Fabricating Data in Climate Science - The Hijack

[rambot]

The climate models are also a problem and show how the Science is not set. Scientists for the warming find what they want and reject that which does not fit their theory.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://friendsofscience.org/assets/files/documents/The%20Problem%20With%20Climate%20Models.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwiWqf7-wP_RAhVY1mMKHW3YCykQFgglMAE&usg=AFQjCNGUzMW1EoDcDGKFjugfFdHM8zAcsw&sig2=yKau5IsVvKpkMi79XPZnuQ

If they find what they want they dont have to throw anything away.

If you are going to libel them at least be logical.

 

[rambot]

Don't confuse non-response with non-argument. That is a common myopic, post hoc fallacy made on these forums - especially when exchanges are already borderline divergent.

Sometimes it is better to just stop - even when you think you are right, and especially if you perceive someone has missed your entire point.

Don't let it go to your head (that's for you, and anyone else who thinks similarly.) It isn't a concession. And, you might want to ease up on your own tone. Maybe that is why you get non-responses: you are too transparent.

I would even mention bible verses that explain precisely how often non-response is the best thing to do in certain situations of debate and argument - but then that would be "self-congratulating" and spiritually arrogant of me, now wouldn't it?

1) Post 27 and though at times, I'd agree with you, don't assume that "non-response" means what you think it means (I would note, if you go back to my post #14, you will see how easy it is to predict behaviour). Non-engaging does not mean you are correct; it means you are unwilling to consider the possibility that you are not correct. Nor does it mean your argument is more valid or that your "evidence" is strong.
Yes there are times when silence is the proper response; like when you have evidence to back your opinion and people are ignoring it (clearly, they are not interested in discussing the topic and you will simply get frustrated and angry). When people are addressing your evidence, that is not the time to ignore it. That's the opposite of "strength and confidence in your argument".

2) My very first post was a direct response to the ACTUAL content of the OP. It clarified and provided a rebuttal to what is slowly, clearly, becoming greater nonsense; Trying to plop this guy in the Serengeti Strategy. You decided to bring up models and then race theory (and briefly, digestive health).
I am honestly curious when you say "too transparent"; what does that mean/refer to? As mentioned: At the start I put up a rebuttal: Did it seem transparent I was hoping someone would read it and provide a thoughtful rebuttal?

 

[RickG]

The climate models are also a problem and show how the Science is not set.

Climate models presenting a most likely scenario where scenario variables match actual recorded data are pretty much on the mark.

Scientists for the warming find what they want and reject that which does not fit their theory.

If that were true then it would be easy for anyone to show where the thousands of published peer review climate research (97%) is wrong. The fact is, we only see unsupported opinions and false claims such as those express in the OPs link (Daily Mail). It is important to understand that the 97% consensus is not based on opinion. It is what 97% of the published research shows.

 

[Loudmouth]

It might and it might not. That's the problem. We don't really know.

We do know.

We do know that carbon dioxide absorbs IR radiation. We do know that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. We do know that increasing the concentration of a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere will capture more heat. We do know that capturing more heat will raise global temperatures.

It is all basic physics that was settled over 100 years ago.

Even those that may think it does do not have a clue as to how much it may go up. We don't know what kind of offsets that nature may have to mitigate a temperature increase. It's all guesswork.

We do know that temps will go up. We do know that ice will melt. We do know that sea levels will rise.

It seems that you may be projecting your own ignorance of the subject onto others.

 

[Loudmouth]

The climate models are also a problem and show how the Science is not set. Scientists for the warming find what they want and reject that which does not fit their theory.

What theory shows that increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will not increase temps?

 

[rambot]

We do know.

We do know that carbon dioxide absorbs IR radiation. We do know that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. We do know that increasing the concentration of a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere will capture more heat. We do know that capturing more heat will raise global temperatures.

To be precise though, isn't it that CO2 would capture ENERGY and that would normally show itself as heat?

 

[Loudmouth]

To be precise though, isn't it that CO2 would capture ENERGY and that would normally show itself as heat?

Tomato, tomahto.

