The View From Inside The Bubble
-
Love the Armageddon soundtrack!!!
Somebody got one for world population?
WSS
Love the Armageddon soundtrack!!!
Somebody got one for world population?
WSS
Ha. I was going to tell you to turn the sound off because I knew you'd write, "What a scary soundtrack!" I think it's the music to Inception, which I have yet to see.
But it's a nice visual way to see that this isn't natural.
-
Cal, what do you have to say about Climategate? Willing to retract?
-
NO, you goof. Your post does not detail the fact that "your" pro mmgw study guys, admitted they did NOT research,
or even look at, the emails, which are the crux of the whole scandal. That, and the bogus claims based on the
"hockey stick" self-fullfilling manufactured and intentionally configured "evidence".
Are you ready to finally admit, that mmgw is ONLY a freakin THEORY, and never has been a fact?
-
Of course. Any scientist will tell you that global warming is a theory. It's a theory with lots and lots of evidence to support it, including lots of facts. What's your point? That you don't understand what the word "theory" means, or how science works? I think we knew that already.
Now, nothing in your posts is true. Of course these investigations looked at the emails. They all did. And they all came to the conclusion that nobody manipulated the science, and that the "scandal" is anything but.
Of course you won't admit it. You're so invested in believing false information that you won't let in any new information. And that is the point of this post. While you're an extreme example, there are many others like you who exist in a closed information system. And many of you believe things like "the Climate-gate scandal ...shook climate science and wobbled the world's confidence in the theory that man's actions are causing the planet to rapidly warm."
Except that it didn't. That's just made up bullshit.
-
You didn't even read my posts, Heck.
You all never were in "theory" mode, until now, you have no freakin choice.
Why would you support global legislation, and taxation, etc etc etc etc etc.......
and changing our laws dramatically here, ... on a theory?
Lots of evidence to "support: it. More and more evidence that is is bogus.
Your best case scenario - is to admit that al gore and Obama's actions,
and all the actions taken on a THEORY, are completely off base in the real world
that needs to have actions based on fact.
So, Heck, are the concrete actions pro mmgw THEORY justified?
-
Yes, they are.
But let's continue with our experiment. You claim that the five investigations clearing the scientists in the "climategate" scandal aren't valid because they didn't look at the emails.
Here's you: "Your post does not detail the fact that "your" pro mmgw study guys, admitted they did NOT research, or even look at, the emails, which are the crux of the whole scandal."
Except that you're wrong. Here's the Inspector General's statement in his letter to James Inhofe: "In our review of the CRU emails we did not find any evidence that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data ... or failed to adhere to appropriate peer review procedures."
Here's the Washington Post: "An independent review of thousands of emails stolen from climate researchers has found that scientists at the National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration did not manipulate data or otherwise engage in wrongdoing. The report, issued by the Inspector General of the Department of Commerce, is at least the fifth report by various bodies in the United States and Britain to clear researchers at the heart of the so-called "Climategate" incident that galvanized vocal skeptics of the science of global warming."
So five separate investigations looking into the emails, the statements, the science behind them, have all ruled that the scientists did not manipulate their data and that their science is sound. Five.
What say you now? Are you willing to retract all those posts about Climategate now that you realize that it wasn't really a scandal?
-
No one can answer me? Any scientific research of any kind MUST be conducted without BIAS towards the hypothesis. The climate-gate emails show a clear and bias to support the hypothesis that world-wide climate change is caused by the activities of man. Can someone who purports that the climate-gate emails do not invalidate any research done by the responsible parties explain why it does not?
-
No one can answer me? Any scientific research of any kind MUST be conducted without BIAS towards the hypothesis. The climate-gate emails show a clear and bias to support the hypothesis that world-wide climate change is caused by the activities of man. Can someone who purports that the climate-gate emails do not invalidate any research done by the responsible parties explain why it does not?
No one can answer me? Any scientific research of any kind MUST be conducted without BIAS towards the hypothesis. The climate-gate emails show a clear and bias to support the hypothesis that world-wide climate change is caused by the activities of man. Can someone who purports that the climate-gate emails do not invalidate any research done by the responsible parties explain why it does not?
That's not at all true. It may be ideal, but by no means is it true. If it were, then every published paper would need to involve only double-blind experiments. Before Einstein, people had biased views toward the theory of an aetheric universe before that was pushed aside. Einstein had a clear bias toward relativity once the math started backing up his ideas. The professors I'm working under have definite goals for our research as well as hypotheses for how the experiment will end.
