Snow in Cairo. First Time in 100 Years!!!

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by madgator, Dec 13, 2013.

  1. G8trGr8t
    Offline

    G8trGr8t Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2008
    Messages:
    14,261
    Likes Received:
    988
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    SW Florida
    Ratings Received:
    +2,129
    again, he wasn't a researcher, he was the person most entrusted by the gubmnt to research and document climate science. imho, if the judgement of the people that appointed and monitored him is so suspect it reflects poorly on the entire department.

    wrt hatred for gubmnt employees, a contempt for lack of accountability in public or private sector would be a better statement of how I feel but craft it how you will. I hold most union shops in the same contempt. Go along, get along; promote based on seniority will never produce the best system or often, even competent system. It doesn't matter if it is gubmnt agency or a auto manufacturing plant. Lack of accountability is the single biggest problem facing this country and it is systemic in gubmnt.

    AGW is not a science anymore than religion is. it has been proven that the "science" is seriously flawed and impacted by the political bent of the scientists that are most prominent in the field. They have a serious self preservation motive to continue to perpetuate their belief that AGW is real so I have no reason to believe that they are objective. Those that have approached it objectively and reached different conclusions than the mainstream are treated as pariahs and ridiculed and ostracized. They often see no benefit in continuing to be held in such ridicule and find other more worthy pursuits to invest their talents in.

    Question...could you be off on your projections by 70% + and remain employed in the private sector?
  2. asuragator
    Offline

    asuragator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2009
    Messages:
    20,536
    Likes Received:
    4,090
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +6,082
    Why would you think those funding researchers who continually deny global warming would be objective but researchers who have found it not be? What standard are you using, besides "Go Team!"? I mean, it seems to me like you are just choosing a side that aligns with your political beliefs, rather than say, trying to be objective yourself about the science. Then again, I guess it's hard to even try when you don't even consider a science a science. Speaking of which, do those studies that go against the mainstream count as science to you?

    Wouldn't that depend on what you are projecting and what kind of data and methodological tools that are available, among other considerations?

    In academic research, data and rigorous methods are given primacy because that is what allows for any conclusion to be drawn at all. A really well done, rigorous study, for instance, could still lead to outcomes that don't withstand the test of time--that doesn't mean the researcher did anything wrong...and in the academy it's certainly not grounds to lose ones job. There has to be some underlying fraud or just a complete lack of any scientific or scholarly rigor. Who would want to do research if they could simply lose their job because a projection they made based on best available data and methods some three decades down the road doesn't come to fruition (which by the way wouldn't necessarily mean the original projection was necessarily wrong, rather it could be other factors that could never be accounted for could intervene during that period)?

    The creation of knowledge and discovery, comes most often in small steps as a literature gets built over time. One can expect to be wrong quite often, and it's in that 'error' in which new knowledge can be created, which is why peer review (both as a formal process prior to publication and afterward) is so important. But to understand how this works--objectively--you first have to avail yourself to science as an enterprise of knowledge creation that is isn't so jaded by ones own partisan (biased) politics.
    Last edited: Dec 16, 2013
    • Like Like x 1
  3. madgator
    Offline

    madgator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2007
    Messages:
    8,336
    Likes Received:
    107
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    South Florida
    Ratings Received:
    +476

    So the scientists/researchers can be proven wrong in their estimations because of the lack of complete understanding or incomplete data set of what is happening....which of course since this is all a part of a scientific enterprise, requires a thorough understanding of all factors. thus the need for further research and tinkering of models to perfect theories and conclusions.

    I essentially say the same thing while expressing the opinion that the public should not be bamboozled to believe something that may not indeed be scientific fact.....and I'm showing a lack of understanding of science?

    if that's the case then it seems to me that I should be in line for a hefty government grant!!!!
    where do I sign up?
  4. MichaelJoeWilliamson
    Offline

    MichaelJoeWilliamson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Messages:
    6,820
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +497
    Climate records only started in the 1800s? Of course they did not.

    So tell us why that was a straw man?
  5. MichaelJoeWilliamson
    Offline

    MichaelJoeWilliamson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Messages:
    6,820
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +497
    The issue is not only the incomplete understanding of climate change. Other issues involve proposals to curb carbon out put. To what end, one has to ask.

    Trade-offs are a part of life. If humans decide to restrict inexpensive energy uses, that will have a detrimental impact. Across a whole host of activities. Does the solution require more suffering that the problem creates?

    Until climate science can demonstrate the natural causes of climate change to some level of certainty, then policy makers cannot honestly parse those trade-0ffs very well.
  6. asuragator
    Offline

    asuragator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2009
    Messages:
    20,536
    Likes Received:
    4,090
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +6,082
    Your strawman was in inferring that I somehow claimed that data did not exist prior to the time (i.e. prior to 1850).

    What I did say was that it "Seems to me like he [oragator] chose the entire data set," meaning he used the same data wygator used (HADCRUT data) located on woodfortrees.com but instead of censoring it at 2002 as wygator did, he used the entire available data set, which begins at 1850.
    Last edited: Dec 17, 2013
  7. G8trGr8t
    Offline

    G8trGr8t Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2008
    Messages:
    14,261
    Likes Received:
    988
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    SW Florida
    Ratings Received:
    +2,129
    I guess we need to define a couple of terms to be able to effectively communicate, specifically science and research. In my dictionary science is something that can be repeatedly proven and documented to be true while research is the process that one would go through to document what the science really is. What you are describing as the process of defining the science is research to me and that is where the global climate "science" still is, in the early research phase.

    I have no problem with research but I do have a major problem with imposing billions and billions of cost on the world economy based on what has been proven by the data to be incomplete research that has produced inaccurate results.

    And in my dictionary there is a big difference between global warming and man made global warming. One can recognize that the planet is warming without coming to the conclusion that it is warming because of human activity. Denying AGW does not equate to denying global warming.
    Last edited: Dec 16, 2013
    • Agree Agree x 1
  8. asuragator
    Offline

    asuragator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2009
    Messages:
    20,536
    Likes Received:
    4,090
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +6,082
    By George, I think we are onto something. ;)

    I would certainly agree that we need to have shared definitions of important concepts--it's important to be on the same page about what we are talking about. That said, I'll respond to your defs.

    Science of course is firstly based upon method--the gold standard being the scientific method, random assignment etc... and then others that derive from it. Confidence in the knowledge produced through these methods, however, hinges upon replication. But there are two different types of replication, each serving a different purpose. The first is when a researcher, using the same data and methods, repeatedly produces the same results each time (called reliability, which is an internal check of the data/methods). The second involves measuring the same phenomenon but using different data/samples and maybe tweaking a variable to determine whether the new findings comport or not with the earlier findings. In this case, it is unnecessary for the replication process to produce similar results for either the original or follow-up studies to be considered valid and rigorous science. Indeed, if they do comport, and then later studies do as well, it will make for confident conclusions about a causal or correlative relationship. OTOH, replications which produce inconsistent or conflicting results would force a change in the underlying theory or maybe even a complete discarding of the theory for some new one.

    Also, you are right, not all research is science. Journalists do research, not science. Lawyers do research, not science. My students do research papers, not science. What you do with your hydraulic models is research but not necessarily science. Heck, some of my own scholarship is not science either. Though all in their own way probably ascribe to principles derived from science in the sense that they strive to be 'objective' empirical documentation or measurement of some phenomenon. Yet, then you also say that climate science is not science. This is wrong, it is certainly a science. Now, you can make an argument that a climate phenomena under study is not settled science, and more specifically that such and such study might not be methodologically rigorous based upon scientific standards, or that a major theory underlying empirical testing is not a good one, but simply labeling a field of science as not being science defies reality.
    Last edited: Dec 17, 2013
  9. MichaelJoeWilliamson
    Offline

    MichaelJoeWilliamson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Messages:
    6,820
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +497
    An "available data set" is an artificial construct, if other, more complete data sets are available. This is particularly true, if limiting the data might bias the conclusions reached.

    You argue that chart that starts in 1998 or so shows an incomplete picture. I get that and can understand why someone the is a AGW enthusiast might take issue with the implied bias associated with the information. But one that starts in the mini-ice age is even more biased.

Share This Page