The View From Inside The Bubble
-
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.
-
Here you go:
Allegation 1: Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with the intent to suppress or falsify data?
Finding 1. After careful consideration of all the evidence and relevant materials, the inquiry committee finding is that there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had or has ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with an intent to suppress or to falsify data. While a perception has been created in the weeks after the CRU emails were made public that Dr. Mann has engaged in the suppression or falsification of data, there is no credible evidence that he ever did so, and certainly not while at Penn State. In fact to the contrary, in instances that have been focused upon by some as indicating falsification of data, for example in the use of a “trick” to manipulate the data, this is explained as a discussion among Dr. Jones and others including Dr. Mann about how best to put together a graph for a World Meteorological Organization (WMO) report. They were not falsifying data; they were trying to construct an understandable graph for those who were not experts in the field. The so-called “trick”1 was nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field.
Decision 1. As there is no substance to this allegation, there is no basis for further examination of this allegation in the context of an investigation in the second phase of RA-10.
-
So here's the thing: this part of the investigation isn't new. We've known the explanation of the use of the word "trick" in the emails for some time. It may have seemed to some as evidence of wrongdoing when they first looked at it, but upon second glance there was a perfectly innocent explanation for it.
Now, everyone in right wing land will tell you all about how these scientists fudged data to "trick" people into believing something that wasn't true. It's now months later, and you're still accusing the guy of fudging the data based on those incorrect reports. Lots of people are.
And that's the point of this thread. Not only are you not going to hear the correction on Fox News, Rush, Drudge, etc., you're going to hear them repeating this falsehood even though it's already been debunked months ago.
What's more, you can even show committed right-wing partisans the truth, the explanation, five studies saying there's nothing wrong with the studies done by these scientists, and they'll still believe the falsehood.
This is a major problem facing America. The base of one of the major parties has now entrenched themselves into a closed information loop where they create their own facts, and keep actual facts that are inconvenient to their argument out of their bubble. And then, even worse, they suspect any media outlet that points out the facts or the reality as untrustworthy and liberal.
This isn't a very healthy way for a democracy to function.
-
Heck, if you want to talk seriously, then READ what I post. It is about peer review with no legit review. It's cya, all political coverup on Mann's faults, in
forcing the data to show what he wanted it to show. the hockey stick algorithm is a prime example.
*****************************
“I know they’ve taken the time and spent hundreds of hours studying documents and interviewing people and looking at issues from all sides,” Spanier said.The only interviews mentioned in the report (aside from Mann) are with Gerry North and Donald Kennedy, editor of Science. [since they are required to provide a transcript or summary of all interviews, I presume that the Inquiry did not carry out any other interviews.] What does Donald Kennedy know about the matter? These two hardly constitute “looking at issues from all sides”. [A CA reader observed below that "North [at a Rice University event] admitted that he had not read any of the EAU e-mails and did not even know that software files were included in the release.”] They didn’t even talk to Wegman. Contrary to Spanier’s claim, they did not make the slightest effort to talk to any critic or even neutral observer.
Point 2. The Penn State Committee stated:
The so-called “trick” was nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashionby a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field.This is untrue on a variety of levels. The “trick” is not a “legitimate” statistical method; its essence is the failure to show adverse data. See Climate Audit here or the DailyMail here. Did they do any investigation of the “trick”? They don’t even seem to have read the relevant Climate Audit post – only realclimate.
-
See what I mean?
-
Looks like Heck has received his marching orders.
Push Push Push Tell Lies for the administrations agenda, They feel like they have to Push Cap N Trade.
They need more TAX dollars so they can continue to spend and make their Big Money on Wall $treet trading Carbon credits.
Heck? Who do you work for? Which Congressman or Congresswoman is it you work for?
-
You two are unreal.
-
I don't work for a member of Congress. I receive my orders directly from Chairman Soros, the Bilderberg Group, and Interpol.
Now give me your guns and Bibles, capitalist. We can do this the easy way or the hard way.
-
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.
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.
I'm watching my 6 month old son, so I don't have the time to look into the 5 investigations.
Also, I don't think that many people doubt the earth's climate is warming. They are doubting the cause. It is true that, historically, the earth's climate has been variable, with ice ages and warm periods. There was a warm period recently as the Vikings were able to colonize parts of Greenland that are now permafrost. But proponents of the MMGW theory purport that the earth is warming faster than it ever has before. Can this really be determined? Are the methods used to determine the earth's past climate really accurate enough to make such a determination? I am asking because it's something I would really like to know.
It doesn't help MMGW's cause that the main spokesman lived in a house that consumed electricity at a rate of 5 times the national average. I mean, if he was really so concerned about MMGW, wouldn't he practiced what he preached? So it is easy to see why many people think that MMGW is a ploy by certain people to advance their own causes, whatever they might be. In Al Gore's case, that seems like it was to get rich, and he did. So it's not fair to dismiss people's concerns about the motivation behind this issue.
:neutral_face: -
The science says the opposite. That's the problem with that point. It says that recent increases in temperature are being driven primarily by human activity, not natural causes. That's the whole basis for being concerned. And that's what the science is trying to determine, is determining, and has been determining.
Everyone is well aware that the earth has had variations in temperature in the past.
The Al Gore stuff is just a sideshow. He doesn't affect the science either way.
-
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.
I'm watching my 6 month old son, so I don't have the time to look into the 5 investigations.
Also, I don't think that many people doubt the earth's climate is warming. They are doubting the cause. It is true that, historically, the earth's climate has been variable, with ice ages and warm periods. There was a warm period recently as the Vikings were able to colonize parts of Greenland that are now permafrost. But proponents of the MMGW theory purport that the earth is warming faster than it ever has before. Can this really be determined? Are the methods used to determine the earth's past climate really accurate enough to make such a determination? I am asking because it's something I would really like to know.
It doesn't help MMGW's cause that the main spokesman lived in a house that consumed electricity at a rate of 5 times the national average. I mean, if he was really so concerned about MMGW, wouldn't he practiced what he preached? So it is easy to see why many people think that MMGW is a ploy by certain people to advance their own causes, whatever they might be. In Al Gore's case, that seems like it was to get rich, and he did. So it's not fair to dismiss people's concerns about the motivation behind this issue.
I'm watching my 6 month old son, so I don't have the time to look into the 5 investigations.
Also, I don't think that many people doubt the earth's climate is warming. They are doubting the cause. It is true that, historically, the earth's climate has been variable, with ice ages and warm periods. There was a warm period recently as the Vikings were able to colonize parts of Greenland that are now permafrost. But proponents of the MMGW theory purport that the earth is warming faster than it ever has before. Can this really be determined? Are the methods used to determine the earth's past climate really accurate enough to make such a determination? I am asking because it's something I would really like to know.
It doesn't help MMGW's cause that the main spokesman lived in a house that consumed electricity at a rate of 5 times the national average. I mean, if he was really so concerned about MMGW, wouldn't he practiced what he preached? So it is easy to see why many people think that MMGW is a ploy by certain people to advance their own causes, whatever they might be. In Al Gore's case, that seems like it was to get rich, and he did. So it's not fair to dismiss people's concerns about the motivation behind this issue.
According to these investigations, as heck stated, the science that validated the experiments was unbiased. I'm busting my ass off studying for the MCAT and trying to pull a 4.0, I don't have time to read them either. The investigations, in my opinion, are largely irrelevant, even had they come to the opposite conclusion. It's going to take more than an email review committee to refute or support scientific work. If they had said that the scientists did fudge their data, then it'd be up to other scientists conducting different experiments to refute the original work to change my mind.
As for the methods they are using, they are as accurate as we know how to get. Are they accurate enough? I don't know. It's kind of wishy-washy, to be honest. The earth does have climatic cycles of cooling and heating, and I'm sure some of it that we're seeing today is due to those natural cycles. It is clear, however, that the levels of CO2 are off the charts and ridiculously higher than they've ever been. The problem is political, because if you gamble that we're going to have a horrible effect on the environment, and take expensive measures to prevent that effect, you run the risk of handcuffing yourself economically while China and India maximize profits, environment be damned.
And I've said it before, I'll say it again. Al Gore is a xxxxing joke. The Nobel Peace Prize is a xxxxing joke. To give that shit to Gore and Obama for what? A movie and winning an election? Bullshit. Al Gore is not the heart of the AGW proponents, the heart is in the science.
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