 

[rambot]

Well, tomato, tomato sauce.....

 

[Loudmouth]

Well, tomato, tomato sauce.....

"In physics, heat is that amount of energy flowing from one body to another spontaneously due to their temperature difference, or by any means other than through work or the transfer of matter."
Heat - Wikipedia

 

[RickG]

To be precise though, isn't it that CO2 would capture ENERGY and that would normally show itself as heat?

Yes, IR (infrared) is heat energy.

 

[rjs330]

Climate models presenting a most likely scenario where scenario variables match actual recorded data are pretty much on the mark.


If that were true then it would be easy for anyone to show where the thousands of published peer review climate research (97%) is wrong. The fact is, we only see unsupported opinions and false claims such as those express in the OPs link (Daily Mail). It is important to understand that the 97% consensus is not based on opinion. It is what 97% of the published research shows.

Actually are wrong here. The majority of models have been incorrect. They have predicted temperatures higher than what has actually occurred. The alarmist idea is we have to do something now in order to prevent catastrophe. The point I am making is that it is NOT settled science no matter what you have been told. The models have been off, the predictions have been off.

And as far as peer reviewed papers a lot of it has been shown to be a serious problem with the peer review process. It is not accurate and a lot of it has been falsified.

There has been a TON of fabricating of evidence. Lying about things and flat out scare tactics that are inaccurate. The earth's climate is changing. BUT SO WHAT? We went through a cooling period and have been warming ever since. That is no mystery. The trend is not as serious as it's made out to be and the man caused warming is so full of holes it's ridiculous. I've linked to sources for that in previous posts.

Here are some more.

The Peer Review Problem | Climate Change Dispatch

Climate Change Is Real. Too Bad Accurate Climate Models Aren't.

World leaders duped by manipulated global warming data | Daily Mail Online

The majority of funding from grants from the government goes to people who support climate change catastrophe. You have to ask yourself why? And the next question is to ask which is NEVER pointed out is who do the climate change supporters support with funding? It seems to be always pointed out that a scientist is not reliable because Exxon gave him money. Meanwhile no one says a scientist is not reliable because some environmental causes gave them money. In face money is withheld or removed from those that don't support the current thought.

Global Warming: Follow the Money, by Henry Payne, National Review

Why is that? It's because progressive philosophies have taken control of our governments and they want to control the people.
CO2 is not necessarily the cause of climate change.

Important paper strongly suggests man-made CO2 is not the driver of global warming

New Evidence That Man-Made Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Does Not Cause Global Warming

What I am getting at is not that there is no climate change. What I am trying to point out is that it is NOT as settled as the media and a lot of progressives want you to believe. I believe this is a natural phenomenon and not matter what we do as humans it will continue to change. What people are not afraid of is climate change, what they are afraid of is fossil fuels. It's silly.

Can you point other articles and findings that say different things than the ones I've linked to? Of course you can. But all that does is prove my point. There is no real evidence that it is catastrophic nor is there proof that it is man made. I became a skeptic when I realized there was another side to this whole thing. I used to think like a lot of folks who didn't look into this. I just believed what I was told in the media. That all changed when I began to dig into this subject. I realized it is NOT as cut and dried as we are led to believe. In fact there is a lot wrong with the current science on this subject from the perpetrators of catastrophic man caused change.

 

[Speedwell]

Why is that? It's because progressive philosophies have taken control of our governments and they want to control the people.

In scientific controversies of this kind where the evidence is obscure and complicated well beyond the understanding of most laymen, I find myself inclined to choose sides against whichever faction has the most obvious political agenda and the most lurid conspiracy theories.

 

[Loudmouth]

Actually are wrong here. The majority of models have been incorrect.

All the models have been correct. All of them have predicted an increase in temperature, and that is exactly what we have seen.

 

[rambot]

Actually are wrong here. The majority of models have been incorrect. They have predicted temperatures higher than what has actually occurred. The alarmist idea is we have to do something now in order to prevent catastrophe. The point I am making is that it is NOT settled science no matter what you have been told. The models have been off, the predictions have been off.

