Scientists Behaving Badly - More nails for the coffin of man-made global warming

[Si modo]

Well if they so clearly demonstrate it then why don't you clearly demonstrate to us?

Didn't you say you expect your PhD in physics soon?

Hmmmm.

Anyway, OK. Witholding of unfavorable results. Manipulation of peer-review. Bias to privilege certain investigational lines and/or results over others. Manipulation of data. Lack of transparency in methods and research. Concealing lack of integrity and results. Censorship. Etc.

I suggest you review this before you defend.


Read this, too: An Insult to All Science

A ******* right wingnut blog. Now that is what Sis regards as evidence.

....

I didn't present it as evidence. I said he should read it.

So should you.

It discusses integrity. You might learn something.

 

[Si modo]

In your entire diatribe, you are unable to identify one piece of falsified data

Data doesn't have to be falsified to be guilty of scientific misconduct. Transparency is a huge part of scientific integrity.

Then present some evidence. You are nothing more than a shill for the 'Conservative' position. You are too afraid of being shown to be totally wrong to come out and say that the scientists are committing fraud, so you just go on with your little mind games of attempting to cast doubt on methods and motives.

You are using precisely the same methods that the tobacco industry used to cast doubt on the findings of the doctors that were observing the effects of smoking on the human body. And it stinks just as bad as the tobacco smoke.

Yet, data doesn't have to be falsified to be guilty of scientific misconduct.

 

[code1211]

In your entire diatribe, you are unable to identify one piece of falsified data

Follow this link. For years, the data has been changed and suddenly, pretty recently, the Ground Station temperatures in the US from before 1968 all seem to have dropped while the temperatures from after 1968 all seem to have risen.

Really? Seriously? All of them? If one was suspicious and thought that there might be a plan to show that there was warming, one might suspect that this was done with a purpose other than increasing accuracy.

Given the heat island effect, one might suppose that actual temperatures would have increased due only to that. It seems the heat island effect is not as strong as as the revisionist effect.

Questions on the evolution of the GISS temperature product | Watts Up With That?

 

[Cowman]

The coffin of man-made Global Warming.

Riiiiight.

 

[code1211]

However, like a bacterium festering away someplace dank and fetid, Climategate is poised to infect reality once again: The Guardian is reporting that a second cache of stolen emails has been released anonymously, and once again the cries of conspiracy are being heard. However, it looks like these emails aren’t really new, and were simply from the original stolen batch, but were held back until today. Mind you, the emails from the first Climategate were released right before a big climate conference, in an obvious attempt to derail it in the media. This new batch was released days before a similar conference, in what appears to be a similar propaganda move.

The fact that information is released at an opportune moment doesn't make it propaganda. Deap Throat wanted to derail the Nixon Adminisration. That didn't make his information bogus. The reason you release negative information is to put a stop to the nefarious activities it exposes.

Obviously, the person behind this release wants to derail the climate conference, but what sane intelligent person wouldn't want to derail a conflaguration of con artists and humbugs?

But I think "Deep Throat" actually gave the reporters facts not snippets of personal communications.....as was quoted in the post.


"Mann called the new batch of emails "truly pathetic" and said they reflect desperation among climate deniers, who have failed to pick holes in the science. "They have instead turned to smear, innuendo, criminal hacking of websites, and leaking out-of-context snippets of personal emails in their effort to try to confuse the public about the science and thereby forestall any action to combat this critical threat."

What is the magnitude of the threat? What has happened in the past when the threat was realized?

What is the cause of the threat? What are the direct cause effect pieces of evidence that connect the supposed cause to the stated threat?

What is the proposed solution and where has it worked in the past?

 

[code1211]

Old question, long since answered, irrelevant to the thread topic.

No, it has not been answered. Not at all. And, it is absolutely relevant to your post. A claim is not in a position to be refuted if there is no evidence for that claim in the first place.

Actually, there is plenty of evidence and data to support man made global warming. If you truly want to read up on the topic and see the data for yourself you can start here

Human and Natural Drivers of Climate Change - AR4 WGI Summary for Policymakers

"Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values determined from ice cores spanning many thousands of years (see Figure SPM.1). The global increases in carbon dioxide concentration are due primarily to fossil fuel use and land use change, while those of methane and nitrous oxide are primarily due to agriculture. {2.3, 6.4, 7.3} "

"The understanding of anthropogenic warming and cooling influences on climate has improved since the TAR, leading to very high confidence[7] that the global average net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming, with a radiative forcing of +1.6 [+0.6 to +2.4] W m–2 (see Figure SPM.2). {2.3, 6.5, 2.9} "

That site has a wealth of info that you can use to educate yourself if you actually want to form your own opinion.

