[JViello]

Scientists formulate opinions based on a data reference - and two scientists looking at the same data can disagree and have differening opinions at times.

[skytrekker]

Empirical based science has found cures for polio, cracked the atom, put humans on the moon, discovered anti biotics all via testing and collection of data and through observation.

I would assume that in any scientific endeavor- climate based science uses the same techniques. It does not used faith based creationism.

And again interpretation of data cannot be 'spurious' if that was the case Dr. Oppenheimer at Oak Ridge would have not been able to produce an atomic bomb- in science interpretation of data cannot come up with an effective hypothesis or theory that can be taken seriously.. 'garbage in garbage out.... Unless we fall into the realm of political agendas or pseudo science.

The vast majority of scientists who agree that humans are causing climate change far outnumber a small minority who do not- that in many cases have been funded by oil companies.

Not to be off topic- the Far right- and their political agenda have forced this nation to the brink- both environmentally and economically. Its time to go beyond Fox News- and really begin to analyze the changing environment in the state of Connecticut. The climate here is changing rapidly- the data supports this. The longer we deny it, the more future generations will suffer. And our state will be irrevocably changed in the future.

Lets look at the climatic data for the state- compare, give information, and be objective. That is the meaning of the OP.

Opinion has no real place in climatic science- only hard facts.

[JViello]

Originally Posted by skytrekker

Empirical based science has found cures for polio, cracked the atom, put humans on the moon, discovered anti biotics all via testing and collection of data and through observation.

I would assume that in any scientific endeavor- climate based science uses the same techniques. It does not used faith based creationism.

Well sure there are some basic constants such as gravity.

But there are many things which are not wholly provable. LOTS of theory going on in the scientific community.

(Some synonyms for the word "theory": assumption, belief, conjecture, guess, hunch, hypothesis, idea, ideology,philosophy, speculation, surmise, theorem. )

If you are going to say science is correct all the time, every time - you are on the losing end of a long stick.

I'm not sure where creationism fits into this discussion - I never mentioned it.

Edit since you edited your post after I replied:

Originally Posted by skytrekker

Unless we fall into the realm of political agendas or pseudo science.

Well there you go. You just said it yourself.

Originally Posted by skytrekker

The vast majority of scientists who agree that humans are causing climate change far outnumber a small minority who do not- that in many cases have been funded by oil companies.

Or, funded by a known liberal college that supports radical environmental leftists. (See your quote just above this one...)

Anywho...Gotta run off to work - enjoy the day!

[skytrekker]

OK

lets post information only about the OP- and only about Connecticut-

Information about climate change should be about Connecticut and New England- as per the OP

lets start with the EPA- I am sure we agree a very reputable organization

Climate Change and Connecticut

[HeadedWest]

Originally Posted by skytrekker

I feel there is a difference between opinion and data based science, since the latter uses empirical testing of collected data.

Opinion is highly subjective, and does not take into account the scientific method- used since the Dawn of the Age of Reasoning over 500 years ago. Be rest assured the data on climate science is reality and science based. Opinion I can see in the Newspaper OP section.

Don't be too trustful of climate models. My profession is mathematical modeling and I can tell you that the models they are using are *very* volatile and are extremely vulnerable to the omission of connections that are not necessarily apparent to the modelers. The relationships between variables in the climate models are nonlinear, which means that the outputs can vary widely from one run to the next when (1) data is improved and (2) new relationships are discovered. The planet tends to be in general in a negative feedback situation where the most extreme outcomes are moderated by other countervailing effects.

Additionally, publishing model runs that are not scary does not get funding.

[skytrekker]

Originally Posted by HeadedWest

Don't be too trustful of climate models. My profession is mathematical modeling and I can tell you that the models they are using are *very* volatile and are extremely vulnerable to the omission of connections that are not necessarily apparent to the modelers. The relationships between variables in the climate models are nonlinear, which means that the outputs can vary widely from one run to the next when (1) data is improved and (2) new relationships are discovered. The planet tends to be in general in a negative feedback situation where the most extreme outcomes are moderated by other countervailing effects.

Additionally, publishing model runs that are not scary does not get funding.

It seems they have been 'volatile' to the worse case scenarios thus far- it does seem their estimates of warming in the arctic has been too conservative.

Climate modeling from the Hadley Center for climate change has been in error, as from the IPCC- warming is happening faster- so you are right- the climatic modeling has been wrong- its worse then they thought.

