RE: why would climate scientists lie? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


Sanity -> RE: why would climate scientists lie? (2/21/2015 8:54:53 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

Yes and you might want to read this for a not-so-blind-adoration review of your beloved blog site:
https://www.masterresource.org/debate-issues/skeptical-science-website/


The forum discussion following that review is very good reading




Kirata -> RE: why would climate scientists lie? (2/21/2015 8:58:35 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

putting up walls of text supporting your viewpoint does not shoot down somebody else's argument

Well, I think I would have a quibble with the "supporting your viewpoint" phrase. [:)]

K.





Gauge -> RE: why would climate scientists lie? (2/21/2015 9:33:28 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: joether


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gauge
This is a fast reply.


Maybe you should slow down, and think things through....

People that rush things, tend to make mistakes. Plenty of mistakes. Some of those mistakes can be costly. So if your desiring something to be done well, wouldn't it make sense to slow down, take some time, and make sure things are correct and in order? Of course you would.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gauge
Man made global warming is a myth and a lie.


You got some evidence to support this notion? You know...scientific....evidence? There are plenty of deniers that spew all sorts of bullshit on an hourly basis. Nearly all of it shows a complete lack of knowledge on the basics of science, let along an advance subject like Climate Change. I suppose you got a few 'scientific evidence' for Gravity. Its just a theory too....

(Actually, a theory is a high level definition of a concept in science, rather than the layman's terms of 'theory).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gauge
All these folks want you to believe is that they want to find alternative sources of energy for our finite supply of oil, just so we can have clean air, and clean water and a future. They want you to believe that alternative sources of energy will create new jobs, build a better economy at the same time saving the planet.


So to you, finding additional methods of power = bad? Finding new sources of energy is a good thing. Most sane, intelligence and educated people agree that fuel sources that are finite will eventually run out. That's why they are called 'finite'. So by switching systems over to sources that are not so finite, would be a good idea. Those finite sources of fuel are still there if we should have need of them. Just because people have their energy supplied by a nuclear reactor, doesn't mean they cant burn some wood and grill food, does it? I know plenty of people that grill food. Their grill is not connected to the grid.

Creating new technology can and historically, does create jobs. How many jobs have been created thanks to the Internet? According to your 'viewpoint', none. I think reality begs to differ on your viewpoint.....





Dude, do you realize how much your own credibility has been utterly destroyed by your response to my post? No seriously... whether others think you have credibility or not is a moot point, any shred of credibility you may have had went right out the fucking window.

In case my response to you is confusing, I'll just leave this with a suggestion that you go back and re-read my post.




Sanity -> RE: why would climate scientists lie? (2/21/2015 9:46:57 AM)


Thats really hilarious, Gauge. Typical joether...

Just shake your head, right? You think it does any good trying to point it out to him?




Gauge -> RE: why would climate scientists lie? (2/21/2015 9:52:00 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Thats really hilarious, Gauge. Typical joether...

Just shake your head, right? You think it does any good trying to point it out to him?



Actually, it kind of made me do this:



[image]local://upfiles/130920/16A2313C1DA445F8BA1AB8BEB9250BF7.jpg[/image]




DaddySatyr -> RE: why would climate scientists lie? (2/21/2015 9:58:20 AM)


or this:



[image]local://upfiles/1271250/F47D1C477DF94D819A9DED0C6422E076.jpg[/image]




MercTech -> RE: why would climate scientists lie? (2/21/2015 10:40:53 AM)

Scientist A: Due to increased carbon dioxide loading in the atmosphere there will be a detectable increase in the mean ocean temperature.
Reporter: What effect would increasing ocean temperature have?
Scientist A: Well, the ice caps at the north and south poles would decrease in size due to ice melt.
Headlines: American Coastal Cities Will be Flooded

Scientist B: The concept of cities flooding is not a given fact. There will be climate changes from the higher ocean temperature putting more water into the atmosphere.
Reporter: So, you are saying we don't have to worry about global warming causing our cities to flood?
Scientist B: No, there would be no flooding in our lifetime.
Headline: Scientists Deny Existence of Global Warming

The purpose of a reporter is to titillate into buying their product' not to elucidate or convey fact.




