Science Denial

[Ygrene Imref]

Please see my post #178.

Scientific consensus does not mean every single verification done was done uniquely/independently. In other words, using someone else's flawed data to verify am experiment, and coming up with the same flawed results says nothing about the actual accuracy of the results.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

If you read my post #178, it shows that 97.2% of the published peer review articles addressing AGW show that the earth is warming due to carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels. If not from CO2 from fossil fuels, what?

Consensus does not say anything about the accuracy of the science; it is a measure of the academic social atmosphere.

Again, repeating an experiment with the same flawed data, and producing the same flawed results says nothing about the accuracy of the data. It means you did the experiment right.

We don't need more people reproducing/regurgitating the same results; we need mathematicians and scientists who aren't afraid of academic backlash, and who are confident and bold enough to say, "the data is wrong!" That way, we can stop producing the same ludicrous results that always seem to need scaling, and possibly move on toward producing real accurate results.

But, this will NEVER happen until their is a social paradigm shift in what information is credible - and a shift in especially how layperson choose to (dis)trust their academic "authorities," who also happen to be human.

This phenomenon is fully immersive.

 

[RickG]

Scientific consensus does not mean every single verification done was done uniquely/independently. In other words, using someone else's flawed data to verify am experiment, and coming up with the same flawed results says nothing about the actual accuracy of the results.

So the 97.2% of the published peer review research on AGW between 1991 and 2011 used the same data and is flawed? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

 

[RickG]

Consensus does not say anything about the accuracy of the science; it is a measure of the academic social atmosphere.

So all scientific research published in the peer review literature world wide is wrong?

Again, repeating an experiment with the same flawed data, and producing the same flawed results says nothing about the accuracy of the data. It means you did the experiment right.

All published peer reviewed articles in scientific journals are required to be original research. How is that using the same data?

We don't need more people reproducing/regurgitating the same results; we need mathematicians and scientists who aren't afraid of academic backlash, and who are confident and bold enough to say, "the data is wrong!" That way, we can stop producing the same ludicrous results that always seem to need scaling, and possibly move on toward producing real accurate results.

I have yet to see any of those papers shown where their data and results is wrong.

 

[KWCrazy]

Once again, the consensuses is world-wide by scientists of all walks of life and political preferences. It is based on what the science shows, not by a poll, opinion or political views. What questions is it that you think scientists don't want asked?

It really doesn't do much good to post to you believers does it? You don't pay attention to any of the dissenting voices. You know what you want to believe period. It doesn't bother you that nothing the alarmists predicted has come true does it? I don't see you petitioning to log the old growth forests and replanting with new trees, which would be the fastest way to absorb co2. The fact is, science does not show that man is a causal factor in climate change, nor does it show that a changing climate is particularly deleterious. I don't see you rallying against using water vapor to scrub factory smokestacks when 92% of greenhouse gasses are water vapor. I don't see you protesting global warming on Mars; a planet particularly devoid of Suburbans. No, all you do is repeat the talking points of big government liberals.

Rather than repeating the lie that 97% of scientists agree on AGW, why not post the actual conclusion of the Cooke study?

We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

That's 97% of 32%, not 97% of scientists. Why do I not believe in AGW? Because nearly everything I see posted about it contains at least one deliberate lie.

 

[Skreeper]

It really doesn't do much good to post to you believers does it? You don't pay attention to any of the dissenting voices. You know what you want to believe period.

There's more irony in that sentence than the mass of Sagittarius A*.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Sorry, that's a lie.
Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies.

Really? You ask a bunch of petroleum engineers what they think, and you get a different response than from climate scientists? What do the shoe salesmen think?

 

[Ygrene Imref]

So the 97.2% of the published peer review research on AGW between 1991 and 2011 used the same data and is flawed? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I said concensus means nothing when accuracy is concerned. Consensus is a psychological barometer: truth is truth regardless of who, or how many people believe it.

With that said, of course that consensus is "going along" with flawed data. Whether "going along" means repeating everything you are expected to say and believing it, or doing what you are told in order to maintain your credentials - and in between. There is a lot of private money devoted to these research programs - often privatized government entities, as it would be unethical to [be able to] trace funding back to a source which is supposed to be academically neutral. And, yes this could be an actual LEGAL conspiracy - especially on the order of fraud, sovereignty, and other issues. Not nearly all scientists are in on it; compartmentalization of academia and government make as sure as possible that the "(n-1)th level" rarely knows that the n-th level is doing, and no one knows what goes on for the top levels for n=max. And mathematicians/scientists are also humans; they are afraid of losing their livelihood, credentials, being blacklisted, etc. - just like everyone else. It is a fully immerse phenomenon.

