Global Warming: "Pseudoscientific Fraud"

[Moliere]

http://www.iflscience.com/environmen...nication-right

[Jeff Lebowski]

Some more global warming denier nonsense from Fox News:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...professor.html

Hold on, I'm sorry. It's the Daily Mail in the UK, which from what I can gather is the equivalent of the NY Daily News or NY Post. The same story was on the front page of the Times of London, above the fold. The Times of London is another Fox News outlet except it endorsed the Labour Party in 2001 and 2005 and it's the moderate prestige newspaper compared to the right-leaning Telegraph.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/scienc...cle4091344.ece

This is really funny. OK, so two (HOLY COW! TWO!) British publications reported on this controversy. And what is the controversy? Some guy had his paper rejected so he claims it must have been due to bias. Could be. The system certainly isn’t perfect. It could also be that his paper was crap. Either way, this is just another anecdote.

Shockingly it appears as if a lot of the scientists involved with global warming research don't appear to have those pure, scientific bloodhound, only want to find out the truth motives like JL has pointed out about 25 times now. Who knew that an orthodoxy could develop within a cloistered community whose livelihood depends on the existence of a condition (and that livelihood only improves with more alarmism and hysteria over it). I'm really surprised that the gatekeepers over these journals don't care to publish articles that could reduce their research funding. JL has told us repeatedly that these guys have conquered human weakness and they're purely altruistically motivated to find the truth and nothing but.

No, you are mischaracterizing what I have said. I have never said that the process is perfect and I most certain have NEVER said that we can trust the process because it is based on altruism and the people involved are perfect. Yikes, what a ridiculous straw man you just floated there. In fact, the opposite is true. The scientific method is designed so that we don’t have to rely on altruism. Yes, some people will fudge data and some people will show bias. But the system is based on hard evidence and repeatability. If there is a major flaw in the logic or the data, it gets exposed eventually.

This notion of “a cloistered community whose livelihood depends on the existence of a condition” is just utter nonsense. It is not a cloistered community. It is a huge number of scientists from a wide variety of related disciplines. And the way science works is that people are always probing the edges, testing hypotheses, and performing verification. If someone can prove definitively that well-established assumptions are incorrect, that would be award-winning work that would make a career. The really funny thing about this notion is that the one thing scientists seem to relish more than anything is when they have a chance to poke a hole in someone else’s work by finding mistakes.

And the idea that funding for an entire field of science is only granted if people produce a certain outcome is bullshit, pure and simple.

What have some of you been saying? -- "if the research is any good, then let your peers look at it and it will be published." You're a rube if you believe this. In order to be published it has to be one part research and one part moving the argument forward in the preferred direction. This scientist was the same guy from the Spiegel interview that had his life threatened when he joined up with a climate change skeptic outfit of economists in the UK. He wasn't some scrub, he was formerly the director over Germany's main climate research outfit. He's not even arguing against the existence of AGW, he's focusing on the particulars and why climate researchers have been so hilariously wrong with their predictions (again, 98% of the time). A BYU religion professor in the 1970s during the Wilkinson regime writing an article about Joseph Smith sticking his face in a hat while translating the BoM and committing polyandry with ten different women wouldn't receive the treatment this guy's been receiving. I presume such a BYU professor wouldn't have been receiving death threats.

Another anecdote based on some guy claiming persecution. Yawn...

If you don't vote a certain way, you're tossed out of the community. Since 97% of the people in the Soviet Union (including the Baltic States and Georgia who must have absolutely loved that Russian yolk) voted for the Communist Party that must mean that there was a broad consensus of people that loved the Soviet rule.

In other words, thousands of scientists around the world from many different sub-disciplines and organizations are all part of a massive, coordinated conspiracy. Time to take off the foil cap, amigo.

Apparently, being wrong 98% of the time is the litmus test employed to join the 97%.

We're not talking about Newtons laws here. We're not dealing with a theory. We're dealing with an area of science where they're wrong 98% of the time with their predictions, which means thus far their research has produced almost zero predictive value. On top of that, some of them have been caught withholding some of their data because it cuts against their overarching goals. It's crazy not to question what the hell is going on when dire warning after dire warning is issued and they don't come to pass.

