Author Topic: Politics, Religion, etc.  (Read 99309 times)

Jes Beard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17183
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
« Reply #1155 on: December 11, 2016, 09:02:15 pm »
Questions: What criteria do you use to determine what is good science versus what is bad science?  Who makes those decisions?  Does the outcome of an election instantly qualify people to stand in judgement?

If it is absent true peer review (which requires opening the actual data to public scrutiny), it is bad science.  If it involves altered data, it is bad science.  If those advancing a theory ignore reality, lie in presenting their data and theories, and bully and threaten (or at least advocate) the criminal prosecution of those challenging their theories simply on the basis of challenging them, it is likely bad science.  And if the hypothesis and predictions those hypothesis produce end up seriously missing the mark, but those proclaiming themselves as scientists steadfastly hold onto them, it is bad science.

Who makes those judgments?  The public, and true scientists who are not simply pushing a political agenda.

Another question:  What happens to the quality of science if the scientist has to worry about the political ramifications of any possible conclusion drawn from their work? Ramifications like....oh I don't know...say....being criminally prosecuted?

I am unaware of anyone urging any criminal prosecutions based solely on the conclusions drawn from their work.... except for those supporting Global Warming calling for the prosecution of those challenging the Global Warming alarmists.  I urged criminal prosecution for existing and actual crimes if a prima facie case can be made out, which is vastly different from prosecution for disputing the theory du jure of the established intelligencia.

Jes Beard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17183
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
« Reply #1156 on: December 12, 2016, 01:32:49 am »
Many of the links in the citations were partially truncated in cutting and pasting this, but with any real effort you should still be able to find the full urls even for the truncated links.
********************
Trump's choice to head the EPA, Scott Pruitt, has been widely maligned in the media as a “prominent denier of climate science.” [1] This portrayal of Mr. Pruitt, however, isn't justified. What Pruitt actually said was far less offensive than “I deny science.” Rather, as voiced in his op-ed, he merely stated that, “Healthy debate is the lifeblood of American democracy, and global warming has inspired one of the major policy debates of our time. That debate is far from settled. Scientists continue to disagree about the degree and extent of global warming and its connection to the actions of mankind. That debate should be encouraged.” [2] This isn't a denial of science. It's an acceptance that much ambiguity exists within the scientific research and has for quite some time.

INCONSISTENT WARNINGS:
To start, let's review the lack of historical consistency. In a 1950 article entitled “Is the World Getting Warmer,” we were warned of global warming, stating “In the United States, long-term climatological records which have been accumulating over many years indicate that the weather is becoming warmer and drier.” [3] But in 1958, geophysicist Maurice Ewing and geologist William Donn warned of a coming ice-age, rather than an age of increased warming. [4] [5] In 1965, an environmental report written by the President's Science Advisory Committee flipped the script again, warning President Johnson about global warming, rather than of a coming ice-age, advising “an increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide could act, much like the glass in a greenhouse, to raise the temperature of the lower air.” [6] But in 1970, a Washington Post's article entitled “Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age – Scientists See Ice Age In the Future” again went back to warning the public of a coming ice-age [7] and in 1972, geologists George J. Kukla and R. K. Matthews wrote to President Nixon also warning of the supposed “new ice age.” [8] In 1974, Time magazine released an article on global COOLING, advising that “when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe, they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades.” [9] In 1975, the New York Times also released an article on global cooling, citing a scientific study from the National Academy of Sciences which warned of “an abrupt end to the present interglacial period of relative warmth that has governed the planet's climate for the past 10,000 years.” [10]

In 1976, however, the tone began to flip back towards warming, with scientists concluding, “The data are scanty. We cannot be sure that these temperature fluctuations are be not the result of natural causes. [but] ...Because of the rapid diffusion of CO2 molecules within the atmosphere, both hemispheres will be subject to warming due to the atmospheric (greenhouse) effect...” [11] And by 1979, after studying early computer models, the somewhat stronger case for global warming appeared to solidify in a report entitled “Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A scientific Assessment,” which warned of the socioeconomic impacts of global warming. [12]

