wait what? why would the normal state in which a university gets a large part of its fursing from the state lead to the university having an agenda? that makes no sense whatsoever
The funding is coming from sources which have an agenda. What is the likelihood of funding continuing if the research is directly opposed to the agenda of the people supplying the funding? Do you honestly have enough trust in world governments to believe they would welcome conclusions which oppose their current agenda? Governments like to be able to present one-sided arguments to their citizens so as to make them easier to understand (because not everyone is as intelligent as you), thus we have language in press briefings that present one side of the debate. If research were to be provided which showed that humans had no impact on climate (and I'm using this as a hypothetical situation, I'm not claiming it's true) how many world governments would have to reverse their positions and undo years of work on new policies? How many billions of dollars would have been wasted worldwide? As has been stated countless times (including at least once in this thread) AGW is a global business.
I'm aware of what you've written. I could tell you what you'd written all the way back to page 4. You on the other hand couldn't even be bothered checking a few lines up to see that what I had said and what you thought I had said was compatible. Your ability to confuse and conflate what people are actually trying to express has been consistently impressive throughout this debate. And not just in this thread I see, but all over this forum.
You've clearly bluffed your way through here and somebody with even the most rudimentary understanding of the arguments of climate change (me) can see that. You on the other hand have no understanding. None. Nadda. Zip. Zilch. It's as plain as day. It's embarressing for you, but if you choose to or are unable to see that, then that's your business.
Thanks for playing but it's getting boring. I will probably ignore you from now on. You can only get so far talking to a brick wall. It's funny... if your idea of learning about a topic is to just show up and start mouthing off to people who are actually putting in the time to understanding things then that's a very strange way to go about learning. But this isn't about learning is it? You care nothing about current results in climate science. Your opinions are about 10 years out of date and you have shown no desire to improve your awareness on any of the issues we've been discussing. You've had ample opportunity to provide some kind of information... ANY information, that was in any way more substantiated than the made up contents swirling about inside your own head. I've been waiting, genuinely hoping that you'd be able to come through. You've blown it. Your behaviour has been nothing less than that of a troll.
Without trying to offend anyone, I dislike the Germans general attitude to AGW or w/e the hell they are calling it now, because it seems ever since WW2 the Germans are afraid to be the 'bad guys'. The Germans are sure as hell smart enough to realise there's nothing wrong with our climate. Recycling is what the Germans do best, they've been doing it years before anyone else really caught on to it, but you don't have to want to save the planet (all over again I may add) to recycle...
100% since were mostly talking about the basic funding universities get which is what pays the salaries for faculty staff
1) yes i do
2) i know a little about the process of aquiring research funds (for engineering though the situation might be a little different and probably quite a bit less result driven in the natural sciences where results are harder to predict during the fund aquisition stage) and if you imagine its anything like the current head of state deciding which research projects hed like to fund youre way off
additionally were talking research here and the nature of research is that no result or a completely different result than what you were expecting at the beginning of the project makes the project a perfectly valid and worthy endeavour as long as you can come up with a good scientific explanation for why things didnt work out
the same number that does this roughly every 4 years (or whatever the worldwide average legislative period is)?
leaving aside the "theyre after my money" conspiracy thats vibrating through your post
how is money spent on achieving independence of oil and gas ie commondities that are bound to run out at some point regardless of co2 and gw a bad thing?
as ive been trying to point out countless time without any luck against those only concerned with their wallets theres gw the science and gw the business and both rarely interact... and thats a good thing
no youre way off buddy
the difference between you and me is that i dont claim to be able to follow the ongoing discussion past the already well established facts
the fact of that matter is if you were actually able to follow the discussion as you claim to be you wouldnt be sitting here on a forum adding further noise to a discussion that is now largely driven by people with no deep understanding of the scientific isssues
what you would be doing if you had the understanding you and sam claim to have is writing and publishing papers and taking part in the scientific discourse
naturally that is a point you both have been trying to ignore as best you can
Perhaps you could tell me just what I've been offering in this thread which constitutes noise. I provided news of a new statistical study. My comment on it was that I was appreciative of the fact that the authors laid out their methods and data and that it's conclusions were consistent with previous ones, which you didn't seem to be aware of. I made the point that it was likely to be heavily contested in both statistical and climate journals and further that I was happy to wait to see how things panned out. I corrected DWB's article announcement that '2010 was the hottest year on record ever' by showing that 3 out of 4 mainstream datasets in current use today disagree with that announcement and because of that, it was perhaps unduly alarmist in tone. I drew attention (along with Sam starting the thread) to a group of scientists who have been withholding data and who had been ignoring FOI requests and it is now 'well established fact' that they have been. I have drawn attention to independent studies on the Australian temperature record which show that through arbitrary adjustments a warming bias of 40% has been introduced into the record. I opined earlier that I was not surprised by this but on the other hand I was interested to hear what the official response might be. I've provided further news of NZ's NIWA being sued for withholding information about their own adjustments to raw temperature data, which have altered the raw record from basically no warming over 100 years, to show a warming of 1 degree C over the same time.
