EPTClimate Scientists Hacked - Page 6
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Arbiter[frolix]
United Kingdom2674 Posts
| ||
|
Arbiter[frolix]
United Kingdom2674 Posts
On November 23 2009 07:42 Mortality wrote: It's not a conspiracy, but first: scientists do care about funding and second: it was a good theory at the time it was introduced. The new data just doesn't agree with it. So what do people do? They try to come up with ways to "re-evaluate" new data to fit the model. However, as against doing this as you can tell I clearly am, it's not entirely without merit to do this. The issue is that there's a fine line between looking at new data in a different light and trying to find things in the data that aren't there. And the mass media works real hard to keep these discussion on the down low, because global warming propaganda is a much better sell than real science is. Ok. So let's get this straight. You believe that the factors you outline in your post explain why, and I quote here from the Royal Society's briefing on climate change, "the science academies of the G8 nations and of China, India and Brazil" are all continuing to endorse a model they apparently know to be unsupported by "the new data"? And the media also know this but are keeping it "on the down low"? I mean, I am trying really hard here to avoid being facetious. But it is difficult. | ||
|
Maero
349 Posts
put your books away, the man is trying to take us down | ||
|
fight_or_flight
United States3988 Posts
On November 23 2009 07:56 Arbiter[frolix] wrote: Ok. So let's get this straight. You believe that the factors you outline in your post explain why, and I quote here from the Royal Society's briefing on climate change, "the science academies of the G8 nations and of China, India and Brazil" are all continuing to endorse a model they apparently know to be unsupported by "the new data"? And the media also know this but are keeping it "on the down low"? I mean, I am trying really hard here to avoid being facetious. But it is difficult. Remember, there is a huge conflict of interests here. If the government (who funds much of this research) is successful in convincing the population in this false problem, they have free reign to justify controlling every aspect of people's lives. Its no different than saying there is a terrorist in every shadow and around every corner...therefore we must take away people's freedoms. Only this time, in addition to taking away people's freedoms, they get to control the entire economy as well, and only let their own boys have enough carbon credits, and shut the rest down. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7884 Posts
On November 23 2009 07:42 Mortality wrote: It's not a conspiracy, but first: scientists do care about funding and second: it was a good theory at the time it was introduced. The new data just doesn't agree with it. So what do people do? They try to come up with ways to "re-evaluate" new data to fit the model. However, as against doing this as you can tell I clearly am, it's not entirely without merit to do this. The issue is that there's a fine line between looking at new data in a different light and trying to find things in the data that aren't there. And the mass media works real hard to keep these discussion on the down low, because global warming propaganda is a much better sell than real science is. I laughed. So, scientists have huge interest to make a global conspiracy, helped by the medias of the whole world in order to have more credit. Is that serious? On the other hand you have whole sectors of the economy who have real fucking huge interest that people don't stop or restrain from consuming their oil / cars / precious wood / whatever crap they sell. I wonder where is the real economic interest in this discussion and who could really be lying in for economic interest. Let me think... ... You are right!! It's obviously the scientists. | ||
|
Mortality
United States4790 Posts
On November 23 2009 07:41 WhiteNights wrote: Yes, in geological timescales, frequently CO2 has lagged temperature in rising. Previous climate changes have been driven by many things which were not CO2 such as Milankovitch cycles (shorter term), continental drift, plate tectonics (longer term), the movement of the sun around the galaxy (even longer term), the development of life (you get the picture), and changes in solar irradiance (etc). However, the basis for the theory that the unprecedented recent modern warming is driven by CO2 is not in "this has happened in the past so it will happen in the future." The timescales for previous drivers of climate operate on thousands or millions of years, none of which can explain current warming. The anthropogenic theory provides a satisfactory explanation, and it really has no competition when it comes to alternative explanations (sun and cosmic ray levels which, while they may affect climate, have changed very little in the last 100 years, as well as being inadequate to explain why temperature shifts of this speed and magnitude have not occurred in the past.) The fact that CO2 affects temperature is well established by such things as the existence of the greenhouse effect and radiation experiments. Scientists have attempted to determine to what degree CO2 effects is true through atmospheric modeling based on the thermal and optical properties of the various gases in our atmosphere. I don't post based on what the mass media has told me (I don't really follow mass media at all because I would rather play Starcraft than watch television.) To everyone, just not you; here's something from the American Institute of Physics (the United States' largest organization of physicists) that provides a brief introduction to the historical background on the discovery of global warming. The Discovery of Global Warming I agree that solar radiation has not adequately accounted for recent fluctuations in global temperature. Clearly there are other factors, possibly man-made, more likely man influenced. However, the theory regarding CO2 has been failing to yield the desired results. We've clearly seen that it has not held true that CO2 drove global temperatures in the geological record and recent models have failed to accurately predict many current phenomena, most notably the decrease in global temperatures over the past decade, despite an increase in global CO2 levels throughout that time scale. It should be noted that CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas we produce. It should be noted, reflected upon, and further studied that atmospheric cycles are largely driven by living organisms other than us and we have little to no idea of how we have affected all of that. It should also be noted that it is possible that non-atmospheric pollution has served as the primary driver for global warming. And it should be noted that we still know very little and everything we know might be wrong. After all, we've only had such sophisticated measuring equipment for a very, very short time frame with regards to the geological record. In short, I am questioning the theory of CO2 serving as the driving control mechanism for environmental changes, but I am not offering a competing theory. I would like to see more of the chips fall in place first. For a model to serve as a working theory, it must be able to make accurate predictions. No model to date has done so. And I'll check out your link when I have more time. As is I've spent too long on here. | ||
|
DefMatrixUltra
Canada1992 Posts
On November 23 2009 01:34 TanGeng wrote: I'm pretty sure Climatology falls under the category of misunderstood field. It's based on aggregate thermodynamics. They can't even predict what will happen in weather - a span of three days even!!! On top of that, most of what is providing all the scare are computer models of GSE, expansion of oceanic water columns, etc. Science might be neat and clean at the high school level, but it's quite messy at the cutting edge. Well, weather is a chaotic system, but that doesn't mean it's misunderstood or unpredictable. There is a parameter for a chaotic system that tells you how errors in initial measurements propagate through time, and for weather you can do pretty well in general up to 4 days past the time of your initial measurements. If we get instruments that drastically improve our measurements or we take many times more measurements, that number will go up. Chaos is not unpredictable in the sense that economics is unpredictable. It's just HARD to get an accurate prediction for long times into the future. But that is just 'local' weather systems. Which way will the wind be blowing? Which way will hot and cold areas move towards/away from? These kinds of things determine whether it will rain or not and what you can expect the temperature to be. But there are other aspects to the science as well, aspects that have repeating patterns. The temperature in February will be lower than the temperature today (in November). How can I possibly make that statement? That's many months ahead, much larger time span than 4 days. But I can make the statement because I know that there is a repetitious pattern based on the Earth-Sun distance. Similarly, there are other repeating phenomenon that are themselves well-understood (various geological phenomenona and other things like the polar vortex etc.). Data from these things has long-term repeating patterns that are 'immune' in a sense to the chaotic nature of the 'local' weather occuring around them (by local, I mean local in time and space). Scientists do not make claims of stuff happening 1000 years in the future if their data is only good for t + 4 days. That's just not accepted in the scientific arena. Much 'local' weather is chaotic, but there are other global indicators for long-term weather. | ||
|
Arbiter[frolix]
United Kingdom2674 Posts
On November 23 2009 08:05 fight_or_flight wrote: Remember, there is a huge conflict of interests here. If the government (who funds much of this research) is successful in convincing the population in this false problem, they have free reign to justify controlling every aspect of people's lives. Its no different than saying there is a terrorist in every shadow and around every corner...therefore we must take away people's freedoms. Only this time, in addition to taking away people's freedoms, they get to control the entire economy as well, and only let their own boys have enough carbon credits, and shut the rest down. So "the government" (presumably of the United States, although I am assuming that all the other governments are in on it too!) was able to get all those big-brained scientists to go along with this because it "funds much of this research"? And this was in order to "justify controlling every aspect of people's lives"? | ||
|
L
Canada4732 Posts
On November 23 2009 08:14 Arbiter[frolix] wrote: So "the government" (presumably of the United States, although I am assuming that all the other governments are in on it too!) was able to get all those big-brained scientists to go along with this because it "funds much of this research"? And this was in order to "justify controlling every aspect of people's lives"? Yes. People got PhD's so that they could, 20 years down the line, justify increasing taxes. Don't you see how obvious this is? Its obviously like those gardeners that went out and planted forests, and now want to preserve them so that they can have nice views at the expense of people who need precious lumber. Dastardly. | ||
|
Mortality
United States4790 Posts
On November 23 2009 07:56 Arbiter[frolix] wrote: Ok. So let's get this straight. You believe that the factors you outline in your post explain why, and I quote here from the Royal Society's briefing on climate change, "the science academies of the G8 nations and of China, India and Brazil" are all continuing to endorse a model they apparently know to be unsupported by "the new data"? And the media also know this but are keeping it "on the down low"? I mean, I am trying really hard here to avoid being facetious. But it is difficult. And you do realize that the science academies of all the various nations are quasi-political entities, right? The CO2 theory currently is the leading theory, but it's a ship that's not doing a good job holding water. But you have to realize that the issue of global warming got politicized before the models were put to the test and now there are big name politicians who have rested their careers on this. The science academies won't back off on the theory unless they are truly convinced it is wrong. If they waffle on this issue they will lose credibility. We'll see if the theory withstands the test of time. I'm betting it won't. I do believe we have influenced the environment a great deal, but we're still a long way off from fully realizing, for instance, how water pollution has affected bacterial organisms that influence atmospheric cycles. | ||
|
fight_or_flight
United States3988 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + "...the scientist makes use of a whole arsenal of concepts which he imbibed practically with his mother's milk; and seldom if ever is he aware of the eternally problematic character of his concepts. He uses this conceptual material, or, speaking more exactly, these conceptual tools of thought, as something obviously, immutably given; something having an objective value of truth which is hardly even, and in any case not seriously, to be doubted. ...in the interests of science it is necessary over and over again to engage in the critique of these fundamental concepts, in order that we may not unconsciously be ruled by them." -Albert Einstein "…science is not the danger; scientists encouraged to do bad science to survive are.” … "…changing the way modern science is funded is an enormous undertaking, but it is a necessary one if we want to protect our future. Call it managed risk." -Smith "Anybody who has studied the history of science or worked as a scientist knows that whenever something novel is discovered or proposed, there is a polarization of scientists, with hostility and bitterness that may last for generations. What wins arguments is scientific fact, and that may change as the years go by. A good example of this is the geological theory of continental drift, as proposed by Wegener in 1912. When I studied geology around 1950, continental drift was acknowledged in my undergraduate textbook as a crank theory. The first serious confirmation was in 1956, and it was finally established as the dominant theory in the early 1970s. Until that time, anybody who admitted that he or she believed in continental drift was the subject of derision and scorn. Sorry, folks, science is not and has never been the 'idealized portrait painted in textbooks'." -Allan Blair "…I suggest that most revolutions in science have taken place outside the lofty arena of the refereed journals, and with good reason. The philosophy by which these journals govern themselves virtually precludes publication of ideas that challenge an existing consensus." -William K. George "An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning." -Max Planck "We used to be able to say things once; if the message was reasonable, it had a good chance of becoming a permanent part of the structure of the field. Today, a single publication is lost; if we say it only once, it will be presumed that we have changed our mind, and we therefore must publish repeatedly. This further fuels the large publication volume that requires us to repeat." -Rolf Landauer "When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible he is very probably wrong." [Clarke's First Law] In addition, academic funding is such that generally, projects are funded with a very narrow scope and a very specific result is expected. Scientists who don't fit the mold are ostracized and in danger of losing their career. | ||
|
Mothra
United States1448 Posts
On November 23 2009 00:56 Biff The Understudy wrote: It's amazing how you guys see the "governement" as the ultimate evil, are so obsessed by the State taking control when basically all your economy, all your medias, all your cultural life is controlled by big companies which structurally don't obey any other law than making as much money as quickly as possible for their shareholders, which represents the 1% richest part of your population. When you knnow the incredible amount of lobbying that theses companies are doing, chose who you should fear the most: your governement or your capitalist amoral system. Global warming doesn't benefit anybdoy. Not doing anything and denying it benefits all major companies. I'm sorry, but American's view on politic is so naive. I couldn't agree more. | ||
|
Arbiter[frolix]
United Kingdom2674 Posts
| ||
|
WhuazGoodJaggah
Lesotho777 Posts
A similar example of science vs companys is the tobacco story. Companys payed scientist to spread lies to be able to keep selling cigs. This lying shit went on for decades but still ppl fall for the companys. Same shit with cosmethic products with their "scientific tests" from labs which are payed from exactly that company. Yeah companys are sooo trustworthy, haha. Companys have repeatedly proven that they should have absolut no influence in Academic research except for the paying (aka only give money no right to speach). I feel that exact mistrust all the time when I tell freinds about stuff I know for a fact from my education as Programmer f.e. They rather trust a company making ads, although they know that ads are mostly "lying" if you ask them. Brainwashed is the only thing that I can explain such behaviour. | ||
|
WoodenSpider
United States85 Posts
On November 23 2009 00:56 Biff The Understudy wrote: It's amazing how you guys see the "governement" as the ultimate evil, are so obsessed by the State taking control when basically all your economy, all your medias, all your cultural life is controlled by big companies which structurally don't obey any other law than making as much money as quickly as possible for their shareholders, which represents the 1% richest part of your population. When you knnow the incredible amount of lobbying that theses companies are doing, chose who you should fear the most: your governement or your capitalist amoral system. Global warming doesn't benefit anybdoy. Not doing anything and denying it benefits all major companies. I'm sorry, but American's view on politic is so naive. All right. I do want to point out one thing. Stuff like the Kyoto and other climate things have one thing in common. They all require the US to give up the most. Now maybe thats because we're making the most problems, or whatever. But you can't deny that when every global warming combat plan invloves the US getting the short end of the stick, we have a right to be a little suspicious. And I would like to point out that 1. The US currently uses more of a fascist-socialist system, it's heavily government influenced 2. The amoral capitalistic system seems to have worked out fairly well for us. I recently visited France. I went in thinking that it was a pretty prosperous, wealthy nation. Then I visited the hospitals, drove on the roads, walked through the streets of Marseilles. And maybe the US has some problems, but France has a heck of a lot more. And get your facts straight. Most people with 401k have stock have it in that form. Which accounts for a significant amount of the American population. | ||
|
gchan
United States654 Posts
"Reality" of global warming --> Statistical data --> Scientists conclusions --> Scientists conclusions as understood by politicians --> Politicians creating public policy on the matter (often lumped with their other agendas) At every level, there can be misunderstandings and conflicts of interest. Just as scientists are susceptible to misinterpreting data, so are politicians susceptible to using (and understanding) data to their advantage. True, some scientists are probably bought with research funding, and true, some politicians probably truly believe that global warming is a disaster, but the reality is that most people lie somewhere in between. Considering this, and toss in the whole controversy about biased statistical data bases, and you have a disaster of epic proportions. | ||
|
WoodenSpider
United States85 Posts
On November 23 2009 08:52 WhuazGoodJaggah wrote: I cant believe that ppl are so keen on having the government or scientists as the evil bastards. Are all brainwashed by companies? A similar example of science vs companys is the tobacco story. Companys payed scientist to spread lies to be able to keep selling cigs. This lying shit went on for decades but still ppl fall for the companys. Same shit with cosmethic products with their "scientific tests" from labs which are payed from exactly that company. Yeah companys are sooo trustworthy, haha. Companys have repeatedly proven that they should have absolut no influence in Academic research except for the paying (aka only give money no right to speach). I feel that exact mistrust all the time when I tell freinds about stuff I know for a fact from my education as Programmer f.e. They rather trust a company making ads, although they know that ads are mostly "lying" if you ask them. Brainwashed is the only thing that I can explain such behaviour. What the hell. you claim that Americans are all brainwashed by companies, and then go on to talk about how companies are controlling academia? If you haven't noticed, the company's are doing a terrible job, then. The overwhelming majority of public opinion and acedemic opinion, from my perspective, seems to be that Global warming is an uncontroversial fact. In fact, a significant number of the commercials I see on TV are related to "going green" or whatever. If anything, most of the companies are probably benifiting from mass hysteria about global warming. they have an easy way to elicit emotions- just mention something about "clean energy" or "carbon neutral" or "enironmentally friendly" and a good portion of the population automatically feels like their product is the responsible thing to buy. And I would like to point out that its not the scientists anybody is calling evil. It is government agendas. How many millions has the US government spent to try to uncontroverially prove global warming? How much has it spent to try to disprove it? zero. When global warming is being flooded with government money, endlessly orated on by politicians, and taught as truth in elementary schools, people begin to feel worried. Right now we have not been presented with the antithesis or synthesis on global warming, just the thesis. Until the day comes when Academia is free to draw its own conclusions without politics being a significant controlling factor, we have a right to harbor suspicion about the "truth" that our rulers proclaim. | ||
|
WhuazGoodJaggah
Lesotho777 Posts
On November 23 2009 09:20 WoodenSpider wrote: All right. I do want to point out one thing. Stuff like the Kyoto and other climate things have one thing in common. They all require the US to give up the most. Now maybe thats because we're making the most problems, or whatever. But you can't deny that when every global warming combat plan invloves the US getting the short end of the stick, we have a right to be a little suspicious. And I would like to point out that 1. The US currently uses more of a fascist-socialist system, it's heavily government influenced 2. The amoral capitalistic system seems to have worked out fairly well for us. I recently visited France. I went in thinking that it was a pretty prosperous, wealthy nation. Then I visited the hospitals, drove on the roads, walked through the streets of Marseilles. And maybe the US has some problems, but France has a heck of a lot more. And get your facts straight. Most people with 401k have stock have it in that form. Which accounts for a significant amount of the American population. The USA does the most problems, yes thats why they recieve the biggest blame. The USA has a history of fucking up a lot of stuff not just recent things. To your first point, I really fail to see what is so bad in a social system. You know, when I'm not punshing your face bleedy it's a social act from me. If your car is broken out in the shit and I take you along with me thats social. Dont you like such stuff? Do you prefer assholes who rather fuck you up? Np for me, I also like beeing asocial and draw graffiti onto companys wall, I give as much a fuck about them as they give about their employes. 2. Wow, what a bullshit example. Lemme guess you are raised in East LA right? Come visit Switzerland we have a Social-Capitalistic market system and our streets > your streets, our medical institutions (hospitals f.e.) > yours. Our public traffic system > your public traffic (do you have any trains running faster than 20 miles an hour? haha). Sure for the rich mutherfuckers the USA has the best streets the best hospitals the whatever you want but you also have a lot of fucked up stuff much like a 3rd world country. Your last fact with american population and shit, I really dont understand it. | ||
|
baubo
China3370 Posts
On November 23 2009 09:20 WoodenSpider wrote: All right. I do want to point out one thing. Stuff like the Kyoto and other climate things have one thing in common. They all require the US to give up the most. Now maybe thats because we're making the most problems, or whatever. But you can't deny that when every global warming combat plan invloves the US getting the short end of the stick, we have a right to be a little suspicious. "Whatever"? If two people are paying 10% taxes. One person makes a mil dollar a year. The other makes 20g. Is the millionaire suppose to be suspicious of the taxes because he's paying 100g rather than 2g? That's the type of thinking that got Bush cutting taxes for the super rich and screw the rest us. And I would like to point out that 1. The US currently uses more of a fascist-socialist system, it's heavily government influenced 2. The amoral capitalistic system seems to have worked out fairly well for us. I recently visited France. I went in thinking that it was a pretty prosperous, wealthy nation. Then I visited the hospitals, drove on the roads, walked through the streets of Marseilles. And maybe the US has some problems, but France has a heck of a lot more. US has worked out well compared to Europe because our geographical location and vast amount of resources. In both world wars, the US made tons of money off of weaponry, while suffering almost nothing in terms of infrastructure within the country. US also has a ridiculous amount of rich, fertile land and a relatively low population. Also, if you went to French hospitals, then you should realize that they provide affordable health care. And not health care that's impossible to access without good health insurance(or tons of money). America does indeed have the best healthcare in the world. My father works at a world renowned medical research center. And he can vouch that the some of the richest, most influential people in the world go to his company for their illnesses. They also get bills that 99% of Americans would never be able to pay. | ||
|
Balentine
United States14 Posts
I live on a little atoll 7 degrees north of the equator. I can stand on the east side and see the ocean on the west side. The tides have been lower than they have been in years. 5 years ago this time of year the high tide would be halfway across my back yard. This year, No. Holes in the Ozone, Global Cooling, Global Warming, Climate Change, What's next? | ||
| ||
