and "the scientific consensus is based on a fraudulent conspiracy" are contradictory, aren't they? If the scientific consensus is riddled with fraud, that would mean that the science isn't settled at all. It would mean, in fact, that the science is a huge mess.

 

[General Tso]

I refuse to believe in global warming when every ####### winter there's 5 feet of snow on my deck. I don't care what the science says. It hasn't been above freezing for about a month now and we get 6-12 inches of snow every 4 days.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Why would that exclude him from having access to the data and the models? This is information that should be available to everybody.

Disagree that they should share the code. If they were savvier they'd work to completely and utterly discredit this guy for the unscientific fully-bought shill he is. Acting as a punching bag just encourages more cranks and frauds to try and punch you.

Yes. Clearly they should only reveal their scientific methods and base data with people that share their world view. If only all science could work this way.

Everyone serious scientist should have access to the data unless they abuse the privilege. They they should pay a price. Not sure why that upsets people.

I can't think of any other walk of life where you could intentionally misrepresent things and have the people you're injuring continue to work with you.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Why would that exclude him from having access to the data and the models? This is information that should be available to everybody.

Disagree that they should share the code. If they were savvier they'd work to completely and utterly discredit this guy for the unscientific fully-bought shill he is. Acting as a punching bag just encourages more cranks and frauds to try and punch you.

Yes. Clearly they should only reveal their scientific methods and base data with people that share their world view. If only all science could work this way.

Everyone serious scientist should have access to the data unless they abuse the privilege. They they should pay a price. Not sure why that upsets people.

In this world, who get's to decide who's a serious scientist and who isn't? Because it seems that the way it works now is that you're only considered a "serious" scientist if you tow the GW agenda.

 

[proninja]

Why would that exclude him from having access to the data and the models? This is information that should be available to everybody.

Disagree that they should share the code. If they were savvier they'd work to completely and utterly discredit this guy for the unscientific fully-bought shill he is. Acting as a punching bag just encourages more cranks and frauds to try and punch you.

Yes. Clearly they should only reveal their scientific methods and base data with people that share their world view. If only all science could work this way.

Everyone serious scientist should have access to the data unless they abuse the privilege. They they should pay a price. Not sure why that upsets people.

In this world, who get's to decide who's a serious scientist and who isn't? Because it seems that the way it works now is that you're only considered a "serious" scientist if you tow the GW agenda.

It helps to gain credibility if you're not paid off by industry who wants a certain finding. That's a good start.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Why would that exclude him from having access to the data and the models? This is information that should be available to everybody.

Disagree that they should share the code. If they were savvier they'd work to completely and utterly discredit this guy for the unscientific fully-bought shill he is. Acting as a punching bag just encourages more cranks and frauds to try and punch you.

Yes. Clearly they should only reveal their scientific methods and base data with people that share their world view. If only all science could work this way.

Everyone serious scientist should have access to the data unless they abuse the privilege. They they should pay a price. Not sure why that upsets people.

In this world, who get's to decide who's a serious scientist and who isn't? Because it seems that the way it works now is that you're only considered a "serious" scientist if you tow the GW agenda.

It's actually not very hard. If you don't misrepresent the data, submit your work for review, and don't do things like take money from people without disclosing it, your'e good!

 

[jonessed]

Right. They can't share their work because other scientists might come to a different conclusion (aka "misrepresent the data").

Open up the black box. Publish the data. Let people see the work. If the science is settled what's the great fear?

 

[StrikeS2k]

Why would that exclude him from having access to the data and the models? This is information that should be available to everybody.

Disagree that they should share the code. If they were savvier they'd work to completely and utterly discredit this guy for the unscientific fully-bought shill he is. Acting as a punching bag just encourages more cranks and frauds to try and punch you.

Yes. Clearly they should only reveal their scientific methods and base data with people that share their world view. If only all science could work this way.

Everyone serious scientist should have access to the data unless they abuse the privilege. They they should pay a price. Not sure why that upsets people.

In this world, who get's to decide who's a serious scientist and who isn't? Because it seems that the way it works now is that you're only considered a "serious" scientist if you tow the GW agenda.

It helps to gain credibility if you're not paid off by industry who wants a certain finding. That's a good start.

ROFLMAO.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Why would that exclude him from having access to the data and the models? This is information that should be available to everybody.

Disagree that they should share the code. If they were savvier they'd work to completely and utterly discredit this guy for the unscientific fully-bought shill he is. Acting as a punching bag just encourages more cranks and frauds to try and punch you.

Yes. Clearly they should only reveal their scientific methods and base data with people that share their world view. If only all science could work this way.

Everyone serious scientist should have access to the data unless they abuse the privilege. They they should pay a price. Not sure why that upsets people.

In this world, who get's to decide who's a serious scientist and who isn't? Because it seems that the way it works now is that you're only considered a "serious" scientist if you tow the GW agenda.

It helps to gain credibility if you're not paid off by industry who wants a certain finding. That's a good start.

So what about all of the government funded scientists? If money is such an impediment to getting to the truth, as you so clearly imply in your post, we can't eliminate the scientists who desperately depend on government money as trying to find a "certain finding".

