Banning the term climate change won’t stop the reality

[gene]

So, data manipulation is OK? That's not science.

After reading that guys history and background, I don't trust his analysis as credible. What a disservice to NASA and other objective scientists.

 

[Chu Gai]

Follow his background. He gets grant money to deny/debunk science:

http://www.desmogblog.com/friedrich-karl-ewert

http://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-institute

The only people you will find denying anthropological climate change are either tied to big Oil or getting funded by a private entity to do so. The Koch Brothers spent $100's of millions to confuse the public on climate change.

Desmondblog has a bit of a checkered origin too, Gene. Maybe you can comment on it? As to Prof. Ewert, just how much money does he get per year from these sources compared to other income? And Scientific American, their article was that current models overestimate CO2. Of course there's still the ex-NASA darling Hansen who is saying something like sea levels rising 50' in a short amount of time, right?

From an article about the the Koch bothers...

When asked why he believes he and his brother are targeted, Koch says fear plays a part. “Those who advocate government controlling people’s lives do not like competition; they do not like a marketplace of ideas,” he says. “They are apparently afraid to debate and have a national conversation on these ideas: which is better, which is a more just system, which will help people improve their lives better? And so they’re trying to shut down all opposition.”

 

[Chu Gai]

After reading that guys history and background, I don't trust his analysis as credible. What a disservice to NASA and other objective scientists.

Jeez, that's a superficial approach. He took the NASA published data and obtained the NASA raw data and contrasted them. What's the justification for altering raw data?

 

[Chu Gai]

I am sure that one guy whose work is paid for by oil barons and whose papers appear in the prestigious scientific journal breitbart.com is totally objective and has definitively debunked the work of tens of thousands of serious scientists. Now who has peer reviewed his work again? I missed that part.

Well then, you should have no trouble, seeing that there are tens of thousands of serious scientists, finding a slew of them that provide the rationale for taking the raw data and altering it. Maybe these tens of thousands of serious scientists are also comfortable with pharmaceutical companies altering, or is that what's called massaging, data about negative drug effects? Don't paint yourself to be a Galileo as you stand on the sidelines of the Inquisition camp.

And just remember who stood up for you when people and companies tried to characterize and discredit you by pointing to other websites and slapping agenda labels.

Hope you had a good thanksgiving!

 

[herbu]

After reading that guys history and background, I don't trust his analysis as credible.

Unlike everyone in the opposition.
(Take Al Gore... please.)
Besides, this guy was likely on Fox News at one time or another.

I am 100% convinced there is no evidence, no science, and nobody that will change minds on this subject. It is too political. People will always challenge the politics and motives of someone offering "evidence" contrary to their beliefs.

As proof, I would ask anybody, "What evidence could possibly be presented, and by whom, that would make you change your mind?".

 

[Chu Gai]

You could start by having universities stop actively looking to oust professors who look to conduct research that deviates or may deviate from the doom and gloom scenario. Maybe an honest and critical look in a public arena of just how they came up with the oft repeated 97% consensus. Look at that Scientific Americn article.

 

[gene]

Desmondblog has a bit of a checkered origin too, Gene. Maybe you can comment on it? As to Prof. Ewert, just how much money does he get per year from these sources compared to other income? And Scientific American, their article was that current models overestimate CO2. Of course there's still the ex-NASA darling Hansen who is saying something like sea levels rising 50' in a short amount of time, right?

From an article about the the Koch bothers...

When asked why he believes he and his brother are targeted, Koch says fear plays a part. “Those who advocate government controlling people’s lives do not like competition; they do not like a marketplace of ideas,” he says. “They are apparently afraid to debate and have a national conversation on these ideas: which is better, which is a more just system, which will help people improve their lives better? And so they’re trying to shut down all opposition.”

Oh yes the poor Billionaire Koch Brothers are victims here. Again if you follow the money trail of any climate change deniers it almost always points to big oil, or a billionaire funded group of people with a vested interest in doing business as usual. This is very similar to how big tobacco was years ago. I'd have to wonder if you would be on the side of Tobacco back in the day?

You can continue to deny the overwhelming evidence of manmade climate change by the rising sea levels, melting permafrost, mass extinctions, increased CO2 levels, melting ice caps, etc. I won't try to change your mind as I am content with knowing I am on the right side of science in this debate.

 

[shadyJ]

I don't know what you guys do for a living or what area your expertise is in, but what would you think if some bought-off talking head in some politically slanted venue started trashing your work, saying you are lying for political convenience in a subject you have dedicated your life to studying, or maybe invested tens of thousands of hours for a doctorate? And they can only produce a handful of fringe scientists to challenge your work, none of whose work they can even get legitimately peered.

I don't profess to understand much of the data of climatology, but many of the scientists I have known across several disciplines are all people I knew to have a great deal of integrity and would certainly have followed their own work where ever it lead, regardless of the political zeitgeist. I don't imagine climatology is very different. Therefore, the idea that an entire body of scientists on climatology, meteorology, and every other atmospheric science are involved in some kind of grand conspiracy is absurd to the same degree that lizard people illuminati control the world.

Instead of claiming these scientists are cooking the books, why don't you go talk to them in person- and then weigh their credibility against that of some crank at a right-wing rag.

 

[Chu Gai]

Oh yes the poor Billionaire Koch Brothers are victims here. Again if you follow the money trail of any climate change deniers it almost always points to big oil, or a billionaire funded group of people with a vested interest in doing business as usual. This is very similar to how big tobacco was years ago. I'd have to wonder if you would be on the side of Tobacco back in the day?

You can continue to deny the overwhelming evidence of manmade climate change by the rising sea levels, melting permafrost, mass extinctions, increased CO2 levels, melting ice caps, etc. I won't try to change your mind as I am content with knowing I am on the right side of science in this debate.

From the French paper I linked to earlier...

"Human beings are quite naturally interested in the sea level and for a long time have noted that it appears to be rising, but not everywhere and not uniformly. To be precise, the sea level, which rose 120m in 18,000 years (source: the French Research Institute for Exploitation of the Sea – IFREMER), or 6.6 mm per year, has risen by only 1.2 mm per year (French Naval Hydrographic and Oceanographic Service – SHOM) since 1800, and the rate has not speeded up recently; see [Christy and Spencer]."

the thing is, Gene, I'm reading the papers and others are getting dumbed down sound bites. And I'm reading it from both sides. I've actually corresponded with Lindzen, the dude from NASA, and some others. You look for the money trail but not when it doesn't suit your perspective.

 

[Chu Gai]

I don't know what you guys do for a living or what area your expertise is in, but what would you think if some bought-off talking head in some politically slanted venue started trashing your work, saying you are lying for political convenience in a subject you have dedicated your life to studying, or maybe invested tens of thousands of hours for a doctorate? And they can only produce a handful of fringe scientists to challenge your work, none of whose work they can even get legitimately peered.

I don't profess to understand much of the data of climatology, but many of the scientists I have known across several disciplines are all people I knew to have a great deal of integrity and would certainly have followed their own work where ever it lead, regardless of the political zeitgeist. I don't imagine climatology is very different. Therefore, the idea that an entire body of scientists on climatology, meteorology, and every other atmospheric science are involved in some kind of grand conspiracy is absurd to the same degree that lizard people illuminati control the world.

Instead of claiming these scientists are cooking the books, why don't you go talk to them in person- and then weigh their credibility against that of some crank at a right-wing rag.

Doesn't your own intellectual curiosity demand an answer for the rationale why the raw data was altered?

 

[gene]

Doesn't your own intellectual curiosity demand an answer for the rationale why the raw data was altered?

I don't believe it was. There is no peer reviewed evidence to support it and NASA has been a trusted institute for decades.

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/02/nothing-false-about-temperature-data/

The 10 hottest global temperatures of recorded history have happened since 2000. Hmmm.

 

[Chu Gai]

So what?

 

[shadyJ]

In scientific parlance, we call that a "trend". Many times "trends" are used to forecast future outcomes.

 

[Chu Gai]

In scientific parlance, extrapolation using models that are still under revision can be fraught with danger. How'd that extrapolation work out with the housing bubble?

 

[lsiberian]

I don't know what you guys do for a living or what area your expertise is in, but what would you think if some bought-off talking head in some politically slanted venue started trashing your work, saying you are lying for political convenience in a subject you have dedicated your life to studying

I actually have had my field talked about a lot. In fact my previous companies CEO actually spends most of his time in Washington. People want to end subprime lending, but how else are poor people gonna fix their car or buy a car when they have no cash on hand? They gotta get to their job somehow.

 

[Chu Gai]

Have you considered co-signing to help someone out?

 

[herbu]

Maybe an honest and critical look in a public arena of just how they came up with the oft repeated 97% consensus.

Exactly right. The WSJ did, and debunked several sources credited w/ the 97% figure. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136

But we know the WSJ is just another right-wing extremest political not-to-be-believed paper. Again, it proves my point. Nothing anybody says will change people's minds on this subject. Mainly because NONE of us are experts on the subject, so we have to choose which experts to believe, and we choose the ones that represent our own preconceived beliefs.

 

[Rickster71]

Is federal funding biasing climate research?

http://judithcurry.com/2015/05/06/is-federal-funding-biasing-climate-research/

Here is how $$ motivates what is going on.
‘Success’ to individual researchers, particularly at the large state universities, pretty much equates to research dollars – big lab spaces, high salaries, institutional prestige, and career advancement (note, this is not so true at the most prestigious universities, where peer recognition is the biggest deal).
At the Program Manager level within a funding agency, ‘success’ is reflected in growing the size of your program (e.g. more $$) and having some high profile results (e.g. press releases). At the agency level, ‘success’ is reflected in growing, or at least preserving, your budget. Aligning yourself, your program, your agency with the political imperatives du jour is a key to ‘success’.

Potential Practices of Funding-Induced Bias

1. Funding agency programs that have a biased focus. In some cases Congress funds research programs that may be biased in their very structure. For example, by ignoring certain scientific questions that are claimed to be important, or by supporting specific hypotheses, especially those favorable to the agency’s mission or policies.

