Climate-gate

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

( it failed to properly consider the ramifications of it's science)

@Quack
first of all... personal conjecture is NOT equivalent to scientific evidence, studies or provable empirical data
Second: anecdotal anything is also NOT equivalent... so when you post

For me personally at the time

then you are posting anecdotal evidence

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

This is because of the Ozone depletion, correct?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion

( even the current ICE (drug) pandemic effecting our teenagers in particular, is further testimony of a science gone insane )

your refusal to accept the evidence is NOT the problem of SCIENCE... it is your own personal problem
it is your own conspiratorial problem coupled with your religion and inability to see or accept reality
again, NOT science
YOU

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.

and i will point out again: 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]

The failure to accept the SCIENCE gathered by the scientific method is entirely YOURS...

there is NO credibility issue with SCIENCE...
it is all your own internal problem (which can be explained here: http://www.plosone.org/article/fetc....1371/journal.pone.0075637&representation=PDF )

It is not about a failure of science... it is about a failure of PEOPLE... or POLITICS, or even of the general public because far too many people are scientifically illiterate... and it is a HUGE problem with RELIGION... but it is NOT a problem of science!

And i can prove it is your internal problem with your own words... here:

Because it pretends to be God (controller of our universe) and lets us all down in the process.

this indicates that you are unable to comprehend the science and put stock in to certain people, places, sites, blogs, sources of information that are not credible at all, and you are not able to differentiate between the science and reality and the beliefs of your own sources (which are passed on to you for some reason or another)

Therefore, it is perfectly obvious that you are ignoring the actual science and accepting perhaps someone claiming to be an expert
I have said this before, i will say it again:
There is NO substitute for the science

the only thing required to be an expert is to claim to be one (unless we are talking about a court case and expert witnesses, then there is a cross examination to establish credibility and this can be fatal to anyone not capable enough to present a logical methodical argument or empirical evidence... that is why the creationist movement is fighting in the USA.. . because the court recognized there is NO science in its movement, even when they attached the word science to its movement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLean_v._Arkansas )

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

anyone judging the science should be able to differentiate between conjecture and science first... so the judgement should be completely in favor of science for anyone thinking or reviewing objectively (see the definition of the scientific method again)

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?

the "shooting in the foot" being done is NOT from them
Science is... it is not evil or good, it simply is
only the people and the politics can assign some morality to what it does or doesn't do...
so again...
your problem is NOT with the science... it is with the PEOPLE... politics, etc etc etc

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

already answered
you are confusing the science with the politics, religion and other aspects of the PEOPLE who are promoting one method over another
that is NOT science... that is something else entirely and is NOT subject to control by science or scientists
Scientists research or find information or results
what is done with it is from PEOPLE... politics, religion, pseudoscience, conspiracy theorists... and more

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.

the betrayal you feel is for your own misplaced beliefs as well as your own inability tom comprehend the situation

re-read what i said
you say science is not trustworthy... but that means that you have NO idea what you are talking about and have NO idea what the scientific method is
(already demonstrated above)
the credibility problem lies with those willing to interpret the science and results in a manner that is biased and for their own nefarious purposes...
and politicians have been doing that for EONS (imagine that)so your problem is there... not the science

when you assign a morality to science, it shows your ignorance
it is like saying a bear that eats a puppy is evil (no, it is hungry and the puppy is an easy meal... and there are other factors involved too)
there is no morality in killing for food (we do it all the time)
it is not evil
it is not anything but what it is... the problem comes when people try to ASSIGN or attach some delusional belief to it (evil/good, etc)
that is the realm of religion, philosophy and pseudoscience

back to the issue
Science has NO credibility issues
it simply IS
it is the people who intentionally misuse it, misinterpret it (See: http://phys.org/news/2013-12-koch-brothers-reveals-funders-climate.html and the attached study)
it is the politicians trying to gain favor by sitting a fence, or creating a debate when there IS NONE
THAT is evil
that is where the morality problem comes from

SCIENCE IS OBJECTIVE and usually as free from BIAS as you can get

@ 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 but the real and true observations are.

and again... this just demonstrates that you are ignorant of the scientific method and attempting to humanize and assign morality to something because of your own personal fear, inability to be objective, delusions, religion or whatever else that you've assigned to be priority to everything else

I suggest opening your mind to reality
start here at my school: http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm
Maybe you will learn why science is so important to defining reality objectively without the bias of religions, politics and all that other BS baggage humans carry

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

Why should the worlds common folk trust science?