Very impressive. What explanation do these experts offer to explain why the climate warmed more between the years 0 and 1000 than it did between the years 1000 and 2000?

Also, the warming trend that we currently enjoy pre-dates the year 1600. It's generally accepted that the industrial Revolution did not start until about 1750.

Is it your assertion that CO2 released from sequestration in 1750 caused warming that occurred in 1600?

Proof is a wonderful thing to present in debates. You should present some.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

 

[Old Rocks]

What is the magnitude of the threat?

We do not fully know yet. However, we are seeing major impacts even now, far before we have doubled the CO2. Just look at the price of a jar of peanut butter.

What has happened in the past when the threat was realized?

There were major extinction events.

What is the cause of the threat?

A very rapid increase of GHGs in the atmosphere.

What are the direct cause effect pieces of evidence that connect the supposed cause to the stated threat?

Absorption bands of the GHGs in the IR. Paleo record of extinctions caused by rapid climate change.

What is the proposed solution and where has it worked in the past?

The solotion is to cease putting GHGs in the atmosphere. In the past, the source of the GHGs was natural, and the solution was that a high percentage of the species that existed at the time, 95% in the PT extinction event, just went extinct.
__________________

 

[code1211]

However, like a bacterium festering away someplace dank and fetid, Climategate is poised to infect reality once again: The Guardian is reporting that a second cache of stolen emails has been released anonymously, and once again the cries of conspiracy are being heard. However, it looks like these emails aren’t really new, and were simply from the original stolen batch, but were held back until today. Mind you, the emails from the first Climategate were released right before a big climate conference, in an obvious attempt to derail it in the media. This new batch was released days before a similar conference, in what appears to be a similar propaganda move.

[UPDATE: Congressman Ed Markey (D-MA) has called on the US intelligence community to investigate who stole these emails. I think this is the right move. We still don't know who did this two years ago, and I'd be fascinated to see who was behind it. H/T Michael Mann on Twitter.]


Climate change denial blogs picked up on this immediately of course. There are examples in the Guardian article linked above. But this is the usual hue and cry, with nothing really new. About all this supposedly new material Michael Mann said:

Mann called the new batch of emails "truly pathetic" and said they reflect desperation among climate deniers, who have failed to pick holes in the science. "They have instead turned to smear, innuendo, criminal hacking of websites, and leaking out-of-context snippets of personal emails in their effort to try to confuse the public about the science and thereby forestall any action to combat this critical threat."

Climategate 2: More ado about nothing. Again. | Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine

Not stolen, no matter how much you try and deny it, the person or persons responsible are WHISTLEBLOWERS and releasing the information from inside!

What are their names?

If the emails reflect work done on the government dime, on government time and government employees, there is no reason to not release all of them on a daily basis. This is not national security stuff.

The only difference between Dr. Hansen and the local weather girl is that she has bigger, um, eyes.

 

[code1211]

No, it has not been answered. Not at all.

Of course it has, you know it has, anyone with a scientific background knows it has, and you're lying again. Utterly contemptible and unworthy of any response except this:

I'm not interested in rehashing the entire AGW non-debate on this thread. All I'm interested in doing is dealing with the fallacious argument advanced in the OP. I'm particularly not interested in discussing the matter with someone who disingenuously and dishonestly claims that there is literally NO evidence in favor of AGW. If you were scientifically ignorant, I might treat that with enough respect to educate you, but you're not, which means you're lying again. Go **** yourself.

And besides:

And, it is absolutely relevant to your post.

No, it is not. The thread topic is about alleged misbehavior by scientists, which is an ad hominem fallacious attack on the AGW idea. A discussion of AGW itself and the scientific evidence therefor is off-topic. Whether scientists have behaved badly -- and any significance (or lack of it) for such malfeasance if it has indeed occurred -- is on-topic.

If the work was funded by a government agency and is not a matter of national Security, all of the communication under this funding is or should be open to public review without questions or restriction.

On the topic of AGW, though, there has been warming and there has been an increase in Global temperatures to a lesser degree than in the previous millennium.

Increased CO2 and decreased warming compared to the previous 1000 years.

How is this cause for panic? How is this evidence of causation?

 

[code1211]

Like I thought. You had no interest in actually learning about the topic. I'd like to say I'm surprised, but I really can't.

I'm pretty well versed in the topic. Your site is nothing new to me.

The increase in CO2 is not proof of much of anything except an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.

When a model or any scientific hypothesis or theory is not falsifiable, it is not scientific, by definition.

Those are just facts.

So you're point is that yes, humans are increasing the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere but you don't believe that CO2 increases affect planet temperature?

There are people who claim that there is a causal link.

Those people have not proved the link.

