An Interesting Development in Climate Science

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by MichaelJoeWilliamson, Aug 8, 2013.

  1. vangator1
    Offline

    vangator1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    2,267
    Likes Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +114 / 13 / -7
    I haven't backed off anything and you know it.

    Wink, wink. There was no fraud. Discredited bunch of buffoons.

    Yes, I am the Lords of all Gators. I know that every single top climate model was wrong in it's prediction of the Earth's temperature increase. The major contributing factor to their models was liberal bias.

    That's basically right. Liberals are all about control. They want the money and power to destroy the US as we know it and put in place a controlled socialist state. These are not my words. These comes from the likes of George Soros and he's backing up his mouth with his money. Conservatives don't have any agenda about Global warming or climate change or whatever it will be called next year. We understand the motivations behind liberals and oppose whatever tool they are using. For now it's global warming.

    I remember the campaign against DDT in the 60's because of Rachel Carson's book "Silent Spring". DDT was banned and hundreds of millions of people that would be alive today aren't. It was pure genocide. So now you want us to fear climate change.

    We understand what pathological liars that liberals are. Look around you. Virtually every ill in our society can be traced to liberalism. I know you won't believe it because to believe that would destroy everything you've been taught to believe.
  2. GatorRade
    Offline

    GatorRade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,730
    Likes Received:
    186
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +551 / 11 / -2
    So you still claim that I can be fired for the nature of my conclusions? This is demonstrably false.

    And you think you have no bias? You can't stop injecting politics (and conservative boogeyman George Soros, no less) into a science debate. As a scientist, I have no interest in your political conspiracy theories, and neither does the climate. Read the link I gave you.

    I am not sure how Carson is relevant to the matter, but I think you've misheard the story here. Ever heard of bald eagles? Now I definitely agree that saving birds should not a priority over saving lives, and it is very sad that this happened. But your version is a bit romantic.

    Van, I'm sure that you are a good guy, and I respect your passion for your values, but we are speaking two different languages here. I just care about the data and the evidence. I don't care who believes it or doesn't. It either is or isn't.
  3. vangator1
    Offline

    vangator1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    2,267
    Likes Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +114 / 13 / -7
    BTW, I'll be spending all day today (Saturday) doing analysis of data for some engineering models I'm creating. That's the truth.

    I remember year's ago, after a particularly adroit response to a PD post, PD tried to make a sarcastic comeback by saying, "what are you , a rocket scientist?". My response was that I actually am a rocket scientist. :) Shut him up (for a little while anyway).

    I have degrees in Mathematics, Electrical Engineering (Computer Engineering) and Geology. I was accepted into Princeton's Phd program for Geology. Didn't go though. I decided to make money under Ronny Raygun's Star Wars programs.

    Geologists have a very good understanding of how the Earth works and climate is a major factor. I understand modeling very well. I understand these climatologists have to come up with equations based on what data they have and a lot of assumptions. The first thing they have to do is identify the outliers and special cause factors. This can greatly affect a model. As it turns out, all their models were wrong (or at least overstated the problem). Time to rethink the equations going into the models. I'm sure most factors haven't even been modeled because they don't even know what they are.
  4. GatorRade
    Offline

    GatorRade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,730
    Likes Received:
    186
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +551 / 11 / -2
    Now you are speaking my language, van. :)

    I think that your points about model assumptions, special cause variation, and unknowns are the ones to be discussed. No doubt these introduce challenges into accurate modeling. I don't need to be told that the models are inaccurate. I know that they are inaccurate. The question is how inaccurate? And why? And if some citizens disagree with the scientists, who should we believe? And why?
  5. candymanfromgc
    Offline

    candymanfromgc Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    5,220
    Likes Received:
    95
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +194 / 7 / -3
    I have read that we have more trees now-due to reforestation than 10 years or so ago. Good step if true. I happen to like oxygen.
  6. vangator1
    Offline

    vangator1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    2,267
    Likes Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +114 / 13 / -7
    I don't think all climatologists are corrupt, just the ones who push this agenda for their own profit. I believe the system that doles out funding is corrupt. Not all funding, just the special interests they want to see furthered. It's very difficult to maintain your principles when you see others turn a blind eye and collect the dough. Don't know what I'd do. I'd like to think I wouldn't play their game.
  7. MichaelJoeWilliamson
    Offline

    MichaelJoeWilliamson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Messages:
    6,698
    Likes Received:
    400
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +425 / 0 / -0
    carbon cap and trade
  8. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    31,949
    Likes Received:
    2,407
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +3,880 / 66 / -30
  9. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    31,949
    Likes Received:
    2,407
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +3,880 / 66 / -30


    One more time, Rade! There is no correlation between CO2 levels and temperature.

