assault on science

[daveman]

Frazzlegear

Personally I think there SHOULD be an investigation into the POLITICIZATION of climate science and the corruption of the entire scientific process. Legitimate science doesn't involve the destruction of raw data and falsifying data and then offering it up as being honest. Yet we know that occurred and FAR WORSE with scientists on nearly every continent stepping forward to admit they knew of other instances of falsifying data. The only reason to falsify it is because REALITY isn't cooperating with the THEORY, isn't it? Which means it was being used to DECEIVE people and manipulate them. And THAT is exactly what politicized science is ALWAYS used for.

..........................................................................................

You betcha! Let's start with the lying Senator Inhofe. Then move on to Singer and Lindzen. Put Watts up on the stand and let him defend his nonsense. There are a bunch of people that should be questioned about the politization of climate scientists. But they are not the climate scientists who have been doing their work and publishing the results and evidence.

It's funny how you claim AGW isn't politicized.

 

[IanC]

[ QUOTE=Old Rocks;2870947]

Because the extreme right's attack on Mann is the real distraction.

The real question is, what will be the effect on the earth's climate of doubling atmospheric CO2?

It's not just the 'extreme right' who attacks Mann. It's anyone who values integrity, scientific or otherwise.

Old Gal, you are still full of bullshit. Mann's work has been verified many times by independent studies. Studies that often stated they disagreed with his statistical work, yet, using their own methods, still had the same results.
Much-vindicated Michael Mann and Hockey Stick get final exoneration from Penn State — time for some major media apologies and retractions Climate Progress

Most questions about Dr. Mann’s findings have been focused on his early published work that showed the “hockey stick” pattern of climate change. In fact, research published since then by Dr. Mann and by independent researchers has shown patterns similar to those first described by Dr. Mann…. In some cases, other researchers (e.g., Wahl & Ammann, 2007) have been able to replicate Dr. Mann’s findings, using the publicly available data and algorithms. The convergence of findings by different teams of researchers, using different data sets, lends further credence to the fact that Dr. Mann’s conduct of his research has followed acceptable practice within his field. Further support for this conclusion may be found in the observation that almost all of Dr. Mann’s work was accomplished jointly with other scientists. The checks and balances inherent in such a scientific team approach further diminishes chances that anything unethical or inappropriate occurred in the conduct of the research.

A particularly telling indicator of a scientist’s standing within the research community is the recognition that is bestowed by other scientists. Judged by that indicator, Dr. Mann’s work, from the beginning of his career, has been recognized as outstanding. For example, he received the Phillip M. Orville Prize for outstanding dissertation in the earth sciences at Yale University in 1997. In 2002, he received an award from the Institute for Scientific Information for a scientific paper (published with co-authors) that appeared in the prestigious journal Nature; also in 2002, he co-authored a paper that won the Outstanding Scientific Paper Award from the NOAA Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, and Scientific American named him as one of 50 leading visionaries in science and technology. In 2005, Dr. Mann co-authored a paper in the Journal of Climate that won the John Russell Mather Paper award from the Association of American Geographers, and in the same year, the website “RealClimate.org” (co-founded by Dr. Mann) was chosen as one of the top 25 “Science and Technology” websites by Scientific American. In 2006, Dr. Mann was recognized with the American Geophysical Union Editors’ Citation for Excellence in Refereeing (i.e., reviewing manuscripts for Geophysical Research Letters). All of these awards and recognitions, as well as others not specifically cited here, serve as evidence that his scientific work, especially the conduct of his research, has from the beginning of his career been judged to be outstanding by a broad spectrum of scientists. Had Dr. Mann’s conduct of his research been outside the range of accepted practices, it would have been impossible for him to receive so many awards and recognitions, which typically involve intense scrutiny from scientists who may or may not agree with his scientific conclusions.

