Actually, I'd guess that 99% of all theories since the beginning of "science" have eventually been superseded or debunked......
Nothing is more helpful and hurtful to science than time....
Last edited:
Paper; Global Warming "The Biggest Science Scandal Ever"
- Thread starter ValuJet
- Start date
- Status
Nothing is more helpful and hurtful to science than time....
Not ones as sound as this. Not even sure it can still be labeled as a theory anymore. CO2 IS a greenhouse gas.
Well, I'm not aware of anyone disputing the radiation absorbing characteristics of CO2.
The main point was that Carl Sagan>Tyson as Tyson is a grating jerk and Sagan was a dreaming wonder who sparked the imaginations of millions.
That is the scientific process for you. Often early data is misinterpreted.
No sane person has made the argument it is not, but that is not the question.
And one point of science is this: Even the sacred cows of science sometimes get slain. If CO2 were the only gas in the atmosphere and if we understood perfectly all the interactions and domino effects and all the positive and negative feedback mechanisms completely and without error then we'd need no further research or question. The truth is: We aren't that advanced yet in atmospheric sciences. We also have certain biases - and not just those people hold in thought. The Earth has warmed and CO2 has risen. That's all that can be said with 100% certainty as far as the 2 are related to each other. The doomsday scenarios do not rely solely on CO2 to get there. Those scenarios rely on positive feedback mechanisms based on a number of assumptions about processes that remain poorly understood insofar as the total output of the system is concerned. Tweak the feedbacks a little differently and there is very little effect overall and very little to worry about. The past climate forecast models were atrocious. Hopefully this has improved. We will have our proof in time. Time has shown past chicken littles to be...chicken littles.
So why then was there just a discussion on thermometer accuracy in a global warming thread? :conf2:
Completely separate issue, is it not? Except as it pertains to measured temperatures over time. Since we are talking about a small overall warming over decades to hundreds of years then the accuracy of past and present measurements and current proxies meant to measure past temps is pertinent to the question. It has to do with the margin of error and whether past or present measurements fall within the margin of error in regards to the accuracy of those measurements.
Regarding the bolded: Correlation does not equal causation.
You are right, the margin of error in measurements has no bearing at all on the significance of the measured temperature rise, even if the measured rise falls within the margin of error. In fact, I'm not sure why it's ever mentioned in the literature and IPCC papers. All it does is provide fodder for deniers and business special interests, but I am repeating myself there since only crazies and paid-off corporate shills would ever question the validity of the conclusions of a fellow scientist if they are just obviously right about something. Why, questioning this doctrine is heresy! Heresy!, I say.
The margin of error in measurement has a huge impact on whether it is legit or not. Because the margin of error is reduced by advances in technology. If the margin is reduced then the temp fluctuation can be directly tied to better measurement techniques and tools.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/13/opinion/sunday/the-next-genocide.html?ref=opinion&_r=2
Where to start with this one? With the fact that rather than being a science denier that Hitler actually took the heart what the science panickers were saying during his time regarding resources? Including the end of oil and mass starvation due to population outstripping known resources and farming technologies? If anything, Hitler was on the frontlines of the science panic, which proved to be nothing more than a panic. Admittedly, that has no bearing on whether climate change will prove to be a disaster or not, but even though there were some areas where Hitler and crew invented "science" to rationalize their world views, this is one area where he took real scientists' panicked words to heart and in no way was denying what the scientists of the day were saying. He used their words as fuel on the war fires. I therefore deem this author an idiot.
O-kaaaaay....
Where to start with this one? With the fact that rather than being a science denier that Hitler actually took the heart what the science panickers were saying during his time regarding resources? Including the end of oil and mass starvation due to population outstripping known resources and farming technologies? If anything, Hitler was on the frontlines of the science panic, which proved to be nothing more than a panic. Admittedly, that has no bearing on whether climate change will prove to be a disaster or not, but even though there were some areas where Hitler and crew invented "science" to rationalize their world views, this is one area where he took real scientists' panicked words to heart and in no way was denying what the scientists of the day were saying. He used their words as fuel on the war fires. I therefore deem this author an idiot.
I wonder if he rides in a carbon-fueled vehicle when he travels or uses electricity when he writes.
Put these 'warmers' on an island with nothing else and most would not invent the wheel.
Interesting...
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/424875/climate-extremist-taxpayer-funded-ian-tuttle
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/424875/climate-extremist-taxpayer-funded-ian-tuttle
Last edited:
http://globalwarmingsolved.com/data_files/SCC2015_preprint.pdf
I skimmed through a number of sections, but the conclusion is most interesting. I know nothing of the authors or of the site that has republished the study.
I also found their criticism of some other studies' authors' statements to be interesting (toward the beginning).
But then again, we can probably stop researching now as the whole thing is pointless since we have all the answers.
I skimmed through a number of sections, but the conclusion is most interesting. I know nothing of the authors or of the site that has republished the study.
The "debate" will eventually be over. It will be settled by science, not politics. I'm quire sure there are "problems" with the study (as there are in ALL studies of this nature). Their method does seem to produce more accurate modelling of past data, though again that can be influenced by a number of factors.
