Climate Change

which means that *I* set the context

Context
Aramikes signature is a demonstration of the difficulty he has understanding that word

In any case, you pointed to Wiki pages as validations in a previous post, so therefore surely you'll agree with Wiki here under a page entitled "Superceded SCIENTIFIC theories", which SPECIFICALLY lists the geocentric universe model. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superse...tific_theories

Thats wierd, if you follow the link and go to the bits dealing with the specificsin question about geocentric views it links to the pages where it says its a philospohical thing not a scientific one, its philisophical methodology not scientific, its also philosophical theories not scientific theories and describes the people as philosophers not scientists.
Though I do suppose that is just an example of examining the context of the material under the quote.

Still, time for another theory.
Does the observable increasing occurance of the use of "CAPS LOCK" in a persons post on a specific subject indicate a greater unreliablility in the contents of the posts they are writing on that topic?

Or as an observation, isn't it great that a topic following an opener can get to 8 pages when the opening post is so factually incorrect and would be best described as deliberately misleading and misrepresentative.

[Aramike]

You complain a lot about data manipulation in GW science, Aramike, but you seem to be very blind towards the massive manipulation among the politically and economically motivated climate sceptics.

Actually, I've complained very little about it, and in fact, I've said time and time again I agree with most of the science regarding climate change.

I do understand that there is a political dimension involved. My problem is this: politicians are politicians, and will do what politicians do. Scientists are scientists, and should do what THEY do (work within the ACTUAL data).

Unfortunately, many in the scientific community have fed the skeptics by engaging in political chicanary. Thusly, they have damaged their credibility to the point that, even I who tends to believe that most of the work is accurate, wonders what data and models represent accurate work, and which ones don't.

Thusly, that extends towards my main point: that blind faith in the science is foolish.

[NeonSamurai]

Originally Posted by Aramike

Thusly, that extends towards my main point: that blind faith in the science is foolish.

Blind faith in anything is foolish. My own belief in the theory has little to do with faith and everything to do with weight (not volume) of evidence. As for the rest those are hollow claims unless you can point to concrete (nigh irrefutable) evidence of chicanery in the research, which you have yet to do.


Now on to your comments on wiki and using them as references. No reputable place of academic study will ever accept them. They are flatly rejected as they are unreliable and often erroneous. The link you keep referring to of superseded scientific theory is faulty and directly contradicted by the sub references on their own site. If you look up their references to Aristotelian theory and Greek geocentric theory they are all classified as philosophic theory, not scientific.

The reason why his theory of a geocentric model is not scientific is because he used casual observation and thought experiments to derive the theory, not careful measured observation (and the rest). If he had used scientific methodology, he never could have put the theory forward as it would have been untenable when compared to measured observation. This goes for all of his theories. Ptolemy on the other hand came closer to scientific practice, but he did it backwards by trying to cram the data in to fit the general theory by coming up with a complex mathematical model to make it almost work, but he used as his base a philosophic theory. His model also failed because it did not match with measured observation.


As for my own use of wiki in this discussion, I only referenced pages where I was reasonably confident they had it correct (based on more reliable knowledge I already possessed) and was fairly basic in its nature. This does not mean that I think everything on wiki is valid, as i don't and I would never touch it academically. This is exactly why I asked you earlier for links to peer reviewed material to back up what you said.

Now as for me owning up to a mistake made, I do not believe I made any errors in this case. If I say something and later discover I made a mistake, I am the first to publicly recant it when it is pointed out to me (do a search of my post history and you will find some examples). You seem very determined to pigeon-hole me into a specific stereotype, and refer to things I do not think are at all represented in my words. I never view science as an absolute, I have said several times that it is flawed on different levels and will never be perfect. I also do not think scientific consensus is a "holy writ", only that it is often telling on how much power a theory currently has. The perfect theory will never exist, it can't possibly exist and come from us. All I care about is coming close to the 'truth' of a matter as is possible.

I am also aware of your opinion and have not forgotten it, my attempt was to highlight what I believe to be certain flaws in your thinking. In other areas I agreed with what you said, or tried to refine it so that I could agree with it. I also do not waver in my convictions as long as I can back them up (which is what I have done from the start). Like I said, you want to change my opinion, scientific or otherwise, you will have to offer stronger evidence then what is already available that counters it.

You have demonstrated this absurd concept that the scientific community should operate on the ad-hominem ideal that, if you're not a scientist, you should simply listen to us and not vice-versa. That's an institutional arrogance, in my opinion. And that is specifically why there is a large measure of distrust.

If you do not have the appropriate training you cannot possibly add anything to the scientific discussion. Most people cannot even understand scientific papers with out at least some training in the field in question. It may well be elitist, but it is absolutely necessary otherwise people inevitably misunderstand what they read and draw completely false conclusions from the material (and then spread it around). This is blatantly obvious when following the so called email scandal in the news. People with no research background were trying to interpret research based communication in which they were drawing patently false conclusions, mistakes in understanding that obvious to just about anyone with a research background.