ExiledTyrant -> RE: why would climate scientists lie? (2/21/2015 10:47:56 AM)

MerchTech, how far back does recorded weather patterns go? I mean, this transition...

[img]http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/files/2010/06/Galactic_Plane_1.jpg[/img]

Could be a mitigating factor.

Jus wunderin




MercTech -> RE: why would climate scientists lie? (2/21/2015 12:06:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ExiledTyrant

MerchTech, how far back does recorded weather patterns go? I mean, this transition...

[img]http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/files/2010/06/Galactic_Plane_1.jpg[/img]

Could be a mitigating factor.

Jus wunderin


One reason that, if you talk to an actual scientist, they use weasel words and won't fully commit to a iron clad definite. They know that limit of their data set and are reporting the best fit conclusion of the data available.

There are geological and anecdotal evidence going back white a way. But only hard number data going back to the late 19th century and consistent hard measurement from the 1930s.

BTW... anecdotal evidence isn't "Grampa says it was a lot colder when he was a boy" but actuall hard accounts. i.e. "The Year Without Summer" is well documented but there were no measuring devices to say how cold, what the jet stream was doing, etc. Best fit scenario for that year was a volcanic eruption filling the stratosphere with dust.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer

There are so many variables the real answer is that science is noting trends and directions but cannot tell us where things will land yet.
The mean ocean temperature has gone up. The ocean being such a gigantic and hard to change heat sink of the planet; this is significant. Two schools of thought on what this well cause; other than weather swinging wildly as the climate balance shifts.
A> Slow increase in temperature causing ice caps to melt and the tropic zones to expand. The Chicago Rain Forest scenario. This is one far end of maybes.
B> The other far end is that rapid and accelerating temperatures melt all the ice caps rapidly and enough more water put into the atmosphere that it actually drops the land temperature. Cold land, warm ocean, glaciers... a new ice age.

That's either side of the possibilities. As in most things; it will be something between extremes. I don't think it would make much difference if we stopped burning fossil fuels tomorrow; the balance point has been moved by decades of putting hydrocarbons back in the atmosphere that had been bound up in the soils for eons. If we accelerate the use of fossil fuels; we could make the fluctuations more variable but the balance point has already been moved.

I've only seen that sine wave cycling of Earth above and below the galactic plane in illustrations of why it is difficult to target for extreme range astronomy and why some bodies can only been observed at certain times. The reason for the cycle is that the solar system rotates at an angle to the galactic plane. The radiation flux from the galactic center is so rarefied you need the most sensitive detectors to even know it is there. Would it have an effect? Yes. Would it have a measurable effect in less than a dozen decimal places out.... very doubtful.

What really gets to me is silly popular press misconceptions. Repeat after me... making paper or burning wood has no effect on the "carbon footprint". The conversion of CO2-O2 is a cycle between plants and animals. Burning wood is just cycling things. Adding extra carbon dioxide just shifts where the balanced cycle has its center.

BTW, if anyone wants to compare pop press vs scientific literature (and wade through are the weasle-ese) here is a study on tree growth vs climate change. Note... pop press stated that it means that forests are growing faster due to global warming. And the paper mainly says, we measured increased growth rates in trees and the growth rate seems to be increasing. And they discussed possible correlations between mean temperatures, solar radiation levels, and tree growth.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CC0QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.oeb.harvard.edu%2Ffaculty%2Fmoorcroft%2Fpublications%2Fpublications%2FDong_etal_2012.pdf&ei=fuLoVMCYGLXdsAT7o4HICA&usg=AFQjCNFv-TSoVpJAXfM391DL3w7sN8ZCHA&sig2=2OEIIsZ-nKLLsUSt1xy5Tg&bvm=bv.86475890,d.cWc

That the mean ocean temperature has shown an increase since the first concerted measurements during the 1950s. (1950s when consistent measurements for a database rather than occasional research expeditions was done. Data exists for earlier times but not at regular intervals.)