edit: I further offered to another poster that the climate change debate is a good one for reflecting on our abilities to truly understand such a complex issue and that we should probably learn to deal with the fact that we are not going to have full knowledge of this stuff anytime soon.
Please show me where any of what I've been talking about constitutes 'noise' in your opinion. Please, I'm interested.
I have no idea why haven't you been banned already, you continue to be rude to other people and downright douche, you always 'put people down' cause you think you're way smarter then everyone else.. jesus, i can't explain good enough just how much i hate that 'kind' of people..
im sure theres more exmaples but i cant be bothered to go through the entire thread
on top of that youve been referencing blogs (the epitome of noise) and using stupid words like climategate of warmist which are nothing but noise as well
also i was talking about both of you and this in particular:
no what you said was it is a great vindication of previous work
while that may or may not be true neither you sam or i are in any position to know whether ot not it is at this point and apparently i am the only one comfortable enough to admit that to himself
dont you have anything better to do than follow me around on this forum asking for me to get banned?
Don't flatter yourself, i'm not following you, it's wherever i go i see your redicolously egoistic and all-knowing posts.. but i didn't know you started insulting established members of this forum.
edit: don't you realise that this is what the 'sceptical' side has been trying to say all along? That we don't know enough. That we are uncertain and that we should acknowledge the weaknesses in data and methods. Perhaps you took my 'vindication of Steve M' comment the wrong way. What Steve has been saying all along is that things are more uncertain than we've previously been led to believe. Read Judith Curry's statement here again. (remember: Climate Scientist)
Here's Gavin Schmidt (Climate Scientist)
I said (not Climate Scientist)
I freely admit my uncertainty. I'm basically revelling in it. What were you saying again?
nice way to twist my words
what i have said is that none of us here is educated enough in either climatology or statistics to properly evaluate the papers presented from either side of the debate
If I was to try to heal this little spat right now I might say that the difference between you and me lies in that it's possible I'm just slightly more aware of some of the 'uncertainty caveats' in this science, and the reason for that is probably because I actively seek them out. I want to know what we don't know. I'm interested in the temperature data problems. I'm interested in the Paleo reconstructions. I try to deconstruct alarmist or politically sceptical news stories with better information. These issues don't really turn up anywhere other than in blogs for the most part but every now and then a paper is written and I will usually have a go at reading it. Whatever your take on the science I think it's a positive thing that people really try to get a better handle on these issues and the only place the average person can do that for better or worse is on the internet. We need professionals to explain things to us which are difficult but we also want the full story. Not something which agrees with this or that ideology. The web is actually a good place to do that because there is experience and expertise on offer, from scientists both active and retired- and anyone with a modicum of common sense who's willing to put in the effort will over time be able to sift through the political smokescreens, the ad homs, mis-information, dis-information and what have you and arrive at a fairly servicable (but still crap) approximation of the general state of the science, with any luck. We have the IPCC reports. We have global media facilitating online debate amongst scientists, interviews, science driven blogs, satellite and land/sea thermometer databases, etc. It's all there. And it's an evolving thing. It's actually pretty cool.
The last thing people usually take away from all of this information is certainty, because there's always something new to learn, and the information can change almost day by day. That's fine by me and I'm happy in my current ignorance of things, although I'm always trying to work on it. I would never in a million years imagine I can do science better than a scientist, but I've also seen scientists act more like advocates and I then start to question their motives. Appeal to authority is dangerous and science has always insisted on not taking anything on word, but on data and observations. I feel comfortable in always keeping that in mind.
Just relating back to my 'vindication' comment, I admit that probably wasn't the best way to introduce the paper here. We don't know how it will hold up until proper replication and a full and frank discussion of methodology by all the relevant experts takes place, by both statisticians and climate scientists. I take a long term view but I'll also admit a bias here- I would like to see Steve M vindicated. His criticisms have been routinely fobbed off by the climate crowd and he's had one hell of a time in getting people to understand his case with any objectivity. He's been ignored to the point where certain climate scientists couldn't even come to mentioning his name. When not ignoring him, they (mostly Mann) would insinuate oil connections. It's all pretty sordid.
