Science Needs Vigilantes

[flacaltenn]

List of ski areas and resorts in Africa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Only RDEAN can derail a science thread this quickly.. Back on topic. Peddle your shit elsewhere.

 

[PainefulTruth]

This is not a discussion of science, it is a discussion of vigilantes destroying science. We have judgment on science, it is called peer review. Many do not like it because the people the do the judging are fellow experts on the subject, rather than political appointees that the 'vigilantes' would be.

This issue is one of corruption in science for political and other self-serving reasons (money, careers), and spreads out to the public when the corruption surfaces, or a portion of the public doesn't like science's findings for philosophical/political reasons (evolution, biblical archaeological finds, minimal if any climate change).

There will always be the kook fringe on both sides, but schools and churches have long been keeping the much of the populace dumbed down for millenia, especially when it comes to living using rational thought in our everyday lives, putting their blind faith in The Church or Big Brother . Everybody gives lip service to the Truth, but there's actually no academic discipline for the study of the nature of Truth--that way, everybody can be led down the myriad paths of irrational subjective Truth, the opposite of science, which is objective.

 

[JimBowie1958]

This is not a discussion of science, it is a discussion of vigilantes destroying science. We have judgment on science, it is called peer review. Many do not like it because the people the do the judging are fellow experts on the subject, rather than political appointees that the 'vigilantes' would be.

This issue is one of corruption in science for political and other self-serving reasons (money, careers), and spreads out to the public when the corruption surfaces, or a portion of the public doesn't like science's findings for philosophical/political reasons (evolution, biblical archaeological finds, minimal if any climate change).

There will always be the kook fringe on both sides, but schools and churches have long been keeping the much of the populace dumbed down for millenia, especially when it comes to living using rational thought in our everyday lives, putting their blind faith in The Church or Big Brother . Everybody gives lip service to the Truth, but there's actually no academic discipline for the study of the nature of Truth--that way, everybody can be led down the myriad paths of irrational subjective Truth, the opposite of science, which is objective.

You want to see kook fringe?

Well, here it is then....among the AGWarmistas, lol, who will do ANYTHING to support their claims.

Why Hansen Had To

Corrupt The Temperature Record | Real Science

Climategate: The Smoking Code | Watts Up With

That?

Now, here is some actual proof that the CRU was deliberately tampering with their data. Unfortunately, for

readability’s sake, this code was written in Interactive Data Language (IDL) and is a pain to go through.

NOTE: This is an actual snippet of code from the CRU contained in the source file: briffa_Sep98_d.pro

1;
2; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
3;
4 yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
5 valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
6 if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,'Oooops!'
7
8 yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)

So the fudge factor is adjusting each year by their calendar year starting with 1904, in five year increments. Note that

starting in 1930 the function arbitrarily subtracts 0.1 degrees, then in 1936 it removes 0.25, etc. Then in 1955 it begins

to ADD temperature adjustments beginning with 0.3, etc.

Is it any wonder we have 'global warming' according to these liars?

Just the name 'fudge factor' at line 5 should be a dead give away.

Very revealing programmer comments found in the hacked emails in the Climategate scandal, and they explain how we have

'Global Warming' no matter what the temperatures may actually be.

And note how they call the temperatures they want to see the 'real' temperatures, when ordinary people might think the

MEASURED proxy temperatures would be the 'real' temperatures or else the proxy temps are worthless anyway!

Climategate: hide the decline ? codified |

Watts Up With That?

WUWT blogging ally Ecotretas writes in to say that he has made a compendium of programming code segments that show comments

by the programmer that suggest places where data may be corrected, modified, adjusted, or busted. Some the HARRY_READ_ME

comments are quite revealing. For those that don’t understand computer programming, don’t fret, the comments by the

programmer tell the story quite well even if the code itself makes no sense to you....

◾FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\maps12.proFOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\maps15.proFOIA\documents

\osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\maps24.pro; Plots 24 yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses "corrected" MXD - but shouldn't usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.

....