In any case I would prefer not to debate what is wrong or right with their mathematical modeling, but discuss current data and information like that from the EPA and NOAA, which tries to interpret and analyze available data about Connecticut's climate, and what the future may bring. Its easy to say these organizations will not receive funding if they do not present information that is not 'bad' but likewise we have major oil companies that certainly have done the same- attempting to conceal the truth.

I would frankly think the small amount of funding to these non profits would dwarf the amount doled out by Exxon or Chevron, in their attempt to influence.

[JViello]

Originally Posted by skytrekker

I would frankly think the small amount of funding to these non profits would dwarf the amount doled out by Exxon or Chevron, in their attempt to influence.

Well, you can ignore the posts by professionals you don't agree with and support those you do...that's your choice.

But the fact remains, a mathematical modeler by trade is telling you not to put much stock in the models. What else can you say.

As far as the "oil companies" influencing the "non profits"...I A. Have a hard time believing that simply based on the "non profits" general idealogy and B. They are public companies. All charitable giving is public information and easily found out.

Don't you think if this was the case - the generally liberal media would have jumped all over it?

Feel free to dig for their charitable contributions yourself and see. A little fact finding to shape your opinion is not a bad thing.

Edit: A quick search suprisingly finds that Exxon is a fairly decent charitable giver...towards environmental causes and not "environmentalist groups."

Save The Tiger Fund
ExxonMobil Foundation founded Save The Tiger Fund in partnership with the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation to strategically address the threats facing the tiger. In tiger-range countries, we empower leadership, educate the next generation of conservationists and apply robust, proactive methods for tiger conservation.


Leuser Ecosystem
ExxonMobil supports the Leuser International Foundation work in northern Sumatra, Indonesia. The foundation aids in the preservation of the Leuser ecosystem, widely believed to be one of the most biologically diverse in the world.

biodiversity conservation

ExxonMobil is committed to meeting the world's growing demands for energy in an environmentally responsible manner. We live up to this by respecting both human and natural habitats and by applying best practice in environmental management.

environment

Business Week reports:

Signature program:
U.S. Math & Science Education; Africa Health Initiative; Educating Women & Girls; Save The Tiger Fund
Education is a core focus with emphasis on science and math education in the U.S. Internationally, our Africa Health Initiative focuses on combating malaria in developing countries where ExxonMobil has operations. Educating Women & Girls Initiative focuses on girls' education and capacity building for women. Since 1995, the Save the Tiger program has supported tiger conservation and education in 13 tiger-range countries.

Corporate Giving -- Details: Exxon Mobil Corp.

And for the "hype" here is an article by ABC News - without specifics of course.

ABC News: Has Exxon Really Seen the Light on Global Warming?

Tax documents examined by Greenpeace show that ExxonMobil gave grants to 14 groups skeptical of global warming.

What you see "Greenpeace" say is "these groups" "such groups" etc without giving a single shred of detail. It's like those "undisclosed sources" you always see.

Greenpeace then says:

ExxonMobil had classified them as "general support" grants in public reports, according to the environmental group.

Hmmm, maybe - just maybe that's what they are? Without knowing the "those groups" how can we make a determination? Are we to trust a radical group such as Greenpeace at their words as they attempt to villify an "evil" oil company?

That's just sloppy reporting by ABC in my book. Not "fair and balanced" at all.

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by JViello

ExxonMobil is committed to meeting the world's growing demands for energy in an environmentally responsible manner. We live up to this by respecting both human and natural habitats and by applying best practice in environmental management.environment
up such as Greenpeace at their words as they attempt to villify an "evil" oil company?

That is such a load of BS - the worlds major supplier of oil claiming to respect human and natural habitats in an environmentally responsible manner? Laughable at best!

[jjbradleynyc]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

That is such a load of BS - the worlds major supplier of oil claiming to respect human and natural habitats in an environmentally responsible manner? Laughable at best!

Yeah, absolutely ridiculous--I agree. The oil companies would destroy a habitat and kill all the animals in it if it meant larger profits. Sad, yet very true.

[JViello]

Just to clarify, those were not my words, but a quote from their corporate website.

You both made an accusation towards Exxon.

Your mission is to back it up. Go find reputable, verifiable proof that what you think is true and your opinion then becomes fact and your accusations are accurate.

I'm curious to see what you can dig up.

P.S. I'm not on either side of this. I am simply being objective and taking sensationalism, ideology and emotion out of it.