R.I.P. Science and Journalism.

[PredFan]

Sadly I do believe most everyone is for sale. The right price will allow some to manipulate data to promulgate the payer's desired results.

To those that still have the integrity to resit, I tip my hat.

I want to believe there are more scientists that won't compromise their values, but it's those few that ruin it for many. How and when do you decide who's right and who's doing the manipulating.

That is the question.

 

[PredFan]

Warming? Not what I am talking about. There is little that is solid about the science, at least solid enough to make any conclusion about the causation of any warming, one way or the other. And, even they - the big names in that area - know that.

Actually, there's a substantial amount of evidence supporting the idea that human activity has played a role in warming - no, let me rephrase that: There's no question that human activity has played a role.

....

That is not true. There is no science that can demonstrate the significance of man made CO2 on any warming.

If you believe there is, then perhaps you can show us - show us the science.

I understand that many scientists believe man made CO2 is the cause, but they know the science can't demonstrate that at this point. And, there are just a few scientists who are so driven to convince others, that they sellout their scientific integrity to pad data, conceal data, silence conflicting science, and other misconduct.

That is what the OP is saying. Personally, I am not one to toss out the baby with the bathwater because of a few bad boys. Science has been tainted before, and it was recognized, admonished, and addressed. Its integrity survived.

Let's hope its integrity survives this time.

Fingers crossed.

 

[westwall]

I don't hear many scientists claiming there is no debate. On the other hand, the wide majority of scientists believe that global warming is occurring. There is slightly more debate about its cause, but the wide majority agree that humans play a role.

Are there scientists who genuinely disagree? Sure. There are also scientists paid by industry etc...to disagree and cause doubt about the emerging consensus.



In those cases, I think you'll find that the people defending biblical interpretations related t o science are few and far between, and in any case are not using the scientific method to arrive at those conclusions - which is fine, they are free to rely on faith, but faith isn't part of the methodology of science.

If you havn't heard that there is a debate about AGW it's because you have ignored it. There are far more scientists who feel the AGW theory to be wrong then support it. Far more.

No, this is where the ignorance comes in. Among the scientific community in relevant sciences, there are relatively few who believe that AGW is not happening. It's a small minority that the right has done a nice job of propping up with megaphones and money.

No, even the main pushers of the "theory" of AGW have been shown amongst themselves to have sifgnificant issues with the data presented. And what praytell is a relevent science? Surely you're not going to claim that if you're not a climatologist you can't understand that particular science?

Here's a clue for you. A PhD in climatology is only qualified to teach the undergraduate classes in my particular field (geology). I, on the other hand, am qualified to teach any level of class within their degree program. Graduate level, undergrad, doesn't matter.

And finally, you're comment at the end shows you to be the politically oriented individual you truly are. Here's another clue for you, the AGW proponents have spent well over 100 billion dollars and have had unfettered access to journals (which they deny to dissenters), the MSM (which the newest group of emails has shown they controlled to a great degree), and finally the politicians in countries all over the world. Show me a single sceptic with governmental access like Al Gore.

And yet, with all of that.....the claims are falling apart. Every prediction ever made by an AGW supporter has fallen flat on its face and now the PEOPLE no longer believe you. The people are nut as dumb as you thought they were. They figured out your scam and now you are losing and will continue to lose them as they become ever more aware (in spite of every effort of yours to keep them stupid) of just how badly you lied to them.

 

[8537]

Warming? Not what I am talking about. There is little that is solid about the science, at least solid enough to make any conclusion about the causation of any warming, one way or the other. And, even they - the big names in that area - know that.

Actually, there's a substantial amount of evidence supporting the idea that human activity has played a role in warming - no, let me rephrase that: There's no question that human activity has played a role.

....

That is not true. There is no science that can demonstrate the significance of man made CO2 on any warming.

If you believe there is, then perhaps you can show us - show us the science.

(A) CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas - it absorbs and emits infrared radiation. Increasing levels of C02 and other greenhouse gases lead to warming. So far, we haven't left the purview of accepted science. Certainly, CO2 absorbs and emits less radiation than other gases such as methane, but it does so nonetheless.

(B) Humans have contributed to an increase in C02 levels through various forms of energy transformation and industrial production.

We're still in the realm of accepted science, and we can deduce from A+B that humans have contributed to global warming. The extent of that contribution - from miniscule and meaningless to substantial - is a debate within the scientific community.

 

[westwall]

No, this is where the ignorance comes in. Among the scientific community in relevant sciences, there are relatively few who believe that AGW is not happening. It's a small minority that the right has done a nice job of propping up with megaphones and money.

Even the biggest names in the field know there is nothing solid about the science, at least solid enough to make any conclusion one way or the other. You should see what they talk about to each other pertaining to that - very different than their public rhetoric.

The rest of us already knew that, though.

No, that's simply not true Si Modo. The idea that warming is occurring is established and agreed upon by almost every scientist in relevant fields.

There is more debate about the causes, but even then the people who claim humans play a role far outnumber those who claim humans don't play a role. Like any good scientific inquiry, they certainly challenge each others assumptions and look for holes in their own theory - but that doesn't mean they are wrong. In fact, it's how they go about confirming they are right.

This is their way of dealing with scientists who go against the dogma...so you tell me where is the inquiry? Here is a clear example of a group of scientists with no scientific integrity or ethics, controlling what is released.

"Thanks Mike
It seems to me that this "Kinne" character's words are disingenuous, and he probably
supports what De Freitas is trying to do. It seems clear we have to go above him.
I think that the community should, as Mike H has previously suggested in this eventuality,
terminate its involvement with this journal at all levels--reviewing, editing, and
submitting, and leave it to wither way into oblivion and disrepute,
Thanks,
mike"

 

[westwall]

Actually, there's a substantial amount of evidence supporting the idea that human activity has played a role in warming - no, let me rephrase that: There's no question that human activity has played a role.

....

That is not true. There is no science that can demonstrate the significance of man made CO2 on any warming.

If you believe there is, then perhaps you can show us - show us the science.

(A) CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas - it absorbs and emits infrared radiation. Increasing levels of C02 and other greenhouse gases lead to warming. So far, we haven't left the purview of accepted science. Certainly, CO2 absorbs and emits less radiation than other gases such as methane, but it does so nonetheless.

(B) Humans have contributed to an increase in C02 levels through various forms of energy transformation and industrial production.

We're still in the realm of accepted science, and we can deduce from A+B that humans have contributed to global warming. The extent of that contribution - from miniscule and meaningless to substantial - is a debate within the scientific community.

So, tell me when has correlation EVER equalled causation? More to the point, the Vostock ice cores show that first warming occurs followed hundreds of years later by a rise in CO2 levels.

Aditionally, the same ice core data shows that during the Holocene Thermal Maximum (@8,000YBP) the warming occured, hundreds of years later the CO2 level rose as per previously observed behavior, then the CO2 level stayed elevated for 1000 years. In that 1000 year period there were two periods of warming and cooling (very similar to the RWP and MWP) that lasted hundreds of years in each case.

A more clear example of the INABILITY of CO2 to drive temperatures would be hard to find.

 

[8537]

If you havn't heard that there is a debate about AGW it's because you have ignored it. There are far more scientists who feel the AGW theory to be wrong then support it. Far more.

No, this is where the ignorance comes in. Among the scientific community in relevant sciences, there are relatively few who believe that AGW is not happening. It's a small minority that the right has done a nice job of propping up with megaphones and money.

No, even the main pushers of the "theory" of AGW have been shown amongst themselves to have sifgnificant issues with the data presented.

Of course they have issues with the data. That's their job - to question each others assumptions and challenge each other's systems. That's just good science.

And what praytell is a relevent science? Surely you're not going to claim that if you're not a climatologist you can't understand that particular science?

Well, a relevant scientist would be one who understands climate. An astrophysicist who has no background in climatology is not a relevant opinion. The thoughts of a meteorologist wit no background in climate science is not relevant. A biologist who spends his days studying evolution is probably not a relevant scientist.

Here's a clue for you. A PhD in climatology is only qualified to teach the undergraduate classes in my particular field (geology).

Exactly my point! A person specializing in one particular field of science is not qualified as an expert in another. Just because your department happens to allow Geologists to teach climate science doesn't mean that the geologists in your department are qualified to be experts on climate science.

And finally, you're comment at the end shows you to be the politically oriented individual you truly are.

lol.

