5 ms·

You seem a bit unclear about the scientific process as well. Take hugh3's example and throw out anthropogenic global warming. Do the facts still hold? The ea

You seem a bit unclear about the scientific process as well. Take hugh3's example and throw out anthropogenic global warming. Do the facts still hold? The earth had dramatic warm and cool periods long before humans, and will continue to despite us. No one is questioning whether or not humans or CO2 have an impact - we all know that we do. The question is whether or not we have a SIGNIFICANT impact. That is, enough of an impact that we should actually give a damn, given we probably wont be using fossil fuels in 100 years anyway. If the case for anthropogenic global warming is so strong, why are scientists falsifying data like in ClimateGate? Much evidences suggests that we are headed into another "Little Ice Age" like in the 1700s. But few people talk about this for some reason.

demallien 15y ago
"The earth had dramatic warm and cool periods long before humans, and will continue to despite us." Ok, what you're trying to do here, in the context of my first post, is make a case for one of those 'unknown processes' that I talked about. Now, I'm all for that, I'm not closing any doors, but if you want me to accept that there is some other, natural, process going on, you're going to have to show some evidence for it. Show me that the sun's output has changed and is causing the rise in temperature, or that the real culprit is volcano emissions, or amoeba farts, or whatever. "If the case for anthropogenic global warming is so strong, why are scientists falsifying data like in ClimateGate?" There have been I don't know how many independant investigations (about 5 or so at last count) into "ClimateGate", and they have all cleared scientists of lying or falsifying data. So I throw your question back to you - if this is all a big put on by scientists, why can we never catch them lying/falsifying the data? I mean, we should be able to if this is a coverup, right? "Much evidences suggests that we are headed into another "Little Ice Age" like in the 1700s. But few people talk about this for some reason." Well, the reason that we don't talk about it is because there isn't any evidence that we're heading back into a mini Ice Age. But again, apply the scientific process to this. Your hypothesis is that we are heading back into a mini Ice Age. Well, the last time that happened, we saw a drop in CO2 levels, which is what you would expect to see according to modern climate models. This time round, CO2 is rising and temperatures are rising. Bearing in mind the facts from my first post, I don't see how you can possibly expect that we are about to head into another mini Ice Age, unless you are once again proposing some mysterious cause that we haven't yet detected that is going to force the climate into a colder state. Once again, I'm willing to listen, but you're going to have to back your position up with some evidence if you want me to accept the hypothesis.
epistasis 15y ago
>why are scientists falsifying data like in ClimateGate? You've repeated this accusation several times in this thread. Can you back this up? I've asked people many times, nobody ever produces anything. They just assume that it was proved, without ever actually checking their hypotheses. Here's an example of what scientific misconduct looks like, from my field: http://www.economist.com/node/21528593 http://www.economist.com/node/21528593 The researchers screwed up through basic sloppiness, then refused to correct their errors after they were pointed out. Has there been anything this bad in the the leaked climate emails? BTW, as a scientist I know that "trick" has more than one meaning, particularly when it comes to problem solving, so if you think that the use of the word "trick" is rock-solid proof, please explain how deception was perpetrated rather than clever problem solving.
- gavanwoolery 15y ago
  Really, ClimateGate is the least of my concerns as far as "bad science" goes - most of the bad science is not being hidden behind conspiracies, it is in our face. To be honest - I do not know if the researchers really hid or falsified data, and I do not know what attempts were made (if any) to further cover this up. But I do know that it did come into public light, and that raises my suspicions a little bit. But regardless if they did hide anything or not, I am more concerned with the fact that scientists are so eager to prove that AGW has a major impact and seemingly hesitant to try and prove the opposite.
  - epistasis 15y ago
    Smoke and mirrors, smoke and mirrors...
  - sesqu 15y ago
    The hypothesis testing approach to statistical inference, which is what most of the scientific community uses, explicitly demands researchers try to prove that, say, AGW has no major impact, before reporting on their failure to do so. The hypothesis of a major impact is suggested because negligible impact cannot be, in the face of data. The popular Neyman-Pearson test doesn't even account for failing to detect an effect - it concerns itself strictly with not seeing ghosts.
gavanwoolery 15y ago
Demallien - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/14/ice_age/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/14/ice_age/ Here you go :) I would emphasize that there is no more proof that we are headed into an Ice Age than there is that we are headed into a particularly warm period, I only mention the Ice Age because so few people talk about it. Weather is very difficult to model - we can barely model next month's weather accurately, let alone the next hundred years. In particular, here is the major fallacy: Even if weather did sharply rise over a century, there is no telling what that might mean for the following century. In fact, if you look at most temperature spikes, they are usually followed by cool periods. It is like saying that because tomorrow is hot, and the next day hotter, that we must be headed into a really hot period. It simply does not work like this. As for ClimateGate, I'm not really into conspiracies, but it would not surprise me if some scientists had their asses covered. Imagine the people who would look stupid for handing a Nobel Peace Prize to Al Gore. Not that hard to pull strings on these so called "investigations" - everyone has a price.
- Tichy 15y ago
  We learned about the ice ages coming in cycles in school, 25 years ago. It is common knowledge - I think the climate researchers have probably heard about it, too. Honestly, I am so tired of hearing this oh so clever counterpoint.
  - gavanwoolery 15y ago
    I guess we should just ignore all counterpoints, because you are tired of hearing them. That's real science!
    - Tichy 15y ago
      No, because they are invalidated on the grounds of being common knowledge. I think your conspiracy should falter if it's details are being told in high school. What kind of conspiracy would that be?
    - gavanwoolery 15y ago
Tichy 15y ago
"why are scientists falsifying data like in ClimateGate?" Um, they didn't. There wasn't really a ClimateGate, either, only some people wanted to fabricate one.
- gavanwoolery 15y ago
  http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/ http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/... The scientists admitted to these emails. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7347658/Climategate-professor-admits-to-withholding-information.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7... Everybody seems to love dismissing ClimateGate, rather than at least becoming a little suspicious.
  - Tichy 15y ago
    As far as I remember, there was an official investigation into this, which found no misconduct. The quotes are out of context and rather ridiculous ("I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.") - uh oh, they used a "trick"!!! They must be cheaters. The trick could actually just be some clever idea, which is what scientists tend to come up with to make progress, but people hear what they want to hear. Becoming a little suspicious is exactly what the skeptics want you to become, hence the attempts to blow those emails out of proportion. It might also be worth noting that attacking the science based on those emails is not actually scientific criticism, it is merely ad hominem. If you wanted, you could perhaps draw some conclusions from the skeptics resorting to such attacks, rather than science. But lets not go there... Edit: for completeness sake, here is a random result from Google about the investigation: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/24/climategate-investigation_1_n_827820.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/24/climategate-investi...
    - gavanwoolery 15y ago
      There was an official investigation into the $2.3 trillion that Pentagon could not account for 10 years ago. They found nothing, conveniently. There are billions of dollars riding on green energy, government grants, and reputations on the line. I don't think it would be hard to do a "similar" investigation to the one done on the Pentagon.

demallien 15y ago

"The earth had dramatic warm and cool periods long before humans, and will continue to despite us." Ok, what you're trying to do here, in the context of my first post, is make a case for one of those 'unknown processes' that I talked about. Now, I'm all for that, I'm not closing any doors, but if you want me to accept that there is some other, natural, process going on, you're going to have to show some evidence for it. Show me that the sun's output has changed and is causing the rise in temperature, or that the real culprit is volcano emissions, or amoeba farts, or whatever. "If the case for anthropogenic global warming is so strong, why are scientists falsifying data like in ClimateGate?" There have been I don't know how many independant investigations (about 5 or so at last count) into "ClimateGate", and they have all cleared scientists of lying or falsifying data. So I throw your question back to you - if this is all a big put on by scientists, why can we never catch them lying/falsifying the data? I mean, we should be able to if this is a coverup, right? "Much evidences suggests that we are headed into another "Little Ice Age" like in the 1700s. But few people talk about this for some reason." Well, the reason that we don't talk about it is because there isn't any evidence that we're heading back into a mini Ice Age. But again, apply the scientific process to this. Your hypothesis is that we are heading back into a mini Ice Age. Well, the last time that happened, we saw a drop in CO2 levels, which is what you would expect to see according to modern climate models. This time round, CO2 is rising and temperatures are rising. Bearing in mind the facts from my first post, I don't see how you can possibly expect that we are about to head into another mini Ice Age, unless you are once again proposing some mysterious cause that we haven't yet detected that is going to force the climate into a colder state. Once again, I'm willing to listen, but you're going to have to back your position up with some evidence if you want me to accept the hypothesis.

