Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Fox boss ordered staff to cast doubt on climate science

Page 9 of 14 [ 209 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 ... 14  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

29 Dec 2010, 4:27 pm

marshall wrote:
[
We've already been through this several pages ago. You already know that your demands are impossible. Your argument is just a tactic to avoid seriously addressing the evidence we do have for anthropogenic warming.


Not true. The meteorologists just haven't worked hard enough. It took until 1970 to get the Standard Model on far simpler subject matter (fields and particles). It will take longer to get proper climate science. So in the mean time they will fool with their highly adjustable models and yield to political pressure to produce the answers their bosses want.

One thing will shut them up entirely. The next ice age.

ruveyn



Kon
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Nov 2010
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 728
Location: Toronto, Canada

29 Dec 2010, 7:51 pm

ruveyn wrote:
In any case they are underdetermined. Too many parameters to fiddle with. And they are not fully based on controlled experimentation. Read Newton's Laws for Experiments and Phenomena at the beginning of Book III of -Principia Mathematica-.Write us when the Climatologists get something as good as the Standard Model of Particles and Fields.


You have very high standards. A lot of what is considered science (nutrition, biology, etc.) would fail to meet your criteria.



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

29 Dec 2010, 7:58 pm

ruveyn wrote:
marshall wrote:
We've already been through this several pages ago. You already know that your demands are impossible. Your argument is just a tactic to avoid seriously addressing the evidence we do have for anthropogenic warming.

Not true. The meteorologists just haven't worked hard enough. It took until 1970 to get the Standard Model on far simpler subject matter (fields and particles). It will take longer to get proper climate science. So in the mean time they will fool with their highly adjustable models and yield to political pressure to produce the answers their bosses want.

Lack of basic theory isn't the problem in climate science. The real issue is the finite nature of computing resources verses the near infinite complexity of energy transfer processes going on in the earth-atmosphere-ocean system. Because of computational limitations approximations will always be necessary to simulate small-scale processes. These approximations are getting better and better though. Clouds continue to be the biggest obstacle.
Quote:
One thing will shut them up entirely. The next ice age.

Not gonna happen. Not in my lifetime anyways.



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

29 Dec 2010, 8:07 pm

marshall wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
mcg wrote:
So how have climate scientists established causation? Have there been controlled experiments?


They have demonstrated correlation using statistics and some of those statistics are highly questionable.

We do not have climate science. We have climate models.


I already explained that most climate models are in fact deterministic, not statistical.


You mean the same climate models that are arguably bogus... :roll:



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

29 Dec 2010, 8:09 pm

Kon wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
In any case they are underdetermined. Too many parameters to fiddle with. And they are not fully based on controlled experimentation. Read Newton's Laws for Experiments and Phenomena at the beginning of Book III of -Principia Mathematica-.Write us when the Climatologists get something as good as the Standard Model of Particles and Fields.


You have very high standards. A lot of what is considered science (nutrition, biology, etc.) would fail to meet your criteria.

His standards are simply impossibe for any system which is both...

a.) impossible to replicate in a literal controlled experiment.

b.) too complex to obtain an "exact" theoretical solution with finite computing resources.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

29 Dec 2010, 8:10 pm

Kon wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
In any case they are underdetermined. Too many parameters to fiddle with. And they are not fully based on controlled experimentation. Read Newton's Laws for Experiments and Phenomena at the beginning of Book III of -Principia Mathematica-.Write us when the Climatologists get something as good as the Standard Model of Particles and Fields.


You have very high standards. A lot of what is considered science (nutrition, biology, etc.) would fail to meet your criteria.


If a policy that will lead to me and my family freezing in the dark is going to be imposed, I want the basis of the imposition to be of the highest quality. If we are going to be impoverished it should be for a damned good reason.

ruveyn



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

29 Dec 2010, 8:17 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
marshall wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
mcg wrote:
So how have climate scientists established causation? Have there been controlled experiments?


They have demonstrated correlation using statistics and some of those statistics are highly questionable.

We do not have climate science. We have climate models.


I already explained that most climate models are in fact deterministic, not statistical.


You mean the same climate models that are arguably bogus... :roll:


You and your Fox News sources simply have no knowledge or understanding of climate science. There's a 99% chance that anything you type on the subject will be bogus. Give up.

You should really stick to what you're good at. Go back to your chalk board.



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

29 Dec 2010, 8:32 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Kon wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
In any case they are underdetermined. Too many parameters to fiddle with. And they are not fully based on controlled experimentation. Read Newton's Laws for Experiments and Phenomena at the beginning of Book III of -Principia Mathematica-.Write us when the Climatologists get something as good as the Standard Model of Particles and Fields.


You have very high standards. A lot of what is considered science (nutrition, biology, etc.) would fail to meet your criteria.


If a policy that will lead to me and my family freezing in the dark is going to be imposed, I want the basis of the imposition to be of the highest quality. If we are going to be impoverished it should be for a damned good reason.

So you admit that your position on global warming is based on an irrational fear of draconian environmental policy. You aren't being logical. If you were you would keep your reservations about environmentalist policy separate from your criticisms of climate science.



Last edited by marshall on 29 Dec 2010, 8:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

29 Dec 2010, 8:37 pm

marshall wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
marshall wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
mcg wrote:
So how have climate scientists established causation? Have there been controlled experiments?


They have demonstrated correlation using statistics and some of those statistics are highly questionable.

We do not have climate science. We have climate models.


I already explained that most climate models are in fact deterministic, not statistical.


You mean the same climate models that are arguably bogus... :roll:


You and your Fox News sources simply have no knowledge or understanding of climate science. There's a 99% chance that anything you type on the subject will be bogus. Give up.


Seriously, since it looks like the only thing you have to back up your argument is a bunch of discredited scientists and personal attacks, I'd say the 99% chance is that your argument is bogus.

marshall wrote:
You should really stick to what you're good at. Go back to your chalk board.


Well, funny that would be science and technology, seriously do you know anything about academic integrity? That goes to everyone that is bashing Fox News for reporting on Climategate. Fox News was right to report the way it did on this issue, because the scientists through every research project they were on in doubt with what came out concerning the e-mails.

To spell it out, EVERY CLIMATE STUDY THEY DID MAY NOT EVEN BE CREDIBLE!! ! Scientists are supposed to report the results whether it proves or disproves what they were trying to test for. They are not supposed to "massage" the numbers to get the results they want. Furthermore, the fact the studies may not be credible, puts climate models in question because they used the suspect data to create those models.

Since you claim to be a scientist, you should know the seriousness of the situation marshall.



Kon
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Nov 2010
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 728
Location: Toronto, Canada

29 Dec 2010, 8:42 pm

ruveyn wrote:
If a policy that will lead to me and my family freezing in the dark is going to be imposed, I want the basis of the imposition to be of the highest quality. If we are going to be impoverished it should be for a damned good reason.


Does fate of our species sound like a good reason? That's the argument given with respect to global warming. As weird as this sounds I don't really care about my species but I just hate all the lies, like the claims that there's major debate among climate scientists.



Last edited by Kon on 29 Dec 2010, 8:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

29 Dec 2010, 8:46 pm

Kon wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
If a policy that will lead to me and my family freezing in the dark is going to be imposed, I want the basis of the imposition to be of the highest quality. If we are going to be impoverished it should be for a damned good reason.


Does fate of our species sound like a good reason? That's the argument given with respect to global warming. As weird as this sounds I don't really care about my species but I just hate all the lies, like the claims that there's a major debate among climate scientists.


There are scientists that say man has very little to do with the climate changing, it is just part of a cycle, they are just blacklisted when it comes to being published, which is also part of the scandal.



91
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,063
Location: Australia

29 Dec 2010, 8:53 pm

^^^^

I had dinner with Ian Plimer about six months ago. He does make a good case, I am not sold however. He is not banned or blacklisted from publishing his ideas.


_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.


Last edited by 91 on 30 Dec 2010, 12:48 am, edited 1 time in total.

