Fabricating Data in Climate Science - The Hijack

[RickG]

For a different perspective I suggest reading the Guardian article which is in response to the Daily Mail article.

Mail on Sunday launches the first salvo in the latest war against climate scientists | John Abraham

 

[rambot]

Its dissappointing that rose included a graph on his report that was,itself a lie that has received no scrutiny.

 

[RickG]

Every single claim in the Daily Mail article concerning the alleged misdeeds of NOAA have been shown in the Guardian article and the links provided within with out any doubt to be completely false. And btw, the Guardian article is by John Abraham, an actual practicing climate scientist.

 

[Loudmouth]

The right has been saying this forever now, but gets mocked. We're told that 97% of all scientists around the world believe man-made global warming. But there's records in the ice and otherwise that tell us there were times when the carbon levels where much higher than they are today, and the earth was much warmer than it is today. The sun and the earth have cycles.

People die of natural causes. Does this mean that no one dies from man made causes?

Why can't the current spike in atmospheric carbon dioxide be due to dumping gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels?

Why can't the current spike in temperature be due to the sudden increases in greenhouse gases put there by us?

Of course we're warming. We're coming out of an ice age. According to scientists, it was just 10,000 years ago that where I'm sitting in Michigan right now, there was a glacier two miles high.

It was just 150 years ago that CO2 was at 280 ppm, the usual peak for an interglacial period. Now it is at 400 ppm, well above any CO2 level for the last few glacial cycles.

A lot of us has known for awhile now that they've been manipulating data to support their cause.

We have known for a long time that interested parties have been lying about scientists manipulating data.

 

[Loudmouth]

I am not a climatologist, or atmospheric chemist.

My expertise is mathematics - mathematical physics, numerical methods, dynamical systems, and topological field theory.

But, as a mathematician that does stochastic modeing, I can see the mistakes in the fundamentals, and presentation of research because of my experience in academia, and because of my math background.

I know what it takes to provide precise AND accurate results on a 4,500,000,000 year old DYNAMICAL system. You need an entire city block of current-generation quantum computing processors to get within 1/1000 of the accurate data needed to produce such confident statements in AGW.

It only takes a set of 2 eyes to see that CO2 absorbs light in the IR spectrum. It only takes a few brain cells to understand that increasing the concentration of a greenhouse gas will trap more heat in the atmosphere.

 

[Aryeh]

It only takes a set of 2 eyes to see that CO2 absorbs light in the IR spectrum. It only takes a few brain cells to understand that increasing the concentration of a greenhouse gas will trap more heat in the atmosphere.

Oh, ok.

 

[Loudmouth]

Oh, ok.

Also, Svante Arrhenius made the first calculations for the increase in temperature due to increased CO2 clear back in 1898 without the help of any computers. His calculations are still considered to be largely correct.

Svante Arrhenius : Feature Articles

We have known for over 100 years that burning fossil fuels will increase temps.

 

[Aryeh]

Also, Svante Arrhenius made the first calculations for the increase in temperature due to increased CO2 clear back in 1898 without the help of any computers. His calculations are still considered to be largely correct.

Svante Arrhenius : Feature Articles

We have known for over 100 years that burning fossil fuels will increase temps.

Oh, ok.

 

[rambot]

"Human's can't impact the global climate don't be crazy".
Human activity is causing earth quakes.

You read me here: EARTHQUAKES. You know that 5.972 × 10^24 kg sized ball of rock we live on? Well, humans are able to cause earthquakes (due to fracking). Read up.

Stop thinking humankind is this weak passive entity. You have NO idea the bounds of human stupidity and carelessness when there is billions in cash involved.

 

[rambot]

You don't remember On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life by Charles Darwin?