Climate change is taking the 300 years of hard evidence collected and extrapolating the data over several thousand multiples (at least until the first confirmed periodic timescale boundary.) Let's assume climate changes on the level being alarmed every 1000 years (a geological instant.) Then, the model still extrapolate 70% of the data, plus any residue left over from miscalculations in the hard data set. Now, "extrapolate" the error over a timescale several orders of magnitude longer than 1000 years.

So, the climate change model already begins with flawed, severely extrapolated date - of the most important is there is no definitively quantifiable timescale or periodicity for this specific climate change of which we are being warned.

Then, the same scientists are beginning with the same flawed stochastic model, and then reaffirming the same results, because they are using the same extrapolation and assumptions (because, they have to in order for the mathematics to make physical sense.) So, yes if 92.7%+ of the scientific world cannot recognize this simple, yet incredible issue - whether by intelligence or ignorance - then the data confirmations will so be heavily flawed, but confirmation nontheless.

This is assuming the earth does not account for changes chemical, thermal and radiological potentials with perturbations powerful enough to drive the system back to measurable equilibrium (i.e. chemical/mechanical/field dampening systems.)

It is also assuming there aren't any other perturbation effects affecting the system - like aliens, X-men, real enhanced beings, interdimensional beings, binary star periodic orbits, extrasolar rogue planets and debris, the literal hand of God, etc...

You may laugh, and it may be ridiculous to you, but it cant be any too much more ridiculous than taking several thousandths of a percent of data from a highly dynamical system, and convincing billions of people that the extrapolated results of this small amount of data is

1) not enough to get off planet NOW for the fate of the species, but is enough to

2) guilt the world population into taking responsibility for a planetary phenomenon (that may be very natural and periodic), offering salvation and safety through capital means.

Spoiler

It is the same, EXACT story, and therefore, ironic to hear people think religion is the biggest brain clenser; academia has completely surpassed its power.

 

[RickG]

It really doesn't do much good to post to you believers does it? You don't pay attention to any of the dissenting voices.

My understanding of climate science is based on experience, not belief.

You know what you want to believe period.

Again my understanding of climate science is based on experience, not belief. I spent an entire year in graduate school back in the 70's doing independent research on the causes of ice ages. Following that I spent nearly 30 years as a research chemist and process engineer, where part of that research was testing the effects of solar irradiation on specific polymer chains and compounds.

It doesn't bother you that nothing the alarmists predicted has come true does it?

By alarmists, I gather you mean scientists doing climate research.

I don't see you petitioning to log the old growth forests and replanting with new trees, which would be the fastest way to absorb co2. The fact is, science does not show that man is a causal factor in climate change, nor does it show that a changing climate is particularly deleterious.

Most of the CO2 emitted from fossil fuels is absorbed by the oceans, thus ocean acidification. And yes, man is shown to be the specific cause. We know this from carbon isotope ratios specific fossil fuel CO2.

I don't see you rallying against using water vapor to scrub factory smokestacks when 92% of greenhouse gasses are water vapor. I don't see you protesting global warming on Mars; a planet particularly devoid of Suburbans.

Water vapor is a feedback, CO2 is a forcing, Climatology 101.

Rather than repeating the lie that 97% of scientists agree on AGW, why not post the actual conclusion of the Cooke study?

We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

That's 97% of 32%, not 97% of scientists. Why do I not believe in AGW? Because nearly everything I see posted about it contains at least one deliberate lie.

That is an incorrect evaluation. The study says nothing about 97% of scientists. Here's why.

• All scientific literature was searched in a scientific search engine for the topics "Global climate change" or "global warming" published between 1991 and 2011.
• Of that "all inclusive" search during that period, 11,944 matched (addressed) the topic.
• Of that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% en dorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.
• Thus, a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
• In addition, they went the extra mile and asked the authors of those papers expressing a position on AGW if their evaluation of them was correct. Among those self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. Thus the actual consensus increased to 97.2%.

Now look at it another way, the example you gave, 97% scientists. The study has nothing to do with how many scientists, it is about what the published peer review research states. Why should the number of papers which did not address AGW be included as having a position on AGW?

 

[Ygrene Imref]

So all scientific research published in the peer review literature world wide is wrong?


All published peer reviewed articles in scientific journals are required to be original research. How is that using the same data?


I have yet to see any of those papers shown where their data and results is wrong.

