106 replies to this topic

[The Average Joe]

This is fairly long by internet standards (about 28 pages) and you might just say TLDNR (too long, did not read) which is fine. I was interested in this as it pertained to "climate science" but it really goes much further than that. It is a draft of an upcoming chapter titled Can High Moral Purpose Undermine Scientific Integrity? Anyone who has followed the climate scare would know the answer is yes, but they give several other examples relating to other topics.

 

Might be deep in the weeds, but this is the kind of stuff I find interesting YMMV

 

http://www.rci.rutge...cIntegrity.docx

 

Here is a much shorter article on the same issues:

 

http://quillette.com...ut-stereotypes/

[apeman45]

Oh I do love science.  The great thing about science is it continually evolves as more facts and statistics become available.  If the research is done correctly and the correct models are deployed to verify the data then political or moral beliefs have absolutely no impact on the research.  That's what is so great about it.  Using climate change as an example of my theory reveals that 97 percent of scientists from around the world have concluded that climate change is real.  Despite their culture, religion, geographic location or belief system they all came to the same conclusion.  Of course the 3 percent of these scientists may have let their belief systems get in the way of reaching the conclusion of the other 97%.  Or is it the other way around? 

 

Here's an interesting read from the folks who faked the moon landing:

 

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

[GrumpyOldGuy]

Replace "High Moral Purpose" with "Lust for Riches" and you get the USA.

[The Average Joe]

Oh I do love science.  The great thing about science is it continually evolves as more facts and statistics become available.  If the research is done correctly and the correct models are deployed to verify the data then political or moral beliefs have absolutely no impact on the research.  That's what is so great about it.  Using climate change as an example of my theory reveals that 97 percent of scientists from around the world have concluded that climate change is real.  Despite their culture, religion, geographic location or belief system they all came to the same conclusion.  Of course the 3 percent of these scientists may have let their belief systems get in the way of reaching the conclusion of the other 97%.  Or is it the other way around? 

 

Here's an interesting read from the folks who faked the moon landing:

 

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

I hope your climate scientist reference is sarcasm. The 97% of scientists claim is a PRIME example of bad science. Bad questions, bad methodology, bad sampling, etc. Climate science is the posterchild for bad science.

The "97 percent" figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make...

Mr. Cook's work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August 2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found "only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse" the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming.

 

 

You say if the research is done correctly, and the right models are used...I whole hardheartedly agree. The over 100 climate models used by the IPCC have a nearly 100% failure rate to model reality which is below even their lowest margins of temperature increase. Obviously, there is something wrong with the models. Research done correctly does not "adjust" data for arbitrary reasons or fail to adjust data for reasonable ones so that a preconceived outcome is obtained.  Research done correctly does not hide data, refuse to allow dissenting data, and collude to suppress alternative ideas.

No scientist refuses to release his data so that others may verify and replicate his experiment. No scientist colludes with other scientists and publications to exclude data/conclusions that are at odds with their own. Yes, science SHOULD continually evolve as it is the search for truth. When political whim and money pour into a preferred outcome, won't the results be tainted? I have spent literally hundreds of hours over the years reading paper after paper on the AGW scare. (I know, get a life) I thought that it could be a very important issue. The deeper I dug, the more discouraged I was to see what passed for "science." As a huge fan of all hard sciences, it saddens me to see where we are. Unfortunately, when the truth about AGW is finally known for sure, I feel the damage to the credibility of scientists and science in general will be devastating. Especially for a populace woefully uneducated in them.

 

Your link to the NASA page I found interesting, as I have researched Nasa data extensively. James Hansen (directer until 2013) has made outrageous claims and was a huge proponent of AGW worst scenario cases. He is an agenda driven ideologue also known as the godfather of AGW.  That he has an IPCC claim on the top of his warming page is telling. The IPCC is a joke. WIld, unvetted claims by environmental groups have been included as science in their data for politicians. Former head Pachauri was also an ideologue with degrees in mechanical engineering and economics. Despite their models being wrong and a lack of evidence to support their position, they have INCREASED their confidence that they are correct. Hmmm, I thought you were supposed to follow the data and evolve.

 

I have read many, many papers on all the topics covered on the NASA page from sea ice to ocean rise to CO2 levels over geologic timelines to glacier melt, etc. Hyperbole does not equal science. Have you followed GISS data? Or HadCrut? Have you matched the data to the claims? Have you questioned the claims and methodology? I have, and will continue to do so until I have compelling evidence to the contrary.