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]

There is only one way to remove the bias of the human delusional baggage we carry... the scientific method


just because YOU don't understand it doesn't mean it is a bad thing

 

[Quantum Quack]

It is not about a failure of science... it is about a failure of PEOPLE... or POLITICS, or even of the general public because far too many people are scientifically illiterate... and it is a HUGE problem with RELIGION... but it is NOT a problem of science!

but Truck science IS people, they are human, they are political, they are blinded by their own egos.

I doubt that you can show me one scientist that isn't human... (silly jibe)
Of course when science differentiates itself from mainstream society it takes on it's own religious dogma..


With out wisdom the use of the scientific method is insane.

 

[billvon]

A bit of an overstatement there billvon.

No such law exists.

=====================
Fla. scientist told to remove words ‘climate change’ from study on climate change
By Terrence McCoy
March 10 2015
WaPo

By late January of this year, Elizabeth Radke figured she was pretty much done with Florida. She had already graduated from the University of Florida, where she had gotten her PhD in epidemiology. She had moved from the Sunshine State to the Washington area, where she took a job at Arlington County’s public health department. And a paper from her time there, which looked at how climate change in Florida had affected ciguatera — a commonly reported marine food-borne illness — was getting closer to publication.

But then, on Jan. 27, a message popped into her inbox. Subject: “Paper Review.” And Radke realized she wasn’t through with Florida yet. . . .

. . . . Before publication, their study needed clearance from the Health Department in Tallahassee. So Sharon Watkins, chief of the department’s Bureau of Epidemiology, marked up the paper, homing in on the phrase “climate change.” It was used four times in the 27-page paper, according to a copy provided to The Post. Each one was underlined.

“Come talk to me,” Watkins wrote in the margins in an apparent reference to the first use of the term “climate change.”

“Let’s discuss over the phone soon,” wrote Radke’s co-author, whom Radke asked The Post not to identify for fear of retribution. The conversations that came next, Radke said, were over the phone. Her co-author, she said, told her they had to expunge the term “climate change” from the paper, per Watkins’s directive.

“We had to submit the paper to the state Department of Health for clearance, and one of the comments we got back was that we couldn’t use that phrase,” Radke said Monday evening in an interview. She said she wasn’t sure if they could even get away with using the word “climate.” She was aware of times the state had rejected it.

And indeed, in e-mails Radke shared with The Post, she wondered about that very issue. If her paper couldn’t use the term “climate change,” what could they use? Was “climate” off the table? A fellow researcher, she wrote in a message with the subject “climate language,” suggested “‘long term climate variability.’ Will that fly or is the word ‘climate’ a no go?”

Hours later, she wrote another e-mail. “It will be fine either way. I just went through the paper and there are only a handful of mentions.”
======================

 

[Quantum Quack]

Example of the problem:
Using the scientific method determine the reality of "energy".
Define "energy" in a consistent manner?
Demonstrate using the scientific method that energy can exist independently of Matter ( mass)

Currently I believe, this is impossible!

Yet science believes with out question that energy can indeed exist independently of Matter (mass)
Demonstrate the reality of your faith in the application of the scientific method.
Perhaps another thread would be in order.. (take the above as rhetorical)

 

[Quantum Quack]

your refusal to accept the evidence is NOT the problem of SCIENCE... it is your own personal problem
it is your own conspiratorial problem coupled with your religion and inability to see or accept reality
again, NOT science
YOU

Oh, I accept the evidence of scientific incompetence quite readily...plenty of evidence for that... see ..anecdotal observations regarding Ozone depletion...

After all who would have thought CFC's could do that? (glib)

 

[sculptor]

OK
A little research
Go to the Florida department of environmental protection website and search for "climate change"
and
you will see 532 results
then search "global warming"
and
you will see
254 results
.....................
The thought that the state is somehow censoring those terms is complete lunacy.

What we do not know, is the text of the things wherefore the recommendation of the deletion of those terms was advised.

If I were to write a paper on comparative values of insulation materials, and took off on a global warming rant, I would hope that a level headed person would recommend deleting the rant.
....................
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/mainpage/default.htm
Florida Department of Environmental Protection

The Florida Department of Environmental Protection, the lead agency for environmental management and stewardship, is one of the more diverse agencies in state government - protecting our air, water and land. DEP is divided into three primary areas: Regulatory Programs, Land and Recreation, and Water Policy and Ecosystem Restoration.
.............
Why do people accept stray comments from unknown sources and assume a greater "conspiracy", and then never actually look behind the curtain before claiming broad "facts".

 

[Billy T]

... After all who would have thought CFC's could do that? (glib)

The answer is: Paul Crutzen.

In 1974, Crutzen was looking for other* possible human sources of potential damage to the ozone, particularly that of chlorine-based compounds such as pesticides, when he received a draft of a scientific paper. The paper was on the potential destructive effects of chlorofluoromethanes on the ozone layer and was written by Frank S. Rowland, a chemistry professor at the University of California at Irvine and his Mexican postdoctoral associate, Mario J. Molina. Immediately he developed a model of the potential ozone depletion resulting from continued use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), mostly used in aerosol spray cans and as refrigerants or cleaners. The results were frightening: up to 40% of ozone would be depleted at the 1974 rate.

* Many years earlier, Paul had noted that NOx was destroying ozone some. He had only to make minor mods to his early model to learn what an ozone killer CFCs were as CFCs could do the destruction catalytically - not self destruct in the reaction. Paul got Noble Prize in 1995 (Chemistry). His life story is chance driven and interesting. Read small part here: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1995/crutzen-bio.html
Paul may have been, probably was, world's foremost atmospheric chemistry expert in cira 1990. All owe him a lot.

 

[Quantum Quack]

The answer is: Paul Crutzen.

better late than never I guess...
It is only recently that science has been looking at the consequences (bigger picture) of it's discoveries. IMO So there is hope yet... I guess...

 

[iceaura]

As luck would have it, Judith Curry put up a very well written post on Climate Sensitivity and is well worth the read

Still using that source? Slow learner.

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?

The bullshit you are soaking in is coming from dedicated media operations financed by corporate interests with political agendas. Why are you blaming "science" for the misrepresentations and lies and propaganda operations of non-scientists?

Is Michael Mann, for prominent example, supposed to be able to keep the Murdoch press and Roger Ailes media empire from lying about him and his research? How would he go about doing that?

 

[Quantum Quack]

Many years earlier, Paul had noted that NOx was destroying ozone some. He had only to make minor mods to his early model to learn what an ozone killer CFCs were as CFCs could do the destruction catalytically - not self destruct in the reaction. Paul got Noble Prize in 1995 (Chemistry) His life story is chance driven and interesting. Read small part here: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1995/crutzen-bio.html He may have been world's foremost atmospheric chemistry expert in cira 1990.

So why do you think Crutzen had enough credibility for the world to go though a massive CFC clean up operation?
I am sure others would have checked his conclusions etc. that clearly showed the veracity of his claim.
If we can discover why he was successful in provoking major global change, we may be able to discover why the inverse appears to be happening today regards CH4 and CO2 emissions.

*BTW it is impressive to note just how much damage CFC's and associated products managed to do in such a short time ( for 30 odd years prior to Crutzen's contribution and subsequent start of the clean up.)

 

[Photizo]

science IS people, they are human, they are political, they are blinded by their own egos.

I said as much in the early days of this thread. Science is hamstrung by definition. The methodologies are easily hijacked/exploited/twisted or conveniently ignored by those doing the science which actually isn't science at that point but rather some sort of socio-political 'alchemy' steeped in deception and lies.

a tad over heated.

I suppose.

Then i am assuming

Assume all you want. Your long winded diatribes do nothing but expose you as a hack. What I have said, I have said concisely and to the point. You think that all your rambling merits credibility. Wrong. "When words are many, transgression is not lacking"... i.e. precisely the opposite.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

but Truck science IS people, they are human, they are political, they are blinded by their own egos.

I doubt that you can show me one scientist that isn't human... (silly jibe)
Of course when science differentiates itself from mainstream society it takes on it's own religious dogma..


With out wisdom the use of the scientific method is insane.

@Quack
No, science may be run by people, observed by people, or even utilized by people, but it is not people

science is the evidence, observation, experimentation and empirical data that is gleaned from careful observation, experimentation etc and from hard work and the attempt to remove bias (hence, it is the results of the scientific method in use)

Science cannot "differentiate" itself from mainstream society... only "scientists" can do that
And there is no "religious dogma" attached to science... for a simple and powerful reason
again, it comes back to the scientific method (i don't think i really need to re-post the link and definition, do i?)

might i point out that you are trying to anthropomorphize the evidence collected
you are attributing human characteristics to something that cannot be human, nor even have a life of its own
(the "awareness" that some might claim is akin to the religious "god" that no one can define, prove or in any other way logically support the existence of)
So... again, do not attribute human characteristics and failings to inanimate evidence

and making the comment about religious dogma reinforces what i was saying above about your lack of knowledge regarding the scientific method
Here is a short video from Dr. Tyson that explains WHY science is so powerful, the scientific method is so powerful, and the self correction of the method is so wide and far reaching (in time and space)

So although you jibe with "show me one scientist that isn't human" it again reinforces the fact that you do NOT understand science or the scientific method
you are anthropomorphizing and attempting to create something that doesn't exist

scientific evidence will exist whether there are humans there to observe it or not, just like the sun rises in the east every morning whether you are there to watch it or not... and that is SCIENCE because it has been proven, repeatedly, and until it is refuted, it stands as empirical evidence of things like earth rotation, the fusion in the sun, the effect our star has upon the earth, and so much more

and the method is there as a logical and strict means to regulate and differentiate between actual science and pseudoscience
it is also there to remove as much human bias as possible to get answers that are independent of our thought process as well as motivations
AND THAT is where you (again) keep making your mistake!

You are still assuming that the politicians, so-called experts, media and other people are somehow the defining characteristic of science
they are not... they only USE science
they abuse science
they malign it, obfuscate it, hide it, mistreat it, ignore it, lie about it, try to cheat it, get paid because of it... but they are NOT SCIENCE

and your last point in that post is irrelevant:
do not confuse wisdom with intelligence, because they are a little different
Children are natural users of the scientific method until most adults and other influences drum it out of them... mostly by forcing them to suspend logic and believe in something that doesn't exist, from religions (the worst culprit) to conspiracy and the bias/prejudices of the parental figures around the child. no child is immune from this and every parent will pass on a bias/prejudice to a child... and prejudice is never logical

SO again, do not confuse the issue and keep pounding the pavement about that which you absolutely do not understand
I suggested taking some courses at my school above: http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm
I really think you should consider doing just that
especially a hard science
That will teach you faster than anything else the power and capability of the scientific method

i've been taking both hard and some softer science there (like psych)... the one thing i learned real fast is that before you can discuss an issue, you must first be aware of what the issue is.
and until you can come to grips with the illogical anthropomorphizing of science and the scientific method and start to realize that it is inanimate and simply a means to find evidence that is the strongest or most assured, logical and most likely to exist or happen, etc that you can get, you will continue to be stuck in the rut thinking that somehow you were betrayed by it... and all it really is in this case is ignorance.
Ignorance can be cured by education.
That is why schools are trying to teach the scientific method and the facts obtained by it, and critical thinking skills ... and not how to be a better baptist/muslim/buddhist/etc

the shortcomings of your position are clear
you are coming from the position of a preconceived notion regarding science and it's uses that is fallacious and illogical
until you can reconcile yourself with reality, you will never understand or be able to accept reality around you

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

 

[billvon]

The thought that the state is somehow censoring those terms is complete lunacy.