; anomalies against full NH temperatures and other series.
; CALIBRATES IT AGAINST THE LAND-ONLY TEMPERATURES NORTH OF 20 N
;
; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1960 to avoid
; the decline
......

; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1960 to avoid
; the decline that affects tree-ring density records)

...


;getting seriously fed up with the state of the Australian data. so many new stations have been
; introduced, so many false references.. so many changes that aren't documented.

....


;I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as
; Australia was. There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations

...


Here, the expected 1990-2003 period is MISSING - so the correlations aren't so hot! Yet
the WMO codes and station names /locations are identical (or close). What the hell is
supposed to happen here? Oh yeah - there is no 'supposed', I can make it up. So I have

...

It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I'm
hitting yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform
data integrity, it's just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they're found.

...

printf,1,’(April-September) temperature anomalies (from the 1961-1990 mean).’
printf,1,’Reconstruction is based on tree-ring density records.’
printf,1
printf,1,’NOTE: recent decline in tree-ring density has been ARTIFICIALLY’
printf,1,’REMOVED to facilitate calibration. THEREFORE, post-1960 values’
printf,1,’will be much closer to observed temperatures then they should be,’
printf,1,’which will incorrectly imply the reconstruction is more skilful’
printf,1,’than it actually is.

...

printf,1,'temperature in many high-latitude locations. In this data set'
printf,1,'this "decline" has been artificially removed in an ad-hoc way, and'
printf,1,'this means that data after 1960 no longer represent tree-ring
printf,1,'density variations, but have been modified to look more like the
printf,1,'observed temperatures.'


.....


; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
;
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
(...)
;
; APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION
;
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,x)
densall=densall+yearlyadj

...

;*** MUST ALTER FUNCT_DECLINE.PRO TO MATCH THE COORDINATES OF THE
; START OF THE DECLINE *** ALTER THIS EVERY TIME YOU CHANGE ANYTHING ***

...

applied the calibration to unfiltered MXD data (which
; gives a zero mean over 1881-1960) after extending the calibration to boxes
; without temperature data (pl_calibmxd1.pro). We have identified and
; artificially removed (i.e. corrected) the decline in this calibrated
; data set. We now recalibrate this corrected calibrated dataset against
; the unfiltered 1911-1990 temperature data, and apply the same calibration
; to the corrected and uncorrected calibrated MXD data.

**********************************************************

Of course since AGW scientists didn't find these comments in the code, etc, this cant be true, roflmao. It is all so airily dismissed as improperly gained data and so should be considered inadmissible, lololololololol

 

[PainefulTruth]

 

[rdean]

Holyy crap man.. I can actually feel your pain when you TRY to think... talk about "just string words together...... But what I find find amazing is the racism of assuming that AFRICA has anything to do with blacks in the winter olympics...

Back to the topic.. BEFORE the sociopath interrupted.....

Huh? Participating countries in the Winter Olympics:

I only posted it because some dumb asswipe said: Its the WINTER OLYMPICS that are 90% white, not the folks who vote republican...

Course, it's the Republican Party that's 90% white. That fact has been posted on this board so many times, no one even challenges it anymore.

You are a racist arent you??? No black folks live in those green countries? I say black, you think of African warrior movies? BIG HUGE delegations from Sierra Leone and Namibia missing huh? Whats that ---- like 8 atheletes?


Repub party only speaks for about 30% of America. Folks like you with thinking disabilities --- mostly institutionalized --- but maybe 5% at best.. Those are the only important numbers here.

And there are blacks on the US Winter Olympics Team. But I suspect less than the 12% that make up the population of the country. Skiing and figure skating are expensive. Then you get into the more exotic sports that cost even more. There are fewer American blacks in those sports percentage wise than blacks in the GOP. It's so obvious, where is the debate?

 

[longknife]

Wow! Certainly got the reaction I hoped for when I posted this!

However, some seem to be straying from the point - just because something is found to be "scientific" doesn't make it true. We must question findings ourselves. We need to do a bit of research to confirm or deny in our minds.

How often do we learn that something that was once bad for us is now good?

 

[Steven_R]

Wow! Certainly got the reaction I hoped for when I posted this!

