The death of Impartiality

Big Fitz

User Quit *****
Joined
Nov 23, 2009
Messages
16,917
Reaction score
2,521
Points
48
So, I'm chewing through links on the Medieval Warm Period and am getting more and more discouraged. I have been finding it impossible to find sources post 1980 that has not been politicized, an agenda blog or tainted by bad science (Hockey Stick /Hansen-Mann-Jones) one way or another. I just want to get even archeological evidence and I see evidence of people pushing an agenda.

This may just be me bemoaning the obvious that there are no honest parties in this debate anymore on any side and the truth is lying on no one's side but in the middle telling everyone to stay the hell away from them, it's not shilling for you anymore. Doing a basic search anymore yields as many paid partisans as they do sycophantic blogs, all preaching the same twist, that you can't even trust the papers they tout.

Can anyone find non-biased, straight science (you know, the kind that doesn't try to get a predisposed result) and or historical evidence that doesn't deliberately ignore contrary evidence?

This is just friggen ludicrous.
 

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
53,152
Reaction score
10,501
Points
2,040
So, I'm chewing through links on the Medieval Warm Period and am getting more and more discouraged. I have been finding it impossible to find sources post 1980 that has not been politicized, an agenda blog or tainted by bad science (Hockey Stick /Hansen-Mann-Jones) one way or another. I just want to get even archeological evidence and I see evidence of people pushing an agenda.

This may just be me bemoaning the obvious that there are no honest parties in this debate anymore on any side and the truth is lying on no one's side but in the middle telling everyone to stay the hell away from them, it's not shilling for you anymore. Doing a basic search anymore yields as many paid partisans as they do sycophantic blogs, all preaching the same twist, that you can't even trust the papers they tout.

Can anyone find non-biased, straight science (you know, the kind that doesn't try to get a predisposed result) and or historical evidence that doesn't deliberately ignore contrary evidence?

This is just friggen ludicrous.
Good luck. The core of the issue is that even if you had all the data, pure, and unfiltered I'm not sure how it would help. The Earth's climate is just too big of a system, with too many inputs in my opinion to really model with any certainty. I work with Wastewater treatment models, and those are far simpler. Still, they are good tools to determine design parameters but they have to be taken with a grain of salt.

My primary issue with climate models is that you really only have 100-150 years of reliable direct measurements. All other are anecdotal, tree rings, ice cores, old records using crappy measurements. Trying to model a billion year old climate model on 100-150 of hard data (or even the thousands of years of anecdotal data we have) would be like trying to figure out how humans lived using a 2 second sample of a person's lifespan. If the person was sneezing during that 2 seconds you would assume peoples lives are one big series of sneezes.
 

westwall

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
66,781
Reaction score
19,545
Points
2,180
Location
Nevada
The only reports from officialdom from that era are tax reports that show the agricultural communities were prospering quite well. Additionally there are records from parish priests that describe the life in their parishes that also show a prosperous time. There is some good paleo climate research going on that more and more is proving that the MWP was not a regional occurance as the warmists would have us all believe. I lifted this from the c3headlinesdotcom website for one avenue of research that is going on.

Hope it helps.

Cheers


The Indo-Pacific ocean area represents the warmest volume of water known to exist naturally. Soooo, is that pool of warm water the warmest it's ever been? Is it experiencing the "unprecedented" warmth that alarmists always speak of? Nope, not even close - it's "lukewarm" compared to the Roman and Medieval warming eras. (click on image to enlarge)


Oppo et al. derived a continuous sea surface temperature (SST) reconstruction from the Indo-Pacific Warm Pool (IPWP), which they describe as "the largest reservoir of warm surface water on the earth and the main source of heat for the global atmosphere."....spans the past two millennia and, as they describe it, "overlaps the instrumental record, enabling both a direct comparison of proxy data to the instrumental record and an evaluation of past changes in the context of twentieth century trends." Reconstructed SSTs were, in their words, "warmest from AD 1000 to AD 1250 and during short periods of first millennium." From the authors' Figure 2b, adapted below, we calculate that the Medieval Warm Period was about 0.4°C warmer than the Current Warm Period
 

editec

Mr. Forgot-it-All
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
41,421
Reaction score
5,659
Points
48
Location
Maine
So, I'm chewing through links on the Medieval Warm Period and am getting more and more discouraged. I have been finding it impossible to find sources post 1980 that has not been politicized, an agenda blog or tainted by bad science (Hockey Stick /Hansen-Mann-Jones) one way or another. I just want to get even archeological evidence and I see evidence of people pushing an agenda.

