Wacka Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 Plus, any idiot can yammering on about what isn't so, but when the guys that do science mostly agree most reasonable people are going to listen. Of course 100% of institutions won't agree, the oil companies will buy up a few scientists like the tobacco companies did. Heck, I proved that one of the scientists B-Man was linking to had in fact been a smoking-cancer denier. Fact is, most of those denying climate change are doing it for political/lobbying/industry interest reasons and the conspiracy charges against the scientists that believe is stupid. Gatorman, putting bottle rockets up the butts of frogs is not science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg F Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 http://www.nasa.gov/press/2015/january/nasa-determines-2014-warmest-year-in-modern-record/#.VLmuDy6PP8h I have a hard time accepting the continuous data massaging to cool the historical past. https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/01/17/policy-based-evidence-tampering-at-nasa/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 This trend continues a long-term warming of the planet No ****, since the end of the last ice age 10,000 years ago. Still no proof it's man made or that carbon credits will do anything more than pay Al Gores outrageous electric bills. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/GlobalWarming/story?id=2906888 Glad you brought that up. I'm a long term outside observer to this debate but never contributed much, but arguments like this against doing something are the weakest and most obviosly partisan. Is Al Gore a hypocrite? Sure. Does that undermine the science in any way? No, not at all. You don't like Al Gore, winner of the 2000 popular vote for president, so let's burn up the Planet. Gatorman, putting bottle rockets up the butts of frogs is not science.How about these guys? Are they relying on science or do you see something else at work? http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2012climatechange.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 (edited) Ooops. NASA now “38% sure” 2014 was warmest year on record The folks at NASA who declared the doomsday scenario have rather sheepishly admitted that under further scrutiny, they’re at least 38% sure it might have been true. The Nasa climate scientists who claimed 2014 set a new record for global warmth last night admitted they were only 38 per cent sure this was true… The claim made headlines around the world, but yesterday it emerged that GISS’s analysis – based on readings from more than 3,000 measuring stations worldwide – is subject to a margin of error. Nasa admits this means it is far from certain that 2014 set a record at all. Yet the Nasa press release failed to mention this, as well as the fact that the alleged ‘record’ amounted to an increase over 2010, the previous ‘warmest year’, of just two-hundredths of a degree – or 0.02C. The margin of error is said by scientists to be approximately 0.1C – several times as much. Fake but sort of accurate except for the math part................even the (exact) choice of 38% is funny . Edited January 18, 2015 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg F Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 How about these guys? Are they relying on science or do you see something else at work? http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2012climatechange.pdf If they were relying on the science they wouldn't ignore the fact the that the climate models are crap. It should also be pointed out that papers like the one you liked to from the AMS are not approved by the 14,000 members. In fact statements released by the AMS represent the views of ruling Console of the AMS as indicated by their bylaws. http://ametsoc.org/policy/statementpolicy.pdf Funding for climate science is for the most part government money. If there is no crisis the government funding dries up in very short order. People that worship government are completely oblivious to the effects money has on the science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 Glad you brought that up. I'm a long term outside observer to this debate but never contributed much, but arguments like this against doing something are the weakest and most obviosly partisan. Is Al Gore a hypocrite? Sure. Does that undermine the science in any way? No, not at all. You don't like Al Gore, winner of the 2000 popular vote for president, so let's burn up the Planet. How about these guys? Are they relying on science or do you see something else at work? http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2012climatechange.pdf I am not arguing that we do nothing, pollution is bad for people. I recycle to a fault, fix stuff that most people throw out. But I do not want to push civilization back a few centuries because the planet is warming a few hundredths of a degree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 Your signature is extremely ironic. actually, it's either ironic or it isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 Gatorman, you have no idea what the scientific method is. A model that does not reflect reflect what is happening is not scientific. Al Gore is a snake oil salesman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 It's settled science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 If they were relying on the science they wouldn't ignore the fact the that the climate models are crap. It should also be pointed out that papers like the one you liked to from the AMS are not approved by the 14,000 members. In fact statements released by the AMS represent the views of ruling Console of the AMS as indicated by their bylaws. http://ametsoc.org/policy/statementpolicy.pdf Funding for climate science is for the most part government money. If there is no crisis the government funding dries up in very short order. People that worship government are completely oblivious to the effects money has on the science. So it's a conspiracy by the board to get money from the government while ignoring the members of the organization? That sounds right out of the John Birch society tin foil hat play book. They worship government so they create a crisis? You sound like a nut bag Fake but sort of accurate except for the math part................even the (exact) choice of 38% is funny . Oh boy! Love this rabbit hole journey. Go to a web site that links to another that describes what NASA said and it not nearly as bad as the original link states. Ok, 2010, 2005 or 2014 were the warmest, they are pretty sure. Whatever! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg F Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 (edited) So it's a conspiracy by the board to get money from the government while ignoring the members of the organization? Gatorman's team blue religion doesn't allow him to see how government money creates perverse incentives while at the same time those same perverse incentives are perfectly clear to him when the money comes from a private company. As I said before, People that worship government are completely oblivious to the effects money has on the science. The fact that the majority of the Council of the AMS are either employed by the government or a university seems to have escaped gatorman's notice. It doesn't appear gatorman noticed that the majority of the Council members rely on taxpayers money for their financial well being. That the members of the Council individually act in their own self interest, and they all share the same self interest (extracting money from the taxpayers), does not constitute a conspiracy. Virtually every large organization is hierarchical and the AMS is no different. In a hierarchy the people at the top hold the power and have no incentive to share that power with the people underneath them. They will be especially reluctant to include those under them if they perceive their self interest would be threatened. At the same time it is not uncommon for the top of a hierarchy to use the people below them to give the appearance of support from a much larger group than actually exists. Gatorman completely misses the point that the AMS document he links to constitutes the views of maybe 30 out of 14,000 members. That the broader membership isn't allowed a say in what is released doesn't appear to bother gatorman as long as the document supports his ignorant world view. Finally. Gatorman is not at all interested in the fact the climate models are crap. He is so intellectually dishonest his response to me completely ignores discrepancy between the models and reality I posted. That reality pretty much destroys the AMS document which gatorman treats as some type of holy scripture. Edited January 20, 2015 by Greg F Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 (edited) Gatorman's team blue religion doesn't allow him to see how government money creates perverse incentives while at the same time those same perverse incentives are perfectly clear to him when the money comes from a private company. As I said before, People that worship government are completely oblivious to the effects money has on the science. The fact that the majority of the Council of the AMS are either employed by the government or a university seems to have escaped gatorman's notice. It doesn't appear gatorman noticed that the majority of the Council members rely on taxpayers money for their financial well being. That the members of the Council individually act in their own self interest, and they all share the same self interest (extracting money from the taxpayers), does not constitute a conspiracy. Virtually every large organization is hierarchical and the AMS is no different. In a hierarchy the people at the top hold the power and have no incentive to share that power with the people underneath them. They will be especially reluctant to include those under them if they perceive their self interest would be threatened. At the same time it is not uncommon for the top of a hierarchy to use the people below them to give the appearance of support from a much larger group than actually exists. Gatorman completely misses the point that the AMS document he links to constitutes the views of maybe 30 out of 14,000 members. That the broader membership isn't allowed a say in what is released doesn't appear to bother gatorman as long as the document supports his ignorant world view. Finally. Gatorman is not at all interested in the fact the climate models are crap. He is so intellectually dishonest his response to me completely ignores discrepancy between the models and reality I posted. That reality pretty much destroys the AMS document which gatorman treats as some type of holy scripture. or perhaps the majority of organizational members are convinced of the high likelihood of future calamity and are trying their best to change its course. your argument discounts the time, effort and innate intelligence required to obtain and maintain a doctoral position at a highly regarded institution like NASA. these individuals had years to decide if what they were studying was legitimate. most all of them have the skills and drive necessary to change career path then or even now. why would they choose to make their life's work about lies? your argument also discounts the intense competitiveness often found in the sciences. destroying a competitors thesis and elevating your own is a frequent ambition. a weak spot can and will be attacked. Edited January 20, 2015 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 a weak spot can and will be attacked. Unless it goes against 'the consensus'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 Unless it goes against 'the consensus'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 Unless it goes against 'the consensus'. so why don't you attack a werak spot in my argument? the consensus here is defintely one of denial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 so why don't you attack a werak spot in my argument? the consensus here is defintely one of denial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 so why don't you attack a werak spot in my argument? the consensus here is defintely one of denial. I did. And I would add that the consensus here is not one of denial, but one of skepticism. If I was a NASA scientist assigned to work on a project attempting to prove that GW was a direct result of human activity, I would be inclined to dismiss contrary data since I might wind up putting myself out of a job. GW deniers may well have similar biases. And as I've already mentioned, climate science in still pretty much in its infancy, and uses hard data gathered now and compares it against a questionable baseline of presumed data from many years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 or perhaps the majority of organizational members are convinced of the high likelihood of future calamity and are trying their best to change its course. your argument discounts the time, effort and innate intelligence required to obtain and maintain a doctoral position at a highly regarded institution like NASA. these individuals had years to decide if what they were studying was legitimate. most all of them have the skills and drive necessary to change career path then or even now. why would they choose to make their life's work about lies? your argument also discounts the intense competitiveness often found in the sciences. destroying a competitors thesis and elevating your own is a frequent ambition. a weak spot can and will be attacked. Ya but...they worship government Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 (edited) I did. And I would add that the consensus here is not one of denial, but one of skepticism. If I was a NASA scientist assigned to work on a project attempting to prove that GW was a direct result of human activity, I would be inclined to dismiss contrary data since I might wind up putting myself out of a job. GW deniers may well have similar biases. And as I've already mentioned, climate science in still pretty much in its infancy, and uses hard data gathered now and compares it against a questionable baseline of presumed data from many years ago. so your argument against the fact that many very talented people either have not realized that they have devoted their working life to a lie, have realized it and decided to continue the lie or just don't care is that they are invariably pummeled into submission by the consensus. and their disincentive to bring down a faulty thesis and replace it with a better one of their own is that they feel threatened by the consensus or loss of employment. try again. many of the people you are dismissing are rare intellects that have plenty of alternative opportunities. Edited January 20, 2015 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 so your argument against the fact that many very talented people either have not realized that they have devoted their working life to a lie, have realized it and decided to continue the lie or just don't care is that they are invariably pummeled into submission by the consensus. and their disincentive to bring down a faulty thesis and replace it with a better one of their own is that they feel threatened by the consensus or loss of employment. try again. many of the people you are dismissing are rare intellects that have plenty of alternative opportunities. The supreme irony of the bolded being that that is PRECISELY what global warming activists do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts