Author Topic: Climate Change  (Read 28560 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Online Michael Hardner

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12466
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #435 on: May 11, 2019, 11:14:31 am »
1. Saying scientists "believe" in climate change is religion nonsense. Science is not about belief. It is about evidence.   

2. The field is not a field that allows unequivocal knowledge. Claims of certainty are simply false.

3. Attempts to suppress or downplay uncertainties are attempts to deceive.

4. They are settled by politics.

5. So when you say these papers did not 'stick' all that really means is they said things that were politically inconvenient for many scientist

6. It is simply not possible to show that the skeptical papers are definitively wrong. It all comes down to the subjective opinion of human beings which are rarely reliable.
1. Fine, I picked a bad word.  But my point stands.
2. Let's say they are convinced then.
3. It's entirely appropriate to do so if the opposition to accepted theory is given too much credence and stops us from addressing a problem. 
4. That's horseshit.  There are two realms: science and politics.  The politics does not solve the science.  If it takes people 200 years to believe it, it doesn't mean that the science is impacted.  Evolution is another example of that.
5. No - the scientists didn't buy the argument, for example, that the sun was behind it.  This was one of the past theories from the 1990s.  You turn into a conspiracy theory when the result displeases you.
6. Sure but these are experts and it's not 'politics'.  They have a duty to be objective.  There is a right-wing meme that objectivity isn't possible and I believe that is 'projection'

Winner Winner x 2 View List

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #436 on: May 11, 2019, 01:48:31 pm »
I  am not cherry picking methods.
Yes you have. In your posts, you limit 'science' to 1960's style contrived laboratory experimentation and show little awareness of the evolution of science, data collection and statistics in the computer age. Science includes all methods used in appropriate ways. One method is not 'superior' as you falsely claim, but only in relation to its purpose and generalizability.
Your grasp on modern science is tenuous, and your interpretation is clearly biased by your duty to promote fossil fuels.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2019, 02:01:53 pm by Granny »
Like Like x 1 View List

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #437 on: May 11, 2019, 02:20:57 pm »
There is a right-wing meme that objectivity isn't possible and I believe that is 'projection'
All human beings bring their own experiences and mindsets to everything they do, so perfect objectivity is not possible. That is why science methods evolved to includes standard protocols to minimize subjectivity, replication of studies, and meta-analyses across a variety of studies by different researchers to arrive at consensus about findings.
 
As an aside, there is very interesting research on the differences in cognitive processing between right wing and left wing people ... but for another thread, perhaps. Lol

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #438 on: May 11, 2019, 02:46:39 pm »
6. Sure but these are experts and it's not 'politics'.  They have a duty to be objective.
Duty? Don't make me laugh. What consequences do they face if they fail to be objective? Who gets to judge whether they are objective? You seem to think that only you are entitled to decide when scientists are objective and when they are not. Who gave that right and why should I accept it?

What you fail to acknowledge is there is example after example of climate scientists failing in their duty to be objective. Evidence that would be strong enough to convict in a court of law if it was possible to hold them accountable in such a venue. But you dismiss this evidence because it does not suit your ideological preferences. You invent conspiracies to explain away the evidence because it undermines what you would like to believe. On top of that your have the nerve to accuses others of creating conspiracies. Try looking in a mirror.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2019, 08:02:12 pm by TimG »
Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #439 on: May 12, 2019, 04:38:20 am »
What you fail to acknowledge is there is example after example of climate scientists failing in their duty to be objective. Evidence that would be strong enough to convict in a court of law if it was possible to hold them accountable in such a venue. But you dismiss this evidence because it does not suit your ideological preferences. You invent conspiracies to explain away the evidence because it undermines what you would like to believe. On top of that your have the nerve to accuses others of creating conspiracies. Try looking in a mirror.
What evidence are you referring to?

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #440 on: May 12, 2019, 12:19:57 pm »
What evidence are you referring to?Y
You can start with the CRU emails released in 2009 which document scientists discussing manipulating the peer review process to keep papers they did not like out of the peer reviewed literature. Those emails demonstrates a complete lack of objectivity.
https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/climate-scientists-subverted-peer-review
(can't find a link to the actual emails at this time).

These scientists received no censure by the peers for their clearly unethical discussions. In fact, alarmists went out of their way to to rationalize those kinds of discussions from big oil conspiracies to boys will be boys. But none of these rationalizations refute the argument that these scientists are not objective. IOW, MH claim that scientists have a "duty to be objective" is laughably false.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2019, 12:28:38 pm by TimG »

Online Michael Hardner

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12466
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #441 on: May 12, 2019, 02:21:02 pm »
Duty? Don't make me laugh. What consequences do they face if they fail to be objective?

What kind of person thinks that being able to get away with something means it will likely happen ?

Quote
Who gets to judge whether they are objective? You seem to think that only you are entitled to decide when scientists are objective and when they are not. Who gave that right and why should I accept it?

The system assumes that they are objective... it's built in that people care about what they do for a living.  And as such for many professions also.

Quote

What you fail to acknowledge is there is example after example of climate scientists failing in their duty to be objective. Evidence that would be strong enough to convict in a court of law if it was possible to hold them accountable in such a venue. But you dismiss this evidence because it does not suit your ideological preferences. You invent conspiracies to explain away the evidence because it undermines what you would like to believe. On top of that your have the nerve to accuses others of creating conspiracies. Try looking in a mirror.

?  I think in the past we went through one example and it wasn't 'strong enough to convict in a court of law'.  As far as I can tell, we agree on the science part so I don't know what you're on about with regards to conspiracies.

