Most legitimate scientific organization that disagrees with man made climate change

[MLD Woody]

In the meantime, astronomers continue to learn more about the early universe with the fantastic data coming down from JWST. 

The irony is that JWST's observations are actually supporting the Big Bang model, showing that the first galaxies were smaller and grew larger over time, just as Big Bang cosmology predicts. The surprising finding that galaxies in the early universe are more plentiful, and a little more massive and structured than expected, doesn't mean that the Big Bang is wrong. It just means that some of the cosmology that follows the Big Bang requires a little bit of tweaking. 

And that's the fun of science. Despite the arguments from Lerner and other science deniers, science is never clean-cut; we're always learning, always improving our theories, and there is no shadowy conspiracy trying to stamp out independent thought. More than anything, science is based on observation and evidence, which the Big Bang has in bucketloads. 

 

That's not to say people shouldn't be allowed to question things, but intelligent questioning is done in a framework of open-mindedness without pre-conceived ideologies, where beliefs are forged by evidence, rather than the other way around. That's exactly how the Big Bang theory was conceived nearly a century ago: by following the (then surprising) evidence that the universe is expanding, working out what this might logically mean, and then testing it on predictions such as the existence of the CMB radiation.

[nickers]

@mld-woody said:

In the meantime, astronomers continue to learn more about the early universe with the fantastic data coming down from JWST. 

The irony is that JWST's observations are actually supporting the Big Bang model, showing that the first galaxies were smaller and grew larger over time, just as Big Bang cosmology predicts. The surprising finding that galaxies in the early universe are more plentiful, and a little more massive and structured than expected, doesn't mean that the Big Bang is wrong. It just means that some of the cosmology that follows the Big Bang requires a little bit of tweaking. 

And that's the fun of science. Despite the arguments from Lerner and other science deniers, science is never clean-cut; we're always learning, always improving our theories, and there is no shadowy conspiracy trying to stamp out independent thought. More than anything, science is based on observation and evidence, which the Big Bang has in bucketloads. 

 

That's not to say people shouldn't be allowed to question things, but intelligent questioning is done in a framework of open-mindedness without pre-conceived ideologies, where beliefs are forged by evidence, rather than the other way around. That's exactly how the Big Bang theory was conceived nearly a century ago: by following the (then surprising) evidence that the universe is expanding, working out what this might logically mean, and then testing it on predictions such as the existence of the CMB radiation.

It was basically the work of Edwin Hubble who deduced after careful observation the universe was expanding. Without his outstanding studies we would not be where we are today.. I don't think the BBT is entirely wrong.. But I don't think its the final answer either... I think of it more as a component to what/however it all started... I think in the end sonic frequencies will have a lot to do with this.. I know it sounds weird.. But so is the Universe itself...

[FY56]

@mld-woody said:

Any time anytime vaguely scientific comes out of the mouths of right wing posters on here I don't believe you've ever been correct...

I did a little digging, and you are right, but it's not a matter of denial on my part. I have no issues with the Big Bang Theory.

After The Webb telescope findings, we were inundated with internet stories and YOUTUBE "The Big Bang Debunked" "videos... and how  "we must re-think how the universe began"....and that's sorta where I left off...never going back later to follow up on the subject so I took it for granted.

I just watched one of my favorites Neil Degrasse Tyson who in a nutshell said that the Webb didn't debunk the BBT.

Brian Cox is fascinating to listen to.  Michio Kaku is another one of my favorites.

[nickers]

@fy56 said:

I did a little digging, and you are right, but it's not a matter of denial on my part. I have no issues with the Big Bang Theory.

After The Webb telescope findings, we were inundated with internet stories and YOUTUBE "The Big Bang Debunked" "videos... and how we must "we must re-think how the universe began"....and that's sorta where I left off...never going back later to follow up on the subject so I took it for granted.

I just watched one of my favorites Neil Degrasse Tyson who in a nutshell said that the Webb didn't debunk the BBT.

Brian Cox is fascinating to listen to.  Michio Kaku is another one of my favorites.

I like NDT... But the celebrity thing with him annoys me a little... Michio Kaku I like because he expresses an open mind to things..

[FY56]

@nickers said:

I like NDT... But the celebrity thing with him annoys me a little... Michio Kaku I like because he expresses an open mind to things..

Yes me too! I could do without the joking around.

