Skeptic Arguments and What the Science Says 2

kokonut said:
As for the tree stuff, there are studies that found consistent and statistically significant relationships between growth of the trees and the flux density of galactic cosmic radiation. Not that it's the answer but merely goes to show that this global warming theory (CO2) is certainly not settled science.
Click to expand...
That's the thing. Tree ring growth is apparently a function of many variables, only one of which is temperature. Even though they don't have an understanding of all these variables, they continued to use the data assuming the variables that affected the tree rings after 1960 must not have come into play at any time before 1960. On what could they base that assumption if they didn't really know what was affecting the tree rings? From my experience, if you don't understand one part of the data, you don't just cut it out and use the rest. You show it all with an explanation that some parts are not understood or you don't use it at all until you have a solid understanding. I don't doubt it must be frustrating to try to understand such a complex system, but that's all the more reason to be unbiased and extra rigorous. I doubt any drug could pass FDA scrutiny if it turned out the researchers behaved like these guys.
 
The name of the game is obsfuscation when a Freedom of Information request was routinely denied to obtain climate station data on the premise that such a request would somehow threaten UK international relations.

UK Met Office Refuses to Disclose Station Data Once Again Climate Audit

But a month later after Climategate, station data are released en masse to the public.
Met Office: Land surface climate station records

Already people are looking into this data.
- Bishop Hill blog - Met Officecode
John Graham-Cumming: The Met Office source code

Yet even that, they (bishophill) found a caveat in this data release:

I've made everything but the data and code released by the Met Office semitransparent. As you can see, what we are looking at are intermediates in the preparation of the global temperature index. While this is welcome, the guts of the changes are in the selection of the stations and in the correction of those stations for the plethora of problems with them - urban heat islands, changes in equipment, station moves, changes in observation time and so on.

So while there is a feel of increasing openness, in reality, the shutters are only open the barest crack and it's still not possible to make out what's going on inside.

Meanwhile, even this extremely limited attempt at openness is not all it seems to be. John G-C has been looking at the code and running it against the data he has. What he has found is that prior to 1855 there was no southern hemisphere data and that when you run the Met Office's newly released code, this shows up as a gap in the graph of the average. But there is no such gap in the actual CRUTEM index. John's conclusion is that what we're looking at is not the actual code used in CRUTEM, but something written especially for public consumption. In light of the scorn that many programmers have been pouring on the quality of the coding standards at CRU, this might suggest that the original code was just too awful to make available for public inspection.
Click to expand...
 
Here's a good op-ed from Wall Street Journal.

Good Science, Bad Politics:
'Climategate' reveals a concerted effort to emphasize scientific results useful to a political agenda.

The colleague is a member of the CRU cartel—the influential network of researchers at the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit and their colleagues in the U.S.—whose sanctum was exposed last month when a whistleblower or hacker published e-mails and documents from the CRU server on the Internet. What we can now see is a concerted effort to emphasize scientific results that are useful to a political agenda by blocking papers in the purportedly independent review process and skewing the assessments of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The effort has not been so successful, but trying was bad enough.

We—society and climate researchers—need to discuss now what constitutes "good science." Some think good science is a societal institution that produces results that serve an ideology. Take, for instance, the counsel that then-Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen gave to scientists at a climate change conference in March, as transcribed by Environmental Research Letters: "I would give you the piece of advice, not to provide us with too many moving targets, because it is already a very, very complicated process. And I need your assistance to push this process in the right direction, and in that respect, I need fixed targets and certain figures, and not too many considerations on uncertainty and risk and things like that."

I do not share that view. For me, good science means generating knowledge through a superior method, the scientific method. The merits of a scientifically constructed result do not depend on its utility for any politician's agenda. Indeed, the utility of my results is not my business, and the contextualization of my results should not depend on my personal preferences. It is up to democratic societies to decide how to use or not use my insights and explanations.
Click to expand...
Read more at:
Hans Von Storch: Good Science, Bad Politics - WSJ.com

It's all about politics, control, and to make money using carbon credits rather than subscribe to real science, openness and full transparency. We see none of that with these global warming doomsday attempts.
 
darkdog said:
I haven't read all the emails, but I've read quite a few. Many are boring, routine, and innocuous, but many others are not so much. Which case are you talking about? The "hide the decline" case? I'm more talking about the corruption of the peer review process. Reading the emails, it's clear they feel with absolute certainty that they're right and anyone who doubts them or publishes papers that don't agree with them is wrong, and as such, they're illegitimate scientists and deserve to be marginalized along with any journal that publishes their papers. However, "hide the decline" is a good example too because it's a situation where they truncated tree ring proxy data merely because it didn't back up their message. That's not science.
Click to expand...