Sorry if I took off on one of my soap box issues. I still maintain the balance of the atmospheric makeup has been shifted and will continue to see the effect of that as changes in climate and wildly swinging weather conditions until the balance settles out.




ExiledTyrant -> RE: why would climate scientists lie? (2/21/2015 12:23:39 PM)

Thank you, MerchTech, that was exactly what I was looking for rather than the mindless [sm=slappy.gif]

My friends back in Hawaii have all these weird little letters behind their names and your post is more akin to our discussions.




MercTech -> RE: why would climate scientists lie? (2/21/2015 2:34:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ExiledTyrant

Thank you, MerchTech, that was exactly what I was looking for rather than the mindless [sm=slappy.gif]

My friends back in Hawaii have all these weird little letters behind their names and your post is more akin to our discussions.


A PhD often worries about differences in the sixth decimal place that us regular guys never need more than two decimal places for a measurement. <grin> In the topic's case; most of them will admit to the continuing changes but argue like a bunch of Jr. High kids over which direction it will settle out in.




ExiledTyrant -> RE: why would climate scientists lie? (2/21/2015 2:43:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech


quote:

ORIGINAL: ExiledTyrant

Thank you, MerchTech, that was exactly what I was looking for rather than the mindless [sm=slappy.gif]

My friends back in Hawaii have all these weird little letters behind their names and your post is more akin to our discussions.


A PhD often worries about differences in the sixth decimal place that us regular guys never need more than two decimal places for a measurement. <grin> In the topic's case; most of them will admit to the continuing changes but argue like a bunch of Jr. High kids over which direction it will settle out in.



Yeah, but when weird happens as we transition through the galactic midheaven, they're more nervous than whores on judgment day.




HunterCA -> RE: why would climate scientists lie? (2/21/2015 4:06:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA
First off, most of what you've said is leftist myth. For instance your 97%. Thousands of papers are written on climate. Of those written, something like 37 papers made a comment one way or another on it being man caused. Leftist took those 37 papers and said 97% all agree on something so the science is settled. What I would ask you is, why do you believe any science is settled. We're still arguing how many planets exist in our solar system.


Try getting your facts straight.... You must have missed the other 13,913 peer reviewed papers supporting climate change.....

How many planets exist near to our sun has....NOTHING...to do with climate change.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA
You say the oil industry is dumping money to scientists to disput global warming so those scientists shouldn't be trusted. Do you know how much money the government is throwing at scientists to prove there is global warming. By your preposition, your entire argument is moot.


Your wrong, and those 'scientists' in the oil industry are wrong too. Here is why...

When you run an experiment using the scientific method, there is a set of criteria to follow. You form a hypothesis explaining what you think is true. Then develop a set of experiments to test that hypothesis. Followed by collecting data with those experiments. Then looking at the data and forming a conclusion. Finally you publish your work for...PEER REVIEW.

Other scientists take that information and run through the experiments. When they obtain different results from the 'oil industry' scientists, they run the experiments again and again. Unfortunately, their information keep coming up the same, and different from the 'oil industry' scientist. So they contact the 'oil industry' scientist and explain their results. They inquire how the 'oil industry' scientist conducted every aspect of their experiments. The reason is to figure out if the other scientist goofed somewhere in the process. What ends up happening is the scientist figures out that the only way to arrive at the 'oil industry' scientist's conclusion is to do something 'unscientific-like': tamper with the data. Which is something no legitimate scientist would do.

Let me put it another way. A creationist 'scientist' will leave out of their data, anything that disproves the Holy Bible. Most scientists do not leave out things that would disprove climate change. If anything, they would enjoy the idea of explaining their results to the scientific community. That you view scientists like they are religious people; fanatical to 'The Cause', is your problem.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA
Frankly, most of the senior climate scientist used to be nuclear physisists. When the Berlin Wall went down, so did their government funding. They are not going to let that happen again.


Really? Like those biologists whom where born in the USA, lived in the USA all their lives, and their career is based in the USA? There are quite a number of biologists, zoologists, marine biologists, and botanist in the USA. All these people, according to you, were once nuclear physicists from the other side of the Berlin Wall?

Do you possess enough intelligence to understand how....DUMB....you look with this statement?

That you feel this is some huge conspiracy....REALLY....shows the depth of your mental problems. You have no evidence supporting your viewpoints. You have no facts supporting your viewpoint. You have crazy bullshit that comes from conservative talk radio hosts that dont have a clue about what they babble on the subject matter.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA
People have been finding temperature data in the models that's been fudged for years. It's just happened again. So, say, you're one guy at NASA collectin temperature data and you fudge it (as is actually being found now) and then everyone else uses it...does that mean all climate scientists are fudging data?


This is a silly argument that doesn't even help your overall case on the subject matter. What it does show to people is that your really not aware of the subject matter you speak on. The question becomes begged: What is your scientific level of understanding? Not of Climate Change, but of science itself? If we were to sit you down with a long exam. With questions from 1st grade to Ph.D. level; where about would the questions be 'to hard to answer' intelligently and informed?

I suspect 'high school' and from 'decades ago' would be the likely answers. Much has changed in science and how scientists look for information on the reality around them from decades ago. Perhaps taking a few classes at the local community college on science would help you understand why your thoughts here are silly. I suggest take something like 'intro to science' before jumping into Chemistry, Physics, and Biology. The reason is, that Climate Change is an advanced concept. Science is like mathematics; it builds upon stuff you previously learned so that once learned, your ready for the information that comes next.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA
I can go on with the errors in your statement, but I'm guessing it won't matter to you.


I could list out the OP's errors. The difference is, mine would be based upon science and knowledge of science. Yours would be based upon....something. Whether one could call it 'science' or just 'babble' remains to be seen.



I was going to argue your points, but after reading your comments I realized you neither understood my points or made any of your own. Basically, it's the typical liberal "If I shout loudest, my argument is most right".




Kirata -> RE: why would climate scientists lie? (2/22/2015 3:22:39 AM)


~ FR ~

On the topic of why a climate scientist might lie...

The Delhi Police registered a first information report (FIR) late on Wednesday evening against Rajendra Pachauri... after a woman research analyst lodged a complaint alleging harassment. The FIR alleges Pachauri committed offences under Sections 354, 354A, 354D, 506 of IPC, which deal with outraging the modesty of a woman, sexual harassment, stalking, and criminal intimidation, respectively... The 33-page complaint had described various acts of harassment allegedly committed by Pachauri. These include unwanted physical advances as well as emails, text and WhatsApp messages ~Times of India

Note the "unwanted physical advances." Pachauri is claiming that his computer and cell phone must have been hacked. His hands, too? Status and funding work the same effects on scientists as anyone else, and this isn't his first embarrassing adventure. The previous one was a flashy novel full of wall to wall sex, which the UK Telegraph described as "smutty" and unlikely win any awards except the "Bad Sex in Fiction" prize.

Dr Pachauri admits to writing the book while flying around the world between meetings as IPCC chairman or else in his capacity as head of a research institute in Delhi. But with calls for him to resign over academic blunders in the reports he presides over, some critics will question whether he should have devoted more time to scrutinising the science behind the reports. ~Telegraph

K.




Lucylastic -> RE: why would climate scientists lie? (2/22/2015 3:53:22 AM)

Why would a denier do this?
Deeper Ties to Corporate Cash for Doubtful Climate Researcher
For years, politicians wanting to block legislation on climate change have bolstered their arguments by pointing to the work of a handful of scientists who claim that greenhouse gases pose little risk to humanity.

