The Death of Real Science

[Gadawg73]

How many have taken a science class at the university level?

I did all the pre-med reqs (4 bios, 2 physics, two gen chems, two organic chems, biochem) and then the standard two years of basic medical science education in grad school.

I don't know anything about geology or climatology and global warming isn't really my cup of tea as I have never formally studied any of these. On matters of science that I personally don't know much about it, I defer to the consensus of the experts as is how the scientific field works.

What annoys me is the anti-global warming people attacking the basic scientific methodology and standards of doing things ("There is no such thing as a consensus!"). They are so desperate to disprove global warming (for whatever reason) they they want to claim the entire field is corrupt.

That's ludicrous. I might be inspired to buy some of the claims about global warming being some vast conspiracy, but I've noticed that, to do so, you have to make some pretty amazing logical leaps (i.e. the vast majority of climatologists are corrupt and are perpetuating a lie and cover up to secure grant money).

You are incorrect here my friend. It is us who are trying to get the AGW proponents to FOLLOW the scientific method. The scientific method says that you must give others your work so it can be tested by others. They refused, for 15 years they refused even though it was illegal for them to do so. The scientific method says that correlation does not equal causation but the AGW proponents allways ignore that little code.

There are many other examples where the AGW proponents have violated the scientific method. I suggest you look at some other sources than wikipeadia to further your research. One example of AGW fraud is the wonderful case of Wiliam Connolley and his abuse of the wikipedia system. He is responsible for rewriting 5428 articles to give them a AGW bias. He further removed 500 articles that he didn't approve of. This went on for years until he was finally booted as a wiki contributor. But that one case gives you an idea of how far they will go to push their case.

When you have to rewrite the articles of others that you don't agree with, there is a problem here.

I can go on but I think if you do some basic research from independant sources you will get a better idea of the issues at hand. Also the idea of consensus has been vastly overblown by the AGW proponents. It has recently come to light that they handpicked the scientists that they quoted in their "consensus" it was FAR from a random sampling of scientists.

Your response is exagerated.
The vast majority of climatologists state,with their facts and research, that AGW is happening and at an alarming rate.
I have been to glacier park twice. Once in 1961 and again 2 years ago.
Glaciers do not melt if the earth is NOT warming.

 

[konradv]

So, who'd like to explain the reasoning behind scientists allegedly making the global warming/climate change facts up? Why are they bothering if none of it is true? It seems like an awful lot of fibbing just for the lulz.

First of all, you have the echo chamber of academe, which pretty much lives and dies by its "peer review" processes, which are a political as you can get. Not remocrat/depublican political, but political in the sense that you quite often have to tell the "peers" to whom you're submitting your work what they want to hear, in order to have your research get .

When the group of insiders gets tight enough and exclusive enough, you then open things wide for what has happened in the CRU e-mail and computer code scandal, where the work of just about everyone is considered suspect, because of of their further research being tainted by being based upon purposefully skewed numbers from up the line.

Then, there's the motivation to keep the funding flowing in for your "research. Since most of the globalclimatecoolerwarmering "scientists" don't have jobs in the real world creating products other people want, they have to rely upon panhandling from politicians and shaking down alumni associations at the various institutions where they are employed. Subsequently, there's no money in coming out and saying "No problem folks, it's not nearly as bad as we thought!" or "Oooops, silly us...it was a natural phenomenon all along!"...Think of it as the climate science version of Ghostbusters.

Of course, you cannot possibly discount the egos involved....Nothing like believing that you're saving all of humanity to really ramp up the bias and look for evidence that you're right, while ignoring or discounting everything that may prove you in error.

And those are just off the top of my head.

You're taking things that may happen from time to time and calling them the norm. That's intellectual dishonesty. I've spent nearly my entire career in scientific research and I have to tell you that what you're saying doesn't jibe with what really happens.

 

[Oddball]

Except that is the norm in the "science" of anthropogenic gullible warming.

The entire lot of them are more akin to the Medieval Catholic church insiders who screwed over Galileo, than they are of modern scientists.

