Paper; Global Warming "The Biggest Science Scandal Ever"

NationalTitles17

Super Moderator
May 25, 2003
17,015
6,340
253
Mountainous Northern California
The subject is climate change, no? There is a lot of misinformation out there - and it's not just one-sided.

It's a very complex subject. Trying to distill multiple facets into one post is stupid unless your position happens to be "it's a conspiracy!" or you have too much time on your hands.

True.

As for that site, not impressed, once again. Clearly a spin.

Why am I not surprised? The fact that Taylor misinterpreted the study is just that. 100% fact. Again, duly noted how sources fail your ideological purity test regardless of how correct they are.

I have repeated the fact that I am not impressed by majorities or consensus. I am not impressed with your sources. In particular, that source states this:

Climate Science Watch is a nonprofit public interest education and advocacy project dedicated to holding public officials accountable for using climate research effectively and with integrity in dealing with the challenge of global climate disruption.


They arrive with a predetermined viewpoint and advocate that viewpoint. That's fine, but not convincing.

And clearly an ad hominem attack on the oil and gas ties without mention of government grant ties of other scientists or of the concerted effort to keep skeptical articles from peer-reviewed publications.

I don't think you know what an ad hominem attack is.

Attacking the person as opposed to their argument, as in "they get money from the oil and gas industry" with the implication being" they are dirty lying people". See this comment:
The APEGA survey is noteworthy for its exposure of the disparity between the views of engineers and geoscientists employed by petroleum companies, vs. the rest of the community of actively publishing climate and earth scientists. Denialism increased still further among the top-level oil and gas engineers. Although the cause behind this trend is unclear, it shows at the very least a correlation between ties to oil and gas and climate denial views. In no way does it undermine the strong agreement among publishing scientists that human-caused global warming is real and a problem.


There is a blatant disregard to objective principles. Use of the term "denialism" is an attack on the person, not the argument. The term plainly states that people are denying reality and has also been used to link "climate change deniers" to holocaust deniers. It is used to undermine credibility and attack the people, not the science.

So, if you want to talk global warming it's really simple - prove that it's anthropogenic since you want to spend trillions of dollars fixing the problem. Prove the models spelling gloom and doom are accurate. It's not my burden to prove a negative. That's just not possible. I know the Earth has warmed in recent times. I know it was very cold recently as well, with "The Little Ice age" and even a "Year Without a Summer".

Prove the models are right? LOL. Pick out a specific model or graph and let's go over it. No model will ever be 100% percent accurate. It's a model after all.

But, again, they have been more accurate than you seem to realize:




150 years of predictions? pffft. How old is the Earth again? Do the models follow our temp proxies from at least the past few hundred to few thousand years? Speaking of, why just include the past 150 years in most climate graphs? Can we see the graphs with the Roman and Medieval Warm periods and the Little Ice Age we happen to be coming out of?

So what is Earth's "normal" temperature and what has been man's direct impact on that? Remember always that correlation does not equal causation.


There is no "normal" temperature. There are periods of equilibrium, but the climate has and always will react to whatever forcings are acting upon it. We're currently the dominant one.

We are far from being the "dominant" source of forcings. Are our GHG emissions enough to nudge temps upward a tick? Possibly, but 30 billion tons of CO2 is a small amount compared to nature's input. Again, it might be enough to nudge things, but let's be real. The same goes for most other GHG's, and those having the most effect are almost entirely nature driven. CO2 has a rate of diminishing returns in regards to temperature and the models I have looked at in the past which predicted wild temp fluctuations largely relied on a positive feedback mechanism regarding water vapor to get there. They didn't pan out. Neither have the wild predictions of some of the frontmen for the climate change crowd.

Remember also that attacking the skeptical messenger does not prove your point. At all. Not even a little.

So pointing out something is wrong and explaining why constitutes an attack? OK.