 

[Apple Jack]

unreal

 

[skol asylum]

Let's go back to leaded gasoline. All these so called scientists fooled us with their socialist conspiracy on that one too.

 

[Apple Jack]

Let's go back to leaded gasoline. All these so called scientists fooled us with their socialist conspiracy on that one too.

Just "desperately" after the fatty gubment cheddar for their Ferraris and Hummers and megayachts. Mama need new bewbies too! You know how those science nerd wives are.

 

[Parrothead]

I refuse to believe in global warming when every ####### winter there's 5 feet of snow on my deck. I don't care what the science says. It hasn't been above freezing for about a month now and we get 6-12 inches of snow every 4 days.

climate change works in mysterious ways

 

[renesauz]

I don't know why we bother at this point, if you don't believe humans are causing global warming there's absolutely nothing that's going to convince you otherwise.

This is a silly post. We can all (or most of us anyway) agree the rising CO2 levels LIKELY have an impact on temperature trends, and we can agree that humans are at least partially responsible for rising CO2 levels.

What isn't agreed on is exactly how big of an impact the human factor is. And your statement neglects the fact that rising/falling CO2 levels and warming/cooling trends have existed for far longer than humans could have possibly made any impact at all. There are legitimate reasons to question the original "sky is falling" predictions and mentality originally espoused by Gore and his ilk.

That said, I do think agree that those who would completely reject the concept of global warming and the likelihood of human influence are whacked.

 

[Buddy Ball 2K3]

I don't know why we bother at this point, if you don't believe humans are causing global warming there's absolutely nothing that's going to convince you otherwise.

This is a silly post. We can all (or most of us anyway) agree the rising CO2 levels LIKELY have an impact on temperature trends, and we can agree that humans are at least partially responsible for rising CO2 levels.

What isn't agreed on is exactly how big of an impact the human factor is. And your statement neglects the fact that rising/falling CO2 levels and warming/cooling trends have existed for far longer than humans could have possibly made any impact at all. There are legitimate reasons to question the original "sky is falling" predictions and mentality originally espoused by Gore and his ilk.

That said, I do think agree that those who would completely reject the concept of global warming and the likelihood of human influence are whacked.

Once again the real culprits here are the stupid trees and oceans. Get rid of them and the problem is solved.

 

[jon_mx]

I don't know why we bother at this point, if you don't believe humans are causing global warming there's absolutely nothing that's going to convince you otherwise.

This is a silly post. We can all (or most of us anyway) agree the rising CO2 levels LIKELY have an impact on temperature trends, and we can agree that humans are at least partially responsible for rising CO2 levels.

What isn't agreed on is exactly how big of an impact the human factor is. And your statement neglects the fact that rising/falling CO2 levels and warming/cooling trends have existed for far longer than humans could have possibly made any impact at all. There are legitimate reasons to question the original "sky is falling" predictions and mentality originally espoused by Gore and his ilk.

That said, I do think agree that those who would completely reject the concept of global warming and the likelihood of human influence are whacked.

They love the strawman arguments. The IPCC is very similar to the Bush Administration making the case for war. Much of it is correct, but some very important points are speculation or exaggerations, but presented as absolute fact. The IPCC controls the debate, who gets access to data, works with publishers on whose work gets published and whose work gets buried, who gets to be invited to the table, and produces summaries which are misrepresents findings. Skeptics have fought and have made some key contributions to the debate. Things like forcing the science to account for things like the Urban Island Heat effect or the effects of sun spots, trashing of stupid charts like the propaganda hockey stick graph, pointing out how bad the computer models have actually performed in their predictions, exposing how sloppy the historic temperature data is maintained and how access is limited to only a select few. It is almost laughable that the models did not properly account for the oceans acting as a heat sink and are falling back on that now to explain the recent pause in the increases of temperature. If that was not correctly accounted for, how is there any assurance that many other more complex phenomenons have been accounted for?

 

[Maelstrom]

The most likely explanation, given the information currently available, is that GW is real, the science is accurate and that humans are having a measurable affect on the Earth's temperature.

That said, if someone was to present new information (i.e. a better model) tomorrow that contradicts those statements, and it was just as convincing as the current arguments in favor of GW being accurate, I would adjust my views. As would most of the scientists involved, once they verified the information for themselves. It wouldn't happen overnight, just as the consensus that currently exists didn't happen overnight.

Now, I do believe that those preaching doom and gloom (like Gore) do the scientists a disservice, and make it harder to figure out what needs to be done, if anything. We most certainly shouldn't base legislation or other long-term binding "solutions" based on fear - any action that is taken should be measured against the expected result and the expected cost.

 

[joffer]

I don't know why we bother at this point, if you don't believe humans are causing global warming there's absolutely nothing that's going to convince you otherwise.