-
Try to look at it this way: if I'm fairly certain that ingesting lead is not good for kids because I've got mounds of scientific evidence that backs up that position, including my own research, you might say that I'm "biased" towards that idea that lead is bad for the human body. I don't think "biased" is the right word for it, but okay.
Now, imagine that some people come along and say, "No, ingesting lead is perfectly natural and doesn't harm anyone!" I might be personally dismissive of someone who holds that position. I might even write a email making fun of a person who believes ingesting lead doesn't cause developmental problems in children.
None of this changes the science that shows that ingesting lead is bad for children. It doesn't prove that the science is biased because the scientists believe in the science. It just shows you that scientists are also humans.
Same thing here. And now five studies have said this same thing - there's nothing wrong with the science conducted by the scientists involved in this supposed "scandal." The science isn't biased.
If you don't want to like these people you've never met because you think they're catty towards global warming deniers, feel free. But that's not the point. The point of the scandal was to suggest that they tweaked the science to back up what they already thought. But that isn't true.
So while I'm waiting for Cal, how about you? Do you accept that "Climategate" did not undermine the scientific case for global warming?
-
Heck, I actually think that he's bringing up a legit point, and "biased" is a perfect word to describe the situation. Scientific bias can, and historically has held back scientific progress.
In my opinion, as far as the AGW thing goes, there should be money available for studies that seek evidence against global warming, to a point. The problem is, we don't know which one is a red herring, though the evidence strongly suggests that it's the nay-sayers. So the problem becomes the correct allocation of money to those seeking to conduct science against the grain.
-
Sure, you don't want group think, but the idea that this explains what's been going on in climate science over the last two decades, in studies done independently and all over the world, in multiple fields, is laughably political.
Besides, for the most part, you don't need to set people out to go and prove global warming doesn't exist. If you're measuring sea temperature rise, you either find evidence of a change or you don't. If you're measuring carbon isotopes in the troposphere, you either find an increase or you don't. Many of these studies aren't designed to find evidence of global warming any more than they're designed to find evidence against it. They're simply trying to accurately record the data.
It only matters if the science doesn't stand up; if the science is biased. That's the whole point. The science stands up just fine. And if it doesn't, you throw it out.
Not that I need to tell you how this works.
-
And thanks, T, for denying the premise in order to keep the opinion you want to keep. That's the point of this thread.
And Cal, in case you're still going to go with the "they didn't look at the emails" line, here's from the first of the five studies:
From November 30 to December 14, 2009, staff in the Office for Research Protections culled through approximately 1075 of the emails that were purloined from a server at the University of East Anglia. Emails were reviewed if they were sent by Dr. Mann, were sent to Dr. Mann, were copied to Dr. Mann, or discussed Dr. Mann (but were neither addressed nor copied to him). In summary, the following were found:
• 206 emails that contained a message/text from Dr. Mann somewhere in the chain; • 92 emails that were received by Dr. Mann, but in which he did not write/participate in
the discussion; and • 79 that dealt with Dr. Mann, his work or publications; he neither authored nor was he
copied on any of these.
From among these 377 emails, the inquiry committee focused on 47 emails that were deemed relevant.
Now, I could go through the other studies and do the same thing. Perhaps you'd like to find another line of attack.
-
Sure, you don't want group think, but the idea that this explains what's been going on in climate science over the last two decades, in studies done independently and all over the world, in multiple fields, is laughably political.
Besides, for the most part, you don't need to set people out to go and prove global warming doesn't exist. If you're measuring sea temperature rise, you either find evidence of a change or you don't. If you're measuring carbon isotopes in the troposphere, you either find an increase or you don't. Many of these studies aren't designed to find evidence of global warming any more than they're designed to find evidence against it. They're simply trying to accurately record the data.
It only matters if the science doesn't stand up; if the science is biased. That's the whole point. The science stands up just fine. And if it doesn't, you throw it out.
Not that I need to tell you how this works.
Sure, you don't want group think, but the idea that this explains what's been going on in climate science over the last two decades, in studies done independently and all over the world, in multiple fields, is laughably political.
Besides, for the most part, you don't need to set people out to go and prove global warming doesn't exist. If you're measuring sea temperature rise, you either find evidence of a change or you don't. If you're measuring carbon isotopes in the troposphere, you either find an increase or you don't. Many of these studies aren't designed to find evidence of global warming any more than they're designed to find evidence against it. They're simply trying to accurately record the data.
It only matters if the science doesn't stand up; if the science is biased. That's the whole point. The science stands up just fine. And if it doesn't, you throw it out.