You keep referencing this “wrong 98% of the time” number so I guess I should respond to that. It is yet another straw man. Climate science is NOT wrong 98% of the time. When you chase this rumor down, it typically ties back to some knucklehead who is grossly ignorant of how modeling works (in general), crowing that climate models don’t EXACTLY predict conditions 98% of the time. Duh. Nobody ever claimed that they would do that. They predict general long-term trends. Actual climate data shows a great deal of fluctuation. No climate model is ever expected to match short-term fluctuations. That is like saying an olympic archer is a terrible shot because he only hits the dead center of the bullseye 2% of the time.

Furthermore, long-term climate models are only one part of climate science.

If we were talking about a scientific law or theory, I'd feel more comfortable with that 97% figure. But given the total lack of any predictive reliability exhibited by these guys, the 97% figure should raise an enormous red flag. As I mentioned above, a broad consensus has also been reached in other unsavory ventures like the outcome of "elections" in the Soviet Union or North Korea. Orthodoxies love to cleanse their ranks of dissent. Strangely enough, I'd feel better with an 80% consensus. 97% is Saddam Hussein territory.

Soviet Union, North Korea, and Saddam Hussein.

Hitler just called. He is upset you left him out of the paragraph.

I remember a video my high school biology teacher showed our class on evolution. Part of the video showed these religious nuts who went to the extreme of fabricating fossils to prove that men existed alongside dinosaurs (they created fake fossils that showed human footprints next to dinosaur footprints). Which side has been fudging the data and at times withholding it? Which side massages the data, findings and predictions to create hysteria?

Well according to you, it is the overwhelming majority of scientists engaged in this kind of fraud and dishonesty. Again, not a little group of fringe scientists who fudge data and then claim they are being persecuted when they are called on it, but the entire worldwide group of climate scientists and the vast number of scientists in related disciplines (marine biology, wildlife, range science, water resource management, etc.) that are impacted by climate change and are doing research and publishing on those impacts. Yes indeed, which scenario is most believable?

[SoonerCoug]

What an uphill battle for Lebowski in this thread.

The real problem is that most Americans have no idea what science is or how it works.

For those of you who are skeptics about global warming or the scientific method in general, I would recommend that you try to think about science like this:

Science is the opposite of religion in the sense that when you go to church, you try to have faith in centuries-old beliefs shared by a group. That faith may be based on tradition or your own personal feelings (e.g., the spirit).

When you go to the lab, you develop hypotheses or models and then try to disprove your own hypotheses. The religious equivalent would be to attend church and try to disprove the things you believe. Does that make more sense?

[Jeff Lebowski]

For those of you who are skeptics about global warming or the scientific method in general, I would recommend that you try to think about science like this:

Science is the opposite of religion in the sense that when you go to church, you try to have faith in centuries-old beliefs shared by a group. That faith may be based on tradition or your own personal feelings (e.g., the spirit).

When you go to the lab, you develop hypotheses or models and then try to disprove your own hypotheses. The religious equivalent would be to attend church and try to disprove the things you believe. Does that make more sense?

Excellent point. Thanks.

What an uphill battle for Lebowski in this thread.

I should have given up a long time ago, but I am really worried about SeattleUte.

[ERCougar]

The real problem is that most Americans have no idea what science is or how it works.

But he watched a film about evolution! He's totally got science cred!

[Uncle Ted]

Y'all that live close to the ocean are screwed... and so are your nuclear power plants:

How Rising Seas Could Sink Nuclear Plants On The East Coast

In 2011, a tsunami sent waves as high as 49 feet crashing over the seawalls surrounding the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in Japan, causing meltdowns at three of the plant's reactors. After that incident, the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) ordered nuclear facilities in the U.S. to review and update their plans for addressing extreme seismic activity and potential flooding from other events, such as sea level rise and storm surges. Those plans aren't due until March 2015, which means that many plants have yet to even lay out their their potential vulnerabilities, let alone address them.


During the 1970s and 1980s, when many nuclear reactors were first built, most operators estimated that seas would rise at a slow, constant rate. That is, if the oceans rose a fraction of an inch one year, they could be expected to rise by the same amount the next year and every year in the future.
But the seas are now rising much faster than they did in the past, largely due to climate change, which accelerates thermal expansion and melts glaciers and ice caps. Sea levels rose an average of 8 inches between 1880 and 2009, or about 0.06 inches per year. But in the last 20 years, sea levels have risen an average of 0.13 inches per year -- about twice as fast.


And it's only getting worse. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has laid out four different projections for estimated sea level rise by 2100. Even the agency's best-case scenario assumes that sea levels will rise at least 8.4 inches by the end of this century. NOAA's worst-case scenario, meanwhile, predicts that the oceans will rise nearly 7 feet in the next 86 years.


But most nuclear power facilities were built well before scientists understood just how high sea levels might rise in the future. And for power plants, the most serious threat is likely to come from surges during storms. Higher sea levels mean that flooding will travel farther inland, creating potential hazards in areas that may have previously been considered safe. During Superstorm Sandy, for example, flooding threatened the water intake systems at the Oyster Creek and Salem nuclear power plants in New Jersey. As a safety precaution, both plants were powered down. But even when a plant is not operating, the spent fuel stored on-site, typically uranium, will continue to emit heat and must be cooled using equipment that relies on the plant's own power. Flooding can cause a loss of power, and in serious conditions it can damage backup generators. Without a cooling system, reactors can overheat and damage the facility to the point of releasing radioactive material.

[ATTACH]4279[/ATTACH]

[...]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_5233306.html

They should rip down those nuclear power plants and put in safe, coal fire ones before it is too late.

The good news is if all the ice melted the oceans would only rise about 230 feet... I would still be safe:

If all land ice melted, sea level would rise approximately 70 meters (230 feet) worldwide.

http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/glaciers/quickfacts.html

[oxcoug]

So the latest - 4 in a series of 4 - attempts to confirm the mythical 97% consensus turns out to be just another PR exercise in producing gimmick data and then torturing it to get to 97%.


1. Only 64 of the 11,944 papers actually explicitly endorsed the quantitative formulation presented by Cook and the SKS team.
2. 66.4% of the abstracts expressed no position on AGW
3. Of the remainder that did, the overwhelming percentage were "implicit" endorsements - an example of one provided by Cook himself, shows how flimsy these endorsements are: “‘. . . carbon sequestration in soil is important for mitigating global climate change’. A researcher looking at carbon sequestration has almost certainly not considered outgoing radiation from the upper troposphere or examined assumptions about relative humidity in climate models.
4. Their search terms blatantly missed skeptical papers - a cursory review discovered a dozen top skeptical papers that were completely left out of the "study" because they didn't use the words "global warming" or "global climate change" - so the methodology automatically prejudices the results from the outset. This is laughably disqualifying.
5. A high percentage of the abstracts are 15-20 years old - the number of changes and reversals in the science since then is too long to detail here.

And finally - this is sure to become the most interesting part - they are now threatening to sue to prevent information on their methodology for being made public. Never a good sign.

http://joannenova.com.au/2013/07/tha...sensus-not-97/

[Jeff Lebowski]

So the latest - 4 in a series of 4 - attempts to confirm the mythical 97% consensus turns out to be just another PR exercise in producing gimmick data and then torturing it to get to 97%.


1. Only 64 of the 11,944 papers actually explicitly endorsed the quantitative formulation presented by Cook and the SKS team.
2. 66.4% of the abstracts expressed no position on AGW
3. Of the remainder that did, the overwhelming percentage were "implicit" endorsements - an example of one provided by Cook himself, shows how flimsy these endorsements are: “‘. . . carbon sequestration in soil is important for mitigating global climate change’. A researcher looking at carbon sequestration has almost certainly not considered outgoing radiation from the upper troposphere or examined assumptions about relative humidity in climate models.
4. Their search terms blatantly missed skeptical papers - a cursory review discovered a dozen top skeptical papers that were completely left out of the "study" because they didn't use the words "global warming" or "global climate change" - so the methodology automatically prejudices the results from the outset. This is laughably disqualifying.
5. A high percentage of the abstracts are 15-20 years old - the number of changes and reversals in the science since then is too long to detail here.

And finally - this is sure to become the most interesting part - they are now threatening to sue to prevent information on their methodology for being made public. Never a good sign.

http://joannenova.com.au/2013/07/tha...sensus-not-97/

Joanne Nova? Really? She is a nut.

[imanihonjin]

Joanne Nova? Really? She is a nut.

You love logical fallacies don't you?

[Topper]

Joanne Nova? Really? She is a nut.

Really, that's your attack on the comments, insulting the author?

[SoCalCoug]

So the latest - 4 in a series of 4 - attempts to confirm the mythical 97% consensus turns out to be just another PR exercise in producing gimmick data and then torturing it to get to 97%.


1. Only 64 of the 11,944 papers actually explicitly endorsed the quantitative formulation presented by Cook and the SKS team.
2. 66.4% of the abstracts expressed no position on AGW
3. Of the remainder that did, the overwhelming percentage were "implicit" endorsements - an example of one provided by Cook himself, shows how flimsy these endorsements are: “‘. . . carbon sequestration in soil is important for mitigating global climate change’. A researcher looking at carbon sequestration has almost certainly not considered outgoing radiation from the upper troposphere or examined assumptions about relative humidity in climate models.
4. Their search terms blatantly missed skeptical papers - a cursory review discovered a dozen top skeptical papers that were completely left out of the "study" because they didn't use the words "global warming" or "global climate change" - so the methodology automatically prejudices the results from the outset. This is laughably disqualifying.
5. A high percentage of the abstracts are 15-20 years old - the number of changes and reversals in the science since then is too long to detail here.

And finally - this is sure to become the most interesting part - they are now threatening to sue to prevent information on their methodology for being made public. Never a good sign.

http://joannenova.com.au/2013/07/tha...sensus-not-97/

You're referring to the analysis by Christopher Monckton, the British non-scientist, Conservative party political advisor and columnist? I'm on the edge of my seat wondering if THIS time, he's going to be objective and accurate in his analysis.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Really, that's your attack on the comments, insulting the author?

Ha. I knew that would generate a response. Sorry, but I have seen enough whoppers posted by this woman that I know she was zero regard for the truth and a detailed response is not worth the effort. There are multiple polls like the one in question, and there are many other ways to gauge consensus. In any case, I am growing weary of playing whack-a-mole. One minute you all are arguing that the climate scientists are all engaged a massive coordinated conspiracy to fudge data and claim a problem when there isn't one in order to secure funding, and the next minute you are arguing that there really isn't a consensus and in fact most scientists don't really believe in AGW (whoops! there goes the funding). If you anti-science folks would just coordinate a little to get your stories straight, it would at least lend a veneer of rational thought to your arguments.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Pat Sajak weighs in on Twitter:

I now believe global warming alarmists are unpatriotic racists knowingly misleading for their own ends. Good night.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/poli...icle-1.1799739

Racists? That's a new one.

[Blueintheface]

Pat Sajak weighs in on Twitter:



http://www.nydailynews.com/news/poli...icle-1.1799739

Racists? That's a new one.

Did '71 learn how to hack into someone else's twitter account?

[Uncle Ted]

Time for Al Gore to sell his ocean front property while he can... NASA says we can't stop this:

Irreversible collapse of Antarctic glaciers has begun, studies say

A slow-motion and irreversible collapse of a massive cluster of glaciers in Antarctica has begun, and could cause sea levels to rise across the planet by another 4 feet within 200 years, scientists concluded in two studies released Monday.


Researchers had previously estimated that the cluster in the Amundsen Sea region of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet would last for thousands of years despite global climate change. But the new studies found that the loss is underway now as warming ocean water melts away the base of the ice shelf, and is occurring far more rapidly than scientists expected.


The warming water is tied to several environmental phenomena, including a warming of the planet driven by emissions from human activity and depleted ozone that has changed wind patterns in the area, the studies found.

"There is no red button to stop this," said Eric Rignot, a UC Irvine professor of Earth system science and the lead author of one of the studies, conducted with NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and scheduled for publication in a journal of the American Geophysical Union.


The six glaciers have passed "the point of no return," Rignot said, which means that total collapse — the melted retreat of the glaciers — cannot be prevented. "The only question is how fast it's going to go."
[...]

http://www.latimes.com/science/envir...513-story.html

SpaceX may have to pull back that new launch pad a bit putting but it could have been worst if they went with Florida...