I also found their criticism of some other studies' authors' statements to be interesting (toward the beginning).
But then again, we can probably stop researching now as the whole thing is pointless since we have all the answers.
Thanks. Looks interesting.
Be aware that Willie Soon's name should raise some red flags since it was revealed that he withheld identification of his funding sources from several journals. That is an absolute pertaining to the professional ethics when working in research. Researches are required to disclose funding sources and are required to disclose potential conflicts of interest when presenting their work for publication.
It is this issue which, ultimately, discredits every bit of his research. Not the results of the research, so maybe his paper has some merit, but his decision to try to keep secret the sources of funding for it.
Be aware that Willie Soon's name should raise some red flags since it was revealed that he withheld identification of his funding sources from several journals. That is an absolute pertaining to the professional ethics when working in research. Researches are required to disclose funding sources and are required to disclose potential conflicts of interest when presenting their work for publication.
It is this issue which, ultimately, discredits every bit of his research. Not the results of the research, so maybe his paper has some merit, but his decision to try to keep secret the sources of funding for it.
Interesting information, but I'm more interested in the accuracy of the research than I am Mr. Soon. I do have an inkling of how research ethics work, believe it or not. There is a difference between an oversight and a deliberate hiding of conflicts - not that either is good - and I don't know the details of what you are talking about (and don't care much to hear it. I posted something I found interesting. You and I aren't going to solve this here and debating audub was not the point of posting it as much as getting the information into the conversation on the issue). I will say this is an area that needs more research, not less; and it's a shame that some try to politicize the research itself (wanting to avoid certain research, findings, or conclusions for a political reason) as has openly occurred. That also discredits a researcher. So we have people on both sides who may have discredited themselves. What of the research then? Is it all discredited because of some undisclosed funding or politicizing the research? Do you look at those things on your side with the same intensity and effort as you do those who come to a conclusion different than your own? I don't know any of these people. I want them all to be ethical. Obviously, not all are. At the end of the day what matters more is the accuracy and meaning of the research. So is the research total bunk? Or is it accurate? Or do we just stop at finding fault in whomever we disagree with while ignoring lapses of similar magnitudes of potential bias in those we do agree with? Ethics should be across the board, not just for your opposition. But every single time there is any paper mentioned with a dissenter's view, you attack the credibility of the researcher. I'm sure it's probably fair to do so if there is an issue. What's not fair is not applying the same test of bias for those whose research you like. Because ultimately that's what ethics tries to do: keep personal bias out. Funding definitely raises the question of bias, more so if not disclosed. But so does a political agenda. This field seems to be replete with egos and biases and agendas. I wish I could say that is unusual for the field, but it's most likely not. It sure seems that way sometimes though.
ETA: Let me go a step further: If you are not applying the same test of bias to those on "your side", then you aren't serious about ethics - you are serious about being a fanboi of someone or something. A person or an agenda. The truth is not the goal - being right is - even if you are wrong. If I saw any consistency then there would be no issue. The inconsistency makes it obvious.
Last edited:
Maybe so, but it's not who funded the studies, it's his decision not to disclose it.
I agree completely. The source of the funding never should completely invalidate findings whether a giant oil company with interests in keeping a business, or giant government programs with interests in keeping the program and research going. However, I have no problem with someone applying a level of skepticism to the findings of one or the other. When they try to hide the source it increases that skepticism by an order of magnitude.
I didn't say it was a reflection on the accuracy of Dr. Soon's work. That's to rightly be evaluated by other researchers in the relevant fields.
If you did, you'd realize why what Dr. Soon did is such a big no no, and it was far too pervasive to be an oversight. There are memos revealing his correspondence with these companies throughout and revealed him referring to his work as "deliverables." If that doesn't scream "conflict of interest!" I don't know what does. But, again, it's not the conflict or the sources of his funding that discredits his research, it's his decision to hide them.
In this case. That doesn't say anything about his actual conclusions, per se. Again, the merits of his conclusions will be debated by the experts in the relevant fields.
This is a major ethical violation that he commited. Keep that in mind.
I would react the same way if, say, Michael Mann were to have a paper commissioned by Greenpeace or Solyndra but didn't feel the need to disclose that little fact.
That's the reason these ethical standards are in place. Bias is inevitable. The best you can do is be as open and honest about your potential biases as possible, something Dr. Soon failed at woefully.
If you're going to level that accusation, let's see some evidence to back it up.
Last edited:
- Status
Latest threads
-
Maybe aTm's Pockets Aren't So Bottomless After All -- Layoffs In The Athletic Department
- Started by 4Q Basket Case
- Replies: 4
-
Time to un-vacate 2005-2007 on field victories and un-forfeit the 1993 season?
- Started by CmdrThor
- Replies: 16
-
-
-
SIAP there was an article that Joe K interviewed for assistant coach
- Started by mlingerfelt31
- Replies: 11
-
Final Home Midweek for Alabama Brings Samford to The Joe- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0