Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by The Wrong Guy, Aug 28, 2014.
There ya go, then.
That statement has no content.
You need content to convince me or any casual lurker that your position has merit. For example, you might explain how the scientific method dictates a count of papers in the scientific literature ought to be done. Then you could say how Cook deviated from what the scientific method dictates. Good luck with that though, because I think you just sort them and count them.
I explained my objections. You say they are merit-less. I disagree.
When a researcher violates a basic rule of research, he is no longer researching, but merely confirming his biases.
This man used unreliable readers, knowing they were unreliable. That is enough, to my understanding, to make the research suspect.
All the other things I mentioned, such as the overtly political nature of the paper (he later goes on a rant about Western Oil Company or some), combine to let me know this is not a trust worthy paper. It does not meet my understanding of what a research paper is. I could be wrong, but others have seen the same problems.
You disagree. I don't know what else to say about the matter.
He checked the results of the working group against ratings by the authors themselves. When it comes to understanding what an author meant, the author himself will be the gold standard source.
Research papers do two things:
1. Present new info
2. Explain how that new info relates to stuff we know and/or care about.
The “care about” is politics. Like I said, that is okay because authors must compete for attention and grants in a busy marketplace of ideas.
You can’t dismiss a paper just because the author said, “this paper matters because....” You have to focus on the new info presented.
That Watts guy is bad news.
My family listens to the same stuff you listen to and I love them dearly. I am not arguing with you to give you a hard time but to practice.
Okay here is an angle:
Consider just for five minutes that all the scientific evidence we have actually really does support the AGW hypothesis. Evidence gathered over many decades, maybe a hundred years. All the scientists concerned with things related to the climate know this.
Now, don’t you think a bias in favor of the AGW hypothesis would be normal amongst scientists?
I dismiss the paper because it wasn't science, it was advocacy. It was more like an elaborate article that he outlined before he started.
lol You are good with subverting language.
The only 'bias' science has is to the truth.
I have no idea who 'Watts' is.
What I listened to today was an hour long interview with Russ Roberts, who talked about Adam Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments. This 200 year dead Scot has some useful and interesting ideas about how people relate to one another. One idea was the presumption of liberty.
You have many times tried to put me in a box that I don't fit in. All that does is make it hard for you to understand what i am trying to say. I doubt I listen to anything your family listens to. But i don't know since you've never laid a list out.
Watts was the guy who led you to believe the “97% of papers agree...” came from that link to the survey paper rather than the Cook paper. Watts has that blog, “wattsupwiththat,” which other people quote. He’s a weatherman who gets money from some Koch related group.
That last article you linked to referred readers to Watts’ blog.
So when I say my family listens to the same type of stuff, it is the memes on the Watts blog that I am referring to.
What if AGW is the truth? Then it would make sense for scientists to have a bias in favor of the AGW hypothesis, right?
If AGW were the truth, then it is no longer a hypothesis.
Fine. If the AGW fact were a true fact, it would make sense for scientists to have a bias toward accepting the AGW fact as a true fact, right?
No it wouldn't. There is no place for bias in science. In fact, bias is a main factor in the development of the scientific method.
You are using 'bias' in an ambiguous way.
Scientists always have bias and they are supposed to be aware of their own biases and report them when relevant.
My point is, if the evidence is telling scientists that Earth is warming due to greenhouse gasses, it makes sense that scientists would be open about accepting that idea, right?
And they'd be open about opposing that idea.
It just depends upon the evidence, right? If the evidence is strongly in favor of Earth getting warmer, that will be what the scientists say to the public.
Why is it so important to you that people agree that the climate is warming?
It either is or isn't warming.
If the latter, then there was nothing to worry about.
Then, if the former, then it either matters that it's warming or it doesn't.
Then if it does matter, then it's either a good thing or a bad thing or a mixed thing.
So it's only after a lot of 'ifs' that we come to a point where we'd need to worry.
I say, let's start not worrying now. It's a lot easier on the body.
I feel better already.
I am making a point about how scientists would likely act if the evidence supports a warming Earth: the scientists will say, “Earth is warming."
So keep that in mind when you read the Cook paper. Maybe Cook is saying the Earth is warming because that is what the evidence says. Maybe it’s not just bias.
I started coming to WWP because I got interested in cults and how they mess up peoples’ heads. That is the part of the global warming story that interests me most --how misinformation tech is working in the US.
The science about the atmosphere is mostly over my head. But the count of papers in the scientific literature is easy peasy. A retard like me can get that point no problemo. So why is it taking so long for other people to get it? Thousands of papers on one side versus a couple dozen on the other side --that is a no brainer.
You don't seem to know much about the scientific method and how to create a study and write the paper. Not a criticism, just an observation.