This may just be me bemoaning the obvious that there are no honest parties in this debate anymore on any side and the truth is lying on no one's side but in the middle telling everyone to stay the hell away from them, it's not shilling for you anymore. Doing a basic search anymore yields as many paid partisans as they do sycophantic blogs, all preaching the same twist, that you can't even trust the papers they tout.

Can anyone find non-biased, straight science (you know, the kind that doesn't try to get a predisposed result) and or historical evidence that doesn't deliberately ignore contrary evidence?

This is just friggen ludicrous.
The problem is that few of us here are QUALIFIED to decide which science is unbiased.

If you're NOT an expert in the field, how could you tell if you were being manipulated by subtle lies or half truths or outright (but honest) mistakes in the science?

This is basically why I seldom get involved in this debates about global change. (which I insist ought to be called Global WEIRDING)

In the first place I can't tell who is right. Can you?

In the second, (and this is just as important) I doubt that players on either side can really predict long range outcomes based on the data.

The butterfly effect is a fact (chaos theory) that cannot be denied

Ignoring that fact (which both sides are basically doing) suggests to me that egos, rather than science, are in play here from both sides of this debate.
 
Last edited:
OP
Big Fitz

Big Fitz

User Quit *****
Joined
Nov 23, 2009
Messages
16,917
Reaction score
2,521
Points
48
In the second, (and this is just as important) I doubt that players on either side can really predict long range outcomes based on the data.

The butterfly effect is a fact (chaos theory) that cannot be denied
This, right here, is pretty much the basis I have against any long term predictions. Once you get beyond the next set of trends, you're driving blind in the forest. The wrong decisions and chances of something unknown happening ... they destroy any predictive information you have.

I look at hurricane maps for a classic example of how badly chaos theory throws our knowledge into a cocked hat every time. The directions diverge instantly and sometimes wider than a 45 degree angle is left within a few hours, let alone a day. How can we then say, with as little information as we have on the nature of our world we know what the weather is going to be in 15 years (usually one set of trends out if not more) 50 years, 100 years, 500 years, 1000 years, 10 millennia out. Although the most honest answer is to split the difference between the predicted extremes, this does not always work either, even when being as honest as possible because every single point changes the parameters of what is to come and you could quickly be outside anything ever dreamed.
 
Last edited:

konradv

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
27,950
Reaction score
4,112
Points
280
Location
Baltimore
My primary issue with climate models is that you really only have 100-150 years of reliable direct measurements. All other are anecdotal, tree rings, ice cores, old records using crappy measurements. Trying to model a billion year old climate model on 100-150 of hard data (or even the thousands of years of anecdotal data we have) would be like trying to figure out how humans lived using a 2 second sample of a person's lifespan. If the person was sneezing during that 2 seconds you would assume peoples lives are one big series of sneezes.
Perhaps you're making the issue much too complicated. What happened billions and millions of years ago is largely irrelevant. Humans evolved during a relatively cool era on earth with much lower CO2 than at times in the past. We know the approximate levels of CO2 during the period and that what we have now is about 25-30% above recent historical averages. Given that CO2 absorbs infra-red radiation and more CO2 would trap more energy, where's it going but to heat up the earth? Talking about the distant past doesn't help much in this scenario. As a matter of fact it tends to obscure the real issues, the number one goal of the deniers, since they've already lost the scientific argument on logic alone. Sure there have been temperature highs and lows in the past, that's why they need the "tricks" of the statistical trade to "hide" declines data from other sources and winnow out the contribution due to man.
 

