Science Has Spoken On MMGW, And It Says To Hide The Data

[Beel]

With regard to the link which starts this thread:

http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2009/11/the_hacked_climate_science_ema.php

[wolfpat]

Responding only to wolfpat's comment--are you seriously suggesting that funding is driving a whole scientific discipline--rather than a search for information and understanding?  All these grad students out there taking measurements and core samples and what all are just shaping the data to continue funding?  I'd think most university climatology departments are funded in a general way--that is, their funding is not tied to results in the way you imply.  From my knowledge of scientists, I'd also assert that most of them would not participate in an on-going fraud. 

Is funding driving a whole scientific discipline? If not the whole thing, certainly a significant part of it.

Were the many hundreds of scientists who proved in a variety of ways that tobacco was indeed a very harmful product actually just scamming their data for funds to generate further phony studies? 

yes, much like the MMGW people are today.

The energy companies need information and thus science in order to find energy resources more effectively.  They don't need a bunch of scientists saying that the particular kind of energy resource they happen to market is actually causing harm to all of the planet, or to the way of life of the people who consume it.  That sort of talk damages their market.  A way to counter it is to find some guys in white coats who take the other side--thus leaving law makers and the general public a a loss to decide who's right.  That's using science, or seeming science, in the service of advertising.

 
A big difference between the tobacco companies and energy companies is that there's only one tobacco, but many potential sources of energy. Witness BP's foray into alternate energy sources. And did you know that Exxon once made nuclear fuel? I'm sure they would like to start that up again if we can build more plants.

...and that there are certainly some sincere doubters amongst the many voices in the general din of conversation. 

Not according to Al Gore and that woman who used to work for the Weather Channel. They said it's a done deal, and anybody who says otherwise should be shunned and not allowed to work in climate science again.

The jury is still out over whether the climate is warming or cooling. And trying to gather evidence of man's part in that is difficult at best, and this stuff coming from the Brits shows that we have to question that now too.

[cccoach]

The jury is still out over whether the climate is warming or cooling. And trying to gather evidence of man's part in that is difficult at best, and this stuff coming from the Brits shows that we have to question that now too.

97% of the jury is in and the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence suggest that climate change is real, accelerating and driven by  humans. I suppose we can wait for the remaining 3% to jump on board but unfortunately the earth does not have a control group for comparison. The only analogy that I can think of is the one I used earlier. If I were a smoker and I went to 100 doctors specializing in lung cancer and 97 told me that I need to quit smoking I wouldn't continue smoking because 3 said it wasn't causing cancer. I believe there is room for debate but I also believe that inaction is the worse possible solution. I also believe that if the 97% were somehow miraculously wrong the positive benefits of reducing American consumption fffaaarrrr outway the possible negative aspects.

[RJLeeb]

The jury is still out over whether the climate is warming or cooling. And trying to gather evidence of man's part in that is difficult at best, and this stuff coming from the Brits shows that we have to question that now too.

97% of the jury is in and the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence suggest that climate change is real, accelerating and driven by  humans. I suppose we can wait for the remaining 3% to jump on board but unfortunately the earth does not have a control group for comparison. The only analogy that I can think of is the one I used earlier. If I were a smoker and I went to 100 doctors specializing in lung cancer and 97 told me that I need to quit smoking I wouldn't continue smoking because 3 said it wasn't causing cancer. I believe there is room for debate but I also believe that inaction is the worse possible solution. I also believe that if the 97% were somehow miraculously wrong the positive benefits of reducing American consumption fffaaarrrr outway the possible negative aspects.

I would really like to see the evidence for the fact that 97 percent of the (scientific) jury has decided one way.

Who decides what constitutes the jury?  The IPCC?

Again, show me where the 97 percent stat you keep throwing out comes from.

[RJLeeb]

Everything Camper has said is real science.  It seems like you're the denier, truth be told.

I too have faith in the scientific community, but that faith is tempered by two immutable truths:

1. Science doesn't always get it right. 

Neither does snowcamper.

Excellent, we agree.  Scientists don't always get it right.

Too bad you didn't respond to my comment about all the erosion that was predicted by scientists back in the 70's.

I'm sure you would have said they were right back then too?

[Silk_Hope]

I think the 70's Global Cooling prediction has started.

[RJLeeb]

It is obvious from his writings, that Snowcamper IS a scientist. It is equally obvious that Beel is not. 

I disagree (which should be no real surprise) While Snowcamper is throwing around scientific jargon it is not the same as science, much like creationist throw around jargon and present it as science. Regardless of what I believe it is probably more important what scientists believe.  A University of Illinois direct scientific survey showed the following. 97% of scientists involved in studying the atmosphere believe that global temperature change is occurring and is largely man-made. 90% of scientists believe that global temperature change is occurring and 82% of those scientists believe that global temperature is accelerated or caused by man. Now if 97 out of 100 doctors I went to told me that I have a serious illness I believe that I would listen and I do not believe that makes us sheeple?

He's not throwing around scientific jargon.  He's laying out a logical and fact based argument.

So let's look a bit closer at that survey, shall we?  I think I found where you got that odd 97 percent statistic.

You say:

97% of scientists involved in studying the atmosphere believe that global temperature change is occurring and is largely man-made

Interesting that you say that, because this article says:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-01/uoia-ssa011609.php
Two questions were key: have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.

About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.

Ok...so instead of 97 percent it was actually 82 percent.  So what you said wasn't quite accurate.  You bungled it a bit.  No big deal.  And that's if we are to believe that this survey didn't bias the data...more on that in a future post.

Let's look at what else is interesting in that article:

In analyzing responses by sub-groups, Doran found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role. Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 and 64 percent respectively believing in human involvement. Doran compared their responses to a recent poll showing only 58 percent of the public thinks human activity contributes to global warming.

"The petroleum geologist response is not too surprising, but the meteorologists' is very interesting," he said. "Most members of the public think meteorologists know climate, but most of them actually study very short-term phenomenon."

He was not surprised, however, by the near-unanimous agreement by climatologists.

"They're the ones who study and publish on climate science. So I guess the take-home message is, the more you know about the field of climate science, the more you're likely to believe in global warming and humankind's contribution to it."

Doran puts an interesting spin on it, don't you think?  Interesting how he gives the climatologists so much credit and values their opinions above that of the other scientists.  Nevermind that geologists are the ones that deal with extrapolations gained from soil samples and the like, which is the only data we have when it comes to figuring out what the climate was like long before people started writing down temperatures or had ways of measuring them.

And of course it is climatologists that get the funding.  As someone else said...follow the money.

I find it hilarious that so many liberals claim that some scientists are in the tank of one business concern or another and then pretend that scientists that believe in MMGW are beyond reproach.

[RJLeeb]

So while we are on the subject of that "survey", let's see what some others have to say about Doran's findings.

Thursday, January 22, 2009
Dishonest global warming survey counts skeptics as alarmists
"Survey: Scientists Agree Human-Induced Global Warming is Real"

So reads the press release put out by the survey takers. Sounds like evidence that "the debate is over" doesn't it? Until you read what the scientists actually asked:

    Two questions were key: have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.

    About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.

Only 90% think the earth has warmed since the 1700's? That doesn't inspire much confidence, but at least the question is clear. The second question turns entirely on the meaning of "significant," which is not provided with any referent.

Both sides of the global warming debate expect human production of CO2 to have SOME effect on global temperature, and most skeptics would have little reluctance to label human effects "significant." Dangerous? No. Small compared to the natural sources of temperature variation? Yes. But that does not mean they are not significant.

Thus the survey utterly fails to distinguish between the two sides of the global warming debate. Yet the University of Illinois researchers pretend that it does:

    Doran and Kendall Zimmerman conclude 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." The challenge now, they write, is how to effectively communicate this to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists.

They ask a survey question that is designed to elicit the same answer from alarmists and skeptics, then misrepresent the result as evidence that, amongst scientists, there are no skeptics. Pure intellectual fraud, just like Hansen and Schmidt and Mann and Schneider and Holdren and Chu and rest of the global warming liars.

All of these scientists know that global temperature has gone up and down with solar-magnetic activity throughout the millennia, and they all know that solar-magnetic effects are completely excluded from the models that depict 20th century warming as driven by C02. That is, they all know that they are engaged in fraud, just as Doran and Zimmerman have to know that their survey question does not distinguish between alarmists and skeptics, even as they claim that it does.

[bobsyouruncle]

Excellent, we agree.  Scientists don't always get it right.

You say that as if it's some kind of victory instead of being the biggest "duh" of all. 

That's what the scientific method is--the observation of a phenomenon and the attempt through experimentation and observation to explain it.  You work from hypotheses because you are attempting to understand things and answer questions. Over time you have more data and better tools, more advanced technology and better modeling capability, but it's always a matter of starting with an "educated guess" and modifying your hypothesis according to the information you get.

To expect scientists to "always get it right" is to misunderstand the nature of science and to ignore the scientific method.  It's not a field of such absolutes.

While the method appears simple and logical in description, there is perhaps no more complex question than that of knowing how we come to know things.

 "Introduction to the Scientific Method" at http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/PHY_LABS/AppendixE/AppendixE.html

[bobsyouruncle]

And of course it is climatologists that get the funding.  As someone else said...follow the money.

I find it hilarious that so many liberals claim that some scientists are in the tank of one business concern or another and then pretend that scientists that believe in MMGW are beyond reproach.

Have you already forgotten why it was relevant to mention ExxonMobil's stable of scientists? 

2. The scientific community runs on funding.  That funding either comes from private industry of government.  Only a fool would believe that scientists don't know where their bread is buttered, so to speak.   Thus, there is a political component to this that is undeniable.

You are once again leaping to a conclusion that doesn't hold about what people (who aren't you) believe.  To say that some scientists are funded by ExxonMobil is just a statement on that situation.  It isn't  a comment--positive or negative--on every other scientist in the world.
 

[cccoach]

If you had thoroughly read my post you would see that I clearly stated that 90% of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82% the second, which once again, I already stated. If you would read the next line down on your article you will see the statistic that I quoted from the University of Illinois study. 97% of scientists involved in studying climate change believe that climate change is caused by human means. Also if you will actually look at the study you will see that it was not limited to these questions.

all of these scientists know that global temperature has gone up and down with solar-magnetic activity throughout the millennia, and they all know that solar-magnetic effects are completely excluded from the models that depict 20th century warming as driven by C02. That is, they all know that they are engaged in fraud, just as Doran and Zimmerman have to know that their survey question does not distinguish between alarmists and skeptics, even as they claim that it does.

You use conjecture to establish the last portion of your paragraph not evidence. Even if it were true you are suggesting that 97% of climatologists are engaged in fraud, and 90% of scientists in general are engaged in fraud. What is the motivation? In the same University of Illinois study "Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 and 64 percent respectively believing in human involvement." I think it is more significant that nearly 50% of petroleum geologists believing that the enterprise they are directly involved in causes climate change.

"They're the ones who study and publish on climate science. So I guess the take-home message is, the more you know about the field of climate science, the more you're likely to believe in global warming and humankind's contribution to it."

You're making the common mistake of causation vs. correlation - understandable I guess. The simple fact is that the people who study our climate overwhelmingly believe that climate change is  caused by man. Now, If you choose to dismiss expertise that is your business and I respect your opinion but for the rest of us the opinions of 97% of the "experts" does matter and while the remaining 3% are important voices to listen to the remaining 97% are impossible to ignore.

[hb727]

You have a sad understanding of science and provability. Nothing is ever "provable" gravity is not provable, evolution is not provable, physics are not "provable". There is not a scientist in the world that can "prove" anything. Science is based on evidence and evidence does not "prove" it shows. As a person of faith this should be one of your most base understandings. If 97% of people actually saw God would you argue that there was no God because the other 3% saw nothing. I will also make the point that I'm not arguing that climate change is good or bad. I'm merely arguing that arguing that it doesn't happen is the ostrich with his head in the sand.

I'm curious about your assertion that "Nothing is ever "provable", gravity is not provable , evolution is not provable, physics are not  provable." Are you saying that the word "provable" really has no place in the English language since it doesn't mean anything because "nothing is provable"?

You also asked that  "If 97% of people actually saw God would you argue that there was no God because the other 3% saw nothing." Is this akin to asking if 100% of the jurors found OJ Simpson not guilty of murder would you argue that he was guilty?

[RJLeeb]

Cccoach,

Will all due respect sir, you used the term "largely" which did not appear in the article.  Your usage of it that way implied something that was not borne out by the data and was therefore wrong.

That's all I'm pointing out.

As for what that 97% really means, please go back and read the article I posted earlier from the National Review.

Since you brought up causation vs. correlation, please consider this:

Ice cores reveal that CO2 levels rise and fall hundreds of years after temperature changes.  So much of the furor concerning global warming is based upon the premise that CO2 levels rise, causing temperatures to rise.

Up until 2003, it was believed that carbon and temperature move at about the same time.  That was based upon the models we generated during the 1990's.

But in 2003, that changed.  New data came in and it was clear that the increase of CO2 happens after temperature rises. 

In other words, scientists had made a deduction based on correlation as opposed to causation.

Here's a graph using the new data that illustrates what I'm talking about:

[RJLeeb]

Excellent, we agree.  Scientists don't always get it right.

You say that as if it's some kind of victory instead of being the biggest "duh" of all. 

To expect scientists to "always get it right" is to misunderstand the nature of science and to ignore the scientific method.  It's not a field of such absolutes.

I assure you I understand the scientific method, but thanks for the link.

The point I was making is that so many people want to change economic policy based on what they ofter refer to as "irrefutable" proof of MMGW.  Or, to be more exact, not just MMGW, but the idea that man is responsible for the largest portion of warming, and that it isn't part of the usual warming/cooling cycles or other naturally occurring phenomenon.

Science isn't a democracy.  It only takes one scientist to disprove a theory.  And there are many scientists out there that disagree with the majority.

[belle]

anyone else notice hb727 is back after 6 months of silence?

[Tags:]

Jump to: Please select a destination: ----------------------------- Chatham County Online ----------------------------- => Chatham County Online => Chatham County Schools => Chatham County Food & Drink => Chatham County Music & Arts => Chatham Community Calendar => Free Classifieds & Help Wanted Ads => Noah's Ark - All Creatures Great & Small. => Neighbor to Neighbor => Gardening and Agriculture => Chatham County Real Estate => North Carolina => This, That and Everything Else