Global warming proved to be a scam?

[Dakota Jim]

I give ya props Bri for trying but many don't believe there was a Holocaust, Man on the moon, etc....They'll believe what they believe just as you and I believe the scientific community on this issue.

 

[nova]

I'm about 85% positive that you just got almost all that you have said from 1-3 sources from people who actually have been reading stuff back 15-20 years. And I am also about 85% certain that these sources have misconstrued and left plenty of shit out of what they told you.

Well if you're gonna call me a liar then this conversation is over other than the following...

Whoopty do that glaciers are receding. All that tells us is that climate is changing which I've never expressed any skepticism over. I'd actually be worried if there was no evidence of climate variability as it makes no sense for a complex dynamic system with multiple feedback paths.

I've also never expressed any skepticism that we are having an impact. The base science of CO2 makes that a ridiculous assertion.

My skepticism is only over the claimed magnitude of the impact, model predictions and the claims of imminent catastrophe, none of which have been backed up by any empirical observations. The empirical observations show temp increases somewhat lower than the exponential decay curve predicted by the basic science of CO2.

That right there pretty much invalidates the models and claims of catastrophe. Keep in mind, I model physical systems for a living, albeit one's much better understood than climate. If you use positive feedback loops in a model, and you're model outputs are way high compared to the observed data, then you're feedback loops are wrong.

Stop complaining that they fucked up the data? No sir I will not be quiet. When people in power are talking about burdening the entire economic system and by default me, in order to curb some perceived threat, then I expect, nay I demand that the decision be based 100% on sound data and best scientific practices along with the work being done in an open, honest and 100% transparent manner.

I'm not about to accept anything of that nature based on data integrity/QC and shoddy methodology that would get me flunked out of my senior labs.

Considering the guys pulling this ridiculous bullshit, were main figures in the IPCC, which is the primary document being used by gov't both national and international to make policy decisions, I have a serious fucking problem with it.

If you have a problem defending the quality of your work and want people to accept what you say and do based on faith, then perhaps you should have gone to seminary instead of sitting on a glacier for the summer....

 

[Goat Whisperer]

Well if you're gonna call me a liar then this conversation is over other than the following...

Whoopty do that glaciers are receding. All that tells us is that climate is changing which I've never expressed any skepticism over. I'd actually be worried if there was no evidence of climate variability as it makes no sense for a complex dynamic system with multiple feedback paths.

I've also never expressed any skepticism that we are having an impact. The base science of CO2 makes that a ridiculous assertion.

My skepticism is only over the claimed magnitude of the impact, model predictions and the claims of imminent catastrophe, none of which have been backed up by any empirical observations. The empirical observations show temp increases somewhat lower than the exponential decay curve predicted by the basic science of CO2.

That right there pretty much invalidates the models and claims of catastrophe. Keep in mind, I model physical systems for a living, albeit one's much better understood than climate. If you use positive feedback loops in a model, and you're model outputs are way high compared to the observed data, then you're feedback loops are wrong.

Stop complaining that they fucked up the data? No sir I will not be quiet. When people in power are talking about burdening the entire economic system and by default me, in order to curb some perceived threat, then I expect, nay I demand that the decision be based 100% on sound data and best scientific practices along with the work being done in an open, honest and 100% transparent manner.

I'm not about to accept anything of that nature based on data integrity/QC and shoddy methodology that would get me flunked out of my senior labs.

Considering the guys pulling this ridiculous bullshit, were main figures in the IPCC, which is the primary document being used by gov't both national and international to make policy decisions, I have a serious fucking problem with it.

If you have a problem defending the quality of your work and want people to accept what you say and do based on faith, then perhaps you should have gone to seminary instead of sitting on a glacier for the summer....

I'm not going to waste my time responding, night.

 

[nova]

I'm not going to waste my time responding, night.

Go ahead and run and hide. Unfortunately typical of climate "science' at this point. :24:

 

[Goat Whisperer]

By the way, I know the IPCC was bullshit, and I am just as mad as any one else that it's relied upon so much.

 

[Maulds]

Everyday I hear conflicting reports regarding the polar ice cap. Who should I believe and why?