Kon
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Nov 2010
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 728
Location: Toronto, Canada

29 Dec 2010, 9:05 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
There are scientists that say man has very little to do with the climate changing, it is just part of a cycle, they are just blacklisted when it comes to being published, which is also part of the scandal.


There are 3 groups:

1. A small group of scientists who question AGW
2. The vast majority of scientists who are supportive of IPCC projections
3. A small but sizable group of scientists who feel the IPCC projections are too conservative

"An invitation to participate in the survey was sent to 10,257 Earth scientists. The database was built from Keane and Martinez [2007], which lists all geosciences faculty at reporting academic institutions, along with researchers at state geologic surveys associated with local universities, and researchers at U.S. federal research facilities (e.g., U.S. Geological Survey, NASA, and NOAA (U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) facilities; U.S. Department of Energy national laboratories; and so forth)."

"Of our survey participants, 90% were from U.S. institutions and 6% were from Canadian institutions; the remaining 4% were from institutions in 21 other nations. More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had master’s degrees."

The questions:

1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

"Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2."

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

30 Dec 2010, 12:24 am

Inuyasha wrote:
marshall wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
marshall wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
mcg wrote:
So how have climate scientists established causation? Have there been controlled experiments?


They have demonstrated correlation using statistics and some of those statistics are highly questionable.

We do not have climate science. We have climate models.


I already explained that most climate models are in fact deterministic, not statistical.


You mean the same climate models that are arguably bogus... :roll:


You and your Fox News sources simply have no knowledge or understanding of climate science. There's a 99% chance that anything you type on the subject will be bogus. Give up.


Seriously, since it looks like the only thing you have to back up your argument is a bunch of discredited scientists and personal attacks, I'd say the 99% chance is that your argument is bogus.

marshall wrote:
You should really stick to what you're good at. Go back to your chalk board.


Well, funny that would be science and technology, seriously do you know anything about academic integrity? That goes to everyone that is bashing Fox News for reporting on Climategate. Fox News was right to report the way it did on this issue, because the scientists through every research project they were on in doubt with what came out concerning the e-mails.

To spell it out, EVERY CLIMATE STUDY THEY DID MAY NOT EVEN BE CREDIBLE!! ! Scientists are supposed to report the results whether it proves or disproves what they were trying to test for. They are not supposed to "massage" the numbers to get the results they want. Furthermore, the fact the studies may not be credible, puts climate models in question because they used the suspect data to create those models.

Since you claim to be a scientist, you should know the seriousness of the situation marshall.


Yawn... Just because you type stridently in boldface capitol letters doesn't make anything you say have merit. Besides, you have done nothing but repeat yourself yet again.

Get this through your head, ACCUSING SCIENTISTS OF FORGING DATA WITHOUT ANY CREDIBLE EVIDENCE IS SIMPLY SLANDER!! !! !! !!. See, I can type in all caps just as well as you. If you want to keep claiming that they are discredited you MUST provide evidence that they forged data.

The scientists aren't discredited. They have been slandered by people like you who have no idea what they are talking about.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

30 Dec 2010, 12:28 am

Kon wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
If a policy that will lead to me and my family freezing in the dark is going to be imposed, I want the basis of the imposition to be of the highest quality. If we are going to be impoverished it should be for a damned good reason.


Does fate of our species sound like a good reason? That's the argument given with respect to global warming. As weird as this sounds I don't really care about my species but I just hate all the lies, like the claims that there's major debate among climate scientists.


That presumes the current warming era is exclusively or largely the result of human activity, a proposition which is far from proven.

If you want to make sure the human race survives support the construction of space ships to get a portion of our species off this planet.

ruveyn



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

30 Dec 2010, 1:29 am

Inuyasha wrote:
marshall wrote:
You should really stick to what you're good at. Go back to your chalk board.


Well, funny that would be science and technology,

The guy who couldn't handle linear algebra is good at science and technology? Don't make me laugh.

To the substance of your post, I have challenged you on this before and you've ignored me. You have not demonstrated that the scientists have falsified any data. You have not even provided any evidence to that effect. You are merely committing libel by throwing about utterly unfounded accusations.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH