Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

 
Post Reply
Page 21 of 25  •  Prev 1 ... 19 20 21 22 23 ... 25 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Global Warming, Are you a Believer
6 years ago  ::  May 13, 2012 - 11:16PM #201
teilhard
Posts: 53,304

The Questions re: Global Climate (Change) aren't SUBJECTS for "Debate" but rather for SCIENTIFIC Investigation, Experimention, and Observation ...


You are FREE to hold any Opinions as you wish, but the FACTS (the Data) are DECISIVE ... (Of course, ALL Data ARE subject to Interpretation and Analysis as performed by The Scientific COMMUNITY ...)


(I perceive an eerie Similarity in this Thread to the Call by The Fundamentalist-Creationist Guys about Public Science Education, i.e., to "Teach the Controversy" about Evolution ... Interesting ...)


May 13, 2012 -- 11:06PM, Bodean wrote:


May 13, 2012 -- 10:57PM, teilhard wrote:


LOL ... You're obviously still just hope-hope-hoping someone will fall for your Invitation to a P*ssing Contest (hint: THAT isn't what "Science" is about, either) ...


But ... Again ...


I have been engaged in the SCIENTIFIC Questions re: Global Climate (Change) for >30+ Years by keeping-up on The SCIENTIFIC Literature ... The Consensus of The Scientific Community is that the Rate of Global Climate Change is being forced by Human Cultural-Industrial-Agriculture Activities ... THAT is a FACT ...




Sorry .. I don't do p*ssing contest ... I debate the "questions". ... the scientific questions .. that the "consensus" sees fit to ignore, and omit from it's "consensus" publications, like the IPCC reports.


But alas, ... when you see the word "consensus".... you should know it is "group think" ..and group think is never part of science, but is quite prevalent in politics.





Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  May 14, 2012 - 9:33AM #202
Bodean
Posts: 11,110

May 13, 2012 -- 11:16PM, teilhard wrote:


The Questions re: Global Climate (Change) aren't SUBJECTS for "Debate" but rather for SCIENTIFIC Investigation, Experimention, and Observation ...





I"ll have to beg your pardon on that one TH.  Science is all about DEBATE.  There is debate at every step.  Are the proper experiments being run to address the question.  Are the methods of data collection justifiable. Are the proper methods being used to analyze the data.  Are proper methods being used to normalize and manipulate the data in various ways.  What do the "data" really mean.  Are the conclusions justifiably in line with what the data say, or are their alternative interpretations.


SORRY .. you are just wrong.  I don't care what side you come down on .. you are wrong about science and debate.


Being that as it is .... the Global Climate Change Debate involves debates on just about every category mentioned above.  Station Placement, TOBS, Data Adjustments, Statistical Splicing of Data, Model Predictions and Real Time Observations, Proper inclusion of alternative causes, ... the list goes on and on.


The Catch ... the Warmists are saying .. "the science is settled", when it is anything but settled.  However, by "claiming" that the science is settled, the warmists can move forward with legislative efforts consistent with their stance.

Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  May 14, 2012 - 10:03AM #203
teilhard
Posts: 53,304

The Natural Sciences are a VERY good Way of getting Information about how The Universe works ...


Scientists (RELENTLESSLY) rely upon Observations of Nature, Experiments, and various clever Investigations of Nature ... OF  COURSE  when the thus gathered FACTS are published and presented to The COMMUNITY there is vigorous DISCUSSION, Review, Arguments about, Interpretation of the FACTS (the Data) ... Oftentimes the whole Bit gets repeated and re-run through multiple Trials, Experiments, Courses of Observation ... "Science" is PAINSTAKING ...


SCIENTIFIC Questions are NOT "settled" by an Oxford Style Debate but by the (above) PROCESS we call, "Science" ... The Scientific COMMUNITY eventually DOES "settle" on a CONSENSUS re: "What is going on here ... ??? Why is this happening ... ??? etc., etc."


(I notice, BTW, that you chose to DODGE my Observation of the eerie Similarity to the "Teach the Controversy" "Controversy" ... THAT in itself I find interesting ...)


May 14, 2012 -- 9:33AM, Bodean wrote:


May 13, 2012 -- 11:16PM, teilhard wrote:


The Questions re: Global Climate (Change) aren't SUBJECTS for "Debate" but rather for SCIENTIFIC Investigation, Experimention, and Observation ...