 

[westwall]

I did all the pre-med reqs (4 bios, 2 physics, two gen chems, two organic chems, biochem) and then the standard two years of basic medical science education in grad school.

I don't know anything about geology or climatology and global warming isn't really my cup of tea as I have never formally studied any of these. On matters of science that I personally don't know much about it, I defer to the consensus of the experts as is how the scientific field works.

What annoys me is the anti-global warming people attacking the basic scientific methodology and standards of doing things ("There is no such thing as a consensus!"). They are so desperate to disprove global warming (for whatever reason) they they want to claim the entire field is corrupt.

That's ludicrous. I might be inspired to buy some of the claims about global warming being some vast conspiracy, but I've noticed that, to do so, you have to make some pretty amazing logical leaps (i.e. the vast majority of climatologists are corrupt and are perpetuating a lie and cover up to secure grant money).

You are incorrect here my friend. It is us who are trying to get the AGW proponents to FOLLOW the scientific method. The scientific method says that you must give others your work so it can be tested by others. They refused, for 15 years they refused even though it was illegal for them to do so. The scientific method says that correlation does not equal causation but the AGW proponents allways ignore that little code.

There are many other examples where the AGW proponents have violated the scientific method. I suggest you look at some other sources than wikipeadia to further your research. One example of AGW fraud is the wonderful case of Wiliam Connolley and his abuse of the wikipedia system. He is responsible for rewriting 5428 articles to give them a AGW bias. He further removed 500 articles that he didn't approve of. This went on for years until he was finally booted as a wiki contributor. But that one case gives you an idea of how far they will go to push their case.

When you have to rewrite the articles of others that you don't agree with, there is a problem here.

I can go on but I think if you do some basic research from independant sources you will get a better idea of the issues at hand. Also the idea of consensus has been vastly overblown by the AGW proponents. It has recently come to light that they handpicked the scientists that they quoted in their "consensus" it was FAR from a random sampling of scientists.

Your response is exagerated.
The vast majority of climatologists state,with their facts and research, that AGW is happening and at an alarming rate.
I have been to glacier park twice. Once in 1961 and again 2 years ago.
Glaciers do not melt if the earth is NOT warming.

Very true and yet if you had bothered to read the literature on the park provided by the Park Service you would have seen that the glaciers began melting the most recent time in 1850. Prior to that there had been multiple pulses of growth and retreat going all the way back to the Little Ice Age, and even before that to the end of the Pleistocene period when the last ice age ended.

Climate is cyclical. And when the warming comes back as it inevitably will be glad of it. When it is warm as it was in the Roman Warming Period (7 degrees warmer on average than today) or the Medieval Warming Period (5 degrees warmer than today) life for every living creature was better. Plants did better, animals did better, and of course people did better.

Wars, pestilence and famine are the handmaidens of cold climate. When it is warm and wet you have prosperity. When it is cold and dry you have misery and death. Read any history books you like and you will find that what I have written is true.

Chinese scientists just did a 2000 year survey of their history and found that cold dry was bad and warm wet was great for their societies as well, so it seems to be a global phenomena.

AFP: China's wars, rebellions driven by climate: study

 

[FA_Q2]

You are incorrect here my friend. It is us who are trying to get the AGW proponents to FOLLOW the scientific method. The scientific method says that you must give others your work so it can be tested by others. They refused, for 15 years they refused even though it was illegal for them to do so. The scientific method says that correlation does not equal causation but the AGW proponents allways ignore that little code.

There are many other examples where the AGW proponents have violated the scientific method. I suggest you look at some other sources than wikipeadia to further your research. One example of AGW fraud is the wonderful case of Wiliam Connolley and his abuse of the wikipedia system. He is responsible for rewriting 5428 articles to give them a AGW bias. He further removed 500 articles that he didn't approve of. This went on for years until he was finally booted as a wiki contributor. But that one case gives you an idea of how far they will go to push their case.

When you have to rewrite the articles of others that you don't agree with, there is a problem here.

