climate skeptic or propagandist?

[TimG]

You keep moving the goalposts around. I still see a clear division between science, and political/scientific hybrid advocate groups.

I am not moving the goalposts. You are. The IPCC is touted as a scientific authority. Not a political one. The only people that view the IPCC as a political body are sceptics. Suggesting that the IPCC is political body will get you called a denier.

Is it the same as an anonymous science blog posting opinions ? No - there are degrees of difference there for sure - the IPCC has more of a reputation, and so if it makes a single egregious error people notice.

Actually, there have been many egregious errors and advocates ignore the issues. The IPCC recently brought in a conflict of interest policy which it will NOT enforce for the next report because it would be "unfair" to the currently selected authors (implying that many would not qualify as authors because of conflicts). The organization has no credibility to anyone who pays attention to these issues.

In anycase, you are missing the point. I used the IPCC example because it was handy and it is considered a scientific authority - not political one. The issue is these adjustments show up all of the time in peer the reviewed literature.

[Michael Hardner]

Not too long ago they were alarming the public (scientifically of course) that new ice age is coming fast

No they weren't. This is such outdated troll meat that it's remarkable only for its outdatedness.

[Michael Hardner]

I am not moving the goalposts. You are. The IPCC is touted as a scientific authority. Not a political one. The only people that view the IPCC as a political body are sceptics. Suggesting that the IPCC is political body will get you called a denier.

Then that's the meat of the argument. What is the IPCC ? They are an association of scientific bodies, joined together by a political one - and that should tell you something.

The issue is these adjustments show up all of the time in peer the reviewed literature.

And there's nothing wrong with that.

[GostHacked]

But the weather is NOT climate. The endless attempts to link every bad weather event to global warming is pathetic and has no scientific basis.

I think it's more of the amount of strange weather the earth is experiencing ... this year we have massive floods all over the place. So something in the climate has changed in order to produce these types of conditions we are seeing all over the world.

[TimG]

And there's nothing wrong with that.

Yes there is because these adjustments are often purely subjective and are choosen because they produce the results that the authors want to see. This corrupts the science. This is why your claim that "no one was caught faking data" is meaningless. People don't need to fake data in climate science. They can simply dream up some wonky correction algorithm that makes the data produce the desired results. Edited July 7, 2011 by TimG

[TimG]

I think it's more of the amount of strange weather the earth is experiencing ... this year we have massive floods all over the place. So something in the climate has changed in order to produce these types of conditions we are seeing all over the world.

And my Grandma said the same in the 70s. Weather is chaotic therefore weather is always "strange". There is no evidence that what is going on now is any worse than has happened in the past. Edited July 7, 2011 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

Yes there is because these adjustments are often purely subjective and are choosen because they produce the results that the authors want to see. This corrupts the science. This is why your claim that "no one was caught faking data" is meaningless. People don't need to fake data in climate science. They can simply dream up some wonky correction algorithm that makes the data produce the desired results.

Often subjective ? They're subject to peer review in any case and if there's debate it can be worked out there.

[WIP]

But the weather is NOT climate. The endless attempts to link every bad weather event to global warming is pathetic and has no scientific basis.

Yeah, I think Sigmund Freud said "sometimes a banana is just a banana," but when repeated, record bad weather occurs over a longer period of time, we have evidence of a climatic trend:

Spurred by a warming climate, daily record high temperatures occurred twice as often as record lows over the last decade across the continental United States, new research shows. The ratio of record highs to lows is likely to increase dramatically in coming decades if emissions of greenhouse gases continue to climb.

http://www.physorg.com/news177254019.html

Every time Sean Hannity or some other clown at Foxnews sees a record cold temp somewhere, or a record snowfall, we can count on these morons to say something like 'where's your global warming now?' while ignoring the trend that the above research is pointing out. When record highs outnumber record lows, you have a clear, unmistakeable trend, and trying to deny it by calling it a normal weather oscillation is not even an argument!

The ice cap could have been smaller in 1940 but we don't have the satellite data to prove it one way or another. The fact is we don't know if the artic ice melt is unusual or not.

Couldabin, shouldabin, wouldabin. How about the evidence that the Northwest Passage is now navigable, at least during the late summer, by regular marine shipping - when did that happen before?

Computer models are not evidence.

We don't need computer models to prove that rising temperatures and CO2 levels will reduce food production, because the severe weather that's been occurring around the world is already causing havoc with grain harvests and driving up food prices. You don't have to examine any computer models...just turn on the news.

[TimG]

Often subjective ? They're subject to peer review in any case and if there's debate it can be worked out there.

Peer review? I think you mean "pal review". The trouble is these debates are NOT taking place. If the adjustments produce data that supports the consensus they are blindly accepted. If data is contradicts the consensus a lot of time is spent coming up with any excuse they can find adjust the data until it confirms. This is not science. It a cargo cult. Wake up and look at what is happening instead of blindly assuming the process is working. It is not.

[TimG]

when repeated, record bad weather occurs over a longer period of time, we have evidence of a climatic trend:

The trouble is there is NO trend in "bad weather".

at least during the late summer, by regular marine shipping - when did that happen before?

When did we have GPS and diesel equipped ships that could make the passage in a few days? In the past it took months to cover the distance which invariable meant bumping into ice at the beginning or the end of your trip. Even with those caveats at least one ships did make it through in the 40s.

We don't need computer models to prove that rising temperatures and CO2 levels will reduce food production, because the severe weather that's been occurring around the world is already causing havoc with grain harvests and driving up food prices.

You have ZERO evidence that there is any connection between the recent weather and CO2. All you got are computer models. Edited July 7, 2011 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

Peer review? I think you mean "pal review". The trouble is these debates are NOT taking place.

That doesn't mean that there's a problem, does it ?

If the adjustments produce data that supports the consensus they are blindly accepted. If data is contradicts the consensus a lot of time is spent coming up with any excuse they can find adjust the data until it confirms. This is not science. It a cargo cult. Wake up and look at what is happening instead of blindly assuming the process is working. It is not.

You waver from sensible to overly suspicious.

[TimG]

You waver from sensible to overly suspicious.

I am suspicious because I have looked at some of these adjustments and simply do not agree that there is any scientific basis for them. I am suspicious because advocate scientists refused to ever acknowledge mistakes and defend nonsense over and over again. IOW, my suspicions on based on evidence. You trust is nothing but a blind assumption.

[Michael Hardner]

I am suspicious because I have looked at some of these adjustments and simply do not agree that there is any scientific basis for them. I am suspicious because advocate scientists refused to ever acknowledge mistakes and defend nonsense over and over again. IOW, my suspicions on based on evidence. You trust is nothing but a blind assumption.

That's not true. There have been mistakes and adjustments. You seem to acknowledge the basic conclusions of AGW, which makes me think that you appreciate the basics of science, but then you go off with a basketful of extreme statements such as these:

The trouble is these debates are NOT taking place. If the adjustments produce data that supports the consensus they are blindly accepted. If data is contradicts the consensus a lot of time is spent coming up with any excuse they can find adjust the data until it confirms. This is not science. It a cargo cult. Wake up and look at what is happening instead of blindly assuming the process is working. It is not.

[TimG]

then you go off with a basketful of extreme statements such as these:

I don't expect you to understand the frustration and disgust I feel when I look at how climate science is conducted because you have no interest in spending the time to understand the issues. You would rather take a "what you don't know can't hurt you" approach to the topic. That said, I think your should acknowledge you desire to be ignorant and should not be judging people who have spent the time to understand the minutiae. Edited July 8, 2011 by TimG

[dre]

I don't expect you to understand the frustration and disgust I feel when I look at how climate science is conducted because you have no interest in spending the time to understand the issues. You would rather take a "what you don't know can't hurt you" approach to the topic. That said, I think your should acknowledge you desire to be ignorant and should not be judging people who have spent the time to understand the minutiae.

Your disgust and frustration is entirely ideological. Some of it borders on "Dale Gribble" style conspiracy theories.

The bottom line is, theres smart people working this issue from both sides, putting in thousands of thousands of hours of work, and most of the studies are available to be attacked by anyone that disagrees. Thats good enough for me.

Its not a perfect process, but its BY FAR the best process we have, and you arent proposing any alternatives.

[TimG]

Its not a perfect process, but its BY FAR the best process we have, and you're not proposing any alternatives.

I would be happy if the senior people in the scientific community would stand up and condemn the group think that has taken over the field and insist the pro-consensus scientists be held to same standards as sceptical scientists. Nothing produced by this process has any credibility as long as the greater scientific community lets abuses pass in the name of the "cause". Fortunately, we have seen some shifts over the last 3 years but there is a long way to go before I would consider the process even remotely reliable. Edited July 8, 2011 by TimG

[dre]

I would be happy if the senior people in the scientific community would stand up and condemn the group think that has taken over the field and insist the pro-consensus scientists be held to same standards as sceptical scientists. Nothing produced by this process has any credibility as long as the greater scientific community lets abuses pass in the name of the "cause". Fortunately, we have seen some shifts over the last 3 years but there is a long way to go before I would consider the process even remotely reliable.

Who cares if you think its reliable or not? Its the best system we have, and you dont have any better ideas.

pro-consensus scientists be held to same standards as sceptical scientists

They ARE held to the same standards. If they want to contribute they have to do solid work, and submit that work along with documentation of the logic and methodologies behind it to scientific journals for peer review. Every time work done through the IPCC gets published theres an army of scientists looking it over and trying to poke holes in it, and sometimes they are successfull.

You can whine all you want but its never going to work any different.

[TimG]

Who cares if you think its reliable or not? Its the best system we have, and you dont have any better ideas.

Who cares if it is reliable? You got to be kidding. We are talking about major changes to the energy infrustructure of society. We must have reliable science. Right now we don't.

They ARE held to the same standards. If they want to contribute they have to do solid work

Complete balderdash. Sceptical scientists have their work dragged through hostile reviews while alarmits pick their pals as reviewers. There is no level playing field.

You can whine all you want but its never going to work any different.

What I can do is refuse to support even reasonable actions on climate as long as climate science refuses to clean up its act. I can also make sure that as many people as possible learn about the problems in the field.

The fact is I don't need climate scientists but there are enough people like me out there that climate scientists cannot afford to ignore us. So I can wait until they figure out that they are the problem.

Edited July 8, 2011 by TimG

[dre]

Who cares if it is reliable? You got to be kidding. We are talking about major changes to the energy infrustructure of society. We must have reliable science. Right now we don't.

Complete balderdash. Sceptical scientists have their work dragged through hostile reviews while alarmits pick their pals as reviewers. There is no level playing field.

What I can do is refuse to support even reasonable actions on climate as long as climate science refuses to clean up its act. I can also make sure that as many people as possible learn about the problems in the field.

The fact is I don't need climate scientists but there are enough people like me out there that climate scientists cannot afford to ignore us. So I can wait until they figure out that they are the problem.

Who cares if it is reliable? You got to be kidding.

Thats not what I said. I said who cares if YOU think its not reliable. Everyone already knows you support any of this policy.

Complete balderdash. Sceptical scientists have their work dragged through hostile reviews while alarmits pick their pals as reviewers. There is no level playing field.

So do pro-AGW scientists. And alarmists dont "pick their pals" as reviewers. The editors of scientific journals select reviewers during the scholarly review that determines whether or not the article is published, but the real review starts after its published, when any scientist on earth can pick it apart.

[eyeball]

You know what's really hilarious to me, the perception that Earth is so vast that our economy can grow as if it were infinite is based on the belief that if it can't, we're fucked.

Ironic isn't it?

[TimG]

And alarmists dont "pick their pals" as reviewers.

You don't have a clue what is going on. You are simply repeating the propoganda like a good little soldier. The system is rigged in favour of alarmist scientists - largely because the editors at all major journals are alarmists. There are numerous examples of crap sailing through peer review because it was pro-alarm. Alarmist scientists are never required to produce the data used to create the results. If they refuse the editors ignore the jounral's own written policies and defend the refusal. In one case, one journal had a clear policy that they actually enforced. However, shortly after that they changed the policy to allow alarmists to keep their data secret.

It is a scam run by an old boys network and people like you are the useful idiots that allow it to continue because you refuse to consider the possibility that all is not ok in the world of climate science.

Edited July 8, 2011 by TimG

[dre]

The fact is I don't need climate scientists but there are enough people like me out there that climate scientists cannot afford to ignore us. So I can wait until they figure out that they are the problem.

Well... you personally are just an hobby internet lobbiest for dirty energy. People like you most certainly ARE being ignored. But skeptics willing to do some solid work that debunks some of the work done by AGW theory proponents most certainly WONT be ignored. A whole host of climate related articles by skeptics has been widly published and disseminated in both scientific journals and other literature.

Edited July 8, 2011 by dre

[dre]

You don't have a clue what is going on. You are simply repeating the propoganda like a good little soldier. The system is rigged in favour of alarmist scientists - largely because the editors at all major journals are alarmists. There are numerous examples of crap sailing through peer review because it was pro-alarm. Alarmist scientists are never required to produce the data used to create the results. If they refuse the editors ignore the jounral's own written policies and defend the refusal. In one case, one journal had a clear policy that they actually enforced. However, shortly after that they changed the policy to allow alarmists to keep their data secret.

It is a scam run by an old boys network and people like you are the useful idiots that allow it to continue because you refuse to consider the possibility that all is not ok in the world of climate science.

It is a scam run by an old boys network and people like you are the useful idiots that allow it to continue because you refuse to consider the possibility that all is not ok in the world of climate science.

Just more confused nonsense.

Youre confusing my dismissal of your giberish and global conspiracy theories as confidence in the current sets of assertions produced by various research but that dog just dont hunt. I think we have tons of work to do still, and until we learn more our ability to make really accurate projections is definately not very strong... its improving though.

[Saipan]

If they want to contribute they have to do solid work, and submit that work along with documentation of the logic and methodologies behind it to scientific journals for peer review.

That would be like telling PRAVDA the pravda (truth)

[Saipan]

A whole host of climate related articles by skeptics has been widly published and disseminated in both scientific journals and other literature.

So where's the global warm up?