"Climategate" two years later

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,058
16,810
Dallas
✟870,741.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private

Touma

Well-Known Member
Feb 19, 2007
7,201
773
36
Virginia
✟19,033.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Two years ago the hacked CRU e-mails proved definatively that AGW was a hoax.

If you believe that the email 'proved' that AGW is a hoax, then you obviously 1) didn't understand the emails or 2) never bothered to read them and instead got your opinion from right wing sources.
 
Upvote 0

NightHawkeye

Work-in-progress
Supporter
Jul 5, 2010
45,814
10,318
✟781,037.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
If you believe that the email 'proved' that AGW is a hoax, then you obviously 1) didn't understand the emails or 2) never bothered to read them and instead got your opinion from right wing sources.
That would be right-wing sources like CBS News?

Congress May Probe Leaked Global Warming E-Mails - Taking Liberties - CBS News
The leaked documents (see our previous coverage) come from the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in eastern England. In global warming circles, the CRU wields outsize influence: it claims the world's largest temperature data set, and its work and mathematical models were incorporated into the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 2007 report. That report, in turn, is what the Environmental Protection Agency acknowledged it "relies on most heavily" when concluding that carbon dioxide emissions endanger public health and should be regulated.

Last week's leaked e-mails range from innocuous to embarrassing and, critics believe, scandalous. They show that some of the field's most prominent scientists were so wedded to theories of man-made global warming that they ridiculed dissenters who asked for copies of their data ("have to respond to more crap criticisms from the idiots"), cheered the deaths of skeptical journalists, and plotted how to keep researchers who reached different conclusions from publishing in peer-reviewed journals.

One e-mail message, apparently from CRU director Phil Jones, references the U.K.'s Freedom of Information Act when asking another researcher to delete correspondence that might be disclosed in response to public records law: "Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise." Another, also apparently from Jones: global warming skeptics "have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone." (Jones was a contributing author to the chapter of the U.N.'s IPCC report titled "Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Causes.")
Even CBS News couldn't polish this one up nice and neat. Hence, their conclusion:
The irony of this situation is that most of us expect science to be conducted in the open, without unpublished secret data, hidden agendas, and computer programs of dubious reliability. East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit might have avoided this snafu by publicly disclosing as much as possible at every step of the way.
Well, duh. :doh:


Translation ... Science? Not so much ... instead, a hidden agenda over-ruling the data when necessary.


.
 
Upvote 0

thaumaturgy

Well-Known Member
Nov 17, 2006
7,541
882
✟12,333.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
That would be right-wing sources like CBS News?

Congress May Probe Leaked Global Warming E-Mails - Taking Liberties - CBS News
The leaked documents (see our previous coverage) come from the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in eastern England. In global warming circles, the CRU wields outsize influence: it claims the world's largest temperature data set, and its work and mathematical models were incorporated into the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 2007 report. That report, in turn, is what the Environmental Protection Agency acknowledged it "relies on most heavily" when concluding that carbon dioxide emissions endanger public health and should be regulated.

Last week's leaked e-mails range from innocuous to embarrassing and, critics believe, scandalous. They show that some of the field's most prominent scientists were so wedded to theories of man-made global warming that they ridiculed dissenters who asked for copies of their data ("have to respond to more crap criticisms from the idiots"), cheered the deaths of skeptical journalists, and plotted how to keep researchers who reached different conclusions from publishing in peer-reviewed journals.

One e-mail message, apparently from CRU director Phil Jones, references the U.K.'s Freedom of Information Act when asking another researcher to delete correspondence that might be disclosed in response to public records law: "Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise." Another, also apparently from Jones: global warming skeptics "have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone." (Jones was a contributing author to the chapter of the U.N.'s IPCC report titled "Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Causes.")
Even CBS News couldn't polish this one up nice and neat. Hence, their conclusion:
The irony of this situation is that most of us expect science to be conducted in the open, without unpublished secret data, hidden agendas, and computer programs of dubious reliability. East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit might have avoided this snafu by publicly disclosing as much as possible at every step of the way.
Well, duh. :doh:


Translation ... Science? Not so much ... instead, a hidden agenda over-ruling the data when necessary.


.