 

And finally, why does every AGW "solution" involve the transfer of massive amounts of money? (see my sig below) Want to know what AGW is about? Read what those involved say in their own word>>> http://www.forbes.co...-their-science/

[apeman45]

I was just a simple geology major in college.  What do I know?

 

Why the massive effort to discredit science?  Even IF climate change isn't real then what is wrong with cleaning up the air and water for the sake of people's health and well being?  Why not migrate our energy away from coal and oil?  The right to pollute and dirty energy only benefits the corporations that profit off making people sick.  Can you site some studies to show that the filthy air in Beijing is really fog?  Do you remember what the LA skyline looked like before California required clean emission standards on cars and required the cleaner summer blends of gasoline?  

 

It is normal to have climate swings over thousands of years.  I am seeing extreme climate changes in my lifetime which is not normal.  I used to ski at Mammoth on the 4th of July.  I'm a huge backpacker and the high sierra passes were NEVER passable until late July or August.  In the last 15 years I've been going over these passes in June.  It's raining instead of snowing at very high elevations.  This is just my personal experience.  The worldwide extreme climate events are being reported by scientists that have no agenda and they are irrefutable extreme events that should take thousands of years that are happening in 10 years.  Huge ice shelfs melting, worldwide temperatures rising and previously never impassable frozen waterways suddenly ice free.  Do ALL these scientists have agendas?

 

That Paris climate deal must be keeping you up at night?  What fools these scientists and politicians all over the world must be. How can poor Exxon oil continue to make billions.  

[The Average Joe]

I have no interest in discrediting science. I DO have an interest in discrediting BAD science, and politically driven science.  With all due respect to your anecdotal "evidence", worldwide "extreme climate events" have occurred for millions of years. As a geology major, you should know that. Local weather is not global climate change. I could add anecdotal "evidence" that things are cooling based on my mid summer experiences in the Rockies. As a person of science, you should recognize that as worthless. BTW, California has always had droughts and even mega droughts. Can't apply regional weather to global climate.

 

No massive effort. I just am intrigued by the subject and like to do my own research instead of parroting nonsense talking points like the 97% garbage. The climate is changing, undoubtedly. That man is causing OR CAN CONTROL IT is unproven and unprovable.  AND, the onus of proof lies with those making the claims, not the ones pointing out the flaws in the theories.

 

The Paris Treaty, strike that, Paris "Agreement" is a joke. No enforcement, no treaty, just a bunch of folks saying, "Yes, we should do something. Let's meet again in five years to see how things are going. BTW, make those "climate reparations" checks out to all the third world countries that want them..." They claim they will limit CO2 emissions to what can be absorbed by oceans and trees naturally. Unfortunately, that is an unquantifiable amount. No one knows how the oceans regulate CO2 to that specificity. Same for trees.They are using guestimates that have a huge margin of error.

 

Here is a set of graphs that offer perspective on the claims of "unprecedented" warming:  http://www.foresight...nanodot/?p=3553

 

Should we strive for clean air and water? Yes. Our air and water is cleaner than it has been for 70 years. AGW  and clean environment are not the same thing.

As for ice sheets melting. Some are, but some are also growing. Record ice in the Antarctic BTW.  Which outweighs losses in the North. See, as a geologist, you should be well aware that the ice sheets that covered our hemisphere very recently (geologically speaking) are still retreating.

 

Which leads me to these statements and the 64,000 questions. Life as we know it would cease to exist at less than 170 ppm of CO2. We are now at around 400ppm. At various times in geologic history, CO2 has been as high as 4000 ppm without destruction of life or corresponding runaway increase in temperature. The world has been much warmer than it is now, but generally, it is much more likely to have been much colder. Given all that. What is the "optimum" temperature? What is the "optimum" CO2 level? Higher is certainly better for plants. What is the ideal sea level? Since civilization flourishes when climate is warm, and suffers when climate is cold, why is a 2 degree rise bad? And finally, what kind of hubris does it take to think that man can control global climate to fit into some arbitrary "optimum?"

 

Answer those questions, and we can get to the meat of the "problem."

 

Oh, and spare me the "evil oil" screed. Until you give up Amazon deliveries, all the plastic in your home, bicycle to work and eat food grown within walking distance, you are a hypocrite. You use oil based products every day all the while decrying the companies that make your life oh so much easier. Please.

[Chris]

I was just a simple geology major in college.  What do I know?