Mann did not provide the data and methods by which to replicate the original hockeystick but it was nevertheless embraced with such fanfare and approval that it seemed that any kind of critical analysis would not or could not matter. It immediately became the poster child for AGW and Mann it's darling scientist. This has naturally angered and frustrated a number of people as they've come to realise the ease at which the HS had slipped into the scientific mainstream without a fair and proper thrashing over of issues.
while i agree on principle the way the internet handles things isnt at all conducive to the science
before you know it on the web you ineviably end up with nonsense like alarmists vs denialists (or other similarly stupid -isms and -ists) or like here "science or religion" and with loads of gates added to anything remotely controversial ie noise that cancels out the science
i sure as hell am glad that the only noise i have to deal with in my profession is - ironically - thermal
Whether you like it or not, these issues are at the forefront of AGW. Appreciate the ad hom though. (a little well worn maybe)
For the record, Judith Curry is not 'anti agw'. If you'd read her take on the actual science you'd know that. I don't know of any scientist who is 'anti agw'. That's ridiculous. You're just regurgitating what the papers are telling you.
Shot, in your mind I sort of see it's 'scientists vs idiots'. Again, this is far from actual reality. (I agree it's nasty out there with the 'isms, but I've never encouraged that, along with a lot of people who are just trying to understand. You can see that Sam and I have talked about the 'sceptics' and 'denialists' label. Also I am not fond of any of the pro AGW labels as well. Labels are convenient but the truth is messy. Maybe it's all crystal clear in DWB's head. I don't know).
For the record, this 'creationists' jab is a well known political tactic which is designed to encourage people to connect any kind of critique of the mainstream position with an anti-science position. Sad to see DWB using it here.
edit: if this is going to be the limit to the depth of this discussion then I can't see the point in going on much further. I'll just bow out now and leave you to your 'ideas'. Much better discussion elsewhere.
See the trouble is certain politicians and scientists are quite alike in that they don't want the people to understand lest they start getting their own ideas, they appear to have no interest in whatever the actual truth is.
'Global warming' has essentially just become another political weapon to gain support and profit and silence dissidents, before it used to be the threat of communism and before that witches or Catholics, and of course terrorism.
no its idiots vs idiots
anyone with any respect for himself or his intellect wouldnt ever dream of applying those idiotic lables to himself
thats not what he said or at least not how i understood it
what i took from his comment was that for one you are in a non scientific position (something ive pointed out all throughout this thread and finally got you to agree on) and that you jump on and dryhump any critical paper without waiting for the evaluation (by people who understand the science) of that paper to happen first
This is the purpose of "concern trolling".. to disrupt the discussion by attempting to squeeze the life out of it.
We don't need to know the minutia of Scawen's code to discuss tyre physics in relation to LFS. We don't need to own a super-duper camera, or understand shutter mechanisms, or photons, to discuss someone's photo in the "Camera showoff" thread. If someone turned up in that thread and said that, since nobody in the thread had ever built their own SLR camera, nobody had any business posting their opinions there, would that be acceptable behaviour? No. Should their comment be removed? Hell yes. If they persisted, by posting abusively and insisting that everybody was talking out of bounds, should they be hauled up? Oh yes. Ditto this thread. If you want to participate in this discussion, stick within the normal bounds of a DISCUSSION forum. If you won't, you're out.
Shotglass, you've repeatedly stated that you have absolutely no interest in this topic. Now butt out of the topic and let people who ARE interested in it discuss it, free from your trolling. Starting now.
He originally misquoted Houghton, but the actual quote isn't much different from the misquote. I think Houghton probably didn't mean to come across the way he did in the original comment, but he complained that he'd never said anything LIKE the misquote. It turned out that he did.
I understand DWB's mindset and attack pretty well I feel. It's disappointing coming from him. It's the same as calling sceptics flat earthers or thinking that all of climate science is a huge socialist conspiracy. It's pretty low level type stuff. It's political. It's designed to breed a perception of sceptics as conservatives. It usually happens when people don't have much else to say but they need to get a word in anyway, for the team as it were. And I'm shaking my head right now thinking where did I ever say I was a scientist and I've told you repeatedly that I will wait to see how this paper goes. I've requoted myself on that atleast twice already and I'm not going to do it again. You can either start listening to me (and yes I am listening to you) or we're not going to get anywhere. PS, I've talked specifically about one paper with a particularly ugly history. Where does the 'any critical paper' come into it? You're making stuff up again.
One thing I would like to know is- you've said you don't follow popular media on this issue, but you've also admitted you don't read or follow the literature (reading the conclusions should be enough for most people to understand what the paper's saying) and you have no interest in the blogs or any of the online resources. I wonder then where or how you have been able to develop such strong opinions and why you feel the need to keep brushing off everything I say? I read the MSM, I read the literature, and I follow a number of blogs. I listen to scientists from all points of view on GW everyday. I check all the datasets and I am relatively aware of the strengths and weakness of each. I understand the political games being played by either side. Isn't it just possible that I may just have a point, somewhere?
Ultimately I agree with you that the science will get done and we will all be able to simply trust scientists to tell us what we need to know. But you can't seem to accept the possibility that things have run off the rails a bit and that we need to get things back on track, and that requires a certain amount of pressure from ordinary people to help achieve. It requires a certain amount of awareness about what's going on. A tempered awareness should be a good thing, but you sound as though you want everyone kept in the dark of climate science kindergarten where the only received education is 'An Inconvenient Truth' run on an endless loop. That's not healthy or responsible imo. I believe that people should be a bit more media sophisticated on this issue, since it appears to be quite important. We don't need to go much further than that. But we need to go further than where we are now. That's what I'm talking about.
I have trouble trying to work out why that seems to scare intelligent people.
have you actually taken a step back and looked at this thread and where it stemd from objectively for a moment?
even the topic is pure sensationalism with "science or religion" the "or" is even capitalised for no apparent reason
and then theres the poll with the extremes being labeled "believer" and "denier"
now keep in mind that this was all dreamt up by one of the most vocal posters in this thread and incidentially one of those who appears to think all climatologists are crooks
if thats the level of sensationalism and balanced and fair discussion im supposed to take away from this thread the i think its fair to compare the argumentation to the antiscientific methods employed by creationists
yeah ok that was a bit hyperbolic and unfair
strong oppinions?`the only strong oppinion i remember having voiced in here is to let scientists do their work without constant harrassment from people who dont have the necessary background to truely follow the ongoing discussion
i think thats a supportable oppinion after reading the odd gw thread that comes my way and skimming over a few blog posts that inevitably get linked to in such threads
wait what? where did i ever say that?
an inconvenient truth is probably the poster child for the unscientific debate from people lacking the proper education (gore is a frigging bachelor of arts) ive been critizising all along
no i think that people should first and foremost be taught theories
hypothesis have their place in education but only if taught with the proper notes of caution that these arent established theories yet and especially without the us vs them that currently permeates the media particularly the interblag in its reports on the current hypothesises regarding global climate
on a sort of related note you dont see people complaining about physicists "wasting" grant money on finding higgs bosons or fighting over whether string theory or loop quantum gravity is the correct model
why do you believe is that?
is it merely because the media has a harder time twisting the story down to a "dey took ur jurbs" level? because you dont get very many pretty graphs that anybody thinks they can understand in those fields?
Ok, but you do realise at some level science and the rest of society is a two way street. If scientists are going to bugger around and decide to simply stop playing by the rules of accepted science because "it is not standard practice in the field" then people do have the right to get onto that and tell them that's not good enough. They pay those scientists for starters. You call it harassment. I call it accountability. We have a difference of opinion on this but I feel it's fair for people to butt in when normal scientific rigour starts to slip. Same goes for accountability in media. For some reason this all morphed into the idea of normal people pretending to play scientists, which was getting off track as far as I'm concerned. Nowhere has anyone stated here that they were scientists. Normal people can follow current events in science and understand conclusions. Surely you won't argue against that?
Btw I have done some environmental science in my time. That's of course worth nothing (I didn't even finish the course) but I'll mention it all the same. It doesn't change the discussion one bit.
Ok, you didn't say that. But you make it harder for the average person to understand issues if you simply eschew all blogs and related media as noise. There are not many other places for the average person to go. The ideal of the internet in part was that it would be a place where scientists could communicate with other scientists and develop theories and solutions to problems with less much less hassle than they could in the past. You should accept at some level that blogs and other online channels play an important role in the communication and creation of scientific knowledge, if only at the incubatory level. I've seen this happen. It's wonderful when it does.
Of course, they do also generate a lot of noise. Life is noisy. You've gotta pick the right ones.
I agree with you about more popular established media such as the MSM, where there is very little possibility or space for a deeper enquiry into various scientific topics. Journalists make notoriously bad communicators of science, and I'm sure you'll agree. Also there is the trap of spinning findings in order to generate sensationalist headlines and sales. People need a little more than that.
Yeah. I think it's great that people are paid to fight over this stuff. Wouldn't stop it for the world.