The ironic part is that in a few years someone will make a slight upward adjustment to pre-1980 temperature records, and he will post something along the lines of "See? Peer-reviewed science proves climate change isn't as bad as the alarmists are screaming about!" At that time he will support the exact same science that he currently mocks - as long as it supports his political beliefs. He's done this before.
Climate-gate
- Thread starter Photizo
- Start date
Is there a specific quote from that website that you want to discuss?
zgmc
Registered Senior Member
Yeah, that is one of the most ridiculous denier articles yet. NPR science Friday had a good segment about the deniers conference that is going on now, I think.
Science data shows the earth has been both warmer and cooler, than the present. This has occurred many times during earth history, most of which occurred before humans were on earth. On the other hand, Global warming, using human intervention, has no precedent beyond the present data. Over 99% of the precedent of global warming is based on natural happenings without human intervention. What data is favored; 1%?
Even if you assume, for the sake of argument, this current cycle of warming is due to exclusively to man, one data point/cycle does not allow one to draw an accurate extrapolation curve. Rather one point allows one to draw any curve you like. This is why the poles are still ice even though most of the early consensus curves said melted by now. There is no second precedent point, to make this more reliable.
Take a piece of paper and draw one point on the paper, and then draw your best curve through it. Now make 1000 copies of the single point, and have 1000 people draw their best curve, to see what happens. Any curve and claim will fit that one point. If we had two points, and did the same thing, the curves get closer.
Extrapolation curves of unprecedented occurrences, are subjective, due to one fuzzy data point. Even if the fuzzy data comes to a focus (have a good explanation for this unique occurrence), one point is not enough for a reliable extrapolation curve. The older data about the earth doing this, is populated with hundreds of precedent points, yet this is not seen as reliable for extrapolation.
Name me one other area of science where a curve, drawn through one unprecedented data point or occurrence, becomes an automatic dogma? This is not normal in science. I can't think of any other case. On the other hand, this is quite normal in politics. For example, one bad thing; even subjective, can end a political career. One previously unprecedented point of mishap; a racial slur slip, can be manipulated; using a one point subjective curve, so people begin to ignore the preponderance of the data, which was many years of good service; old climate data. Conceptually, one precedent point becoming dogma; top of the data pyramid, is common in politics, but uncommon in science.
Name me any place in science where one occurrence of an unprecedented occurrence is give the status of a dogma and then gets huge resources so the status of the dogma is given the expected fluff? If we saw one star, in the milky way galaxy, explode into the face of President Obama, would any consensus speculation be given instant science dogma status? Would this be enough to invest billions in research. This is not normal, except in politics, where one jolt of positive or negative public opinion is invested in heavily to tap into the wave.
Even if you assume, for the sake of argument, this current cycle of warming is due to exclusively to man, one data point/cycle does not allow one to draw an accurate extrapolation curve. Rather one point allows one to draw any curve you like. This is why the poles are still ice even though most of the early consensus curves said melted by now. There is no second precedent point, to make this more reliable.
Take a piece of paper and draw one point on the paper, and then draw your best curve through it. Now make 1000 copies of the single point, and have 1000 people draw their best curve, to see what happens. Any curve and claim will fit that one point. If we had two points, and did the same thing, the curves get closer.
Extrapolation curves of unprecedented occurrences, are subjective, due to one fuzzy data point. Even if the fuzzy data comes to a focus (have a good explanation for this unique occurrence), one point is not enough for a reliable extrapolation curve. The older data about the earth doing this, is populated with hundreds of precedent points, yet this is not seen as reliable for extrapolation.
Name me one other area of science where a curve, drawn through one unprecedented data point or occurrence, becomes an automatic dogma? This is not normal in science. I can't think of any other case. On the other hand, this is quite normal in politics. For example, one bad thing; even subjective, can end a political career. One previously unprecedented point of mishap; a racial slur slip, can be manipulated; using a one point subjective curve, so people begin to ignore the preponderance of the data, which was many years of good service; old climate data. Conceptually, one precedent point becoming dogma; top of the data pyramid, is common in politics, but uncommon in science.
Name me any place in science where one occurrence of an unprecedented occurrence is give the status of a dogma and then gets huge resources so the status of the dogma is given the expected fluff? If we saw one star, in the milky way galaxy, explode into the face of President Obama, would any consensus speculation be given instant science dogma status? Would this be enough to invest billions in research. This is not normal, except in politics, where one jolt of positive or negative public opinion is invested in heavily to tap into the wave.