One of the names they invoke most often is Wei-Hock Soon, known as Willie, a scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics who claims that variations in the sun’s energy can largely explain recent global warming. He has often appeared on conservative news programs, testified before Congress and in state capitals, and starred at conferences of people who deny the risks of global warming.

But newly released documents show the extent to which Dr. Soon’s work has been tied to funding he received from corporate interests.

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.


The documents show that Dr. Soon, in correspondence with his corporate funders, described many of his scientific papers as “deliverables” that he completed in exchange for their money. He used the same term to describe testimony he prepared for Congress.

Though Dr. Soon did not respond to questions about the documents, he has long stated that his corporate funding has not influenced his scientific findings.

The documents were obtained by Greenpeace, the environmental group, under the Freedom of Information Act. Greenpeace and an allied group, the Climate Investigations Center, shared them with several news organizations last week.

The documents shed light on the role of scientists like Dr. Soon in fostering public debate over whether human activity is causing global warming. The vast majority of experts have concluded that it is and that greenhouse emissions pose long-term risks to civilization.

Historians and sociologists of science say that since the tobacco wars of the 1960s, corporations trying to block legislation that hurts their interests have employed a strategy of creating the appearance of scientific doubt, usually with the help of ostensibly independent researchers who accept industry funding.

Fossil-fuel interests have followed this approach for years, but the mechanics of their activities remained largely hidden.

“The whole doubt-mongering strategy relies on creating the impression of scientific debate,” said Naomi Oreskes, a historian of science at Harvard University and the co-author of “Merchants of Doubt,” a book about such campaigns. “Willie Soon is playing a role in a certain kind of political theater.”

Environmentalists have long questioned Dr. Soon’s work, and his acceptance of funding from the fossil-fuel industry was previously known. But the full extent of the links was not; the documents show that corporate contributions were tied to specific papers and were not disclosed, as required by modern standards of publishing.

“What it shows is the continuation of a long-term campaign by specific fossil-fuel companies and interests to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change,” said Kert Davies, executive director of the Climate Investigations Center, a group funded by foundations seeking to limit the risks of climate change.

Charles R. Alcock, director of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center, acknowledged on Friday that Dr. Soon had violated the disclosure standards of some journals.

“I think that’s inappropriate behavior,” Dr. Alcock said. “This frankly becomes a personnel matter, which we have to handle with Dr. Soon internally.”

Dr. Soon is employed by the Smithsonian Institution, which jointly sponsors the astrophysics center with Harvard.

“I am aware of the situation with Willie Soon, and I’m very concerned about it,” W. John Kress, interim under secretary for science at the Smithsonian in Washington, said on Friday. “We are checking into this ourselves.”

Dr. Soon rarely grants interviews to reporters, and he did not respond to multiple emails and phone calls last week; nor did he respond to an interview request conveyed to him by his employer. In past public appearances, he has reacted angrily to questions about his funding sources, but then acknowledged some corporate ties and said that they had not altered his scientific findings.

“I write proposals; I let them decide whether to fund me or not,” he said at an event in Madison, Wis., in 2013. “If they choose to fund me, I’m happy to receive it.” A moment later, he added, “I would never be motivated by money for anything.”

The newly disclosed documents, plus additional documents compiled by Greenpeace over the last four years, show that at least $409,000 of Dr. Soon’s funding in the past decade came from Southern Company Services, a subsidiary of the Southern Company, based in Atlanta.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html


Seems everyone lies..or evades, or denies. or misrepresents...




bounty44 -> RE: why would climate scientists lie? (2/22/2015 3:59:41 AM)

gauge, if I can tack on to your "credibility" point...

ive said this before in a couple other places: when one side changes their story from one decade to another, changes the terms of the argument, is caught manipulating data as well as suppressing others, there seems to be an insurmountable credibility problem to even start with.