That is in correct: Some models have undercut; some have over. Some of them have been stastically significant in their precision. To be clear, NONE of them have predicted anything but warming though.

And as far as peer reviewed papers a lot of it has been shown to be a serious problem with the peer review process. It is not accurate and a lot of it has been falsified.

Baseless accusations put forward by outside forces.

There has been a TON of fabricating of evidence. Lying about things and flat out scare tactics that are inaccurate.

The earth's climate is changing. BUT SO WHAT?

The last time there was a RAPID change in climate (for WHATEVER reason), how did human societies react to that?
Cause I got bad news.
That has never happenned. The VERY few "climate changes" that have occurred over the course of man's history (which is minute), were gradual and slow. Not only that but humanity was spread out and about 0.0001% of what we have on earth now.

The Peer Review Problem | Climate Change Dispatch

A tiny subsection of people complain about the "peer review problem" but they certainly have no problem exploiting the benefits of scientific discoveries that have gone through the peer review process.

Climate Change Is Real. Too Bad Accurate Climate Models Aren't.

World leaders duped by manipulated global warming data | Daily Mail Online

This thread is about this article. It has been exposed to be a libelous sham.

The majority of funding from grants from the government goes to people who support climate change catastrophe. You have to ask yourself why?

Because governments are a HUGE financier and innovator in science and provide funding for ALL kinds of research.
I have provided an answer that makes sense to me.

And the next question is to ask which is NEVER pointed out is who do the climate change supporters support with funding? It seems to be always pointed out that a scientist is not reliable because Exxon gave him money. Meanwhile no one says a scientist is not reliable because some environmental causes gave them money. In face money is withheld or removed from those that don't support the current thought.

To be clear: It's not that scientist "is not reliable" because of where their money comes from. A scientist becomes unreliable when their science is poor. Funding, in and of itself, is not a reason to dismiss scientific results.

Why is that? It's because progressive philosophies have taken control of our governments and they want to control the people.

No. That belief exists because people are willing to believe fantastic manipulators.
Once upon a time, scientists and doctors claimed smoking wasn't bad for you. Even after tonnes of research starting showing a clear link between cancer and smoking, tobacco companies were STILL able to "convince" scientists to take a skeptical position and attempt to undermine the legitimate science that was occurring and supporting the "bad news". Those same people involved with that campaign were involved with the start of the global warming skepticism movement.

Important paper strongly suggests man-made CO2 is not the driver of global warming

New Evidence That Man-Made Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Does Not Cause Global Warming

I don't have time to speak to the legitimacy of these studies but I can say this:
2 studies.
That is two.
Are they important studies? Well, they would have to be more than "important". They would have to have the weight to counteract more than TENS of THOUSANDS of reports that would suggest the opposite.

Can you point other articles and findings that say different things than the ones I've linked to? Of course you can. But all that does is prove my point. There is no real evidence that it is catastrophic nor is there proof that it is man made.

There is evidence it is manmade. You simply don't accept it.

I became a skeptic when I realized there was another side to this whole thing. I used to think like a lot of folks who didn't look into this. I just believed what I was told in the media. That all changed when I began to dig into this subject. I realized it is NOT as cut and dried as we are led to believe. In fact there is a lot wrong with the current science on this subject from the perpetrators of catastrophic man caused change.

You are not alone in how you came to your skepticism. Many people decide to "research for themselves" instead of listening to the media.

Unfortunately, these people tend to do a very selective, myopic version of research that misinforms them.

 

[RickG]

Actually are wrong here. The majority of models have been incorrect. They have predicted temperatures higher than what has actually occurred.

I think you don't understand what models do. They run scenarios. What one has to look at is, did the model scenario match actual recorded data. Here a link to the IPCC Third Assessment, Work Group I.

IPCC Third Assessment Report - Climate Change 2001

Note the 3 different scenarios in the models. The red line is actual observed data, that is what actually happened and the gray is the models. Scenario (a) uses only 'natural' forcings. What does it show? It shows that we cannot explain the actual warming trend with only natural forcings only, it underestimates what actually happened. Now look at scenario (b). It uses only Anthropogenic forcings. It is much closer to what actually occurred but it overstates actual observed data a little. Now look at scenario (c). It utilizes both natural and anthropogenic forcings. The results very closely match observed data. So, what do we take from this? Quite obviously, there is something going on other than just natural causes.

What I want people to understand here is that models have specific functions under specific scenarios. A model not matching a specific scenario does not mean it is wrong, it means that there is something not accounted for that needs to be observed and quantified.

The alarmist idea is we have to do something now in order to prevent catastrophe. The point I am making is that it is NOT settled science no matter what you have been told. The models have been off, the predictions have been off.

Out of respect, I would prefer that the word "alarmist" not be used in describing climate science research and the scientific community.

And as far as peer reviewed papers a lot of it has been shown to be a serious problem with the peer review process. It is not accurate and a lot of it has been falsified.

I disagree. What I have seen in attempts to rebut the mainstream climate research is nothing more than opinion and inaccurate media articles such as the one presented in the OP. In order to support the claim that the peer review process has a problem one needs to show specific examples where the published research is wrong. I have yet to see any. In reviewing the links provided I see no such validation.

There has been a TON of fabricating of evidence. Lying about things and flat out scare tactics that are inaccurate.

Would you mind citing a specific climate science paper that underwent the peer review process and was published in a mainstream scientific journal that has any fabricated evidence or scare tactics. I know of none.

The earth's climate is changing. BUT SO WHAT? We went through a cooling period and have been warming ever since. That is no mystery. The trend is not as serious as it's made out to be and the man caused warming is so full of holes it's ridiculous. I've linked to sources for that in previous posts.

And how many of those are published in mainstream peer review scientific journals?

The majority of funding from grants from the government goes to people who support climate change catastrophe. You have to ask yourself why? And the next question is to ask which is NEVER pointed out is who do the climate change supporters support with funding? It seems to be always pointed out that a scientist is not reliable because Exxon gave him money. Meanwhile no one says a scientist is not reliable because some environmental causes gave them money. In face money is withheld or removed from those that don't support the current thought.

The government grants provided for climate research or any research in any discipline funds the research and only the research. It does not go into the pockets of scientists.

CO2 is not necessarily the cause of climate change.

No climate scientist says the CO2 is the only cause of climate change, but the majority of the current climate change is due to CO2 from fossil fuels. Here is a chart showing the radiative forcings that are currently being observed. Understand that these are actual observed measurements, not opinions or guesses

FAQ 2.1, Figure 2.
Summary of the principal components of the radiative forcing of climate change. All these radiative forcings result from one or more factors that affect climate and are associated with human activities or natural processes as discussed in the text. The values represent the forcings in 2005 relative to the start of the industrial era (about 1750). Human activities cause signifi cant changes in long-lived gases, ozone, water vapour, surface albedo, aerosols and contrails. The only increase in natural forcing of any signifi cance between 1750 and 2005 occurred in solar irradiance. Positive forcings lead to warming of climate and negative forcings lead to a cooling. The thin black line attached to each coloured bar represents the range of uncertainty for the respective
value. (Figure adapted from Figure 2.20 of this report.

Source: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdf

 

[rjs330]

The fact remains that the majority of models have been wrong the vast majority of the time. Wrong in the predictions of the seriousness of the warming. That's my point. The claim is the earth is warming and if we don't do something right now we're all going to die and destroy the planet and it will be our fault.

The truth is the models have been wrong. Yes the earth warmed. The warming slowed way down to be almost nothing for a significant period of time. The issue is not about that the models were wrong as in opposite effects but wrong in the seriousness of their predictions.

I've linked in the past plenty of examples where the science was innaccurate. I've also found examples of peer review problems.

And there is plenty of info out there about the fact that CO2 is not the serious problem as proclaimed. You do what everyone else does on your side. Just dismiss stuff that fly's in the face of what you believe. Science has a problem with that. Anything that does not fit the belief or what they expect to find is dismissed. That is why government funding goes to those who support the belief in catastrophic man caused warming and not to those who find something different.

I work with people who live on the research funding. Yes the money does go to the scientists. Once they lose the funding they are out of a job and a livelihood until they find more funding. In climate science the funding is based on what you find. As long as you find man caused catastrophic warming you don't get your government money.

You can remain blind to the problems of the man caused global warming catastrophic science and it's unreliability and manipulation if you want. I for one will not let go of the fact it is a political grab at power and money.

The truth is the climate is changing. We would be far better served if the money and research went into finding ways to help us deal with inevitable change. Pour the money into irrigation and agriculture for food support. Put money into heating and cooling technology. Find ways to adapt to a changing water level if necessary.

 

[Loudmouth]

The fact remains that the majority of models have been wrong the vast majority of the time.

That complaint rings hollow when you refuse to accept the models that are right.

 

[rambot]

I've linked in the past plenty of examples where the science was innaccurate. I've also found examples of peer review problems.

I have seen no such problems of peer review nor have, literally ANY EVER been provided here that I have seen. And in terms of "innacurate science", well, again, I very much doubt that the tens of thousands of papers that support AGW are all "inaccurate". And at the same time, we have taken the skeptics arguments and shown them to be any combination of dishonest misrepresentations to just plain incorrect.

And there is plenty of info out there about the fact that CO2 is not the serious problem as proclaimed. You do what everyone else does on your side. Just dismiss stuff that fly's in the face of what you believe. Science has a problem with that. Anything that does not fit the belief or what they expect to find is dismissed.

I have never seen anything that calls into question the veracity of AGW that has withstood the rebuttal against it.

That is why government funding goes to those who support the belief in catastrophic man caused warming and not to those who find something different.

It's kind of hard to cherry pick when almost every single climate scientist agrees with AGW (catastrophic or not). You can complain that they get all the money, but when they almost all agree, it seems silly to think

I work with people who live on the research funding. Yes the money does go to the scientists. Once they lose the funding they are out of a job and a livelihood until they find more funding. In climate science the funding is based on what you find.

That is a load of hogwollop though. Scientists don't receive money for their research AFTER the work is done; They receive it before. They need to pay for lab time, travel time etc...
How can the money be based on "what you find" if the results come in?

You can remain blind to the problems of the man caused global warming catastrophic science and it's unreliability and manipulation if you want.

I also choose to remain blind to the monsters my son says live in her closet.
Don't believe that just because skeptics put up a very unconvincing argument that AGW proponents are remaining blind; you simply aren't convincing us with your evidence....like, at ALL.

I for one will not let go of the fact it is a political grab at power and money.

Worldwide fossil fuel industry profits in 2013: 1.3 TRILLION
Green lobby in the US:

Lobbyists in the US spending the most:Lobbying Spending Database | OpenSecrets
(You'll see fossil fuels at #6 with $1,900,000,000 ) And automotive? 900 million if you'd want to include those.
US Oil lobby outspends green movement by factor of five | Climate Home - climate change news
You think the green lobby is some kind of huge nefarious force and all 180 governments around the world are in cahoots to create a socialist paradise all over the world? You think government officials REALLY care about global warming when they can get 5x as much money from oil and gas? Why would "the government" spend money on research that undercuts their 6th greatest personal revenue source?
The logic of your argument makes no sense.

The truth is the climate is changing. We would be far better served if the money and research went into finding ways to help us deal with inevitable change. Pour the money into irrigation and agriculture for food support. Put money into heating and cooling technology. Find ways to adapt to a changing water level if necessary.

The beautiful thing about the present debate, regardless of what you or I or any worldwide government says:
The scientific community is WAAAAAAAY past proving climate change. Academia is now studying EXACTLY what you are suggesting they study. So, in some sense, we are all on the same page.

 

[RickG]

The fact remains that the majority of models have been wrong the vast majority of the time. Wrong in the predictions of the seriousness of the warming. That's my point. The claim is the earth is warming and if we don't do something right now we're all going to die and destroy the planet and it will be our fault.

Two things. First, I don't think you understand my last post describing models and the example I provided. Models run scenarios with variable criteria and conditions. They are what if situations. If these conditions occur, this is expected happen; if other conditions happen, other outcomes are expected. Please go back and look at the three graphs I provided under scenarios (a), (b) & (c). They demonstrate not only that the current warming trend is not entirely natural, they demonstrate that most of the warming is due to greenhouse gasses.

As for those models which used the variables in the quantities that actually occurred they are quite accurate for what they represent.

The truth is the models have been wrong. Yes the earth warmed. The warming slowed way down to be almost nothing for a significant period of time. The issue is not about that the models were wrong as in opposite effects but wrong in the seriousness of their predictions.

I've also found examples of peer review problems.

I disagree, the examples provided are opinions. What is needed to validate those claims is peer review rebuttals showing where and how the other peer review is incorrect and this is seen in scientific journals. However, I know of none that rebut any of the 97% consensus articles.

And there is plenty of info out there about the fact that CO2 is not the serious problem as proclaimed.

If there was it would be published in the appropriate scientific journals. All I have seen supporting the idea that CO2 is not a problem come from social media.

You can remain blind to the problems of the man caused global warming catastrophic science and it's unreliability and manipulation if you want.

The only unreliability and manipulation I have seen is the article by the Daily Mail cited in the OP. Did you not review the article in the Guardian, written by an actual climate scientist I linked, showing step by step that every claim about NOAA scientists in that article was not true? As for suggesting I'm am blind, I fail to understand how relying only on the published science in the peer review journals and the major scientific organizations and academy of sciences world wide, rather than social media and blog opinions is being blind.

 

[rjs330]

I have seen no such problems of peer review nor have, literally ANY EVER been provided here that I have seen. And in terms of "innacurate science", well, again, I very much doubt that the tens of thousands of papers that support AGW are all "inaccurate". And at the same time, we have taken the skeptics arguments and shown them to be any combination of dishonest misrepresentations to just plain incorrect.
I have never seen anything that calls into question the veracity of AGW that has withstood the rebuttal against it.


It's kind of hard to cherry pick when almost every single climate scientist agrees with AGW (catastrophic or not). You can complain that they get all the money, but when they almost all agree, it seems silly to think
That is a load of hogwollop though. Scientists don't receive money for their research AFTER the work is done; They receive it before. They need to pay for lab time, travel time etc...
How can the money be based on "what you find" if the results come in?


I also choose to remain blind to the monsters my son says live in her closet.
Don't believe that just because skeptics put up a very unconvincing argument that AGW proponents are remaining blind; you simply aren't convincing us with your evidence....like, at ALL.


Worldwide fossil fuel industry profits in 2013: 1.3 TRILLION
Green lobby in the US:

Lobbyists in the US spending the most:Lobbying Spending Database | OpenSecrets
(You'll see fossil fuels at #6 with $1,900,000,000 ) And automotive? 900 million if you'd want to include those.
US Oil lobby outspends green movement by factor of five | Climate Home - climate change news
You think the green lobby is some kind of huge nefarious force and all 180 governments around the world are in cahoots to create a socialist paradise all over the world? You think government officials REALLY care about global warming when they can get 5x as much money from oil and gas? Why would "the government" spend money on research that undercuts their 6th greatest personal revenue source?
The logic of your argument makes no sense.

The beautiful thing about the present debate, regardless of what you or I or any worldwide government says:
The scientific community is WAAAAAAAY past proving climate change. Academia is now studying EXACTLY what you are suggesting they study. So, in some sense, we are all on the same page.

What's interesting though is that scientists keep the funding depending on what they find. You support global warming and you get to keep funding and investigating. Your science finds something wrong with the current thought and your funding is gone. That's how it works.

The idea your missing is that governments get a ton of money already from oil and gas. It's about control. The oil and gas folks give in order to try and keep the government from taxing them to death and restricting their product. The government gives to scientist who support man made climate change because they can use it to control industry and people. The lobbyists spend to reach individual government agents to try and work out something for them, whether it is big oil or not. They give to everyone for their own agenda and self preservation. The government is all about control. Control of people, control of industry, control of everything. The global science is used by them to get more control.