 

Me too bro, BA in Geology in 1985, SF State.   "Man made global warming" is an invented political and social manipulation tool to redistribute wealth from the first world to the third world and to give power and economic control (think taxation) to the left, the government, the unions, and the UN over corporations and the people.   Just another way for the dimwit progressives to control us and tell us what to do in every aspect of our lives under the threat of "real science".   Sad that you seem to have fallen for it.   And if you really look at the whole picture and not just your 15 years of hiking over the Sierra passes we are actually going into a Solar Minimum I believe which will make it much colder for the next 10 to 15 years, maybe more....?   This can happen with less precipitation on average too  (think less snow and ice).   Maybe not where you are but on average all over the globe.  Weather is like that, less snow in one place does not mean global warming is a fact and man made or occurring at all.  Now if you did your hiking in the Antarctic in the last 15 years you would be convinced another big ice age is just around the corner.  

 

Chris

 

p.s. Joe, you are right on the money brother....! 

[GrumpyOldGuy]

Several points:

 

1)  One need only look at the Keeling Curve to see that serious climate changes are indeed underway. 

2)  Some people want you to believe GW is an environmental problem.  It's actually an economic problem.

3)  GW will likely lead to massive population relocations and the disruptions that will accompany them, some disastrous.

4)  Humans are overrunning the planet and to think they have no influence on climates is naïve.

5)  Why do we have to wait for absolute proof of some detrimental result of our actions before we actually do something?  By then, it's usually too late.

6)  If liberals get their way, we only get a cleaner and more pleasant planet to live on. If conservatives get their way, we get the possibility of draconian climate problems.  Ready to roll those dice?

7)  Look up the term "thermal runaway".  It's what happened to the planet Venus where the average surface temperature is approx. 850 degrees F.

[The Average Joe]

Several points:

 

1)  One need only look at the Keeling Curve to see that serious climate changes are indeed underway. 

 

False premise. Increase from 3 one hundredth of 1 percent concentration to 4 one hundredth of 1 percent is not an indicator for serious climate change. It IS an indicator for minor atmospheric composition change. BTW, corollary does not equal causation.

 

2)  Some people want you to believe GW is an environmental problem.  It's actually an economic problem.

 

The whole premise is based upon an "environmental problem". Fighting supposed AGW IS an economic problem.

 

3)  GW will likely lead to massive population relocations and the disruptions that will accompany them, some disastrous.

 

Evidence? BTW, even if true, so what? People have always relocated to better conditions. Ever hear of the Anasazi? Or the Mayans? The Sahara used to be fertile land. the Vikings left Greenland, Etc, etc. Is my CO2 footprint responsible for that as well? Climate changes. It always has. Go back far enough and much of the world was sub-tropical forest.. Climate changes. People change to adapt to it. Which is a much more realistic choice than assuming one can control it.

 

4)  Humans are overrunning the planet and to think they have no influence on climates is naïve.

 

Overrunning the planet? Hyperbole much? I won't say they have zero effect on climate. I will certainly say that they do not have catastrophic influence. Where is the EVIDENCE.

 

5)  Why do we have to wait for absolute proof of some detrimental result of our actions before we actually do something?  By then, it's usually too late.

 

Because, um, that's a logical thing to do? Certainly more logical than disrupting the worlds economy and "redistributing" trillions of dollars to developing nations. Also, because we are being asked to forfeit cheap, abundant power that allows ALL to prosper and live a first world life and replace it with unicorn farts and dreams of utopia. I am all for abundant clean power, and just as soon as tabletop fusion is available, I'll be first in line.

 

6)  If liberals get their way, we only get a cleaner and more pleasant planet to live on. If conservatives get their way, we get the possibility of draconian climate problems.  Ready to roll those dice?

 

This is not a liberal/conservative argument. This is a science vs political argument. You don't get a "cleaner, more pleasant planet". You get skyrocketing costs for power which reduces third world economic growth (as well as first world). You get people who can't afford energy freezing to death in the winter and dying of heat stroke in the summer (already happening). A 2 degree increase is hardly a draconian problem. A 2 degree DECREASE on the other hand would be devastating.

 

7)  Look up the term "thermal runaway".  It's what happened to the planet Venus where the average surface temperature is approx. 850 degrees F.

 

Another strawman with ZERO evidence for our situation. I looked it up. You are correct that that is what is theorized happened on Venus. I will repost the pertinent parts from the thermal runaway post: 

 

...simulations indicate that no plausible human-made greenhouse gas (GHG) forcing can cause an instability and baked-crust runaway greenhouse effect...  

A forcing of 12–16 W m⁻²would require carbon dioxide (CO₂) levels to increase 8–16 times. If the forcing were due only to CO₂ change, this would raise the global mean temperature by 16–24°C with much larger polar warming. A warming of 16–24°C produces a moderately moist greenhouse, with water vapour increasing to about 1% of the atmosphere's mass, thus increasing the rate of hydrogen escape to space. If such a forcing were entirely due to CO₂, the weathering process would remove the excess atmospheric CO₂ on a time scale of 10⁴–10⁵ years, well before the ocean was significantly depleted. Venus-like conditions on the Earth require a large long-term forcing that is unlikely to occur until the sun brightens by a few tens of percent, which will take a few billion years

 

Now, are you ready to try to answer my previous questions? I promise to be gentle in my critique...

 

[Chris]

Several points:

 

1)  One need only look at the Keeling Curve to see that serious climate changes are indeed underway. 

2)  Some people want you to believe GW is an environmental problem.  It's actually an economic problem.

3)  GW will likely lead to massive population relocations and the disruptions that will accompany them, some disastrous.

4)  Humans are overrunning the planet and to think they have no influence on climates is naïve.

5)  Why do we have to wait for absolute proof of some detrimental result of our actions before we actually do something?  By then, it's usually too late.

6)  If liberals get their way, we only get a cleaner and more pleasant planet to live on. If conservatives get their way, we get the possibility of draconian climate problems.  Ready to roll those dice?

7)  Look up the term "thermal runaway".  It's what happened to the planet Venus where the average surface temperature is approx. 850 degrees F.

Sorry Grumpus, more solar related and all natural, just the Earth doing its thing, over and over again.....  We really have nothing to do with it at all.  The Earth has done the exact same thing thousands of times over (other planets in our solar system too) and we were not present for 99.99% of those events.  CO2 is not your enemy, never was, never will be (unless you are in a sealed container full of it and can't get out, but your plants will love it...!).  And remember back in the 1970's, the government said an Ice Age was coming and the liberals got their panties all in a bunch over that too.   The key thing here with this Global Warming charade is that now the liberals have found a way to monetize it (think taxation).   Very smart on their part, manipulate the uniformed masses, reach deeper into their wallets to feed their propaganda and political machine, punish "evil" carbon producing corporations who are their natural political enemies, and stay in political power all the while, brilliant....!   Chris

[apeman45]

Right on Grumpy Old Man my brother!  You kept Joe busy for hours pulling up data to refute science.  It takes a lot of work to dig through volumes of data supporting science and climate change before you can find some data done by a paid "scientist" to support for example the drilling rights of an oil company.

 

I ask my question again - outside of whether GW is real what is wrong with developing clean energy?  It creates new industries and jobs and may lead to us getting off the teats of the middle eastern oil countries.  

 

Chris - How many more of our young people must die protecting our political interests in oil producing s--- holes?!

            As a geologist you need to revisit the geologic time scale and how it measures changes over MILLIONS of years and not decades.

 

I've actually spent a lot of time in Chaco Canyon in New Mexico which was the center of the Anasazi culture.  An amazing place.  These people were in tune with their surroundings since it was always a rather harsh place to live.  Every structure they built was aligned with the sun.  They had solar clocks so they always knew the seasons precisely which was vital to their survival and it was part of their ceremonies.  They did endure some droughts over their centuries of living there.  There are many theories as to why they left but it's really not that exciting. They most likely assimilated into nearby populations.  They did not have a written language so no one knows for sure.  Many speculate it was a religious center or university.  They found items from South America such as Toucan birds and chocolate.  Anyway a fascinating place I highly recommend a visit to.

[Chris]

Right on Grumpy Old Man my brother!  You kept Joe busy for hours pulling up data to refute science.  It takes a lot of work to dig through volumes of data supporting science and climate change before you can find some data done by a paid "scientist" to support for example the drilling rights of an oil company.

 

I ask my question again - outside of whether GW is real what is wrong with developing clean energy?  It creates new industries and jobs and may lead to us getting off the teats of the middle eastern oil countries.  

 

Chris - How many more of our young people must die protecting our political interests in oil producing s--- holes?!

            As a geologist you need to revisit the geologic time scale and how it measures changes over MILLIONS of years and not decades.

 

 

Apeman, you are late to this argument on this forum....   If keeping Joe busy is your motive please rethink.....   All of you anthropogenic global warming fan boys go away in the end.

 

And the paid "scientists" are the government and environmental wacko organization ones.....

 

Global warming, and coollng are always real, it's the cycle of the Earth and the other planets for that matter.....  It is just that we have nothing to do with it, not our fault, cause, nada, nothing.  We just observe and study.....  It's the Sun man, the Sun.....!