Lucylastic -> RE: why would climate scientists lie? (2/22/2015 4:33:07 AM)

FR... Generic *you*

How many peer reviewed climate denial papers are there, what support is there for them?

How many denial papers have been accepted,

Do you really think that humans are NOT poisoning this planet?
Is it someone elses problem? we have been doing it for 2 centuries, but are still crying foul because other countries are now competing for resources you think are yours, NOW you whinge about others with higher emissions but still refuse to do more than you have to because "its not fair"
Whinging about debt you are forcing your children to pay is fine, but you dont want to give them a less polluted world to live and grow in the future? ya must be nucking futs.





Gauge -> RE: why would climate scientists lie? (2/22/2015 12:57:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

gauge, if I can tack on to your "credibility" point...

ive said this before in a couple other places: when one side changes their story from one decade to another, changes the terms of the argument, is caught manipulating data as well as suppressing others, there seems to be an insurmountable credibility problem to even start with.



What I don't get about the entire argument between both sides is that it seems to ignore a few things. I am not directing these comments at you.

What part of finite resources was difficult to understand? Tell me what we do when we run out of oil? Make a mad scramble then, or should we be prepared?

Who cares if the earth is cooling or warming, are you telling me that we should be shortsighted about our future? Maybe man caused it, maybe we didn't... think that we will change what nature is going to do? Think we shouldn't at least do something to potentially help reverse the possibility or at least lessen the severity of what may come?

Those who claim it would ruin our economy, you mean like an oil spill does for a locality? Alternate energy will provide new jobs for millions of people, give rise to new technology and reduce our impact on our planet in the process. How is that bad?

Perhaps the money comes from the government in support of these things because our government is actually fucking up and doing something right for a change.

There is money in big oil... I know, it fed my family for 15 years. There is money in the "green" movement. So what. People are going to make money.

Frankly the science of the thing really doesn't even enter into my equation. No one can sit here and tell me that spewing pollution into our air and subsequently our whole environment is a good thing. If half the money that is spent arguing the science was spent on developing alternative energy sources, we could get well on our way to possibly avoiding a catastrophe... then we can argue until the cows come home.

The debate about this ignores some things because it can, and some folks here have nearly agreed that the science isn't nearly as settled as some think it is. In science 101 back in elementary school, one of the first things we were taught was that science is the process of asking questions, and then finding possible answers, and then proving or disproving those answers. I'm no scientist, never claimed to be, but if one thing science has proved to us before is that some things we thought were a slam dunk... weren't. Some were, but things change and as technology changes things we thought we knew or thought impossible are now possible and the subsequent discoveries have changed everything as we knew it. Pluto was a planet... suddenly... nope. A bumble bee cannot fly, but there it is. Science evolves as methods of testing evolve.

Could man made global warming be true? Yep, it can. Could it be a myth? Yep, it can. The side we all should be on is not which of those statements is right, the side we should be on is what should humanity do to not destroy the rock we live on. Fuck the politics... history will remember us as giant fucking assholes if we sit here with our thumbs up our own asses and just bicker about it.

I'm off my soap box... it gets me fucking nowhere anyway and it only serves to piss me the fuck off.

Carry on with the mindless debate and keep arguing, it's what we do best as a species.




RottenJohnny -> RE: why would climate scientists lie? (2/22/2015 2:51:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gauge
Tell me what we do when we run out of oil?

You manufacture it. Provided you still need it by then.




BenevolentM -> RE: why would climate scientists lie? (2/23/2015 1:17:41 PM)

The why may have to do with, Why did the 2008 financial crisis happen? Common sense said, the party was going to end. What did the science say? It said that the party was never going to end. Here the roles are reversed. Common sense says that the sun will continue to rise in the East every morning, the science says the world is coming to an end.




Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 [5] 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
6.200409E-02