Lies, damn lies, and whore lies... ugh statistics

[Compatibilist]

Most people are familiar with the phrase lies, damn lies, and statistics

I'm sure Al Gore would like the last part replaced with "prostitute lies". His problems with his marriage and and this "massage therapist" isn't what I'm concerned with... However, this story has him back on the front pages and rekindled opportunities for those who would like to further assinate his character, integrety, and credibility. I must admit I'm not above something like that...

The BP oil gusher off the coast has brought Global Warming discussions back to the front of a lot of media outlets... and since Mr Gore [coincedently] happens to be there too... This seems good timing to question the motives of men like Gore who are making millions of dollars from green issues.* and stand to make billions more.

Educated people know that statistics and use of the scientific method are often subject to the researchers bias and motives. When it comes to power and profits... pure science is rare. One heck of a lotta research conclusions are theory as opposed to fact. Drug companies studies are good examples.

The research behind Gores income and investments essentially claim that science proves humans have caused and continue to significantly impact the heating up of our planet. He and his investors...I mean researchers... promote the idea this has occurred over the last 50-100 yrs. Though I don't necessarily disagree our planet is warmer today then when we first started to measure atmospheric temperature and variance, I question whether we are ready to make the final conclusion that humans are directly responsible.

==========

For something to be considered a scientific fact, it must be testable with the scientific method.

1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative explanation, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

Step 4 of the scientific method requires an experiment. An experiment requires a control. What are the controls in climate science?


To infer a connection between man emissions of CO2 and warming is not an easy jump for the scientifically minded

¦First, you have to prove that the increase in CO2 is caused by humans - the venting of CO2 by volcanoes (including those under the ocean) and geysers and other natural sources (and also the natural absorption or sinking of CO2) is a estimate that defies error analysis. To what error band are we certain of the amount of emission of CO2 by natural causes?

¦Second, the elevation of CO2 needs to be shown to be historically real, but there were no analytical tools to measure even crudely thousands of years ago - the best work has been done with ice samples, but there is a great problem with how to calibrate such measurements. What size should the error bands be? I believe that man is responsible for a small increase in CO2 - this is supported by a lot of historical data.

¦Third, there has to be a hypothesis that can predict the past (only then can we start guessing about the future) including the temperatures in the upper atmosphere. Any model that can't fit past data has to be called wrong.

¦Fourth, as this is an open system where we can't build several earths and vary only one constant, any conclusion at best is still just a theory - a educated guess - it is not scientific fact. Science is more than looking scientific; just because things are measured to several decimal points means naught when there is no control or false logic.

¦Fifth, to look at the past temperatures honestly, one would have to show no past periods of higher temperature. The idea that we 'know' the inferred data - is simply wrong. We only have accurate records of solar output from the recent past and we are ignorant of the magnitude of long term historic variations that are possible. Explaining the small drift (less than what appears to be the noise in the system) can be accomplished with confounding variables. It might help to remember that 10,000 years ago Milwaukee was under 40' of ice, so we really do know that temperature can vary on its own. See Dpace Weather at DMI We also have reason to believe that glaciers world wide have been shrinking for the last 300 years - this means that things other than CO2 change our climate.

Real science is humble. Many things are unknowable. It is a human tendency to not to accept the idea that some things are beyond our reach of knowing, but there are things we can't know, no matter how much money is poured into research.**
=================

The problem I have is when you have a politician, opportunist, and capitalist like Gore leading the cause. Thats a sorry ass combination... and one of the main reasons republicans are lining up against this and making it a political issue. They have the former democratic vice president and near president as the accepted leader. It's no wonder he's up against the same combination with this BS 4 yr old sex case. Whats good for the goose....

I can't contest the large majority of "climate scientists" are on the bandwagon in support of Global Warming. but that's not my point. My point is that opportunists like Gore are creating hysteria among the masses and are making hugh profits in the process. He also obviously loves being in the limelight and considered a pioneer. Let's not forget one of his many nicknames that stuck among computer scientists... ALGORITHIM. Do you really believe he continues to advocate environmental change because of his concern for the well being of our planet?

No question we need to invest more money in developing alternative energy sources and the GP disaster reinforces that. However, lets quit allowing politicians, opportunists, and large corporations to push the "panic and fear" buttons to get their agendas quickly accepted into mainstream beliefs.


Sources:

*http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/bu...gore.html?_r=1

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ene...llionaire.html

** Global warming - Scientific conclusions?

 

[MaggieD]

As a completely and utterly uninformed pedestrian on the ins-and-outs of global warming, my opinion is that, "Yes, more than likely we are in a global warming." Attributing that to the human condition is where it runs outta' gas for me. The little science I've read on the subject indicates the climate on earth has ebbed and flowed warm/cool for thousands of years. So, simplistic me asks, "Who caused the ice age?" I can hardly get past that.

Since I always follow the money, I'm skeptical of the whole science.

 

[iangb]

Obamanator: Your entire bolded section was pre-empted, almost to a word, by Deuce a few days ago. See here.

 

[Compatibilist]

^Not sure what you mean by "pre-empted" here. I see very little of my referenced material in his post.... certainly nothing near "almost to a word" Exactly what do you refer too and whats your point??

My point is that AGM is being used by opportunistic politicians like Gore for gain.

 

[Deuce]

^Not sure what you mean by "pre-empted" here. I see very little of my referenced material in his post.... certainly nothing near "almost to a word" Exactly what do you refer too and whats your point??

My point is that AGM is being used by opportunistic politicians like Gore for gain.

He means my thread shows you some direct evidence of global warming caused by man, and directly refutes some of the uncertainties you are fabricating.

Gore is not a scientist. Using him as a straw man does not help your cause.

 

[iangb]

^Not sure what you mean by "pre-empted" here. I see very little of my referenced material in his post.... certainly nothing near "almost to a word" Exactly what do you refer too and whats your point??

I mean that your quoted piece has five main conditions for AGW to be valid. Deuce's topic gives evidence that conditions #1, #2 and #3 have been met - condition #4 isn't pretty much wiped out by condition #3, and condition #5 is wiped out by all three of them.

My point is that AGM is being used by opportunistic politicians like Gore for gain.

How does that affect the validity of AGW?

 

[Deuce]

I mean that your quoted piece has five main conditions for AGW to be valid. Deuce's topic gives evidence that conditions #1, #2 and #3 have been met - condition #4 isn't pretty much wiped out by condition #3, and condition #5 is wiped out by all three of them.

How does that affect the validity of AGW?

Reality, he proclaims, does in fact have a liberal bias.

 

[Compatibilist]

My point is that AGM is being used by opportunistic politicians like Gore for gain.

How does that affect the validity of AGW?

It doesn't. What bothers me is the propagandized message of fear and panic in the rheteric. This is only advantageous to those making profits. Politicians who make big bucks by promoting hysteria sickens me. Especially those who use their political notoriety for this purpose. For God sakes Gore was VP and nearly president. And it's not just AGM and Gore. Many people also believe Cheney used the politics of fear for personal gain.

The reference was simply food for thought as the devils advocate. I don't necessarily dispute the evidence of AGM though I think a lot of the researchers are involved in conformation bias with funding motivations. Perhaps this should have been posted in another category... since the issue I'm concerned with is political opportunism/self interest??

 

[Compatibilist]

Reality, he proclaims, does in fact have a liberal bias.

Whose reality... or do you mean reality relativism?? It's funny how some people simply read the part of a message that suits their own thoughts/beliefs and disregards the rest.

 

[Deuce]

My point is that AGM is being used by opportunistic politicians like Gore for gain.


It doesn't. What bothers me is the propagandized message of fear and panic in the rheteric. This is only advantageous to those making profits. Politicians who make big bucks by promoting hysteria sickens me. Especially those who use their political notoriety for this purpose. For God sakes Gore was VP and nearly president. And it's not just AGM and Gore. Many people also believe Cheney used the politics of fear for personal gain.

The reference was simply food for thought as the devils advocate. I don't necessarily dispute the evidence of AGM though I think a lot of the researchers are involved in conformation bias with funding motivations. Perhaps this should have been posted in another category... since the issue I'm concerned with is political opportunism/self interest??

Yes, people using the scientific research for personal financial game are bad people. However, one might also argue that it is very important to educate the public on the issue, because right now we've got a sizeable portion of the population who doesn't believe it's happening. Public opinion being important to getting Congress to do anything significant, this could be the difference between actual progress towards fixing the problem and passing useless feel-good measures.

As far as "confirmation bias," it's just way too big to all be chalked up to that. Besides, there's the simple physics issue of "Where the hell is all this solar energy going?" The fundamental physical fact is that the energy in the exact spectrum that CO2 absorbs is leaving the atmosphere in smaller and smaller amounts.

Whose reality... or do you mean reality relativism?? It's funny how some people simply read the part of a message that suits their own thoughts/beliefs and disregards the rest.

'twas a joke, Obamanator.

 

[Compatibilist]

^ I think we're on the same page with this....

 

[iangb]

^ I think we're on the same page with this....

I have nothing to add here, I just thought it was awesome that your post started a new page.