mcsluggo Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 I have personally seen attempts to over interpret scientific findings (not in this field). I think it's a fact of human nature that people who test their hypothesis like to see it be correct, creating a tendency for confirmation bias. Then, people who are not scientists at all see some bits and pieces that support their less informed opinions, and they hype beyond what most scientists would ever say. The important pieces of most of these studies are in the nuance, lost on people who don't understand the underlying issues.Thus, why I don't take a hard line on AGW. well... this is CERTAINLY true! but you cannot toss out underlying exploratory scientific evaluation just because some nimboob somewhere TAKES that evaluation and misrepresents or overstates or simply doesn't grasp it while he parades around spouting nonsense. There are morons everywhere.. and they use anything in their moronic incantations. You can't disregard "study X" Just becase a moron (or a bunch of morons-- or a whole brigade of orons) latches onto "study X" as his "little red book" to waive during his ramblings. ---------- Post added August-29th-2011 at 08:34 PM ---------- Have y'all looked at the damn source? The National Science Foundation? What do you think the National Science Foundation would say? That global warming is a hoax? Let's take some blurbs from wikipedia:Global warming is the fed's excuse for a lot of its reckless spending. The NSF is the government. Is the government going to sabotage its own agenda? I don't even need to continue, but I will. Haha holy ****. What an unbiased source to do this study! Obama, the Global Warming Genie himself, appoints the top officers. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/14/AR2011021406610.html Golly, which side of this debate would they take? The decision is so difficult! this was one of the least convincing arguments i have ever heard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrong Direction Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 Well, to me there is a huge difference between a brand new scientific hypothesis about space or matter that a few scientists are kicking around and everyone is confused by and still chewing on.... and a 100 year old scientific theory on which 98 percent of the informed scientific participants pretty much agree (and most of the remaining 2 percent have flat out been paid to disagree). Earlier in this thread, I referred to AGW as something akin to predicting the weather in 1940. I feel like that's where we are. D-Day itself was planned to occur on that exact day based on the opinion of one weather man in particular, with GREAT uncertainty. Personally, I just think it's an evolving science that's still not fully mature. That doesn't mean it's not true, I assume it is true actually. I expect that modern observations in real time will better inform the discussion and ability to predict outcomes conditioned on other environmental inputs (el nino, solar flares, whatever), and that some of that space science (how much heat is leaving earth, how much is coming in, what effects it has on the atmosphere) will really help to continue to inform the science. The hardest part of science is not in identifying an association, it's in unpacking all of the variables to better understand the real impact/measurement you're trying to study. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 Earlier in this thread, I referred to AGW as something akin to predicting the weather in 1940. I feel like that's where we are. Have you done any research to match your feelings with the actual state of AGW science? Your feelings may have been accurate in 1970s. The science really moved forward during last couple of decades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted August 29, 2011 Author Share Posted August 29, 2011 Actually, if I'm not mistaken, the greenhouse effect, and the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, have been known for 100 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicken Fried Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 You clown. Was the position of the NSF any different when George W Bus was President? http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2009/01/27/203607/kathie-olsen-denier-burrows-nsf/ Either way, how can you not see the NSF is going to be heavily biased in this case? And the libs accuse the conservatives of only hearing what they want... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 Earlier in this thread, I referred to AGW as something akin to predicting the weather in 1940. I feel like that's where we are. D-Day itself was planned to occur on that exact day based on the opinion of one weather man in particular, with GREAT uncertainty. Have you done any research to match your feelings with the actual state of AGW science? Your feelings may have been accurate in 1970s. The science really moved forward during last couple of decades. It's kind of funny how people can look at the some post and walk away with different thoughts.. I see a comment like that and up wondering how much the poster actually knows about the accuracy of weather prediction in the 1940s. My guess is, it is about the same amount as I do. ---------- Post added August-29th-2011 at 07:24 PM ---------- http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2009/01/27/203607/kathie-olsen-denier-burrows-nsf/Either way, how can you not see the NSF is going to be heavily biased in this case? And the libs accuse the conservatives of only hearing what they want... The people that did the work don't work at the NSF. The NSF funded the work. But I seriously doubt the NSF paid much of their salary while funding the work. I can claim no more than 1/3rd of my institutional salary from all of my grants. I've had situations where I was already pulling the total allotment that I could from grants and so had grants where I wasn't personally getting paid a dime. The grant was going to pay for equipment, and the other people doing the work (essentially my employees). One of the VERY few things that I could do to get fired is to be caught carrying out serious academic fraud. I can do NO RESEARCH and be a crummy teacher for the rest of my life (there is no forced retirement) and will be paid 100% of my institutional salary. Given that, what incentive is it for me to fudge my results? It doesn't make sense for the average scientists (there are cases where it does make some sense (e.g. people that aren't tenured, people that have some other sort of financial incentive (e.g. trying to recruit capital for start ups)), but that doesn't describe the vast majority of researchers in the climate change field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2009/01/27/203607/kathie-olsen-denier-burrows-nsf/ That was a sad story. For those of you who didn't read it, one climate change denier managed to get former President Bush to appoint her to the NSF. It doesn't show anything about how the NSF as a whole felt about climate change science, but it does make some of the tactics of global warming deniers look pretty damn sleazy. Thanks for alerting us to that. Either way, how can you not see the NSF is going to be heavily biased in this case? And the libs accuse the conservatives of only hearing what they want... What possible source of unbiased information would you possibly accept, if not the National Science Foundation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 Actually, if I'm not mistaken, the greenhouse effect, and the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, have been known for 100 years. The basic idea out lined by the physics of CO2 is over 100 years old. Other than warming there are two possiblities: 1. The energy is going somewhere else other than heating the system. 2. Something else will counter act the increased heat in the system and have a "negative" feed back. I'll point out that both of those things likely will have consequences, and since human society has essentially evolved under the general current conditions any changes related to either one of them are likely to be negative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted August 30, 2011 Author Share Posted August 30, 2011 The basic idea out lined by the physics of CO2 is over 100 years old. Other than warming there are two possiblities:1. The energy is going somewhere else other than heating the system. 2. Something else will counter act the increased heat in the system and have a "negative" feed back. I'll point out that both of those things likely will have consequences, and since human society has essentially evolved under the general current conditions any changes related to either one of them are likely to be negative. Yeah, I can think of a few scenarios in which dumping massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere won't cause warming. One is if dumping CO2 causes the "things that eat CO2" to multiply, thus getting rid of the stuff as fast as we make it. I don't think we should count on such things. For one thing, my impression is that, while mature does react to changes, it doesn't react quickly. (IMO, this is supported by the fact that the level of CO2 seems to have been going up for quite some time, at least on the human scale of time, and this reaction doesn't appear to be happening (yet). But as far as I know, nobody's proven that it won't happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicken Fried Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 That was a sad story. For those of you who didn't read it, one climate change denier managed to get former President Bush to appoint her to the NSF. It doesn't show anything about how the NSF as a whole felt about climate change science, but it does make some of the tactics of global warming deniers look pretty damn sleazy. Thanks for alerting us to that. Oh my God you're pathetic. I can admit my side gets sleazy but you just can never...ever...bring yourself to do the same on your part. What possible source of unbiased information would you possibly accept, if not the National Science Foundation? Anything private. Just because there is no good source to do it doesn't mean you drool all over the only crap report that comes out. ---------- Post added August-29th-2011 at 08:52 PM ---------- The people that did the work don't work at the NSF. The NSF funded the work. But I seriously doubt the NSF paid much of their salary while funding the work. I can claim no more than 1/3rd of my institutional salary from all of my grants. I've had situations where I was already pulling the total allotment that I could from grants and so had grants where I wasn't personally getting paid a dime. The grant was going to pay for equipment, and the other people doing the work (essentially my employees). One of the VERY few things that I could do to get fired is to be caught carrying out serious academic fraud. I can do NO RESEARCH and be a crummy teacher for the rest of my life (there is no forced retirement) and will be paid 100% of my institutional salary. Given that, what incentive is it for me to fudge my results? It doesn't make sense for the average scientists (there are cases where it does make some sense (e.g. people that aren't tenured, people that have some other sort of financial incentive (e.g. trying to recruit capital for start ups)), but that doesn't describe the vast majority of researchers in the climate change field. It might just be me, but isn't 1/3 of a researcher's salary a **** ton of money? As in many thousands of dollars? Plus, the benefit can go beyond money in the here and now, as in getting grants in the future and having your reputation bettered? I'm sorry, but I don't believe no sleazy activity is happening when you combine the federal government, grant money, scientists, global warming, and a massive partisan political issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted August 30, 2011 Author Share Posted August 30, 2011 I'm sorry, but I don't believe no sleazy activity is happening when you combine the federal government, grant money, scientists, global warming, and a massive partisan political issue. Because, well, everybody knows that whenever one political party decides that there's money to be made in denying science, then therefore all scientists instantly become biased, because the issue is now political. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 How much has the Goracle made? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 It might just be me, but isn't 1/3 of a researcher's salary a **** ton of money? As in many thousands of dollars? Plus, the benefit can go beyond money in the here and now, as in getting grants in the future and having your reputation bettered? I'm sorry, but I don't believe no sleazy activity is happening when you combine the federal government, grant money, scientists, global warming, and a massive partisan political issue. Yes, 1/3rd of my salary is thousands of dollars, but it is pittance compared to my total salary of the next 30 years. What do you think my chances of getting grants are in the future if I lose my job for academic dishonesty? How is that bettering my reputation? Why is it a partisian issue? ---------- Post added August-29th-2011 at 09:45 PM ---------- How much has the Goracle made? The Goracle doesn't do research and has never given me a penny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 Oh my God you're pathetic. I can admit my side gets sleazy but you just can never...ever...bring yourself to do the same on your part. First (as a mod), absent proper provocation (which you assuredly are), you need to go with a