Official Global Warming thread (merged)

#1,426
#1,426
TennTradition said:
Quick reading suggests it was very accurate. Cryogenic sample collection and then IR quantification against a reference gas.

Questions are raised about the accuracy of CO2 data collection prior to 1958 when Keeling started doing this at Mauna Loa.

The IPCC uses results from ice core samples for data prior to 1958.
Click to expand...

I don't trust the ice core data or the tree ring measurements. Wasn't the ice core data funded by Greenpeace?
 
#1,430
#1,430
I think Global Climate researchers would do themselves a big favor if they would divest themselves from organizations such as Greenpeace, Sierra Club, etc.
 
#1,432
#1,432
TennTradition said:
And does that lead you to distrust the results?
Click to expand...

Human behavior is pretty well documented. You can have the most distinguished scientists testify in a murder trial on behalf of someone who is absolutely guilty and be credible. The human brain is a complex thing.
 
#1,433
#1,433
Sandvol said:
Human behavior is pretty well documented. You can have the most distinguished scientists testify in a murder trial on behalf of someone who is absolutely guilty and be credible. The human brain is a complex thing.
Click to expand...

The David H. Koch School of Chem. Eng. Practice paid for my first year of grad scool. Does that make me a tea party sympathizer?

To be fair to those scientists, could they not be testifying on fact, never lie, never shade the truth, never tell just half the story, and still present reasonable doubt in the defense of someone who was actually guilty?
 
#1,434
#1,434
TennTradition said:
The David H. Koch School of Chem. Eng. Practice paid for my first year of grad scool. Does that make me a tea party sympathizer?

To be fair to those scientists, could they not be testifying on fact, never lie, never shade the truth, never tell just half the story, and still present reasonable doubt in the defense of someone who was actually guilty?
Click to expand...

Not if it was before the Tea Party existed. But, I think it happens all the time. Let me give you an example: I mentioned the Jon Benet Ramsey case earlier. John and Patsy Ramsey were asked to take a lie detector test. Patsy said yes I'll take ten tests. John said that would be insulting. Three years later they offered to take a lie detector test on their terms with their own examiner. The police wanted to use an FBI examiner. Well, the first examiner they found said the test was inconclusive, the second examiner they found said the test was inconclusive, but the third examiner said they were not being deceptive. So their team announced to the world the Ramsey's had passed the polygraph exam. I think Greenpeace can "Cherry Pick" scientists who believe in their cause. You're not seriously suggesting that scientists can't be influenced are you?

P.S.-After "Climate Gate" you don't really have a lot of foundation for that argument.

P.S.P.S.-I'm a Tea Party sympathizer by the way so that's a good thing.
 
Last edited:
#1,435
#1,435
TennTradition said:
To be fair to those scientists, could they be testifying on fact, never lie, never shade the truth, never tell just half the story, and still present reasonable doubt in the defense of someone who was actually guilty?
Click to expand...

(FYP-double negative.)

Didn't mean to totally avoid your question. Yes.
 
#1,436
#1,436
TennTradition said:
The David H. Koch School of Chem. Eng. Practice paid for my first year of grad scool. Does that make me a tea party sympathizer?

To be fair to those scientists, could they not be testifying on fact, never lie, never shade the truth, never tell just half the story, and still present reasonable doubt in the defense of someone who was actually guilty?
Click to expand...

If you got the scholie because of your political leanings there would be expectations. However, if your leanings had nothing to do with the funding and there were no expectations attached, then it makes no difference. You must admit that most funding is attached to an expected outcome in the Climate Change arena.
 
#1,437
#1,437
82_VOL_83 said:
If you got the scholie because of your political leanings there would be expectations. However, if your leanings had nothing to do with the funding and there were no expectations attached, then it makes no difference. You must admit that most funding is attached to an expected outcome in the Climate Change arena.
Click to expand...

Don't think he's going to admit that.
 