===========================
A state employee for Florida is punished for saying climate change
Posted 11:00 AM, March 23, 2015, by Web Staff
CW39 NewsFix

TALLAHASSEE, FL – The mere mention of climate change in Florida didn`t just rile some people up, it allegedly got a state employee disciplined. For weeks, rumors have been swirling that Florida governor Rick Scott put a ban on the phrase “climate change.”

Telling state workers the topic, along with “sea-level rise”, were off-limits and to pretend they simply don`t exist. Governor Scott, of course, vigorously denies he ever implemented such a gag order.

All this brings us to Barton Bibler, a longtime employee of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and he says his boss sent him a letter of reprimand and ordered him to take a two-day leave after he discussed climate change at an official state meeting.

Not only that, but he was told he couldn`t return to work without first getting medical clearance. As you can imagine, people are pretty baffled by this whole thing.
======================
Rick Scott's 'Climate Change' Ban Extended to Lots of Florida Agencies
March 12, 2015
Governing

Florida’s unofficial policy of keeping environmental officials from using terms like “climate change” and “global warming” in their work was reportedly extended to other state agencies. In the past few days, employees from Florida’s transportation, health and water agencies have approached reporters to confirm that they, too, were pressured to drop any references to the man-made phenomenon in official communications.

The Florida Center for Investigative Reporting (FCIR) first reported Sunday that Gov. Rick Scott’s administration ordered employees in the state’s Department of Environmental Protection, as well as DEP contractors and volunteers, to eliminate references to climate change and its effects in agency reports and discussions. Scott’s office and a DEP spokeswoman have repeatedly denied that such a policy exists. The governor this week told reporters: “It’s not true.”

But since the report was published, employees from the DEP and other state agencies have started reaching out to the FCIR team to confirm the Scott administration’s unofficial ban on mentions of climate change.

Bill Taylor, a former assistant district manager in the Florida Department of Transportation’s office in Fort Lauderdale, said he was told not to use certain environmental references during a meeting of district managers, FCIR reported this week. A former employee at the South Florida Water Management District said “it was widely known” among employees that terms like “climate change” and “global warming” couldn’t go into official reports. “They just wouldn’t make it through the editing process,” the source said.
========================
Fla. Gov. Scott Denies 'Climate Change' Is A Banned Term
March 11, 2015 5:02 AM ET
Morning Edition
TRANSCRIPT -2 min 4 sec
STEVE INSKEEP, HOST:

In Florida, independent scientists confirm that under Republican Governor Rick Scott, state agencies have been pressured to avoid using the phrase climate change. Florida's governor will not say whether he believes climate change is real. But he denies that he banned the term. NPR's Greg Allen reports.

GREG ALLEN, BYLINE: Nicole Hernandez-Hammer said she learned of the Scott administration's aversion to the phrase climate change firsthand. She was assistant director of climate change research at Florida Atlantic University, working on a study on preparing the state's transportation infrastructure for sea level rise. . . .

Christopher Byrd is a former attorney with Florida's Department of Environmental Protection. He says it began shortly after Rick Scott was elected governor.

CHRISTOPHER BYRD: I recall a staff meeting where my superiors told us that if we knew what was good for us, we would not use those terms.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

I said as much in the early days of this thread. Science is hamstrung by definition. The methodologies are easily hijacked/exploited/twisted or conveniently ignored by those doing the science which actually isn't science at that point but rather some sort of socio-political 'alchemy' steeped in deception and lies.



I suppose.



Assume all you want. Your long winded diatribes do nothing but expose you as a hack. What I have said, I have said concisely and to the point. You think that all your rambling merits credibility. Wrong. "When words are many, transgression is not lacking"... i.e. precisely the opposite.

@Photizo
ok
at this point, i've tried to be nice
you are simply being an idiot... that is your prerogative

but it is mine to ignore stupidity and report trolling

i will make this point short and sweet:
you have provided absolutely NO evidence or anything equivalent to a scientific study supporting your position, your delusions, or your conjectures.

until you do, you are simply posting personal conjecture without evidence and crying because you are being labeled a crackpot and troll

 

[Photizo]

I'm not crying about anything, pal. You're crying because someone's not paying homage to your 'god'. You go do what you think you have to do.

 

[Quantum Quack]

@Quack
No, science may be run by people, observed by people, or even utilized by people, but it is not people

science is the evidence, observation, experimentation and empirical data that is gleaned from careful observation, experimentation etc and from hard work and the attempt to remove bias (hence, it is the results of the scientific method in use)

Science is also asking the right questions and looking at the evidence observed as objectively as possible ( thus subjectively). It takes a human to ask the right questions. If humans do not ask the right questions then the science is useless.
So ... what effects the quality of the questions asked?
Hubris perhaps? Politics perhaps? Vested financial interests perhaps?
The quality of the science is thus determined by that hubris. ( especially indoctrination and blind faith and belief )

Science cannot "differentiate" itself from mainstream society... only "scientists" can do that
And there is no "religious dogma" attached to science... for a simple and powerful reason
again, it comes back to the scientific method

Are you sure?
You claim that science has no credibility problem yet this entire thread and countless others are just about that...credibility.
If the scientific method was able to operate in a vacuum free of human input I might agree with you.

might i point out that you are trying to anthropomorphize the evidence collected

Of course I am as it takes a human being to subjectively interpret the objective data collected and the observations observed. (philosophy 101)

you are attributing human characteristics to something that cannot be human, nor even have a life of its own
(the "awareness" that some might claim is akin to the religious "god" that no one can define, prove or in any other way logically support the existence of)
So... again, do not attribute human characteristics and failings to inanimate evidence

The evidence you talk about is immediately anthropogenized as soon it is interpreted by those who may or may not be qualified to do so.
Do you deny this?

and making the comment about religious dogma reinforces what i was saying above about your lack of knowledge regarding the scientific method

agrees... however to qualify my position better I would suggest that you take a hard look at the limitations of the scientific method and thus free yourself of it's dogma. The limitation is always the human hubris behind it's use. It is also limited to that which can be predicted thus potentially controlled thus granting the scientist God like ambitions regarding influence over that which the method allows us to predict.

Anthropogenic caused Climate Change ( if we agree with it's anthropogenic nature) we are experiencing is unprecedented and therefore essentially unpredictable. ( except in a broad anecdotal sense )

Here is a short video from Dr. Tyson that explains WHY science is so powerful, the scientific method is so powerful, and the self correction of the method is so wide and far reaching (in time and space)

Overly simplistic, and lacking in any real substance IMO other wise quite entertaining.
Science is not powerful in itself nor is knowledge. They are merely tools that allow us to beat each other over the head with in an overly competitive scientific environment. ( As witnessed in today's confusion over the integrity of science regarding climate change.)

Also when Francis Bacon coined the creed "Knowledge is power" he failed to mentioned that one must Trust that knowledge before he can be empowered by it. Trust therefore is the real power and not science , not the scientific method nor the knowledge we think we glean by it's use but Trust. (credibility)

As demonstrated by Governments around the world it is this issue of trust that is causing most of the problem hence my questions about how science can regain the trust it has lost due to "it's overly competitive nature" and zeal at discrediting any one who asks the right questions. ( the questions that the competitor failed to ask)

So although you jibe with "show me one scientist that isn't human" it again reinforces the fact that you do NOT understand science or the scientific method
you are anthropomorphizing and attempting to create something that doesn't exist

hee hee the irony in this statement...it sounds bit like blaming climate change "entirely" on human activity doesn't it.