This doesn't mean scientists are better then non scientists, its the exact same thing when dealing with a car mechanic who is an expert in their field. Why do everyday people think its perfectly ok to dispute with experts in a field of science, yet hardly bat an eye when dealing with a mechanic or plumber. They don't understand how a car works much better than the theories of climate change, yet they seem to think they are more capable of rending judgment on the latter compared to the former.

I don't have a problem with lay people trying to inform themselves, I applaud such efforts. Just make darn sure you are reading things correctly and not drawing the wrong conclusions because you do not understand the lingo, theoretical framework, etc.


As for the allusions to doccumented evidence and "DOCUMENTED EFFORTS" of scientific fraud, you still have not provided any solid evidence of such misbehavior. As they like to say on the net "Pics or it didn't happen".

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Aramike

Thusly, that extends towards my main point: that blind faith in the science is foolish.

Nobody talks blind faith in science. religion demands blind faith. Politicians want your blind faith. Science - demands evidence, and sceptical open-mindedness. Have you missed the paragraph I wrote about probabilities? Are you aware of the importence of that concept in for example scientific experimental design? You hardly will ever find a thorough study project basing on an Alpha of 0.00%. And that is for a reason.

The alternative to adressing things on the basis of an empirical approach, is to base on wishful imagination and/or unchecked hear-say. With the exception of religious and politic fanatics, people all the time form decisions in their everyday life on the basis of empirical experiences, and probability projections concluded from those experiences. Not in numbers, maybe, but in principle. I can assure you that even that medical drug you eventually need to take and that decides whether you live or die, has been certified on the basis not of penultimate total certainties, but probability calculations. If I would take you by your word that we should not act on climate issues as long as we do not "know it all", I would demand you now to stop taking your medication until we really know all about it.

You can't attack scientific methodology for politics abusing science's conclusions. If you have a problem with politics, attack politics for being politics.

I would recommend, very strongly, you again start reading on page one, all replies by Neon Samurai, and the few I gave, and try to see them in their full width of content. I don't have the impression you do.

Anyway, I'm moving on. I don't think this leads anywhere.

[Aramike]

As for the allusions to doccumented evidence and "DOCUMENTED EFFORTS" of scientific fraud, you still have not provided any solid evidence of such misbehavior. As they like to say on the net "Pics or it didn't happen".

So the so-called "Climategate" emails were just a trick?

I'm pretty sure they were well-documented.

[Aramike]

You can't attack scientific methodology for politics abusing science's conclusions. If you have a problem with politics, attack politics for being politics.

That's not what I'm doing. I'm attacking the scientists themselves for using politics to advance extreme policies in response to predictions which I believe to be based upon incomplete research.

I would recommend, very strongly, you again start reading on page one, all replies by Neon Samurai, and the few I gave, and try to see them in their full width of content. I don't have the impression you do.

I don't need to. The discussion has surely evolved since then. Furthermore, I not someone who denies the existance of climate change (or even that humans have an impact on it).

And, like I said, I don't think that we're that far apart. I just don't believe that the models are solid enough to make major alterations to economic policy, and I believe that many in the scientifc community have been skewing or hyping data to do just that.

PS: One person who I think has an interesting take on it is Dr. Tim Ball. Here's a very interesting article of his: http://www.climatechangefraud.com/cl...limate-science

[Morts]

Originally Posted by Aramike

So the so-called "Climategate" emails were just a trick?

I'm pretty sure they were well-documented.

the ones that are talked about here ?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Morts

the ones that are talked about here ?

Yep. Always good to see that lil' film again.

Note it is one part in a series.

That email-scandal - has been fabricated. I said that weeks ago. I still think so today. And chances are I will not need to change my mind on that story tomorrow or in the months to come.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Morts

the ones that are talked about here ?

Just watched it and it seemed as much propaganda as Rush Limbaugh's comments, at least until the point in which it actually covers the facts.

Unlike the Limbaugh's of the world, I don't believe that the scandal has anything to do with whether or not the science of climate change is true (how many times must I say that I believe that there *IS* man-made climate change???).

However, as was my point, the emails appear to demonstrate a willingness to "fudge" information in order to perpetuate the public perception of the political dimension, and THAT I take extreme exception to.

[NeonSamurai]

Originally Posted by Aramike

So the so-called "Climategate" emails were just a trick?

I'm pretty sure they were well-documented.

Those claims have been torn six ways to Sunday by anyone who knows climate research and research terminology (I've already tackled that one a few times myself here), even psychology research uses the term 'trick' in the same way they do. There is neither smoke nor fire nor any hard evidence of any wrong doing.

Now if you could supply evidence that the data they used was faked or tampered with, or intentional miscalculations, then maybe you might have a point. But fuss made by those emails is a bunch of nonsense coming mainly from the media.

PS: One person who I think has an interesting take on it is Dr. Tim Ball. Here's a very interesting article of his: http://www.climatechangefraud.com/cl...limate-science

I'll read it when I have some time though it looked like an opinion article (which doesn't count for anything). Also I looked into his background, he isn't a scientist that I can see. He has the various stages of arts degrees in geography from BA (honors) to PhD. No real research background at all that I could find.

http://www.desmogblog.com/tim-ball-t...in-climatology
http://www.desmogblog.com/dr-tim-bal...-just-wont-die
http://www.desmogblog.com/timothy-f-ball-tim-ball

Of course that blog could be full of it too. I'll know for sure when I do an academic search on him this weekend, but needless to say I am suspicious from what I have found so far.

[yubba]

they do

[yubba]

Here's a little experiment that you can do at home,too prove that co2 emissions are harmful , close the garage door and start the car and let it run for 10 min that ougth to equal all the emissions for the last 100 years, get back with me about the results .Of course all results vary on the size of garage .

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Aramike

the emails appear to demonstrate

Some play "Email scandal". Others play "Chinese whispers"

[Skybird]

And on Tim Ball's background, some research finds.

He is roundtable speaker of the George C. Marshal Institute that claims to examine the effects of national policies on national security and environmental issues, usually favouring the first at the cost of the latter, resulting in anti-environmental, pro-industrial recommendations (what a surprise). It is financially funded by Exxon Education Foundation and American Standard Companies.

Source-investigating websites accuse the institutue of pro-industry lobbying and allowing Exxon and other companies to dominate their PR work. Former members of the institute staff spoke of a wanted policy of encouraging biased opinion forming. Greenpeace lists the institute in it's yearly Exxonsecrets-list of money receivers.

Tim Ball appears at conferences and PR events like the Heartland Institute Conference, which again is massively financed and given organisational support by Exxon and other industry companies as well as political organisation of the right-winged spectrum, both American and internationally.

[CaptainHaplo]

I have to laugh at the lot of ya...

Climate-gate IS real. Don't think so? Why is it that the director was forced to resign? Regardless of "manipulated" data - NeonSamurai wants to discount and dismiss the facts that the emails not only detail "getting rid of the middle warm period" - but also specifically discuss the intentional destruction of data and information so that it could not be reviewed by any outside party - a violation of FoIA laws.

There is only one reason a scientist destroys data yet comes out with a specific and "unchallengable" result - and that is because the data destroyed did not conform to his INTENDED and DESIRED outcome.

Then we have "well if your not a scientist - you wouldn't understand - if you don't have the education - you can't get it"....

OK - how bout the Director of the Delaware Environmental Observing System at the University of Delaware, whoserves as the Delaware State Climatologist? Think he might now something about it? His name is David Legates,

Or how about the Director Emeritus, Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies - Florida State University? James J. O'Brien is who that is BTW.

Maybe you think the Chairman of the Board of Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Dr. Craig Idso - is qualified under those terms?

Or perhaps you would rather listen to a Research Professor at James Cook University, Dr. Robert M. Carter.....

What do these folks all have in common? They are all members of the Science and Public Policy Institute.

Now I am sure skybird is going to start on who funds them - and that is a valid question. Yes - they do end up getting some funds that originate with big business. However - if your going to say "follow the money" - then folks like skybird have to address how groups who take corporate money are somehow LESS clean that those that take GOVERNMENT money - when every indication shows that governmental policy makers have as much of a vested interest in a specific outcome as corporations. Whether you like it or not - both sides are dirty to some extent - because its not about science - its about politics.

Global warming pro studies have gotten alot more funding than naysaying groups - so if you want to follow the money - ask yourself - if this were to turn into "not a problem" - what would happen to all those grants and research jobs? Thus - climate change - regardless of the science, manipulated, destroyed - or fully accurage - becomes a self sustaining entity based purely on its hypothetical outcomes - regardless of their accuracy. Think anti-global warming scientists don't have reasons to find flaws in the science? Sure they do. Just as pro-climate change scientists have billions of reasons (and dollars) to find ways to make the "science" fit the desired outcome.

This is what makes climategate such a issues - its not the science itself - because that can be put into the open and debated (except for what has been destroyed) - but it is the POLITICAL AND FINANCIAL aspects of the entire question that shows how "science" has been perverted.

What is funny - is you all spend your time debating it - and not really that since everyone above seems to agree there is some form of change - when the scientific minds choose to ignore the obvious and much more detrimental issue of overpopulation. Its like that whole "look over there - a spider on the wall" - divert attention - while someone steals your wallet. Which is more dangerous - and which deserves scientific attentiont to find solutions?