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
99,024
Reaction score
32,853
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
So, I'm chewing through links on the Medieval Warm Period and am getting more and more discouraged. I have been finding it impossible to find sources post 1980 that has not been politicized, an agenda blog or tainted by bad science (Hockey Stick /Hansen-Mann-Jones) one way or another. I just want to get even archeological evidence and I see evidence of people pushing an agenda.

This may just be me bemoaning the obvious that there are no honest parties in this debate anymore on any side and the truth is lying on no one's side but in the middle telling everyone to stay the hell away from them, it's not shilling for you anymore. Doing a basic search anymore yields as many paid partisans as they do sycophantic blogs, all preaching the same twist, that you can't even trust the papers they tout.

Can anyone find non-biased, straight science (you know, the kind that doesn't try to get a predisposed result) and or historical evidence that doesn't deliberately ignore contrary evidence?

This is just friggen ludicrous.
This may widen the scope of this discussion, but I see the need, desire and attempt to obtain money as the basis of the problem.

When this emphasis replaced pride in ones work and ones character, we could no longer trust what someone says or does.

Max Weber wrote the seminal " The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism" that '“The impulse to acquisition, pursuit of gain, of money, of the greatest possible amount of money..." was outside the goals of capitalism.
In other words, greed is short term, while the goals capitalism combined with the 'Protestant ethic' were ongoing.

"The breakup of this 300-year-old consensus on the work ethic began with the cultural protests of the 1960s, which questioned and discarded many traditional American virtues. The roots of this breakup lay in what Daniel Bell described in The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism as the rejection of traditional bourgeois qualities by late-nineteenth-century European artists and intellectuals who sought “to substitute for religion or morality an aesthetic justification of life.” By the 1960s, that modernist tendency had evolved into a credo of self-fulfillment in which “nothing is forbidden, all is to be explored,” Bell wrote."
Whatever Happened to the Work Ethic? by Steven Malanga, City Journal Summer 2009

So, why are we surprised to find that scientists, consistent with human nature, buffeted by popular culture, are as greedy as anyone else?
 

konradv

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
27,950
Reaction score
4,112
Points
280
Location
Baltimore
So, why are we surprised to find that scientists, consistent with human nature, buffeted by popular culture, are as greedy as anyone else?
--------------------------------------------
While that may be true, it certainly doesn't add a thing to the AGW debate. This isn't about people, but the logic. CO2 absorbs energy. More CO2, more trapped energy. Therefore, if the trend continues, warming is inevitable. "Ad hominem" criticism of scientists, doesn't do anything to the basic logic.
 

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
99,024
Reaction score
32,853
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
So, why are we surprised to find that scientists, consistent with human nature, buffeted by popular culture, are as greedy as anyone else?
--------------------------------------------
While that may be true, it certainly doesn't add a thing to the AGW debate. This isn't about people, but the logic. CO2 absorbs energy. More CO2, more trapped energy. Therefore, if the trend continues, warming is inevitable. "Ad hominem" criticism of scientists, doesn't do anything to the basic logic.
Perhaps I should have continued as follows.

Scientists depend on grants for their daily bread.
Would they fudge the data to gain funding? Can you say 'East Anglia'?

Exxon gave $125,000 for research...but

US $2.1 billion

EU $3 billion


$94 billion in Green Stimulus, wind and solar

Nuclear is most heavily subsidized alternative energy

From Jerry Taylor, CATO Institute
 
Last edited:
OP
Big Fitz

Big Fitz

User Quit *****
Joined
Nov 23, 2009
Messages
16,917
Reaction score
2,521
Points
48
So, why are we surprised to find that scientists, consistent with human nature, buffeted by popular culture, are as greedy as anyone else?
--------------------------------------------
While that may be true, it certainly doesn't add a thing to the AGW debate. This isn't about people, but the logic. CO2 absorbs energy. More CO2, more trapped energy. Therefore, if the trend continues, warming is inevitable. "Ad hominem" criticism of scientists, doesn't do anything to the basic logic.
Actually it adds something critical to the debate: Ethical Transparency.

Those who believe in AGW scream bloody murder about studies funded by oil companies and won't trust a thing they say. On the other hand, government funded surveys and science are considered faultless, even after fraud has been discovered. But when you look at the finances and where they come from, often you see a direct correllation between the results and the bankers for the studies.