"Since the dawn of history the Negro has owned the continent of Africa – rich beyond the dream of poet’s fancy, crunching acres of diamonds beneath his bare black feet and yet he never picked one up from the dust until a white man showed to him its glittering light.​

His land swarmed with powerful and docile animals, yet he never dreamed a harness, cart, or sled.​

A hunter by necessity, he never made an axe, spear, or arrowhead worth preserving beyond the moment of its use. He lived as an ox, content to graze for an hour.​

In a land of stone and timber he never sawed a foot of lumber, carved a block, or built a house save of broken sticks and mud.​

With league on league of ocean strand and miles of inland seas, for four thousand years he watched their surface ripple under the wind, heard the thunder of the surf on his beach, the howl of the storm over his head, gazed on the dim blue horizon calling him to worlds that lie beyond, and yet he never dreamed a sail.”
​

The Church, and Academia adopted his theory on the "races" for a very long time, and depending on where you are it is still the case. The Church was especially staunch on Darwinism and races to justify their imperialism, or "spreading the truth." Academia prefers more subtle conflagration - buried in biology, for example.

1) Hypothesis NOT theory (though I'm sure you know that 2) Upon further testing, did this theory stand up to rigorous challenge? No it did not. You are comparing very different situations.

Those example I gave weren't weird; they were examples of the hauteur and myopia of academics.

Barry Marshall had to drink an entire petri dish of H. Pylori because academia refused to believe ulcers were caused by bacterial infection. The concensus was that ulcers were caused by spices, and stress.

I had read he drank it because he was having trouble getting the h.pylori to attach inside his primate test subjects. Obviously, he is not going to be able to get an ethics committe to allow him to infect other humans. So PLEASE let's not blame "academia" for being "skeptical" of his claims; they had EVERY reason to be skeptical. HOWEVER, when he could produce TEST results, the scientific community was more easily swayed.
It sounds, in harkening to this example, that you are suggesting that there should be no skepticism for any idea the scientific community ever puts out (and yet, strangely, you have a problem with AGW?)

To this point, since you invoke the story, I would highly recommend you read this very interesting story behind it all:
Delayed Gratification: Why it Took Everybody So Long to Acknowledge that Bacteria Cause Ulcers | JYI – The Undergraduate Research Journal

We have not come very far, and this is why I said concensus is the absolutely wrong parameter to judge academic paradigms. Too much progress has been ignored because of the consensual immobility of minds.

Consensus based on strong science is absolutely the RIGHT parameter. There has been a lot of STRONG science. As much as you dislike the models, they are but one portion of the AGW supporting climate science.

 

[Aryeh]

1) Hypothesis NOT theory (though I'm sure you know that 2) Upon further testing, did this theory stand up to rigorous challenge? No it did not. You are comparing very different situations.

For several centuries the THEORY was practised in science and accepted.

It is only very recently in the West that this THEORY was decidedly abandoned in public. Let me repeat what was definitely said in the book:

"Since the dawn of history the Negro has owned the continent of Africa – rich beyond the dream of poet’s fancy, crunching acres of diamonds beneath his bare black feet and yet he never picked one up from the dust until a white man showed to him its glittering light.

His land swarmed with powerful and docile animals, yet he never dreamed a harness, cart, or sled.

A hunter by necessity, he never made an axe, spear, or arrowhead worth preserving beyond the moment of its use. He lived as an ox, content to graze for an hour.

In a land of stone and timber he never sawed a foot of lumber, carved a block, or built a house save of broken sticks and mud.

With league on league of ocean strand and miles of inland seas, for four thousand years he watched their surface ripple under the wind, heard the thunder of the surf on his beach, the howl of the storm over his head, gazed on the dim blue horizon calling him to worlds that lie beyond, and yet he never dreamed a sail.”

These weren't conditional statements, and this line of (scientific AND religious) thinking has only recently slowed down in public. If it was socially and "ethically" acceptable, the above quoted, and other similar Darwinian sentiments, would be publically accepted science.

 

[Loudmouth]

For several centuries the THEORY was practised in science and accepted.

You don't practice theories.

Let me repeat what was definitely said in the book:

"Since the dawn of history the Negro has owned the continent of Africa – rich beyond the dream of poet’s fancy, crunching acres of diamonds beneath his bare black feet and yet he never picked one up from the dust until a white man showed to him its glittering light.