Here's 30 years worth of time-line chart that was chronologically organized regarding these now published CRU emails by many researchers. This includes related contextual events. Best to print this out to poster size to see how all of this unfolded.

http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarm...climategate_30_years_in_the_making_banner.pdf
 
kokonut said:
What's important is the *open* and rigorous science, and not about shutting out scientists who have other alternative, even better, theories. Prof. Henrik Svensmark tried to submit his papers 4 times last year to four different journals who rejected his results purely on the basis that the sun and cosmic rays were found to be the major influence on global warming (and cooling) which went against the so-called "settled science." How could journals turn down such detailed work that not only involved real laboratory experiments using a real physical model of our atmosphere and cosmic rays, along with large scale observations at the surface and from space (satellites) to get the results?
Cosmic Ray Decreases Affect Atmospheric Aerosols And Clouds
http://agbjarn.blog.is/users/fa/agbjarn/files/svensmark_bondo.pdf

Dr. Svensmark used all the protocols that science called for and yet zealousness from scientists who are bent to protect "their" CO2 theory, which is already flawed, at any cost rather than allow open and honest debates regarding alternative theories. That's not what science is all about.

Red flags seen in this global warming issue would be to call scientists, real practicing scientists with PhD degrees, as "deniers" or "flat earthers" for coming up with very valid alternative theories. Or that they constantly use and abuse doomsay scenarios continuously over the last several years with the recent one with a little girl hanging onto a tree branch for dear life while water comes rushing in flooding the land, over-dramatizing the whole global warming schtick. That just makes it all the more obvious. And that it isn't about science but politics and control. No wonder the Copenhagen climate summit was a failure. The whole global warming issue reeks of sloppiness.

The Climategate emails allow us to see the mindset of those people who are intent on doing everything they can to protect "their" CO2 theory, even if it means skewing their data, do a little cheating, or shutting out debates.
Click to expand...

Must be frustrating..
 
kokonut said:
As for the tree stuff, there are studies that found consistent and statistically significant relationships between growth of the trees and the flux density of galactic cosmic radiation. Not that it's the answer but merely goes to show that this global warming theory (CO2) is certainly not settled science.
Click to expand...

Right, at least we agree on something. :)
 
darkdog said:
That's the thing. Tree ring growth is apparently a function of many variables, only one of which is temperature. Even though they don't have an understanding of all these variables, they continued to use the data assuming the variables that affected the tree rings after 1960 must not have come into play at any time before 1960. On what could they base that assumption if they didn't really know what was affecting the tree rings? From my experience, if you don't understand one part of the data, you don't just cut it out and use the rest. You show it all with an explanation that some parts are not understood or you don't use it at all until you have a solid understanding. I don't doubt it must be frustrating to try to understand such a complex system, but that's all the more reason to be unbiased and extra rigorous. I doubt any drug could pass FDA scrutiny if it turned out the researchers behaved like these guys.
Click to expand...

Perhaps we should take a IQ test on "they". Sounds like "they" are really stupid people that must have cheated to pass high school :lol:
 
kokonut said:
The name of the game is obsfuscation when a Freedom of Information request was routinely denied to obtain climate station data on the premise that such a request would somehow threaten UK international relations.

UK Met Office Refuses to Disclose Station Data Once Again Climate Audit

But a month later after Climategate, station data are released en masse to the public.
Met Office: Land surface climate station records

Already people are looking into this data.
- Bishop Hill blog - Met Officecode
John Graham-Cumming: The Met Office source code

Yet even that, they (bishophill) found a caveat in this data release:
Click to expand...

I can't see any science here, just one line claims with no content.

From the site:
"Bishop Hill is not a bishop. He's not actually called Hill either. He is an Englishman who lives in rural Scotland."

Candy for deniers perhaps, but useless in climate research.
 
kokonut said:
Here's a good op-ed from Wall Street Journal.

Good Science, Bad Politics:
'Climategate' reveals a concerted effort to emphasize scientific results useful to a political agenda.


Read more at:
Hans Von Storch: Good Science, Bad Politics - WSJ.com

It's all about politics, control, and to make money using carbon credits rather than subscribe to real science, openness and full transparency. We see none of that with these global warming doomsday attempts.
Click to expand...

You need to learn to seperate science from opinions in newspapers and anonymous blogs.
 
kokonut said:
And speaking about melting ice at the North Pole and about how Gore continued with his patented doomsday scenario that ice will be gone in 5 Years (that was 2 years ago and he revised it last week to 5 to 7 years from now ice will disappear) are simply hokey stuff. Why? Well, again it's the gloom and doom scenarios that we're gonna drown in 20 feet of water soon are just more red flags. All one needs to realize is that the Arctic sea ice has always expanded and contracted within the same range with each passing season, even through the warmest period over the last decade.

30 year time lapse movie of Arctic sea ice contracting and expanding with each passing seasons.
Click to expand...

That's denier claim #10. Like all other denier claims, this one also got a major fuckup. Too lazy to comment, but click here to read what science says about that one.

Is Antarctica losing or gaining ice?
 
Won't be much online for x-mas, but the link in first post got replies to most of the denier stuff that is floating around on the net nowdays.

Merry x-mas, and remeber to take care of the environment :)
 
flip said:
That's denier claim #10. Like all other denier claims, this one also got a major fuckup. Too lazy to comment, but click here to read what science says about that one.

Is Antarctica losing or gaining ice?
Click to expand...

Yes, you ARE lazy. I reiterated on what Gore said about the Arctic sea ice....not about the Antarctic....disappearing in 5 years (he said this 2 years ago) and upped to now 5 to 7 years. If the North Pole ice all melted completely it will not even cause the sea level to rise. Just watch the video again spanning 30 years...it contacts...expands...contracts...expands...etc with some years being smaller in size while other years bigger in size in the same season but all within the range of variability.
 
flip said:
Some people have too much free time... :)
Click to expand...

Seeing is believing. Though I didn't do this video...someone else did. Give your thanks to that guy who cobbled all those satellite pictres on the Arctic ice.
 
flip said:
Won't be much online for x-mas, but the link in first post got replies to most of the denier stuff that is floating around on the net nowdays.

Merry x-mas, and remeber to take care of the environment :)
Click to expand...

The problem is the constant whine from doomsayers and global warming screamers (mostly of the hypocrite variety) saying that we're gonna drown and that Earth will turn into one muddy piece of goo if humanity doesn't stop with the carbon spewing. Yeah, sure. Looks like China, India and the rest of the countries aren't in too big of a hurry to save Earth while many of them jet all over the place and rent out gas guzzler limos in the name of their new religious faith called "global warming." That's one big honkin red flag there, folks. And it isn't Santa waving in the wind, either.

Merry CHRISTmas, all.
 
Last edited:
kokonut said:
Yes, you ARE lazy. I reiterated on what Gore said about the Arctic sea ice....not about the Antarctic....disappearing in 5 years (he said this 2 years ago) and upped to now 5 to 7 years. If the North Pole ice all melted completely it will not even cause the sea level to rise. Just watch the video again spanning 30 years...it contacts...expands...contracts...expands...etc with some years being smaller in size while other years bigger in size in the same season but all within the range of variability.
Click to expand...

Gore again.. What about talking some science instead of politics?

My bad, it was not denier claim #10, but #23, easy to find yourself guys. Read and learn.
Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle

What the science says:
"Arctic sea ice has been retreating over the past 30 years. The rate of retreat is accelerating and in fact is exceeding most models' forecasts."
 
flip said:
Won't be much online for x-mas, but the link in first post got replies to most of the denier stuff that is floating around on the net nowdays.

Merry x-mas, and remeber to take care of the environment :)
Click to expand...

Merry Christmas and happy holidays to you too flip. Not sure why the some people had to emphasize on a segment of a word. Have fun with your friends and family today.
 
It is happening and that is what I am looking at. A great source of just plain old news is infopig.com Lots of articles about what is happening over in Greenland.
Interestingly enough industry is pretty excited about the ice melting lots of opportunities for metal extracting and oil well drilling and arctic sea transportation. They are saying bring it on babee! So once again you have the right wing marching for the big business interests. Just like we have scientific indicators of warming and cooling and lots of things we have a sure fire indicator of what the ultra rich exploiters are cutting a fat hog on. Just check out what the right wingers are against. Its science I tell ya!

Merry Christmas all - you to Kokonut.
 
Corporations have a history of hiring scientists to shill for their interests. The tobacco companies had a whole law firm that hid data and information about the negative health effects of tobacco. Unfortunately, there are people who will say almost anything for the right money (i.e., expert witnesses). I believe the scientists who are *not* funded by the corporations. Science funding sucks.
 
Back
Top