In a way, we need a 'Real Clear Politics' for science, who just compares all the data and where it's from. For instance, in RCP, take the race for senate in WI. In total, feingold is polled to be losing to Tommy Thompson (assuming he runs) by 3. But when you look at the 5 polls you see that 2 polls included come from left wing activist groups, and those are showing feingold winning, while other polls range from Thompson winning from +2 to +12. Although it's blatant to see that there is an obvious bias on 3 of the polls, taking them all together gives you a better view of the whole subject. AGW needs the same.

Talking about the distant past doesn't help much in this scenario. As a matter of fact it tends to obscure the real issues, the number one goal of the deniers, since they've already lost the scientific argument on logic alone.
Thank you for illustrating exactly what I'm talking about. You're deliberately trying to obfuscate the past that does not fit your pro AGW mantra. Not only that, you stand on the false assertion that the 'science is settled' when no such thing is possible with a theory. There is only the current theory, which has been roundly shown, thanks to the IPCC data leaks, the East Anglia Emails and other leaks thanks to crackerjack investigative reporting in England, as based on deliberately fraudulent data for political gain by a minority of scientists and activists looking to shape the world into a socialist/fascist state.

Sure there have been temperature highs and lows in the past, that's why they need the "tricks" of the statistical trade to "hide" declines data from other sources and winnow out the contribution due to man.
And once again, this is why 'Scientists' like Mann/Jones/Hansen need to be thrown out of the scientific community. It is not about 'tricks' to fit the conclusion. Science is about following the evidence where it takes you and formulating a hypothesis from there. This is not science, this is politics based on statistics.

But thank you for illustrating for all the world, you are not interested in the truth, but political advocacy and power.
 

konradv

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
27,950
Reaction score
4,112
Points
280
Location
Baltimore
quote]And once again, this is why 'Scientists' like Mann/Jones/Hansen need to be thrown out of the scientific community. It is not about 'tricks' to fit the conclusion. Science is about following the evidence where it takes you and formulating a hypothesis from there. This is not science, this is politics based on statistics.

But thank you for illustrating for all the world, you are not interested in the truth, but political advocacy and power.[/QUOTE]

----------------------------------------
Nice try, but it's the deniers that have politicized the process. I AM interested in truth. That's why I keep asking why so many just don't get the logic. Talking about ancient history is irrelevant. CO2 absorbs anergy. The amount in the atmosphere has been going up. Therefore, if the trend continues, warming is inevitable. That's basically the entire GW theory in a nutshell. Deniers, however, either refuse to engage that simple bit of logic or have abjectly failed at refute it. Instead they prefer to claim that AGW believers want to keep people under their thumb. If that's not politicizing the debate, I don't what is. You're right that it has been. You're just being disingeuous about who's responsible.
 

westwall

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
66,781
Reaction score
19,545
Points
2,180
Location
Nevada
If you were truly intersted in the truth you would expand your horizons a little. I am not talking about millions and billions of years ago. I am talking about a period of 2,000 years where we have ample evidence of warming and cooling periods that took place without mans input.

The Roman warming period was much warmer than today. That was followed by the 6th Century Climate Catastrophe that saw worldwide temperatures fall and the corresponding starvation as crops failed. Then the Medeival Warming Period came along and once again the temps were much higher and prosperity reigned. This was followed by a further cold spell called the Little Ice Age that saw the Thames freeze over and once again a time of struggle.

You keep harping on about CO2 and the scientific evidence is not there. A UCSB scientist who's name escapes me now found that contrary to the AGW assertion the CO2 concentrations rose AFTER the temperature increased. Why do you think Mann was trying so hard to suppress the existence of the MWP? His hockey stick completely ignored the MWP to support his fraud of global warming. No legitimate scientist would ever do that.

You've hitched your wagon to a fraud. I am sorry for you. Go out and find a legitimate environmental problem that needs your help. Rainforest destruction is truly an issue that needs to dealt with. The AGW criminals are stealing money that could be used to actually have an impact on this issue. Once the rainforest is gone, it's gone. The laterite soils are basically sterile and all the nutrients are at the surface. They then get washed away within a very short time leaving a moonscape in their wake.