However, some seem to be straying from the point - just because something is found to be "scientific" doesn't make it true. We must question findings ourselves. We need to do a bit of research to confirm or deny in our minds.

How often do we learn that something that was once bad for us is now good?

Are you qualified to make those judgments? What is your scientific background? Are you able to discuss a paper's technical merits based on what you know for yourself, or are you only going on second- and third-hand knowledge that may or may not be biased?

 

[rdean]

List of ski areas and resorts in Africa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Only RDEAN can derail a science thread this quickly.. Back on topic. Peddle your shit elsewhere.

Yes, let's get back to Republicans and science, shall we? First off, I love looking up "scientific organizations" and seeing how they are getting the young involved in studying and contributing to science.

NOGLSTP - National Organization of Gay and Lesbian Scientists and Technical Professionals

NOGLSTP Core Values:

Authenticity
Credibility
Community
Equal Opportunity
Professionalism
Truth, Fairness and Safety

Association of Black Engineers, Scientists and Tech

MAES - Latinos in Science and Engineering

Association for Women in Science

Committee on Science, Space, & Technology - Democrats

Unfortunately, when I look up "conservatives" and science or "Republicans" and science, this is what I get:

Science is Too Political for American Conservative Groups

Why the GOP Should Embrace Science

GOP Not Listening to Its Own Scientists on Climate Change | Reuters

Republicans growing more skeptical of evolution: poll - NY Daily News

How can that be explained? Are Republicans like leeches or parasites? Benefiting from something they contribute nothing to?

 

[Steven_R]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7Q8UvJ1wvk]Who's More Pro-Science, Republicans or Democrats? - Neil deGrasse Tyson - YouTube[/ame]

So here's Neil DeGrasse Tyson, a scientist and registered Democrat from NYC, who comes right out and says Republicans spend more money on science than Dems do.

 

[rdean]

Who's More Pro-Science, Republicans or Democrats? - Neil deGrasse Tyson - YouTube

So here's Neil DeGrasse Tyson, a scientist and registered Democrat from NYC, who comes right out and says Republicans spend more money on science than Dems do.

He's right and wrong. Sometimes, things boil down to a matter of perspective.

First, I have to point out how hilarious it is that Republicans boast they SPEND MORE. Too funny for words. Even right wingers have to admit that's fucking hilarious.

The entire defense budget in 2001 was less than 300 billion. In 2005, just a few years later, it was nearly a half trillion. And the deficit was "jump started" by GOP spending. Notice, the cost of the two wars weren't included and the GOP controlled both houses, the presidency and the Supreme Court.

A Natural Split With Bush, and Many Scientists Quit - Los Angeles Times

A to Z Guide to Political Interference in Science | Union of Concerned Scientists

More than 15,000 of your scientist colleagues--including 52 Nobel Laureates--have spoken out against political interference; urge the president (Bush) and Congress to restore scientific integrity to federal policy making.

U.S. Germ-Research Policy Is Protested by 758 Scientists

WASHINGTON, Feb. 28, 2005 - More than 700 scientists sent a petition on Monday to the director of the National Institutes of Health protesting what they said was the shift of tens of millions of dollars in federal research money since 2001 away from pathogens that cause major public health problems to obscure germs the government fears might be used in a bioterrorist attack.

-------------------------------------------------------

If you actually take the time out to review news stories and what was written during the Bush years, it's true, they spent more (course, we ALL knew that, it's how we got this enormous deficit).

We also lost some of the bests scientists in the world over Bush policies. Bush and the Republicans threatened scientists to change their data to match policy and gave them a list of subjects they couldn't talk about.

Bush administration accused of doctoring scientists' reports on climate change

In the survey of 1,600 government scientists by the Union of Concerned Scientists, 46% had been warned against using terms like global warming in speech or in their reports. The scientists interviewed were working at seven government agencies, from Nasa to the Environmental Protection Agency.

Forty-three percent of respondents said their published work had been revised in ways that altered the meaning of scientific findings. Some 38% said they had direct knowledge of cases where scientific information on climate was stripped from websites and printed reports.