I"ll have to beg your pardon on that one TH.  Science is all about DEBATE.  There is debate at every step.  Are the proper experiments being run to address the question.  Are the methods of data collection justifiable. Are the proper methods being used to analyze the data.  Are proper methods being used to normalize and manipulate the data in various ways.  What do the "data" really mean.  Are the conclusions justifiably in line with what the data say, or are their alternative interpretations.


SORRY .. you are just wrong.  I don't care what side you come down on .. you are wrong about science and debate.


Being that as it is .... the Global Climate Change Debate involves debates on just about every category mentioned above.  Station Placement, TOBS, Data Adjustments, Statistical Splicing of Data, Model Predictions and Real Time Observations, Proper inclusion of alternative causes, ... the list goes on and on.


The Catch ... the Warmists are saying .. "the science is settled", when it is anything but settled.  However, by "claiming" that the science is settled, the warmists can move forward with legislative efforts consistent with their stance.





Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  May 14, 2012 - 10:50AM #204
Bodean
Posts: 11,110

May 14, 2012 -- 10:03AM, teilhard wrote:


Scientists (RELENTLESSLY) rely upon Observations of Nature, Experiments, and various clever Investigations of Nature ... OF  COURSE  when the thus gathered FACTS are published and presented to The COMMUNITY there is vigorous DISCUSSION, Review, Arguments about, Interpretation of the FACTS (the Data) ... Oftentimes the whole Bit gets repeated and re-run through multiple Trials, Experiments, Courses of Observation ... "Science" is PAINSTAKING ...



AHHH ... now we are getting somewhere.  OK ..you yourself have stated that "oftentimes" .. I'd say always, .. experiments are repeated.  Since I am a scientist, I'll tell you they are repeated for the purpose of validation.


Here's the rub, .. How can you REPEAT an Experiment, according to the Scientific Method, if the orginal Research Group does not publish and openly exchange the methods and data used??


This has been a primary point of contention within the Scientific Community regarding Climate Science.  There exists a small "clique" that are all of same mind and goal, that refuse to share the data and methods used, such that the experiments cannot be replicated by scientists in the scientific community at large.


On the few times that the Data and Methods have been pryed out of their hands, usually by court order, it is found that the methods used for the experiment are not appropriate, or there are problems in the data used [ie., omissions, deletions, cherry picking, etc].


In SCIENCE, this is alarming.  There is NO REASON whatsoever in science that justifies hiding methods and data.  In fact, such perverts science.  AND, in most all cases, there is another nefarious reason behind it, ... like, dihonesty in order to promote a particular conclusion, when in fact, the data do not support it.


That doesn't seem to bother you in the least??


 


May 14, 2012 -- 10:03AM, teilhard wrote:


(I notice, BTW, that you chose to DODGE my Observation of the eerie Similarity to the "Teach the Controversy" "Controversy" ... THAT in itself I find interesting ...)




It was not intentional, apparently didn't quite make it that far down in the post, as I like to keep post reasonably short for brevity.  But I'll go back and address it specifically.

Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  May 14, 2012 - 11:00AM #205
Bodean
Posts: 11,110

May 13, 2012 -- 11:16PM, teilhard wrote:


(I perceive an eerie Similarity in this Thread to the Call by The Fundamentalist-Creationist Guys about Public Science Education, i.e., to "Teach the Controversy" about Evolution ... Interesting ...)




There is absolutely no similarity between the issue of Creation vs Evolution, and the issue of CAGW Climate Change vs Science.


Unlike Creation vs Evolution, which involved Faith vs Science, CAGW vs Science is about two groups of Scientific Research.  In this Case, the CAGW crowd has been caught engaged in unethical behavior, while the Science Community as a whole has not.


It goes back to my previous post, for which you refuse to provide an answer.


Unlike Creation, which can neither be proven or disproven, the work of the CAGW Scientists CAN be disproven, and is readily done so when the methods and data are pryed from their lying fingers by the courts.


In this case, there is no need to "teach" the controversy, the controversy exists on its own for those who are willing to engage in a full reading of the material, and not just one side.  There is a reason WUWT has stolen all of RealClimate's audience .... People checked out the two sides stories ... and the WUWT presentations were found to be truthful, whereas the RealClimate presentations are found to be full of elitism and hand waving ... and lying, demogogary, and deception.


 


OK .. TH .. I addressed you question.  Let's see if you address even ONE of mine.

Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  May 14, 2012 - 11:14AM #206
teilhard
Posts: 53,304

Well, then ... I guess you'll have to pursue your own Studies, eh ... ???


What have YOU been doing ... ??


(What "BOTHERS" me -- in your Post below -- is that YOU are making VERY serious Charges of Misconduct and Corruption without giving ANY Substantiation ... 


Do you REALLY expect to be taken seriously as a (supposed) "Scientist" when you do such a Thing ... ??? PUT  UP -- OR  NOT ...)


May 14, 2012 -- 10:50AM, Bodean wrote:


May 14, 2012 -- 10:03AM, teilhard wrote:


Scientists (RELENTLESSLY) rely upon Observations of Nature, Experiments, and various clever Investigations of Nature ... OF  COURSE  when the thus gathered FACTS are published and presented to The COMMUNITY there is vigorous DISCUSSION, Review, Arguments about, Interpretation of the FACTS (the Data) ... Oftentimes the whole Bit gets repeated and re-run through multiple Trials, Experiments, Courses of Observation ... "Science" is PAINSTAKING ...



AHHH ... now we are getting somewhere.  OK ..you yourself have stated that "oftentimes" .. I'd say always, .. experiments are repeated.  Since I am a scientist, I'll tell you they are repeated for the purpose of validation.


Here's the rub, .. How can you REPEAT an Experiment, according to the Scientific Method, if the orginal Research Group does not publish and openly exchange the methods and data used??


This has been a primary point of contention within the Scientific Community regarding Climate Science.  There exists a small "clique" that are all of same mind and goal, that refuse to share the data and methods used, such that the experiments cannot be replicated by scientists in the scientific community at large.


On the few times that the Data and Methods have been pryed out of their hands, usually by court order, it is found that the methods used for the experiment are not appropriate, or there are problems in the data used [ie., omissions, deletions, cherry picking, etc].


In SCIENCE, this is alarming.  There is NO REASON whatsoever in science that justifies hiding methods and data.  In fact, such perverts science.  AND, in most all cases, there is another nefarious reason behind it, ... like, dihonesty in order to promote a particular conclusion, when in fact, the data do not support it.


That doesn't seem to bother you in the least??


 


May 14, 2012 -- 10:03AM, teilhard wrote:


(I notice, BTW, that you chose to DODGE my Observation of the eerie Similarity to the "Teach the Controversy" "Controversy" ... THAT in itself I find interesting ...)




It was not intentional, apparently didn't quite make it that far down in the post, as I like to keep post reasonably short for brevity.  But I'll go back and address it specifically.





Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  May 14, 2012 - 11:18AM #207
teilhard
Posts: 53,304

***YOU are the one making such Claims -- Misconduct and Corruption(!!!), VERY serious Charges -- so it falls upon YOU to demonstrate them ...


Go For It ... (or not) ...


You CLAIM to be a "Scientist" ... In what Field ... ???  Do you primarily teach, or do research, or what ... ???


May 14, 2012 -- 11:00AM, Bodean wrote:


May 13, 2012 -- 11:16PM, teilhard wrote:


(I perceive an eerie Similarity in this Thread to the Call by The Fundamentalist-Creationist Guys about Public Science Education, i.e., to "Teach the Controversy" about Evolution ... Interesting ...)




There is absolutely no similarity between the issue of Creation vs Evolution, and the issue of CAGW Climate Change vs Science.


Unlike Creation vs Evolution, which involved Faith vs Science, CAGW vs Science is about two groups of Scientific Research.  In this Case, the CAGW crowd has been caught engaged in unethical behavior, while the Science Community as a whole has not.


It goes back to my previous post, for which you refuse to provide an answer.


Unlike Creation, which can neither be proven or disproven, the work of the CAGW Scientists CAN be disproven, and is readily done so when the methods and data are pryed from their lying fingers by the courts.


In this case, there is no need to "teach" the controversy, the controversy exists on its own for those who are willing to engage in a full reading of the material, and not just one side.  There is a reason WUWT has stolen all of RealClimate's audience .... People checked out the two sides stories ... and the WUWT presentations were found to be truthful, whereas the RealClimate presentations are found to be full of ***elitism and hand waving ... and lying, demogogary, and deception.


 


OK .. TH .. I addressed you question.  Let's see if you address even ONE of mine.





Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  May 14, 2012 - 11:37AM #208
Bodean
Posts: 11,110

May 14, 2012 -- 11:18AM, teilhard wrote:


***YOU are the one making such Claims -- Misconduct and Corruption(!!!), VERY serious Charges -- so it falls upon YOU to demonstrate them ...