No. ​See above regarding use of certain terms and implying that industry ties are the cause of their views. Do I think it's good to know potential biases? Yes. Is calling someone a "denier" living in "denialism" an attack on them? I think so. It's certainly not based in the science and is meant to do nothing more than impugn their character and intelligence.
ditto
I am actually open on the issue. The evidence for catastrophe has been lacking in my view. I'd like to see a shift toward renewables when it makes sense economically - and it eventually will. It makes no sense to me to artificially raise prices on energy and thereby cause immediate and real harm to literally billions of people across the globe when past dire predictions have not come true and there is no evidence that future changes will cause such dire circumstances. Imagine if there were focused effort on solar panels that were more efficient and capturing wave energy and wind and making that affordable instead of all the money and time spent on calling people deniers when they oppose spending trillions to make a miniscule difference. Not to mention the effect on the poor of the world, who have the most to lose by forcing a scheme that punishes energy use with draconian economic measures. These are the people who would benefit most from expansion of energy availability and therefore have perhaps the most to lose. So I am as pragmatic in my approach as I am skeptical. And my skepticism does not mean I am entrenched and unmoveable. But shouting down opposing voices does nothing to advance science or humanity.
 
Last edited:

BamaInBham

All-American
Feb 14, 2007
3,416
10
48
I am actually open on the issue. The evidence for catastrophe has been lacking in my view. I'd like to see a shift toward renewables when it makes sense economically - and it eventually will. It makes no sense to me to artificially raise prices on energy and thereby cause immediate and real harm to literally billions of people across the globe when past dire predictions have not come true and there is no evidence that future changes will cause such dire circumstances. Imagine if there were focused effort on solar panels that were more efficient and capturing wave energy and wind and making that affordable instead of all the money and time spent on calling people deniers when they oppose spending trillions to make a miniscule difference. Not to mention the effect on the poor of the world, who have the most to lose by forcing a scheme that punishes energy use with draconian economic measures. These are the people who would benefit most from expansion of energy availability and therefore have perhaps the most to lose. So I am as pragmatic in my approach as I am skeptical. And my skepticism does not mean I am entrenched and unmoveable. But shouting down opposing voices does nothing to advance science or humanity.
Very well said.
 

uafan4life

Hall of Fame
Mar 30, 2001
10,276
229
78
39
Florence, AL
I love how people post images like this:



...while claiming that it shows how "accurate" the models are. The problem is that both the summary conclusions and the pretty graphs used alongside them don't actually present the raw data but rather "adjusted" data. You see, when the models' raw data doesn't agree with the past, the data is "adjusted" for other factors which either aren't accounted for in the models or for which adequate historical data does not exist. And then, instead of including these "adjustments" in their published results as such and including them in their margin of error, they present the adjusted results as if that's what the model spit out.

Then, of course, when applying these models to current data in order to make future predictions the assumptions are made that 1) the "other factors" for which the models did not account that affected historical predictions will not affect future predictions in a similar manner and 2) that their assumptions regarding the factors for which adequate historical data did not exist that affected historical predictions are correct with no baseline comparison.

The truth - if you actually look at the raw data instead of the pretty pictures - is that the actual, average margin of error in these models, when used to "predict" the past, is greater than the predicted future temperature variations by more than a factor of ten.

From a statistical perspective that's not much better than playing darts, blindfolded.


The "scientific consensus" on man-made climate change may in fact be correct. However, manipulated science is not truly science.


I know I've mentioned this before - and this really affects no one's perspective but mine - but I've seen a number of firsthand issues with the "scientific consensus". A good friend of mine is a research scientist for the USDA whose team serves as one of the primary data collection and analysis teams for NOAA. He's had his name listed on over a dozen published studies - at least six directly by NOAA and two which were directly referenced by IPCC publications - dealing with climate change.