 

Clean energy is great, I have solar on my house in fact.  Renewable energy accounts for like 10% of our power generated in the USA every year, of that about 6% is hydropower.   So keep working, do the science and maybe you progressives can come up with the other 90% and replace oil, gas, and coal.  Until then you guys need to wake up and do the math, and science.

 

And if you progressives did not do everything you can to shut down fracking we would not have to send money to the Wahibi's for their oil and then they return to eating sand and riding camels.

 

And you make my point for me, but it is in Billions of years, not just Millions of years.  Thank you.  Chris

[GrumpyOldGuy]

Joe - you seem really impressed with yourself.

 

1)  Your analysis of the Keeling Curve looks at the data only in time domain.  If you do a Fourier transform on the data and  look at it in the frequency domain, you will note that the rate of change is unprecedented.  It's a cause for concern.  And "corollary does not equal causation"?  Come on.  I believe the causative relationship between CO2 and warming has been known for a couple decades.

 

2)  Let me clarify...GW will be the source of significant economic problems. 

 

3)  Citing Anasazi and Mayan migrations is irrelevant.  Those migrations happened centuries ago when they could move to places that were not claimed as sovereign territory by some other nation.  Please come into this century. Take a look at the migration currently underway from the Middle East to Europe.  It's causing significant consternation on many levels.  And closer to home, this country has its toga in a knot over the thought of relocating a few hundred Syrians here.  The only migrations that no one will dispute will be to Antarctica.  Large migrations will be a very serious problem.  Wars have been started over less.

 

4)  Many of the problems the planet faces are the direct or indirect result of overpopulation.  Famine, rapid spread of disease, long lines at the DMV...take your pick. Problem is that it's not politically correct to discuss it.  The mid-70's film "Soylent Green" might provide some insight into what happens if overpopulation isn't addressed in some way. 

 

5)  Why do we have to wait for absolute proof?  Take a look at what has happened in the tobacco industry over the last 60 years.  For a couple decades, the industry published document after document that refuted the idea that smoking was bad for your health.  They wanted "absolute proof" that smoking caused cancer before they would do anything.  How many died while waiting for the "absolute proof"?  It appears the anti-GW crowd is using the tobacco industry's playbook verbatim.  Unfortunately, it still seems to be working.  Time will correct it, hopefully not too late.

 

6)  You don't get a "cleaner, more pleasant planet"??  Travel much?  Did you ever visit LA in the 1980's?  Since Calif initiated strict clean air policies around that time, the air quality of LA has improved dramatically.  Today, you can actually SEE the San Gabriel Mountains from Anaheim...every day.  That never happened 30 years ago.  I travel to China for work 3-4 times a year.  Until you've spent a week in Beijing and literally chewed on their atmosphere, you will never appreciate the benefits that environmental regulations have provided to the USA.   And you think it's a giant scheme to redistribute wealth?  We've been redistributing wealth for a century.  Why is it all of the sudden now a problem?  America collects taxes from you and me, then gives it away in the form of subsidies to giant corporations and foreign nations.  $$$ redistribution is nothing new.

 

7)  From what esteemed scientific journal did you extract that stuff?  

[Chris]

Hey Apester and Grumpus, a book in my pile I have not read yet but perused.   The Third Horseman, Climate Change and the Great Famine of the 14th Century by William Rosen.  Not sure of the author's position yet on man made global warming but I am looking forward to reading it next.  Yes, the climate is changing and my argument is that it is all natural Earth cycles and we have no influence on it whatsoever.  Not too many SUV's and coal fired power plants around in 1315 I am pretty sure.   

 

"Sometime in the spring of 1315, it started to rain across northern Europe and didn’t stop until August. That fall’s harvest was ruined, and nobles made hasty arrangements to bring in what provisions they could. What they didn’t know was that Europe was about to endure the coldest winter in 1,000 years and there would be no planting in the spring of 1316. Wrote a contemporary chronicler: “The whole world is troubled.”

 

 

Check it out, it's on Amazon.  Might open both of your minds a bit......?

 

http://www.amazon.co...y/dp/0143127144

[2 Aces]

Talking to people who have been brainwashed by the GW propaganda is a pointless exercise and a complete waste of time.

GW is now a religion to these believers. It's a cult...and you'll never bring those people back to common sense by using actual science. Oh, and did you hear that both Insane Bernie Sanders and Nutcase Obama are blaming GW for recent terrorism ?? Google it...and try not to laugh.

The Left is brilliant at manipulating the cultists to *buy into* the GW hoax. And it just proves that if you drink enough of the Kool-Aid, you'll believe anything from Leftists without questioning it. And the myth of GW is right at the top of the list.

I wouldn't call them lemmings or sheep, but the comparison does come to mind.