The bottom line is this is another area where Republican policies are disasters.

They censor, they lie, they "revise".

And is it any surprise that budgets are cut when a Democrat is president and Republicans hold the house? They have slashed every budget. Look at what they recently did to embassy security. Course, after Benghazi, they restored by two BILLION after saying it wasn't needed.

 

[rdean]

Who's More Pro-Science, Republicans or Democrats? - Neil deGrasse Tyson - YouTube

So here's Neil DeGrasse Tyson, a scientist and registered Democrat from NYC, who comes right out and says Republicans spend more money on science than Dems do.

Another thing that's pretty hysterical is that Tyson also says the concept of intelligent design thwarts the advance of scientific knowledge. And Republicans use this guy to prove how much they support science? Fucking hilarious. And since he worked for Bush, it's debatable where he "registered" as a Democrat.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Who's More Pro-Science, Republicans or Democrats? - Neil deGrasse Tyson - YouTube

So here's Neil DeGrasse Tyson, a scientist and registered Democrat from NYC, who comes right out and says Republicans spend more money on science than Dems do.

Another thing that's pretty hysterical is that Tyson also says the concept of intelligent design thwarts the advance of scientific knowledge. And Republicans use this guy to prove how much they support science? Fucking hilarious. And since he worked for Bush, it's debatable where he "registered" as a Democrat.

None of which have a damned thing to do with accusations that the GOP is cutting science, dumb shit.

 

[flacaltenn]

Wow! Certainly got the reaction I hoped for when I posted this!

However, some seem to be straying from the point - just because something is found to be "scientific" doesn't make it true. We must question findings ourselves. We need to do a bit of research to confirm or deny in our minds.

How often do we learn that something that was once bad for us is now good?

Are you qualified to make those judgments? What is your scientific background? Are you able to discuss a paper's technical merits based on what you know for yourself, or are you only going on second- and third-hand knowledge that may or may not be biased?

Depennds on much a scientist engineer wants to invest in the topic.. How many disciplines is a physicist or statistician qualified to contribute in... in the case of 80% of global warming studies --- any scientist or science trained educator can understand them.. Most of the time its about a stupid simple time series of temperature data.. Or talking about relaively simple data about species adaptation to pH in the ocean..

If its a metastudy or other math excercise, the setup and processing uses the same tools whether the topic is secondhabd smoke, ancient temperatures or the accuracy of speech recognition..


Right now, one of the hottest science forums on the planet is DEDICATED to passing knowledge from field to field.. Heard of TED talks?

 

[flacaltenn]

Who's More Pro-Science, Republicans or Democrats? - Neil deGrasse Tyson - YouTube

So here's Neil DeGrasse Tyson, a scientist and registered Democrat from NYC, who comes right out and says Republicans spend more money on science than Dems do.

Heck, during Apollo program, the progressive left whined constantly about the expense.. I was at Kennedy Space Center in early Shuttle days, and the guardians of the shuuttle program were the Conservative reps.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Wow! Certainly got the reaction I hoped for when I posted this!

However, some seem to be straying from the point - just because something is found to be "scientific" doesn't make it true. We must question findings ourselves. We need to do a bit of research to confirm or deny in our minds.

How often do we learn that something that was once bad for us is now good?

Are you qualified to make those judgments? What is your scientific background? Are you able to discuss a paper's technical merits based on what you know for yourself, or are you only going on second- and third-hand knowledge that may or may not be biased?

You don't have to be a fucking scientist to see how these whores change their tune depending on who is paying them to do the research.

 

[rdean]

Who's More Pro-Science, Republicans or Democrats? - Neil deGrasse Tyson - YouTube

So here's Neil DeGrasse Tyson, a scientist and registered Democrat from NYC, who comes right out and says Republicans spend more money on science than Dems do.

Another thing that's pretty hysterical is that Tyson also says the concept of intelligent design thwarts the advance of scientific knowledge. And Republicans use this guy to prove how much they support science? Fucking hilarious. And since he worked for Bush, it's debatable where he "registered" as a Democrat.

