Jump to content

Climate Consensus Con Game


AFTiger

Recommended Posts

As for my arrogance, I will plead guilty. But I have limited patience when it comes to suffering fools.

homer, you must really hate yourself.

I guess we can end the "the science is settled" crap and agree that it is still open for discussion if you are not to embarrassed.

Well, there are plenty of people who insist Evolution is still "open for discussion" (in the sense it can be refuted). It's called wishful thinking.

exactly

So you agree your argument is based on wishful thinking? That's funny (but somewhat confusing).

AGW may be based on wishful thinking. Agree?

Of course not. It is based on a scientific case.

To think the scientific establishment would base a consensus position on "wishful thinking" is delusional at best if not outright insane. Well, at least for anyone with at least a modicum of understanding of what science is.

Politicians would. And true scientists would not dismiss contrary science as bunk, and sue those who disagree. http://wattsupwithth...it-against-nro/

Disagreement? I thought that suit was for defamation. The Court didn't throw it out, so I assume Dr. Mann has a case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Replies 266
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Please explain what happened to all the data, evidence and "proof" that was manufactured, made up, falsified and just plain lied about several years ago.

Examples?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are three schools of thought at work here. That of the political left, the political right, and the scientific community. I think the real problem is, those who control the bulk of the grant money are more vested in a political side than the scientific side. The "science" is becoming as contaminated as the political arguments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are three schools of thought at work here. That of the political left, the political right, and the scientific community. I think the real problem is, those who control the bulk of the grant money are more vested in a political side than the scientific side. The "science" is becoming as contaminated as the political arguments.

WOW a breakthrough. Money may be corrupting science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AF, Is the article referenced in the OP science or politics? Does the source represent the scientific community or is it better described as a source of politically biased thought and opinion?

It's okay to tell the truth. We may indeed have that "breakthrough".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AF, Is the article referenced in the OP science or politics? Does the source represent the scientific community or is it better described as a source of politically biased thought and opinion?

It's okay to tell the truth. We may indeed have that "breakthrough".

Dr Fred Singer is a respected scientist. Dr James Hanson at NASA has been a long time proponent of AGW and has left NASA to form a group pushing AGW. So what is political and what isn't. The politicians want the money from the green groups so they push so called solutions that will destroy the American way of life. This current crop of politicians have no faith in the free markets so they use the publics money to fund supporting studies and give money to cronies to build unproven technology and restrict proven sources of energy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please explain what happened to all the data, evidence and "proof" that was manufactured, made up, falsified and just plain lied about several years ago.

Examples?

I'm using my phone and I'm not going to look it up. But you know it happened don't you?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dr Fred Singer is a respected scientist.

In spite of his prolific contributions to science and technology, his purity of motive can also be called in to question.

Denialgate:

“funding for high-profile individuals who regularly and publicly counter the alarmist AGW message. At the moment, this funding goes primarily to Craig Idso ($11,600 per month), Fred Singer ($5,000 per month, plus expenses), Robert Carter ($1,667 per month), and a number of other individuals, but we will consider expanding it, if funding can be found.”
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please explain what happened to all the data, evidence and "proof" that was manufactured, made up, falsified and just plain lied about several years ago.

Examples?

I'm using my phone and I'm not going to look it up. But you know it happened don't you?

Look it up and provide links at your leisure. I'm not in any hurry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AF, No, I don't believe you are interested in truth. I think you are interested in the agenda of the right wing politics. Only my opinion of course. I just believe your posts reflect a definite political bias, not science. I believe you can identify bias from the left but, your bias won't allow you to identify the bias on the right. I'm not sure you can, or want to, get to the truth under those circumstances. I think you are representative of far too many people (left and right) who have more of a desire to protect their ideology than a desire to know what is factual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for my arrogance, I will plead guilty. But I have limited patience when it comes to suffering fools.

homer, you must really hate yourself.

I guess we can end the "the science is settled" crap and agree that it is still open for discussion if you are not to embarrassed.

Well, there are plenty of people who insist Evolution is still "open for discussion" (in the sense it can be refuted). It's called wishful thinking.

exactly

So you agree your argument is based on wishful thinking? That's funny (but somewhat confusing).

AGW may be based on wishful thinking. Agree?

Of course not. It is based on a scientific case.

To think the scientific establishment would base a consensus position on "wishful thinking" is delusional at best if not outright insane. Well, at least for anyone with at least a modicum of understanding of what science is.

Politicians would. And true scientists would not dismiss contrary science as bunk, and sue those who disagree. http://wattsupwithth...it-against-nro/

From the article:

"In response to these types of accusations, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the National Science Foundation and seven other organizations have conducted investigations into Dr. Mann’s work, finding any and all allegations of academic fraud to be baseless. Every investigation—and every replication of Mann’s work—has concluded that his research and conclusions were properly conducted and fairly presented.

Despite their knowledge of the results of these many investigations, the defendants have nevertheless accused Dr. Mann of academic fraud and have maliciously attacked his personal reputation with the knowingly false comparison to a child molester. The conduct of the defendants is outrageous, and Dr. Mann will be seeking judgment for both compensatory and punitive damages."

So why should Mann endure libelous slander if he can mount a legal challenge to it? More importantly, how does such a case affect the validity of the science in question? It doesn't.

But based on my experience on this forum, It's hardly surprising the "denier industry" would resort to ad hominem attack in the absence of substantive argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for my arrogance, I will plead guilty. But I have limited patience when it comes to suffering fools.

homer, you must really hate yourself.

I guess we can end the "the science is settled" crap and agree that it is still open for discussion if you are not to embarrassed.

Well, there are plenty of people who insist Evolution is still "open for discussion" (in the sense it can be refuted). It's called wishful thinking.

exactly

So you agree your argument is based on wishful thinking? That's funny (but somewhat confusing).

AGW may be based on wishful thinking. Agree?

Of course not. It is based on a scientific case.

To think the scientific establishment would base a consensus position on "wishful thinking" is delusional at best if not outright insane. Well, at least for anyone with at least a modicum of understanding of what science is.

Please explain what happened to all the data, evidence and "proof" that was manufactured, made up, falsified and just plain lied about several years ago.

What "data, evidence and proof" are you referring to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are three schools of thought at work here. That of the political left, the political right, and the scientific community. I think the real problem is, those who control the bulk of the grant money are more vested in a political side than the scientific side. The "science" is becoming as contaminated as the political arguments.

You need specific evidence to make the case that AGW is a scientific scam.

And don't forget that science is a universal discipline that crosses geopolitical lines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AF, No, I don't believe you are interested in truth. I think you are interested in the agenda of the right wing politics. Only my opinion of course. I just believe your posts reflect a definite political bias, not science. I believe you can identify bias from the left but, your bias won't allow you to identify the bias on the right. I'm not sure you can, or want to, get to the truth under those circumstances. I think you are representative of far too many people (left and right) who have more of a desire to protect their ideology than a desire to know what is factual.

Well we are even. I believe you argue ftom the political left and have an agenda with your view of AGW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, that is fair. For the record, I am neither prepared to totally dismiss nor totally accept either side of the argument thanks to the distortions. I am only hoping to find as much information as possible that reflects scientific efforts, not a political agenda. I find the article linked in the OP to be an observation of something that is rather obvious. I believe it is intended to promote a political agenda rather than reveal anything about science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, that is fair. For the record, I am neither prepared to totally dismiss nor totally accept either side of the argument thanks to the distortions. I am only hoping to find as much information as possible that reflects scientific efforts, not a political agenda. I find the article linked in the OP to be an observation of something that is rather obvious. I believe it is intended to promote a political agenda rather than reveal anything about science.

FWIW, here are the links I have bookmarked in my Climate Change file:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/about/

http://www.climatedebatedaily.com/

http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/

http://www.ametsoc.org/sss/documents/climateletter.pdf

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/07/how-to-talk-to-a-sceptic/

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2009/07/29/204427/the-video-that-anthony-watts-does-not-want-you-to-see-the-sinclair-climate-denial-crock-of-the-week/

http://www.salon.com/2013/09/24/alan_weisman_just_by_existing_were_contributing_to_the_problem/

http://grist.org/climate-energy/reddits-science-forum-banned-climate-deniers-why-dont-all-newspapers-do-the-same/

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

I don't mean to imply anything about these sites other than the fact I bookmarked them for one reason or the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Climate Change/Global Warming/Global Cooling will occur regardless of human interaction. I won't take this issue seriously until the groups focus on decreasing tangible pollutant loads.Carbon Dioxide is not one of those.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Climate Change/Global Warming/Global Cooling will occur regardless of human interaction.

That's true. The difference is that natural changes tend to take place on very long time frames. We shouldn't be worried about an ice age 10,000 years from now when we may be making our own lives difficult a century or two from now.

I won't take this issue seriously until the groups focus on decreasing tangible pollutant loads. Carbon Dioxide is not one of those.

How does one assert that this is true?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Climate Change/Global Warming/Global Cooling will occur regardless of human interaction.

That's true. The difference is that natural changes tend to take place on very long time frames. We shouldn't be worried about an ice age 10,000 years from now when we may be making our own lives difficult a century or two from now.

I won't take this issue seriously until the groups focus on decreasing tangible pollutant loads. Carbon Dioxide is not one of those.

How does one assert that this is true?

You are alive today, aren't you? Carbon Dioxide is necessary for life on this planet. This entire debate is nothing more than another attempt to tax people.

And to your question about climate changes and time frames.....how do we know? We don't have the data to support that assertion. It's BS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not even going to try in this one. I will note a couple things, though.