FRAUD EXPOSED:
Then a major scientific controversy occurred. In 1998, climatologist Michael E. Mann (along with others) developed new statistical models to produce global temperature patterns, creating a now infamous graph known as “the hockey stick graph.” [13] It was dubbed “hockey stick” because the line representing temperature was relatively perpendicular through most of the graph until it spiked straight up at the far right end, projecting large and sudden temperature increases in the near future. [14] This finding supposedly ended all debate and cemented cause for concern. It was widely circulated, widely cited, referenced as the basis for Al Gore's Oscar winning film “An Inconvenient Truth,” and used to foment fear and stir up support for drastic regulations. Many years later, however, it was thoroughly and widely discredited. [15][16] Mann had used a controversial subset of tree ring records from high and arid mountains in the US Southwest. ...The scientists who published that original data (Graybill and Idso 1993) had specifically warned that the ring widths should not be used for temperature reconstruction, and in particular warned that their 20th century portion is unlike the climatic history of the region and is probably biased by other factors.” [16] Never the less, Mann used this data and, in addition, “exaggerated the significance of the bristlecones so as to make their chronology out to be the dominant global climatic pattern rather than a minor (and likely inaccurate) regional one.” [16] His method also appeared to remove the “medieval warm period” which previously suggested a period of several hundred years which was warmer than our present day. It also appeared to remove the “little ice age” which occurred after the medieval warm period, which had strongly suggested that average temperatures fluctuate throughout history. [15] Doing so allowed Mann to misrepresent history and claim that the climate was mostly stable for about a thousand years up until the present, where he concluded that 1998 was the warmest year of the last millennium. “This claim was not, in reality, supported by data.” [16] “Furthermore, Mann put obstacles in place for subsequent researchers wanting to obtain his data and replicate his methodologies, most of which were only resolved by the interventions of US Congressional investigators and the editors of Nature magazine, both of whom demanded full release of his data and methodologies some six years after publication of his original Nature paper. [16] Most damning of all? “Mann had re-done his hockey stick graph at some point during its preparation with the dubious bristlecone records excluded and saw that the result lost the hockey stick shape altogether, collapsing into a heap of trendless noise. However, he never pointed this out to readers.” [16] Lastly, he also indicated that he had confirmed the statistical significance of his results, “yet when the scores were later revealed they showed no such thing; and by then he had taken to denying he had even calculated them.” [16] Essentially, he was caught lying in an attempt to foster a career advancing research paper. Though exposed as a fraud, the damage had already been done and numerous citizens, politicians, and activists have bought into it ever since. To this day, many individuals still believe in the supposed scientific consensus that began to emerge before this supposedly authoritative research was discredited.

NOT A CONSENSUS:
So why, to this day, do people still routinely hear the talking point “97% of scientists agree” when it comes to global warming? In 2013, Australian scientist John Cook - author of the book Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand - analyzed 12,000 abstracts (summaries of studies) and claimed “97% of climate papers stating a position on human-caused global warming agree global warming is happening and we are the cause.” [17] The problem? His method of review was so unthoughtful that it entirely distorted the results. Using the qualifier “papers taking a position,” Cook subjectively identified 34 percent of the papers as having supposedly expressed an opinion on anthropogenic climate change, and of that 34%, since 33% appeared to endorse anthropogenic climate change (in his assessment), he then divided 33 by 34 and got 97%. But as the National Review points out, “When David Legates, a University of Delaware professor who formerly headed the university’s Center for Climatic Research, recreated Cook’s study, he found that 'only 41 papers' of the 11,944 had endorsed what Cook claimed they endorsed.” That's only 0.3% of all 11,944 papers or “1% of the 4,014” that had specifically expressed an opinion. In addition, “several scientists whose papers were included in Cook’s initial sample also protested that they had been misinterpreted.” [18] Attempting to right this false public narrative, a 2015 NIPCC Report on Scientific Consensus advised the following:

“The claim of 'scientific consensus' on the causes and consequences of climate change is without merit. ...On the contrary, there is extensive evidence of scientific disagreement about many of the most important issues that must be resolved before the hypothesis of dangerous man-made global warming can be validated.” [19] (If interested in learning more about the many disagreements scientists have regarding climate change science, you're encouraged to read this cited paper.)

FAILED PREDICTIONS:
This isn't to say that Global Warming might not be true, it's simply to point out the extraordinary degree of ambiguity which exists within the research, complicated further by the numerous failed predictions by global warming alarmists. For instance, experts claimed the Arctic sea ice would melt entirely by September 2016. They were proven wrong. [20] While a 2013 IPCC report claimed that Antarctica was losing significant amounts of land ice, a 2015 NASA study used satellite data to debunk that notion and confirm that the Antarctic ice sheet actually gained in size nearly every year since 1992. [21] In a 1985 study, alarmists warned that “Beginning in a decade or two, scientists expect the warming of the atmosphere to melt the polar icecaps, raising the level of the seas, flooding coastal areas, eroding the shores and sending salt water far into fresh-water estuaries.” Again, we know this did not occur. [22] In 2007, U.N. scientists claimed the world only had eight years left to avoid the worst effects of global warming. [23] Eight years has passed and global devastation has yet to occur. Even Secretary of State John Kerry warned back in 2009 that "the Arctic will be ice-free in the summer of 2013. Not in 2050, but four years from now. Make no mistake: catastrophic climate change represents a threat to human security, global stability, and - yes - even to American national security." Again, this dire prediction never materialized, but no politician seems to answer for these fear tactics which empower them. [24]

And that's not all. For decades, the global warming alarmists were insisting that inclining CO2 levels were akin to pollution which would wreak havoc on our environment. Contrary to their projections, however, 28 years of satellite data have confirmed that the increased CO2 levels actually contributed to INCREASING global vegetation, since plants need CO2 to live. [25] And in addition to the above failed predictions, many continue to push the theory that natural disasters have been on the rise due to global warming. But per a 2014 International Federation of the Red Cross Natural Disaster Report, globally, there's actually been a decline in losses due to natural disasters. “Moreover, US hurricane and tornado activity trends since 1950 have remained flat or are decreasing respectively.” [26] Lastly, and most uncomfortable for those who insisted devastation was around the corner, satellite data confirms there's essentially been NO global warming since our last peak in 1997-1998. [27]

CONCLUSION:
To conclude with full disclosure, we at WAC are not climatologists. We're admittedly speaking outside our field of economics and are understandably limited in that sense. We can't be entirely sure if global warming is a legitimate concern or not. What we CAN offer, however, is an economist's perspective; one which seeks to verify statistical significance, looks for flaws in predictive modeling, looks for replication of results, looks for sampling set errors which inadvertently or purposely skew results, one which examines historical literature and cross references old predictions with reality, and one which questions the legitimacy of public policy responses. What we can conclude is that there exists much ambiguity with this issue. Yes, most scientists agree that the Earth has generally warmed since 1800. Yes, many agree that at least some part of this warming was partially the result of human existence. Yes, many scientists agree that CO2 levels have likely increased. The disagreements, however, are largely over the depth of our presumed impact, if it's mostly natural or not, whether it's actually linked to CO2 levels, whether it's reasonable to allocate resources towards alleviation efforts, and whether successfully alleviating climate change is even within the realm of plausibility. It's absolutely sensible to debate these finer points and doing so doesn't mean one is ignoring evidence. A scientist, for instance, might be unconvinced that temperature levels are following CO2 levels while believing that climate largely fluctuates over time, yet they may still accept that we're presently in a moderate warming phase and that humans are indeed a minor contributor to that. They could believe this despite also believing that our impact is so negligible that it's unreasonable to adopt reactionary socioeconomic policies which damage economic growth in a vain effort to combat moderate climate changes. Unfortunately, in today's toxic political atmosphere, such a stance would have a scientist labeled “a science denier,” despite their views falling within the parameters of current research. As Mr. Pruitt correctly concluded, the intricacies of this debate are “far from settled,” and discussion “should be encouraged.” It's not as simple as “join us in saving the world” or “admit you hate science.”
___________________________
Sources:
[1]
http://www.cnn.com/…/…/trump-picks-scott-pruitt-to-head-epa/