 

[Goat Whisperer]

Everyday I hear conflicting reports regarding the polar ice cap. Who should I believe and why?

Groups with the most reputation, that have the most to lose if they are caught in a lie. Like NASA.

 

[nova]

By the way, I know the IPCC was bullshit, and I am just as mad as any one else that it's relied upon so much.

Well good at least we have that in common.

Now maybe you can explain why climate science seems to have such a problem any sort of skepticism?

There is a boatload of technically educated people like me out there who are more than willing to accept the conclusions if the conclusions make sense and are reached in a manner consistent with best practices.

No other scientific discipline has the "barbarians at the gate" mentality of climate science when it comes to skepticism.

 

[nova]

Groups with the most reputation, that have the most to lose if they are caught in a lie. Like NASA.

Like the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia? Yeah that worked out well believing them to be open and honest about things.... :24:

 

[Goat Whisperer]

Well good at least we have that in common.

Now maybe you can explain why climate science seems to have such a problem any sort of skepticism?

There is a boatload of technically educated people like me out there who are more than willing to accept the conclusions if the conclusions make sense and are reached in a manner consistent with best practices.

No other scientific discipline has the "barbarians at the gate" mentality of climate science when it comes to skepticism.

I love skepticism. Having both sides of an opinion is vital, so we can come up with the most balanced conclusion and solution.

What I don't like is confirmation bias and stubbornness.

 

[nova]

Well I have to say you're the exception rather than the rule.

The more issues that pop up, only to have the people that point them out be attacked or to get the "It doesn't matter" answer, just makes me and people like me more skeptical and more eager to dig in and see exactly whats going on and why nobody wants to give real answers.

Even when it comes to guys like me, who would kinda like to see models that make consistent accurate predictions before buying into the claims of huge impacts and imminent catastrophe. If you don't understand the system well enough to build a model that makes accurate predictions, then you don't understand the system well enough to go pushing for massive political initiatives...

 

[dt3]

and there is still no explanation as to why the data is wrong. you can't just say something is wrong--it doesn't work.

The original data is GONE:

Climate Change Scientists Admit Dumping Data - Biology | Astronomy | Chemistry | Physics - FOXNews.com

Science is based on the concept of recreation. If somebody can prove something, it has to be able to be recreated by others for it to be scientifically valid. If the original data is GONE, how are you supposed to go about that? You can't.

 

[Goat Whisperer]

The original data is GONE:

Science is based on the concept of recreation. If somebody can prove something, it has to be able to be recreated by others for it to be scientifically valid. If the original data is GONE, how are you supposed to go about that? You can't.

Yeah, but it's not like they 'threw it out' to stop skeptics form seeing it--or because it even indicated cooling. Just because they needed computer data, and to them at least, the info was inaccurate and useless to them. And yes, I say incarcerate, because it hadn't been adjusted to the way the temperatures were taken.

But going back to my main point--even without any of all this data we have backing up our theory, even if it is all wrong, the theory itself still has not been validly disputed.

Stop arguing the data, because there is no solid proof it is correct or incorrect, for either side. Argue the actual theory itself, like green house, carbon, etc. Argue it past what I already know is misconstrued and taken out of context, or without full understanding of how the climate and Malkovich cycles work.

The data is just evidence supporting our claims, until it's all proved tainted AND you find more substantial data supporting your claims, and you find away to say why all of our theories are wrong (that's consistent and makes sense), backing up your claims, until then, you can't say you've "proved global warmig is a scam," but before that, no you can't.

 

[dt3]

Yeah, but it's not like they 'threw it out' to stop skeptics form seeing it--or because it even indicated cooling. Just because they needed computer data, and to them at least, the info was inaccurate and useless to them. And yes, I say incarcerate, because it hadn't been adjusted to the way the temperatures were taken.

If it was inaccurate and useless, why did they collect it the first time? It's the very foundation of their entire claim.

But going back to my main point--even without any of all this data we have backing up our theory, even if it is all wrong, the theory itself still has not been validly disputed.

Therories are great, but they don't mean jack without supporting data. If the data used to validate the theory is flawed, then the theory itself is flawed. You don't use a theory to prove the data, it's supposed to be the other way around. The data is supposed to be inarguable scientific fact.

