heyrob Loc: Western Washington

In a court of law those statements would be thrown out as "Facts not in evidence." Please tell us all what degrees do you hold in the scientific field DEBJENROB? I have a degree in Physics and I am a working scientist, while you are correct that I am not a Climatologist, I do know something about the field as it is closely related to physics, and I dare say that I have a great deal more knowledge and experience in the field of science than you do. You assume a great deal about people that you know absolutely nothing about, and to spout off with such drivel is nothing more than gross ignorance.



Based on the rest of your statements you don't seem to know the difference between a duck and a goose.

Let me give you a brief lesson in science which you obviously lack. There is a process known as the "Scientific Method" that all bona fide scientists adhere to. To boil it down to its simplest form, first you observe something, then you form a hypothesis as to the cause of this phenomenon, you then devise an experiment to prove your hypothesis, if the experiment fails to prove your hypothesis, then you devise a new hypothesis and repeat the process. Eventually you may find an experiment that seems to work every time. You now publish your findings, both positive, as well as a description of that which failed. The reason for the latter is so that other researchers won’t waste their time repeating experiments that are doomed to fail. This is known as peer review, and is an attempt to prove your theory. However few theories will ever rise to the status of a natural law, because as Einstein said no amount of experimentation will ever prove a theory right, but just one could prove it wrong. If a single experiment doesn’t work, the theory is wrong and must be discarded.

The problem with the Global Warming/Climate Change adherents is that they observed a change in climate; the world seemed to be warming up. Now most scientists knew that the earth’s climate has been cyclical from the beginning, but there was a small group that promoted this idea that CO2 was to blame. They did some research and some experimentation; the fact is though, none of it worked. Eventually though in an effort to prove their point, they came up with some computer models that showed dire results, and also a graph, now famously known as the “Hockey stick graph” that showed a direct correlation between the rise in CO2 and global average temperatures. BINGO! "We've proved that CO2 is causing the planet to get warmer" they screamed from the roof tops.

Now despite the fact that when taken as a much bigger picture, going farther back into history, and not cherry picking a time frame that worked, other (more honest) scientists showed that CO2 levels have been much higher than they are today while the temperatures were not much warmer. Furthermore, recent history has proved that not a single one of those computer models were even close to showing what the actual climate has done since they were put forth. Unfortunately, because the global warming alarmists had grabbed the ears of so many government bodies, those governments were all too happy to lavish these “scientists” with research grants to continue to provide them "proof" of their findings. Do you see a motive here yet?

The problem is that scientists are like street beggars; few have reliable sources of income for their research and are therefore constantly looking for benefactors who are willing to pay the bills. When you hook big governments with such an interest, and get a nice big cash flow for this avenue of research, every starving scientist with no intellectual honesty will jump on the band wagon to get their piece of that pie. The fact remains that every single theory put forth by the global warming/climate change crowd has failed. Now go back and reread what Einstein said about that problem.

Now somehow I doubt I have convinced you DEBJENROB, because like most of the public, you are either scientifically illiterate, or have some ideological belief that will not let you look at the issue with an open mind. Maybe both. However, if that weren’t true the whole climategate and climategate II scandals would have convinced anyone with an open mind of what is happening. The emails leaked in those scandals proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that these scientists were lying to the public, and manipulating their data to give the results they needed to keep the money coming, not to prove scientifically that man has anything more than a marginal effect on global climate.

heyrob Loc: Western Washington

In a court of law those statements would be thrown out as "Facts not in evidence." Please tell us all what degrees do you hold in the scientific field DEBJENROB? I have a degree in Physics and I am a working scientist, while you are correct that I am not a Climatologist, I do know something about the field as it is closely related to physics, and I dare say that I have a great deal more knowledge and experience in the field of science than you do. You assume a great deal about people that you know absolutely nothing about, and to spout off with such drivel is nothing more than gross ignorance.



Based on the rest of your statements you don't seem to know the difference between a duck and a goose.

Let me give you a brief lesson in science which you obviously lack. There is a process known as the "Scientific Method" that all bona fide scientists adhere to. To boil it down to its simplest form, first you observe something, then you form a hypothesis as to the cause of this phenomenon, you then devise an experiment to prove your hypothesis, if the experiment fails to prove your hypothesis, then you devise a new hypothesis and repeat the process. Eventually you may find an experiment that seems to work every time. You now publish your findings, both positive, as well as a description of that which failed. The reason for the latter is so that other researchers won’t waste their time repeating experiments that are doomed to fail. This is known as peer review, and is an attempt to prove your theory. However few theories will ever rise to the status of a natural law, because as Einstein said no amount of experimentation will ever prove a theory right, but just one could prove it wrong. If a single experiment doesn’t work, the theory is wrong and must be discarded.

The problem with the Global Warming/Climate Change adherents is that they observed a change in climate; the world seemed to be warming up. Now most scientists knew that the earth’s climate has been cyclical from the beginning, but there was a small group that promoted this idea that CO2 was to blame. They did some research and some experimentation; the fact is though, none of it worked. Eventually though in an effort to prove their point, they came up with some computer models that showed dire results, and also a graph, now famously known as the “Hockey stick graph” that showed a direct correlation between the rise in CO2 and global average temperatures. BINGO! "We've proved that CO2 is causing the planet to get warmer" they screamed from the roof tops.

Now despite the fact that when taken as a much bigger picture, going farther back into history, and not cherry picking a time frame that worked, other (more honest) scientists showed that CO2 levels have been much higher than they are today while the temperatures were not much warmer. Furthermore, recent history has proved that not a single one of those computer models were even close to showing what the actual climate has done since they were put forth. Unfortunately, because the global warming alarmists had grabbed the ears of so many government bodies, those governments were all too happy to lavish these “scientists” with research grants to continue to provide them "proof" of their findings. Do you see a motive here yet?

The problem is that scientists are like street beggars; few have reliable sources of income for their research and are therefore constantly looking for benefactors who are willing to pay the bills. When you hook big governments with such an interest, and get a nice big cash flow for this avenue of research, every starving scientist with no intellectual honesty will jump on the band wagon to get their piece of that pie. The fact remains that every single theory put forth by the global warming/climate change crowd has failed. Now go back and reread what Einstein said about that problem.

Now somehow I doubt I have convinced you DEBJENROB, because like most of the public, you are either scientifically illiterate, or have some ideological belief that will not let you look at the issue with an open mind. Maybe both. However, if that weren’t true the whole climategate and climategate II scandals would have convinced anyone with an open mind of what is happening. The emails leaked in those scandals proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that these scientists were lying to the public, and manipulating their data to give the results they needed to keep the money coming, not to prove scientifically that man has anything more than a marginal effect on global climate.

DEBJENROB Loc: DELRAY BEACH FL

You are correct ..I am not a scientist ....I am a retired Banker and Financial Advisor .... I spent many years looking at and analyzing financial statements .... that being said ... qualifies me to identify bullshit .... I am also well versed in recognizing when I am being "stroked" by an empty shirt ...

rocketride Loc: Upstate NY

Off the top of my head, I know about one Climategate: the East Anglia email leaks. Especially those pesky emails that showed how the dataset was cook to produce the hockey-stick graph and why they felt justified in doing so.

Was that Climategate I or II? I suspect it's "I", but I'm not sure. And what was the other?

It really is as simple as this:
The main source for climatology funding is governments.
The main thing that the sort of people who run governments want is power. (That's generally why they're in that line of "work"-- it beats working for a living and gets them the "jollies" of bossing people around.) So they'll pay handsomely for "scientific" excuses to expand their power, but not so much (i.e. bupkis) for research saying otherwise.
And there will always be people trained in the sciences (as opposed to scientists) who will whore themselves out to the highest bidder. And who, of course, stick up for each other-- viciously-- enough holes in the tent and the whole scam falls apart.

infocus Loc: Australia

Quote:a vast majority of the scientific community believe that global warming is occurring and it is caused by human activity ....now there is a remote possibly that all of these scientists are wrong ....

