Scientists discover that climate-change skeptics are bozos

[Saint Peter]

I feel for those poor folks living near the river, at the mercy of a bunch of government eggheads with degrees from third rate schools.

Aren't the Corps Engineers trained at West Point?



:shrugs:

The scientists hands are tied by policy.

It makes no difference where their education came from.

 

[Dazzle1]

How do we know it is independent?

Serious question.

I saw a response by opponents disputing the facts. Did they have any third party verification?

People like East Anglia proffessors and the fraud Al Gore hurt the environmental movement.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

The scientists hands are tied by policy.

It makes no difference where their education came from.

And if the policy is "Global Climate Change is a Clear and Present Danger" then, of course, their hands are tied...

 

[Saint Peter]

And if the policy is "Global Climate Change is a Clear and Present Danger" then, of course, their hands are tied...

Whatever. There will always be policy. You may or may not like it.

Just don't blame the scientists if their hands are tied.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Who is blaming the Scientists?



I'm pointing at the Amen choir corner...

 

[klippert]

Evil Rich nation man made Global Warming is a Fucking hoax....a fucking Ponzi scheme....Green ener'gee is a scam. Anyone believing in Man made Global warming is a brainless loon.

East Angela papers prove its nothing more than an attempt too steal wealthy nations money..... Just look at these unites states greatest snake oil sales man.....Al 'the sexual deviant' Gore. Estimates of his total wealth....$3-$400 MILLION. Selling this hoax. Early in the Idiot brain Obama administration. The carbon exchange, in Chicago's mercantile exchange, went belly up. Al Gore hoaxed thousands of investors in.....When he was cashing out....


So all you class envy fucks stinking up NY and your other tiny numbers....Go after Al for once....

 

[Ishmael]

How do we know it is independent?

Serious question.

I saw a response by opponents disputing the facts. Did they have any third party verification?

People like East Anglia proffessors and the fraud Al Gore hurt the environmental movement.

Independent, in this case I presume, means that they are not taking funds from any entity that might be identified with either side. That does NOT mean that they are without an agenda. Only when the paper is finally revealed for public scrutiny and comment will we know anything for certain.

Ishmael

 

[Dazzle1]

Independent, in this case I presume, means that they are not taking funds from any entity that might be identified with either side. That does NOT mean that they are without an agenda. Only when the paper is finally revealed for public scrutiny and comment will we know anything for certain.

Ishmael

Well you can never be certain.

But as the study is done by Berkley which is a very liberal institution; why should we take them at face value?

Third party verfication is better than taking the word of a group with an agenda.

 

[phrodeau]

Well you can never be certain.

But as the study is done by Berkley which is a very liberal institution; why should we take them at face value?

Third party verfication is better than taking the word of a group with an agenda.

Go ahead and work on that.

 

[Sonny Limatina]

I know that Lit's science critics are all smarter than the people with decades of training and direct access to the data and methods you are guessing about, but I'll mention this anyway: Yes, "agenda" actually can creep into study results, in the form of selection bias. I'll give an example of selection bias, so you know how it works:

Let's say one wants to measure whether urbanization might be affecting worldwide temperature trend-readings.

One way to do it is to compare urban temperature readings to the readings on the same instruments pre-urbanization, and to use that comparison as a means of demonstrating that overall recorded trends are flawed.

The other way is to examine what proportion of the worldwide readings those urban readings represent, and determine if they are significant enough even to cause a difference.

The first way involves "selecting" among the sample data to find that which fits a pre-existing viewpoint.

The second views all data in context.

Guess who does the first, and who did the second?

The Berkeley meta-analysis found that even if the 'urbanization' claim is true, the one-percent of all readings those instruments represent do not nearly account for the temperature differential. (Also, a minor issue: urbanization is now accounted for in the data analysis anyway.)

Being the helpful type, I thought I'd take this as a 'teachable moment.' I know you're all qualified scientists in your own right, but what can I say. I live to serve.

 

[where]

did anyone ever bother telling me why so many scientists would bother persuing this hypothesis if it were obviously incorrect?

 

[JohnnySavage]

When Einstein first proposed that the earth traveled around the sun, he was ridiculed as well.

 

[thør]

Independent, in this case I presume, means that they are not taking funds from any entity that might be identified with either side. That does NOT mean that they are without an agenda. Only when the paper is finally revealed for public scrutiny and comment will we know anything for certain.

Ishmael

The pre-reviewed papers are all downloadable pdf's. I believe you can also download the data and the analysis code.

Well you can never be certain.

But as the study is done by Berkley which is a very liberal institution; why should we take them at face value?

Third party verfication is better than taking the word of a group with an agenda.

I see names from both sides of the fence cooperating and performing this work. When you say Berkeley, I suppose you're meaning Berkeley Earth, and not UC Berkeley, or LBNL or the City of Berkeley, etc.

 

[Sonny Limatina]

did anyone ever bother telling me why so many scientists would bother persuing this hypothesis if it were obviously incorrect?

It's a liberal conspiracy to steal your money, duh.

 

[Sonny Limatina]

The pre-reviewed papers are all downloadable pdf's. I believe you can also download the data and the analysis code.



I see names from both sides of the fence cooperating and performing this work. When you say Berkeley, I suppose you're meaning Berkeley Earth, and not UC Berkeley, or LBNL or the City of Berkeley, etc.

No, he meant UC Berkeley. See my OP for why that's funny.

 

[thør]

No, he meant UC Berkeley. See my OP for why that's funny.

There you go making assumptions!