Old gal, the lack of scientific integrity lies within you. You would deny science for political conveniance.[/QUOTE]

Old Rocks- I understand you want to be loyal to your side and to Mann but you are ignoring reality. Mann's first hockey stick was just wrong. No medieval warm period, no little ice age. Only after FOI requests and McKintyre back engineering Mann's work did a portion of his data become public. When Mann's methods were shown to always produce hockey sticks, he reworked his study to now show the MWP and LIA. The Nation Academy of Science investigated him and found his methodology to be wrong and chastised Mann and climate science in general for not searching out statistical expertise and being obstructive with making their data available. A large portion of the Climategate emails dealt with these problems and the underhanded way that the top echelon of climate science tried to control peer review in an attempt to make these problems go away. Recently there have been numerous inquiries that have meted out chastisement for minor wrongdoings while avoiding the main ethical failings and perhaps even crimes, in the hope that this will appease the public curiosity. It won't (or at least shouldn't) be enough. As usual the cover ups are worse than the original problem, which in this case was incompetence.

 

[westwall]

Frazzlegear

Personally I think there SHOULD be an investigation into the POLITICIZATION of climate science and the corruption of the entire scientific process. Legitimate science doesn't involve the destruction of raw data and falsifying data and then offering it up as being honest. Yet we know that occurred and FAR WORSE with scientists on nearly every continent stepping forward to admit they knew of other instances of falsifying data. The only reason to falsify it is because REALITY isn't cooperating with the THEORY, isn't it? Which means it was being used to DECEIVE people and manipulate them. And THAT is exactly what politicized science is ALWAYS used for.

..........................................................................................

You betcha! Let's start with the lying Senator Inhofe. Then move on to Singer and Lindzen. Put Watts up on the stand and let him defend his nonsense. There are a bunch of people that should be questioned about the politization of climate scientists. But they are not the climate scientists who have been doing their work and publishing the results and evidence.

The problem with your particular line of drivel here olfraud is that NONE OF THE PEOPLE YOU SINGLED OUT GET TAXPAYER MONEY TO DO WHAT THEY DO. The people we are interested in do...and they lie cheat and destroy evidence if it weakens their argument. You have no integrity so that is acceptable for a creature such as yourself.

Fortunately the real world respects integrity and eventually all of these criminals will be prosecuted. It will just take time, after all they have a 30 year head start on the honest people. It takes a long time to untangle a RICO investigation.

 

[westwall]

Because the extreme right's attack on Mann is the real distraction.

The real question is, what will be the effect on the earth's climate of doubling atmospheric CO2?

It's not just the 'extreme right' who attacks Mann. It's anyone who values integrity, scientific or otherwise.

Old Gal, you are still full of bullshit. Mann's work has been verified many times by independent studies. Studies that often stated they disagreed with his statistical work, yet, using their own methods, still had the same results.
Much-vindicated Michael Mann and Hockey Stick get final exoneration from Penn State — time for some major media apologies and retractions Climate Progress

Most questions about Dr. Mann’s findings have been focused on his early published work that showed the “hockey stick” pattern of climate change. In fact, research published since then by Dr. Mann and by independent researchers has shown patterns similar to those first described by Dr. Mann…. In some cases, other researchers (e.g., Wahl & Ammann, 2007) have been able to replicate Dr. Mann’s findings, using the publicly available data and algorithms. The convergence of findings by different teams of researchers, using different data sets, lends further credence to the fact that Dr. Mann’s conduct of his research has followed acceptable practice within his field. Further support for this conclusion may be found in the observation that almost all of Dr. Mann’s work was accomplished jointly with other scientists. The checks and balances inherent in such a scientific team approach further diminishes chances that anything unethical or inappropriate occurred in the conduct of the research.