Take a look out yonder at the very recent and dramatic changes in "climate" on the various planets of our solar system and go ask the right questions...

scientific evidence will exist whether there are humans there to observe it or not, just like the sun rises in the east every morning whether you are there to watch it or not... and that is SCIENCE because it has been proven, repeatedly, and until it is refuted, it stands as empirical evidence of things like earth rotation, the fusion in the sun, the effect our star has upon the earth, and so much more

You forget that not too long ago Earth was the center of the universe (Geocentrism) waiting to be disproved. ( "The fire of the Inquisition was hot" Galilei was heard to yell!)

and the method is there as a logical and strict means to regulate and differentiate between actual science and pseudoscience

agrees!

it is also there to remove as much human bias as possible to get answers that are independent of our thought process as well as motivations
AND THAT is where you (again) keep making your mistake!

and your mistake is presuming I am making it... but by all means empower me with your presumptions.

You are still assuming that the politicians, so-called experts, media and other people are somehow the defining characteristic of science
they are not... they only USE science
they abuse science
they malign it, obfuscate it, hide it, mistreat it, ignore it, lie about it, try to cheat it, get paid because of it... but they are NOT SCIENCE

maybe not but they are the end user of the product of science. You know ...the ones who grant value to the science it may or may not trust.

and your last point in that post is irrelevant:
do not confuse wisdom with intelligence, because they are a little different
Children are natural users of the scientific method until most adults and other influences drum it out of them... mostly by forcing them to suspend logic and believe in something that doesn't exist, from religions (the worst culprit) to conspiracy and the bias/prejudices of the parental figures around the child. no child is immune from this and every parent will pass on a bias/prejudice to a child... and prejudice is never logical

I didn't mention intelligence... you did.

I mentioned science and or the use of scientific method and stated that "with out wisdom the scientific method is insane".

For it takes wisdom to ask the right questions!
And the first bit of wisdom needed is to realize the egocentric human fallibility factor. (Pride)

SO again, do not confuse the issue and keep pounding the pavement about that which you absolutely do not understand

support that claim as a true scientist would and I might listen to you.
quote "about that which you absolutely do not understand"

The term absolutely is a very big word don't you know.

I suggested taking some courses at my school above: http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm
I really think you should consider doing just that
especially a hard science
That will teach you faster than anything else the power and capability of the scientific method

Ahh Now we are talking...
Talking about "Pride".

Twice now you have linked to MIT and mentioned your studentship there.

"Do not underestimate how powerful the hubris of pride can be in generating the ultimate humiliation." ~anon
​

*pauses.. takes a breath or two...
==============

Look, Truck... If I were to take your word for it, and you are in fact enrolled at MIT ...congratulations!
It is one of the better places to study I believe.
I also wish you luck as it is up to you and your generation to fix all the stuff ups we older folk have made of this planet. Sincerely, I reckon you are in for a really hard time as the challenges you face are utterly enormous.

The keys are however aged old ones...

1. "Know the problem",
2. "Ask the right questions",
   
3. "Find the right solutions.

You CAN do it. the human races future depends on you and your generation to get it right.
But never forget the nature of the human market you are attempting to support.


May be one day you can earn the Trust needed to make a difference.

 

[iceaura]

If we can discover why he was successful in provoking major global change, we may be able to discover why the inverse appears to be happening today regards CH4 and CO2 emissions.

The chemical engineering firms had developed substitutes - more, not less, profitable - before they admitted the problem or signed on to the changes.

The carbon stuff is going to cost them a lot of money.

 

[Quantum Quack]

The chemical engineering firms had developed substitutes - more, not less, profitable - before they admitted the problem or signed on to the changes.

The carbon stuff is going to cost them a lot of money.

If they managed to work out how to make good money by bottling CO2 I bet we wouldn't be having this discussion... [chuckle]
example: CO2 powered cars that produced oxygen emissions. now wouldn't that be a hoot

 

[Quantum Quack]

Washington post reports:
Headline:
Global warming is now slowing down the circulation of the oceans — with potentially dire consequences.

Access to the web site is not possible (currently).. any one got more info?