He's currently writing a book about the behind-the-scenes process of climate change studies and predictions which, once published, will be a real eye-opener. Of course, he's not going to publish it as long as his livelihood is dependent upon keeping his job. :) I'm quite certain he wasn't supposed to do this but he showed me the raw data and preliminary study reports for two of the studies his team did for NOAA. In both cases, the "studies" NOAA released looked significantly different than what his team had submitted. In fact, on one of the studies, NOAA inexplicably omitted over a third of the raw data they had collected from their published version of the study, including drawing their conclusions from only the data they chose to include. As a result, a study went from showing "no correlation" for a particular anthropogenic factor when the research team submitted their results to showing "a strong correlation" when NOAA published it.
 
Last edited:

Tide1986

Suspended
Nov 22, 2008
15,670
0
0
Birmingham, AL
Yet we are expected to increase dramatically and artificially the cost of energy through taxation and regulation even though our energy system (predominantly founded on fossil fuels) has been a major factor in producing the greatest standard of living and lowest rates of poverty in human history.
 
Last edited:

AUDub

Hall of Fame
I have repeated the fact that I am not impressed by majorities or consensus. I am not impressed with your sources. In particular, that source states this:

Climate Science Watch is a nonprofit public interest education and advocacy project dedicated to holding public officials accountable for using climate research effectively and with integrity in dealing with the challenge of global climate disruption.

They arrive with a predetermined viewpoint and advocate that viewpoint. That's fine, but not convincing.
I don't care if you're impressed with my sources or not. There is factual information there that you elected to dismiss out of hand because the source failed your ideological purity test. i.e. genetic fallacy.

Attacking the person as opposed to their argument, as in "they get money from the oil and gas industry" with the implication being" they are dirty lying people". See this comment:
The APEGA survey is noteworthy for its exposure of the disparity between the views of engineers and geoscientists employed by petroleum companies, vs. the rest of the community of actively publishing climate and earth scientists. Denialism increased still further among the top-level oil and gas engineers. Although the cause behind this trend is unclear, it shows at the very least a correlation between ties to oil and gas and climate denial views. In no way does it undermine the strong agreement among publishing scientists that human-caused global warming is real and a problem.

There is a blatant disregard to objective principles. Use of the term "denialism" is an attack on the person, not the argument. The term plainly states that people are denying reality and has also been used to link "climate change deniers" to holocaust deniers. It is used to undermine credibility and attack the people, not the science.
If you did know, then you would realize that this is not an example of an argumentum ad hominem. Here it is in it's most basic form:

A makes claim X
There is something objectionable about A
Therefore X is false

This:

"The APEGA survey is noteworthy for its exposure of the disparity between the views of engineers and geoscientists employed by petroleum companies, vs. the rest of the community of actively publishing climate and earth scientists. Denialism increased still further among the top-level oil and gas engineers. Although the cause behind this trend is unclear, it shows at the very least a correlation between ties to oil and gas and climate denial views. In no way does it undermine the strong agreement among publishing scientists that human-caused global warming is real and a problem."

is blunt statement of fact.

Do you know the definition of denialism?

150 years of predictions? pffft. How old is the Earth again? Do the models follow our temp proxies from at least the past few hundred to few thousand years? Speaking of, why just include the past 150 years in most climate graphs? Can we see the graphs with the Roman and Medieval Warm periods and the Little Ice Age we happen to be coming out of?
In this case, the graph is present the instrumental temperature record. That's why the x-axis only goes as far back as 1850.

Of course, you can go back further using proxy reconstructions, but these will be less precise by nature:


Just look at the range of uncertainty the further back you go!

We are far from being the "dominant" source of forcings. Are our GHG emissions enough to nudge temps upward a tick? Possibly, but 30 billion tons of CO2 is a small amount compared to nature's input. Again, it might be enough to nudge things, but let's be real.
Ridiculous.

The same goes for most other GHG's, and those having the most effect are almost entirely nature driven. CO2 has a rate of diminishing returns in regards to temperature and the models I have looked at in the past which predicted wild temp fluctuations largely relied on a positive feedback mechanism regarding water vapor to get there. They didn't pan out. Neither have the wild predictions of some of the frontmen for the climate change crowd.
Name examples. Let's see those models.