Or how about the whaling issue. I am an original member of GreenPeace and left when they went socialist. I am still a supporter of Paul Watson and his Sea Shepard organisation
so you see it is still possible to be an environmentalist and not believe in or support the AGW fraud


quote]And once again, this is why 'Scientists' like Mann/Jones/Hansen need to be thrown out of the scientific community. It is not about 'tricks' to fit the conclusion. Science is about following the evidence where it takes you and formulating a hypothesis from there. This is not science, this is politics based on statistics.

But thank you for illustrating for all the world, you are not interested in the truth, but political advocacy and power.
----------------------------------------
Nice try, but it's the deniers that have politicized the process. I AM interested in truth. That's why I keep asking why so many just don't get the logic. Talking about ancient history is irrelevant. CO2 absorbs anergy. The amount in the atmosphere has been going up. Therefore, if the trend continues, warming is inevitable. That's basically the entire GW theory in a nutshell. Deniers, however, either refuse to engage that simple bit of logic or have abjectly failed at refute it. Instead they prefer to claim that AGW believers want to keep people under their thumb. If that's not politicizing the debate, I don't what is. You're right that it has been. You're just being disingeuous about who's responsible.[/QUOTE]
 

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
59,352
Reaction score
7,232
Points
1,840
Location
Portland, Ore.
So, why are we surprised to find that scientists, consistent with human nature, buffeted by popular culture, are as greedy as anyone else?
--------------------------------------------
While that may be true, it certainly doesn't add a thing to the AGW debate. This isn't about people, but the logic. CO2 absorbs energy. More CO2, more trapped energy. Therefore, if the trend continues, warming is inevitable. "Ad hominem" criticism of scientists, doesn't do anything to the basic logic.
Actually it adds something critical to the debate: Ethical Transparency.

Those who believe in AGW scream bloody murder about studies funded by oil companies and won't trust a thing they say. On the other hand, government funded surveys and science are considered faultless, even after fraud has been discovered. But when you look at the finances and where they come from, often you see a direct correllation between the results and the bankers for the studies.

In a way, we need a 'Real Clear Politics' for science, who just compares all the data and where it's from. For instance, in RCP, take the race for senate in WI. In total, feingold is polled to be losing to Tommy Thompson (assuming he runs) by 3. But when you look at the 5 polls you see that 2 polls included come from left wing activist groups, and those are showing feingold winning, while other polls range from Thompson winning from +2 to +12. Although it's blatant to see that there is an obvious bias on 3 of the polls, taking them all together gives you a better view of the whole subject. AGW needs the same.

Talking about the distant past doesn't help much in this scenario. As a matter of fact it tends to obscure the real issues, the number one goal of the deniers, since they've already lost the scientific argument on logic alone.
Thank you for illustrating exactly what I'm talking about. You're deliberately trying to obfuscate the past that does not fit your pro AGW mantra. Not only that, you stand on the false assertion that the 'science is settled' when no such thing is possible with a theory. There is only the current theory, which has been roundly shown, thanks to the IPCC data leaks, the East Anglia Emails and other leaks thanks to crackerjack investigative reporting in England, as based on deliberately fraudulent data for political gain by a minority of scientists and activists looking to shape the world into a socialist/fascist state.

Sure there have been temperature highs and lows in the past, that's why they need the "tricks" of the statistical trade to "hide" declines data from other sources and winnow out the contribution due to man.
And once again, this is why 'Scientists' like Mann/Jones/Hansen need to be thrown out of the scientific community. It is not about 'tricks' to fit the conclusion. Science is about following the evidence where it takes you and formulating a hypothesis from there. This is not science, this is politics based on statistics.

But thank you for illustrating for all the world, you are not interested in the truth, but political advocacy and power.
On the say so of a bunch of ignoramouses like you?:lol:

Mann has been exonerated by peers. The Science and Technology Committee of Britian's Parliament has exonerated Jones.

And Hansen has never been accused of anything other than being one of the best scientists in his field, probably the best. Which, of course, means that braindead asses like you cannot stand him, or all of the other scientists who are so much more capable than you are.
 