I don't claim to be any great shakes at science, but I do know I've done 3 more scientific studies than you, so, as I said before, I'll accept my judgement on a paper over yours. And another problem with the paper-he used laypeople, from what I've heard. if so, that's makes it tip over to utter nonsense. no one but a specialist in the field can understand the body of the report of most scientific paper today. Fields are hyper specialized.
The very best i can do is read the first few and the last few sections, and see if i can make sense of it. In the case of the Cook paper, it was all too easy to make sense of it.
Also. I find the you don't listen very well, or show curiosity, you only argue. I don't mind arguing (I do it myself from time to time) but there's more to discussion than that
I read this yesterday. I made no attempt to verify anything here. I did find it interesting. It's where I found the tidbit about the unqualified researchers.
Finally, I came across this:
I found the concept interesting, though I didn't read the paper, just the abstract.
The lay people were not the only group who reviewed the papers. In part 2 of the Cook study, the authors of the articles rated their own papers and these ratings were compared to the ratings by the working group. Both groups rated the papers in the same way in general. However, the authors rated more of their own papers as pro AGW than the working group. This would suggest that the working group actually had a bias against reading things as supporting global warming. They likely wanted to err on the side of caution, so as to not be humiliated for bad rating examples.
Do not pat yourself on the back so much, Hubris. It looks dumb.
[quote="Hugh Bris, post: 2489134, member: 93211”]And another problem with the paper-he used laypeople, from what I've heard. if so, that's makes it tip over to utter nonsense. no one but a specialist in the field can understand the body of the report of most scientific paper today.[/quote]
If you did research you know that Dr Important Person MD PhD does not do boring shit like sorting abstracts. Such tedious grunt work lands on the shoulders of grunts of undergraduate or impoverished graduate variety.
And this tells me just how blissfully ignorant you are of how science works. If you introduce an error in Step One, then you are fucked at every succeeding stage. You can't 'fix it in the mix' like in the music studio. No, you go back to the drawing board and you do it right from Step One.
Using a second group is how you measure reliability.
Something you might find interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect
Sure, dude, whatever.
Yes it is. It stops being a hypothesis when it is proven beyond reasonable doubts. In science, it will even remain a hypothesis, because we know it may still not be the final word on the matter (e.g. special relativity is still true under all relevant circumstances, but general relativity supersede it).
The bloody shipload of articles supporting AGW makes it a very strong hypothesis, which normally would be taken for truth had it not be for all the big money/political bullox muddying the water.
The law of gravity is no longer a hypothesis. A hypothesis become a theory, then a law, in the normal progression of things. We are still awaiting a proper climate hypothesis at this point.
As for this, what a crock of crap.
You can't accept that people read the evidence and come to a different conclusion so you assume them to be the pawns of industry, while never, for a moment, thinking that you might be the pawns of activist wanting more govt.
The whole issue will fade to nothing, just like peak oil, when people innovate to make things better. That is the way of the world, when allowed.
As for the political aspect, don't you think governments would rather not have this climate thingy bugging up their plans for unbridled economic expansion?
That is of course possible. Perhaps someone someday find an hereto unknown geophysical variable that explains the temperature rise better than CO2. I'm not saying it won't happen, because that is the nature of science. Unlike you however I am on the other hand not saying it will happen, because that too is the nature of science.
Just remember what a scientific hypothesis is: It's not the truth, it is just the best explanation we can come up with given what we know. Some day we'll know more. The current explanation may fall at the wayside or become the basis of a better explanation (like the special relativity theory). At the moment, human driven global warming is the most favoured theory though.
OK, we have the best theory. Then what? TI didn't have an answer. The answers I see all call for some political solution. Meaning, more government. Funny how that works. And that;s what this issue is really all about. It's not about climate change, it's about money, and who gets it.
If the climate change people are honest, they will admit their models don't work. But that would end the funding. That doesn't mean climate change isn't real, it does mean their models are pretty much worthless.
Take a hard look at that Cook paper, and ask yourself "Would an honest researcher deliberately introduce a confound?" If you say "Yes" then there's nothing to talk about. If you say "no", then you must realize how truly misleading the Cook paper is. TI talks about how misleading the 'right' is on the issue, and yet the Cook paper, if my critique is valid, is nonsense, and this thread was started with an article that is also misleading. Yet I hear no concern about that.
So, as I say, this is a political issue. None of us are trained well enough to understand the actual science. All we can do is read the media and blogs and make the best assessment we can. That we come to different conclusions isn't surprising.
U.S. and Chinese leaders announce breakthrough on climate change | LA Times
Reflecting the urgency and scale that scientists have called for in climate change solutions, the U.S. and Chinese presidents laid out ambitious new targets early Wednesday to cut pollution. The deal between two nations that are driving forces of global warming has negotiators hoping it will inspire similar commitments from other countries.
President Obama agreed that the U.S. would cut net greenhouse gas emissions at least 26% by 2025, doubling its current pace of carbon reduction. Chinese President Xi Jinping also announced a stepped-up time frame for carbon reduction and for increasing China’s use of nuclear, wind and solar energy.
Analysts say the deal portends significant change because it sets a bolder timeline for two countries that together account for more than a third of global greenhouse gas emissions. Yet it is sure to be challenged by Obama’s Republican critics in Congress, who have pledged to make it a priority to roll back the president’s environmental regulation measures when they assume the majority next year.
I wish I knew why republicans are so anti environmental. these guys are the big sportsman hunting fishing shooting fellow republicans. old boy coal network I guess. wish I had the answer didn't vote anything but green and independent last election
U.S.-China Climate Deal Won't Slow Warming: Scientists | NBC News
Don't expect the landmark U.S.-China climate change agreement, announced Wednesday, to nudge the world's rising thermostat downward unless other countries help, say scientists who study heat-trapping carbon dioxide. China, the world's No. 1 polluter, will still increase its emissions until 2030 or so, under the agreement. The U.S., which ranks second, promised to cut pollution from the burning of coal, oil and gas to levels that haven't been seen since 1969. But any U.S. cuts will be swamped by Chinese pollution growth over the next 15 years, said Glen Peters, a Norwegian scientist who was part of the Global Carbon Project that tracks global emissions.
In 2009, countries across the globe set a goal of limiting warming to about another 2 degrees Fahrenheit (1 degree Celsius) above current levels. Peters' team calculated this fall that the mark would be reached around 2040 and the U.S.-China accord doesn't change that, he said. MIT professor John Sterman compared the numbers to a driver flooring the accelerator and heading toward a cliff. This agreement is like letting up on the pedal, not slowing the car. "It doesn't buy a lot of time for when we blast through the 2-degree level," Sterman said.
4 Signs the Arctic Is Getting Baked by Climate Change | Mother Jones
The Arctic is warming twice as fast as the rest of the Earth.
Berkeley study directly IDs climate change culprit | SFGate
Scientists training their instruments on the skies have caught the world’s major greenhouse gas right in the act of warming the planet, researchers reported Wednesday, providing the first direct evidence that human activity is dangerously altering the environment.
The instruments captured more than a decade of rising surface temperatures, changes that were directly triggered by the atmosphere’s increasing burden of carbon dioxide, a team of scientists from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and UC Berkeley reported.
That gas, whose main source is emissions from burning fossil fuels, has long been the principal culprit in global warming investigations by the vast majority of the world’s climate scientists. Its rising levels in the atmosphere have been the basis for increasingly strong warnings about global warming by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, known as the IPCC.
“We have known for decades that there must be an effect, but getting a direct measurement and isolating the carbon dioxide component are a technological coup,” Christopher B. Field, a senior scientist at the Carnegie Institution for Science at Stanford University who has led two major IPCC reports, said in an e-mail.
The Berkeley scientists’ study, he said, provides concrete evidence for the first time of carbon dioxide’s effect on global warming.
Network TV Continues Giving Climate Change Cold Shoulder | Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting
In recent weeks, network television news has understandably focused extensively on the extreme cold and snow in the Northeast and upper Midwest. But a new FAIR study shows they’ve almost completely ignored a related and even more dangerous phenomenon out West: record-shattering winter warmth. And they've overwhelmingly failed to discuss what connects the two sets of strange weather phenomena: human-caused climate disruption.
FAIR examined ABC, CBS and NBC transcripts from January 25 (as the Northeast’s first blizzard approached) through March 4, looking at all mentions of cold, snow and ice. Over the same time period, we studied coverage of heat, warmth and drought across the West and Pacific Northwest.
Florida bans state environmental workers from using the term climate change | Slate
Florida is largely seen as the U.S. state that is most vulnerable to the effects of global warming. But even uttering the term global warming in official communications can get employees at the state’s Department of Environmental Protection in trouble. The Florida Center for Investigative Reporting talks to four former DEP officials who say they were ordered to not use the terms global warming or climate change in any emails, reports, or official communications. “We were told not to use the terms climate change, global warming, or sustainability,” said Christopher Byrd, who worked at the DEP from 2008 to 2013.
The unwritten policy apparently first went into effect after Gov. Rick Scott took office in 2011. Scott has long expressed skepticism that human activity causes climate change. The DEP’s press secretary, however, said the reports weren’t accurate. “DEP does not have a policy on this,” she said before declining to answer more questions. Yet even if there was no written policy, one former employee said staffers had been warned that just using the banned terms would bring them unwanted attention.
