RE: why would climate scientists lie?

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

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

Message

PeonForHer -> RE: why would climate scientists lie? (2/23/2015 1:25:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BenevolentM 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. I'll never forget reading an excellent book, once, about the impossibility of another world war. The author was highly respected and had marshalled his facts and arguments superbly to show that this would not and could not happen. Nobody dared fault him. His book was published in 1937. I'd give his name and the title of his book but both, incomprehensibly, have passed into obscurity.

MercTech -> RE: why would climate scientists lie? (2/23/2015 3:11:07 PM)
Why would scientists lie over climate change? Well, why on would: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html?smid=tw-share

CreativeDominant -> RE: why would climate scientists lie? (2/23/2015 4:04:43 PM)
Why would climate scientists lie? Some answers here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2014/01/02/dark-money-funds-to-promote-global-warming-alarmism-dwarf-warming-denier-research/

BenevolentM -> RE: why would climate scientists lie? (2/23/2015 5:33:33 PM)
What is my take on global warming? It is partially immaterial whether climate change science is spot on or not. The point is they may be on to something as such we need to hedge our bets.

Lucylastic -> RE: why would climate scientists lie? (2/23/2015 6:16:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MercTech Why would scientists lie over climate change? Well, why on would: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html?smid=tw-share heh I posted the article here:) http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4784288

MercTech -> RE: why would climate scientists lie? (2/24/2015 5:23:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic quote: ORIGINAL: MercTech Why would scientists lie over climate change? Well, why on would: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html?smid=tw-share heh I posted the article here:) http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4784288 Cool. I must have missed that. I found the link following a Slashdot article.

Lucylastic -> RE: why would climate scientists lie? (2/24/2015 5:25:32 AM)
Lets see if yours has any ...impact:)

MercTech -> RE: why would climate scientists lie? (2/24/2015 7:17:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic Lets see if yours has any ...impact:) Other than splatting on the forum wall? Scientists compete for grant money to make a living. Most of them try to spin their results so they will be looked on favorably by whichever cash cow they are milking. Some are more questionable than others.... remembering one anti-nuclear researcher back in the 80s whose major funding was OPEC. Can you say "credibility problem" when that came to light? There are fear mongers that try to play on fear of global catastrophe to gain rep points and access to your wallet. There are naysayers that want to play on fear of lost jobs to gain rep points and access to your wallet. There is media hype that wants to rile people up and sell more whatever. What gets lost in the shuffle is the repeatable, measurable, fact that changing the chemical balance of the atmosphere by returning carbon to the cycle that was bound up in the ground eons ago by burning fossil fuels will have an effect on the climate system. Will some things change; most likely. Will it be self correcting? Possibly over time. The chemical balance of the atmosphere will shift as any chemical equilibrium will do when you add more of one of the reactants. (I first heard of fossil fuel causing atmospheric warming back in 1976. It was a systems problem in sophomore physics class. The media didn't get a whiff of it until the 1990s when the changes went from being "predicted by the math" to being "slight but measurable".) There are more reasons than climate change for weaning our culture off the fossil fuel teat. Diminishing supply. Toxic by products (release of lead, cadmium, and mercury into the air). Even release of radioactive material into the air (but it's naturally occurring radioactive material so it doesn't count). But our whole infrastructure is based on fossil fuel technology at this point. Re-directing the massive inertia of an oil based cultural system isn't done lightly and it can't be done without a lot of resistance. And many pie in the sky alternatives that have been proposed just don't work out if you look at things in a larger perspective. (Current tech solar farms don't generate as much power as it takes to make them. Electric cars currently cause more fossil fuel to be burned that you would have with internal combustion engines. The fossil fuel is just burned at a location remote from the roadways.) I keep hoping the Piled higher and Deeper crowd will come up with a couple useful breakthroughs. > A workable room temperature to cryogenic temperature electrical connection so that superconducting windings will be viable. The best conversion between mechanical to electrical energy we have to date is 28%. (power factor of a motor or generator) 72% of the mechanical energy is lost in the conversion to electricity then 72% is lost when converting from electrical energy to mechanical. But, if we could use superconducting windings, the power factor would be more like 90% than 28% and electric cars would be a much better idea. > Compact fuel cells that run on tankable fuel. The current ones marketed run on Hydrogen which is a storage nightmare. How about one that runs on LPG or coal gas? Needs a breakthrough in catalyst technology to be a viable home or municipality power source. If those two items become workable; it could change the power utilities industry on the same scale that cellular phones and the internet are changing the telecommunications industry. I'll quit rambling now. The sun is up so time for bed..... <night shift sucks in a way>