Now let's look at what life is like 2 years after the fact.

1. NO STUDY SO FAR CONDUCTED OF THE CLIMATE GAT SCANDAL HAS EVER SHOWN ANY FRAUDULENT MANIPULATION OF THE DATA.

None. Zip. Zilch. Nada. And many independent reviews across the globe have been run.

ERGO the science is still solid

2. The "worst" that was found from Climategate was that some scientists dawdled on FOIA requests and that some climate scientists, when talking to each other, in interpersonal communications, say harsh things....just like regular humans. (I defy ANYONE to allow every one of their interpersonal communications to be stolen from them and presented without context in the public sphere.)

SO, you see, while CBS report from 2 years ago when the "scandal" first broke means nothing after we've had a few years to investigate.

But Investigation, facts and evidence are of no meaning to "Climate Skeptoids". They saw a chance to find error in someone and they ran with it.

the very second someone finds something BAD about the data based on Climategate e-mails then we'll have something to talk about.
 
Upvote 0
N

Nabobalis

Guest
Now let's look at what life is like 2 years after the fact.

1. NO STUDY SO FAR CONDUCTED OF THE CLIMATE GAT SCANDAL HAS EVER SHOWN ANY FRAUDULENT MANIPULATION OF THE DATA.

None. Zip. Zilch. Nada. And many independent reviews across the globe have been run.

ERGO the science is still solid

2. The "worst" that was found from Climategate was that some scientists dawdled on FOIA requests and that some climate scientists, when talking to each other, in interpersonal communications, say harsh things....just like regular humans. (I defy ANYONE to allow every one of their interpersonal communications to be stolen from them and presented without context in the public sphere.)

SO, you see, while CBS report from 2 years ago when the "scandal" first broke means nothing after we've had a few years to investigate.

But Investigation, facts and evidence are of no meaning to "Climate Skeptoids". They saw a chance to find error in someone and they ran with it.

the very second someone finds something BAD about the data based on Climategate e-mails then we'll have something to talk about.

But we all know that the investigations where cover-ups by liberals, NWO and commies so that they can take over the world. ;)

On a serious note: There has to my recollection been at least 4 investigations and not one found any issues with science or the data. One was critical about not respecting Freedom of Information requests but that was as serious as it got.
 
Upvote 0

NightHawkeye

Work-in-progress
Supporter
Jul 5, 2010
45,814
10,318
✟781,037.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Now let's look at what life is like 2 years after the fact.

1. NO STUDY SO FAR CONDUCTED OF THE CLIMATE GAT SCANDAL HAS EVER SHOWN ANY FRAUDULENT MANIPULATION OF THE DATA.

None. Zip. Zilch. Nada. And many independent reviews across the globe have been run.

ERGO the science is still solid

2. The "worst" that was found from Climategate was that some scientists dawdled on FOIA requests and that some climate scientists, when talking to each other, in interpersonal communications, say harsh things....just like regular humans. (I defy ANYONE to allow every one of their interpersonal communications to be stolen from them and presented without context in the public sphere.)

SO, you see, while CBS report from 2 years ago when the "scandal" first broke means nothing after we've had a few years to investigate.

But Investigation, facts and evidence are of no meaning to "Climate Skeptoids". They saw a chance to find error in someone and they ran with it.

the very second someone finds something BAD about the data based on Climategate e-mails then we'll have something to talk about.
In that case, would you be so kind as to provide references to substantiate your claims, please. You made a bunch of claims. Now, it's time to back 'em up ... just so we can validate the source(s) as being accurate, if ya know what I mean.

Could be you're getting your info from fringe-left websites. ;)


.
 
Upvote 0

thaumaturgy

Well-Known Member
Nov 17, 2006
7,541
882
✟12,333.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
In that case, would you be so kind as to provide references to substantiate your claims, please. You made a bunch of claims. Now, it's time to back 'em up ... just so we can validate the source(s) as being accurate, if ya know what I mean.

Could be you're getting your info from fringe-left websites. ;)


.