2. Agency Strategic Plans, RFPs, etc., with an agenda, not asking the right questions. Research proposals may be shaped by agency Strategic Plans and Requests for Proposals (RFP’s), also called Funding Opportunity Announcements (FOA’s). These documents often specify those scientific questions that the agency deems important, hence worthy of funding. Thus the resulting research proposals may be biased, speaking to what the agency claims is important rather than what the researcher thinks.

3. Biased peer review of research proposals. This bias may involve rejecting ideas that appear to conflict with the established paradigm, funding agency mission, or other funding interest. See also Bias #6: Biased peer review of journal articles and conference presentations.

4. Biased selection of research proposals by the agency program. The selection of proposals is ultimately up to the agency program officers. As with the selection of peer reviewers, there is some concern that some funding agencies may be selecting research proposals specifically to further the agency’s policy agenda.

5. Preference for modeling using biased assumptions. The use of computer modeling is now widespread in all of the sciences. There is a concern that some funding agencies may be funding the development of models that are biased in favor of outcomes that further the agency’s policy agenda.

6. Biased peer review of journal articles and conference presentations. This issue is analogous to the potential bias in peer review of proposals, as discussed above. As in that case, this bias may involve rejecting ideas that conflict with the established paradigm, agency mission, or other funding interests.

7. Biased meta-analysis of the scientific literature. Meta-analysis refers to studies that purport to summarize a number of research studies that are all related to the same research question. For example, meta-analysis is quite common in medical research, such as where the results of a number of clinical trials for the same drug are examined.

8. Failure to report negative results. This topic has become the subject of considerable public debate, especially within the scientific community. Failure to report negative results can bias science by supporting researcher that perpetuates questionable hypotheses.

9. Manipulation of data to bias results. Raw data often undergoes considerable adjustment before it is presented as the result of research. There is a concern that these adjustments may bias the results in ways that favor the researcher or the agency funding the research.

10. Refusing to share data with potential critics. A researcher or their funding agency may balk at sharing data with known critics or skeptics.

11. Asserting conjectures as facts. It can be in a researcher’s, as well as their funding agency’s, interest to exaggerate their results, especially when these results support an agency policy or paradigm. One way of doing this is to assert as an established fact what is actually merely a conjecture.

12. False confidence in tentative findings. Another way for researchers, as well as their funding agencies to exaggerate results is top claim that they have answered an important question when the results merely suggest a possible answer. This often means giving false confidence to tentative findings.

13. Exaggeration of the importance of findings by researchers and agencies. Researcher and agency press releases sometimes claim that results are very important when they merely suggest an important possibility, which may actually turn out to be a dead end. Such claims may tend to bias the science in question, including future funding decisions.

14. Amplification of exaggeration by the press. The bias due to exaggeration in press releases and related documents described above is sometimes, perhaps often, amplified by overly enthusiastic press reports and headlines.

15. More funding with an agenda, building on the above, so the cycle repeats and builds. The biased practices listed above all tend to promote more incorrect science, with the result that research continues in the same misguided direction. Errors become systemic by virtue of a biased positive feedback process. The bias is systematically driven by what sells, and critical portions of the scientific method may be lost in the gold rush.

For each of these 15, the report includes:

• Concept analysis
• Literature snapshot
• Research directions and prospects for quantification
• Climate debate examples

 

[Bizarro_Stormy]

...lizard people Illuminati control the world.

Awww maaaan...

Now you've gone & done it...

You've alerted the audio-video world to our presence...


ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD..!

 

[gene]

Exactly right. The WSJ did, and debunked several sources credited w/ the 97% figure. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136

But we know the WSJ is just another right-wing extremest political not-to-be-believed paper. Again, it proves my point. Nothing anybody says will change people's minds on this subject. Mainly because NONE of us are experts on the subject, so we have to choose which experts to believe, and we choose the ones that represent our own preconceived beliefs.

Except I actually know many leading climate scientists who are experts on this topic and its a settled science despite what people with a vested interest claim otherwise. My brother, Dr. Dominick DellaSala is actually a leading Ecologist in his field who is well versed and I can tell you he doesn't live the life of a fat cat getting rich off researching our carbon footprint on the Earth and how its causing damage to our ecosystems as we are witnessing the biggest extinctions since the last mass extinction event. That said, he puts forth unrealistic proposals to slow down our CO2 footprint. He is very idealistic that we can stop this warming trend before its too late but I don't believe that is the case. I take a more pessimistic view b/c I know how greedy people are (myself included). We want cheap energy and we want it now! I'm not arguing what the correct action is. I'm just pointing out this is a real problem based on real science and observation of what is happening around us.

Someone earlier in this thread made a point that temperatures changed rapidly in the past but failed to realize that All of the rapid climate shifts in the past had a cataclysmic event, super volcanoes, asteroid strikes, etc. None of these events have occurred in the last 100+ yrs. So as usual we have non science educated people misusing data to back a Theory that sounds good to the average Joe.