Here's another clue for you, the AGW proponents have spent well over 100 billion dollars and have had unfettered access to journals (which they deny to dissenters),

They deny to dissenters? Whatever does that mean? Anyone is free to submit an article for review and publication in any academic journal. That doesn't guarantee it gets published, only that it will be considered. Articles that don't meet the journal's standards or do not survive the scrutiny of peer review are not published.

of course, if a wide range of people with similar beliefs are routinely denied they have an avenue for publication: Create their own journal. That's exactly what a group of scientists, economists and sociologists at my University have done.

And yet, with all of that.....the claims are falling apart. Every prediction ever made by an AGW supporter has fallen flat on its face and now the PEOPLE no longer believe you. The people are nut as dumb as you thought they were. They figured out your scam and now you are losing and will continue to lose them as they become ever more aware (in spite of every effort of yours to keep them stupid) of just how badly you lied to them.

It's a good thing I'M the "politically oriented individual" and not you. I mean, certainly the disdainful tone and name-calling you display demonstrate that you, sir, are a level-headed and unbiased observer

 

[Si modo]

Actually, there's a substantial amount of evidence supporting the idea that human activity has played a role in warming - no, let me rephrase that: There's no question that human activity has played a role.

....

That is not true. There is no science that can demonstrate the significance of man made CO2 on any warming.

If you believe there is, then perhaps you can show us - show us the science.

(A) CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas - it absorbs and emits infrared radiation. Increasing levels of C02 and other greenhouse gases lead to warming. So far, we haven't left the purview of accepted science. Certainly, CO2 absorbs and emits less radiation than other gases such as methane, but it does so nonetheless.

(B) Humans have contributed to an increase in C02 levels through various forms of energy transformation and industrial production.

We're still in the realm of accepted science, and we can deduce from A+B that humans have contributed to global warming. The extent of that contribution - from miniscule and meaningless to substantial - is a debate within the scientific community.

Thanks for that, but really, I have a pretty good handle on IR spectroscopy. I also have a pretty good handle on the misnamed greenhouse effect. But, thank you anyway.

Four words - correlation is not causation.

(Point of order: CO2 molecules do not emit radiation. The atmosphere will, but CO2 molecules do not emit radiation.)

 

[8537]

That is not true. There is no science that can demonstrate the significance of man made CO2 on any warming.

If you believe there is, then perhaps you can show us - show us the science.

(A) CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas - it absorbs and emits infrared radiation. Increasing levels of C02 and other greenhouse gases lead to warming. So far, we haven't left the purview of accepted science. Certainly, CO2 absorbs and emits less radiation than other gases such as methane, but it does so nonetheless.

(B) Humans have contributed to an increase in C02 levels through various forms of energy transformation and industrial production.

We're still in the realm of accepted science, and we can deduce from A+B that humans have contributed to global warming. The extent of that contribution - from miniscule and meaningless to substantial - is a debate within the scientific community.

So, tell me when has correlation EVER equalled causation?

Never. I never stated that correlation "equalled" causation. No one is claiming CO2 triggered the warming.

 

[westwall]

No, this is where the ignorance comes in. Among the scientific community in relevant sciences, there are relatively few who believe that AGW is not happening. It's a small minority that the right has done a nice job of propping up with megaphones and money.

No, even the main pushers of the "theory" of AGW have been shown amongst themselves to have sifgnificant issues with the data presented.

Of course they have issues with the data. That's their job - to question each others assumptions and challenge each other's systems. That's just good science.



Well, a relevant scientist would be one who understands climate. An astrophysicist who has no background in climatology is not a relevant opinion. The thoughts of a meteorologist wit no background in climate science is not relevant. A biologist who spends his days studying evolution is probably not a relevant scientist.


Exactly my point! A person specializing in one particular field of science is not qualified as an expert in another. Just because your department happens to allow Geologists to teach climate science doesn't mean that the geologists in your department are qualified to be experts on climate science.



lol.

Here's another clue for you, the AGW proponents have spent well over 100 billion dollars and have had unfettered access to journals (which they deny to dissenters),

They deny to dissenters? Whatever does that mean? Anyone is free to submit an article for review and publication in any academic journal. That doesn't guarantee it gets published, only that it will be considered. Articles that don't meet the journal's standards or do not survive the scrutiny of peer review are not published.

of course, if a wide range of people with similar beliefs are routinely denied they have an avenue for publication: Create their own journal. That's exactly what a group of scientists, economists and sociologists at my University have done.

And yet, with all of that.....the claims are falling apart. Every prediction ever made by an AGW supporter has fallen flat on its face and now the PEOPLE no longer believe you. The people are nut as dumb as you thought they were. They figured out your scam and now you are losing and will continue to lose them as they become ever more aware (in spite of every effort of yours to keep them stupid) of just how badly you lied to them.

It's a good thing I'M the "politically oriented individual" and not you. I mean, certainly the disdainful tone and name-calling you display demonstrate that you, sir, are a level-headed and unbiased observer

My point was that the level of scienetific knowledge required to teach graduate level geology classes is significantly more rigorous then any climatology course. A PhD in geology, chemistry, physics, or any of the hard sciences can understand ANYTHING a climatologist puts out. On the other hand a climatologist would be lost trying to understand the higher level classes we teach.

Put more simply, a graduate with a BS in any of the hard (or "exact" if you prefer that term) sciences has an equivalent level of learning to a climatologist with a PhD. It is climatologists who are not capable of understanding the high level science...not the other way around.

Clearly you are either extraordinarily ignorant of the corruption of the peer review process by the "team" as they are referred to, or most likely you don't care. Either way, you are aiding and abetting scientific fraud by your inactivity.

 

[westwall]

(A) CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas - it absorbs and emits infrared radiation. Increasing levels of C02 and other greenhouse gases lead to warming. So far, we haven't left the purview of accepted science. Certainly, CO2 absorbs and emits less radiation than other gases such as methane, but it does so nonetheless.

(B) Humans have contributed to an increase in C02 levels through various forms of energy transformation and industrial production.

We're still in the realm of accepted science, and we can deduce from A+B that humans have contributed to global warming. The extent of that contribution - from miniscule and meaningless to substantial - is a debate within the scientific community.

So, tell me when has correlation EVER equalled causation?

Never. I never stated that correlation "equalled" causation. No one is claiming CO2 triggered the warming.

Then explain to the class why you posted this...

"(A) CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas - it absorbs and emits infrared radiation. Increasing levels of C02 and other greenhouse gases lead to warming. So far, we haven't left the purview of accepted science. Certainly, CO2 absorbs and emits less radiation than other gases such as methane, but it does so nonetheless.

(B) Humans have contributed to an increase in C02 levels through various forms of energy transformation and industrial production."

 

[8537]

So, tell me when has correlation EVER equalled causation?

Never. I never stated that correlation "equalled" causation. No one is claiming CO2 triggered the warming.

Then explain to the class why you posted this...

"(A) CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas - it absorbs and emits infrared radiation. Increasing levels of C02 and other greenhouse gases lead to warming. So far, we haven't left the purview of accepted science. Certainly, CO2 absorbs and emits less radiation than other gases such as methane, but it does so nonetheless.

(B) Humans have contributed to an increase in C02 levels through various forms of energy transformation and industrial production."

Because those statements are both true.

That doesn't mean that previous warmings were triggered by CO2. Regardless of what triggered the warming, Co2 contributed to the warming. It's slightly analogous to a turbo charger in a car: The turbo system does not trigger your car to move forward - that movement is triggered by the internal combustion. The turbo, however, contributes to the acceleration. and it does so after the acceleration has already begun. The turbocharger leads to greater acceleration even though it wasn't the trigger for said acceleration.

 

[Si modo]

So, tell me when has correlation EVER equalled causation?

Never. I never stated that correlation "equalled" causation. No one is claiming CO2 triggered the warming.

Then explain to the class why you posted this...

"(A) CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas - it absorbs and emits infrared radiation. Increasing levels of C02 and other greenhouse gases lead to warming. So far, we haven't left the purview of accepted science. Certainly, CO2 absorbs and emits less radiation than other gases such as methane, but it does so nonetheless.

(B) Humans have contributed to an increase in C02 levels through various forms of energy transformation and industrial production."

Cool correlation.

Needs more investigation for possible causation.

 

[8537]

Clearly you are either extraordinarily ignorant of the corruption of the peer review process by the "team" as they are referred to, or most likely you don't care. Either way, you are aiding and abetting scientific fraud by your inactivity.

oh please. just shut up. I am both intimately familiar with the peer review process and I also happen to care. Your attempt to dismiss anyone who disagrees with you speaks volumes about why you might have issues with getting published and the peer review process.