 

[Sonny Limatina]

There you go making assumptions!

It's scientifically proven.

 

[thør]

It's scientifically proven.

But that was at Brookhaven on the other coast. The gravity is different over there.

 

[where]

It's a liberal conspiracy to steal your money, duh.

but whose money? seriously, who gets to profit from it? I can see who gets to profit from denying the hypothesis.

 

[Peregrinator]

*chuckle*

Money perverts them, but it does not pervert us!

lol[/I]

Clever spin there, but not at all what I'm saying. You said they were paid for results. I'm pointing out that there's money for the skeptics as well. If you'd stop making the claim that all scientists are lollipops, then we could have a serious conversation. Oh, and you also might want to stop claiming that Dachshunds are in fact reptiles.

Another slander of the with us or against us mentality...

You keep going back to the martyr-like position of those who don't believe hate Science, hate the environment, want dirty air for profit, yada, yada, yada...,

This is why it is hard to take you seriously much like years of listening to Ron Paul foll..., er, uh DOCTOR Pauls' followers have made him into a joke when he runs for President when I see him at the debates.

Show me where you're campaigning against toxic runoff, mountaintop removal mining, habitat encroachment, damming of rivers, etc etc etc. You're consistently in favor of all these things. You support every extractive or exploitative industry that comes up in conversation. Every single time.

"That's not the point at all. Climate science isn't seeking an answer to the question "What is the optimum global average temperature?"

Well, it should. One person publishing one study bears scrutiny and a wait for, at the very least, another researcher to duplicate the results after the peer review process has vetted them."

The peer-researched has reached only ONE verifiable conclusion, that there has been a slight warming in this current climate cycle. None of them firmly establish a cause.

It's like looking at heart illness and establishing salt as the common denominator because sales are up.

My buddy, the heart surgeon, says it's grain and processed foods...

But up until this year, he was a "skeptic."



Non-consensus.

Idiot...

That's utter nonsense. Multiple lines of evidence and study all point to the same conclusion.

*chuckle*

Nice try Perg. I'm going to refute each and every single point that you posted, and I'm going to do it with data captured by many scientists that were out to support the whole AGW theory. Obviously this is going to take some time.


Ishmael

*chuckle*

Put up or shut up, Ishmael. You have no credibility in the discussion until you back up this utter crap you posted in your thread. http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=37990855&postcount=32

 

[Powertone]

if only our energy costs would be driven up exponentially thus making us change our standard of living then perhaps we could cause earth's temperatures to be no higher than 78* in summer and no colder than 32* in winter

Utopia is at hand here !

 

[The_Trouvere]

Climate study confirms what skeptics scoffed at: global warming is real

The Christian Science Monitor 10/22/2011


A new climate study shows that since the mid-1950s, global average temperatures over land have risen by 0.9 degrees Celsius (1.6 degrees Fahrenheit), confirming previous studies that have found a climate that has been warming – in fits and starts – since around 1900.

Most climate scientists attribute warming since the mid-1950, at least to some degree, to carbon dioxide emissions from human activities – burning coal, oil, and to a lesser extent gas, and from land-use changes...

Money for the new study, dubbed the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, came from five foundations, including one established by Microsoft founder Bill Gates and another from the Charles Koch Charitable Foundation, widely seen as a source of money for conservative organizations and initiatives that have fought efforts to curb greenhouse-gas emissions.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44996377/ns/us_news-christian_science_monitor/?gt1=43001

 

[mercury14]

Well you can never be certain.

But as the study is done by Berkley which is a very liberal institution; why should we take them at face value?

Third party verfication is better than taking the word of a group with an agenda.

Just another example of Republican anti-intellectualism. According to so many Republicans all universities are liberal bastions. And even if the research is done at an independent agency, well the scientists that work there probably went to Berkley or MIT and were brainwashed by liberal professors, right?

This isn't a valid question. The university that does the research doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is that they produce quality, peer-reviewed research. If they produce politically altered crap it will not find a serious publication or survive the peer review process.

 

[mercury14]

So you're saying it's not science unless it's an experiment?

No research is possible without an experiment that's reproduce-able?

Not even basic or pure research?

Seems Trysail ran for the hills on this one.

 

[Ishmael]

Just another example of Republican anti-intellectualism. According to so many Republicans all universities are liberal bastions. And even if the research is done at an independent agency, well the scientists that work there probably went to Berkley or MIT and were brainwashed by liberal professors, right?

This isn't a valid question. The university that does the research doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is that they produce quality, peer-reviewed research. If they produce politically altered crap it will not find a serious publication or survive the peer review process.

You're an idiot.

First of all poll after poll have shown that the univ. are bastions of liberalism. That is not a matter of belief, it's a matter of fact.

As far as the debate goes it's over AGW, NOT whether the surface temperature has increased or not. Most people are capable of reading a thermometer. There is NO proof that AGW is fact. These so called experts cannot explain;

Why snowball earth melted.

Why runaway greenhouse effect did NOT occur when the atmosphere was just Nitrogen and CO2, CO2 in MUCH higher concentrations (~500%) than are even contemplated over the next 200 years.

Why the earth suddenly cooled at the end of the Cretaceous.

Why the sea levels during the previous interglacial were 50 ft. higher than today's sea levels.

What caused the medieval warming event.

What caused the little ice age event.

Yet these same climate experts who can't explain any of the above (and the above is just a partial list) assure us that unless we turn over our freedoms and wallets to them and their political backers that we're all going to fry and die. Bullshit!

Ishmael