No I mean like resorting to vague accusations of conspiracy without bringing anything to the table beyond fanciful conjecture.
Global Warming: Fact or Fiction
- Thread starter Gary Childress
- Start date
No I mean like resorting to vague accusations of conspiracy without bringing anything to the table beyond fanciful conjecture.
Merkinball
Deity
Do you really need me to list, in full, all of the transgressions from these organizations and the global warming community at large over the last 15 years?
I need you to list falsified studies and data that are keystones to the entire argument of global warming.
Oh, and I'd like to point out that IPCC does not reflect consensus, it merely reflects consensus of what can be achieved politically. The IPCC is a bit too slow to be as accurate as the modern criticism, and certainly cannot factor in data from the latest conference.
Many major university host conferences on climate change, and a decent number of them put up the talks on Youtube. With 1 hour of watching, you can get a summary that's light-years better than the mainstream press. With 8-12 hours, you can get really up-to-date.
Many major university host conferences on climate change, and a decent number of them put up the talks on Youtube. With 1 hour of watching, you can get a summary that's light-years better than the mainstream press. With 8-12 hours, you can get really up-to-date.
Merkinball
Deity
Manipulative awful modeling used by the IPCC to forward catastrophic results of global warming. Model was not open to criticism until after it was propagandized.
Bad science: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy
Bad controls: IE, bad collection of temperature readings
http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather_stations/
James Hansen, GISS, NASA manipulate data: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/11/19/nasa_giss_cockup_catalog/
I don't think I need to talk about the Climategate scandal, or dredge up Ainwood's posts on the Climategate data for Australia and New Zealand.
*Tip of the iceberg.
Bad science: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy
Bad controls: IE, bad collection of temperature readings
http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather_stations/
James Hansen, GISS, NASA manipulate data: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/11/19/nasa_giss_cockup_catalog/
I don't think I need to talk about the Climategate scandal, or dredge up Ainwood's posts on the Climategate data for Australia and New Zealand.
*Tip of the iceberg.
Merkinball
Deity
What isn't key stone about not following protocols when placing thermometers for data collection when your entire argument is predicated on collecting accurate temperature data.
What isn't key stone about not following protocols when placing thermometers for data collection when your entire argument is predicated on collecting accurate temperature data.
Because the argument for global warming doesn't come just from the sources you cited. It's not enough to discredit one point or one paper and say that this undermines the entire theory. You have to demonstrate either why the data that's been accumulated through sound methods is being interpreted wrong, or show a truly vast green conspiracy (the likes of which I find laughable considering the competitiveness in scientific fields) to discredit the theory, and not individuals.
The wonderful thing about science isn't that it's infallible but that it's self-correcting. If there were a true controversy here that put into doubt the entire theory of global warming (not some isolated data points and studies), it would be a fantastic coup for the person or team to demonstrate it. That hasn't happened.
Amazingly, satellite data is also showing a warming. Metrics such as permafrost migration, sea-ice loss, and desert expansion also show warming. Sea level rise, too. Coral bleaching. Migration shifts. Wait, there's more. Changing precipitation variance, though that's probably getting to esoteric.
Excuses such as volcano, sun spots, etc. have been debunked. Well, more that they've been proven false, because they were a viable theories that were disproven with data.
I mean, for gods sake, fossil carbon is changing the metrics by which we analyse maple syrup. You'd think it could have a global effect at the same time.
Excuses such as volcano, sun spots, etc. have been debunked. Well, more that they've been proven false, because they were a viable theories that were disproven with data.
I mean, for gods sake, fossil carbon is changing the metrics by which we analyse maple syrup. You'd think it could have a global effect at the same time.
Merkinball
Deity
Okay, that's fine. When it comes to the scientific method, you formulate a hypothesis, and then you collect data to verify it. So if I do my masters thesis, and it is suggested and then proven that I purposefully fudged my data, or was lazy in my data collection, or if I failed to follow prescribed protocols, what do you think happens to my research thesis? Do you think the professors and professionals in the room say, "Well, he only failed to follow protocols on 20% of his data, if the rest of it is okay, then he has still proven his thesis." No, that's not what happens. My thesis is thrown away, because if I have shown to manipulate data in one area, it not only throws off the results, but indicates that I may have done it in other areas as well. That is why a bunch of people in my class have been flunked on papers for copying single meaningless sentences from Wikipedia. The idea in the scientific community is that you can't be dishonest about anything because it instantly calls into question everything you've ever done. If a student goes his entire degree getting a 4.0, but he's then caught cheating on a test that he gets an A on, he's going to be expelled regardless of the fact that he got A's on all of his other work. If a professor does this at a school, he will be expelled from his profession and black-listed. He'll never find work. So tell me why this standard should not be upheld to the global warming community that has so frequently been caught doing downright fraudulent things that are antithetical to everything that science is supposed to stand for?
If temperature data in America, of all places, is being manipulated, why should I or anybody else trust that data is being recorded accurately elsewhere?
Lastly, it's not me that has to prove anything. I am not the one making the hypothesis. The global warming community is the one making the hypothesis. It is up to them to be open and honest about their data collection and methods. It is up to them to not hide behind data. It is up to them to encourage criticism, not run away from it. It is up to them follow protocols and establish protocols. I am the professor sitting in the room watching the thesis defense. They are the ones defending the hypothesis with data. It's up to you to defend the hypothesis.