His land swarmed with powerful and docile animals, yet he never dreamed a harness, cart, or sled.

A hunter by necessity, he never made an axe, spear, or arrowhead worth preserving beyond the moment of its use. He lived as an ox, content to graze for an hour.

In a land of stone and timber he never sawed a foot of lumber, carved a block, or built a house save of broken sticks and mud.

With league on league of ocean strand and miles of inland seas, for four thousand years he watched their surface ripple under the wind, heard the thunder of the surf on his beach, the howl of the storm over his head, gazed on the dim blue horizon calling him to worlds that lie beyond, and yet he never dreamed a sail.”

These weren't conditional statements, and this line of (scientific AND religious) thinking has only recently slowed down in public.

There is nothing scientific in that quote. What are you on about?

If it was socially and "ethically" acceptable, the above quoted, and other similar Darwinian sentiments, would be publically accepted science.

What is scientific about them?

 

[Aryeh]

You don't practice theories.



There is nothing scientific in that quote. What are you on about?



What is scientific about them?

Oh, ok.

 

[Loudmouth]

Oh, ok.

I am guessing that you will repeat this nonsense elsewhere?

 

[rambot]

For several centuries the THEORY was practised in science and accepted

What makes it, now, a theory? Cause it's pretty much pseudoscience nowadays.


It is only very recently in the West that this THEORY was decidedly abandoned in public. Let me repeat what was definitely said in the book:

"Since the dawn of history the Negro has owned the continent of Africa – rich beyond the dream of poet’s fancy, crunching acres of diamonds beneath his bare black feet and yet he never picked one up from the dust until a white man showed to him its glittering light.

His land swarmed with powerful and docile animals, yet he never dreamed a harness, cart, or sled.

A hunter by necessity, he never made an axe, spear, or arrowhead worth preserving beyond the moment of its use. He lived as an ox, content to graze for an hour.

In a land of stone and timber he never sawed a foot of lumber, carved a block, or built a house save of broken sticks and mud.

With league on league of ocean strand and miles of inland seas, for four thousand years he watched their surface ripple under the wind, heard the thunder of the surf on his beach, the howl of the storm over his head, gazed on the dim blue horizon calling him to worlds that lie beyond, and yet he never dreamed a sail.”

These weren't conditional statements and this line of (scientific AND religious) thinking has only recently slowed down in public.

That's not "scientific" thinking at all. It is sociological, paelological; and some of it is just plain wrong.
As loudmouth said, what is scientific about those statements?

In the meantime, how about we talk about how consensus is also ruining the theory of gravity, cell theory, Big Bang theory and so many other scientific theories where consensus is considered nondebatable?

Do you have other sage examples of consensus being a hindrance to other theories? Because as it is, it seems like we are batting in the "exception proves the rule" box.

 

[RickG]

In the meantime, how about we talk about how consensus is also ruining the theory of gravity, cell theory, Big Bang theory and so many other scientific theories where consensus is considered nondebatable?

I would prefer discussing the topic of this thread.

 

[rambot]

I would prefer discussing the topic of this thread.

Fair enough. Me too. Sadly, the back patting self congratulators from earlier on the thread will not return and they have no real argument to make anyways

 

[Aryeh]

Fair enough. Me too. Sadly, the back patting self congratulators from earlier on the thread will not return and they have no real argument to make anyways

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?

 

[rjs330]

Also, Svante Arrhenius made the first calculations for the increase in temperature due to increased CO2 clear back in 1898 without the help of any computers. His calculations are still considered to be largely correct.

Svante Arrhenius : Feature Articles

We have known for over 100 years that burning fossil fuels will increase temps.

It might and it might not. That's the problem. We don't really know. 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. Guesswork I might add that the politicians and radicals grab a hold of and scream about that we have to do something drastic now before we all drown or die in a big ball of fire.

Skeptical Arguments that Don’t Hold Water – Pierre Latour’s Rebuttal

 

[rjs330]

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&sou...GKFjugfFdHM8zAcsw&sig2=yKau5IsVvKpkMi79XPZnuQ