Well, let's start with the source you quoted: CBS NEWS:

"Climategate" Researchers Largely Cleared


National Science Foundation finds not evidence of data falsification

UK House of Commons Clears CRU researchers of academic dishonesty
An End to Climategate? Penn State Clears Michael Mann


Oxburgh Independent Panel Clears UEA Climate Group of charges of Impropriety

But I do find it interesting that you are asking me to "prove a negative" in a sense. Because there was never any evidence for scientific malfeasance, which means that these people have had to be treated as if guilty until proven innocent.

I don't like that form of justice. I hope you don't either, but so far I've met so many AGW "Skeptoids" who think that "GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT" is the optimum system of justice.

Maybe someday you'll be treated thusly.

I bet your attitude would change then.
 
Upvote 0

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,058
16,810
Dallas
✟870,741.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Upvote 0

Aeneas

Well-Known Member
Oct 22, 2011
1,013
26
✟1,382.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
Translation ... Science? Not so much ... instead, a hidden agenda over-ruling the data when necessary.


.

Blast, he figured out our atheist illuminati islamofacist/communist/socialist plot.

Conspiracy.jpg
 
Upvote 0

NightHawkeye

Work-in-progress
Supporter
Jul 5, 2010
45,814
10,318
✟781,037.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
But I do find it interesting that you are asking me to "prove a negative" in a sense.
You are correct, Thaumaturgy. Takes a lot of effort to do that, huh? That's why "science" doesn't work that way. It's ironic you see the problem when you are confronted with the challenge of proving Leeds data correct, yet don't see how Leeds' CRU discredited their "scientific" effort by lack of objectivity. Scientific data sometimes needs to be handled carefully. Scientific research needs to be open, transparent and repeatable -- at least that's the standard for scientific credibility. Leeds' CRU results FAIL on all three counts.

The Leeds CRU data, by their own admission has been neither open nor transparent. FAIL on these two.

Where is the repeatability of the Leeds CRU results? Where is the substantiating data from other sources. One of the precepts in science is that results can be duplicated by others.

Here's what The Guardian said in a special investigation into Climategate:
Part 11: 'Climategate' was PR disaster that could bring healthy reform of peer review | Environment | guardian.co.uk
In a unique experiment, The Guardian published online the full manuscript of its major investigation into the climate science emails stolen from the University of East Anglia, which revealed apparent attempts to cover up flawed data; moves to prevent access to climate data; and to keep research from climate sceptics out of the scientific literature.
Even scientists who agree with Leeds' CRU conclusions have been offended.
"There is an unseemliness about scientists willingly providing data to their friends and resisting the provision of data to people who are perceived as critics."
One in the mainstream who agrees is Judy Curry, a climate scientist at the Georgia Institute of Technology. She cut her teeth in public debate after publishing a paper on climate change and hurricanes shortly after Katrina hit New Orleans. She says much greater efforts are needed to open up science to outsiders.
Reviewing the saga of the leaked emails, she said the various datasets connected to Mann's hockey stick studies and Jones's CRU temperature data "stand out as lacking transparency. The raw data behind the key graphs in the climate debate "were not preserved" by the analysts, she said, though it "presumably is available from the original sources". Rather than being stuck in the archives, it needs reprocessing and reanalysing, she believes.
She didn't blame anyone for this state of affairs, but said "given the growing policy relevance of climate data, increasingly higher standards must be applied." In an open letter to young scientists involved in climate research, she said she was "trying to figure out how to engage sceptics effectively... I have received significant heat from some colleagues for doing this (I've been told that I am legitimizing the sceptics and misleading my students)."
Far from it, she said. "Ignoring sceptics from outside the field is inappropriate. Einstein didn't start his career at Princeton, but rather at a post office. Scientists claim they would never get any research done if they had to continuously respond to sceptics. The counter to that argument is to make all of your data, metadata and code openly available. Doing this would keep molehills from growing into mountains."
Curry says climate science has fallen victim to tribalism. "Climate tribes were established in response to the politically motivated climate disinformation machine...The reaction of the climate tribes... has been to circle the wagons and point the guns outward in an attempt to discredit misinformation."
She had found herself in a political storm after publishing a paper on how the number of hurricanes had doubled in 35 years – probably due to rising sea temperatures. By chance, the paper came out days after hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans. "I and my colleagues were totally bewildered and overwhelmed by the assault we found ourselves under" from sceptics, she says. "Associating with a tribe where others were more experienced and savvy about how to deal with this was a relief and very helpful at the time."
Unlike another victim of the hurricanes fracas. Kevin Trenberth, Curry does not appear in the leaked CRU emails. She says that she subsequently fell out with some of her fellow tribes-people after congratulating McIntyre for his work on freeing up data. And the hacked emails, she says, have reinforced her fears about "the systematic and continuing behaviour from scientists that hold editorial positions, serve on important boards and committees and participate in major assessment reports."
Because there was never any evidence for scientific malfeasance, which means that these people have had to be treated as if guilty until proven innocent.

No.

Your references simply mean no one goes to jail. Doesn't mean people don't get drummed out of the scientific community though.

Science sets a high standard. At its very core, science requires results which can be duplicated. Sloppy research is acceptable when results can be duplicated. When results can't be duplicated, then the standard for research is very, very high. Leeds' CRU simply failed to meet that high bar.

Pretty simple, really. Look at it this way; mankind has been changing the earth's environment for years. Many extinct species attest to that. Rainforests are disappearing. Acid rain results from man's efforts. Unknown though is whether mankind has affected the earth's temperature. Historically, temperature has changed pretty dramatically under influences other than mankind.

.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

thaumaturgy

Well-Known Member
Nov 17, 2006
7,541
882
✟12,333.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
The part I like about this post is that I did exactly what you asked me to do and yet you blow right past that and go on.

I like that about these "demands" from Skeptoids. "Gimme this!" You give them that and it is as if it just never happened.

You are correct, Thaumaturgy. Takes a lot of effort to do that, huh? That's why "science" doesn't work that way. It's ironic you see the problem when you are confronted with the challenge of proving Leeds data correct, yet don't see how Leeds' CRU discredited their "scientific" effort by lack of objectivity.

Hold it a minute, didn't you read my post? Repeated investigation has found no fraudulent manipulation of data, and so there is no reason to question the validity of the data in the absence of malfeasance!

Why do you assume lack of objectivity when no such bias has been found in treatment of the data?

Scientific data sometimes needs to be handled carefully.

Ummmm, yeah, I have been working as an industrial Research and Development Chemist for the past 11 years and prior to that did two chemistry postdocs over the course of 5 years, so I'm kinda familiar with that.

Scientific research needs to be open, transparent and repeatable -- at least that's the standard for scientific credibility.

Well, let's see what the Penn investigation of Michael Mann found:


After careful consideration of all the evidence and relevant materials, the inquiry committee finding is that there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with intent to delete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails, information and/or data related to AR4 (SOURCE)




Now of course the idea of "transparency" in scientific investigation does not require that YOU know at all point where everything is at at any point. Just as you don't have the right to know what I'm currently investigating.

BUT when I publish it it is expected that the science will be clearly and honestly laid out.

To my knowledge that has been the case for all the investigations so far conducted.

You can't make declarations about people's Objectivity unless you have found something in the published science that indicates they have hidden or fraudulently manipulated the data.

AGAIN: SO FAR NO INVESTIGATION OF THE MULTITUDE OF INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATIONS HAS FOUND ANY EVIDENCE OF FRAUDULENT MANIPULATION OF DATA.

If you posit otherwise, please provide evidence for the claim.

The Leeds CRU data, by their own admission has been neither open nor transparent. FAIL on these two.

Leeds CRU? What are you talking about here? The CRU is at University of East Anglia.

HINT: GET A MAP OF ENGLAND!

Leeds is only 177 miles from Norwich where UEA is at.

Where is the repeatability of the Leeds CRU results?

Well, I'm not sure what "Leeds CRU" is, so I'll have to address the overall concept of "repeatability" in climate science.

Let's take the hockey stick graph. It has been "repeatedly" found in numerous data sets. Over and over again using different proxies and data set.

fig3.jpg


(SOURCE)

Where is the substantiating data from other sources. One of the precepts in science is that results can be duplicated by others.