If you make a claim, you need to prove it. Demanding that your debate opponent disprove what you have not proven is not science, it's politics.

 

[zonly1]

Well if they so clearly demonstrate it then why don't you clearly demonstrate to us?

Didn't you say you expect your PhD in physics soon?

Hmmmm.

Anyway, OK. Witholding of unfavorable results. Manipulation of peer-review. Bias to privilege certain investigational lines and/or results over others. Manipulation of data. Lack of transparency in methods and research. Concealing lack of integrity and results. Censorship. Etc.

I suggest you review this before you defend.


Read this, too: An Insult to All Science

A ******* right wingnut blog. Now that is what Sis regards as evidence. To hell with the American Geophysical Union, the Geological Society of America, or any other such pinko commie far left wing scientific society. In fact, according to Sis, to hell with any scientific society anywhere in the world. Far better to get information from dumb assed right wing blogs.

And Sis claims to be a scientist? Absolutely constantly badmouthing all her associates. Her denigration of scientists is a daily fact, something one would expect of trailer trash, not a working scientist.

We are looking for leaders with courage and sacrifice within their own lame ass scientific findings. I have an experiment for you to carry out. In order curtail co2, you must hold your breath for extensive length of time in order carry out your request. Result death may occur the plus you may have saved the planet.
Are you up to the challenge, coward, grow some balls?

 

[code1211]

What is the magnitude of the threat?

We do not fully know yet. However, we are seeing major impacts even now, far before we have doubled the CO2. Just look at the price of a jar of peanut butter.

What has happened in the past when the threat was realized?

There were major extinction events.

What is the cause of the threat?

A very rapid increase of GHGs in the atmosphere.

What are the direct cause effect pieces of evidence that connect the supposed cause to the stated threat?

Absorption bands of the GHGs in the IR. Paleo record of extinctions caused by rapid climate change.

What is the proposed solution and where has it worked in the past?

The solotion is to cease putting GHGs in the atmosphere. In the past, the source of the GHGs was natural, and the solution was that a high percentage of the species that existed at the time, 95% in the PT extinction event, just went extinct.
__________________

Obviously, you have nothing.

The warming was more extreme between the years 0 and 1000 than between the years 1000 and 2000.

The CO2 in the atmosphere is higher right now than at any point in the last 10,000 years and yet we are a full degree cooler than we were at the peak of the climate temp during that period.

The temperature rises and falls across periods of decades and the CO2 continuously rises with a pretty consistent rate. There is no causation here. Even the correlation is weak.

You need to prove your case and you have not.

When you prove it, I will believe it.

 

[bripat9643]

You dumb ass, this is a scientific subject. So present some science, for God's sake. All you present is name calling and innuendo.

Pattycake, you have yet to present a single peice of evidence that shows any fraud on the part of the scientists presenting observations and evidence concerning the rapidly warming climate that we are experiancing.

I've already presented tons of evidence that so-called "climatologists" attempted to hide their data, stifle the work of skeptics, blackball skeptics, and lie to the public.

 

[bripat9643]

What evidence do we have that man made CO2 has significantly contributed to warming?

Geez, Sis, do we have to go over this again?

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

From the American Institute of Physics. Real scientists, not internet pretenders.

That's proof of nothing, No Rocks.

 

[westwall]

I suggest you review it and point me to the specific emails which support your claims of "Witholding of unfavorable results. Manipulation of peer-review. Bias to privilege certain investigational lines and/or results over others. Manipulation of data. Lack of transparency in methods and research. Concealing lack of integrity and results. Censorship. Etc." - until then, all you're doing is making assertions without evidence.

By the way, it helps to write in complete sentences.

Why?

Why? Why should you provide evidence for your claims? Is that a serious question?

You ignore simple facts so wasting time spelling things out is likewise a waste of time. Go find the emails (they are very easy to find) and go through them yourself. You claim to be Doctoral candidate (which I highly doubt) so you should have no trouble reviewing them for yourself.

I'm a bit confused. You're the one claiming there is damning evidence in these emails - yet instead of being able to point to the particular emails which are damning, you seem to think I'm going to wade through 5000 emails for you, and find those particular emails, so that you will then have actual evidence for your claims. Why can't you do your own research?

Of course, though, seeing as you are nothing more then a brainwashed political hack I don't give it much of a chance you will actually look. You're a faithful servant of your masters and to look at their crimes is blasphemy to you.

I understand.

Look where exactly? Presumably - since you claim the emails reveal:
"Witholding of unfavorable results. Manipulation of peer-review. Bias to privilege certain investigational lines and/or results over others. Manipulation of data. Lack of transparency in methods and research. Concealing lack of integrity and results. Censorship." - you should know which particular emails provide evidence that each of the above is happening. I mean, I wouldn't think you'd just be basing your above claims off of someone just telling you its so, without having actually read the particular emails yourself! So please, show me which ones in particular support the above claims, so I can actually verify your assertion!

