Scientists planning their own March on DC

[Lord of Planar]

Yes we cause AGW, but there are natural factors too.

These have been shown to have minimal effects. It's mostly man-made:
" The scientific consensus is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and that it is extremely likely (meaning 95% probability or higher) that this warming is predominantly caused by humans. It is likely that this mainly arises from increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as from deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels, partially offset by human caused increases in aerosols; natural changes had little effect.[1][2][3][4]"

Where does it say that in the peer reviewed paper?

Do you realize yo are quoting a pundit, who probably is not a scientist?

Can you debate the science without quoting other peoples material?

No. And you shouldn't either. You should always reference your claims. Otherwise it's know as philosophy, not science, or aka "talking out of your a$$". Anyone can do that, not just you.

OMG... Are you really that ignorant?

You should not debate a topic you do not understand!

You are regurgitating punditry, not the science!

You are repeating what others say, without verifying accuracy!

I know what other people say, and as long as you shut out other views, your are like a religious cult follower!

 

[Lord of Planar]

I have no idea why you just posted those links, because they hurt your point. From your link:

"The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper.

That is a biased synopsis of the studies. If you read the studies themselves, you will see how the inaccuracies come about.

When they say "of publishing climate scientists," they are referring to the few who only write such articles. It completely excludes the climate scientists who are not part of the IPCC and other politically funded bodies.

Seriously. Read the actual studies. Not this paper that tries to rationalize their poor methodology.

I gave you two or three specific fallacies among the papers.

Why are you a science denier?

 

[Lord of Planar]

RE: climate scientists are "fake scientists"


Can you show us where this has happened in any manner significant to their final conclusions?

Cherry picking, I have shown.

The paper that examined several papers excluded all paper not written for one of three alarmist groups and also required the author had at least 20 papers. That narrowed over 11,000 papers down to something like 79.

 

[Lord of Planar]

for-profit science industry depends heavily on existing fundamental research, most of which is publicly funded. when a treatment for disease X is developed, they don't start at the bottom of the mountain.

Maybe in some aspects.

When we were engineering in an environment we called "rapid research and development," it was all money from the company I worked for, and some financing by Intel. No government money involved, and there are rare cases in my view when the government should be supporting research.

 

[fmw]

Do you know who "real scientists" are?

One would assume that they are people who operate strictly within the scientific method without being influenced by politics or emotion.

 

[Lord of Planar]

In Anderegg et al. 10.1073/pnas.1003187107, the supplemental methodology material says:

We compiled a database of 1,372 climate researchers and classified
each researcher as either convinced by the evidence (CE)
for anthropogenic climate change or unconvinced by the evidence
(UE) for ACC. We compiled these CE researchers compre-
hensively (i.e., all names listed) from the following lists: IPCC
AR4 Working Group I Contributors (coordinating lead authors,
lead authors, and contributing authors; 619 names listed), 2007
Bali Declaration (212 signers listed), Canadian Meteorological
and Oceanographic Society (CMOS) 2006 statement (120 names
listed), CMOS 2008 statement (130 names listed), and 37 signers
of open letter protesting The Great Global Warming Swindle film
errors. After removing duplicate names across these lists, we had
a total of 903 names.
​

This is typical of these consensus studies. They start by cherry picking who they are evaluating.

http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2010/06/07/1003187107.DCSupplemental/pnas.201003187SI.pdf

As I have repeatedly said, the scientists are generally honest about what they do. These simple facts of cherry picking are not reported by the pundits you tryst in.

 

[Helix]

Maybe in some aspects.

no, it's as i described it. i have worked in both academia and in industry R&D. that's how it works in both cases; research is built on previous research. if you reduce or eliminate the rain that feeds the roots of fundamental research, it will eventually result in the tree bearing increasingly less succulent fruit.

When we were engineering in an environment we called "rapid research and development," it was all money from the company I worked for, and some financing by Intel. No government money involved, and there are rare cases in my view when the government should be supporting research.

pharmaceutical research and development, for example, doesn't work that way. it relies heavily on existing knowledge of metabolic pathways, much of which is generated by basic (fundamental) research. most of this research is not immediately profitable.

 

[Lord of Planar]

no, it's as i described it. i have worked in both academia and in industry R&D. that's how it works in both cases; research is built on previous research. if you reduce or eliminate the rain that feeds the roots of fundamental research, it will eventually result in the tree bearing increasingly less succulent fruit.



pharmaceutical research and development, for example, doesn't work that way. it relies heavily on existing knowledge of metabolic pathways, much of which is generated by basic (fundamental) research. most of this research is not immediately profitable.

