Hello again, clete:Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Psssst... The lab is where scientists PROVE their theories, and apparently, they DID.
excon
|
Hello again, clete:Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Psssst... The lab is where scientists PROVE their theories, and apparently, they DID.
excon
Ex I hate to break this to you, but there is no substitute for the real world and where the weather is concerned it helps to look out of the window or in the case of theories, see if they work outside the LAB!Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
I remember some great theories concerning weather, like cloud seeding or the southern occillation index
Hello again, clete:
Let me ask you the same question I asked tom. Where did you learn to distrust science? I'll bet it was in church...
excon
I would like to take a stab at answering this question that you posed.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
I learned to distrust science when it went from being science to politics. There is no place for that in science. Science is normally based on fact or solid theory. Politics is based on niether. That was the tipping point for me.
No Ex don't let your liberal bias show. I learned to distrust science when I learned that I was being lied to. As the University Professor said on the first day. "forget everything you have have been taught, it is either wrong or out of date. We had to teach you something so we taught you that"Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
So EX why should I believe this stack of bull we have been shovelled in the name of climate science, so much of it has turned out to be exactly the same!
Hello again, dad:Quote:
Originally Posted by califdadof3
I DID address those individual scumbag scientist who willingly prostitute themselves for 30 pieces of silver. But, you're indicting the ENTIRE field of science. Personally, I don't believe a world wide consensus of scientists is lying...
excon
Hi Ex where did you learn about the 30 pieces of silver? I bet you learned it in a Church...Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
You really do need to get to be more specific and tell us which scientists you think are lying and which are not. You say there is consensus world wide but that is picking and choosing which opinions, Yes, scientists have opinions, you choose to believe. When there is wide spread conflicting opinion it is reasonable to question what is proven and what is not. So far very little is proven, there is much erronious data, and even more erronious opinion and that is setting aside the deliberate distortions.
Hello again, clete:Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Yeah, those bastard scientists... Take a look around. I know somebody hired them to fool us about the roundness of the globe... It's plainly flat, as you can see.
It's hard to explain science to science deniers.
excon
Well Ex, the Earth is not flat here but I'm not so sure about the shape where you live. You see being on the other side of the Earth provides a different perspective, here the skys are clear and not full of that stuff you keep telling us everyone is dumping in the atmosphere. What I don't like is being told I have to respond to what is a Northern Hemisphere problem, which I note your own nation is doing as little as possible about. We are accused of having a large carbon footprint but on an output per square mile basis it is actually small. Not only that but my nation has actually met it's Kyoto obligations.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
So when it comes to science deniers, whatever they might be, I think you will find them in your own balliwick
There is pressure put on the scientific community to tow the line . That is undeniable .Recently departed Joanne Simpson, the world's first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology [and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years"],upon her retirement ,expressed relief that she was finally free to speak "frankly" of her nonbelief. She refutiated the idea that conclusions can be made by modelling . This is a quote from her statement to the US Senate .
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...d-6e2d71db52d9Quote:
“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical. “The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system”.
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
These days, I don't know WHO would be putting pressure on their community besides their benefactors. IF that's so, not only is it an indictment of science, it's an indictment of business too. Admittedly, my viewpoint of science comes from a time when pure science was practiced. That happened mostly in our university's. While they were funded by business interests, they were NOT beholden to them.
The benefactors of old wanted scientists to do science... If the benefactors of today want scientists to become PR hacks, and PRETEND to do science, so that they come up with predetermined conclusions, that's, pure and simple, an indictment of the business community AND the field of science...
I may be wearing rose colored glasses, but as I've said before, I refuse to believe that scientists willingly PROSTITUTE themselves, even IF there is pressure to do so... It's an anathema to their life's pursuit... Certainly some will, of course.. But, it's like becoming a cop simply because it's easier to steal. MOST cops don't do that... As much as I hate 'em, I do NOT believe ALL cops are corrupt, IN SPITE of the pressure to do so...
You, on the other hand, and willing to indict an entire field... You wouldn't believe me if I indicted ALL the cops... I don't believe you when you indict ALL the scientists...
excon
I don't indict all scientists . The true scientists are beginning to show their mettle and confront conscensus orthodoxy . Perhaps you can brush off the opinion of someone as distinguished as the late Joanne Simpson ,but I can't . No one can claim that she was ever bought. I can't say the same for the leading climatologists who advanced the hypothesis of man made AGW . Their emails to each other were released and it proved what many have suspected .
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Now, we're getting down to it... Nobody brushes off distinguished scientists. Certainly not me. But when a CONSENSUS of the worlds scientists say otherwise, from a scientific point of view, the CONSENSUS has it.
There are some distinguished scientists who say that vaccinations cause autism. Lots of people BELIEVE it, too. But, the world wide consensus of scientists, say it's bunk. Now, you can choose to believe the few, or you can choose to believe the many. I choose the many.
excon
Thank you Tom I know Ex doesn't get it because he has swallowed the pseudo science hook line and sinker. Someone modelled it on a computer so it must be right. I would also like him to consider that someone also modelled a near miss for Earth by Apophis in 2036 unless, according to the model, it passes through a window half a mile wide. Give me a break please. Ex, please deny Apophis is a problem because I think it is a greater problem than climate change.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Hello again, clete:Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Someone?? SOMEONE?? Dude! A WORLD WIDE CONSENSUS of scientists is just a tad more than someone... Dude!
Exocn
Give me a break, Ex, a world wide consensus of scientists didn't model climate on their computers, like all scientific endeavour some scientists modelled specific aspects of climate and presented their findings to their peers, some of whom agreed with the hypothesis, and some who had other data didn't. The more we look at this question and the modelling, the more flaws we find in the hyopthesis. It is a hypothesis, EX! a HYPOTHESIS, an UNPROVEN HYPOTHESIS! Please tell me you don't believe that a model that could produce a prediction of a zone of falling temperature in Antartica right beside a zone of rising temperature could be considered accurate?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Recently the hypothesis was that the cold water from melting glaciers/ice in the Artic would cause the great conveyor to shut down, recently we are told that modelling now shows this isn't so. It is computer generated BS, EX! Not facts, Hypothesis! Theory! We go from predicting an ice age to predicting world wide flooding and the best yet is that global warming will produce an ice age. We think the water will rise metres this century and then we find we are talking in inches. The sooner we take these scientists and remove their tenue and their funding the better
What do we know for sure?
Glaciers are melting
The Earth continues to warm as it has done since the end of the ice age
The Earth has long term cycles of warming and cooling.
Climate doesn't have a norm, it is variable
Hello again, clete:Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Give YOU a break... Dude! Look.. I don't know HOW a world wide consensus of scientists came up with their conclusions... I don't CARE - just like I don't care HOW they determined that getting vaccinated will prevent disease... All I care about is that a CONSENSUS of scientists tell me that something is fine, and that's cool with me.
You don't trust them... I don't know why. But you trust them enough to take a pill... Science grounds me... It must be a real scary world if you can't trust science. How do you know the bridge you're about to cross will hold you?? But, I got it. You DON'T trust science... Cool.
It's like I said earlier, it's hard to explain science to science deniers...
excon
You miss the point Ex you cannot put medical science and drug therepy, which goes through a rigorous proving process that takes years, and a publish and be damned attitude surrounding climate science which requires nothing be proven in the same pot and call them both science. The only thing they have in common is that the person doing the research has a degree, which is a certificate that they did some study somewhere. I've got one too! In fact I have several pieces of paper attesting to something.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
What I don't trust is the process and the rigor with which these predictions were derived, particularly since there is evidence of tampering with data, vested interest, lack of critical thinking, and taking a very short term view of a subject which requires a long term perspective. Do some research yourself EX and look at what some very emenient people are saying on this subject.
http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/12...rig-50353.html
Here is a recent speaker at Cancun EX he says he has no idea whether the models he is using are right or wrong. And you call this science
Hello again, clete:Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Then we're back to square one. I'm a layman. I don't DO research. I look around the world and come up with conclusions. I conclude that when you throw garbage into the air, you pollute. I've observed pollution before. I know where it comes from. Pollution has consequences... You don't believe that. You won't be convinced of that. Fine. I am. That's because I'm NOT a science denier... My layman's observations and a world wide consensus of scientists coincide with each other.
Because you don't trust THIS field of science, you belittle the scientists who do it. I guess because you don't want to believe them. Makes no sense to me... But, I'm NOT a science denier. You can't explain science to one of them. They TRUST certain scientist, but not others... I don't know what to say about that. It's like there is no answer that will satisfy a birther... There's no answer that will satisfy a science denier...
excon
Ex
Did you bother to read the article I provided? If you had you would have seen there was a debate between two researchers in the same field, one refuting the others methodology and this is typical of the whole issue of global warming and climate change.
You keep talking about throwing garbage in the air, if you think CO2 is garbage you had better cut down all the trees because they put CO2 in the air some of the time, you had better kill all the humans because they breathe out CO2. Do we need to change the carbon cycle we have hitched ourselves too for other reasons? No debate there, we should and we will, But, and it is a big BUT, we need to make the change with considered forethought or we may find we have a bigger problem than we started with. Current technologies aren't the answer, they rely too heavily on rare earths which have high pollution in refining and are in inadequate supply to solve the problem anyway.
This is where the profit incentive will not make the correct decisions for us. Just look at the mess converting corn to ethanol has caused
Like you, I know how to identify problems, but finding solutions that requires more than science
Hello again, clete:Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Two scientists arguing does NOTHING to effect a world wide CONSENSUS of scientists. A CONSENSUS means most. You can choose to believe SOME scientists, or you can choose to believe MOST scientists... You pick SOME. I pick MOST.
excon
How did you arrive at the idea that most scientists believe in CO2 induced climate change? Because someone told you so? I'm not aware anyone took a poll which demonstrated that, quite the contraryQuote:
Originally Posted by excon
Most scientists are not involved in the fields which enable them to have an informed opinion. They are like you, they know only what they read and what someone has told them and if, like you, they derived their information from the media or Al Gore, they are ill informed. I was similarly ill informed once, however, I did some research and I found a body of opinion that was contrary to the consensus, if there is such a thing, and that body of opinion is growing and well reasoned and contains many enemient scientists in the fields of Earth sciences.Quote:
The Petition Project features over 31,000 scientists signing the petition stating "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide will, in the forseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere"..
By the way Ex a consensus is reached when there is no further argument, we have not reached that phase yet.
Considering the consensus opinion is based on demonstrably fraudulent and manipulated data ,I would think at very least real scientists would demand new studies and research to gather uncorrupted data to develop a true scientific hypothesis .
You would think so wouldn't you? But no, we have the rubbish we have been fed. What conclusions you can draw from this I don't know but I think vested interests are involved, I also think there are only a small number contributing to these studies so if they are outed there isn't anyone to take their place.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Quote:
I also think there are only a small number contributing to these studies so if they are outed there isn't anyone to take their place.
Michael Mann from Pennsylvania State University did a study of Northern Hemisphere Temperatures and drew a graph that looked like a 'hockey stick ' after he conveniently and intentionally eliminated the 'Medeval Warming period' before the 'Little Ice Age' to make it look like temperatures were constant before the Industrial era.
The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) made this fraudulent graph evidence of AGW in their 3rd assessment report. It was then that talk of a scientific consensus first started being used.
Phil Jones, Keith Briffa,Tim Osborn ,and Mike Hulme,of the East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU) and other 'scientists ' inside the unit had their emails hacked . Those emails revealed the levels of manipulation that regularly occurred within the field. Climate scientists had colluded to withhold scientific information, interfered with the peer review process to prevent dissenting scientific papers from being published,and deleted key raw data.Jones, Briffa, Osborn and Hulme also wrote high-profile scientific papers on climate change that were cited by the IPCC .
The emails revealed that they colluded to ensure the IPCC report included their views and excluded others. Britain's Climate Research Unit, University of East Anglia has been the primary source of information for the IPCC ,the group along with Al Gore that won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 for scaring the world into thinking that the planet is warmer than ever due to human activity. The emails revealed that Jones used "Mike's Nature trick"(the eliminating of warming periods to construct the hockey stick graph)in his 1999 graph for the World Meteorological Organization,"to hide the decline".
Manipulated data was also used in the IPCC report from Australia's Darwin Zero temperature station .The data was radically altered to show temperature increases. When the raw data was released it showed in fact a decline in temperatures from the station .
Finally ,NASA's Goddard Center has also been complicit in this fraud .Goddard employees are cited in the CRU emails also. NASA sensors in the Arctic ,it was claimed ,revealed that the ice sheet is melting... in fact ,they underestimated the size of the sheet by a mass about the size of the State of California. In fact ,the sheet has been growing after a period of shrinkage and has returned to 1979 levels... the year when consistent measurements began .
Let's assume that there wasn't manipulation. The conclusions reached about temperatures have used so few monitoring stations as to make any real conclusions suspect at best . But ,when these monitoring stations are also shown to be either faulty in application ,or data taken from these stations proven to be manipulated to show a preconceived outcome ,I don't see how there is legitimacy in the claims of the consensus scientists.
They can still have their hypothesis I guess even though the data backing it is suspect.
But that isn't the only issue here. They expect public policy to be created and acted on based on what has turned out to be at best suspect data and at worse manipulated data.
You are correct Tom and if this has been used to obtain money it is Fraud.
I see you omitted to tell us about the temperature readings taken at suspect sites and the deliberate misstatement of data in the UN reports. Ex can have his consensus as long as he is prepared to pay for it, but there is no consensus just chaos.
It's a case of fool me once shame on me fool me twice shame on you. I might have been fooled once but I won't be fooled a second time. This thing is the greatest shell game ever played, no one can find the pea
Hello again,
When you throw trash into the air, it's bad. You don't think so. You're wrong.
excon
You know Ex, you are beginning to sound like a broken record, you remember those?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Cancun has proven to be can'tcun with the result some vague idea to limit deforestation, like Indonesia and Brazil are going to take any notice, and the usual throw someoneelse's money at it and it will fix it.
The delegates didn't want to know about Kyoto and the idea that emissions should be further limited, so Ex, I guess they don't agree that CO2 is trash, how does that fit in your concensus? Ex, my nation has done its bit and met its target, over to you to demonstrate what your nation has done?
Here is video of Cancun delegates signing a petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide. Guess they want that tequila straight up .
YouTube - UN Climate Kooks: Cripple US economy & ban H2O!
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Hi Tom,
You are not serious-are you?
A phony petition.
If we can fool people into banning water then we can fool them into the destruction of our economy?
A fallacy of composition here. What is true for a particular group of conservationists must be true of all conservationists.
Regards
Tut
No I'm not serious . I just thought that farce was the perfect ending to a farcical conference.
You would think that a delegate for the 'concensus science' would at least know that dihydrogen monoxide is water. Then again ;perhaps they realize that water vapor and not C02 is the biggest green house gas in the atmosphere, and really are considering draconian restrictions .
Tom you know the real solution is to stop all human activity, why shouldn't the trogladites of the environmental lobby be on board with this?
It is a wonder Ex and his consensus aren't protesting water vapour at the gates of the power stations, after all it is dumping garbage in the atmosphere. I wonder when he will realise the monocarbon dioxide he breathes out is polluting the atmosphere and do the honorable thing.
Hi Tom,Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Well, no I wouldn't think that because 'consensus science' is made up of scientists. Based on what I saw on U tube these people are laypersons not scientists. You can be an outside observer, and be in agreement with the consensus, but unless you are a scientist you are not part of the consensus. I am sure that any physicist would understand what dihydrogen monoxide is and would not be implementing any recommendations based on the fact that it is in abundance in the atmosphere.
The petition was a political stunt and not surprisingly it got a political response.
Regards
Tut
Hi clete,Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Ex seems to be in agreement with the consensus but he is not part of the consensus. In my view only scientists can actually be part of the consensus. How many scientists are calling for a stop to all human activity? Tom and yourself are using 'consensus' as some type of blanket ascription.
Regards
Tut
You miss the point Tut, Ex thinks there is a consensus, and Tom and I disagee with him, that is, we don't think there is a consensus. Ex is one of those who think the debate is settled. The climate debate is very complex and Ex has over simplified to focus on CO2 as pollution. He has also mixed up the arguments about peak oil and emissions. I am of the view that climate science as it is presented to us is pseudo science. It ignores a great deal of data and focuses on short term trends.Quote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
Hi clete,Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
In an odd sort of way the debate is settled, but that is the problem with science in the 21 st century.
Pseudo science implies there must be a 'real' science. Unfortunately this is not the case. As it stands at the moment, my contention is that science falls into two categories. Realist and anti-realist camps. Among other things anti- realists would claim that a scientific theory is only valuable if it is able to make accurate predictions. In this respect they would say that climate science fails. I would also say it fails regardless of whether the figures are fudged or not. Anti- realists seem to be the skeptics looking after this area.
The other 'camp' would be called 'the realists'. The would probably argue that it doesn't matter if we have failed to make any accurate predictions. Many things in regard to climate change have not been observed, but they would probably argue that this doesn't make our theories wrong. I see them as a bit like ,'it will rain theorists'. It hasn't rained, but one day it will.
It seems to me we have pet theories and we don't want to give them up. It also seems to be a part of 21 century thinking to hang on to these theories. Scientists seems to be no different; this is the way most people are. I think it explains,' the consensus' point of view every nicely.
It might be better if the skeptical point of view were the consensus, but this is not the case. This is how we think in a global society. So yes, there is a consensus.
Just my opinion
Tut
They were delegates to a climate conference .If they weren't scientists they were at very minimum relying on the 'settled science ' as a rational for making policy that will impact us all. If policy is made based on bad science then it probably by extension is bad policy.Quote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
That would be the obvious solution...Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Hello, science deniers:
Water is not poisonous... Most people drink it and don't die. But when taken in excess, it DOES kill.
To argue that since we exhale CO2, it CAN'T be poisonous, even if we put an excessive amount of it into the air, is... well, it's... nonsensical (which is the kindest word I could use).
excon
I've never said too much CO2 isn't bad, just wondering if those the most concerned about it are willing to lead by example and stop breathing.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:30 AM. |