Now you're reading what you believe and quoting it as fact. The MAJORITY of the scientific community don't believe we are the cause of global warming at all. Some do and they are the ones quoted. I have read extensively on BOTH sides of the argument and my opinion is based on that.

venturer9 Loc: Newton, Il.

ooops I think you outed yourself.... All that qualifies is to show to us on the forum WHY you are so full of BS..... I have about as much faith in a financial advisor as I do in President Obama..... Not a Great Deal..

Mike

heyrob Loc: Western Washington

You're hopeless. I am done with you, you wouldn't know a fact if it slapped you in the face.

magicray Loc: Tampa Bay, Florida

Here's the only ice I care about.

heyrob Loc: Western Washington

Nicely put, you're obviously a reasonable person who's eyes are open, and not blinded by ideology.

ClimateGate I broke in late November of 2009, when 1,000 emails were leaked.
ClimateGate II broke two years later with the release of an additional 5,000 emails.

Three themes emerged from the last release of emails:
(1) Prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions.

(2) These scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry.

(3) Many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.

Despite these facts, people like DEBJENROB cling to a myth, and then call those of us who can see reality "Deniers" when they themselves are the ones in denial. The aforementioned, while admitting that he has no scientific background, has the audacity to call me the "empty shirt". Typical Ad Homonym retort of someone who's been bested and has no logical recourse but to either admit he was wrong, or attack the other person.

Ideology is one of the biggest barriers to the finding of truth that there is, and DEBJENROB has just proved that he is a prime example.

ole sarg Loc: south florida

Stop with the facts. They are inconvenient and disturb the right wing nuts!

heyrob Loc: Western Washington

Damn Sarg, is there no subject that you are not able to slam conservatives on? I had missed sb's previous reply, but he assertions is as wrong as your head.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25383373

Lazy Old Coot Loc: Gainesville, Florida

This is getting to be a lot more interesting than most of the previous global warming discussions I've followed on this forum. I hope it doesn't simply deteriorate into a series of character assassinations as has frequently happened in the past. Let's stick to logical analyses of the various factors (and hopefully provide sources) and quit attacking the character of those that have a differing opinion. It doesn't do anything to strengthen your position. Rather it is more than likely to cause me to call it into question. By the way, I'm not a denier of global warming. I am a doubter who freely admits I could be wrong. And that's why I spend the time to follow discussions like this one. ....... Coot

heyrob Loc: Western Washington

:thumbup: At least your mind is open.

DEBJENROB Loc: DELRAY BEACH FL

You must have missed this ..... of the 12000 yes twelve thousand scientific papers written between 1991 and 2011 and subjected to peer review indicate that 97% of those studying climate change, believe that human activity is causing global warming .... in-fact as a scientist you must be familiar with the work of Nobel Laureate Mario J. Molina ... would you inform the group participating in this discussion what he believes with regard to global warming and human activity ... I am suppose his credentials are far more impressive than yours .... did you win a Nobel Prize and do you teach at one of the better universities in this country ...

gmcase Loc: Galt's Gulch

I read a report quite some time back that dealt with how the Gore gang misused data frm ice core samples. How they determined temperature and various levels of various gases I do not recall but the data cleared showed that increase in CO2 and temperature increase had a correlation. The problem is the warmest alarmists jumped to conclusions using correlation of the data to prove causation. They claimed they proved warming was caused by the increase in CO2 when if all the data was considered the warming began to decrease prior to the CO2 levels dropping which clearly showed that CO2 levels were trailing indicators of changes in temperature, not leading. This is a basic problem when people assume correlation equals causation. Correlation may prove to be causation in some cases but certainly has large and important exceptions hence the axiom that correlation does not equal causation.