Not that I need to tell you how this works.
Just playing devil's advocate
-
Heck they still dont have enough conclusive evidence.
If you told the same scientists to study global cooling, It would be a safe bet they could come up with enough facts to say that the World is entering a new ice age.
And by the way Heck, that is what we were told back in the 70's; that we were entering into a new global ice age.
Go figure how everything cycles back around.
But everyone knows how you lefties are. You create a crisis and exploit the hell out of it.
Then all of you lefties take the same crisis that you created and find a way to to extort money from everyone.
Sounds like you lefties are a bunch of crooks.
Isn't that true Heck? You use any crisis you can to scream like chicken little until you can create enough histeria making everyone so scared so that they will be willing to let go of their hard earned dollars through taxes and new regulations.
All of you lefties are so f.u.b.a.r. that you are destroying anything good about this country.
-
Let's leave that all aside, T. I just want to see if you can acknowledge the new information - that five investigations have cleared the scientists involved in the "Climategate" scandal, and that there's nothing to the "scandal" at all.
So far, you've covered your ears and screamed "Lalalala!" And so has Cal.
What say you?
-
Well, the problem I'm having is the talk in the emails of actually fudging numbers to better support a hypothesis. The actual act of reporting false data or even the consideration to report false data show bias that is beyond normal. Of course everyone wants their hypothesis to be correct, that's not necessarily showing bias. Bias is the consideration to make up data to support your hypothesis or the actual making up of data OR fixing the experiment to end in only the desired result. It doesn't matter if they who show bias think they are doing it for good reasons or for bad reasons. Bias is bias.
The whole argument has become far too political, but I find it hard to believe that man can have such a great effect on mother nature.
-
Well, the problem I'm having is the talk in the emails of actually fudging numbers to better support a hypothesis. The actual act of reporting false data or even the consideration to report false data show bias that is beyond normal. Of course everyone wants their hypothesis to be correct, that's not necessarily showing bias. Bias is the consideration to make up data to support your hypothesis or the actual making up of data OR fixing the experiment to end in only the desired result. It doesn't matter if they who show bias think they are doing it for good reasons or for bad reasons. Bias is bias.
The whole argument has become far too political, but I find it hard to believe that man can have such a great effect on mother nature.
Well, the problem I'm having is the talk in the emails of actually fudging numbers to better support a hypothesis. The actual act of reporting false data or even the consideration to report false data show bias that is beyond normal. Of course everyone wants their hypothesis to be correct, that's not necessarily showing bias. Bias is the consideration to make up data to support your hypothesis or the actual making up of data OR fixing the experiment to end in only the desired result. It doesn't matter if they who show bias think they are doing it for good reasons or for bad reasons. Bias is bias.
The whole argument has become far too political, but I find it hard to believe that man can have such a great effect on mother nature.
But that's not what they did. That's the whole point. They didn't fudge the numbers. That's what all the investigations have found.
The political part is where you understand what was going on in those emails and you continue to say they fudged the numbers.
I can print out the report that deals with what you're talking about. Just give me a minute.
-
Even talking about reporting false information is too much. There is no guarantee that there was no false information reported, it would be easy for an investigation to miss falsely reported information. The only way to be sure is for someone independent of the argument to conduct all of the research again and compare the results. It also calls into question any previous research projects that were conducted.
-
Even talking about reporting false information is too much. There is no guarantee that there was no false information reported, it would be easy for an investigation to miss falsely reported information. The only way to be sure is for someone independent of the argument to conduct all of the research again and compare the results. It also calls into question any previous research projects that were conducted.
The only way to be sure is for someone independent of the argument to conduct all of the research again and compare the results. It also calls into question any previous research projects that were conducted.
And all 5 studies came to the conclusion that the data was not misrepresented. What you just stated is the essence of science. There were thousands of years where everyone understood that the four elements were earth, wind, fire, and water. There were hundreds (if not thousands) of years where people understood that earth was the center of the solar system and the universe. Right now, there are about 50 years worth of research into the whole global warming idea. If AGW is, in fact, not true, then the truth will surface. However, it's not going to come out because the scientific community gave up on the idea, it will come out because the scientific community unraveled a different, better understanding of climatic cycles.
To say, "Oh, it's all probably bullshit, and even if AGW does turn out to be true, it's too late to do anything," is to be completely counter-productive. If naysayers are want their theory to become widely accepted, then they need to show mountains of evidence for it. As it stands, AGW proponents have a pile the size of Mount Everest compared to their opponents' molehills.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login