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
couple thoughts
During the entire tenure of genus homo, we have been in an ice age. (which we do not know how or why it started, nor how or why it will end--------and when it does end, the earth will return to much warmer climate conditions)
NOAA is part of the department of commerce, whose mission statement:
Mission Statement
The mission of the Department is to create the conditions for economic growth and opportunity.
As part of the Obama administration’s economic team, the Secretary of Commerce serves as the voice of U.S. business within the President’s Cabinet. The Department works with businesses, universities, communities, and the Nation’s workers to promote job creation, economic growth, .... etc...
NOAA "Science" is subservient to economic politics, and if fudging creates jobs and corporate opportunities, then the fudge has served it's purpose.
Does anyone here not like fudge?
During the entire tenure of genus homo, we have been in an ice age. (which we do not know how or why it started, nor how or why it will end--------and when it does end, the earth will return to much warmer climate conditions)
NOAA is part of the department of commerce, whose mission statement:
Mission Statement
The mission of the Department is to create the conditions for economic growth and opportunity.
As part of the Obama administration’s economic team, the Secretary of Commerce serves as the voice of U.S. business within the President’s Cabinet. The Department works with businesses, universities, communities, and the Nation’s workers to promote job creation, economic growth, .... etc...
NOAA "Science" is subservient to economic politics, and if fudging creates jobs and corporate opportunities, then the fudge has served it's purpose.
Does anyone here not like fudge?
Me. I think lying is in the long run counter productive - destroys the agency's credit, and I also think they are smart enough to know that, so they do NOT intentional state false hoods, but certainly can make mistakes.
That is the nice thing about the scientific method - others can check your claims. Unfortunately "economics" is not scientific, so only time passing can check economic claims / predictions.
That's a bit deceptive. We have quite a bit of relevant data and applicable theory, and a pretty good idea of what the major possibilities are for the actual sequence of events.
The major uncertainty about its ending involves the long term influence, if any, of the dramatic CO2 boosting currently causing AGW.
That's more than a bit deceptive. The subservience does not seem to extend to inventing data or corrupting research reports, and the direction of the servile bowing is not obvious (the people accusing NOAA of playing down its description of AGW in the service of major corporate lobbies and interests have the most reasonable and evidence supported case, but that's not the best known accusation).
Time has passed, and certain economic claims can be checked. Keynesian theory has checked out very well, and we can now place some moderate confidence in its claims and recommendations.
I don't think is has ever been truly applied. Yes, many agree with running deficits to stimulate, but few do the other half - run substantial budget surpluses when economy is "booming" - I.e. total of deficits is ALWAYS much greater than the surpluses. It is really, as applied, just a form of "kicking the can down the road" or "goodies now" and "send the bill to the not yet born."
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
As/re:
My:
During the entire tenure of genus homo, we have been in an ice age. (which we do not know how or why it started, nor how or why it will end--------and when it does end, the earth will return to much warmer climate conditions)
Really?
Could you spell it out for those of us who really do not know-----including the involved scientific community.
(from what I've read, it seems that it would be difficult to find consensus among even 2 of the scientist who've opined on the subject.)
Knowing and having an idea of possibilities are 2 very different things.
My:
During the entire tenure of genus homo, we have been in an ice age. (which we do not know how or why it started, nor how or why it will end--------and when it does end, the earth will return to much warmer climate conditions)
Really?
Could you spell it out for those of us who really do not know-----including the involved scientific community.
(from what I've read, it seems that it would be difficult to find consensus among even 2 of the scientist who've opined on the subject.)
Knowing and having an idea of possibilities are 2 very different things.
A consensus as to what exactly happened? Of course not. We don't know what specifically happened, step by step. But that is not at all the same as having no idea what happened, at all.sculptor said:
No, they aren't. Having a good idea of the possibilities is a lot of knowledge.sculptor said:
We have a list of major factors: the Milankovitch cycles, the changes in solar flux, the influence of volcanoes and meteor strikes and fires, the drift of the continents and its effects on ocean circulation, and so forth. We have various data any combination of these factors has to produce - when it happened, the conditions produced, the glaciation cycles produced, and so forth. We know a lot, and this restricts the possibilities.