Offline Queefer Sutherland

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10186
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #442 on: May 12, 2019, 02:37:27 pm »
What kind of person thinks that being able to get away with something means it will likely happen ?

Well Mike you'd also have to be naive to think it doesn't happen.  The tobacco and junk food industries have proven for many decades that science can be manipulated because there's a lot of money and politics involved:

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2019/05/12/be-wary-of-junk-food-science.html

https://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/study-claims-coca-cola-can-block-publication-of-research-it-funds-1.4415592

Climate science is highly politicized. To fully believe any claim i'd want to see the science replicated in multiple studies published that were different academic journals.
"Nipples is one of the great minds of our time!" - Bubbermiley

Online Michael Hardner

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12466
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #443 on: May 12, 2019, 02:47:45 pm »
Of course it can happen, but does it HAVE to ?

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #444 on: May 12, 2019, 04:00:42 pm »
What kind of person thinks that being able to get away with something means it will likely happen ?
Someone who has seen example after example of alarmist scientist getting away with grotesquely unprofessional behavior in the name of promoting the "cause". This is not an academic concern. It is real. The only issue is you are choosing to be deliberately blind to the problem because (in your words) "It's entirely appropriate to do so if the opposition to accepted theory is given too much credence and stops us from addressing a problem.". i.e. you have clearly decided the ends justify the means which makes your claim to believe in the "duty of objectivity" laughable. How can someone claim to be objective if they believe that suppressing contrary evidence is "entirely appropriate" if it support their preferred public policies?

The system assumes that they are objective... it's built in that people care about what they do for a living.  And as such for many professions also.
Wrong. Every profession has a body which sets out a code of conduct and passes judgment on those who do not live up to the code. No one assumes that a code means anything if there is not some enforcement mechanism (except you when want let people who agree with off the hook)

I think in the past we went through one example and it wasn't 'strong enough to convict in a court of law'.
The emails in question are not online anymore. But they were conversations where climate scientists conspired to subvert the peer review process. The emails were sufficiently damming that one of the scientist stepped aside while it was being investigated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

In the end the accusations of fraud were dismissed (not unlike Trump's "exoneration"). However, even if the accusations of fraud could not be proven the grotesque lack of objectivity and unprofessional behavior on display cannot be ignored. IOW, the evidence is there unless someone is determined to willfully ignore it.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2019, 04:02:37 pm by TimG »

Online Michael Hardner

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12466
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #445 on: May 12, 2019, 04:05:40 pm »
The only issue is you are choosing to be deliberately blind to the problem because (in your words) "It's entirely appropriate to do so if the opposition to accepted theory is given too much credence and stops us from addressing a problem.".

Sorry - I was talking about the realm of media not academia.  If you have a real example of me being wilfully blind to 'the' problem I would love to hear it. 

Quote
  But they were conversations where climate scientists conspired to subvert the peer review process. The emails were sufficiently damming that one of the scientist stepped aside while it was being investigated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

Pffft.  There was nothing there.  I read those a long time ago, and no...

 

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #446 on: May 12, 2019, 04:07:53 pm »
To fully believe any claim i'd want to see the science replicated in multiple studies published that were different academic journals.
The trouble with climate science is there is no way to "replicate" any claim because experiments cannot be done. "replication" in climate science typically means using a different way to look at the same data and getting the same answer. Except that kind of replication is extremely subject to reporting bias because researchers tend to assume that results that fail to replicate are some how "wrong" and never publish them (or never being allowed to publish them).

The positive test  bias is a real problem in drug testing:
https://catalogofbias.org/biases/positive-results-bias/

Forcing researchers to publish the results of all studies has had a dramatic effect on drug research.
There is no reason to believe the same problem does not affect the climate science literature.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2019, 04:28:16 pm by TimG »

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #447 on: May 12, 2019, 04:10:17 pm »
Pffft.  There was nothing there.  I read those a long time ago, and no...
Like I said. Willfully blind. No reasonable person could read those email and not question the ethics and professionalism of the scientists involved. If you don't see it then it is willful blindness.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2019, 04:17:28 pm by TimG »

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8713
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #448 on: May 12, 2019, 05:09:41 pm »
Pffft.  There was nothing there.  I read those a long time ago, and no...

of course the denier TimG reverts to his tride&true 'hackergate'... and yes, there was no there... there!

the denier claim about "corrupting peer review' was absolute bullshyte! The scientist in question was email venting over the antics of fake-skeptics - nothing more, nothing less. MOST POINTEDLY, no skeptical/denier papers were kept out of the related IPCC reports - NONE! In the past, denier TimG has been challenged to name a single paper that was suppressed - he can't!

as I've put to denier TimG many times now: even if he could legitimately find his claimed "some number of corrupt/fraudulent climate-science field scientists", that number pales in comparison to the world-wide network of honest/legitimate/honorable scientists and relevant scientific organizations, bodies, academia groups, etc..

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #449 on: May 12, 2019, 05:45:50 pm »
the denier claim about "corrupting peer review' was absolute bullshyte!
They said in the emails they would work to keep papers they don't like out of peer review even if they have to redefined what peer review is. They also discussed boycotting journals that published papers they did not like. Those statements on their own establish that those scientists lack the professionalism and ethics we would expect of any scientist.  It makes no difference if those statements were "just talk" they provide a window into the ingrained biases held by these very influential players. The fact that the various professional societies refused to condemn the ingrained biases is evidence that a willingness to accept such bias is widespread within the community.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2019, 06:28:00 pm by TimG »