Scientist may have lied

[mrplunkey]

climate scientists are the real deal. I know a few myself, and they are legitimate academics who take their work fucking seriously. they are definitely not wealthy, and some are ubergeeks to the point of lols. Anyway, I can't argue strongly one way or the other for or against anthropogenic climate change, but you are totally wrong in questioning their integrity.

you on the other hand, deny anthropogenic climate change science without any scientific knowledge of the subject whatsoever. You do this based on pure greed, because you would prefer our government to not spend money funding the science, and of course mostly because you would rather not have costly regulations enacted on greenhouse gas emissions. You are like a smoker grandstanding against medical research that claims secondhand smoke is harmful. So really, who is the one lacking integrity in the matter: scientists doing legitimate and rigorous research on the subject, or you, who has remained deliberately ignorant on the subject yet argues strongly against climate change science because of monetary concerns? something to consider

And I can't strongly argue one way or the other for or against anthropogenic climate change either, because the science is most definitely tainted.

I just have this silly notion that we shouldn't add trillions of dollars in regulatory cost and create entirely synthetic industries (i.e. carbon credits) over something that may or may not exist. I guess that makes me one of those mean-spirited conservatives.

 

[nimbus]

And I can't strongly argue one way or the other for or against anthropogenic climate change either, because the science is most definitely tainted.

I just have this silly notion that we shouldn't add trillions of dollars in regulatory cost and create entirely synthetic industries (i.e. carbon credits) over something that may or may not exist. I guess that makes me one of those mean-spirited conservatives.

nah, i see your point, big time. but that is up to the policy makers. it isn't really fair to call the scientists crooks imo. how is the science tainted?

 

[mrplunkey]

nah, i see your point, big time. but that is up to the policy makers. it isn't really fair to call the scientists crooks imo. how is the science tainted?

My best example is climategate. Anyone even loosely affiliated with that mess should have been completely over and done with in climate research. The top guy (the most red-handed one) got fired, but what do you want to bet that he (or at least his buddies) are still getting government funding? And the top guy used his data to secure grants -- that's fraud. I'm sure he's not on his way to jail.

If the climategate scandal had been over medical research, it would have put a scarlet letter on everyone involved and followed them for the rest of their careers. There's a former Synthes executive on his way to prison over non-reporting (let alone falsification of data).

 

[PICK3]

My best example is climategate.

I've been implicated in climaxgate



just sayin'

 

[samoth]

nah, i see your point, big time. but that is up to the policy makers. it isn't really fair to call the scientists crooks imo. how is the science tainted?

You know that saying about statistics? Yeah, it can apply to scientists, too.

It's not so much that the science is tainted, but rather the interpretations and causal relationships that are attributed to it. Climate change isn't like counting fruit fly mutations -- we have very limited data to work with, and the extrapolations from such limited data can easily be flawed, influenced, or otherwise wrong.

That said, I can't respect the people who somehow "think" that 7 billon humans, billions of cars, and trillions of tonnes of shit from industrial plants has had no effect on this tiny, fragile planet.

 

[nimbus]

You know that saying about statistics? Yeah, it can apply to scientists, too.

It's not so much that the science is tainted, but rather the interpretations and causal relationships that are attributed to it. Climate change isn't like counting fruit fly mutations -- we have very limited data to work with, and the extrapolations from such limited data can easily be flawed, influenced, or otherwise wrong.

That said, I can't respect the people who somehow "think" that 7 billon humans, billions of cars, and trillions of tonnes of shit from industrial plants has had no effect on this tiny, fragile planet.

climate scientists aren't idiots; they understand statistics and the limitations of statistical models as well as everyone else in academia. For some reason they are cast in a light of foolishness and incompetence though, if not outright corruption, and I think the root of this is gobs of money being thrown into propaganda to discredit them. from what i understand it is almost certain in their community that bad stuff is going to happen if the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 remain at this concentration, and it is specific regional impacts, as well as severity, that is open for debate. the notion of an entire scientific community conspiring to scare the public to earn research dollars is laughable to me; if their work was that flawed there would be plenty of people qualified and willing to rip it to shreds, and who at this point could probably get pretty famous doing so.

 

[samoth]

climate scientists aren't idiots; they understand statistics and the limitations of statistical models as well as everyone else in academia. For some reason they are cast in a light of foolishness and incompetence though, if not outright corruption, and I think the root of this is gobs of money being thrown into propaganda to discredit them. from what i understand it is almost certain in their community that bad stuff is going to happen if the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 remain at this concentration, and it is specific regional impacts, as well as severity, that is open for debate. the notion of an entire scientific community conspiring to scare the public to earn research dollars is laughable to me; if their work was that flawed there would be plenty of people qualified and willing to rip it to shreds, and who at this point could probably get pretty famous doing so.

No argument there.

This isn't my area, so I can't speak for them, but relative to other areas of science, there exists a lot moar room for extrapolation and interpretation than other areas of physical sciences. The timespan and data available for analysis is minute, and the domain (the earth/entire ecological system) is complex and, like the evening weatherdood, viewed as wrong as often as right to the layperson who doesn't know WTF a 50kts bulk sheer is and sees the world as only "rain" or "sun".

The anti-global warming conspiracy doods tend to be wackjobs who've watched too many episodes of the Xfiles and should not even be considered in this shit. I suppose they're to be expected on a meathead board, though.

 

[javaguru]

climate scientists aren't idiots; they understand statistics and the limitations of statistical models as well as everyone else in academia. For some reason they are cast in a light of foolishness and incompetence though, if not outright corruption, and I think the root of this is gobs of money being thrown into propaganda to discredit them. from what i understand it is almost certain in their community that bad stuff is going to happen if the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 remain at this concentration, and it is specific regional impacts, as well as severity, that is open for debate. the notion of an entire scientific community conspiring to scare the public to earn research dollars is laughable to me; if their work was that flawed there would be plenty of people qualified and willing to rip it to shreds, and who at this point could probably get pretty famous doing so.

Indeed, and science should be about sorting things out without name calling and demonizing the opposition. The scientists that question the global warming data are far more demonized; they're equated with holocaust deniers.

 

[cindylou]

Indeed, and science should be about sorting things out without name calling and demonizing the opposition. The scientists that question the global warming data are far more demonized; they're equated with holocaust deniers.

The first key to being fooled (the second key after desire) is to not pay attention...

I wonder where else we could apply that...

 

[javaguru]

The key to being fooled (the second key after desire) is to not pay attention...

I wonder where else we could apply that...

theism....


Environmentalism is the 21st century religion...