epistasis 15y ago

>why are scientists falsifying data like in ClimateGate? You've repeated this accusation several times in this thread. Can you back this up? I've asked people many times, nobody ever produces anything. They just assume that it was proved, without ever actually checking their hypotheses. Here's an example of what scientific misconduct looks like, from my field: http://www.economist.com/node/21528593 http://www.economist.com/node/21528593 The researchers screwed up through basic sloppiness, then refused to correct their errors after they were pointed out. Has there been anything this bad in the the leaked climate emails? BTW, as a scientist I know that "trick" has more than one meaning, particularly when it comes to problem solving, so if you think that the use of the word "trick" is rock-solid proof, please explain how deception was perpetrated rather than clever problem solving.

gavanwoolery 15y ago
Really, ClimateGate is the least of my concerns as far as "bad science" goes - most of the bad science is not being hidden behind conspiracies, it is in our face. To be honest - I do not know if the researchers really hid or falsified data, and I do not know what attempts were made (if any) to further cover this up. But I do know that it did come into public light, and that raises my suspicions a little bit. But regardless if they did hide anything or not, I am more concerned with the fact that scientists are so eager to prove that AGW has a major impact and seemingly hesitant to try and prove the opposite.
- epistasis 15y ago
  Smoke and mirrors, smoke and mirrors...
- sesqu 15y ago
  The hypothesis testing approach to statistical inference, which is what most of the scientific community uses, explicitly demands researchers try to prove that, say, AGW has no major impact, before reporting on their failure to do so. The hypothesis of a major impact is suggested because negligible impact cannot be, in the face of data. The popular Neyman-Pearson test doesn't even account for failing to detect an effect - it concerns itself strictly with not seeing ghosts.

gavanwoolery 15y ago

Demallien - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/14/ice_age/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/14/ice_age/ Here you go :) I would emphasize that there is no more proof that we are headed into an Ice Age than there is that we are headed into a particularly warm period, I only mention the Ice Age because so few people talk about it. Weather is very difficult to model - we can barely model next month's weather accurately, let alone the next hundred years. In particular, here is the major fallacy: Even if weather did sharply rise over a century, there is no telling what that might mean for the following century. In fact, if you look at most temperature spikes, they are usually followed by cool periods. It is like saying that because tomorrow is hot, and the next day hotter, that we must be headed into a really hot period. It simply does not work like this. As for ClimateGate, I'm not really into conspiracies, but it would not surprise me if some scientists had their asses covered. Imagine the people who would look stupid for handing a Nobel Peace Prize to Al Gore. Not that hard to pull strings on these so called "investigations" - everyone has a price.

Tichy 15y ago
We learned about the ice ages coming in cycles in school, 25 years ago. It is common knowledge - I think the climate researchers have probably heard about it, too. Honestly, I am so tired of hearing this oh so clever counterpoint.
- gavanwoolery 15y ago
  I guess we should just ignore all counterpoints, because you are tired of hearing them. That's real science!
  - Tichy 15y ago
    No, because they are invalidated on the grounds of being common knowledge. I think your conspiracy should falter if it's details are being told in high school. What kind of conspiracy would that be?
  - gavanwoolery 15y ago

Tichy 15y ago

"why are scientists falsifying data like in ClimateGate?" Um, they didn't. There wasn't really a ClimateGate, either, only some people wanted to fabricate one.

gavanwoolery 15y ago
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/ http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/... The scientists admitted to these emails. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7347658/Climategate-professor-admits-to-withholding-information.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7... Everybody seems to love dismissing ClimateGate, rather than at least becoming a little suspicious.
- Tichy 15y ago
  As far as I remember, there was an official investigation into this, which found no misconduct. The quotes are out of context and rather ridiculous ("I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.") - uh oh, they used a "trick"!!! They must be cheaters. The trick could actually just be some clever idea, which is what scientists tend to come up with to make progress, but people hear what they want to hear. Becoming a little suspicious is exactly what the skeptics want you to become, hence the attempts to blow those emails out of proportion. It might also be worth noting that attacking the science based on those emails is not actually scientific criticism, it is merely ad hominem. If you wanted, you could perhaps draw some conclusions from the skeptics resorting to such attacks, rather than science. But lets not go there... Edit: for completeness sake, here is a random result from Google about the investigation: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/24/climategate-investigation_1_n_827820.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/24/climategate-investi...
  - gavanwoolery 15y ago
    There was an official investigation into the $2.3 trillion that Pentagon could not account for 10 years ago. They found nothing, conveniently. There are billions of dollars riding on green energy, government grants, and reputations on the line. I don't think it would be hard to do a "similar" investigation to the one done on the Pentagon.