#1,439
#1,439
Sandvol said:
Not if it was before the Tea Party existed. But, I think it happens all the time. Let me give you an example: I mentioned the Jon Benet Ramsey case earlier. John and Patsy Ramsey were asked to take a lie detector test. Patsy said yes I'll take ten tests. John said that would be insulting. Three years later they offered to take a lie detector test on their terms with their own examiner. The police wanted to use an FBI examiner. Well, the first examiner they found said the test was inconclusive, the second examiner they found said the test was inconclusive, but the third examiner said they were not being deceptive. So their team announced to the world the Ramsey's had passed the polygraph exam. I think Greenpeace can "Cherry Pick" scientists who believe in their cause. You're not seriously suggesting that scientists can't be influenced are you?

P.S.-After "Climate Gate" you don't really have a lot of foundation for that argument.

P.S.P.S.-I'm a Tea Party sympathizer by the way so that's a good thing.
Click to expand...

I already figured the tea party bit. But touché on the tea party's existence. I think it officially followed a few years later though David and Charles already had visions of sugarplums dancing in their head.

As far as influence goes, anyone is subject to influence. I will say the only thing most scientists hate more than being scooped is being wrong. While I think many scientists are easily swayed to present work in a way that is favorable to their cause (whether that be getting to publish in a certain issue, not pissing off the company that funds you, etc.), I have always found that to stop short of risking publishing findings that others will be able to pick apart except in extreme cases. So when it comes to something like data from ice core samples, I'm not as worried. I'm particularly not worried that the data would be made up over a boat ride.

As for only taking scientists down that will give you what you want - not by coercion but because you know they are like-minded, again I would expect this to be more of an influence on where the data is ultimately published (don't like the result, them hide it in an obscure journal) or how it is presented (soften the blow with what-ifs), but the data and the method it is processed are typically well-reported and others can analyze differently if they find fault.
 
#1,440
#1,440
82_VOL_83 said:
If you got the scholie because of your political leanings there would be expectations. However, if your leanings had nothing to do with the funding and there were no expectations attached, then it makes no difference. You must admit that most funding is attached to an expected outcome in the Climate Change arena.
Click to expand...

Academic freedom is a fickle beast. If someone gave me a science/engineering scholarship based on my political leanings and expected me to produce a result consistent with those, I would personally enjoy the opportunity to rub the opposite in their face because I don't think that's a healthy way to go about science.

My grad school lab had funding from ExxonMobil looking at pyrolysis, BP looking at fuel modification, Eni looking at coking in Diesel engines, DOE looking at next generation engine technology, Statoil looking at hydrogen production from natural gas, and assorted other fundamental science funded by DOE and NSF.

Those are a lot of different groups, with varied interests. I never once heard discussion of how we should shade our results to maintain a good relationship or meet expectations. Yes these are not topics that are as politically charged as actual climate modeling or generating proxy data, but I didn't see it in my lab.
 
#1,441
#1,441
I looked through the climate gate material when it was brought to light, but there was a lot and I didn't come close to reading all of it. I did try to read highlights put together by websites.

My conclusion was it was mostly academics doing what academics do best - holding grudges, playing academic politics (trying to bury this guy because you think you're better than him, for example), and some researchers venting frustration over some guys they were becoming annoyed by and didn't respect. I found it to be much less about climate than typical academic BS - climate was just the issue it was playing out in. I've seen it happen in other labs dealing with much less political issues such as transition metal catalysis.

What were the key smoking guns you took issue with?
 
#1,444
#1,444
BigOrangeTrain said:
Man made global warming is total BS. Somewhere Al gore is smiling every time someone thinks us humans have effected the global climate.
Click to expand...

I don't know man..I'm starting to warm up to this man made global warming thing. I had to turn my AC on yesterday!

I don't doubt man has an impact on the environment of the planet but is small at best. The weather thumpers give man too much credit.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,445
#1,445
TennTradition said:
I looked through the climate gate material when it was brought to light, but there was a lot and I didn't come close to reading all of it. I did try to read highlights put together by websites.