bounty44 -> RE: why would climate scientists lie? (2/26/2015 6:40:44 PM)
I see this thread is now on page 2, so maybe this wont get noticed, but just in case it does: "Man-made climate change alarmists continue to be busted revising history" quote: Two weeks ago, under the headline “How we are being tricked by flawed data on global warming”, I wrote about Paul Homewood, who...had checked the published temperature graphs for three weather stations in Paraguay against the temperatures that had originally been recorded. *In each instance, the actual trend of 60 years of data had been dramatically reversed, so that a cooling trend was changed to one that showed a marked warming.... quote:* This was only the latest of many examples of a practice long recognised by expert observers around the world – one that raises an ever larger question mark over the entire official surface-temperature record. Following my last article, Homewood checked a swathe of other South American weather stations around the original three. In each case he found the same suspicious one-way “adjustments”. Homewood has now turned his attention to the weather stations across much of the Arctic, between Canada (51 degrees W) and the heart of Siberia (87 degrees E). Again, in nearly every case, the same one-way adjustments have been made, to show warming up to 1 degree C or more higher than was indicated by the data that was actually recorded. This has surprised no one more than Traust Jonsson, who was long in charge of climate research for the Iceland met office (and with whom Homewood has been in touch). Jonsson was amazed to see how the new version completely “disappears” Iceland’s “sea ice years” around 1970, when a period of extreme cooling almost devastated his country’s economy. and last thought from the article: quote: “In the business and trading world, people go to jail for such manipulations of data.” http://michellemalkin.com/2015/02/08/man-made-climate-change-alarmists-continue-to-be-busted-revising-history/

Tkman117 -> RE: why would climate scientists lie? (2/26/2015 6:54:35 PM)
You know, if you got a problem with the science, maybe you should argue you that instead of posting links to BS websites with obvious political bias. Unless you really don't care whether the science is right or not so long as your political party is seen as correct.

CreativeDominant -> RE: why would climate scientists lie? (2/26/2015 8:26:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tkman117 You know, if you got a problem with the science, maybe you should argue you that instead of posting links to BS websites with obvious political bias. Unless you really don't care whether the science is right or not so long as your political party is seen as correct. Yes, because there is absolutely NO political bias on the other side, right?

bounty44 -> RE: why would climate scientists lie? (2/27/2015 4:19:22 AM)
its pretty clear in this case my "problem with the science" is that the "scientists" were caught changing the data and they have been caught doing so multiple times. perhaps look at the information and deal with the facts of the case instead of griping about the website, or the political leanings of the people with whom you disagree. does the fact that the information in this case appears on michelle malkin somehow nullify that the manipulating of data occurred? how does the left address that their climate scientist prophets have been caught changing data? not to mention that their short term dire warnings of certain events just don't pan out? that should be enough to end the debate right there, but since its not, which side is actually the "biased" one?

joether -> RE: why would climate scientists lie? (2/27/2015 5:29:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant Why would climate scientists lie? Some answers here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2014/01/02/dark-money-funds-to-promote-global-warming-alarmism-dwarf-warming-denier-research/ So let me get this straight.... A conservative media is trying to tell the public, that certain think tanks that have gain huge amounts of money to fight the Theory of Climate Change (a well established concept in Science, like the Theory of Gravity). And that most of these think tanks are not really that 'hardcore' conservative. In addition, environmental groups gain far more money, so its 'OK" for these organizations, these think tanks to get money. Let me explain what is wrong with all this: 1 ) Forbes is a conservative financial magazine and website. While the information can be curious, it is also good to not take it at face value. 2 ) The Heritage Foundation and many others on the 'list', are hardcore conservative think tanks. The only people that don't understand that, are the same ones that don't understand the ACA is a logistics engine for handling insurance polices. 3 ) Science is....NOT....a political football game. There is no 'Zero-Sum' condition. Where one side has to totally win for another side to totally lose. that deniers can not understand that, is their fault; not science. 4 ) Much of the concepts in Climate Change are in use in other places most deniers would never realize. So if the concepts are wrong in Climate Change, they would have to be wrong in those areas as well. Like medical treatments, structures, refined materials, products, and even concepts found in nature. 5 ) The concept of 'Theory' is the highest concept in Science. Most people without a scientific background assume wrongly that a theory is just a guess or random thought. A concept does not become a theory until there is quite a bit of evidence to support the nation. Unlike the general public, scientists check to see if the date is correct over and over again. You can test the Theory of Gravity by simply jumping up. If you float in the air for 10 minutes without aid, you just broke that theory....

Kirata -> RE: why would climate scientists lie? (2/27/2015 5:30:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MercTech Cool. I must have missed that. I found the link following a Slashdot article. There is of course the unmentioned detail that Southern's grant contracts were with the Smithsonian, not Soon (see here). I don't think the Smithsonian can be accused of being in the climate denial business, and Christine Pulliam, speaking for the Center for Astrophysics, flatly states: “Smithsonian stands by the process by which the research results of all of its scholars are peer reviewed and vetted by other scientists... The funding entities, regardless of their affiliation, have no influence on the research.” By the way, the full text of the study is available here K.