Patrick Moore, Ph.D.,... He cofounded Greenpeace
Excellent article. He lays out his case well.
President Obama and Anger Translator Luther in epic 2015 White House correspondents' dinner speech
Well, Luther the Anger translator had the right thought there at the end...
CIA Hordes Climate Data from Scientists
On May 20th, President Obama spoke before fresh cadets at the United States Coast Guard Academy Commencement. Along with the typical presidential spiel expressing his gratitude and the seemingly divine importance of being in the US Coast Guard, the President brought up an interesting topic during his speech: climate.
“This brings me to the challenge I want to focus on today — one where our Coast Guardsmen are already on the front lines, and that, perhaps more than any other, will shape your entire careers — and that’s the urgent need to combat and adapt to climate change. As a nation, we face many challenges, including the grave threat of terrorism. And as Americans, we will always do everything in our power to protect our country. Yet even as we meet threats like terrorism, we cannot, and we must not, ignore a peril that can affect generations. Now, I know there are still some folks back in Washington who refuse to admit that climate change is real […] But the best scientists in the world know that climate change is happening. Our analysts in the intelligence community know climate change is happening. Our military leaders — generals and admirals, active duty and retired — know it’s happening. Our homeland security professionals know it is happening. And our coast guard knows it is happening.”
As he continues to stress the importance and audacity of the situation, he notes that climate change could pave the way for terrorist organizations and civil unrest. However, just days after his speech, the CIA decided that it was going to close the doors on the Measurements of Earth Data for Environmental Analysis program, otherwise known as MEDEA.
So what was the purpose of MEDEA? In 1996, ex-CIA director John Deutch explained it in a speech at the World Affairs Council in Los Angeles.
“MEDEA works with the Intelligence Community to establish what we call the “Global Fiducials Program.” Under this initiative, during the next decade we will periodically image selected sites of environmental significance. This will give scientists an ongoing record of changes in the earth that will improve their understanding of environmental processes. More importantly, it will greatly enhance their ability to provide strategic warning of potentially catastrophic threats to the health and welfare of our citizens.”
In other words, MEDEA was a program that scientists relied on to get accurate and classified climate data — and now it is gone. But why?
According to CIA spokesman Ryan Whaylen in a statement to the National Journal, “these project have been completed and CIA will imploy these research results and engage external experts as it continues to evaluate the national security implications of climate change.”
One doesn’t need to be an Obama supporter to recognize that climate change and extreme weather are real concerns and can have detrimental effects on future generations. We need to see it studied and understood further, not have the images that the CIA already has in its possession hidden from climate scientists. But in an act of predictability, the US government has decided to aim its focus on enemies overseas and continue to horde information from the American people.
This article is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to the author and TheAntiMedia.org.
Bill Nye: Climate change played a factor in Texas floods
Published by CNN on May 29, 2015
CNN's Carol Costello talks to Bill Nye, "The Science Guy," about climate change and its impact on the flooding in Texas.
Attorney Hounding Climate Scientists Is Covertly Funded By Coal Industry
By Lee Fang, The Intercept, August 25, 2015
Christopher Horner, an attorney who claims that the earth is cooling, is known within the scientific community for hounding climate change researchers with relentless investigations and public ridicule, often deriding scientists as “communists” and frauds.
Horner is a regular guest on Fox News and CNN, and has been affiliated with a number of think tanks and legal organizations over the last decade. He has called for investigations of climate scientists affiliated with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and NASA, and inundated climate researchers at major universities across the country with records requests that critics say are designed to distract them from their work.
New court documents reveal one source of Horner’s funding: big coal.
This reads like the Onion, only it ain't
Damn, we don't need policy, all we need is this super prez, able to stare down glaciers and make them swoon in fear of his fierce glare.
what a farce
Climate change denier Rupert Murdoch just bought National Geographic, which gives grants to scientists
By Xeni Jardin, Boing Boing, September 9, 2015
The National Geographic magazine has been a nonprofit publication since inception in 1888, but that ends today. The long-running American publication becomes very much for-profit under a $725 million dollar deal announced today with 21st Century Fox, the entertainment company controlled by the family of Rupert Murdoch.
Murdoch is a notorious climate change denier, and his family's Fox media empire is the world's primary source of global warming misinformation. Which would be no big deal here, I guess, were it not for the fact that the National Geographic Society's mission includes giving grants to scientists.
Or had you forgotten? Here's a refresh for you, a fun little interview with Murdoch on his climate change views.
Rupert Murdoch doesn't understand climate change basics, and that's a problem | The Guardian
Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!