But tell the truth, because NDT is black is what most annoys you, right?. LOL  Right Woody?

No one can accuse us of not being pro-diversity. We like listening to the black guy, the bi-sexual white guy, and the Asian. lol

 Not sure if you've ever listened to Cox but he is more subdued than the other two, always smiling, but very captivating.

[nickers]

@fy56 said:

Yes me too! I could do without the joking around.

But tell the truth, because NDT is black is what most annoys you, right?. LOL  Right Woody?

No one can accuse us of not being pro-diversity. We like listening to the black guy, the bi-sexual white guy, and the Asian. lol

 Not sure if you've ever listened to Cox but he is more subdued than the other two, always smiling, but very captivating.

No hell I have lived with black people , so that's the furthest thing from my mind... It's all his Star talk shit that kind of irks me a bit... Brian Cox I vaguely know... The guy more on Woody's level would be Richard Dawkins.. This guy just shits on the existence of God and Creation with every fiber of his being... While some of his studies and concepts are interesting... I find him to be a certified nut job...

EDIT: the thing that bothers me with NDT more than anything is.. He act's more like a Rock Star Celeb than a man of science... Carl Sagan was perfect in every way... He didn't set out to be a media star.. Just was more like Leonard Bernstein... Bringing Science to the public rich or poor.. The way Bernstein gave the common man the opportunity to know and enjoy classical music Not just the wealthy..... Both Bernstein and Sagan are childhood heroes of mine...

[MLD Woody]

@nickers said:

It was basically the work of Edwin Hubble who deduced after careful observation the universe was expanding. Without his outstanding studies we would not be where we are today.. I don't think the BBT is entirely wrong.. But I don't think its the final answer either... I think of it more as a component to what/however it all started... I think in the end sonic frequencies will have a lot to do with this.. I know it sounds weird.. But so is the Universe itself...

Sure, science is ever evolving, learning, getting more accurate, etc. I don't disagree. 

Just hate seeing words twisted by pseudo scientific to straight anti science nut jobs. Not saying that's you or necessarily anyone on here. And while this board highlights those folks on the right, they exist on the left too (example, Greenpeace and their anti nuclear power rhetoric, or hippue anti vaxxers)

[MLD Woody]

@fy56 said:

I did a little digging, and you are right, but it's not a matter of denial on my part. I have no issues with the Big Bang Theory.

After The Webb telescope findings, we were inundated with internet stories and YOUTUBE "The Big Bang Debunked" "videos... and how  "we must re-think how the universe began"....and that's sorta where I left off...never going back later to follow up on the subject so I took it for granted.

I just watched one of my favorites Neil Degrasse Tyson who in a nutshell said that the Webb didn't debunk the BBT.

Brian Cox is fascinating to listen to.  Michio Kaku is another one of my favorites.

Well I appreciate your willingness to look back into something after your initial thoughts on it. All too often that doesn't happen on the Internet or on this board. 

[MLD Woody]

@fy56 said:

Yes me too! I could do without the joking around.

But tell the truth, because NDT is black is what most annoys you, right?. LOL  Right Woody?

No one can accuse us of not being pro-diversity. We like listening to the black guy, the bi-sexual white guy, and the Asian. lol

 Not sure if you've ever listened to Cox but he is more subdued than the other two, always smiling, but very captivating.

I'm for anyone that makes science approachable and inspires the next generation of scientists. Celebrity or not.

Sagan. Nye. NDT. Whomever 

Our nation's science illiteracy is concerning, and it rears its ugly head on many topics. I'm for anything that combats that. 

[hammertime]

Climate deniers?

Experts?

You can shape an issue how ever you want with numbers.

You have zero credibility until you stop denying the truth.

Smile God Loves even you.

[FY56]

@mld-woody said:

I'm for anyone that makes science approachable and inspires the next generation of scientists. Celebrity or not.

Sagan. Nye. NDT. Whomever 

Our nation's science illiteracy is concerning, and it rears its ugly head on many topics. I'm for anything that combats that. 

If it were only limited to science. Our nations illiteracy across the board is concerning.

[Canton Dawg]

@mld-woody said:

Sagan. Nye. NDT. Whomever 

As much as I liked Carl Sagan, he was an astronomer and astrophysicist not a climatologist.

Bill Nye is a mechanical engineer, not a climatologist.

Neil deGrasse Tyson is an astrophysicist, not a climatologist.

Do you see anything wrong with associating these guys with climate?

[nickers]

@canton-dawg said:

As much as I liked Carl Sagan, he was an astronomer and astrophysicist not a climatologist.

Bill Nye is a mechanical engineer, not a climatologist.

Neil deGrasse Tyson is Tyson is an astrophysicist, not a climatologist.

Do you see anything wrong with associating these guys with climate?

On top of that.. Bill Nye is a phony scientist... A complete fraud...

https://medium.com/christian-intellectual/why-bill-nye-is-not-a-scientist-and-why-it-matters-20b6e3fc3fee

[FY56]

@canton-dawg said:

As much as I liked Carl Sagan, he was an astronomer and astrophysicist not a climatologist.

Bill Nye is a mechanical engineer, not a climatologist.

Neil deGrasse Tyson is Tyson is an astrophysicist, not a climatologist.

Do you see anything wrong with associating these guys with climate?

Actually Woody didn't associate these guys with climate.

Thanks to me, this thread segued from climate change into the Big Bang theory, a different topic. Not at all related. 

[FY56]

@mld-woody said:

Curious... for all the climate deniers here... what is the most legitimate scientific organization that agrees with you? Seriously. Name one.

LOL. Considering all the famous cosmologists and astrophysicists we've been speaking of, name one famous climatologist. Seriously. Name one.

That was just a joke Woody, so don't get all serious with me. lol

[calfoxwc]

@mld-woody said:

That's not to say people shouldn't be allowed to question things, but intelligent questioning is done in a framework of open-mindedness without pre-conceived ideologies, where beliefs are forged by evidence, rather than the other way around. That's exactly how the Big Bang theory was conceived nearly a century ago: by following the (then surprising) evidence that the universe is expanding, working out what this might logically mean, and then testing it on predictions such as the existence of the CMB radiation.

That's nice. But when have you EVER been open-minded about anything? Meanwhile, back at the ranch:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/?sh=8a6fe8b485dd

Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims

"Global warming alarmists and their allies in the liberal media have been caught doctoring the results of a widely cited paper asserting there is a 97-percent scientific consensus regarding human-caused global warming. After taking a closer look at the paper, investigative journalists report the authors’ claims of a 97-pecent consensus relied on the authors misclassifying the papers of some of the world’s most prominent global warming skeptics. At the same time, the authors deliberately presented a meaningless survey question so they could twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism.
**********************************************************

[MLD Woody]

@canton-dawg said:

As much as I liked Carl Sagan, he was an astronomer and astrophysicist not a climatologist.

Bill Nye is a mechanical engineer, not a climatologist.

Neil deGrasse Tyson is Tyson is an astrophysicist, not a climatologist.

Do you see anything wrong with associating these guys with climate?

You .... You missed the point man. 

The conversation took a turn from climatologists to science in general. 

[MLD Woody]

@nickers said:

On top of that.. Bill Nye is a phony scientist... A complete fraud...

https://medium.com/christian-intellectual/why-bill-nye-is-not-a-scientist-and-why-it-matters-20b6e3fc3fee

You've also missed the point. 

I was talking about individuals that inspired young people to get into science. Nye falls in that category 

[calfoxwc]

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/02/hacked-climate-emails-flaws-peer-review

Climate change emails between scientists reveal flaws in peer review

"

Cracks in the system have been obvious for years. Yesterday it emerged that 14 leading researchers in a different field – stem cell research – have written an open letter to journal editors to highlight their dissatisfaction with the process. They allege that a small scientific clique is using peer review to block papers from other researchers.

 

Many will see a similar pattern in the emails from UEA's Climatic Research Unit, which brutally expose what happens behind the scenes of peer review and how a chance meeting at a barbecue years earlier had led to one journal editor being suspected of being in the "greenhouse sceptics camp".

The head of the CRU, Professor Phil Jones, as a top expert in his field, was regularly asked to review papers and he sometimes wrote critical reviews that may have had the effect of blackballing papers criticising his work.

Here is how it worked in one case.

A key component in the story of 20th-century warming is data from sparse weather stations in Siberia. This huge area appears to have seen exceptional warming of up to 2C in the past century. But in such a remote region, actual data is sparse. So how reliable is that data, and do scientists interpret it correctly?