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
59,352
Reaction score
7,232
Points
1,840
Location
Portland, Ore.
So, why are we surprised to find that scientists, consistent with human nature, buffeted by popular culture, are as greedy as anyone else?
--------------------------------------------
While that may be true, it certainly doesn't add a thing to the AGW debate. This isn't about people, but the logic. CO2 absorbs energy. More CO2, more trapped energy. Therefore, if the trend continues, warming is inevitable. "Ad hominem" criticism of scientists, doesn't do anything to the basic logic.
Perhaps I should have continued as follows.

Scientists depend on grants for their daily bread.
Would they fudge the data to gain funding? Can you say 'East Anglia'?

Exxon gave $125,000 for research...but

US $2.1 billion

EU $3 billion


$94 billion in Green Stimulus, wind and solar

Nuclear is most heavily subsidized alternative energy

From Jerry Taylor, CATO Institute
Cato Institute:lol::cuckoo:
 

uscitizen

Senior Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
45,940
Reaction score
4,908
Points
48
Location
My Shack
Cato is a womens cutrate clothing store down here.
More fitting I think.

The Cato Institutionalized are sure not the voices of impartiallity.
 
OP
Big Fitz

Big Fitz

User Quit *****
Joined
Nov 23, 2009
Messages
16,917
Reaction score
2,521
Points
48
So, why are we surprised to find that scientists, consistent with human nature, buffeted by popular culture, are as greedy as anyone else?
--------------------------------------------
While that may be true, it certainly doesn't add a thing to the AGW debate. This isn't about people, but the logic. CO2 absorbs energy. More CO2, more trapped energy. Therefore, if the trend continues, warming is inevitable. "Ad hominem" criticism of scientists, doesn't do anything to the basic logic.
Actually it adds something critical to the debate: Ethical Transparency.

Those who believe in AGW scream bloody murder about studies funded by oil companies and won't trust a thing they say. On the other hand, government funded surveys and science are considered faultless, even after fraud has been discovered. But when you look at the finances and where they come from, often you see a direct correllation between the results and the bankers for the studies.

In a way, we need a 'Real Clear Politics' for science, who just compares all the data and where it's from. For instance, in RCP, take the race for senate in WI. In total, feingold is polled to be losing to Tommy Thompson (assuming he runs) by 3. But when you look at the 5 polls you see that 2 polls included come from left wing activist groups, and those are showing feingold winning, while other polls range from Thompson winning from +2 to +12. Although it's blatant to see that there is an obvious bias on 3 of the polls, taking them all together gives you a better view of the whole subject. AGW needs the same.



Thank you for illustrating exactly what I'm talking about. You're deliberately trying to obfuscate the past that does not fit your pro AGW mantra. Not only that, you stand on the false assertion that the 'science is settled' when no such thing is possible with a theory. There is only the current theory, which has been roundly shown, thanks to the IPCC data leaks, the East Anglia Emails and other leaks thanks to crackerjack investigative reporting in England, as based on deliberately fraudulent data for political gain by a minority of scientists and activists looking to shape the world into a socialist/fascist state.

Sure there have been temperature highs and lows in the past, that's why they need the "tricks" of the statistical trade to "hide" declines data from other sources and winnow out the contribution due to man.
And once again, this is why 'Scientists' like Mann/Jones/Hansen need to be thrown out of the scientific community. It is not about 'tricks' to fit the conclusion. Science is about following the evidence where it takes you and formulating a hypothesis from there. This is not science, this is politics based on statistics.

But thank you for illustrating for all the world, you are not interested in the truth, but political advocacy and power.
On the say so of a bunch of ignoramouses like you?:lol:

Mann has been exonerated by peers. The Science and Technology Committee of Britian's Parliament has exonerated Jones.

And Hansen has never been accused of anything other than being one of the best scientists in his field, probably the best. Which, of course, means that braindead asses like you cannot stand him, or all of the other scientists who are so much more capable than you are.
I see the idiot patrol had to pop off. Like you're some semblance of rationality and factual information hockey stick boy.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top