This is a silly post. We can all (or most of us anyway) agree the rising CO2 levels LIKELY have an impact on temperature trends, and we can agree that humans are at least partially responsible for rising CO2 levels.What isn't agreed on is exactly how big of an impact the human factor is. And your statement neglects the fact that rising/falling CO2 levels and warming/cooling trends have existed for far longer than humans could have possibly made any impact at all. There are legitimate reasons to question the original "sky is falling" predictions and mentality originally espoused by Gore and his ilk.

That said, I do think agree that those who would completely reject the concept of global warming and the likelihood of human influence are whacked.

im not sure it's a silly post, unless you can say what evidence would convince you either way.

 

[tommyboy]

Do the global warming scientist disclose that their funding is from government and that their future funding is dependent upon being on the pro side of the theory? Or is this type of disclosure only for those who disagree with the theory?

Peer review in the academic community requires funding disclosure and a conflict statement.

Never knew who this guy was or ever quoted any of his work. But I really don't see how private-sector money is that much more tainted than government money. Those doling out government money have an agenda too unfortunately and it influences what gets funded and what doesn't.

There's a difference between the government choosing what gets funded and the private sector telling the people they funded what the results need to be.

Not at all. The govt is firmly pro global warming and doles out billions with a B, to fund pro global warming research

 

[tommyboy]

The leaders are corrupt

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/4443e24caf434b368325568b7786d834/head-un-climate-panel-steps-down-amid-harassment-case

 

[Jack White]

Do the global warming scientist disclose that their funding is from government and that their future funding is dependent upon being on the pro side of the theory? Or is this type of disclosure only for those who disagree with the theory?

Peer review in the academic community requires funding disclosure and a conflict statement.

Never knew who this guy was or ever quoted any of his work. But I really don't see how private-sector money is that much more tainted than government money. Those doling out government money have an agenda too unfortunately and it influences what gets funded and what doesn't.

There's a difference between the government choosing what gets funded and the private sector telling the people they funded what the results need to be.

Not at all. The govt is firmly pro global warming and doles out billions with a B, to fund pro global warming research

This might be the only incontrovertible fact in this entire debate.

 

[FlapJacks]

Do the global warming scientist disclose that their funding is from government and that their future funding is dependent upon being on the pro side of the theory? Or is this type of disclosure only for those who disagree with the theory?

Peer review in the academic community requires funding disclosure and a conflict statement.

Never knew who this guy was or ever quoted any of his work. But I really don't see how private-sector money is that much more tainted than government money. Those doling out government money have an agenda too unfortunately and it influences what gets funded and what doesn't.

There's a difference between the government choosing what gets funded and the private sector telling the people they funded what the results need to be.

/endthread

And yet in this very same thread we see the inclination that people who don't share a specific view are not regarded as serious and even worse abusive and worse yet, denied access to data...with that mind set so prevalent, do you really think that ones views and results don't influence how much funding they get or if they get money at all?

 

[skol asylum]

So the vast majority of scientists have funding as their primary source of interest and not the work itself. Ok.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

So the vast majority of scientists have funding as their primary source of interest and not the work itself. Ok.

They're all lying! Climatology isn't even really a thing!

 

[jon_mx]

So the vast majority of scientists have funding as their primary source of interest and not the work itself. Ok.

Another of the many strawman.

 

[SacramentoBob]

Sorry, but it's clearly fake. It's been cold as #### up here for months. Global Warming my ###.

 

[Jack White]

Sorry, but it's clearly fake. It's been cold as #### up here for months. Global Warming my ###.

Maybe you haven't heard, but the term "global warming" has been replaced with "climate change."

This way, the politicians and scammers (if you'll pardon the redundancy) can fleece the populace no matter what is actually happening with the climate.

 

[skol asylum]

Weather does not equal climate.

 

[(HULK)]

I don't know why we bother at this point, if you don't believe humans are causing global warming there's absolutely nothing that's going to convince you otherwise.

I'm as natural a skeptic as possible and I think it is border line insane to say that humanity has no impact on it's environment. It's ignoring cause and effect.

 

[jon_mx]

I don't know why we bother at this point, if you don't believe humans are causing global warming there's absolutely nothing that's going to convince you otherwise.

I'm as natural a skeptic as possible and I think it is border line insane to say that humanity has no impact on it's environment. It's ignoring cause and effect.

Who is arguing that? There is a wide spectrum of opinion between humans have no impact and we are all going to die because of climate change.

 

[Jack White]

I don't know why we bother at this point, if you don't believe humans are causing global warming there's absolutely nothing that's going to convince you otherwise.

I'm as natural a skeptic as possible and I think it is border line insane to say that humanity has no impact on it's environment. It's ignoring cause and effect.

Maybe you're confusing causation with correlation?

The effects of humanity on the environment have been positive, on balance.

This idea that the state should (or could) come in and save the planet would be laughable, if it weren't so utterly pathetic.

 

[Scoresman]

is this the thread that proves jonmx is jim11?

 

[joffer]

The effects of humanity on the environment have been positive, on balance.

took me ten minutes to stop laughing, but I had to quote that one.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

The effects of humanity on the environment have been positive, on balance.

took me ten minutes to stop laughing, but I had to quote that one.

Whatever, dude. Rivers are so much cooler when they catch on fire.