Yes, you are certainly confused.

 

[westwall]

The last set clearly demonstrated that, and several emails have been quoted in this thread that demonstrate the same.

Great. Show me one in particular. Link or direct quotation. And explain what it reveals that is damning and how.

I don't envision your defense being successful. If you cannot even recognize scientific misconduct and don't know what scientific integrity is, you should not have any degree.

I've yet to be pointed to where the evidence of this scientific mis-conduct is. All I have seen so far is "Its there, trust me, just go find it yourself" - which is a very, very unconvincing argument.

I have already passed my defense, BTW, and will be awarded my degree on December 16th.

And you had to ask me what scientific integrity is?

It looks like the dumbing down of higher education has finally creeped into graduate schools. It was inevitable.

Yep, this confirms it. He defends the cult at all times no matter what the evidence states. He's at Penn!

 

[westwall]

Well if they so clearly demonstrate it then why don't you clearly demonstrate to us?

Didn't you say you expect your PhD in physics soon?

Hmmmm.

Anyway, OK. Witholding of unfavorable results. Manipulation of peer-review. Bias to privilege certain investigational lines and/or results over others. Manipulation of data. Lack of transparency in methods and research. Concealing lack of integrity and results. Censorship. Etc.

I suggest you review this before you defend.


Read this, too: An Insult to All Science

A ******* right wingnut blog. Now that is what Sis regards as evidence. To hell with the American Geophysical Union, the Geological Society of America, or any other such pinko commie far left wing scientific society. In fact, according to Sis, to hell with any scientific society anywhere in the world. Far better to get information from dumb assed right wing blogs.

And Sis claims to be a scientist? Absolutely constantly badmouthing all her associates. Her denigration of scientists is a daily fact, something one would expect of trailer trash, not a working scientist.

What's the matter MENSA BOY? You post from all of your lefty blogs, I think it's fair to post from a rightwing blog. Don't you? Or are you saying it's OK to deny source material from certain groups because you don't like their politics?

 

[westwall]

Didn't you say you expect your PhD in physics soon?

Hmmmm.

Anyway, OK. Witholding of unfavorable results. Manipulation of peer-review. Bias to privilege certain investigational lines and/or results over others. Manipulation of data. Lack of transparency in methods and research. Concealing lack of integrity and results. Censorship. Etc.

I suggest you review this before you defend.


Read this, too: An Insult to All Science

A ******* right wingnut blog. Now that is what Sis regards as evidence.

....

I didn't present it as evidence. I said he should read it.

So should you.

It discusses integrity. You might learn something.

Defenders of the Faith are incapable of modifying their view Si, that's blasphemy.

 

[westwall]

What is the magnitude of the threat?

We do not fully know yet. However, we are seeing major impacts even now, far before we have doubled the CO2. Just look at the price of a jar of peanut butter.

What has happened in the past when the threat was realized?

There were major extinction events.

What is the cause of the threat?

A very rapid increase of GHGs in the atmosphere.

What are the direct cause effect pieces of evidence that connect the supposed cause to the stated threat?

Absorption bands of the GHGs in the IR. Paleo record of extinctions caused by rapid climate change.

What is the proposed solution and where has it worked in the past?

The solotion is to cease putting GHGs in the atmosphere. In the past, the source of the GHGs was natural, and the solution was that a high percentage of the species that existed at the time, 95% in the PT extinction event, just went extinct.
__________________

You love to quote the meme of extinction events and yet the only credible climate "event" shown to have a possible hand in extinction is extreme cold. Not warmth. The most recent example of the fallacy of your extinction event meme is the PETM which you no longer refer too after I showed that the only species to have gone extinct were some foraminefera. The rest of the biosphere on the other hand thrived.

Occams Razor tells us that the last time it was really warm the same probably occured. However, the last two winters have seen the deaths of millions of animals worldwide from cold. Occam once again says that that is probably the only climate condition that leads to mass extinctions.

But don't let facts through that thick skull of yours.

 

[westwall]

Not stolen, no matter how much you try and deny it, the person or persons responsible are WHISTLEBLOWERS and releasing the information from inside!

What are their names?

If the emails reflect work done on the government dime, on government time and government employees, there is no reason to not release all of them on a daily basis. This is not national security stuff.

The only difference between Dr. Hansen and the local weather girl is that she has bigger, um, eyes.

Not only no reason to keep them away from the public but REQUIRED to give them to the public, the records after all belong to US, we paid for them.