In March 2004, Jones wrote to ­Professor Michael Mann, a leading climate scientist at Pennsylvania State University, saying that he had "recently rejected two papers [one for the Journal of ­Geophysical Research and one for Geophysical Research Letters] from people saying CRU has it wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either appears I will be very surprised".

He did not specify which papers he had reviewed, nor what his grounds for rejecting them were. But the Guardian has established that one was probably from Lars Kamel a Swedish astrophysicist ­formerly of the University of Uppsala. It is the only paper published on the topic in the journal that year.

Kamel analysed the temperature records from weather stations in part of southern Siberia, around Lake Baikal. He claimed to find much less warming than Jones, despite analysing much the same data.

 

Kamel told the Guardian: "Siberia is a test case, because it is supposed to be the land area with most warming in the 20th century." The finding sounded important, but his paper was rejected by Geophysical Research Letters (GRL) that year.

Kamel was leaving academic science and never tried to publish it elsewhere. But the draft seen by the Guardian asserts that the difference between his findings on Siberia temperatures and that of Jones is "probably because the CRU compilation contains too little correction for urban warming." He does not, however, justify that conclusion with any data or analysis.Kamel says he no longer has a copy of the anonymous referee judgments on the paper, so we don't know why it was rejected. The paper could be criticised for being slight and for not revealing details about its methods of analysis. A reviewer such as Jones would certainly have been aware of Kamel's views about mainstream climate research, which he had called "pseudo-science". He would also have known that its publication in a journal like GRL would have attracted the attention of professional climate sceptics. Nonetheless, the paper raised important questions about the quality of CRU's Siberian data, and was a rare example of someone trying to replicate Jones's analysis. On those grounds alone, some would have recommended its publication.

Kamel's paper admits the discrepancy "does not necessarily mean the CRU surface record for the entire globe is in error". But it argues that the result suggests it "should be checked in more regions and even globally". Jones was not able to comment on the incident.

Critics of Jones such as the prominent sceptical Stephen McIntyre, who runs the Climate Audit blog have long accused him of preventing critical research from having an airing. McIntyre wrote on his web site in December: "CRU's policies of obstructing critical articles in the peer-reviewed literature and withholding data from critics have unfortunately placed issues into play that might otherwise have been settled long ago." He also says obstructing publication undermine claims that all is well in scientific peer review.

Dr Myles Allen, a climate modeller at the University of Oxford and Professor Hans von Storch, a climate scientist at the Institute for Coastal Research, in Geesthacht, Germany signed a joint column in Nature when the email hacking story broke, in which they said that "no grounds have arisen to doubt the validity of the thermometer-based temperature record since it began in about 1850." But that argument is harder to make if such evidence, flawed though it might be, is actively being kept out of the journals.

In another email exchange CRU scientist Dr Keith Briffa initiates what looks like an attempt to have a paper rejected. In June 2003, as an editor of an unnamed journal, Briffa emailed fellow tree-ring researcher Edward Cook, a researcher at Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in New York, saying: "Confidentially I now need a hard and if required extensive case for rejecting [an unnamed paper] – to ­support Dave Stahle's and really as soon as you can. Please."

 

Stahle is a tree-ring professor from the University of Arkansas. This request appears to subvert the convention that reviewers should be both independent and anonymous.

Cook replied later that day: "OK, today. Promise. Now, something to ask from you." The favour was to provide some data to help Cook review a paper that attacked his own tree-ring work. "If published as is, this paper could really do some damage," he said. "It won't be easy to dismiss out of hand as the math appears to be correct theoretically, but it suffers from the classic problem of pointing out theoretical deficiencies, without showing that their improved [inverse regression] method is actually better in a practical sense."

Briffa was unable to comment. Cook told the Guardian: "These emails are from a long time ago and the details are not ­terribly fresh in my mind."

Jones did not restrict his harsh criticism of papers he saw as flawed to pre-publication reviews. He and Mann also had a reputation for harsh criticism of journals that published papers they disagreed with.

In March 2003, Mann discussed encouraging colleagues to "no longer submit [papers] to, or cite papers in" Climate Research. He was angry about that journal's publication of a series of sceptical papers "that couldn't get published in a reputable journal", according to Mann. His anger at the journal had evidently been building for some time, but was focused in 2003 on a paper published in January that year and written by the Harvard astrophysicists Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas. The pair claimed that Mann's famous hockey stick graph of global temperatures over the past 1,000 years was wrong. After analysing 240 studies of past temperatures from tree rings and other sources, they said "the 20th century is neither the warmest century over the last 1,000 years, nor is it the most extreme". It could have been warmer a thousand years before, they suggested.

Harvard press-released the paper under the headline "20th century climate not so hot", which would have pleased lobbyists against the climate change consensus from the American Petroleum Institute and George C Marshall Institute, both of which had helped pay for the research. Mann told me at the time the paper was "absurd, almost laughable". He said Soon and Baliunas made no attempt in the paper to show whether the warmth they found at different places and times round the world in past eras was contemporaneous in the way current global warming is. If they were just one-off scattered warm events they did not demonstrate any kind of warm era at all. Soon did not respond to Guardian requests to discuss the paper.

The emails show Mann debating with others what he should do. In March 2003, he told Jones: "I believed our only choice was to ignore this paper. They've already achieved what they wanted – the claim of a peer-reviewed paper. There is nothing we can do about that now, but the last thing we want to do is bring attention to this paper"

 

But Jones told Mann: "I think the sceptics will use this paper to their own ends and it will set [the field of paleoclimate research] back a number of years if it goes unchallenged." He was right. The Soon and Baliunas paper was later read into the Senate record and taken up by the Bush administration, which attempted to get it cited in a report from the Environmental Protection Agency against the wishes of the report's authors.

Persuaded that the paper could not be ignored, Mann assembled a group of colleagues to review it. The group included regular CRU emailers Jones, Dr Keith Briffa, Dr Tom Wigley and Dr Kevin Trenberth. They sent their findings to the journal's editorial board, arguing that Soon's study was little more than anecdote. It had cherry-picked data showing warm periods in different places over several centuries and had provided no evidence that they demonstrated any overall warming of the kind seen in the 20th century.

The emails reveal that when the journal failed to disown the paper, the scientists figured a "coup" had taken place, and that one editor in particular, a New Zealander called Chris de Freitas, was fast-tracking sceptical papers on to its pages. Mann saw an irony in what had happened. "This was the danger of always criticising the sceptics for not publishing in the peer-reviewed literature. Obviously, they found a solution to that – take over a journal." But Mann had a solution. "I think we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. ­Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues … to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board."

 

Sceptical climatologist and Cato Institute fellow Pat Michaels alleged in the Wall Street Journal in December last year that the resignations by von Storch and his colleagues were a counter-coup initiated by Mann and Jones. This is vehemently denied by von Storch. While one of the editors who resigned was a colleague of Jones at CRU, von Storch had a track record of independence. If anything, he was regarded as a moderate sceptic. Certainly, he had annoyed both mainstream climate scientists and sceptics.

Also writing in the Wall Street Journal in December, he said: "I am in the pocket of neither Exxon nor Greenpeace, and for this I come under fire from both sides – the sceptics and alarmists – who have fiercely opposing views but are otherwise siblings in their methods and contempt ... I left the post [as chief editor of Climate Research] with no outside pressure, because of insufficient quality control on a bad paper – a sceptic's paper, at that."

The bad blood over this paper lingered. A year later, in July 2004, Jones wrote an email to Mann about two papers recently published in Climate Research – the Soon and Baliunas paper and another he ­identified as by "MM". This was almost certainly a paper from the Canadian economist Ross McKitrick and Michaels that returned to an old sceptics' theme. It claimed to find urbanisation dominating global warming trends on land. Jones called it "garbage".

More damagingly, he added in an email to Mann with the subject line "HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL": "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer review literature is!"

This has, rightly, become one of the most famous of the emails. And for once, it means what it seems to mean. Jones and Trenberth, of the National Centre for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, had recently become joint lead authors for a key chapter in the next IPCC assessment report, called AR4.

They had considerable power over what went into those chapters, and to have ruled them out in such a manner would have been a clear abuse of the IPCC process.

Today, neither man attempts to deny that Jones's promise to keep the papers out was a serious error of judgment. Trenberth told the Guardian: "I had no role in this whatsoever. I did not make and was not complicit in that statement of Phil's. I am a veteran of three other IPCC assessments. I am well aware that we do not keep any papers out, and none were kept out. We assessed everything [though] we cannot possibly refer to all literature … Both of the papers referred to were in fact cited and discussed in the IPCC."

[calfoxwc]

Read that, Woody, and let us know what you think.