A particularly telling indicator of a scientist’s standing within the research community is the recognition that is bestowed by other scientists. Judged by that indicator, Dr. Mann’s work, from the beginning of his career, has been recognized as outstanding. For example, he received the Phillip M. Orville Prize for outstanding dissertation in the earth sciences at Yale University in 1997. In 2002, he received an award from the Institute for Scientific Information for a scientific paper (published with co-authors) that appeared in the prestigious journal Nature; also in 2002, he co-authored a paper that won the Outstanding Scientific Paper Award from the NOAA Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, and Scientific American named him as one of 50 leading visionaries in science and technology. In 2005, Dr. Mann co-authored a paper in the Journal of Climate that won the John Russell Mather Paper award from the Association of American Geographers, and in the same year, the website “RealClimate.org” (co-founded by Dr. Mann) was chosen as one of the top 25 “Science and Technology” websites by Scientific American. In 2006, Dr. Mann was recognized with the American Geophysical Union Editors’ Citation for Excellence in Refereeing (i.e., reviewing manuscripts for Geophysical Research Letters). All of these awards and recognitions, as well as others not specifically cited here, serve as evidence that his scientific work, especially the conduct of his research, has from the beginning of his career been judged to be outstanding by a broad spectrum of scientists. Had Dr. Mann’s conduct of his research been outside the range of accepted practices, it would have been impossible for him to receive so many awards and recognitions, which typically involve intense scrutiny from scientists who may or may not agree with his scientific conclusions.

Old gal, the lack of scientific integrity lies within you. You would deny science for political conveniance.

No it hasn't. It has been rubber stamped by fellow travellers, kind of like how the Catholic Church got over run by pedophiles because the perverts were watching out for each other.
The same is true of the "investigations" by Penn State. One of the "pieces of evidence" in Manns favour was that he brought in lots of grant money! That is a farce and it's going to bite Penn in the ass.

Just more of the same, pervs protecting pervs.

 

[westwall]

Now Si, when the PNAS publishs a paper from you that shows evidence that this paper is incorrect, perhaps I can give some credance to your scribbles. Until then, you are just another person in the peanut gallery, with no evidenc and no standing as far as scientific authority is concerned.

Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Vol. 105, No. 36, pp. 13252-13257, September 9, 2008. doi:10.1073/pnas.0805721105

Michael E. Mann1, Zhihua Zhang1, Malcolm K. Hughes2, Raymond S. Bradley3, Sonya K. Miller1, Scott Rutherford4, and Fenbiao Ni 2.


NOAA Paleoclimatology Program - Mann et al. 2008 Temperature Reconstructions

ABSTRACT:
Following the suggestions of a recent National Research Council report [NRC (National Research Council) (2006) Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years (Natl Acad Press, Washington, DC).], we reconstruct surface temperature at hemispheric and global scale for much of the last 2,000 years using a greatly expanded set of proxy data for decadal-to-centennial climate changes, recently updated instrumental data, and complementary methods that have been thoroughly tested and validated with model simulation experiments. Our results extend previous conclusions that recent Northern Hemisphere surface temperature increases are likely anomalous in a long-term context. Recent warmth appears anomalous for at least the past 1,300 years whether or not tree-ring data are used. If tree-ring data are used, the conclusion can be extended to at least the past 1,700 years, but with additional strong caveats. The reconstructed amplitude of change over past centuries is greater than hitherto reported, with somewhat greater Medieval warmth in the Northern Hemisphere, albeit still not reaching recent levels

Yeah sure olfraud. Just as soon as they get a little credibility back from some of the incredibly assinine things they have printed. What was that they were pushing...???? Oh yeah "the impending heat would send a further 6.5 million Mexican Ag workers north to avoid the heat. HAH! What a load of horse manure! That is more ag workers then EXIST IN MEXICO! Or what about the fact that Central America and Brazil have average temps 6 degrees higher than us now and don't seem to have a problem growing food? How about checking some real basic facts...oh wait that's right, PNAS doesnt do that! They are more interested in political action....that science stuff just gets in the way.

Fool.

 

[frazzledgear]

People that believe in "magical creation" have the best understanding of science, obviously.

You must be referring to yourself then as one of those people who believe in that magical creation -insisting that earth once possessed a magical quality to create life from non-living materials. Only to immediately lose that property and never to be seen again anywhere in the universe ever again. Talk about MAGIC! In spite of the indisputable scientific fact that the ONLY way life has EVER been produced EVER -is by means of another life. NEVER once has it been seen to arise out of non-living materials. Not once. And man has spent CENTURIES trying to force life from non-living materials which has only reinforced and confirmed this scientific fact. But people who insist that is actually something "natural" because they believe it to be the only rational explanation for how life began on our planet have the balls to claim its NATURAL! When the definition of "natural" means IT MUST BE SEEN TO OCCUR IN NATURE! So you irrational people are actually claiming something we know for a fact would be totally unnatural because we know it never happens in nature -is "natural" anyway! In other words, you believe that earth once had this magical property -but then IMMEDIATELY lost it, never to be seen again. And you mock people who disagree with that when THEY actually have the science on their side for this? Or do you have the science showing how "natural" it is for non-living materials to produce a living organism and the rest of the world just missed that news flash? Calling something "natural" when it is never seen to occur in nature -doesn't make it natural, sorry.

Because of the scientific discoveries man has made, we know good and damn well that life arising out of non-living goo would be anything BUT a natural event. Earth being seeded by aliens would actually be a more natural event than that!

 

[frazzledgear]

They're same people who tried to convince us that Terry Schiavo wasn't brain dead! If they're saying "scam", then it's just because they're trying to deflect attention from their own twisting of the facts.

Well, Schaivo wasn't brain dead, now was she?

So, you are being irrelevant yet again.

Yes she was. What evidence do you have that she wasn't? To my knowledge it was confirmed on aotopsy. Are you trying to rewrite history? I think you've just proven my point. There IS an assault on science!

What evidence she wasn't? Well the videotape showing her LAUGHING at her father's joke for starters. How about the videotape showing her interacting with and responding to her doctor's commands to raise and lower her leg? Think brain dead people do THAT too? Schiavo was severely BRAIN DAMAGED -but she was not brain dead. Her parents begged the judge to go visit her and see for himself before making any judgment -but he refused, saying her legal husband's doctors testimony was adequate and he saw no need to personally see her condition for himself. Gee, you'd think a judge would want to make sure he wasn't ordering an AWARE WOMAN to death, wouldn't you? Because of the way the law was written, the burden of proof was on Terri Schiavo to prove she wasn't brain dead -not on her former husband who claimed she was.

Most people figure a brain dead person is just lying there like a corpse with a machine pumping air in and out of a dead person keeping the body alive -not someone who is interacting with her parents and doctor. When the judge watched the videotape of her following her doctor's commands, the judge said she took too long to do what the doctor asked her to do so it didn't count - in spite of the doctor-who SPECIALIZES in the rehab of the severely brain damaged-explaining it can take as long as 10 minutes for a severely brain damaged person to process commands. The judge threw out his testimony and the videotape of Schiavo responding to NUMEROUS commands because she took "too long" to do what he asked her to do and ordered her to be killed by means of dehydration. Condemned murderers have a better safeguard in place than the brain damaged. And the LIE that being dehydrated to death is a nice way to die IS a lie. It is a brutally INHUMANE way to kill someone. If you REALLY believe otherwise, try doing it to your dog when its time to put it down and when you watch its horrible suffering you inflicted on it -keep telling it how pleasant the dog really has it and what a wonderful way to go it is. Assuming you don't get arrested for cruelty to animals. Just think about your own discomfort after being thirsty for an HOUR. Then think about the two weeks Schiavo was forced to suffer and how long it took to kill her this way. What a brutally inhumane farce when putting a bullet in her head would have been far more humane! But a human being was forced to die in a way that if you did it to your DOG, you would be arrested for the inhumane cruelty it really is. People assume that "extraordinary" care means breathing machines and the like -NOT requiring the SAME THINGS we all need just to live - like WATER AND FOOD.

Deprive a human being of water and you are NOT "allowing" them to die -you are FORCING them to die. No different than if I deprived you of water would be forcing YOU to die. In other words -I would be killing you and guilty of murder. The fact Schiavo could not escape and go get her own water and relieve her suffering does NOT prove someone is brain dead.

Florida law had loopholes that allowed her husband, who was living as the husband of another woman and raising their family together -to decide her medical care and force her to die after finding a doctor able to convince the judge that being allowed water amounted to "extraordinary" care. Florida law has since been changed and Schiavo's ex would never have been allowed to force her to die today like that -NOR is food and water considered to be "extraordinary" care under Florida law anymore but USUAL, STANDARD and the MINIMALLY EXPECTED care of everyone. But those changes did not come in time to save her life.

 

[frazzledgear]

Frazzlegear

Personally I think there SHOULD be an investigation into the POLITICIZATION of climate science and the corruption of the entire scientific process. Legitimate science doesn't involve the destruction of raw data and falsifying data and then offering it up as being honest. Yet we know that occurred and FAR WORSE with scientists on nearly every continent stepping forward to admit they knew of other instances of falsifying data. The only reason to falsify it is because REALITY isn't cooperating with the THEORY, isn't it? Which means it was being used to DECEIVE people and manipulate them. And THAT is exactly what politicized science is ALWAYS used for.

..........................................................................................

You betcha! Let's start with the lying Senator Inhofe. Then move on to Singer and Lindzen. Put Watts up on the stand and let him defend his nonsense. There are a bunch of people that should be questioned about the politization of climate scientists. But they are not the climate scientists who have been doing their work and publishing the results and evidence.

The problem with your particular line of drivel here olfraud is that NONE OF THE PEOPLE YOU SINGLED OUT GET TAXPAYER MONEY TO DO WHAT THEY DO. The people we are interested in do...and they lie cheat and destroy evidence if it weakens their argument. You have no integrity so that is acceptable for a creature such as yourself.

Fortunately the real world respects integrity and eventually all of these criminals will be prosecuted. It will just take time, after all they have a 30 year head start on the honest people. It takes a long time to untangle a RICO investigation.

Sorry, but we have POLITICIANS using the fraudulent, faked, doctored up crap of these people to impose LAWS on the rest of us. Where do you think the basis for trying to push cap-and-trade crap off on us comes from? A bill that will destroy thousands of jobs and make just existing in this country far more expensive and thereby lower the standard of living for all of us -and you think THAT isn't forcing us to PAY FOR IT?

 

[westwall]

Frazzlegear

Personally I think there SHOULD be an investigation into the POLITICIZATION of climate science and the corruption of the entire scientific process. Legitimate science doesn't involve the destruction of raw data and falsifying data and then offering it up as being honest. Yet we know that occurred and FAR WORSE with scientists on nearly every continent stepping forward to admit they knew of other instances of falsifying data. The only reason to falsify it is because REALITY isn't cooperating with the THEORY, isn't it? Which means it was being used to DECEIVE people and manipulate them. And THAT is exactly what politicized science is ALWAYS used for.

..........................................................................................

You betcha! Let's start with the lying Senator Inhofe. Then move on to Singer and Lindzen. Put Watts up on the stand and let him defend his nonsense. There are a bunch of people that should be questioned about the politization of climate scientists. But they are not the climate scientists who have been doing their work and publishing the results and evidence.

The problem with your particular line of drivel here olfraud is that NONE OF THE PEOPLE YOU SINGLED OUT GET TAXPAYER MONEY TO DO WHAT THEY DO. The people we are interested in do...and they lie cheat and destroy evidence if it weakens their argument. You have no integrity so that is acceptable for a creature such as yourself.

Fortunately the real world respects integrity and eventually all of these criminals will be prosecuted. It will just take time, after all they have a 30 year head start on the honest people. It takes a long time to untangle a RICO investigation.

Sorry, but we have POLITICIANS using the fraudulent, faked, doctored up crap of these people to impose LAWS on the rest of us. Where do you think the basis for trying to push cap-and-trade crap off on us comes from? A bill that will destroy thousands of jobs and make just existing in this country far more expensive and thereby lower the standard of living for all of us -and you think THAT isn't forcing us to PAY FOR IT?

Oh believe me I know that too. I am merely approaching it from the provable pseudo science side and letting others attack the conspiracy side of it.

 

[Si modo]

Frazzlegear

Personally I think there SHOULD be an investigation into the POLITICIZATION of climate science and the corruption of the entire scientific process. Legitimate science doesn't involve the destruction of raw data and falsifying data and then offering it up as being honest. Yet we know that occurred and FAR WORSE with scientists on nearly every continent stepping forward to admit they knew of other instances of falsifying data. The only reason to falsify it is because REALITY isn't cooperating with the THEORY, isn't it? Which means it was being used to DECEIVE people and manipulate them. And THAT is exactly what politicized science is ALWAYS used for.

..........................................................................................

You betcha! Let's start with the lying Senator Inhofe. Then move on to Singer and Lindzen. Put Watts up on the stand and let him defend his nonsense. There are a bunch of people that should be questioned about the politization of climate scientists. But they are not the climate scientists who have been doing their work and publishing the results and evidence.

Because the extreme right's attack on Mann is the real distraction.

The real question is, what will be the effect on the earth's climate of doubling atmospheric CO2?

It's not just the 'extreme right' who attacks Mann. It's anyone who values integrity, scientific or otherwise.

Old Gal, you are still full of bullshit. Mann's work has been verified many times by independent studies. Studies that often stated they disagreed with his statistical work, yet, using their own methods, still had the same results.
Much-vindicated Michael Mann and Hockey Stick get final exoneration from Penn State — time for some major media apologies and retractions Climate Progress

Most questions about Dr. Mann’s findings have been focused on his early published work that showed the “hockey stick” pattern of climate change. In fact, research published since then by Dr. Mann and by independent researchers has shown patterns similar to those first described by Dr. Mann…. In some cases, other researchers (e.g., Wahl & Ammann, 2007) have been able to replicate Dr. Mann’s findings, using the publicly available data and algorithms. The convergence of findings by different teams of researchers, using different data sets, lends further credence to the fact that Dr. Mann’s conduct of his research has followed acceptable practice within his field. Further support for this conclusion may be found in the observation that almost all of Dr. Mann’s work was accomplished jointly with other scientists. The checks and balances inherent in such a scientific team approach further diminishes chances that anything unethical or inappropriate occurred in the conduct of the research.

A particularly telling indicator of a scientist’s standing within the research community is the recognition that is bestowed by other scientists. Judged by that indicator, Dr. Mann’s work, from the beginning of his career, has been recognized as outstanding. For example, he received the Phillip M. Orville Prize for outstanding dissertation in the earth sciences at Yale University in 1997. In 2002, he received an award from the Institute for Scientific Information for a scientific paper (published with co-authors) that appeared in the prestigious journal Nature; also in 2002, he co-authored a paper that won the Outstanding Scientific Paper Award from the NOAA Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, and Scientific American named him as one of 50 leading visionaries in science and technology. In 2005, Dr. Mann co-authored a paper in the Journal of Climate that won the John Russell Mather Paper award from the Association of American Geographers, and in the same year, the website “RealClimate.org” (co-founded by Dr. Mann) was chosen as one of the top 25 “Science and Technology” websites by Scientific American. In 2006, Dr. Mann was recognized with the American Geophysical Union Editors’ Citation for Excellence in Refereeing (i.e., reviewing manuscripts for Geophysical Research Letters). All of these awards and recognitions, as well as others not specifically cited here, serve as evidence that his scientific work, especially the conduct of his research, has from the beginning of his career been judged to be outstanding by a broad spectrum of scientists. Had Dr. Mann’s conduct of his research been outside the range of accepted practices, it would have been impossible for him to receive so many awards and recognitions, which typically involve intense scrutiny from scientists who may or may not agree with his scientific conclusions.

Old gal, the lack of scientific integrity lies within you. You would deny science for political conveniance.

What are you going on about now? I have no idea what you are arguing with me about, but when you actually comprehend my position - not just make my position up in your head - you'll have something relevant to say. Even though I have written my position over and over, you still make shit up in your head about what it is. Until you can comprehend it and discuss even the basics of science, you are just playing with straw.

You really have no idea what you are doing. Stick with politics, you're cringeworthy at science.