Go For It ... (or not) ...


You CLAIM to be a "Scientist" ... In what Field ... ???  Do you primarily teach, or do research, or what ... ???





I"m not the one making the claims, .. other scientists who are stuggling to replicate their work are the ones making the claims.  I already gave  you one example in a link sometime back. [the Yamal Controversy, which is currently tied up in ICO court in Britain, .. and the UEA is losing evey decision so far ... because they HAVE engaged in unethical behavior].


Further, many of the "claims" are not claims at all, but documented occurences [with government court hearings and the like].  I would think you would know this, since you've followed the science for 30 years.  As I see it, there's no need for me to list them all, because you should already know them all.


.... yep .. I'm a scientists .. Ph.D ... Medical Field ... and I've done and do both.

Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  May 14, 2012 - 11:47AM #209
teilhard
Posts: 53,304

Well, then ... The Courts will sort this out for us then, eh ... ???


But in the meantime, the CONSENSUS of The Scientific Community IS that the RATE of Observed Global Climate Change is being forced by Human Cultural-Industrial-Agricultural Activities ... 


I KNOW this to be the Case, as I have in Fact been keeping-up on these Questions for >30+ Years ... in The (Peer-reviewed) Scientific Literature


You seem to imagine that, say, The Fellows of The  U. S. National Academy of Sciences are just a Bunch of dippy Dupes who don't distinguish "Politics" from "Science" ... In MY trained Experience it is rather the "Deniers" who are the Dupes who fail to make that necessary Distinction, RAILING about "Leftist" Conspiracies (WHERE is that "wacko 'Fringe'" again ... ???) ...


(In addition, you know or have Reason to know that VERY seldom does anyone publish, say, five Years' of Notebooks crammed with raw Data ... Studies and Researches are summarized and analyzed and published as Papers, which are necessarily somewhat sketchy ... You ALSO know or ought to know that Analysis of raw Data can be tricky ... AND that accusing another Worker of Corruption or Incompetence is a  VERY  VERY  serious Matter ...)


***Otherwise ... HEY ... !!! How about posting-up  THE  DOCUMENTS  that "validate" your CLAIMS of Corruption ... ???  (NOT just the Links ... but THE  DOCUMENTS) ... ???  


IOW,  PUT  UP -- or NOT ...


May 14, 2012 -- 11:37AM, Bodean wrote:


May 14, 2012 -- 11:18AM, teilhard wrote:


***YOU are the one making such Claims -- Misconduct and Corruption(!!!), VERY serious Charges -- so it falls upon YOU to demonstrate them ...


Go For It ... (or not) ...


You CLAIM to be a "Scientist" ... In what Field ... ???  Do you primarily teach, or do research, or what ... ???





I"m not the one making the claims, .. other scientists who are stuggling to replicate their work are the ones making the claims.  I already gave  you one example in a link sometime back. [the Yamal Controversy, which is currently tied up in ICO court in Britain, .. and the UEA is losing evey decision so far ... because they HAVE engaged in unethical behavior].


Further, many of the "claims" are not claims at all, but ***documented occurences [with government court hearings and the like].  I would think you would know this, since you've followed the science for 30 years.  As I see it, there's no need for me to list them all, because you should already know them all.


.... yep .. I'm a scientists .. Ph.D ... Medical Field ... and I've done and do both.





Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  May 14, 2012 - 5:26PM #210
Bodean
Posts: 11,110

May 14, 2012 -- 11:47AM, teilhard wrote:


***Otherwise ... HEY ... !!! How about posting-up  THE  DOCUMENTS  that "validate" your CLAIMS of Corruption ... ???  (NOT just the Links ... but THE  DOCUMENTS) ... ???  


IOW,  PUT  UP -- or NOT ...






IF I thought it would do any good, I'd do it TH .. but alas, I've been debating Climate Change with adherents of the CAGW crowd for years now ... right here on bnet.  I've come to realize that there is no proof that will suffice.


It's just like paeng ... the NAS says the earth is still warming ... the temp metrics, including the new BEST study, show it's actually been cooling for the last 10 years.


What's a guy to do??


Adherents to the "consensus" don't want to be convinced otherwise.  End of Story.  That is very consistent with a politcial view, ... not a scientific one.  Granted, I can see why the CAGW Scientists don't want to accept evidence to the contrary ... I mean hey .. their Grants and Egos are on the line.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 21 of 25  •  Prev 1 ... 19 20 21 22 23 ... 25 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook