Climate-gate

[Quantum Quack]

The power and money to be gained, and losses to be avoided, by seeing to that.

There are entire media networks, with TV stations and internet operations and radio hosts and newspapers, paid to damage the credibility of science. The money is not wasted.

Do you think Big Oil for example, would conspire to damage science credibility if it believed that AGW and climate change was a credible threat to their future operations?
For example:
If the stock markets took a massive hit due to investor loss of confidence, due to significant climate change events Big Oil and ilk have no money any way. In other words it is only through investor confidence that they have any value at all.. yes?
What is puzzling is why Big Oil and ilk, do not find the science credible?

Credible enough to ensure their survival by adapting to the new playing field. - renewable energy etc...
It makes no sense when you realize that the future value of money (company stock) is tenuous to say the least.

 

[iceaura]

Do you think Big Oil for example, would conspire to damage science credibility if it believed that AGW and climate change was a credible threat to their future operations?

Of course. Why would you doubt that for a second?

I also think the executives and engineers at Big Oil companies are capable of serious degrees of self-deception when their status and incomes are on the line. That pattern is so common as to be essentially a rule of thumb: We've seen it in tobacco, automobiles, nuclear power, industrial food modifications, industrial agriculture, chemical engineering, a very long list.

What is puzzling is why Big Oil and ilk, do not find the science credible?

It's not puzzling at all. It's a standard and established pattern of corporate culture and large bureaucracies generally, isolated and named (by John Gall, in his book "Systemantics") "Systems Delusion", but well known to people with Liberal Arts educations since Shakespeare if not centuries before.

The usual reference is to Upton Sinclair, in this quote: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."

 

[billvon]

Why do you think climate science has a problem with credibility in the public's therefore various government(s) perception? ( if any)

Because very powerful forces are at work trying to deny that climate change is happening. For example, a recent Florida law forbids any Florida official from discussing climate change.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

Why do you think climate science has a problem with credibility in the public's therefore various government(s) perception? ( if any)

@QUACK
really?

climate SCIENCE doesn't have a problem with credibility at all... it is the political, religious and conspiracy deniers who flock to it and intentionally try to obfuscate the science (for whatever reason, be it a paycheck or a delusional belief) as well as create the impression of "lack of credibility" that have the problem!
I thought i made that clear above

IOW - it is the people who are ignorant (or intentionally misrepresenting it, which is actually stupidity) that intentionally try to posit that there is some kind of credibility issue that have the problem because they do NOT have a firm grasp of the science, physics, issues or more...

If you truly believe that the science has no credibility then you are a part of the problem
you are either a follower with no ability to discern the reality of the science or you are intentionally causing the problem for another reason

and it is likely because you do not understand the science and have chosen to accept a political, religious, conspiratorial or other pseudoscience viewpoint over the science that is presented... that is your problem, not the science

you should read this: http://www.plosone.org/article/fetc....1371/journal.pone.0075637&representation=PDF

i will point out again, because you seemed to have missed it
When you choose to deny the science that is proven, observed, validated as well as demonstrated, predicted and more... then you are simply denying reality for your own pre-decided reasons: whatever they may be

I will say it again:
When someone is willing to completely ignore the overwhelming scientific evidence of something just because it doesn't jibe with their political, religious or other (pseudoscience, faith, name it) set of beliefs, then that person is denying reality.

so, if you think that there is even a debate: you are denying reality and science
if you think there is a credibility issue, then you are either transferring your personal inadequacies or the issues of the denier camp onto the valid proven science, you are being paid to obfuscate the issue OR you are following the lead of someone who is