No. ​See above regarding use of certain terms and implying that industry ties are the cause of their views. Do I think it's good to know potential biases? Yes. Is calling someone a "denier" living in "denialism" an attack on them? I think so. It's certainly not based in the science and is meant to do nothing more than impugn their character and intelligence.
Duly noted. Go look up the definition of denialist. Hopefully your sophistry will become obvious to you.
 

AUDub

Hall of Fame
...while claiming that it shows how "accurate" the models are. The problem is that both the summary conclusions and the pretty graphs used alongside them don't actually present the raw data but rather "adjusted" data. You see, when the models' raw data doesn't agree with the past, the data is "adjusted" for other factors which either aren't accounted for in the models or for which adequate historical data does not exist. And then, instead of including these "adjustments" in their published results as such and including them in their margin of error, they present the adjusted results as if that's what the model spit out.

Then, of course, when applying these models to current data in order to make future predictions the assumptions are made that 1) the "other factors" for which the models did not account that affected historical predictions will not affect future predictions in a similar manner and 2) that their assumptions regarding the factors for which adequate historical data did not exist that affected historical predictions are correct with no baseline comparison.

The truth - if you actually look at the raw data instead of the pretty pictures - is that the actual, average margin of error in these models, when used to "predict" the past, is greater than the predicted future temperature variations by more than a factor of ten.

From a statistical perspective that's not much better than playing darts, blindfolded.


The "scientific consensus" on man-made climate change may in fact be correct. However, manipulated science is not truly science.


I know I've mentioned this before - and this really affects no one's perspective but mine - but I've seen a number of firsthand issues with the "scientific consensus". A good friend of mine is a research scientist for the USDA whose team serves as one of the primary data collection and analysis teams for NOAA. He's had his name listed on over a dozen published studies - at least six directly by NOAA and two which were directly referenced by IPCC publications - dealing with climate change.

He's currently writing a book about the behind-the-scenes process of climate change studies and predictions which, once published, will be a real eye-opener. Of course, he's not going to publish it as long as his livelihood is dependent upon keeping his job. :) I'm quite certain he wasn't supposed to do this but he showed me the raw data and preliminary study reports for two of the studies his team did for NOAA. In both cases, the "studies" NOAA released looked significantly different than what his team had submitted. In fact, on one of the studies, NOAA inexplicably omitted over a third of the raw data they had collected from their published version of the study, including drawing their conclusions from only the data they chose to include. As a result, a study went from showing "no correlation" for a particular anthropogenic factor when the research team submitted their results to showing "a strong correlation" when NOAA published it.
Horse hockey. Any adjustments are well documented and the justification is soundly presented. If you have a problem with a particular reconstruction or adjustment, debate it in the scientific literature where these debates are supposed to take place.

And you should do a little research. There's more money to be made in the denialist camp than there is in academia.

Read this.

Just ask Willie Soon, who sold his Harvard associated soul for a million dollars over the course of a decade.
 

Tide1986

Suspended
Nov 22, 2008
15,670
0
0
Birmingham, AL
Horse hockey. Any adjustments are well documented and the justification is soundly presented. If you have a problem with a particular reconstruction or adjustment, debate it in the scientific literature where these debates are supposed to take place.

And you should do a little research. There's more money to be made in the denialist camp than there is in academia.

Read this.

Just ask Willie Soon, who sold his Harvard associated soul for a million dollars over the course of a decade.
I read the following somewhere recently, which might be helpful in contextualizing the above-quoted post:

A makes claim X
There is something objectionable about A
Therefore X is false
 
Last edited:

AUDub

Hall of Fame
I read the following somewhere recently, which might be helpful in contextualizing the above-quoted post:
I didn't say anything about whether he was correct or not. That is rightfully evaluated by other scientists who are experts in that area of research. He did call his papers "deliverables,"though. That should raise some red flags.

But, that Soon took funding from fossil fuel interests and failed to disclose these funds to the journals that published his research, a big no-no in academia, is a fact. This is an absolute pertaining to professional ethics in the world of research.



To quote my friend Rex back at AUFamily, who happens to publish research pretty routinely.

"It is this issue which, ultimately, discredits every bit of his research. Not the results of the research, but his decision to try to keep secret the sources of funding for it. Now, because he is discredited, all his research has been discredited as well. Because of his serious ethics violation, all of his publications will be retracted by the publishers and basically erased from the overall research base pertaining to climate science."
 
Last edited:

CajunCrimson

Hall of Fame
Mar 13, 2001
19,373
1,492
173
Breaux Bridge, La
Has anyone considered that if we can find a way to lower the temperature of the planet......that we can actually do more harm to the planet?

For those that truly believe in evolution and adaptation....should really be afraid of having us artificially and intentionally alter what is naturally occurring.....

And "yes" we are a part of nature, evolution and adaptation....

We work so hard at saving a species from extinction -- who is to say it's not supposed to go extinct..... and perhaps that by saving species, plants, and generating overpopulation of things like deer, feral hogs, gators, and sharks....do more damage to the environment....

We are so full of ourselves and our "meaning" on the planet.....it's amazing...

the planet has survived for billions of years without us and with us -- yet, we think that we have the power to break it.......
 
Last edited:

CajunCrimson

Hall of Fame
Mar 13, 2001
19,373
1,492
173
Breaux Bridge, La
Can I change directions for a second?

Let's say there is Global Warming.....and you can do whatever you want to do to fix it. You have the power to do anything you need to do to fix it.

What would you do?
How long will it take to make an impact?
How would you implement your new policies?
 

uafan4life

Hall of Fame
Mar 30, 2001
10,276
229
78
39
Florence, AL
Horse hockey. Any adjustments are well documented and the justification is soundly presented. If you have a problem with a particular reconstruction or adjustment, debate it in the scientific literature where these debates are supposed to take place.

And you should do a little research. There's more money to be made in the denialist camp than there is in academia.

Read this.

Just ask Willie Soon, who sold his Harvard associated soul for a million dollars over the course of a decade.

I'm fairly certain I've done more research on the subject than you have. I'm not sure from where your "money" came, as I gave no indication of anyone's motive. Perhaps reading comprehension isn't your thing? :)

And I know, for a fact, that all of these adjustments are not "well documented and the justification is soundly presented".


Even for those that are, simple math is your friend. It makes zero difference how justifiable an adjustment is; it is still an adjustment. Even so, you might want to check even the published margins of error for most of these models when used to predict historical results for the past ≈50 years. When using those margins of error for the predictions for the next ≈50 years, having a net temperature drop equal to what most of the models predict the increase will be is within the average margin of error. That's not exactly conclusive.


Believing that we currently have both the understanding and adequate data to conclusively prove the current popular theory regarding anthropogenic climate change is nothing short of arrogance - and no less arrogant than those that believe that it's a world-wide conspiracy started by Al Gore. At this point, it's very simply a theory - a guess - to which a decent amount of evidence may point and to which many people agree. It may very well be a correct guess but it is a guess nonetheless.


My friend - the guy with multiple PhDs who gets paid to research this stuff - personally believes that we are affecting the current cycle of climate change but to a much smaller degree than the current "scientific consensus" would have us believe.

My personal opinion - which is nothing but my opinion - is that we will get to the point to where we can make a fairly definitive assertion as to what man's role has been in the current, natural cycle of climate change but we'll probably already be well into the next, natural cycle of climate change by the time that happens.
 

AUDub

Hall of Fame
Can I change directions for a second?

Let's say there is Global Warming.....and you can do whatever you want to do to fix it. You have the power to do anything you need to do to fix it.

What would you do?
How long will it take to make an impact?
How would you implement your new policies?
I would tell Lockheed-Martin I want that fusion reactor currently in their skunkworks tomorrow and throw money at them if they could pull it off.

However long it takes me to build enough reactors.

I'd make an awesome benevolent dictator. ;)
 

AUDub

Hall of Fame
I expected no less from you.....am I go assume you have no real answer to my questions?
My my first two answers are serious. We need a major energy breakthrough to free ourselves from fossil fuels without dramatically altering our way of life. A fusion breakthrough like LM says they've achieved or something similar could end our reliance on fossil fuels extremely rapidly. Maybe even quick enough to achieve RCP2.6. It would be awesome.

As for implementation, well if I can't force people to do it ;), I would subsidize it extremely heavily. If I'm in a real hurry, I'll find a way to inflate the price of fossil fuels.
 

CajunCrimson

Hall of Fame
Mar 13, 2001
19,373
1,492
173
Breaux Bridge, La
My my first two answers are serious. We need a major energy breakthrough to free ourselves from fossil fuels without dramatically altering our way of life. A fusion breakthrough like LM says they've achieved or something similar could end our reliance on fossil fuels extremely rapidly. Maybe even quick enough to achieve RCP2.6. It would be awesome.

As for implementation, well if I can't force people to do it ;), I would subsidize it extremely heavily. If I'm in a real hurry, I'll find a way to inflate the price of fossil fuels.
You're going to have to try again...because according to you guys, we'll all be dead by 2050.....so this will be too late to help.

http://www.triplepundit.com/special/energy-options-pros-and-cons/fusion-power-pros-cons/

Cons of nuclear fusion

Unproven at anything resembling commercial scale.
No full scale production expected till at least 2050
Commercial power plants would be extremely expensive to build
Requires extremely high temperatures. Difficult to contain
Could produce a net negative amount of energy (love this one!)
If cold fusion could be achieved, it would be much easier to implement.
The billions in research funding could be spent on renewables instead
Would remove any incentive for restraint in the use of energy.
But let's just say....perfect scenario, you could get it up and running tomorrow without completely destroying the economy.

How do you get the other 95% of the world to do it too?
 
Last edited:

Tide1986

Suspended
Nov 22, 2008
15,670
0
0
Birmingham, AL
My my first two answers are serious. We need a major energy breakthrough to free ourselves from fossil fuels without dramatically altering our way of life. A fusion breakthrough like LM says they've achieved or something similar could end our reliance on fossil fuels extremely rapidly. Maybe even quick enough to achieve RCP2.6. It would be awesome.

As for implementation, well if I can't force people to do it ;), I would subsidize it extremely heavily. If I'm in a real hurry, I'll find a way to inflate the price of fossil fuels.
I'm in general alignment with the direction of your thoughts here, excepting the last statement. New sources of energy should stand on their own merits.
 

AUDub

Hall of Fame
You're going to have to try again...because according to you guys, we'll all be dead by 2050.....so this will be too late to help.
No one here has claimed any such thing.

Dated source. Lockheed announced last year that they would have a running prototype within 5 years and a production model within 10.

But let's just say....perfect scenario, you could get it up and running tomorrow without completely destroying the economy.
Surely you understand "tomorrow" was hyperbole? I meant it like: "I want it and I want it yesterday."

How do you get the other 95% of the world to do it too?
Cheap, clean, efficient power? I expect they'd hop right on it.
 

CajunCrimson

Hall of Fame
Mar 13, 2001
19,373
1,492
173
Breaux Bridge, La
No one here has claimed any such thing.



Dated source. Lockheed announced last year that they would have a running prototype within 5 years and a production model within 10.

Surely you understand "tomorrow" was hyperbole? I meant it like: "I want it and I want it yesterday."



Cheap, clean, efficient power? I expect they'd hop right on it.
Where have you seen it described as cheap? Power Plants would cost Billions of dollars.....and that's not even talking about the cost to convert the entire gas combustion industry over to fusion......you'll never get them to convert.....unless you expect us to pay for it.....
 

Latest threads

TideFansStore.com - Get your gear!

Purchases made through our TideFansStore.com link may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.