Stop arguing the data, because there is no solid proof it is correct or incorrect, for either side. Argue the actual theory itself, like green house, carbon, etc. Argue it past what I already know is misconstrued and taken out of context, or without full understanding of how the climate and Malkovich cycles work.

This is actually the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard in a debate, ever. Stop arguing the data? Because there's no solid proof the data is correct? Again, if the data is wrong, then the theory is wrong.

The data is just evidence supporting our claims, until it's all proved tainted AND you find more substantial data supporting your claims, and you find away to say why all of our theories are wrong (that's consistent and makes sense), backing up your claims, until then, you can't say you've "proved global warmig is a scam," but before that, no you can't.

I make no claims. It's not my job to prove global warming is wrong, it's "science's" job to prove it RIGHT. The "climate scientists" are the ones making claims, and you're admitting their data may be WRONG, but you still believe their theory?

Theories are fine, but billions of dollars should not be spent on them until they are facts. This goes for anything from the bailout to Iraq to yes, global warming.

 

[edgray]

Therories are great, but they don't mean jack without supporting data. If the data used to validate the theory is flawed, then the theory itself is flawed. You don't use a theory to prove the data, it's supposed to be the other way around. The data is supposed to be inarguable scientific fact

In science, a Theory is the highest possible construct. A theory is an explanation of facts and hypotheses. Without Theories, data and facts, which are a dime a dozen to scientists, are useless.

The theory of all of the aspects of climate change is so vast that one small area of it turning out to be false doesn't bring down the entire theory. The theory still holds a scientific consensus.

This is like the theory of evolution being brought down by the Piltdown man.

This whole mess just shows that scientists are fallable and that they're up against some major vested interests with the whole GW thing.

 

[dt3]

In science, a Theory is the highest possible construct. A theory is an explanation of facts and hypotheses. Without Theories, data and facts, which are a dime a dozen to scientists, are useless.

The theory of all of the aspects of climate change is so vast that one small area of it turning out to be false doesn't bring down the entire theory. The theory still holds a scientific consensus.

This is like the theory of evolution being brought down by the Piltdown man.

This whole mess just shows that scientists are fallable and that they're up against some major vested interests with the whole GW thing.

Funny, I think the highest possible construct in science would be a fact, or the truth. Not a theory. Here's what wikipedia says about theories:

A theory, in the scientific sense of the word, is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of empirical observations. A scientific theory does two things:

1. it identifies this set of distinct observations as a class of phenomena, and
2. makes assertions about the underlying reality that brings about or affects this class.

In the case of this thread, it's the very "empirical observations" that is being called into question. You simply cannot dispute the validitiy of the empirical observations and still accept the theory.

And an argument could easily be made that the "vested interests" are far greater on the side trying to shove global warming down our throats and receive massive government funding to prove it. :dunno

 

[edgray]

Funny, I think the highest possible construct in science would be a fact, or the truth. Not a theory. Here's what wikipedia says about theories:

You'd think that, but no, Theories are EXPLANATIONS and are exciting, whereas facts are everywhere, dull and boring.

Watch these videos, this is a collection of prominent scientists explaining scientific processes and so forth, The first is a series in Evolution, the second, climate change:

YouTube - Evolution vs. Creationism: Listen to the Scientists

YouTube - Listen to the Scientists: Listening to Climate Scientists

In the case of this thread, it's the very "empirical observations" that is being called into question. You simply cannot dispute the validitiy of the empirical observations and still accept the theory.

But this data doesn't even come close to explaining an entire theory, and by the same score it cannot disprove the entire theory. It shows that there needs to be some work in one area of the theory.

And an argument could easily be made that the "vested interests" are far greater on the side trying to shove global warming down our throats and receive massive government funding to prove it. :dunno

What most people don't understand is that to get famous in science, to get the good funding, the books published and the great research positions is best done by DISproving an established theory. If someone came along tomorrow and disproved evolution, that scientist would be the next Einstein, the same goes with GW. It's really not in a scientists interest to follow the status-quo.

The funding for science, and climate science, comes no matter the result is. Scientist don't care either way, neither do their funders.

 

[Tim]

Wow, perhaps the biggest scam in recorded history?

It was announced Thursday afternoon that computer hackers had obtained 160 megabytes of e-mails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in England. Those e-mails involved communication among many scientific researchers and policy advocates with similar ideological positions all across the world. Those purported authorities were brazenly discussing the destruction and hiding of data that did not support global-warming claims.

Professor Phil Jones, the head of the Climate Research Unit, and professor Michael E. Mann at Pennsylvania State University, who has been an important scientist in the climate debate, have come under particular scrutiny. Among his e-mails, Mr. Jones talked to Mr. Mann about the "trick of adding in the real temps to each series ... to hide the decline [in temperature]."

Hopefully this will put an end to the Cap and Tax debacle that Obama has been trying to get passed, and perhaps put the final nail in the coffin of so-called global warming. I mean come on here, deleting data and e-mails that disagree with their own beliefs, manipulating data to show warming trends where there were actually cooling trends? It's disgusting on so many levels that I don't even know where to begin.

If you read this recent article it will explain the "trick" that was used and why/how it was used.
Penn State scientist fights back -- themorningcall.com
Penn State scientist Michael E. Mann was interviewed for the article.

 

[dt3]

Groups with the most reputation, that have the most to lose if they are caught in a lie. Like NASA.

Alright, fair enough. You don't want me to question the data, and you say NASA is trustworthy. So let's look at some NASA data, using the following 2 sites:

Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Graphs

Data @ NASA GISS: GISTEMP -- "Warm" Stations'

A quick look at the first site shows us the following two scary graphs:






Those graphs scream "OMG WE'RE HEATING UP!!!!".

Then you scroll a little further down, and see this convenient breakdown by latitude:



If you'll notice the scale on the left of the Temperature Anomaly, it seems the Northern Latitudes have double and triple the warming of low and southern latitudes over the last 100 years. So now you have to wonder, how is it "global" warming, if it isn't remotely close to uniform across the globe?

And they nicely compile it back together again for us in this graph:




How can there be such a disparity in the warming of the north and south hemispheres? Don't worry, I asked myself the same question. Luckily, the second site I provided might have some answers:



More than 2/3 of the weather stations used for this data are located between 30 and 60 degrees of latitude! I'm not a statistician, and I'm not a climatologist, but looking at that fact objectively seriously makes me question the accuracy of the overall claims. 1/3 of the data comes from 1/6 of the planet? That's bad statistics, and bad science.

But wait, I kept looking. On the first link, there's a handy-dandy list of the top 10 hottest years in a Word Doc.

For the area between 24 degrees and 90 degrees north in latitude, the 10 hottest years are:

1997, 1998 ,2001 ,2002 ,2003 ,2004 ,2005 ,2006 ,2007 , and 2008.

In the US (which is entirely in that same latitude band) the 10 hottest years are:

1921, 1931, 1934, 1938, 1939, 1953, 1990, 1998, 1999, and 2006.

How can there be such a huge discrepancy? Two locations at the same latitude on different sides of the globe typically have very similar climates overall.

So who's right? Was the hottest year 1934 or 2005? Apparently NASA isn't even sure. Personally, my hypothesis is that the US temperatures are right. I have more confidence in our weather reporting than I do in the reporting coming out of Ankara Turkey or Tunis Tunisia.

So what does the US temperature averages say about warming trends?



They've gone up a little, but not NEARLY as much as those first two graphs indicate. I think the data used in the first two graphs is inherently flawed by global inaccuracies in reporting procedures, which I showed with the US temps versus the global temps at the same latitudes.

What's my conclusion, you ask? I don't know. I'm just trying to show that there are a lot of inaccuracies in the data, that lack coherent explanations.

 

[nova]

An article by Lindzen that pretty much covers my overall thoughts...

Richard S. Lindzen: The Climate Science Isn't Settled - WSJ.com

As far as the relationship between data and theory, data is collected in order to both formulate and test a theory. Your initial data is used to develop a theory (model) that fits that data. You then use the theory (model) to make predictions of future data that will be collected. Assuming correct methodology in the data collection, if the new data doesn't fit what your theory predicts, then you're theory is wrong. You modify theories and models to fit data not the other way around...