First: Just perusing the links and quotes, I'm seeing a lot of dates that do not fit into climate change's scale. Remember, geologic time scales are large enough that we have a hard time grasping them, and that goes for both sides. And, with the geologic time scale also comes an actual geologic scale - In almost any observation based science there is variation. When the thing you are observing is immense, the variations can also be large. So, the trap we fall into is applying small-scale, small time-frame observation, small sampling and using any of the outliers as conclusive evidence that the other side's just making shite up. You want bad science? that's bad science.

Second: The idea that "science" isn't consensus is patently wrong. Science, as a process, is following method to create observable, repeatable, or verifiable results, and all it tries to do is gather data. HOWEVER - the "body of science", the INTERPRETATION of that data, IS about consensus. If this were not the case, we couldn't build Theory.

For example, most sane people would agree that gravity exists, and we understand a great deal about it. There is consensus among physicists that gravity works a certain way. If someone comes up with different equations, they are going against the consensus. Does that mean they are necessarily wrong? no. But the onus is on them to shift consensus to the new data. If it turns out that they forgot to carry the 2, then the new way - by consensus - is dismissed.

In reality, consensus plays a large part in both scientific method as well as statistical research. My particular field is epidemiology. If I am crunching numbers relating radiation exposure to cancer, and I get a result that does not mesh with the rest of the connections established in previous studies, it's a red flag; either I've discovered something really novel (unlikely), or the data is wrong because of confounding or effect modification (very likely). It is a red flag, though, precisely because of consensus. If I am doing experiments on reproduction of lab mice, and all of a sudden I have extra mice, I don't jump to the conclusion that they've learned how to reproduce asexually, or that we've got Mouse Jesus on our hands, I assume that I miscounted. Scientific method and scientific analysis by necessity relies on consensus; if it did not, literally every experiment ever done would have to start at the very beginning of having to prove basic things that are, by consensus, accepted as true.

Consensus is not the final arbiter of truth, but it is the weight that the lever of new data has to move.

Honestly, this debate is tired. There is broad consensus that some sort of climate change occurs because a staggering amount of the data show it to be so. There is a bit less consensus that it is caused by mankind. There is a good amount of consensus as to the processes on the theoretical level. The evidence is overwhelming to some people, intriguing but not actionable to others, and dubious to even fewer. Honestly, in my opinion (and experience in disaster prep and management) is that we should be spending this time preparing to make changes while we wait for more data. Let's find some things that we can change that would help (in theory) that also have benefits outside of climate change. Baby steps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Climate Change/Global Warming/Global Cooling will occur regardless of human interaction.

That's true. The difference is that natural changes tend to take place on very long time frames. We shouldn't be worried about an ice age 10,000 years from now when we may be making our own lives difficult a century or two from now.

I won't take this issue seriously until the groups focus on decreasing tangible pollutant loads. Carbon Dioxide is not one of those.

How does one assert that this is true?

You are alive today, aren't you? Carbon Dioxide is necessary for life on this planet. This entire debate is nothing more than another attempt to tax people.

And to your question about climate changes and time frames.....how do we know? We don't have the data to support that assertion. It's BS.

What you said...this whole thing is horse s*** and an excuse by brazen liars to separate hard working Americans from their money. The Libs want to control of health care; and thru the EPA; the CO2 we exhale...what's next? One child rule to cut down on the number of humans exhaling? Even the Chinese are backing off that...how about a Human carbon emission tax? Wearable CO2 tax meter; better yet, implantable meter; to make sure we're not putting too much evil CO2 in the atmosphere? How about a vegetation tax? Why a vegetation tax you ask; because vegetation consumes that evil CO2...this is the same logic used to enforce illegal immigration...go after the consumer of illegal immigrant labor...the plants respirate CO2 and create photosynthesis, so tax their use of CO2...or just kill all the plants outright...problem solved.... the fact that Al Gore believes in AGW, is prima facia evidence that this is BS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are alive today, aren't you? Carbon Dioxide is necessary for life on this planet. This entire debate is nothing more than another attempt to tax people.

Water is necessary for life on this planet, but under the right conditions can kill you.

Your position here is analogous to saying that blood is good for you as it supports your body's critical functions, so you should be in favor of having 500 gallons of blood forcibly injected into your veins.

And to your question about climate changes and time frames.....how do we know? We don't have the data to support that assertion. It's BS.

Yeah, we do. Just because you haven't bothered to check doesn't mean it's BS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ben, I do this for a living! Your assumptions of what I read and what I know of the issue is typical of your side. I know what the heck I'm talking about. This whole carbon agenda is based on what some people "want" to find not what is really going on. Once again, this whole issue should be focused on the cause (pollutants) and not the political BS being promoted by the progressives and those who support a one way street.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...