It still doesn't require government funding.

 

[Helix]

It still doesn't require government funding.

yes, it does. start here :

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed

now, imagine that you work in R&D, and your team decides that targeting a specific metabolic pathway might lead to a potential treatment. they suspect this because scientists out there were given the means to explore that pathway. without this previous research to build on, you're going nowhere. some of it might be privately funded, but a lot of it is publicly funded, and if you cut that off, you'll do significant damage to the way the process currently works.

 

[ludin]

This information is incorrect. I don't know where you got it from.

""The scientific consensus is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and that it is extremely likely (meaning 95% probability or higher) that this warming is predominantly caused by recent human activity. It is likely that this mainly arises from increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as from deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels, partially offset by human caused increases in aerosols; natural changes had little effect.[1][2][3][4]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scient...climate_change

It is called being able to read a graph and chart.
according to the IPCC humans only contribute about 3-5% of total CO2 in a year.

If the earth is warming it has little to do with us and has more to do with other global factors that they are either not
aware of.

World's top climate scientists confess: Global warming is just QUARTER what we thought - and computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong | Daily Mail Online

proves they pretty much are just making crap up as they go.
again climate is supposed to change. if it didn't we would still be stuck in an ice age.

 

[Lord of Planar]

yes, it does. start here :

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed

now, imagine that you work in R&D, and your team decides that targeting a specific metabolic pathway might lead to a potential treatment. they suspect this because scientists out there were given the means to explore that pathway. without this previous research to build on, you're going nowhere. some of it might be privately funded, but a lot of it is publicly funded, and if you cut that off, you'll do significant damage to the way the process currently works.

Sorry, I don't buy into that.

If the government is going to partially fund such things, then I want all profits of it to be returned to the government. Not the corporations profiting.

The problem I see is not corporations hold out. They hold out because they can get the public to pay for their future profits. We need to stop that practice.

 

[ludin]

In Anderegg et al. 10.1073/pnas.1003187107, the supplemental methodology material says:

We compiled a database of 1,372 climate researchers and classified
each researcher as either convinced by the evidence (CE)
for anthropogenic climate change or unconvinced by the evidence
(UE) for ACC. We compiled these CE researchers compre-
hensively (i.e., all names listed) from the following lists: IPCC
AR4 Working Group I Contributors (coordinating lead authors,
lead authors, and contributing authors; 619 names listed), 2007
Bali Declaration (212 signers listed), Canadian Meteorological
and Oceanographic Society (CMOS) 2006 statement (120 names
listed), CMOS 2008 statement (130 names listed), and 37 signers
of open letter protesting The Great Global Warming Swindle film
errors. After removing duplicate names across these lists, we had
a total of 903 names.
​

This is typical of these consensus studies. They start by cherry picking who they are evaluating.

http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2010/06/07/1003187107.DCSupplemental/pnas.201003187SI.pdf

As I have repeatedly said, the scientists are generally honest about what they do. These simple facts of cherry picking are not reported by the pundits you tryst in.

Yep they never actually read their entire paper. They just followed the headline and if agreed with their view they counted it.
all 3 studies that claim this 97% have been fictitious in nature and down right false in their claims.

but when you have a confirmation bias panel reviewing their own work then that is what happens.

IPCC Peer Review Process an Illusion, Finds SPPI Analysis | Business Wire

this shows just how much of a lie this whole thing is.

In Chapter 9, the key science chapter, the IPCC concludes that "it is very highly likely that greenhouse gas forcing has been the dominant cause of the observed global warming over the last 50 years". The IPCC leads us to believe that this statement is very much supported by the majority of reviewers. The reality is that there is surprisingly little explicit support for this key notion. Among the 23 independent reviewers just 4 explicitly endorsed the chapter with its hypothesis, and one other endorsed only a specific section.

so only 4.5 people thought it had any merit but the IPCC claimed a majority supported it anyway.

This whole area of science is nothing but a fraud and can no longer be considered science at all.

 

[Lord of Planar]

It is called being able to read a graph and chart.
according to the IPCC humans only contribute about 3-5% of total CO2 in a year.

This 3-5% is a bad argument to use. The earth system is in balance without us adding to the sourcing. The earth can only absorb roughly half of the extra CO2 we add to the system, so we keep it out of balance, and CO2 increases.