lighter tread if you wish to keep sharing your own wisdom. Second (as an attentive daily reader with practiced and motivated focus for a number of years now), you are certainly and clearly wrong with your accusation of P's proposed inability to "never ever" see the <list negative characterizations> that can and do occur on "his side." P is staunchly consistent in his leanings, but is also (usually) quite reasonable when faced in like form with decent argument. Ironically, one could well argue that such notably distorted perception is not atypical of many of your own political posts, anymore then is the strong and often quite immovable bias of your own leanings, regardless of what arguments you're presented with, or the manner. Happily, I would argue that such is also not a characteristic of all of all your political posts. ---------- Post added August-29th-2011 at 06:57 PM ---------- How much has the Goracle made? I'm sure you admire his capitalistic ingenuity just as much as Palin's knack for making a dollar out of the celebrity of being a national political figure. I know I hold a very strong lack of positive regard for either. If I could have duct taped them together and made them part of the last shuttle mission as heat shield reinforcement, it would have been tempting. I'm likely being unfair, though. Al probably has more redemptive qualities than Sarah, and I'm just too anti-people in general to count them appropriately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 The Goracle doesn't do research and has never given me a penny. it was in reply to Larry's point, there is a great deal of money and politics at play on both sides.....research is so immaterial Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 No, but they are used to validate the greenhouse effect ,and this supposedly relates directly to the co2 effectThey dismissed the skeptic scientists despite their theory later being proven....how much it effects models and predictions is a matter for experts I wanted to come back to this (partly I'm just feeling ornery and grumpy). If your attitude is: The models that are good predictors of variable related to climate based on the data we have are flawed because cosmic rays, under very controlled conditions that nobody has claimed reflect the actual atmosphere, can induce formation of certain nuclei that will affect climate it if we assume: 1. There isn't something else in the atmosphere that minimizes the effects that cosmic rays (which I can understand that can't disprove, but it is something they've made no real effort to address). 2. That cosmic rays vary over an amount that is relevant to the formation of the nuclei in the real atmosphere (i.e. they are the limiting agent in the formation of the nuclei in the real atmosphere). 3. That said nuclei, once formed, will go on to produce clouds at a level that will affects real world cloudienss. 4. And that said clouds will affect global temperatures in a significant negative manner (which isn't supported by the work that has done). Then I can think of some words to describe you, but skeptic ain't one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 I wanted to come back to this (partly I'm just feeling ornery and grumpy). Misery loves company Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicken Fried Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 Because, well, everybody knows that whenever one political party decides that there's money to be made in denying science, then therefore all scientists instantly become biased, because the issue is now political. The issue has always been political, whether it should or shouldn't be. I'm not making it political; I'm just stating that it is. ---------- Post added August-29th-2011 at 11:20 PM ---------- Yes, 1/3rd of my salary is thousands of dollars, but it is pittance compared to my total salary of the next 30 years.What do you think my chances of getting grants are in the future if I lose my job for academic dishonesty? How is that bettering my reputation? That's the point, though. You wouldn't be found of academic dishonesty. Who would accuse you and prove you wrong? The federal government? ---------- Post added August-29th-2011 at 11:23 PM ---------- First (as a mod), absent proper provocation (which you assuredly are), you need to go with a lighter tread if you wish to keep sharing your own wisdom. I'll show more tact in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 That's the point, though. You wouldn't be found of academic dishonesty. Who would accuse you and prove you wrong? The federal government Scientists in Japan funded by the Japanese government? http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frcgc/eng/press/040916/ (Or are they in on it too?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 I'll show more tact in the future. Thanks. As someone who has been known to struggle with tact in certain situations, I appreciate your cooperation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 Misery loves company you really don't have a valid argument for this or anything else. Just a bunch of vague sayings and nonsense. It's actually impressive from the point of view that there are people out there who form their entire belief system on such a foundation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted August 30, 2011 Author Share Posted August 30, 2011 Deleted post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 you really don't have a valid argument for this or anything else. Just a bunch of vague sayings and nonsense.It's actually impressive from the point of view that there are people out there who form their entire belief system on such a foundation Really sucks that I turn out to be right so often don't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 Scientists in Japan funded by the Japanese government?http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frcgc/eng/press/040916/ (Or are they in on it too?) Hardly. Right Wing Talk Radio are the only people remaining on the planet who are concerned with truth and integrity. ---------- Post added August-30th-2011 at 09:31 AM ---------- Really sucks that I turn out to be right so often don't it? At some point those anti-psychotic meds will have to be forcibly administered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 I wouldn't try to tell anyone to trust anyone else on this issue, frankly. I was just posting the article, with my only comment basically being... ?????. Unfortunately for me, I'd have to pay $32 to read the whole article. Abstracts like you and I have read in this case are often not specific enough to understand what the paper's actually saying. Is there an independent analysis written anywhere? I will see if I can find one with a neutral, informative analysis of the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.