 

[westwall]

Never. I never stated that correlation "equalled" causation. No one is claiming CO2 triggered the warming.

Then explain to the class why you posted this...

"(A) CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas - it absorbs and emits infrared radiation. Increasing levels of C02 and other greenhouse gases lead to warming. So far, we haven't left the purview of accepted science. Certainly, CO2 absorbs and emits less radiation than other gases such as methane, but it does so nonetheless.

(B) Humans have contributed to an increase in C02 levels through various forms of energy transformation and industrial production."

Because those statements are both true.

That doesn't mean that previous warmings were triggered by CO2. Regardless of what triggered the warming, Co2 contributed to the warming. It's slightly analogous to a turbo charger in a car: The turbo system does not trigger your car to move forward - that movement is triggered by the internal combustion. The turbo, however, contributes to the acceleration. and it does so after the acceleration has already begun. The turbocharger leads to greater acceleration even though it wasn't the trigger for said acceleration.

Annnndd how about those studies that show CO2 affects the armosphere on a logrithmic scale? And how about those studies that show CO2 rising hundreds of years after warming has occured?

Let's start with just those two.

 

[Si modo]

Clearly you are either extraordinarily ignorant of the corruption of the peer review process by the "team" as they are referred to, or most likely you don't care. Either way, you are aiding and abetting scientific fraud by your inactivity.

oh please. just shut up. I am both intimately familiar with the peer review process and I also happen to care. Your attempt to dismiss anyone who disagrees with you speaks volumes about why you might have issues with getting published and the peer review process.

I doubt Westwall has any issues with getting published in a peer-reviewed journal.

 

[westwall]

Clearly you are either extraordinarily ignorant of the corruption of the peer review process by the "team" as they are referred to, or most likely you don't care. Either way, you are aiding and abetting scientific fraud by your inactivity.

oh please. just shut up. I am both intimately familiar with the peer review process and I also happen to care. Your attempt to dismiss anyone who disagrees with you speaks volumes about why you might have issues with getting published and the peer review process.

I never attempt to dismiss anyone who's opinions are different then mine. I do however wish to hear what they have to say. You have said that there was no attempt by the climatologists to prevent publication of dissenting papers. This has been PROVEN to have occured.

By your extraordinarily cavalier attitude about it you seem to not care, belying your statement.

 

[PredFan]

(A) CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas - it absorbs and emits infrared radiation. Increasing levels of C02 and other greenhouse gases lead to warming. So far, we haven't left the purview of accepted science. Certainly, CO2 absorbs and emits less radiation than other gases such as methane, but it does so nonetheless.

(B) Humans have contributed to an increase in C02 levels through various forms of energy transformation and industrial production.

We're still in the realm of accepted science, and we can deduce from A+B that humans have contributed to global warming. The extent of that contribution - from miniscule and meaningless to substantial - is a debate within the scientific community.

So, tell me when has correlation EVER equalled causation?

Never. I never stated that correlation "equalled" causation. No one is claiming CO2 triggered the warming.

Oh please! You know that that isn't true. The "Hockey Stick Graph" claims to show just that.

According to the left and the left's scientists:

burning fossil fuels=increased greenhouse gases=global warming

 

[westwall]

Clearly you are either extraordinarily ignorant of the corruption of the peer review process by the "team" as they are referred to, or most likely you don't care. Either way, you are aiding and abetting scientific fraud by your inactivity.

oh please. just shut up. I am both intimately familiar with the peer review process and I also happen to care. Your attempt to dismiss anyone who disagrees with you speaks volumes about why you might have issues with getting published and the peer review process.

I doubt Westwall has any issues with getting published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Indeed, been there done that many times over.

 

[bripat9643]

I don't hear many scientists claiming there is no debate. On the other hand, the wide majority of scientists believe that global warming is occurring. There is slightly more debate about its cause, but the wide majority agree that humans play a role.

It wouldn't matter if 99.9999% of all scientists agreed. If one scientist has convincing evidence that so-called "consensus" is wrong, then it's wrong.

But they don't.

There's no convincing evidence that man is causing the globe to warm, so contrary evidence isn't required.