If the earth is warming it has little to do with us and has more to do with other global factors that they are either not
aware of.

We do add a significant degree of warming, but we might influence the measured effect with more warming than nature. No with just greenhouse gasses though.

Land use changes dramatically diminish the cooling that the area would normally have through evapotranspiration. Most the weather monitoring stations are affected by this, and there is no way to accurately do corrections to see actual global changes. I suspect we see a large reported upswing in tempertures just because of the urban heat island effect.

The IPCC et.al. uses the high value of various sensitivity studies. They currently use Hansen et. al. 1988, that gives a 3.71 W/m^2 increase for a CO2 doubling. I have seen three more recent studies that give lower sensiivities, and never seen a more recent study that duplicated the 3.71 or higher.

Soot is the other human cause warming variable. I is dramatic on glaciers and sea ice where it exists. In general, it more than doubles the melting rate of the affected ice it s on, with an invisible fine powder.

World's top climate scientists confess: Global warming is just QUARTER what we thought - and computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong | Daily Mail Online[/url]

proves they pretty much are just making crap up as they go.
again climate is supposed to change. if it didn't we would still be stuck in an ice age.

Yes, they are making stuff up.

Still, we don't need to lose credibility by claiming things like our CO2 output being an insignificant part of the cycle, because it does significantly disrupt the balance.

 

[ludin]

This 3-5% is a bad argument to use. The earth system is in balance without us adding to the sourcing. The earth can only absorb roughly half of the extra CO2 we add to the system, so we keep it out of balance, and CO2 increases.

nature doesn't care. The fact is that nature can emit more co2 than we can. thus giving rise to the increase as well. there are other factors at play that are being ignored on purpose.

We do add a significant degree of warming, but we might influence the measured effect with more warming than nature. No with just greenhouse gasses though.
Land use changes dramatically diminish the cooling that the area would normally have through evapotranspiration. Most the weather monitoring stations are affected by this, and there is no way to accurately do corrections to see actual global changes. I suspect we see a large reported upswing in tempertures just because of the urban heat island effect.

I don't disagree. I think I saw a chart somewhere that showed 80% of monitoring stations were affected by some kind of artificial heat source.

The IPCC et.al. uses the high value of various sensitivity studies. They currently use Hansen et. al. 1988, that gives a 3.71 W/m^2 increase for a CO2 doubling. I have seen three more recent studies that give lower sensiivities, and never seen a more recent study that duplicated the 3.71 or higher.
Soot is the other human cause warming variable. I is dramatic on glaciers and sea ice where it exists. In general, it more than doubles the melting rate of the affected ice it s on, with an invisible fine powder.

Again not going to disagree. soot can come from a lot of places. 1 volcano explosion can send more particle matter into the air than we can emit in years and years.
I am not saying that we have 0 impact that would be foolish and stupid. I am saying that our impact on natural functions is not as significant as people say it is.

Yes, they are making stuff up.
Still, we don't need to lose credibility by claiming things like our CO2 output being an insignificant part of the cycle, because it does significantly disrupt the balance.

I am saying that there are other drivers that are more significant than co2. co2 is just 1 small part of the entire climate system.
how they manage to pick on a gas that only makes up .045% of our atmosphere and say that is the main driver of climate is beyond me and frankly quite
foolish in and of itself.

as a friend said to me and I think it rings true here.

people control what they can control. The fact is big money and control can be had by blaming co2. you can control it and force other people to control it as well.
my problem is that the entire process is corrupted and people are defending the corruption simply because it plays into their politics.

that is not science and to try and call it science is a farce.

 

[Helix]

Sorry, I don't buy into that.

that doesn't matter any more than someone arguing that carts don't roll on wheels. wrong is wrong, no matter which frame you choose to display it in.

If the government is going to partially fund such things, then I want all profits of it to be returned to the government. Not the corporations profiting.

that's a proposal which i suspect neither of us supports. i would propose something more like this :

novel antibiotic discovery isn't currently as profitable as treatments for cardiovascular disease and pain, so pharmaceutical companies have moved away from it. perhaps we should expand publicly funded research into antibiotic discovery, and then also produce those medicines publicly, using the proceeds to fund less immediately profitable research in the future. antibiotic discovery is a significant hole that i see in current pharmaceutical research, so it would be better served if the public sector played a more significant role.

