Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The denialist who started this thread hasn't actually shown that an op-ed in a financial magazine has any scientific merit. It's his argument, he's the one who has to defend it. No one owes it to him to pretend it has scientific merit..
Typical. Can't refute the facts, so you attack the source.
To suggest that the thousands of scientists around the world are all actively and knowingly engaging in fraud is, in a word, ludicrous, and personally I don't blame them for feeling frustrated.
I don't think all scientists are actively engaged in fraud. That's not necessary for lots of them to be wrong. Confirmation Bias can be very strong and it's an even bigger problem among those that are experts in their field.
Quote:
I do think that they need to get better at PR and expressing their findings in a way that is more easily digestible to the general public, and I think it's a mistake for them to throw up their hands and say "to hell with these idiots, we've got work to do" because that doesn't make the situation any better for anyone.
.
Does that improvement in PR include the elimination of altered data. Does it include hiding their agenda as was exposed in some of the emails? Does it include stopping the destruction of the original data? Does it include the elimination of models that produce the same outcome regardless of input?
Typical. Can't refute the facts, so you attack the source.
I can, I just don't see a point. If you think a hostile op-ed by some ****** who's no more qualified to gainsay the scientific consensus than I am constitutes a scientific rebuttal, the facts won't change your mind. As I just said " One of you says no one has measured volcanic vs. industrial emissions, I show him otherwise and he declares it junk science and gets mad. Another says sea levels have not risen or if they have it's not going up the same everywhere; I show this is indeed the case and he says the science is WRONG and gets mad."
And of course it's "typical" to not pretend an op-ed by a "space architect" is the place to go for the latest on climate science. If you guys always try to misrepresent blogs and op-eds as scientific resources, you're always going to get called on it. I could move on to step two and find out what conclusions the people who did the research draw from it and let you know, but it's a really nice day out and I have long since learned there's no point in trying to teach that particular pig to dance. Besides, I wouldn't want you to get mad as well.
It's foolish to claim that a single weather event (Sandy, Katrina, an F5 tearing through the heartland, a particularly hot summer) is attributable to anthropogenic climate change, just as it's equally ridiculous to claim that an increase in polar ice one year, or a milder than expected summer one year, or a lull in hurricane or tornado activity one year, is proof that it's all wrong and a great fraud perpetrated upon the worlds' population. To suggest that the thousands of scientists around the world are all actively and knowingly engaging in fraud is, in a word, ludicrous, and personally I don't blame them for feeling frustrated. I do think that they need to get better at PR and expressing their findings in a way that is more easily digestible to the general public, and I think it's a mistake for them to throw up their hands and say "to hell with these idiots, we've got work to do" because that doesn't make the situation any better for anyone.
thousands of scientist do not engage in a known fraud. Just some of them. The fraud is anthropogenic GW
only 0.3% of the scientists actually believe in the ANTHROPOGENIC influence on the climate, it is the politicians and their donors, who want us to PAY for the LIE in order to enrich themselves who are the propellers of this hysteria. and there will always be corruption in scientific world as it is everywhere else, which the story with doctored data from East Anglia proves, but not only that one - people in scientific community know perfectly well it is not Olympus as the ignorant worshiper crowd is being brainwashed
I don't think all scientists are actively engaged in fraud. That's not necessary for lots of them to be wrong. Confirmation Bias can be very strong and it's an even bigger problem among those that are experts in their field.
Really? Tell us about all these false conclusions arrived at through widespread confirmation bias.
Cold fusion lasted about three months. This business about faster-than-light neutrinos lasted about half that. I have no reason to think the self-corrective nature of the process has failed in this particular instance.
All that stuff about alleged malfeasance revealed by stolen emails has been done away with, never mind decades of research that arrives at similar conclusions conducted by people who have nothing to do with the University of East Anglia. There's no there there, you're beating a dead horse out of desperation to make your ideological brethren not look like clowns.
Care to explain in your own words instead of being a sheep and just passing along the info?
Fact: The warming trend has stopped for 17 years.
Fact: CO2 emissions have continued at a record pace.
Fact: CO2 in the atmosphere has hit a record 400 PPM.
Fact: The alarmists said CO2 emissions are driving the warming trend.
Conclusion: The alarmists have an agenda and ignore facts that disagree with their agenda. This is quite common among experts and it's call Confirmation Bias.
There. Is that simple enough? Now do you understand?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