My conclusion was it was mostly academics doing what academics do best - holding grudges, playing academic politics (trying to bury this guy because you think you're better than him, for example), and some researchers venting frustration over some guys they were becoming annoyed by and didn't respect. I found it to be much less about climate than typical academic BS - climate was just the issue it was playing out in. I've seen it happen in other labs dealing with much less political issues such as transition metal catalysis.

What were the key smoking guns you took issue with?
Click to expand...

Dang, is Michigan in the central time zone? When do you sleep? The problem with climate gate is how it illustrated how climate scientists throw out data that doesn't fit their template and manipulate data until they get what they want-a la hockey stick.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,446
#1,446
TennTradition said:
My conclusion was it was mostly academics doing what academics do best - holding grudges, playing academic politics (trying to bury this guy because you think you're better than him, for example), and some researchers venting frustration over some guys they were becoming annoyed by and didn't respect. I found it to be much less about climate than typical academic BS - climate was just the issue it was playing out in. I've seen it happen in other labs dealing with much less political issues such as transition metal catalysis.
Click to expand...

You're almost as naïve as I am. I guess we want to believe the best in people.
 
Last edited:
#1,447
#1,447
Sandvol said:
Dang, is Michigan in the central time zone? When do you sleep? The problem with climate gate is how it illustrated how climate scientists throw out data that doesn't fit their template and manipulate data until they get what they want-a la hockey stick.
Click to expand...

Do you have a good source to point to where I can go read the technical aspects of what manipulation were performed. It is not unusual to have to make choices on data - particularly when it conflicts. If one data set makes more sense with all of the other data when put together you may give it more weight and choose to include it. It is not unusual to include the rejected data in supplemental material along with an explanation though. But some profs don't like that approach ... I do.

On the other hand, taking portions of a single data set and rejecting others when all the data was collected in the same way and with the same presumed accuracy is an issue. That is what I would more classically call cherry picking.

Examples along with technical descriptions of how the data was screened, processed, rejected, etc would be helpful because I didn't see a lot of instances that caused me a whole lot of concern on my first go at it.

Most of Michigan is on eastern. I made such a habit of short nights for my first 30 years, I haven't found a way to break it yet in my second 30 years.
 
#1,448
#1,448
Sandvol said:
Your almost as naïve as I am. I guess we want to believe the best in people.
Click to expand...

I am certainly guilty of seeing the best in people, though I'm beginning to learn to at least identify traits of those that I would be wise to be more careful around.

I don't have a lot of tolerance for it. One or two people who have just a touch of it can be good to keep a team pointed in the right direction and producing. I put a guy on a team I was forming recently for that reason. But there are enough folks with the attitude I prefer to keep the overall culture where I want it. A little bit of a creaky gear can be a good thing when it comes to complacency.
 
Last edited:
#1,449
#1,449
TennTradition said:
Do you have a good source to point to where I can go read the technical aspects of what manipulation were performed. It is not unusual to have to make choices on data - particularly when it conflicts. If one data set makes more sense with all of the other data when put together you may give it more weight and choose to include it. It is not unusual to include the rejected data in supplemental material along with an explanation though. But some profs don't like that approach ... I do.

On the other hand, taking portions of a single data set and rejecting others when all the data was collected in the same way and with the same presumed accuracy is an issue. That is what I would more classically call cherry picking.

Examples along with technical descriptions of how the data was screened, processed, rejected, etc would be helpful because I didn't see a lot of instances that caused me a whole lot of concern on my first go at it.

Most of Michigan is on eastern. I made such a habit of short nights for my first 30 years, I haven't found a way to break it yet in my second 30 years.
Click to expand...

Here's the video of Jones' testimony before the parliamentary subcommittee. It is a pretty interesting watch and gives you some insight into the "inner club" club of climate scientists. In it he admits to withholding data (damn that Freedom of Information Act) that would weaken Mann's "hockey stick" because he had worked so damn hard to obtain it. When you finish watching it there's more.

Player
 
Last edited:
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top