In response to:

Caught Red-Handed on Climate Change

votedagainstcarter Wrote: Jan 21, 2013 11:22 AM
Global - WHATEVER they are calling it THIS week,... IS a SCAM. PERIOD. Al Gore and his ilk should be in JAIL for FRAUD.
Ray in Texas Wrote: Jan 21, 2013 12:08 PM
Patently untrue. Global Climate Change is an ongoing event that has and always will occur on our little planet.
Evidence shows that Earth has gone from being totally frozen (Snowball Earth existed) to having no polar ice caps and all climatological areas in between.
The insanity is in people trying to fool others into believing that we humans have any control over this process. However, once you realize that those same people believe that they are more powerful than God and Mother Nature combined, then you begin to understand their mentality.
ericynot Wrote: Jan 21, 2013 11:33 AM
VAC,

What are your scientific credentials?
Pat2881 Wrote: Jan 21, 2013 12:00 PM
ericynot, his credentials are probably as good as yours. I find all of this climate change hysteria ridiculous. Given that the heart of the science is based on computer models that are inherently flawed, I do not give the slightest credence to any of the so called research coming out of this group. How do I know the computer models are flawed? The scientists themselves admit that they do not fully understand how the systems they study actually work because they are so complex. How then can they write computer programs that accurately model a system they do not understand completely? The short answer is that they can't. That means the computer models are worthless. My credentials - a BS in CS. My husband holds a Ph.D. in CS as well.
Charlotte239 Wrote: Jan 21, 2013 12:04 PM
The data for the last 15 years has shown NO rise in global temperatures, that is why they changed the name to climate change instead of global warming. When doesn't the climate change on earth? It changes with every sun spot or volcanic eruption.
M.Hillinger__aka__QR Wrote: Jan 21, 2013 12:16 PM
" Given that the heart of the science is based on computer models that are inherently flawed"

No, the basis for climate change is empirical data. Multiple lines of research show the increasing CO2, increased land temperatures, increased Ocean Heat Content, decreasing Arctic Ice, rising sea levels, increased ocean acidification.
ericynot Wrote: Jan 21, 2013 12:25 PM
Pat, his credentials certainly could be as good as mine. The difference is, and the reason I asked the question, is that I have not made a categorical statement of the veracity, or lack thereof, of CAGW. VAC did make such a statement, and I suggest to you he's likely unqualified to do so.

The fact that complex computer models may be flawed does not mean we should not use them. Through use and testing, they are improved.

My credentials? I spent years as a software engineer. I have a BBA from UT Austin acquired before that flagship university even had a CS degree. I learned to program mostly on the job after I graduated with a few CS courses under my belt. I understand the uses and limitations of said machines.

Pat2881 Wrote: Jan 21, 2013 12:29 PM
M.Hillinger, with all due respect, read the actual research papers. I have and many of them make reference to the computer models in the body of the research paper. The heart of the science is based on computer modeling of the natural processes that drive the theory of climate change. Look at the history of the movement and the initial science upon which it is founded and you will find the computer models play a prominent role that is the foundation of all that has followed. Garbage in - Garbage out
M.Hillinger__aka__QR Wrote: Jan 21, 2013 12:32 PM
Comparing credentials is not a useful exercise. I don't believe you or anyone else based on their credentials. If Pat's husband truly believes that climate models are inherently flawed, then he (as a Ph.D.) should publish a piece in a peer-reviewed journal laying out his case.

That's the way science works.
Pat2881 Wrote: Jan 21, 2013 12:35 PM
Eric, then you should understand the problems with trying to use computer models as the basis for scientific exploration when those models are inaccurate and based on an incomplete understanding of the processes the models purport to simulate. Any follow on research based on the models starts from such modeling would need to be carefully scrutinized before being adopted wholesale by anyone. Most of the information based on these model predictions has frequently been seriously inaccurate.
Pat2881 Wrote: Jan 21, 2013 12:38 PM
M.Hillinger, that is the way science is supposed to work. You must be living in a cave if you have missed all of the problems that certain climate scientists are having in trying to get their research published in peer-reviewed journals. Nice try with the dig at my husband, but that is not his area of expertise and he would probably have as much luck getting it published as some of the people who do work in that field. I believe that climate science is the phlogiston of our age.
Pat2881 Wrote: Jan 21, 2013 12:41 PM
cont. I just hope it doesn't take us 100 years to recognize that the science is flawed. Science has never been an endeavor that is done subject to committee approval. I find it very revealing that climate science has appealed to that as a proof that this group of scientists is above question.
M.Hillinger__aka__QR Wrote: Jan 21, 2013 12:43 PM
Those who use models recognize that they are not perfect. Still, it is worth comparing model outputs to empirical data. Real Climate does this yearly. Here is there 2010 post

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/01/2010-updates-to-model-data-comparisons/

You will see that the models do pretty well, even the early Hansen model, crude as it was in 1988 has done a pretty good job against the data.
Pat2881 Wrote: Jan 21, 2013 12:49 PM
Those who use models usually are more than willing to admit to what it is they do not understand and do not try to use the models beyond their capabilities. As to the data, we use a small subset of data that does not reflect the entire planet and expect that to adequately represent the planet. Anyone with even a small understanding of statistics and research design understands the flaw in that data set. Again, garbage in - garbage out. Given the age of the earth, 150 years of temperature and climate data is insignificant.
stangerinmyownland Wrote: Jan 21, 2013 12:49 PM
M.Hillinger__aka__QR Wrote: Jan 21, 2013 12:50 PM
" Nice try with the dig at my husband, but that is not his area of expertise and he would probably have as much luck getting it published as some of the people who do work in that field."

Hardly "a dig" but, as you note, this is not his area of expertise..so why is his "opinion" of value.
Pat2881 Wrote: Jan 21, 2013 12:52 PM
stranger, there is that. Mann's graph was exposed for the deception it was. If his research was sound, why did he need to cherry pick the data?
Pat2881 Wrote: Jan 21, 2013 12:59 PM
M.Hillinger, his "opinion" is based on some rather extensive knowledge about the nature of computer modeling and what is appropriate and not appropriate in terms of using the output of such models. His "opinion" is based on some rather extensive understanding of statistics and research methods and design. You failed to address the main point about the difficulties that scientists are having getting their research published who do not agree with the climate change proponents. Honest debate is at the heart of true science. How can we have that when those who disagree are muzzled?
Colonialgirl Wrote: Jan 21, 2013 1:20 PM
Liberal brain dead troll spew of nonsense as usual.
A major display of complete stupidity which is normal for liberal trolls with heads full of Bovine droppings.
Colonialgirl Wrote: Jan 21, 2013 1:22 PM
Liberal brain dead troll spew of nonsense as usual.
A major display of complete stupidity which is normal for liberal trolls with heads full of Bovine droppings.
Data that has been "selected" and manipulated to prove whatever they want to prove; Anything that didn't fit got DISCARDED.
Colonialgirl Wrote: Jan 21, 2013 1:23 PM
Liberal brain dead troll spew of nonsense as usual.
A major display of complete stupidity which is normal for liberal trolls with heads full of Bovine droppings.
Nice try at awarding yourself something more than an elementary school diploma from second grade.
Colonialgirl Wrote: Jan 21, 2013 1:24 PM
Liberal brain dead troll spew of nonsense as usual.
A major display of complete stupidity which is normal for liberal trolls with heads full of Bovine droppings.
You lose and now you decide that a degree doesn't matter; Typical trollish nonsense.
M.Hillinger__aka__QR Wrote: Jan 21, 2013 1:25 PM
"you failed to address the main point about the difficulties that scientists are having getting their research published who do not agree with the climate change proponents."

I don't agree with that premise. Where is your evidence?
Colonialgirl Wrote: Jan 21, 2013 1:26 PM
Liberal brain dead troll spew of nonsense as usual.
A major display of complete stupidity which is normal for liberal trolls with heads full of Bovine droppings.
Sure they "Do Well', Especially after they "adjust" the output of the models to match their biased ideas and beliefs.
Colonialgirl Wrote: Jan 21, 2013 1:27 PM
Because he is INTELLIGENT as opposed to your low IQ.
M.Hillinger__aka__QR Wrote: Jan 21, 2013 1:28 PM
"Mann's graph was exposed for the deception it was..."

Nonsense. The National Academy of Sciences, and others, have gone back at re-affirmed Mann's findings. Further, there have been many other independent proxy studies that have shown the same results.
Ethan Wrote: Jan 21, 2013 1:53 PM
Yet none of those things indicate a human cause for these changes. My contention is that any changes in climate are not caused by us, nor can we reverse these changes, nor should we even try. Man is not God, and every time man tries to play God, there is trouble. Let the planet warm up if indeed that’s what is happening. We puny little creatures are not qualified to even pass judgment on whether that is a bad thing or a good thing. Let God take care of it.
Pat2881 Wrote: Jan 21, 2013 1:57 PM
M.Hillinger, comparing credentials is not a useful exercise according to you yet at the same time, apparently, you accept the global climate change data based, in part, on the credentials of those putting it forward. The sheer quantity of the data seems to convince you, yet those with equally sound credentials in the field are dismissed because they are in the minority. Since when has true science been about what the majority thinks? A person's credentials matter little if they are using flawed research design and skewed data as the basis of their outcomes. The history of science is filled with stories of the majority thinking being upended by one person following a different path from the "settled" science. We need dissent in science.
Oldschool7 Wrote: Jan 21, 2013 2:03 PM
"What are your scientific credentials?"

SAME AS FAT AL'S . . . Isn't that what the ex Train Driver who leads the IPCC said?

And we have all seen the Scientific Observable, Repeatable and Conclusive . . . Proof of Anthropogenic Gorebull Warming . . . have we not?

Reality is There IS NO SCIENCE . . . only bogus computer models and govt funded so-called scientists . . . who want the "Gravey Train" to carry on forever.

Oldschool7 Wrote: Jan 21, 2013 2:09 PM
"Empirical Data"?
None of this is happening . . . Arctic Ice . . . today . . . NORMAL ! ! !
Ocean Acidification . . . a change from 8.7 to 8.5 is NOT ACIDIFICATION . . . any moron with a swimming pool knows this ! ! !
Increased Land Temperatures . . . you talking about the RECORD COLD Winters in Asia, Russia and Europe ! ! !
Rising Sea Levels . . . Laughable . . . a couple of millimeters in the last 30 years ! ! !
Oldschool7 Wrote: Jan 21, 2013 2:14 PM
As the Climategate Emails PROVED . . . beyond any doubt . . . the principals controlled the debate, controlled who got published in the so-called Peer Review Journals . . . and conspired to make their Computer Models all Say the SAME THING.
And of course there is the sad fact that they have ALL BEEN 100% WRONG FOR ALMOST 20 YEARS ! ! !
But keep on "Believing" if you Wish . . . but understand "Belief is a Religious Experience" . . . lol
Pat2881 Wrote: Jan 21, 2013 2:25 PM
M.Hillinger, where were you when Richard Lindzen, Willie Soon, and a host of similar climate science skeptics spoke out about the difficulties they have been having in getting their research published in peer reviewed journals? These men, Lindzen is a professor of atmospheric physics at MIT and a graduate of Harvard, have been routinely denigrated in the public forum by the climate change proponents for a number of years. They disagree with the premise that man is causing these phenomena and they become outcasts in their field. Were you in a cave while all of this has been going on, or do you just buy the dogma and pile on with the rest of the lemmings?
3204 Wrote: Jan 21, 2013 2:32 PM

What's it like to be lost in your own little fantasy world?
M.Hillinger__aka__QR Wrote: Jan 21, 2013 2:44 PM
Lindzen gets published and also receives federal funding.

Soon and Baliunas (2003) published a paper which concluded that current global temperatures are not anomalous compared the past 1,000 years. the paper contained numerous major fundamental flaws, such as equating dryness with hotness, and was subsequently roundly refuted by an article in the American Geophysical Union journal Eos written by a number of prominent climate scientists.

This paper, and Climate Research's refusal to revise or retract it, led to the resignation of five of the journal's editors, including recently-appointed editor-in-chief Hans von Storch.

In all these cases, the refutations were based on empirical grounds and methodology, not personalities.
Oldschool7 Wrote: Jan 21, 2013 2:53 PM
The Hookey Stick was a friggin complete FRAUD . . .
Mann made it up . . . anyone with THREE Functioning Brain Cells knows the Vikings were living in Greenland from the 9th to the 12th Centuries, they were growing grapes in England then . . . so a thinking person would have to conclude that it was MUCH Warmer than today . . .
Mann is a Co-conspirator . . . as was revealed in the CRU East Anglia emails.
Oldschool7 Wrote: Jan 21, 2013 2:56 PM
Willie Soon . . . back in the mid-nineties PREDICTED the cooling we have seen for the last 15 years. Of course the Media IGNORED him . . . because they are all "Believers" in the great Gorebull Warming Scam . . . even today they are still carrying the water for this Failed Industry of high taxation and shakedowns.
Pat2881 Wrote: Jan 21, 2013 3:06 PM
Yes, that is a well publicized situation. However, it is not customary in peer-reviewed journals to insist upon a retraction of the article from the publishing journal. What usually happens in a scholarly discussion in the journal that summarizes the dissent and the perceived flaws in the article. After the dissent is published, the original author is given the opportunity to respond to the dissenting opinion. That is how it is done in any reputable peer-reviewed journal I read. So how exactly does your post prove your point?
Kibitzer Wrote: Jan 21, 2013 4:50 PM
You've drunk too much of the koolade. The data have not proven that the increase in CO2 concentration caused the temperature to rise. Only that both may have risen over a selected period of time. The cause effect relationship has not been proven. Much less which is the cause and which the effect or if both were actually caused by something else.

A prominent global warming scientist, Peter Gleick, who was chairman of the ethics committee at the American Geophysical Union, admitted last year that he stole some documents- and he may have forged others- from the conservative think-tank the Heartland Institute. But that’s all in a day’s work for a work-a-day climate warrior. The important thing isn’t the quest for the truth in global climate research, but, as Charlie Sheen would say, winning. With winning comes cash.   

Because for some time it’s been clear, that in the climate debate, instead of actually accomplishing something worthwhile, all the attention will be...

Related Tags: Climate Change