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
Bottom line = we do not know.
Speculation?
Is there a common causal factor for all of the ice ages which this planet has experienced?
Bottom line is, we know a lot. The possibilities are restricted, significantly.sculptor said:
Much better informed than that.sculptor said:
There is at least one: low concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere during glaciations. That does not make CO2 levels the "cause" - or even the most important factor in any given one.sculptor said:
just to add some "chill" to the thread:
We just went through our coldest few days ( for this time of the Winter season ) in 40 or so years....here in Melbourne.
Of course the general population are thinking that the experienced facts are flying in the face of AGW... (rightly or wrongly it doesn't matter.)
Certainly, to me, what appears to be happening is that the deviations from the global mean are getting more significant however the global mean temp appears to have stabilized some what...(inconclusive)
We just went through our coldest few days ( for this time of the Winter season ) in 40 or so years....here in Melbourne.
Of course the general population are thinking that the experienced facts are flying in the face of AGW... (rightly or wrongly it doesn't matter.)
Certainly, to me, what appears to be happening is that the deviations from the global mean are getting more significant however the global mean temp appears to have stabilized some what...(inconclusive)
Last edited:
When the situation is so confused lying with out much fear of getting caught out is easy.
Maybe there is a vested interest in maintaining AGW confusion?
zgmc
Registered Senior Member
Yes, and its called the Heartland Institute.
If Global Warming is a fiction will some one tell "smokie the bear." He must be sleeping as there are now 17 large forest fires burning in five western states:
Watch some of them (after 10 seconds or so telling how serious and unusual the flooding has become a little further East) with 40 foot flames at this ABC news video:
http://news.yahoo.com/video/california-wildfire-exploding-size-011929301.html
10,000 acres are already burnt over and that is just the start as 59,000 acres are now in flames, one month BEFORE fire season officially starts! (11,000 in California where 6 homes have been destroyed and many more in Alaska, where 26 homes have been lost already.)
The near unity absorption coefficient of their soot is a positive feed back making global warming accelerate, even speeding the melting of Greenland's ice cover as it switches the ice's absorption coefficient from near zero to near unity.
But don't worry:
It is just a statical anomaly. "Global Warming" is not real - just some nonsense put out to decrease oil company profits. And even the pope is part of this scam now!
Watch some of them (after 10 seconds or so telling how serious and unusual the flooding has become a little further East) with 40 foot flames at this ABC news video:
http://news.yahoo.com/video/california-wildfire-exploding-size-011929301.html
10,000 acres are already burnt over and that is just the start as 59,000 acres are now in flames, one month BEFORE fire season officially starts! (11,000 in California where 6 homes have been destroyed and many more in Alaska, where 26 homes have been lost already.)
The near unity absorption coefficient of their soot is a positive feed back making global warming accelerate, even speeding the melting of Greenland's ice cover as it switches the ice's absorption coefficient from near zero to near unity.
But don't worry:
It is just a statical anomaly. "Global Warming" is not real - just some nonsense put out to decrease oil company profits. And even the pope is part of this scam now!
Last edited:
You sound like one of those people who says "we don't know if smoking causes cancer!" because he wants to keep smoking without taking responsibility for his actions.
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
sculptor said: ↑
Bottom line = we do not know.
Not knowing should lead to more study!
Not caring, on the other hand, sux.
And, pretending to knowledge also sux.
What triggered this current ice age? Was(were) the trigger(s?) the same for the previous ice ages?
What triggers periods of glaciation and interglacials within this and/or other ice ages? How does this trigger/these triggers differ for "normal" interglacials, and superinterglacials?
Many have proposed some seemingly good guesses.
Some of which may have veracity.
Not knowing, if one knows that one does not know, is a good beginning.
Don't stop there.
Bottom line = we do not know.
Not knowing should lead to more study!
Not caring, on the other hand, sux.
And, pretending to knowledge also sux.
What triggered this current ice age? Was(were) the trigger(s?) the same for the previous ice ages?
What triggers periods of glaciation and interglacials within this and/or other ice ages? How does this trigger/these triggers differ for "normal" interglacials, and superinterglacials?
Many have proposed some seemingly good guesses.
Some of which may have veracity.
Not knowing, if one knows that one does not know, is a good beginning.
Don't stop there.