How about Speleothem data?

fig1.jpg

(SOURCE)

Here's what The Guardian said in a special investigation into Climategate:
Part 11: 'Climategate' was PR disaster that could bring healthy reform of peer review | Environment | guardian.co.uk
In a unique experiment, The Guardian published online the full manuscript of its major investigation into the climate science emails stolen from the University of East Anglia, which revealed apparent attempts to cover up flawed data; moves to prevent access to climate data; and to keep research from climate sceptics out of the scientific literature.
Even scientists who agree with Leeds' CRU conclusions have been offended.


Where is this "Leed's CRU" of which you speak? I've been to Leeds now about 4 or so times. I missed it! If I get to go back I've got to visit this place!

"There is an unseemliness about scientists willingly providing data to their friends and resisting the provision of data to people who are perceived as critics."
One in the mainstream who agrees is Judy Curry, a climate scientist at the Georgia Institute of Technology. She cut her teeth in public debate after publishing a paper on climate change and hurricanes shortly after Katrina hit New Orleans. She says much greater efforts are needed to open up science to outsiders.




The fact is the e-mails show people being human. As I said I am curious if I were to steal all the e-mails off your harddrive or that you ever sent, could I make you look bad by taking various things you said about others out of context? Could I find cases where you were fed up with someone such that you said something unseemly?

I bet I could.
No.

Your references simply mean no one goes to jail. Doesn't mean people don't get drummed out of the scientific community though.

So don't they have to commit an actual crime to be found guilty of that crime?

What a wonderful world!

Geography along with Justice seems to be of no value to some folks!

Science sets a high standard. At its very core, science requires results which can be duplicated. Sloppy research is acceptable when results can be duplicated. When results can't be duplicated, then the standard for research is very, very high. Leeds' CRU simply failed to meet that high bar.

Well, when Leeds CRU starts publishing stuff, maybe they'll do better than the Climate Research Unit (often refered to as the CRU) does down 177 miles away at University of East Anglia in Norwich.
 
Upvote 0
D

Dairy

Guest
In light of Climategate, and now the slew of "green jobs", that didn't pan out, and with some being fraudulent investments loosing great sums of tax payers money, promoted by the President, I'm guessing green groups will increasingly take a new approach. They will turn more capitalistic. I'm thinking politicians at this point are more skeptical of investing tax funds into green climate fixes. To do so risks political capital at this point.

As an example ~

"Venture Capitalists Succeed Where Green Planners Fail"

Venture Capitalists Succeed Where Green Planners Fail | Via Meadia

excerpt:

In the wake of Solyndra-gate, venture capital firms interested in solving the world’s energy problems are heading for greener pastures — both in terms of energy efficiency and their bottom-line.
But they aren’t looking to big, pie-in-the-sky renewable energy projects that rely on government subsidies to compete with traditional sources. Instead, the New York Times reports, they are turning towards firms that take existing advanced software technologies and use them to meet current and future energy challenges. Examples include one company that analyzes energy usage and allows utility companies to communicate with their customers via text message when they electric bill is particularly high, and another that takes cars off the road by allowing owners to rent their vehicles on a temporary basis. The owner of the latter business said in the story, “You can have a major impact on an individual’s carbon footprint by re-creating business models or behaviors without inventing a new energy.”
VC firms have nearly tripled their investments in these sorts of companies since 2009. While green hacktivists and international bureaucrats stumble from one failure to another, these hardheaded investors are driving the real solutions to the world’s future energy and climate challenges.
 
Upvote 0

thaumaturgy

Well-Known Member
Nov 17, 2006
7,541
882
✟12,333.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
In light of Climategate, and now the slew of "green jobs", that didn't pan out, and with some being fraudulent investments loosing great sums of tax payers money, promoted by the President, I'm guessing green groups will increasingly take a new approach. They will turn more capitalistic. I'm thinking politicians at this point are more skeptical of investing tax funds into green climate fixes. To do so risks political capital at this point.

So despite the fact that Climategate wasn't really a scandal and showed nothing wrong with the science, the green groups have to somehow "account" for that?

Isn't that a problem for the people who tried to make a scandal out of what was, at worst, some folks failing to give out stuff in a timely manner according to FOIA requests?