I can go on but I think if you do some basic research from independant sources you will get a better idea of the issues at hand. Also the idea of consensus has been vastly overblown by the AGW proponents. It has recently come to light that they handpicked the scientists that they quoted in their "consensus" it was FAR from a random sampling of scientists.

Your response is exagerated.
The vast majority of climatologists state,with their facts and research, that AGW is happening and at an alarming rate.
I have been to glacier park twice. Once in 1961 and again 2 years ago.
Glaciers do not melt if the earth is NOT warming.

Very true and yet if you had bothered to read the literature on the park provided by the Park Service you would have seen that the glaciers began melting the most recent time in 1850. Prior to that there had been multiple pulses of growth and retreat going all the way back to the Little Ice Age, and even before that to the end of the Pleistocene period when the last ice age ended.

Climate is cyclical. And when the warming comes back as it inevitably will be glad of it. When it is warm as it was in the Roman Warming Period (7 degrees warmer on average than today) or the Medieval Warming Period (5 degrees warmer than today) life for every living creature was better. Plants did better, animals did better, and of course people did better.

Wars, pestilence and famine are the handmaidens of cold climate. When it is warm and wet you have prosperity. When it is cold and dry you have misery and death. Read any history books you like and you will find that what I have written is true.

Chinese scientists just did a 2000 year survey of their history and found that cold dry was bad and warm wet was great for their societies as well, so it seems to be a global phenomena.

AFP: China's wars, rebellions driven by climate: study

This is the greater problem here and what I have been attempting to get at on this thread as well as others. All the supporters of AGW forget that even if the earth is warming it is a vast logical leap to simply insist it is created by humans and has devastating consequences. I have CONTINUALLY asked for the evidence of these things from AGW proponents and I get the same response EVERY TIME - more proof the earth is warming without ANYTHING that is related to the actual question. There is more to climate research than simple temperatures, there must be a system that shows it is pushed by humans and a reasonable outcome that explains why this would be such a terrible thing. Where is the mountain of evidence that the AGW supporters claim exists that proves the other half of the theory?

 

[rdean]

Thank God the Right Wing doesn't believe in "fake science" or live by "ideology". From now on, I'm getting all my science from them. After all, look at all the success they've brought the world. All the inventions that come from "conservative scientists". The amazing technology. The biological science. The list is endless.

Do you really want to go there? Do you want me to list all the scientific discoveries and engineering advances that come from conservatives?
Before you answer, you might want to remember that I am typing this in one place, and you are reading it in another, through something called the Internet. The Internet was designed by the military so they could communicate in the event of war, it was not invented by Al Gore.

I've got a minute...go for it.

They will never be able to fill an entire minute. Unless you say, "Let me think for a second" real real real sloooooooooow.

 

[Gadawg73]

How many have taken a science class at the university level?

I did all the pre-med reqs (4 bios, 2 physics, two gen chems, two organic chems, biochem) and then the standard two years of basic medical science education in grad school.

I don't know anything about geology or climatology and global warming isn't really my cup of tea as I have never formally studied any of these. On matters of science that I personally don't know much about it, I defer to the consensus of the experts as is how the scientific field works.

What annoys me is the anti-global warming people attacking the basic scientific methodology and standards of doing things ("There is no such thing as a consensus!"). They are so desperate to disprove global warming (for whatever reason) they they want to claim the entire field is corrupt.

That's ludicrous. I might be inspired to buy some of the claims about global warming being some vast conspiracy, but I've noticed that, to do so, you have to make some pretty amazing logical leaps (i.e. the vast majority of climatologists are corrupt and are perpetuating a lie and cover up to secure grant money).

You are incorrect here my friend. It is us who are trying to get the AGW proponents to FOLLOW the scientific method. The scientific method says that you must give others your work so it can be tested by others. They refused, for 15 years they refused even though it was illegal for them to do so. The scientific method says that correlation does not equal causation but the AGW proponents allways ignore that little code.

There are many other examples where the AGW proponents have violated the scientific method. I suggest you look at some other sources than wikipeadia to further your research. One example of AGW fraud is the wonderful case of Wiliam Connolley and his abuse of the wikipedia system. He is responsible for rewriting 5428 articles to give them a AGW bias. He further removed 500 articles that he didn't approve of. This went on for years until he was finally booted as a wiki contributor. But that one case gives you an idea of how far they will go to push their case.

When you have to rewrite the articles of others that you don't agree with, there is a problem here.

I can go on but I think if you do some basic research from independant sources you will get a better idea of the issues at hand. Also the idea of consensus has been vastly overblown by the AGW proponents. It has recently come to light that they handpicked the scientists that they quoted in their "consensus" it was FAR from a random sampling of scientists.

That is not the scientific method. LOL
Try again.

 

[rdean]

How many have taken a science class at the university level?

I did all the pre-med reqs (4 bios, 2 physics, two gen chems, two organic chems, biochem) and then the standard two years of basic medical science education in grad school.

I don't know anything about geology or climatology and global warming isn't really my cup of tea as I have never formally studied any of these. On matters of science that I personally don't know much about it, I defer to the consensus of the experts as is how the scientific field works.

What annoys me is the anti-global warming people attacking the basic scientific methodology and standards of doing things ("There is no such thing as a consensus!"). They are so desperate to disprove global warming (for whatever reason) they they want to claim the entire field is corrupt.

That's ludicrous. I might be inspired to buy some of the claims about global warming being some vast conspiracy, but I've noticed that, to do so, you have to make some pretty amazing logical leaps (i.e. the vast majority of climatologists are corrupt and are perpetuating a lie and cover up to secure grant money).

You are incorrect here my friend. It is us who are trying to get the AGW proponents to FOLLOW the scientific method. The scientific method says that you must give others your work so it can be tested by others. They refused, for 15 years they refused even though it was illegal for them to do so. The scientific method says that correlation does not equal causation but the AGW proponents allways ignore that little code.

There are many other examples where the AGW proponents have violated the scientific method. I suggest you look at some other sources than wikipeadia to further your research. One example of AGW fraud is the wonderful case of Wiliam Connolley and his abuse of the wikipedia system. He is responsible for rewriting 5428 articles to give them a AGW bias. He further removed 500 articles that he didn't approve of. This went on for years until he was finally booted as a wiki contributor. But that one case gives you an idea of how far they will go to push their case.

When you have to rewrite the articles of others that you don't agree with, there is a problem here.

I can go on but I think if you do some basic research from independant sources you will get a better idea of the issues at hand. Also the idea of consensus has been vastly overblown by the AGW proponents. It has recently come to light that they handpicked the scientists that they quoted in their "consensus" it was FAR from a random sampling of scientists.

You may have confused "peer review" with "scientific method".

This is the absolute simplest definition:

A procedure used by scientists to test hypotheses by making predictions about the outcome of an experiment before the experiment is performed. The results provide support or refutation of the hypothesis.

or

scientific method
n.
The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis.

scientific method - definition of scientific method by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Here is a step by step guide of actually preforming the "scientific method":

http://science.education.nih.gov/supplements/nih6/inquiry/guide/nih_doing-science.pdf

The Def of Peer Review:

Peer Review Definition

Peer review is the evaluation of creative work or performance by other people in the same field in order to maintain or enhance the quality of the work or performance in that field1.

It is based on the concept that a larger and more diverse group of people will usually find more weaknesses and errors in a work or performance and will be able to make a more impartial evaluation of it than will just the person or group responsible for creating the work or performance.

Peer review utilizes the independence, and in some cases the anonymity, of the reviewers in order to discourage cronyism (i.e., favoritism shown to relatives and friends) and obtain an unbiased evaluation. Typically, the reviewers are not selected from among the close colleagues, relatives or friends of the creator or performer of the work, and potential reviewers are required to disclose of any conflicts of interest.

Peer Review Definition

Peer review does have drawbacks and they are also outlined in the linked article.

Hope that helped.