    Oops... the "inconvenient truth" about Global Warning or Climate Change is further debunked.... again.
  10. citygator
    Offline

    citygator Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    784
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Pittsburgh
    Ratings Received:
    +58 / 2 / -0
    Money only works to shape science for a very short time. Tobacco companies had scientists on the defense for 20 years or so but eventually a house of cards tumbles. I personally have a difficult time believing in a world wide, multi-cultural, multi-language conspiracy of scientists to support budding new energy companies when all the money actually sits in oil companies, car companies, manufacturers, and old world energy companies. Seems like the backlash against the "science" is more well funded than the other way around (quotes are for the doubters).

    I also find it a weird alliance for conservatives who believe the liberals have their head in the sand about the economy while doing exactly the same thing with their own heads around dealing rationally with the ecological impact of human growth.

    I have nowhere near the scientific education level many on here are posting but I do feel I have a decent BS sniffer and discounting human impact because there are other impacts as well smells funny to me.
    • Like Like x 2
  11. wygator
    Offline

    wygator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    5,718
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +377 / 2 / -2
    Actually, US and other governments are spending the most on this issue, by far:

  12. asuragator
    Offline

    asuragator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2009
    Messages:
    20,743
    Likes Received:
    4,107
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +5,741 / 54 / -21
    Honestly, I am still not following what you mean by artificial? Wouldn't this mean that every market for a commodity is artificial?
  13. Gator515151
    Offline

    Gator515151 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2007
    Messages:
    19,019
    Likes Received:
    58
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +104 / 0 / -2
    When I was in grade school many decades ago we were taught we were headded for another ice age. I knew this global warming crap was just BS. Mrs Patterson (my 5th grade teacher) wouldn't lie to us.
  14. asuragator
    Offline

    asuragator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2009
    Messages:
    20,743
    Likes Received:
    4,107
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +5,741 / 54 / -21
    I think it's interesting what Gray wrote and I don't dismiss such things out of hand, but neither should anyone simply accept it. Gray's analysis hasn't been put under peer review and only appears in a newsletter. In any case, it took me all of two seconds to find two excellent studies--here and here--including one appearing in Science,which show a significant correlation between CO2 and temperature.

    Knowing this, how would you rectify it? If you were a scientist, would you give equal weight to a newsletter/blog post that hasn't been through peer review to two studies that appear in top journals? What standard are you using to judge the blog post?
  15. MichaelJoeWilliamson
    Offline

    MichaelJoeWilliamson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Messages:
    6,698
    Likes Received:
    400
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +425 / 0 / -0
    My goodness.

    Commodity markets, unfettered, are a very study in simple economics. However, when artificial constructs are required to engage in lawful trade, then that is artificial.

    Energy is a commodity. Cap and trade is an artificial construct placed on the trade of energy.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtiF_n_R9sA
  16. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    31,949
    Likes Received:
    2,407
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +3,880 / 66 / -30
    Bump. :grin:





    Oops... the "inconvenient truth" about Global Warning or Climate Change is further debunked.... again.
  17. GatorRade
    Offline

    GatorRade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,730
    Likes Received:
    186
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +551 / 11 / -2
    First, I don't think you've ever before made the claim to me that CO2 is not correlated to temperature, so I am not sure why the "one more time, Rade" intro.

    Second, this guy Gray's analysis is sophomoric. Take a look at two graphs, and see there is not correlation between CO2 and temperature? Has he ever thought about doing a rudimentary Pearson's correlation, which is intended to quantify this? Look at the data, and you tell me that there is no correlation:

    [​IMG]
  18. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    31,949
    Likes Received:
    2,407
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +3,880 / 66 / -30
    If we accept all of the Leftists' claims about AGW then we might be forced to accept their solution, which is a nonstarter for me.

    For me AGW is nothing more than a tax-scam based on the Kyoto Treaty/accord/protocol.
  19. asuragator
    Offline

    asuragator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2009
    Messages:
    20,743
    Likes Received:
    4,107
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +5,741 / 54 / -21
    Separate the science from the policy, otherwise you wind up clouding an objective and properly critical view of the science.

    Science is not about "accepting claims" but about what the actual science reveals. When people try to simply apply a political frame to science, they don't really do themselves any favors because ultimately they are so concerned about their imagined bogeyman on the other side of the political aisle that they fail to actually address the core issue which is what the science is showing. And not just one study, but many, many many studies.

    Of course we all need to have some frame of reference if we are not subject matter experts, but even then we must be careful and skeptical; perhaps even more skeptical since it's easy to just fall into picking a side. I like Gavin Schmidt's research, you like what Anthony Watts says. I won't accept anything Watts says or finds and you wont about Schmidt. But that is not good for learning especially if your goal is to really understand. Indeed it's the opposite of learning because you shut out everything that you think is associated with some imagined enemy.

    How else can one honestly and objectively try to distinguish between scientific facts that are complicated and confounding or between what is good science and junk science? You can't just by trying to win the argument and besides, there are many better things to do. But if one really wants to understand, to really know, they'd be well served by throwing away those lenses at least with respect to scientific topics and come at it neutrally and objectively. One can and should still be skeptical but not at the expense of foolishly and childishly dismissing it all.
    • Like Like x 1

Share This Page