That's like saying "You know I heard that John Boehner eats puppies and thrills to the sound of their crying in pain and agony!" "Oh, what, he just doesn't care to be around puppies?" "Well the GOP had better deal with the outfall from the horrible idea that John Boehner has been accused of eating puppies and enjoying the sounds of their agony because I heard that somewhere once!"

Now as for the green jobs and the scandals around funding those, that's another matter. That's politics. Politics as usual.

The fact that there are vultures out there who will game any given system to get $$$$ doesn't change the underlying need to actually have green jobs and green industry.

It just makes it harder for the legitimate folks to get it.

But that's what you get when the debate is all about "politics" and not about "science".
 
Upvote 0

NightHawkeye

Work-in-progress
Supporter
Jul 5, 2010
45,814
10,318
✟781,037.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
The part I like about this post is that I did exactly what you asked me to do and yet you blow right past that and go on.
Didn't blow past it all. You just didn't like the response.

Hold it a minute, didn't you read my post? Repeated investigation has found no fraudulent manipulation of data, and so there is no reason to question the validity of the data in the absence of malfeasance!

Thought I pointed out that science has a higher standard than the absence of malfeasance, as you say. Science truly has a higher standard than that. Science doesn't work by consensus, either. Just in case that's your next argument. ;) Doesn't matter how many people agree with you, unless the results can be independently verified.


At your prodding, I went in search of that verification of results ... corroborating data, if you will ... even found some at the Skeptical Science website, a website supportive of the global warming argument:
surface_satellite_comparison.png


This chart shows compiled satellite temperature data taken since about 1980, overlaid with terrestrially collected data. The use of satellite data is important because that data completely removes the argument about data manipulation of earth station measurements - the very issue of "climategate". It can be seen here that while the terrestrially collected measurements show approximately 0.6C change, the satellite data shows much less, only about 0.2C change. While the satellite data offers "support" for the global warming claims, by itself it hardly proves that claim. The satellite data indicates, at most, a much much slower trend.

More revealing was this tidbit about glacier retreats ... from Wikipedia. Retreat of glaciers since 1850 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Little Ice Age was a period from about 1550 to 1850 when the world experienced relatively cooler temperatures compared to the present. Subsequently, until about 1940, glaciers around the world retreated as the climate warmed substantially. Glacial retreat slowed and even reversed temporarily, in many cases, between 1950 and 1980 as a slight global cooling occurred.
Of course, that brings into question the argument about burning of fossil fuels, huh, coal in particular during the nineteenth century? Oops ...

But, if we're gonna go there, then don't we really need to talk about why the earth was substantially warmer prior to 1550? I really don't think that had anything to do with manmade global warming ... but who knows? And what the heck was that bit about global cooling between 1950 and 1980?


Just stuff to think about ... :scratch:

.
 
Upvote 0

thaumaturgy

Well-Known Member
Nov 17, 2006
7,541
882
✟12,333.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Thought I pointed out that science has a higher standard than the absence of malfeasance, as you say.

Really? So for science people are automatically assumed to be guilty of fraudulent manipulation of data until they prove they are not?

That's interesting. Because I've been doing science now for almost 30 years and I didn't realize that logic went out the window with science.

Science doesn't work by consensus, either. Just in case that's your next argument.

How about some "logic" for you:

Science does not utilize consensus as a metric of value. BUT a valid hypothesis can be expected to develop a consensus around it.

It's necessary but not sufficient in a sense.

It is not required to find "truth", but if an hypothesis is true it will far more likely develop a consensus around it in the fullness of time.

;) Doesn't matter how many people agree with you, unless the results can be independently verified.

ANd thankfully over the past 100 years since the agw hypothesis was first proposed the science has generally found that the effect is likely true. And further thanks to the hard work of countless thousands of individual independent scientists over the last 60 years of solid research we've found the most likely mechanisms and found the most likely effects. Repeatedly.

So I guess we don't have to worry.

But if you want to question the science, you certainly are encouraged to. But even though consensus is not required you will have to put your bona fides up against the approximately 97% of the world's climate professionals who feel this is real.

At your prodding, I went in search of that verification of results ... corroborating data, if you will ... even found some at the Skeptical Science website, a website supportive of the global warming argument:
surface_satellite_comparison.png


This chart shows compiled satellite temperature data taken since about 1980, overlaid with terrestrially collected data. The use of satellite data is important because that data completely removes the argument about data manipulation of earth station measurements - the very issue of "climategate". It can be seen here that while the terrestrially collected measurements show approximately 0.6C change, the satellite data shows much less, only about 0.2C change. While the satellite data offers "support" for the global warming claims, by itself it hardly proves that claim. The satellite data indicates, at most, a much much slower trend.

Please tell me you aren't merely subtracting the last point from the first point to draw your conclusion, right? I would like it if you provided the actual location of the discussion of this point rather than just the picture. It's hard to debate against a single graph overlain by your interpretation. I find that usually the science is a bit more detailed. So please provide either the original article this is from (usually Skepticalscience will give you a link to the actual peer reviewed literature) or provide the Skeptical science article on this graph. Thanks!

gonna go there, then don't we really need to talk about why the earth was substantially warmer prior to 1550? I really don't think that had anything to do with manmade global warming ...

No one, and I mean no one who has even a modicum of earth science training will disagree with the claim that the earth has had different climates. In almost every case it is due to various factors we can ascertain. And prior to humanity of course they would be more "natural forcings". So what we know about how CO2 can affect temperature is, in many cases, predicated on use of paleoenvironmental data which predates mankind!

So why can't mankind be a new method of forcing the climate? Well, apparently he is!

This is a bit of a logic game I like to play with skeptoids:

1. Gunshot wounds to the head often result in death.
2. Bob is dead.
3. ERGO Bob was shot in the head.

Do you see what I'm getting at? The fact that the earth's current climate is changing (almost no one disagrees with that point, the data is really hard to fight against) does not mean that previous changes had to occur for the same reason!

That would be the height of absurdity. But for every Skeptoid I hear trot out the "earth was warmer in the past" I have to point out that much of the reason we have an idea that man is currently involved in this warming is precisely due to the data around the earth's climate long before man came along!

We know a lot about the CO2 climate sensitivity precisely because of things man had no control over! So when humans dump enough CO2 into the atmosphere to significantly alter the isotopic composition of the C in lock step with what one expects from the massive burning of fossil fuels then we know what will likely happen!

but who knows? And what the heck was that bit about global cooling between 1950 and 1980?

This is called the "Mid Century Cooling" and is largely thought to be related to human emissions of sulfates which act to cool the surface. It's called "mankind's pollution". It's not the only reason but it is a big one.

Try hitting Meehl, 2004 and Wild et al, 2007

Just stuff to think about ... :scratch:

Well, when you start off not knowing much about what has already been out in the open for years I guess it is something to think about! But more important to learn first, and then start to complain.

Like the whole thing about "Leeds". It helps to know the details of the discussion before one starts complaining about how they are wrong.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

NightHawkeye

Work-in-progress
Supporter
Jul 5, 2010
45,814
10,318
✟781,037.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Really? So for science people are automatically assumed to be guilty of fraudulent manipulation of data until they prove they are not?
... sigh ...

"Guilty" is not a scientific term, but a legal term.

The standard in science is "Proof". One is required to "Prove" one's assertions ... they didn't.


Questions?

.
 
Upvote 0

Touma

Well-Known Member
Feb 19, 2007
7,201
773
36
Virginia
✟19,033.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
... sigh ...

"Guilty" is not a scientific term, but a legal term.

The standard in science is "Proof". One is required to "Prove" one's assertions ... they didn't.


Questions?

.



I see you missed the rest of thaumaturgy's post and jumped into semantics.
 
Upvote 0

NightHawkeye

Work-in-progress
Supporter
Jul 5, 2010
45,814
10,318
✟781,037.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
I see you missed the rest of thaumaturgy's post and jumped into semantics.
So, you agree with this statement:
The standard in science is "Proof". One is required to "Prove" one's assertions ... they didn't.
Just checking ... to see if reasonable discussion is possible.

.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

NightHawkeye

Work-in-progress
Supporter
Jul 5, 2010
45,814
10,318
✟781,037.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
There is no proof in science.
LOL ... great argument, Nabobalis. :wave:

... you get to explain it.



I'll start though. SCIENCE: Science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Science (from Latin: scientia meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

.
 
Upvote 0