None of which have a damned thing to do with accusations that the GOP is cutting science, dumb shit.

When you have scientists complaining their data is being sabotaged, that is cutting science funding. Because those funds were wasted. When you have funds diverted to study something unnecessary, again - "wasted". When you spend money making more advanced bombs, can you really call it "science"? Why do you have to explain everything to right wingers. No wonder so few a scientists. They can't seem to get the hang of "learning" and "thinking".

 

[ScienceRocks]

There's probably 200,000,000,000 extrasolar planets within our galaxy. Finding earth like planets is a place where funding should be going.

Making fusion work is another

Curing cancer and heart disease is yet another

 

[JimBowie1958]

Another thing that's pretty hysterical is that Tyson also says the concept of intelligent design thwarts the advance of scientific knowledge. And Republicans use this guy to prove how much they support science? Fucking hilarious. And since he worked for Bush, it's debatable where he "registered" as a Democrat.

None of which have a damned thing to do with accusations that the GOP is cutting science, dumb shit.

When you have scientists complaining their data is being sabotaged, that is cutting science funding. Because those funds were wasted. When you have funds diverted to study something unnecessary, again - "wasted". When you spend money making more advanced bombs, can you really call it "science"?

That is all partisan bullshit.

Data sabotage is not a cut in funding, nor is research you disagree with, nor is it a cut when tech is advanced.

Again, you display yourself to be a liar and a partisan hack.

Why do you have to explain everything to right wingers. No wonder so few a scientists. They can't seem to get the hang of "learning" and "thinking".

Lol, you make shit up and then blame the audience for not understanding?

You are a fucking loser, dude, get used to your mama's basement.

 

[JimBowie1958]

There's probably 200,000,000,000 extrasolar planets within our galaxy. Finding earth like planets is a place where funding should be going.

Making fusion work is another

Curing cancer and heart disease is yet another

Money is being spent in those endeavors though I don't think hot fusion power is going to work with magnetic containment. It would seem that the energy required to contain the plasma would always be greater than the energy created by the plasma given the inefficiencies of converting power into the form of the magnetic containment. It is maddening when I think of how far we may have gotten if 1% of the hot fusion funding had been put into LENR back when it was first discovered instead of being tossed into the smoldering pile of compost the hot fusion research industry has become after six decades of fruitless research.

Inertial confinement seems more plausible to me, but the hot fusion researchers are funding pigs, and get almost all the room at the trough.

Inertial confinement fusion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24429621


Also, cold fusion is not a fraud and holds great promise, according to researchers at NASA and some independents that have given some fairly successful demonstrations and who have managed to teach their techniques to others.

Race for cold fusion: Nasa, MIT, Darpa and Cern peer through the keyhole (Wired UK)

MIT is doing its LENR class again
IAP 2014 Activity: Cold Fusion 101: Introduction to Excess Power in Fleischmann-Pons Experiments

The department of Energy is funding research into LENR systems through their ARPA-E program (page 7 chart, box 3.6)
http://www.floridaenergy.ufl.edu/wp-content/uploads/DE-FOA-0001002-FOA-IDEAS.pdf

The European Parliament is looking at LENR closely and funding more research into it.
http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/06/s...ischmann-pons-effect-presented-at-eu-meeting/

No wonder they had Mallove killed, lol.

The developments of science unfettered by self-serving establishment restrictions and bias is a very exciting field to read about.

 

[rdean]

Wow! Certainly got the reaction I hoped for when I posted this!

However, some seem to be straying from the point - just because something is found to be "scientific" doesn't make it true. We must question findings ourselves. We need to do a bit of research to confirm or deny in our minds.

How often do we learn that something that was once bad for us is now good?

Are you qualified to make those judgments? What is your scientific background? Are you able to discuss a paper's technical merits based on what you know for yourself, or are you only going on second- and third-hand knowledge that may or may not be biased?

You don't have to be a fucking scientist to see how these whores change their tune depending on who is paying them to do the research.

You are such a fucking stooge, I swear. You are the perfect example of a truly ignorant Republican. Whatever you call yourself, you are the perfect example.