[2]
http://www.nationalreview.com/…/climate-change-attorneys-ge…

[3]
http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/…/is-the-world-getting-w…

[4]
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/123/3207/1061 (requires subscription)

[5]
http://harpers.org/archive/1958/09/the-coming-ice-age/ (an article about citation 4 with no subscription required, for those without a subscription to sciencemag.org)

[6]
http://dge.stanford.edu/…/PSAC,%201965,%20Restoring%20the%2…

[7]
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpos…/…/147902052.html…

[8]
http://www.economonitor.com/…/an-important-letter-sent-to-…/

[9]
http://www.wsj.com/…/notable-quotable-global-cooling-143034…

[10]
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/…/ice…/ny-times-1975-01-19.pdf

[11]
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/193/4252/447

[12]
https://www.nap.edu/…/carbon-dioxide-and-climate-a-scientif… (can be downloaded after logging in as a guest)

[13]
http://www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com/mann%27s-hock

[14]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:T_comp_61-90.pdf (photo of graph only)

[15]
http://a-sceptical-mind.com/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-hockey

[16]
http://www.rossmckitrick.com/…/hockey-stick-retrospective.p…

[17]
http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php

[18]
http://www.nationalreview.com/…/climate-change-no-its-not-9…

[19]
https://www.heartland.org/…/12-04-15_why_scientists_disagre…

[20]
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/…/experts-said-arctic-sea-ice-w…/

[21]
https://www.nasa.gov/…/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-i…

[22]
http://www.nytimes.com/…/ideas-trends-continued-a-dire-long…

[23]
https://www.theguardian.com/…/climatechange.climatechangeen…

[24]
http://www.politifact.com/…/kerry-claims-arctic-will-be-ic…/

[25]
http://www.wnd.com/…/oops-rising-co2-proves-beneficial-to-…/

[26]
http://notrickszone.com/…/inconvenient-truths-2014-global…/…

[27]
http://www.climatedepot.com/…/satellites-no-global-warming-…

FDISK

  • Guest
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
« Reply #1157 on: December 12, 2016, 10:36:08 am »
Volumes upon volumes upon volumes of data and studies have been released for peer review.  Over 90% of publishing scientists (peer reviewed?) believe Global Warming exists.  You have done an excellent job of representing the other 10%. 

By the way, "peer review" does not mean "released to the public".   It's a painstaking process which is not the least bit democratic.  The "public" are not involved in the process, lawyers do not sit in judgment.
Like Like x 1 Agree Agree x 1 View List

otto105

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11715
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
« Reply #1158 on: December 12, 2016, 12:12:46 pm »



Various surveys have been conducted to evaluate scientific opinion on global warming. They have concluded that the majority of scientists support the idea of anthropogenic climate change.

In 2004, the geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[114] She analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change.

Oreskes divided the abstracts into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Seventy-five per cent of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories (either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view); 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. None of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable". According to the report, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."

In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. 97% of the scientists surveyed agreed that global temperatures had increased during the past 100 years; 84% said they personally believed human-induced warming was occurring, and 74% agreed that "currently available scientific evidence" substantiated its occurrence. Catastrophic effects in 50–100 years would likely be observed according to 41%, while 44% thought the effects would be moderate and about 13 percent saw relatively little danger. 5% said they thought human activity did not contribute to greenhouse warming.[123][124][125][126]

Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch conducted a survey in August 2008 of 2058 climate scientists from 34 different countries.[127] A web link with a unique identifier was given to each respondent to eliminate multiple responses. A total of 373 responses were received giving an overall response rate of 18.2%. No paper on climate change consensus based on this survey has been published yet (February 2010), but one on another subject has been published based on the survey.[128]

The survey was composed of 76 questions split into a number of sections. There were sections on the demographics of the respondents, their assessment of the state of climate science, how good the science is, climate change impacts, adaptation and mitigation, their opinion of the IPCC, and how well climate science was being communicated to the public. Most of the answers were on a scale from 1 to 7 from 'not at all' to 'very much'.

To the question "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?", 67.1% said they very much agreed, 26.7% agreed to some large extent, 6.2% said to they agreed to some small extent (2–4), none said they did not agree at all. To the question "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?" the responses were 34.6% very much agree, 48.9% agreeing to a large extent, 15.1% to a small extent, and 1.35% not agreeing at all.

A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believed that mean global temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels. Seventy-five of 77 believed that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement. The authors summarised the findings:

It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.[115]

A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and drew the following two conclusions:

(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.[116]

A 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters reviewed 11,944 abstracts of scientific papers matching "global warming" or "global climate change". They found 4,014 which discussed the cause of recent global warming, and of these "97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming".[120]

James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium, analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[129] A follow-up analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[130] His 2015 paper on the topic, covering 24,210 articles published by 69,406 authors during 2013 and 2014 found only five articles by four authors rejecting anthropogenic global warming. Over 99.99% of climate scientists did not reject AGW in their peer-reviewed research.[122]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change


Quote
The claim of 'scientific consensus' on the causes and consequences of climate change is without merit.

The only thing here without merit is your argument against anthropogenic global warming. Which seems to be based on creating doubt instead of actual peer-reviewed scientific fact.

Robb

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4926
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
« Reply #1159 on: December 12, 2016, 01:05:03 pm »
The globe may indeed be warming but man's role in that cycle is anything but proven.  Scientists are still guessing at global temperature over the course of the planet's existence so how can they know if the globe has ever warmed naturally in the past?  Is man to blame for the increased temps or is this just a normal cycle that has more to do with external forces like sun activity?  I think the reason why many believe the science to be a hoax is because of the ridicule of any who oppose their theories as settled.  If I published a paper putting forth my theories I would want all data I could get to help prove or disprove my theory so I can get closer to the truth.  There may be 90% of scientists convinced anthropogenic climate change is real, but why are they so opposed to anyone of the opposite viewpoint?  Is any science ever truly settled?  Isn't questioning the majority not only encouraged but essential to science?  Why then the hostility toward anyone who doesn't fall in line?  Could it be because those whose livelihood is dependent on grant money that pours in from environmentalist donors and foundations would quickly dry up if they discovered the theory to be false? Enough documents have been leaked to show that there is a groupthink mentality among experts to shut down any discussion on alternatives which leaves many like me skeptical.  It really is too bad this had to enter the political arena.  We should all be in agreement that we want to leave the planet in better shape than we found it.  Unfortunately this has become yet another right vs left battle with closed minds on both sides more interested in winning than what is right.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2016, 01:07:15 pm by Robb »

otto105

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11715
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
« Reply #1160 on: December 12, 2016, 01:51:33 pm »
Quote
There may be 90% of scientists convinced anthropogenic climate change is real, but why are they so opposed to anyone of the opposite viewpoint?

There is no may be. Also, you're arguing in support of a flat earth because that is all you see. Unlike the other which that uses scientific fact to prove that it is round.

Quote
Is any science ever truly settled?

Yes.

Quote
Isn't questioning the majority not only encouraged but essential to science?

Questioning with critical thinking is always encouraged and essential. Blind denial based on a political viewpoint is ignorant.

Quote
Why then the hostility toward anyone who doesn't fall in line?

Ridiculing your ignorant political viewpoint against anthropogenic global warming is not hostility.

Quote
Could it be because those whose livelihood is dependent on grant money that pours in from environmentalist donors and foundations would quickly dry up if they discovered the theory to be false?

I'm wondering how this is relevant. The same can be said of the head in sand deniers of warming. In regard to the people who study warming, their papers are peer-reviewed. Your denial is based on doubt (politically based) and without any peer-reviewed scientific facts.

Quote
Enough documents have been leaked to show that there is a groupthink mentality among experts to shut down any discussion on alternatives which leaves many like me skeptical.


What documents are you referring too?

Quote
It really is too bad this had to enter the political arena.

It entered the political arena for two reasons. One, it requires governments and people to change and second, it was made more political because your side found that it was easier to deny politically than with facts in the scientific world.

Quote
We should all be in agreement that we want to leave the planet in better shape than we found it.

We should be, but your side doesn't.

Quote
Unfortunately this has become yet another right vs left battle with closed minds on both sides more interested in winning than what is right.

Actually it is not left verses right. Its scientific fact verses a political viewpoint. 

I have an open mind if you can present actual facts to back your assertion that anthropogenic global warming is a myth started by the Chinese to undermine capitalism.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2016, 01:59:20 pm by otto105 »

otto105

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11715
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
« Reply #1161 on: December 12, 2016, 02:02:28 pm »
Quote
but man is full of himself if he thinks he's the big deal; man is a pimple on the butt of an elephant.

One ant is your house is not a problem, 1 Trillion would be.

DelMarFan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3285
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
« Reply #1162 on: December 12, 2016, 02:06:11 pm »
Quote
Could it be because those whose livelihood is dependent on grant money that pours in from environmentalist donors and foundations would quickly dry up if they discovered the theory to be false?

Which seems more likely?  >90% of climatologists conspiring on a worldwide massive hoax in order to keep their grant money coming, or the petrochemical industry and those who profit from it most doing just about everything they can to deny that anything involving burning fossil fuels could be changing the planet?

Quote
this has become yet another right vs left battle with closed minds on both sides

Yes, it is unfortunate that this has become a right vs left battle, because the science is quite clear.
Like Like x 1 View List

DelMarFan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3285
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
« Reply #1163 on: December 12, 2016, 02:20:36 pm »

Jes Beard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17183
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
« Reply #1164 on: December 12, 2016, 10:09:14 pm »
Volumes upon volumes upon volumes of data and studies have been released for peer review.  Over 90% of publishing scientists (peer reviewed?) believe Global Warming exists.  You have done an excellent job of representing the other 10%. 

By the way, "peer review" does not mean "released to the public".   It's a painstaking process which is not the least bit democratic.  The "public" are not involved in the process, lawyers do not sit in judgment.

Re-read my comment.  I did not write that peer review means released to the public.

I wrote that "true peer review... requires opening the actual data to public scrutiny."  That is not only a bit different from peer review meaning "released to the public," "peer review" was a phrase I introduced into the exchange at that point in the discussion, and since it is a phrase subject to somewhat different meanings, I was defining my use of it.  You don't get to define my terms, particularly when I offer a definition right in my post.  In this context you asked me what I would consider "good science."  I submit that my response makes considerable sense as to the meaning of "good science."  If the data is not available for examination, peers can not meaningfully review it or the publication based on it.  Publication which does not afford the opportunity for review of all of the data does not allow meaningful review.

The scientific method involves forming hypotheses and testing those hypotheses, including allowing others to make further observations and possibly replicate the experiments producing the data or conclusions.  In lab experiments, peers can run their own experiments.  In dealing with climate data, the "experiments" are to a very large degree the examination of the data.... and if the data, the RAW data and the way it is collected, is not made available, or is altered before it is made available, then no real peer review can take place and the conclusions are not really the result of science at all.

Jes Beard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17183
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
« Reply #1165 on: December 12, 2016, 10:13:23 pm »
Scientific consensus:  http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

As I mentioned in my last post, regardless the name of the organization or the url, when the raw, unfudged data used is not made available for public review, any "consensus" is something far less than scientific.

CUBluejays

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17344
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
« Reply #1166 on: December 13, 2016, 06:48:06 am »
I find it ironic that Rick Perry is going to head the Department of Energy.

Jes Beard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17183
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
« Reply #1167 on: December 13, 2016, 07:30:22 am »
I find it ironic that Rick Perry is going to head the Department of Energy.

Wasn't that the one he could not remember the name of?

Robb

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4926
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
« Reply #1168 on: December 13, 2016, 07:45:50 am »
Quote
I have an open mind if you can present actual facts to back your assertion that anthropogenic global warming is a myth started by the Chinese to undermine capitalism.
Where in my response did I say anything of the kind?  Try this article to start.  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html

otto105

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11715
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
« Reply #1169 on: December 13, 2016, 09:02:41 am »
Robb

Citing an 7 year old story from the conservative noise machine that was debunked is not adding anything to the debate. Nor changing the scientific consensus on Global Warming.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/


Can you provide any actual information?
Agree Agree x 1 View List