Tkman117 -> RE: why would climate scientists lie? (2/27/2015 5:37:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 its pretty clear in this case my "problem with the science" is that the "scientists" were caught changing the data and they have been caught doing so multiple times. perhaps look at the information and deal with the facts of the case instead of griping about the website, or the political leanings of the people with whom you disagree. does the fact that the information in this case appears on michelle malkin somehow nullify that the manipulating of data occurred? how does the left address that their climate scientist prophets have been caught changing data? not to mention that their short term dire warnings of certain events just don't pan out? that should be enough to end the debate right there, but since its not, which side is actually the "biased" one? Clearly your side, because of all your issues with the science you didn't ask the single most important question: Why? Why did the climate scientists alter the climate data? You are so blinded by your political ideology that you didn't even bother to look for an answer as to why they'd change their data, and instead assume it's for a political reason. Science isn't political, it's objective, and sometimes adjustments need to be made based on changes in the way data is being collected. You want to know why the data was adjusted? Here is a very good post which goes on to explain why the data was adjusted and what aspects needed adjusting. If you don't read it, then you are truly politicizing this whole thing, if you do and understand why this happened, then we can objectively discuss the science. http://www.skepticalscience.com/understanding-adjustments-to-temp-data.html

joether -> RE: why would climate scientists lie? (2/27/2015 6:41:17 AM)
Can you answer any of my questions MercTech? I doubt it.... quote: ORIGINAL: MercTech quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic Lets see if yours has any ...impact:) Scientists compete for grant money to make a living. Most of them try to spin their results so they will be looked on favorably by whichever cash cow they are milking. Please cite with references. I would like to know the percentage of scientists that need grant money to handle 51-100% of their living expenses. In addition, where these scientists live. And what fields they are in. Your going to find this 'argument' to be full of bullshit. Most scientists study science not for the salary or benefits. They do it because they enjoy studying this material. A person whom is passionate with what they do, will cut corners on financial issues just to have fun. Scientists do not study science because they have a political bent. They are free to have a political bent like anyone else in the nation. quote: ORIGINAL: MercTech Some are more questionable than others.... remembering one anti-nuclear researcher back in the 80s whose major funding was OPEC. Can you say "credibility problem" when that came to light? Funny how the deniers keep demanding credibility be proved among the actual scientists, and care not of the ones trying to undermine science at all. Most of the evidence on Climate Change has been obtained without grant money. I know that will sound shocking. If the deniers claim the Theory was created by grant money from insidious conspiracies; how do you explain the volume of evidence collected not through grant money? quote: ORIGINAL: MercTech There are fear mongers that try to play on fear of global catastrophe to gain rep points and access to your wallet. There are naysayers that want to play on fear of lost jobs to gain rep points and access to your wallet. There is media hype that wants to rile people up and sell more whatever. The Grand Old Party. Or also known as the Republican Party! Together with their allies in the conservative media, financial industry, and religious sections; they control an obedient population that will do as its told, rather than think for themselves. Since thanks to science, we can understand how people are manipulated. Behaviors are trained and used. And how different 'animalistic' behaviors of the back section of the human brain operator. Yes, people that use science for negative reasons and desires; are the ones we should be keeping an eye on. I could use what I know in science to manipulate the uniformed to gain stuff in life. It might be illegal in a few rare cases. Highly immoral and unethical. Thankfully I'm not such a person. I use these skills to help other people deal with problems. So apply your 'high standards' across the board MercTech. Apply it to the individuals, groups, and organizations you support, believe in, and give money to. You wish to hold scientists accountable? Fine, do it with equal measure to everyone else. Including all the people you think support your political viewpoints quote: ORIGINAL: MercTech What gets lost in the shuffle is the repeatable, measurable, fact that changing the chemical balance of the atmosphere by returning carbon to the cycle that was bound up in the ground eons ago by burning fossil fuels will have an effect on the climate system. Will some things change; most likely. Will it be self correcting? Possibly over time. The chemical balance of the atmosphere will shift as any chemical equilibrium will do when you add more of one of the reactants. (I first heard of fossil fuel causing atmospheric warming back in 1976. It was a systems problem in sophomore physics class. The media didn't get a whiff of it until the 1990s when the changes went from being "predicted by the math" to being "slight but measurable".) Its not self-correcting. Dont you think scientists would have studied that concept? The ability of the Earth and its 'magical properties' to correct right from wrong? Sounds like a belief system rather than one understood by science. This would have (and it did) come up when scientists were wondering if climate change could be taking place. Or, if this is just a natural phase of the planet. They would have determined that long ago. In fact, they still test it every now and then and come up with the evidence that things are still true today. quote: ORIGINAL: MercTech There are more reasons than climate change for weaning our culture off the fossil fuel teat. Diminishing supply. Toxic by products (release of lead, cadmium, and mercury into the air). Even release of radioactive material into the air (but it's naturally occurring radioactive material so it doesn't count). But our whole infrastructure is based on fossil fuel technology at this point. How do we know there is a diminishing supply of oil? Without using science, please explain this 'knowledge' you have. The only way we know about this, was through the study of climate change in the first place! Our whole infrastructure is not based on fossil fuels, its based on greed, selfishness, inconsideration, and being an immoral asshole! Need some evidence? Check out those bridges that are nearing the end of their structural stability lives. If what you say is true, those bridges would have been repaired/replaced many years ago. If our dependance on fossil fuels is so great, why are we looking into non-fossil fuels with great interest? Remember, before you can answer these questions, you have to explain how we know there is a diminishing supply of oil, WITHOUT, using science, and CAN show the evidence. Good Luck.... quote: ORIGINAL: MercTech Re-directing the massive inertia of an oil based cultural system isn't done lightly and it can't be done without a lot of resistance. And many pie in the sky alternatives that have been proposed just don't work out if you look at things in a larger perspective. (Current tech solar farms don't generate as much power as it takes to make them. Electric cars currently cause more fossil fuel to be burned that you would have with internal combustion engines. The fossil fuel is just burned at a location remote from the roadways.) The level of your 'scientific and engineering' knowledge is totally....pathetic! Solar Farms make an abundant amount of energy. And sell that energy off the grid to customers. Very successful models have been used in Arizona, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Florida. The amount of power it takes to create a solar farm is about 10% of its total output in the first three months of its creation. There are many farms being build right now, using better materials, technologies, and knowledge. Maybe you should sit down and do some studying on the subject material. quote: ORIGINAL: MercTech Electric cars currently cause more fossil fuel to be burned that you would have with internal combustion engines. Care to explain this one? How does an electric vehicle cause more fossil fuel to burn....WHEN IT DOESN'T HAVE FOSSIL FUEL IN IT TO BURN? Get an education on the topic I want you to point out the moment fossil fuel starts burning in that car, ok? quote: ORIGINAL: MercTech I keep hoping the Piled higher and Deeper crowd will come up with a couple useful breakthroughs. Let's compare the number of breakthroughs for humanity those 'Ph.D.'s have uncovered thanks to science, compared to you and all the other conservative idiots in the last five years? Ten years? Twenty years? Fifty years? Would you even know a technological breakthrough if you were using it? (HINT: The Internet) The answer is 'no'. You would not understand the 'latest and greatest' stuff created thanks to science. Or do you think all these things just popped out from a magical realm? quote: ORIGINAL: MercTech > A workable room temperature to cryogenic temperature electrical connection so that superconducting windings will be viable. The best conversion between mechanical to electrical energy we have to date is 28%. (power factor of a motor or generator) 72% of the mechanical energy is lost in the conversion to electricity then 72% is lost when converting from electrical energy to mechanical. But, if we could use superconducting windings, the power factor would be more like 90% than 28% and electric cars would be a much better idea. > Compact fuel cells that run on tankable fuel. The current ones marketed run on Hydrogen which is a storage nightmare. How about one that runs on LPG or coal gas? Needs a breakthrough in catalyst technology to be a viable home or municipality power source. Where does this information come from? Because this sounds too technical for you to devise on your own. quote: ORIGINAL: MercTech If those two items become workable; it could change the power utilities industry on the same scale that cellular phones and the internet are changing the telecommunications industry. Why would we want to create devices that we already know are harmful to the environment and use products from a supply that is diminishing? Oh that's right, forgot, you dont know shit about science.

Sanity -> RE: why would climate scientists lie? (2/27/2015 7:15:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tkman117 You know, if you got a problem with the science, maybe you should argue you that instead of posting links to BS websites with obvious political bias. Unless you really don't care whether the science is right or not so long as your political party is seen as correct. The New York Times and MSNBC wont report on the manipulation of data, and though some people are determined to live in ignorance, others prefer to be informed.

joether -> RE: why would climate scientists lie? (2/27/2015 7:26:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity quote: ORIGINAL: Tkman117 You know, if you got a problem with the science, maybe you should argue you that instead of posting links to BS websites with obvious political bias. Unless you really don't care whether the science is right or not so long as your political party is seen as correct. The New York Times and MSNBC wont report on the manipulation of data, and though some people are determined to live in ignorance, others prefer to be informed. An where is the manipulation? Please show me some of these credible white papers that show the evidence. Your knowledge of science and engineering is below Kirata and bounty44. When you find yourself in a hole, you should stop digging. Unfornuately, you can not realize your in a hole right now, to stop digging.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.699707E-02