THERE IS A SOLUTION!
if you are saying that the science is wrong, then you should prove it!
use the scientific method to prove that the studies are wrong -
better yet, show how the math, observations, information collected or anything else is wrong

in fact, if you believe that there is a "credibility issue" and you had the ability to actually prove it... there would be a huge impact upon the climate science and it would make you a household name because the big oil/industry supporting the intentional obfuscation of actual science would insure that you were promoted into the public limelight for it

but my point about the science is very simple as well as easily proven:
IF you had proof there was a credibility issue and
IF you had proof that there was ANY problem with the science
THEN you would be able to see the effects by watching the studies and journals and they would show retractions, deletions, corrections as well as impact the scientific community and the scientists working in it

and we see NO impact, corrections, retractions or deletions etc
(don't even bring up the worldwide conspiracy thing again... that is delusional thinking and not logical at all, considering)

so - above is a simple and very effective way of proving that you are pushing a personal issue that is based upon some other fallacy, be it conspiracy, religion, political or any other pseudoscience (or anything else) that you may have
it is NOT about the science

that is basic logic, for anyone

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

What is puzzling is why Big Oil and ilk, do not find the science credible?

not really... they have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo
they want to make the most profits in the least amount of time and make their funding sources happy as well...

it is all about the $$ for them... and accepting climate science now would mean research $$, money spent in fixing the problem, altering the infrastructure as well as pouring $$ into alternate energy sources and services
it is almost like the writing on the wall for them and they are trying to get all the money they can by creating an issue out of thin air

it is also a means for some people to cling to the obfuscation and assign some power, legitimacy or try to validate their own personal beliefs because they take solace or comfort... or support, when they see others of a like mind also denying something

This is a repeat of historical problems
it is the cigarette science all over again

The usual reference is to Upton Sinclair, in this quote: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."

I love this quote!
it is very cogent!
applies to the situation very nicely... thanks Iceaura

 

[Photizo]

Because very powerful forces are at work trying to deny that climate change is happening. For example, a recent Florida law forbids any Florida official from discussing climate change.

No. Very powerful forces are trying way too hard to try and get people to believe something that has not been proven beyond doubt. What's not true is not the observable phenomena that everyone experiences (the weather), it is the interpretation of it given by those powerful forces that people do not believe. They expect people to fall in line/lockstep with them after bombarding them with 'facts', 'models', and other sundry 'scientific' mumbo jumbo...but, luckily for mankind, the common people's bull$#&@ meters tell them it's nothing more than a snow job. So, because they can't get people to fall in line, they worm their way into the schools brainwashing/indoctrinating innocent kids with all manner of fear tactics, turning them unquestioning automatons--they very antithesis of education.
A pox on their house!

 

[billvon]

No. Very powerful forces are trying way too hard to try and get people to believe something that has not been proven beyond doubt.[ What's not true is not the observable phenomena that everyone experiences (the weather), it is the interpretation of it given by those powerful forces that people do not believe. They expect people to fall in line/lockstep with them after bombarding them with 'facts' . . . . .

Whereas you bombard people with lies. I prefer the approach science takes.

So, because they can't get people to fall in line, they worm their way into the schools brainwashing/indoctrinating innocent kids with all manner of fear tactics, turning them unquestioning automatons--they very antithesis of education.

Did you know that Florida just outlawed the discussion of climate change by Florida officials? Looks like someone is doing the brainwashing/indoctrinating - and it ain't climate scientists. Most recently, it's the republican government of Florida. They want to deny the right to discuss the issue, because they know that if people speak freely about it, they will lose.

 

[Photizo]

Did you know that Florida just outlawed the discussion of climate change by Florida officials? Looks like someone is doing the brainwashing/indoctrinating - and it ain't climate scientists. Most recently, it's the republican government of Florida. They want to deny the right to discuss the issue, because they know that if people speak freely about it, they will lose.

Yes, and I can honestly say I agree with you with respect to disliking what has transpired there.

 

[sculptor]

Because very powerful forces are at work trying to deny that climate change is happening. For example, a recent Florida law forbids any Florida official from discussing climate change.

A bit of an overstatement there billvon.

No such law exists.

 

[milkweed]

A bit of an overstatement there billvon.

No such law exists.

But sculptor, that wouldnt fit the purpose here. Its Always Worse than we thought... lol

The FCIR reports that four former employees with the department confirmed the ban, saying that it had been verbally communicated statewide. One of them said that staffers were warned that using the terms would garner “unwanted attention to their projects.”

Spokeswomen for the department and the governor’s office told the FCIR that the ban didn’t exist.

It may seem harsh and invasive for an employer to exert such control of their workers’ speech, but it’s also very likely legal. And, in fact, Florida’s alleged move is rather similar to a rule that Boston’s mayor recently instituted that kept city employees from bashing the city’s bid for the 2024 Olympics.

This is all a reminder, Summers says, that in their professional capacity, “public employees are one class of citizens who don’t get full benefit of the First Amendment.”

http://fortune.com/2015/03/09/florida-free-speech-workers-rights-climate-change/

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

Very powerful forces are trying way too hard to try and get people to believe something that has not been proven beyond doubt.

i'm sorry... there is absolutely no empirical evidence anywhere that this might be even slightly true...
again, the power of the scientific method is it's ability to be replicated, demonstrated and then applied to observation for explanation...
there is far more truth in the scientific method than in conjecture about a situation from ignorance
when you say

What's not true is not the observable phenomena that everyone experiences (the weather), it is the interpretation of it given by those powerful forces that people do not believe.

then what you are trying to do is apply some special conspiratorial disbelief that is personal to YOU and then say that is all encompassing
when in reality is is simply your inability to comprehend the science and the scientific method as well as your predetermined set of beliefs that will not allow you to be open to science or explanations.
This is the same thing as the argument that creationists give against the Earth age, or against mutations and evolution. it is NOT about the science, it s about your refusal to accept the science or the methodology which reduces the bias for a clear, concise repeatable solution that is outside the boundaries of your "acceptable" belief parameters.

They expect people to fall in line/lockstep with them after bombarding them with 'facts', 'models', and other sundry 'scientific' mumbo jumbo...but, luckily for mankind, the common people's bull$#&@ meters tell them it's nothing more than a snow job.

Wrong again: this is a simple thing
the whole reason that the common people (especially in the USA) do not accept the science is because far, FAR too many people are scientifically illiterate... so your assumption

So, because they can't get people to fall in line, they worm their way into the schools brainwashing/indoctrinating innocent kids with all manner of fear tactics, turning them unquestioning automatons--they very antithesis of education.
A pox on their house!

this is simply your fear of being outed as ignorant (or stupid depending on your level of education and whether or not you've been taught the basics of science and are willing to accept the truth - ignorance is cured by teaching... stupidity has no cure)

SO ... you are simply pushing for ignorance when you say that teaching children the scientific method is a bad thing...

It also points a glaringly large finger at your own ignorance (or choice of stupidity) and makes you out to be a disturbed person because for some reason you do NOT want children to learn how to think critically... learn actual logical steps to science... learn the truth and reality of the world... or learn how to examine and research things to find the truth (or the background that will lead them to the truth).

When you stated your "pox" BS... that is the words of a person who has made up their mind to intentionally refuse reality or accept the scientific method... and that is NOT ignorance...

 

[sculptor]

eschew hyperbole
To some of us it just looks like a lie....A distortion by knaves to make trap for fools.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

eschew hyperbole
To some of us it just looks like a lie....A distortion by knaves to make trap for fools.

i prefer the phrase "Eschew Obfuscation"

 

[sculptor]

I ask again if anyone here knows of one single climate model that has been proven accurate.

Is there any climate model which would have predicted the superinterglacials like mis11?
Mis 31?
Mis 49?
Mis 55?
etc...

Anyone?

I've found none, and yet many seem to believe that the climate has been modeled accurately.
Darned curious, that!

 

[milkweed]

I ask again if anyone here knows of one single climate model that has been proven accurate.
Anyone?