I've shown you a number of examples of poor science here. They're pretty back breaking. Quite honestly, I don't feel too compelled to waste too much more time looking more and more evidence of wrongdoing.
The analogy you're making isn't that you're paper is being thrown out for fudging 20% of your data, but that your peer's paper is being thrown out for making the same argument you made.
Merkinball
Deity
If this is all so wonderful and proving the hypothesis, then why such an overt effort to avoid criticism, to formulate protective circles in the scientific journal community, why the exorcism of scientists who question what is going on? Why the need to stick thermometers near exhaust vents? Why don't they just follow simply protocols? Why the need for Hansen to fudge data? Why the need to make bad models?
If there was more openness and honesty from the global warming community I'd be much more inclined to hop on the band-wagon. But as it stands there is deep seeded dishonesty that runs very high into the hierarchy of the global warming community. It's too tied to politics. There's too much money. There's too much dishonesty. It all calls everything into question.
So we're back to it's a conspiracy.
Why do people get dismissed? They're not bringing hard data to the table. It's easy to conjecture but to back it up is another matter. No one is bringing credible evidence to the table that the scientific consensus is wrong. You want to play ball you have to follow a few rules, one of which is backing your statements up.
Why do people get dismissed? They're not bringing hard data to the table. It's easy to conjecture but to back it up is another matter. No one is bringing credible evidence to the table that the scientific consensus is wrong. You want to play ball you have to follow a few rules, one of which is backing your statements up.
Merkinball
Deity
What's conspiratorial about abject facts. People and organizations are manipulating data to support their hypothesis. There's nothing conspiratorial about that.
The conspiracy would be the fact that there isn't a massive dismissal of global warming among the scientific community, those who know the theory to be wrong and can demonstrate it are staying quiet.
Some of the world's most powerful charities, especially ones that deal with desperate poverty, act as if AGW is something to be concerned about.
http://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gates.html
edit: linked it before I watched it, so I might end up disagreeing with some of his reasoning.
http://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gates.html
edit: linked it before I watched it, so I might end up disagreeing with some of his reasoning.
Gustave5436
Emperor
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2008
- Messages
- 1,319
I am merely looking at a trend which is already happening whereby the semi-arid zones surrounding deserts such as the Sahara are encroaching more and more on non-deserts and, in so doing, expanding the deserts behind them.
Oh BS, go talk to someone else if you think you're a damn mind reader.
Certain gases do increase naturally as the world warms, but I didn't write off anything nor did I say we haven't put any gases into the atmosphere. WTH? Dont put words in my mouth to accuse me of dishonesty.cya
Most warming looked at in climate science, as far as I know, is not from the immediate period surrounding the little ice age and the rapid industrialization which, coincidentally, happened at the same time, but rather tracking atmospheric levels of various gases and corresponding temperatures over the course of the 20th century, particularly post-WWII. It seemed to me that you were trying to shift things all the way back to the middle of the 19th century; if I misinterpreted your statements, then it was a simple misunderstanding, not me arrogantly presuming the ability to read minds.
Furthermore, again according to my interpretation of what you were saying, you seemed to be painting the current warming trend (along with the 30% increase in carbon dioxide levels and so on and so forth) as simply a holdover from the end of the little ice age in the 19th century. If you did not mean to suggest that warming trends in the 90s and 00s are largely the result of the end of that cool period, then against I was mistaken, but you needn't get defensive over such an honest misunderstanding. However, I still am unaware as to exactly what your position is, so if you wish to clear up this miscommunication I am open to hearing your explanation of what you intended to express.
TheLastOne36
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2007
- Messages
- 14,045
My answer. I believe that Global Warming is real, and natural, but we are doing our best to speed it up.
Gustave5436
Emperor
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2008
- Messages
- 1,319
"Natural" is itself vague. The Earth gets its heat from the Sun, and the Sun is slowly increasing in luminosity. So, on geologic timescales of hundreds of millions of years, the Sun can definitely be blamed for warming trends. However, when you're looking at decades, rather than millions and millions of years, the Sun cannot be the source. Any measurable change must be due to local changes in the Earth's climate, which are almost assuredly related to human increases of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (as I am unaware of any wholly natural increases in the Earth's libido, or things of that sort, in the recent past).
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,338
All of those are "esoteric". Satellite data has been interpreted to produce very different results by various teams which studied it. Sea level variations vary depending on the place where you are measuring. Coral bleaching can be due to changing currents. Ice sea is not even worth commenting. None are conclusive evidence of "global warming". The fact is that we cannot ever have conclusive evidence of small changes in the temperature of the planet, and whatever changes have been happening are small. The whole notion of average earth temperatures is absurd, temperature is a local variable which cannot be averaged. Energy could, and temperate is an indict indicator of that, granted. Indirect. And the satellite measurements are not of temperature, but even the contradictory interpretations of those show very well how messy the whole climate "science" is.
That which some scientists and politicians call "Global Warming" - a certainty that the planet is getting warmer - is fiction. It may be warming, but there's no certainty about that.
Similar threads
- Poll