When you start with error, it is very rare - serendipitous even - that you would get an accurate, physically meaningful solution to a dynamical system problem.

The probability of one person producing experimentally accurate results from erroneous data, and then another scientist doing the exact thing with the same flawed data is rare, unless the data set is from the same space (i.e. same assumptions, axioms, postulates used to measure,) or serendipity structure again - making the successive cases even more improbable.

So, yes the same/similar axioms, postulates and assumed time scale of data MUST be used in order to produce a consensus. Indeed, it is. That is why the "basics" of the phenomenon are pounded in every layperson's head as a fact of the process.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It really doesn't do much good to post to you believers does it? You don't pay attention to any of the dissenting voices. You know what you want to believe period. It doesn't bother you that nothing the alarmists predicted has come true does it? I don't see you petitioning to log the old growth forests and replanting with new trees, which would be the fastest way to absorb co2. The fact is, science does not show that man is a causal factor in climate change, nor does it show that a changing climate is particularly deleterious. I don't see you rallying against using water vapor to scrub factory smokestacks when 92% of greenhouse gasses are water vapor. I don't see you protesting global warming on Mars; a planet particularly devoid of Suburbans. No, all you do is repeat the talking points of big government liberals.

Rather than repeating the lie that 97% of scientists agree on AGW, why not post the actual conclusion of the Cooke study?

We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

That's 97% of 32%, not 97% of scientists. Why do I not believe in AGW? Because nearly everything I see posted about it contains at least one deliberate lie.

Are you kidding me? You don't actually expect them to admit that the 97% consensus they preach is in reality 97% of 32% do you? Quoting the actual figures doesn't sound as impressive.

If science was their real concern they would accept what the ice core data days and quit ignoring it. Every 125,000 years the earth goes through a cycle of warming and cooling and man has nothing to do with it. This cycle will pass and it will start to cool and then we will get to hear stories of how man and global warming caused the coming ice age, lol.

 

[KWCrazy]

Really? You ask a bunch of petroleum engineers what they think, and you get a different response than from climate scientists? What do the shoe salesmen think?

Read the above.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Are you kidding me? You don't actually expect them to admit that the 97% consensus they preach is in reality 97% of 32% do you? Quoting the actual figures doesn't sound as impressive.

If science was their real concern they would accept what the ice core data days and quit ignoring it. Every 125,000 years the earth goes through a cycle of warming and cooling and man has nothing to do with it. This cycle will pass and it will start to cool and then we will get to hear stories of how man and global warming caused the coming ice age, lol.

12,500 years is a MUCH more reasonable time scale of data than 300 years, and would more accurately represent a periodic interval for a specific dynamic in the system (i.e. climate change.)

Interestingly enough, many mystic, religious and tribal prophecies tell of a destroyer/star/dragon/planet with a 13,500 periodic time scale that is supposed to coincide with massive earth upheaval.

What is also interesting is that according to these prophecies and soothsayings, we are about due for both events. They could be the same type of phenomenon - since the error is ~10%, which is better than ~99.9999912% error. The climate uproar seems to be at least entertaining these prophecies also, as you have to a decent amount of information on neutrino oscillation to come up with such a rediculous premise as 2012 for which the science holds (at least, the mechanism for why the core was heating.) It is about the only scientific thing the movie got right, which means they had scientific consultants on the payroll for the movie.

Edit: You said 125,000 years... even better (more precision, 10x a 12,500 period.)

 

[KWCrazy]

Every 125,000 years the earth goes through a cycle of warming and cooling and man has nothing to do with it. This cycle will pass and it will start to cool and then we will get to hear stories of how man and global warming caused the coming ice age, lol.

We already heard those stories in the 60's.
Then they killed 50 million people by banning DDT, which killed malaria carrying mosquitoes.
Anyone who believes in people who fly Gulfstream IV's to conferences where they attack us for driving larger, safer vehicles will never recognize their own hypocrisy.

 

[RickG]

I said concensus means nothing when accuracy is concerned. Consensus is a psychological barometer: truth is truth regardless of who, or how many people believe it.

With that said, of course that consensus is "going along" with flawed data. Whether "going along" means repeating everything you are expected to say and believing it, or doing what you are told in order to maintain your credentials - and in between. There is a lot of private money devoted to these research programs - often privatized government entities, as it would be unethical to [be able to] trace funding back to a source which is supposed to be academically neutral. And, yes this could be an actual LEGAL conspiracy - especially on the order of fraud, sovereignty, and other issues. Not nearly all scientists are in on it; compartmentalization of academia and government make as sure as possible that the "(n-1)th level" rarely knows that the n-th level is doing, and no one knows what goes on for the top levels for n=max. And mathematicians/scientists are also humans; they are afraid of losing their livelihood, credentials, being blacklisted, etc. - just like everyone else. It is a fully immerse phenomenon.

Climate change is taking the 300 years of hard evidence collected and extrapolating the data over several thousand multiples (at least until the first confirmed periodic timescale boundary.) Let's assume climate changes on the level being alarmed every 1000 years (a geological instant.) Then, the model still extrapolate 70% of the data, plus any residue left over from miscalculations in the hard data set. Now, "extrapolate" the error over a timescale several orders of magnitude longer than 1000 years.

So, the climate change model already begins with flawed, severely extrapolated date - of the most important is there is no definitively quantifiable timescale or periodicity for this specific climate change of which we are being warned.

Then, the same scientists are beginning with the same flawed stochastic model, and then reaffirming the same results, because they are using the same extrapolation and assumptions (because, they have to in order for the mathematics to make physical sense.) So, yes if 92.7%+ of the scientific world cannot recognize this simple, yet incredible issue - whether by intelligence or ignorance - then the data confirmations will so be heavily flawed, but confirmation nontheless.

This is assuming the earth does not account for changes chemical, thermal and radiological potentials with perturbations powerful enough to drive the system back to measurable equilibrium (i.e. chemical/mechanical/field dampening systems.)

It is also assuming there aren't any other perturbation effects affecting the system - like aliens, X-men, real enhanced beings, interdimensional beings, binary star periodic orbits, extrasolar rogue planets and debris, the literal hand of God, etc...

You may laugh, and it may be ridiculous to you, but it cant be any too much more ridiculous than taking several thousandths of a percent of data from a highly dynamical system, and convincing billions of people that the extrapolated results of this small amount of data is

1) not enough to get off planet NOW for the fate of the species, but is enough to

2) guilt the world population into taking responsibility for a planetary phenomenon (that may be very natural and periodic), offering salvation and safety through capital means.

Spoiler

It is the same, EXACT story, and therefore, ironic to hear people think religion is the biggest brain clenser; academia has completely surpassed its power.

Lots of claims but no substance to support any of it. Please provide a credible source showing flawed data specific to climate science.

 

[RickG]

When you start with error, it is very rare - serendipitous even - that you would get an accurate, physically meaningful solution to a dynamical system problem.

The probability of one person producing experimentally accurate results from erroneous data, and then another scientist doing the exact thing with the same flawed data is rare, unless the data set is from the same space (i.e. same assumptions, axioms, postulates used to measure,) or serendipity structure again - making the successive cases even more improbable.

So, yes the same/similar axioms, postulates and assumed time scale of data MUST be used in order to produce a consensus. Indeed, it is. That is why the "basics" of the phenomenon are pounded in every layperson's head as a fact of the process.

You keep claiming errors, what errors? Furthermore, most of this research is performed by teams of scientists cross checking one another, not to mention the rigorous peer review process for publication.

 

[RickG]

Are you kidding me? You don't actually expect them to admit that the 97% consensus they preach is in reality 97% of 32% do you? Quoting the actual figures doesn't sound as impressive.

If science was their real concern they would accept what the ice core data days and quit ignoring it. Every 125,000 years the earth goes through a cycle of warming and cooling and man has nothing to do with it. This cycle will pass and it will start to cool and then we will get to hear stories of how man and global warming caused the coming ice age, lol.

What ice core data is ignored?

 

[AV1611VET]

... not to mention the rigorous peer review process for publication.

Why should we care about your house publications, if you guys don't care about ours?

 

[Belk]

It's a lucrative business funded by liberals that want even more government control and promoted by pack mentality people who want to see themselves as important by "saving the world." All the global warming models fail for one reason; man's contribution to climate change means diddley and squat. Hint: if the answer to the problem is always big government socialism, then the entire premise is suspect. If someone demands that you accept that the debate is over, you know there are questions they don't want asked.

Ah. All those jet setter scientists lying about their findings as they sip their martini's. Sailing their yachts to Monaco while they lie to the world about their life's work. Yes, that sounds like a totally plausible scenario.

 

[Goonie]

Ah. All those jet setter scientists lying about their findings as they sip their martini's. Sailing their yachts to Monaco while they lie to the world about their life's work. Yes, that sounds like a totally plausible scenario.

Well they've got to be able to pay for the secret island bases, and evil white cats!