Fabricating Data in Climate Science - The Hijack

[Loudmouth]

What's interesting though is that scientists keep the funding depending on what they find.

That's completely false. You get the money no matter what you report. It would really help if you actually knew how research grants worked.

Your science finds something wrong with the current thought and your funding is gone.

Finding something wrong with the current science is one of the BEST ways to get funding. That's how it works.

The government gives to scientist who support man made climate change because they can use it to control industry and people.

That's a lie.

Scientists fund research grants because of the scientific merits of the grant. It is SCIENTISTS who decide which grants will be funded. Please stop lying about a process you know nothing about.

 

[rjs330]

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 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.


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.


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[\QUOTE]

You are not looking very hard. There are all kinds of problems with the scientific process. Peer review is broken and the process is corrupted by the money and results expected.

CO2 Coalition | The 7 biggest problems facing science, according to 270 scientists

Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals

And there is plenty out there showing that CO2 is not the monster as claimed. There different reasons for climate change. Everything from solar activity to chloroflouralcarbons.

https://phys.org/news/2013-05-global-chlorofluorocarbons-carbon-dioxide.html

World Climate Report » The Coming Global Cooling?

nzclimatescience.net - 030807 Marc Morano's Round-up

The science is NOT settled. The reason you believe this is because you have been told that it is by people who want it to be settled and who have an agenda for a lot of differing reasons from money to control. There are peer reviewed papers out there that you crave and there is science out there that you crave. I have read the pro-catastrophic man made climate change science and I have looked at the other side as well. I am firmly in the camp of there is an agenda behind the pro camp. And the reason for that is because the other side is being shut down instead of presented as a legitimate possibility even though they have science on their side. There is something going on here and I see it. You don't because you want to believe we are killing this planet.

Once again, the stuff I show you does not claim there is no change and everything is perfect. Most of these folks believe in the change. They just have science to show that it is not what is being proclaimed on the social media and mainstream media or in the halls of government who desire control.

You need to do more research. It is not always easy to find because it's not popular, but it is there.

 

[rjs330]

That's completely false. You get the money no matter what you report. It would really help if you actually knew how research grants worked.



Finding something wrong with the current science is one of the BEST ways to get funding. That's how it works.



That's a lie.

Scientists fund research grants because of the scientific merits of the grant. It is SCIENTISTS who decide which grants will be funded. Please stop lying about a process you know nothing about.

You might want to re-think your position if you really believe this. It is no lie. Scientists are NOT some pure angelic race. They are human beings with the same thoughts and flaws as the rest of us. They are biased and led by money just like everyone else. And those that find ways to promote current thought get the money.

Is federal funding biasing climate research?

Here’s Why Scientists Say Gov’t Funding Is Wrecking Science

Your faith in science is well known. But because humans are involved it is filled with problems.

 

[RickG]

The science is NOT settled. The reason you believe this is because you have been told that it is by people who want it to be settled and who have an agenda for a lot of differing reasons from money to control.

How is 97% of the published research in science journal showing with actual data that the Earth is warming and is due mostly by anthropogenic processes not a settled science?

You need to do more research. It is not always easy to find because it's not popular, but it is there.

I agree, one can never do too much research. Here's an overview of what I have completed so far.

M.S. Physical Earth Science, University of Memphis, 1977. Core emphasis: Geology, Oceanography, and Climatology. Concentration: Paleoclimatology. Thesis: "Occurance and Causes of Continental Glaciation" (Ice Ages).

25+ years experience as a research chemist and process engineer, a portion of which was conducting research and experiments on the effects of climate exposure an its effects on polymers.​

 

[Speedwell]

See what I mean? The side that has the most obvious political agenda and the most lurid conspiracy theories is, in the end, the losing side.

 

[Loudmouth]

You might want to re-think your position if you really believe this.

I have helped write grants. I have been funded by grants. A colleague of mine has served on a grant review board.

I know you are lying because I know the truth. I know how grants are funded. I know how grant applications work BECAUSE I HAVE WORKED ON THEM. For crying out loud . . .

They are human beings with the same thoughts and flaws as the rest of us.

That doesn't change the facts of how grants are judged, funded, and applied for.

And those that find ways to promote current thought get the money.

Completely false. It is people with original ideas that get grants.

Your faith in science is well known. But because humans are involved it is filled with problems.

My knowledge of the facts is what leads me to these conclusions.

 

[rambot]

You might want to re-think your position if you really believe this. It is no lie. Scientists are NOT some pure angelic race. They are human beings with the same thoughts and flaws as the rest of us. They are biased and led by money just like everyone else. And those that find ways to promote current thought get the money.

Is federal funding biasing climate research?

Here’s Why Scientists Say Gov’t Funding Is Wrecking Science

Your faith in science is well known. But because humans are involved it is filled with problems.

If someonw gave you 30gs and said "here. Take this money and do your job so bad your peers will recognize the lack of quality,deride you and tou wouldnt be able to practice science again?", would you do it?

Thing you dont understand about science is that those unscrupulous people ARE weeded out (when the quality of their suspect work shines through). Unless you are suggesting that every single climatologist is a sheister lookong to con the world.
But i hope not that. That is beyond ridiculous

 

[USincognito]

Is federal funding biasing climate research? - Judith Curry

Here’s Why Scientists Say Gov’t Funding Is Wrecking Science - Daily Caller

Judith Curry is a contrarian voicing here opinion. The Daily Caller is a Conservative fake news propaganda outlet. I wouldn't trust them if they reported that it was going to be hot in Dallas this summer.

 

[USincognito]

How is 97% of the published research in science journal showing with actual data that the Earth is warming and is due mostly by anthropogenic processes not a settled science?


I agree, one can never do too much research. Here's an overview of what I have completed so far.

M.S. Physical Earth Science, University of Memphis, 1977. Core emphasis: Geology, Oceanography, and Climatology. Concentration: Paleoclimatology. Thesis: "Occurance and Causes of Continental Glaciation" (Ice Ages).

25+ years experience as a research chemist and process engineer, a portion of which was conducting research and experiments on the effects of climate exposure an its effects on polymers.​

But, but but.. he's got a link from the Daily Caller!

 

[rjs330]

I have helped write grants. I have been funded by grants. A colleague of mine has served on a grant review board.

I know you are lying because I know the truth. I know how grants are funded. I know how grant applications work BECAUSE I HAVE WORKED ON THEM. For crying out loud . . .



That doesn't change the facts of how grants are judged, funded, and applied for.



Completely false. It is people with original ideas that get grants.



My knowledge of the facts is what leads me to these conclusions.

Shoot I know that when funding is applied for they don't say "We believe in man made global climate change and our research is going to prove that."

The point is funding is not renewed if you start showing how the science you are studying starts to show that made made global climate change may not be a fact. If you don't find what they want say goodbye to the funding. Have you ever worked on a climate change grant for someone who's research has discovered that man made global climate change may not be a fact and proposes a different scenario based on that research?

 

[Loudmouth]

The point is funding is not renewed if you start showing how the science you are studying starts to show that made made global climate change may not be a fact.

Prove it.

Instead of smearing the good name of good scientists, why don't you back up one of your smears. Just once.

 

[rambot]

Shoot I know that when funding is applied for they don't say "We believe in man made global climate change and our research is going to prove that."

The point is funding is not renewed if you start showing how the science you are studying starts to show that made made global climate change may not be a fact. If you don't find what they want say goodbye to the funding. Have you ever worked on a climate change grant for someone who's research has discovered that man made global climate change may not be a fact and proposes a different scenario based on that research?

Ok. Back up. You are talking to a person who write grants and clearly knows what they are talking about. You have an opportunity to LEARN something from someone who ACTUALLY knows something FIRST HAND. You can ask him QUESTIONS to get to know about the process.
You could do ALL those things to learn; but instead you just keep repeating the same thing to him in protest of what he is saying.

If you are sick, you don't go to the doctor just to argue his diagnoses.

 

[rjs330]

Prove it.

Instead of smearing the good name of good scientists, why don't you back up one of your smears. Just once.

OK how about this story.

‘I was tossed out of the tribe’: climate scientist Judith Curry interviewed

Or how about Dr Bellamy who lost a lot over his descent.

Or perhaps this.
World's leading climate sceptic sees his funding melt away fast

How about what's happened to this guy.
Dem ‘Witch Hunt’ Forces Scientist Out Of Global Warming Research

There is more such as the calling for the deniers to be jailed. All this leads to to the fact that the deniers are being targeted. Top that with the vast majority of government grants go to supporters raises questions.

This is a political agenda driven to control.

 

[Loudmouth]

OK how about this story.

‘I was tossed out of the tribe’: climate scientist Judith Curry interviewed

What about it?

Or how about Dr Bellamy who lost a lot over his descent.

Or perhaps this.
World's leading climate sceptic sees his funding melt away fast

How about what's happened to this guy.
Dem ‘Witch Hunt’ Forces Scientist Out Of Global Warming Research

There is more such as the calling for the deniers to be jailed. All this leads to to the fact that the deniers are being targeted. Top that with the vast majority of government grants go to supporters raises questions.

This is a political agenda driven to control.

We need more than just bare links. Show evidence that they were discriminated against solely because of their position.

 

[RickG]

Meanwhile, focusing back on the topic of this thread, here's a point by point rebuttal of the Daily Mail article by the Irish Climate Analysis and Research Unit. The author of this article worked for more than three years in the NOAA group responsible in the build-up to the Karl et al., 2015 paper. He was also involved in and was a co-author upon all relevant underlying papers to Karl et al., 2015.

Irish Climate Analysis and Research Units: On the Mail on Sunday article on Karl et al., 2015

 

[Speedwell]

This is a political agenda driven to control.

Or it's projection.

 

[rjs330]

What about it?



We need more than just bare links. Show evidence that they were discriminated against solely because of their position.

The links show how it's happened. You wanted evidence I gave it to you. I can't make you believe it.

 

[rjs330]

Meanwhile, focusing back on the topic of this thread, here's a point by point rebuttal of the Daily Mail article by the Irish Climate Analysis and Research Unit. The author of this article worked for more than three years in the NOAA group responsible in the build-up to the Karl et al., 2015 paper. He was also involved in and was a co-author upon all relevant underlying papers to Karl et al., 2015.

Irish Climate Analysis and Research Units: On the Mail on Sunday article on Karl et al., 2015

The issue is climate data and research is very flawed and many times it's fraudulent. We know from Climate gate that global warming vpropnants have been dishonest with their data. They have used SATA they want and dismissed findings that do not support their notions. They cherry pick and are prone to use methods purposefully to support what they want. Such as using ships to measure ocean temperatures instead of buoys DD despite the fact that doing so raises temperature. They get data from stations they know are more prone to higher readings. The hockey stick graph was proven to be fraudulent yet wsrmists still cling to that. Peer review has been shown to have lots of problems.
Climategate, the sequel: How we are STILL being tricked with flawed data on global warming

 

[Loudmouth]

The links show how it's happened. You wanted evidence I gave it to you. I can't make you believe it.

I want you to discuss it, not simply give us bare links.

 

[Loudmouth]

The issue is climate data and research is very flawed and many times it's fraudulent. We know from Climate gate that global warming vpropnants have been dishonest with their data.

That's been debunked for ages now. Those scientists were quoted out of context in order to twist their words. When taken in context there is no evidence of any wrongdoing on their part.