I've found none, and yet many seem to believe that the climate has been modeled accurately.
Darned curious, that!

Well you probably wont get that kind of an answer from a believer in ccc/agw

As luck would have it, Judith Curry put up a very well written post on Climate Sensitivity and is well worth the read. But to point you in the direction you ask:

There is one climate model that falls within the range of the observational estimates: INMCM4 (Russian). I have not looked at this model, but on a previous thread RonC makes the following comments.

Curious about what makes this model different from the others, I consulted several comparative surveys of CMIP5 models. There appear to be 3 features of INMCM4 that differentiate it from the others.

1.INMCM4 has the lowest CO2 forcing response at 4.1K for 4XCO2. That is 37% lower than multi-model mean

2.INMCM4 has by far the highest climate system inertia: Deep ocean heat capacity in INMCM4 is 317 W yr m22 K-1, 200% of the mean (which excluded INMCM4 because it was such an outlier)

3.INMCM4 exactly matches observed atmospheric H2O content in lower troposphere (215 hPa), and is biased low above that. Most others are biased high.

So the model that most closely reproduces the temperature history has high inertia from ocean heat capacities, low forcing from CO2 and less water for feedback.

http://judithcurry.com/2015/03/23/climate-sensitivity-lopping-off-the-fat-tail/#more-17241

 

[Photizo]

you do NOT want children to learn how to think critically... learn actual logical steps to science... learn the truth and reality of the world... or learn how to examine and research things to find the truth (or the background that will lead them to the truth).

This is precisely the opposite of what I desire...your twisting of my words/intent suggests to me you're hack...this only steels my resolve/skepticism toward the party line on climate change.

refuse reality or accept the scientific method

Nonsense. You're describing those dishonest scum (the betrayers of the true science/scientific method) destroying the planet with their experiments gone awry and subsequently trying to cover their tracks foisting myths upon the general populace. Sorry, pal. Those individuals will be giving an account for the mess they've made.

 

[Quantum Quack]

@Truck and others,
Context:
Years ago in the mid 80's my wife and I were blessed with our second child.

Ozone depletion:

Here in Australia prior to this time (mid 80's) one of our main cultural identifiers was our worship of the sun, our delight in taking in our wonderful beaches and our suntanned skins. The age of the bronzed Aussie were over. To say that we feared not for sun light, would be correct, however due to the scientific irresponsibility in the use of CFC's for refrigeration and other ozone layer damaging gasses we, the common people, were suddenly informed that the sun was to be feared as intense radiation with accompanying Skin cancers was now the state of affairs.
Bronzed Aussie no more.

Fear of solar radiation infected our beaches our schools and just about every part of our society.
Sure we took it on the chin just like the rest of the world did but we never forget that science has betrayed it's trust and has thus lost enormous credibility. ( it failed to properly consider the ramifications of it's science)

Evidence of veracity given by the huge increasing in Skin Cancers and subsequent death and social trauma.

For me personally at the time , looking down at my new born child, I was devastated knowing that she, I and the rest of my family would spend the rest of our lives avoiding direct sunlight with out sun screen or other sun blocking paraphernalia. That what used to be our friend and ally was transformed due to science and social greed into our enemy and one to be feared and avoided.

Now we are told by the same science that science has managed to lead the human race in to a state of AGW or ACC due to over use in the science of fossil fuel use etc and we as a common people have to seriously modify our addictions to scientifically generated self destructive technologies. ( even the current ICE (drug) pandemic effecting our teenagers in particular, is further testimony of a science gone insane )

You see, science has a serious credibility issue, Why? Because it pretends to be God (controller of our universe) and lets us all down in the process. It is still pretending to be God and frankly science has, unfortunately, proved itself incompetent and corrupted by it's perceived power.

OK end of rant!

Ozone depletion is only one issue, potential global nuclear catastrophe at Fukushima is one of many others.

Do you think people are stupid enough to not silently judge science on it's record?


How is it possible for the common person to have faith and trust in our leading scientists if all we seem to do is collectively shoot ourselves in the foot?

How is science going to rebuild it's credibility within enough time for we humans to save ourselves?

Give the betrayal of trust that most people must be feeling I doubt that science has the capacity to re-earn the trust necessary for it to be effective in communicating it's dire message.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

This is precisely the opposite of what I desire...your twisting of my words/intent suggests to me you're hack...this only steels my resolve/skepticism toward the party line on climate change.

I am not twisting your words... i am using your words to make a point about the scientific method

First off, read this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[2] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[3] The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."[4]

So, taking the definition of the scientific method into consideration and your quote ...in your own words

... they worm their way into the schools brainwashing/indoctrinating innocent kids with all manner of fear tactics, turning them unquestioning automatons--they very antithesis of education.

Then i am assuming, based upon your direct quote, that you are:
1- unable to comprehend the scientific method
2- not capable of understanding that the science being taught in school (via the above method) is not brainwashing/indoctrination but actual, PROVABLE facts (which is also, of course a direct refute of your assertions that "Very powerful forces are trying way too hard to try and get people to believe something that has not been proven beyond doubt" )
3- you think teaching it to children is some kind of ritualistic means of cult brainwashing because you are a conspiracy theorist (given and demonstrated by your posts) and that you are likely incapable of comprehending the science
4- you do NOT believe in the science even though the studies are mostly free and available for you to view and research for yourself (and a great many that are not free will be released to the public within a year of publication because of the scientifically illiterate public)

So you can't say it is not what you desire when your own words speak against you, especially considering that you are so dead set against the scientific method...
and you are dead set because you do NOT understand it
and that is provable with your own words in your posts above (and in the past few pages!)
ANYONE who see's the preponderance of scientific evidence and then says "Very powerful forces are trying way too hard to try and get people to believe something that has not been proven beyond doubt" has demonstrated a complete LACK of understanding for the scientific method

Nonsense. You're describing those dishonest scum (the betrayers of the true science/scientific method) destroying the planet with their experiments gone awry and subsequently trying to cover their tracks foisting myths upon the general populace. Sorry, pal. Those individuals will be giving an account for the mess they've made.

Well then, you should be able to link, post and reference those studies that are, in your words "betrayers of the true science/scientific method"
You can link them here..
but i can guarantee you that you will NOT be able to link the bulk of the studies supporting climate change

IF you had a single lick of evidence supporting your assertions, you would have been made a household name!
the denier camp would have promoted you in every country around the world as the one man who proved AGW wrong! and you would be worldwide famous!

so, simple logic says:
No retracted studies
No changed studies
You are not a famous scientist being touted as the one who finally broke the "worldwide conspiracy"

therefore, you are trolling and trying to substantiate your delusions and conspiracy and prove your baseless assertions re: science, the scientific method and AGW/Climate change

 

[Quantum Quack]

Nonsense. You're describing those dishonest scum (the betrayers of the true science/scientific method) destroying the planet with their experiments gone awry and subsequently trying to cover their tracks foisting myths upon the general populace. Sorry, pal. Those individuals will be giving an account for the mess they've made.

I actually agree with this. well said, if not a tad over heated.
There is nothing wrong with the scientific method. It is only those who "cherry pick" in it's use and fail to consider the ramifications properly that are the problem.

@ Truck, you mentioned that one must get back to the science to find the truth. NO, I say, one must get back to the observations to find the truth as the science itself is unproven and corruptible, but the real and true observations are.

 

[Quantum Quack]

@ Truck,
Simple question...

Why should the worlds common folk trust science?


(Conflated:
the Indigenous of Australia had lived in (brutal) harmony with the land for over 50,000 years and would have gone on doing so if not interfered with. Where as so called civilized scientific man has managed to stuff it up in less than 2000 years)