The problem I see is not corporations hold out. They hold out because they can get the public to pay for their future profits. We need to stop that practice.

partially, but that isn't the big sticking point in this dynamic. they simply can't afford to invent every possible route from NYC to LA with no map and no guarantee that they'll ever arrive. publicly funded research draws the map. in this analogy, i spent more than a decade in academic research mapping out a few towns in Pennsylvania. at the same time, other researchers were working on different parts of the map, and some were making sure that the roads were all connected. now, multiply that by several orders of magnitude, and you'll get an idea of what this problem really looks like.

 

[bubbabgone]

Where does it say that in the peer reviewed paper?

Do you realize yo are quoting a pundit, who probably is not a scientist?


OMG... Are you really that ignorant?

You should not debate a topic you do not understand!

You are regurgitating punditry, not the science!

You are repeating what others say, without verifying accuracy!

I know what other people say, and as long as you shut out other views, your are like a religious cult follower!

I got that same impression.
Almost too much "sky is falling" to be genuine.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I got that same impression.
Almost too much "sky is falling" to be genuine.

Yep.

Be it the Chicken Little's, or the Boy's who Cry Wolf... Plenty of them within the AGW punditry.

The pundits are making a mockery of the fragile science, and even what is true is to be suspect now.

 

[bubbabgone]

Yep.

Be it the Chicken Little's, or the Boy's who Cry Wolf... Plenty of them within the AGW punditry.

The pundits are making a mockery of the fragile science, and even what is true is to be suspect now.

Education consists mainly in what we have unlearned. - Mark Twain

 

[ataraxia]

Didn't scientists give us Agent Orange?

Yes. And that's why we should now stop taking Aspirin. I can follow that logic...

NOT!

 

[apdst]

Yes. And that's why we should now stop taking Aspirin. I can follow that logic...

NOT!

So, we should just do what scientists say, without question? We relinquish our right to question, debate and disagree?

 

[ataraxia]

Sorry, I don't buy into that.

If the government is going to partially fund such things, then I want all profits of it to be returned to the government. Not the corporations profiting.

The problem I see is not corporations hold out. They hold out because they can get the public to pay for their future profits. We need to stop that practice.

Alot of the basic research that has led to the modern world was initially funded by government because it was not clear at the time what practical uses it was going to have: airplanes (the Wright brothers turned to the Army to fund their work after they built their prototype, no private place was going to fund it), rockets, lasers, solid state, computers, satellites, nuclear technology, the internet, DNA and molecular biology of cancer, etc...

And looking at the cutting edge of basic research today, for example in particle physics and these expensive supercolliders used to study it: what private corporation is going to fund that research right now? None, because no one really knows what kind of long term opportunities that's going to open up. That's government's job to open up those opportunities. Once the science is well-established, once the capabilities and potential of the technology in the market becomes clear, only then does private enterprise step in to develop and implement it.

The best research has always come out of close collaboration between the public and private sectors. That's how it's always been. I am not sure why it would ever change.

 

[ataraxia]

So, we should just do what scientists say, without question? We relinquish our right to question, debate and disagree?

You can question, debate, and disagree- but just keep in mind this is not a symmetric relationship. They know alot more than you. You can question, debate, and disagree with your doctor who is telling you you may have cancer and need to have that biopsy. And many do. They refuse the biopsy, or the treatment, etc... because they say they don't trust those overpaid eggheads anyway. That's fine. But just realize there are consequences to too much skepticism. It doesn't necessarily make you smart.

 

[Jack Hays]

It used to be that the word of scientists was accepted by policymakers as the foundation on which to base opinion and begin deliberations. . . .

Organizers are still working out details, including the date of the march, which the site says will aim to be "a starting point to take a stand for science in politics."

"The word of scientists" has seldom been the foundation of policy deliberations. Of course there were those decades when "scientists" assured everyone that Africans were an inferior race.

"Science in politics" is exactly how the scientists squandered their credibility.

 

[bubbabgone]

"The word of scientists" has seldom been the foundation of policy deliberations. Of course there were those decades when "scientists" assured everyone that Africans were an inferior race.

"Science in politics" is exactly how the scientists squandered their credibility.

Look at it this way ...
If Governments can decide which scientists represent their Countries on powerful organizations like the UN's IPCC, which they can and do, then it kind of eliminates that pesky uncertainty-in-science element in favor of predetermined results the Governments can depend on.