Of course, this is just an anomaly. News only because of how *ahem* unusual it actually is. Can you say fox guarding the henhouse? Probably should make some disparaging remark about the Washington Post here too
http://m.washingtonpost.com/news/mor...r-review-ring/
Of course, all those 'scientists' with wide ranging backgrounds who weigh in their opinions on climatic trends (translate: climate science "experts") would never be involved in such scandalous behavior.
Last edited by Goodman; 07-10-2014 at 11:52 AM.
CHOOT UM!
Sounds like the system is working to me. Some unscrupulous folks got caught cheating and were found out, and their articles got summarily retracted.
The only reason this is news is because of how rare it happens.
It's pretty hard to pull a fast one over on fellow scientists -- inevitably, other scientists are going to try to re-create many of those published experiments or studies, and if they get different results... the proverbial shit hits the fan.
"That tyranny has all the vices both of democracy and oligarchy is evident. As of oligarchy so of tyranny, the end is wealth; (for by wealth only can the tyrant maintain either his guard or his luxury). Both mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of their arms." -- Aristotle, Book V, 350 B.C.E
Hm.Originally Posted by LAGC
Sounds like the system is working to me. Some unscrupulous folks got caught cheating and were found out, and their articles got summarily retracted.
The only reason this is news is because of how rare it happens.
It's pretty hard to pull a fast one over on fellow scientists -- inevitably, other scientists are going to try to re-create many of those published experiments or studies, and if they get different results... the proverbial shit hits the fan.
Hockey stick graph.
Manipulated data sets.
Reliance on opinion (oops. That should be 'consensus').
Political leaders demonizing dissenting opinions (who controls research grant money anyway?).
Yep.
The system is working just like it should.
CHOOT UM!
Silly Goodman...lefty is just looking toward his first grant and laying the groundwork...
There's no agenda here...get with the program!
If we refuse to rule ourselves with reason, then we shall be ruled by our passions.
He, Who Will Not Reason, Is a Bigot; He, Who Cannot, Is a Fool; and He, Who Dares Not, Is a Slave. -Sir William Drummond
There are some things I will not abide within my sight!
You know, if you guys have such open contempt for science, you're always free to take a baseball bat to your computers, smartphones, and other electronic devices. You could just say "fuck modern medicine" as well, go build a little cabin out in the woods somewhere, live like a hermit, only making the occasional trip to the nearest town to mail "care packages" to your favorite scapegoats in academia. Hey, it worked for Ted.
I mean, what the fuck do scientists know? Weren't things much simpler back when we could blame everything on witches and burn them at the stake? Why bother trying to learn anything about how the world really works when we can rely on ancient folklore instead? Fuck genetically modifying crops so we can feed 7 billion people, fuck taking vaccines that prevent mass pandemics, fuck inventing new things that make our lives more comfortable or enjoyable.
It's a wonder we even made it out of the dark ages...
"That tyranny has all the vices both of democracy and oligarchy is evident. As of oligarchy so of tyranny, the end is wealth; (for by wealth only can the tyrant maintain either his guard or his luxury). Both mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of their arms." -- Aristotle, Book V, 350 B.C.E
It's not contempt for science, oh double-naught skientist...it's contempt for double-naught skientists.
Which part of that are you not grasping?
If we refuse to rule ourselves with reason, then we shall be ruled by our passions.
He, Who Will Not Reason, Is a Bigot; He, Who Cannot, Is a Fool; and He, Who Dares Not, Is a Slave. -Sir William Drummond
There are some things I will not abide within my sight!
Academic Fraud is an industry unto itself. Al Gore and his minions capitalize on this kind of shit.
Telling the truth is treason in an empire of lies.
WWG1WGA
Nothing good ever comes from a pinched sphincter
"Hey. We've got to get some changes made. I'll review yours, you review mine. Lets get everyone on board. We can get this done in spite of them. We'll tell them we all agree- it's consensus- and we are experts, so don't argue with us."
Saying "it is settled science" plays on the ignorance of the public at large as to what constitutes science.
I garon-dam-tee that the science behind electronics, medicine, genetics and a pile more things in daily life was based in the scientific method, using proper experimental method, and is fully reproducible.
CHOOT UM!
Warmers suffer setback;
Australia Votes Down 2 Year Old Carbon Tax
Australia's Senate has voted to repeal the carbon tax, a levy on the biggest polluters passed by the previous Labor government.
Prime Minister Tony Abbott, whose Liberal-National coalition beat Labor in an election last year, had made the repeal a central aim of his government.
Politicians have been locked in a fierce row about the tax for years.
Labor says it helps to combat climate change, but the Liberals claim it penalises legitimate businesses.
The Australian Senate voted by 39 to 32 votes to repeal the tax.
Introduced in July 2012, it charges the 348 highest polluters A$23 (£13; $22.60) for every tonne of greenhouse gases they produce.
http://www.marketpulse.com/20140717/...ld-carbon-tax/
"And how we burned in the camps later thinking, what would things have been like, if every security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain, whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family?"
We're all going to die now...just ask the double-naught skientists...
If we refuse to rule ourselves with reason, then we shall be ruled by our passions.
He, Who Will Not Reason, Is a Bigot; He, Who Cannot, Is a Fool; and He, Who Dares Not, Is a Slave. -Sir William Drummond
There are some things I will not abide within my sight!
This is a true statement, we are all going to die sooner or hopefully later.
You garon-dam-tee, huh?? So explain to us laymen exactly what steps of the scientific method you think that climate scientists aren't following?
I even gave you a rough outline of those steps in that other thread.
This should be interesting to hear...
"That tyranny has all the vices both of democracy and oligarchy is evident. As of oligarchy so of tyranny, the end is wealth; (for by wealth only can the tyrant maintain either his guard or his luxury). Both mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of their arms." -- Aristotle, Book V, 350 B.C.E
No.
I've asked endlessly for a link to a SINGLE study in support of AGW that is based in proper experimental and scientific methodology. So far you've provided none.
I'm not gonna be baited into an argument you will not concede even when you can't support your own argument. Attacking another argument is not winning your position, it is distraction.
Where's the study, lefty?
It needs controls and quantifiable, reproducible results. I'd especially like to see proof that agw is not misinterpreted solar activity, an effect of the moon, geomagnetic activity, cosmic rays, geo-thermal activity, volcanic activity, etc- these all need to be discounted by proper scientific control methods.
THEN, once you've produced the science, we can talk about the other things you can't grasp about science.
This guy explains it much more eloquently than I can. He is more clear. I strongly recommend this article:
http://www.pe.tamu.edu/DL_Program/gr...%20warming.pdfLet’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
Last edited by Goodman; 07-18-2014 at 01:26 PM.
CHOOT UM!
I gave you thousands of studies to pick and choose from, and I guarantee you, each and every one of them follow every single step of the scientific method (as I laid out in the other thread), or they wouldn't have passed peer review and made it into an esteemed scientific journal for publication. The onus isn't on me to dispel your ignorance, when the vast majority of all published studies support AGW. The onus is on you to dispel. And prove to me that NASA and NOAA are part of some "conspiracy" along with Google and all those scientific journals that you keep wanting to deny.
If you won't even bother reading the published work for yourself (journals, not private/personal web-sites that any doofus can throw up), I'm under no obligation to hold your hand for you.
And your only comeback is a personal blog for a writer of fictional books? And I'm supposed to take his opinion as more credible than the published work of thousands of scientists who study this shit for a living?This guy explains it much more eloquently than I can. He is more clear. I strongly recommend this article:
I mean, don't get me wrong -- I enjoyed Jurassic Park and the Andromeda Strain, but its pretty clear that one of Michael Crichton's recurring themes is a deep suspicion (if not disdain) for science. He paints scientists as unethical, always pushing the envelope, doing things "just because they can" no matter the consequences -- but the reality is, there's a whole branch of biology (bioethics) devoted to considering such weighty matters, so it's not like scientists are all out to create a real Frankenstein monster or whatever, just to prove they can.
Last edited by LAGC; 07-19-2014 at 09:41 AM.
"That tyranny has all the vices both of democracy and oligarchy is evident. As of oligarchy so of tyranny, the end is wealth; (for by wealth only can the tyrant maintain either his guard or his luxury). Both mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of their arms." -- Aristotle, Book V, 350 B.C.E
On consensus...
Science achieves a consensus when scientists stop arguing. When a question is first asked – like ‘what would happen if we put a load more CO2 in the atmosphere?’ – there may be many hypotheses about cause and effect. Over a period of time, each idea is tested and retested – the processes of the scientific method – because all scientists know that reputation and kudos go to those who find the right answer (and everyone else becomes an irrelevant footnote in the history of science). Nearly all hypotheses will fall by the wayside during this testing period, because only one is going to answer the question properly, without leaving all kinds of odd dangling bits that don’t quite add up. Bad theories are usually rather untidy.
But the testing period must come to an end. Gradually, the focus of investigation narrows down to those avenues that continue to make sense, that still add up, and quite often a good theory will reveal additional answers, or make powerful predictions, that add substance to the theory.
So a consensus in science is different from a political one. There is no vote. Scientists just give up arguing because the sheer weight of consistent evidence is too compelling, the tide too strong to swim against any longer. Scientists change their minds on the basis of the evidence, and a consensus emerges over time. Not only do scientists stop arguing, they also start relying on each other's work. All science depends on that which precedes it, and when one scientist builds on the work of another, he acknowledges the work of others through citations. The work that forms the foundation of climate change science is cited with great frequency by many other scientists, demonstrating that the theory is widely accepted - and relied upon.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/glob...-consensus.htm
"That tyranny has all the vices both of democracy and oligarchy is evident. As of oligarchy so of tyranny, the end is wealth; (for by wealth only can the tyrant maintain either his guard or his luxury). Both mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of their arms." -- Aristotle, Book V, 350 B.C.E
Okay, I'm going to simplify this for you. One study please which eliminates solar influence as an alternate possible cause for agw.
I don't have time to root through thousands of files. Just keep it simple and show me this one.
You have such vast resources and seem very familiar with them, please pull this one up. With controls please.
On another point, there was in the not too awfully distant past scientific consensus about eugenics. How did that work out?
Consensus, as you are using it, is like saying "we don't have a better explanation and this seems to fit so we are going to run with it".
Not what I call science, and it doesn't fit with most dictionary definitions of the term.
As to Chrichton, did you read piece or just dismiss it offhand? As you attacked much of his work but not that essay I'm guessing you didn't read it. Again, avoiding an issue and distracting.
Just one study please, just one............
Hey.......
You don't HAVE one DO you?????
CHOOT UM!
Okay, you win. Here you go: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...2JA009753/full
(All I did to find that, BTW, was go to Google Scholar and type in "solar activity global warming" in the search string. It was one of the first hits. So if you're interested in many other studies on the same subject matter, feel free to explore for yourself.)
But I can even do you one better, if you don't have the time to pore through that entire article, as I know scientists can be long-winded often times.
Check out this short 5-minute video, it explains the influence of the sun on global temperatures better than I could:
I wasn't aware there was ever any consensus on eugenics. I mean, I know there was a vocal minority movement back in the early 20th century, but it pretty much petered out after everyone saw what the Nazis did with it. Remember: consensus in science is only reached when scientists stop arguing over a given point. I'm pretty sure there was still plenty of arguing going on throughout the whole duration that advocates of eugenics were making their voices heard.On another point, there was in the not too awfully distant past scientific consensus about eugenics.
No, a more accurate description of scientific consensus is: all the evidence seems to fit this one hypothesis, and no one can come up with a better explanation.Consensus, as you are using it, is like saying "we don't have a better explanation and this seems to fit so we are going to run with it".
Not what I call science, and it doesn't fit with most dictionary definitions of the term.
(Not for lack of trying, mind you... scientists love poking holes in others' work if they can, as that can garner big-time name recognition. But eventually, if the overwhelming body of evidence becomes so great for one given explanation, few bother to even challenge it any more.)
"That tyranny has all the vices both of democracy and oligarchy is evident. As of oligarchy so of tyranny, the end is wealth; (for by wealth only can the tyrant maintain either his guard or his luxury). Both mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of their arms." -- Aristotle, Book V, 350 B.C.E
So: this is all correlation with admittedly open ended conclusions, and is based upon conclusions of others which may or may not be correct.[24] We have compared records of three solar quantities considered to be candidates for influencing the Earth's climate. ....... The solar indicators correlate well with the temperature record prior to 1970 ......Solar total irradiance variations could be responsible for up to 50% of the temperature increase since 1970 only if the intercalibration between different instruments carried out by Willson [1997] is correct. We conclude.....
It took 5 minutes scanning the file to realize this.
Fail.
I'm going to work now.
Remember- original, causative proof with proper scientific method to include proper controls.
You can PM the proof when you find it. I'm not wasting any more bandwidth in GD on this.
CHOOT UM!
There's plenty more studies along the same vein available on Google Scholar if that one wasn't satisfactory enough for you.
And I notice you didn't comment on the video...
If the sun alone was causing the global rise in temperatures, why it is that temperatures in the troposphere are rising, but temperatures in the stratosphere are not?
Last edited by LAGC; 07-31-2014 at 02:44 PM.
"That tyranny has all the vices both of democracy and oligarchy is evident. As of oligarchy so of tyranny, the end is wealth; (for by wealth only can the tyrant maintain either his guard or his luxury). Both mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of their arms." -- Aristotle, Book V, 350 B.C.E
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks