Top scientists start to examine fiddled global warming figures

[Scott]

An off-topic, inflammatory post has been removed.

[boomerangutang]

Religion has always followed behind science. Read up on Galileo or Darwin, to glimpse just a couple examples. If global warming (yes, I still use the former term) deniers choose to mix religion/divine creation myths with hard science, then they hamstring their credibility - in my view, anyway.

Science should be without myths. Granted, there are some facets taken on faith, such as string theory, but even researchers of string theory lean on math and physics, and not on some divine creative architect/fiddler hovering in the sky in a human-like body.

Plus, deists describe their God as a shape-shifter (my word, not theirs). Even by their own admission, God is all things to all people. He is kind, compassionate, but can also be stern, judgmental and vengeful. He is everywhere, but can't be seen (sounds like dark matter or dark energy, ha ha). When a person tries to pigeonhole what God is to a deist, the responder will shift the definition. For example: if you ask how a kind God could allow (or orchestrate) such suffering in the world, the defensive deist will easily explain it away, perhaps as simply as 'It's all God's will.' I learned (from having friends who were junkies), that once a person adopts a philosophy of "It's all happening, man" or "It is what it is" or "It's all meant to happen, dude" or "it's all karma"....then the plot is lost for them. It may be a good survival tactic for not going insane in a crazy world, but it's not scientific.

Science discerns what's really going on in the physical world, and is open to contrary findings, if supported by experimentation and data (not via thought experiments or musings or blind faith). People who call themselves scientists who rely on blind faith or wonderlust, aren't real scientists in my view.

Edited May 13, 2015 by boomerangutang

[canman]

assuming of course that all storm activity is the same and it is all caused by the temperature differential between the poles and the tropics and there are no other component

I'm not assuming anything.

In support of your position on global warming, you have airily made the blanket claim that "but one can be sure that any time you introduce energy in to any system you will have increased activity" .

The statement is just plain wrong.

please show me a system in to which you introduce energy but decrease activity

just because one activity is decreased, that does not mean that an other activity is not increased, thus preserving the conservation of energy

Lasers used to cool atoms to near absolute zero

[canuckamuck]

You managed to find one example, there will be others.

And neither you or Boom got the point.

Which is not entirely surprising.

Ohh, why is not entirely surprising, please do tell.

anyway let me give you two other examples

Scientist whose hobby is religion

religious person whose hobby is science

one affects and compromises the other

sure you can be a good Scientist but imagine how much better you would have being with out the ball and shackle of religion slowing you down,

Sure you can be a religious person but imagine the crisis of faith that science would impose on you and the intellectual contortions you have to engage in, to accommodate both

as some one on your side of the argument said,

"Schizophrenic "

This thread is miles off topic, but as we have veered into an interesting discussion I will bite at this.

The theory of evolution aside; what fields of study are atheists more capable in than a theist?

We are discussing climate, and although it is hard to tell sometimes, it is often considered a scientific field. Why is the opinion of a theistic scientist not acceptable in this field, which is largely comprised of people crunching data?

Are Jews incapable of compiling statistics?

Are Muslims unable to read thermometers?

Is a Christian incapable of analysing the success of a computer model?

From this thread I get the impression people feel the answer is yes. So who is being realistic here?

[RickBradford]

^^^

Probably no facet of Western life has come under more sustained attack from the modern Left than religion. Religion has values and standards, and distinguishes between Right and Wrong, Good and Evil, which by itself is a heinous crime to the politically correct.

Hence the constant attempt (echoed tiresomely on this thread) to portray the religiously-minded as wandering around in some kind of trance, thus ignoring the reality that virtually all of science and mathematics as we know them today was painstakingly and rationally built by scientists of deep religious conviction.

Einstein wrote beautifully about what he called the 'cosmic religious sense':

" .. it does not involve an anthropomorphic idea of God; the individual feels the vanity of human desires and aims, and the nobility and marvelous order which are revealed in nature and in the world of thought. He feels the individual destiny as an imprisonment and seeks to experience the totality of existence as a unity full of significance."

But, as he added, this is hard to make clear to those who have been taught to believe that personal gratification is the only goal of their lives.

[boomerangutang]

"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"

from Bob Dylan's 'Subterranean Homesick Blues'

[Thaddeus]

^^^

Probably no facet of Western life has come under more sustained attack from the modern Left than religion. Religion has values and standards, and distinguishes between Right and Wrong, Good and Evil, which by itself is a heinous crime to the politically correct.

Hence the constant attempt (echoed tiresomely on this thread) to portray the religiously-minded as wandering around in some kind of trance, thus ignoring the reality that virtually all of science and mathematics as we know them today was painstakingly and rationally built by scientists of deep religious conviction.

Einstein wrote beautifully about what he called the 'cosmic religious sense':

" .. it does not involve an anthropomorphic idea of God; the individual feels the vanity of human desires and aims, and the nobility and marvelous order which are revealed in nature and in the world of thought. He feels the individual destiny as an imprisonment and seeks to experience the totality of existence as a unity full of significance."

But, as he added, this is hard to make clear to those who have been taught to believe that personal gratification is the only goal of their lives.

Quite.

Science is based on observable facts as they exist at the time, it's changeable, as it should be.

Blind faith believes that it already has all the answers, I don't know many blind scientists.

Just people looking for knowledge.

[RickBradford]

To track the relationship between ethics and data fiddling, you don't need to look further than the Gleickgate affair of 2012.

Gleick was the president of the Pacific Institute, an environmental organisation, who had become enraged by the attitude of the Heartland Institute, whom he had come to regard as the king of the "deniers".

He wanted to get some dirt on them, so, pretending to be a Heartland board member, he emailed an unsuspecting Heartland staffer, asking that a set of board documents be sent to a new email address. Six documents were duly sent by the staffer.

When Gleick made his dramatic expose, however, it contained seven documents, not six. Six documents, of no interest whatever, were genuine Heartland documents, while the seventh, full of lurid and inaccurate details about Heartland's climate activities, was indisputably a fake.

When challenged, Gleick owned up to the theft of the six documents, but has never (for understandable legal reasons) admitted to forging the seventh, though FBI investigators have concluded that he was overwhelmingly likely to have been its author.

Gleick, astonishingly, was also at the time the Chairman of the Geophysical Society's Task Force on Scientific Integrity.

Did Gleick apologize? Not really. He justified his "ethical lapse" by invoking his moral outrage at Heartland's activities in climate "denial".

So for Gleick, his personal sense of outrage overrides any notion of ethics or integrity. His personal feeling (that Heartland was 'evil') justified his actions (lying, forging).

The Leftist media and the broader environmental movement portrayed him as a hero, of course.

Given the repeated occasions on which similar attitudes to Gleick's have been uncovered in climate science, a thorough examination into data-fiddling will probably throw up many more examples of abject feelings-based science than have already come to light.

Gleick, by the way, remains in his position as President of the Water Institute to this day.

Edited May 14, 2015 by RickBradford

[sirineou]

assuming of course that all storm activity is the same and it is all caused by the temperature differential between the poles and the tropics and there are no other component

I'm not assuming anything.

In support of your position on global warming, you have airily made the blanket claim that "but one can be sure that any time you introduce energy in to any system you will have increased activity" .

The statement is just plain wrong.

please show me a system in to which you introduce energy but decrease activity

just because one activity is decreased, that does not mean that an other activity is not increased, thus preserving the conservation of energy

Lasers used to cool atoms to near absolute zero

I look forward to hearing how laser cooling violates the law of conservation of energy at your Nobel acceptance speech

[boomerangutang]

This thread is miles off topic, but as we have veered into an interesting discussion I will bite at this.

The theory of evolution aside; what fields of study are atheists more capable in than a theist?

We are discussing climate, and although it is hard to tell sometimes, it is often considered a scientific field. Why is the opinion of a theistic scientist not acceptable in this field, which is largely comprised of people crunching data?

Are Jews incapable of compiling statistics?

Are Muslims unable to read thermometers?

Is a Christian incapable of analysing the success of a computer model?

From this thread I get the impression people feel the answer is yes. So who is being realistic here?

You're missing the point. A person can have a religious persuasion and still do good science, but if that deist belief system skews the data, then that's where religion and science don't mix. By skewing/altering the data (or conclusions), I mean: if the religious person applies a 'God-Force' or 'Supernatural Force' to the scientific process, then the science segues toward fantasy/fiction.

Scientists who study black holes, do all they can to garner scientific data to formulate descriptions/conclusions. If, instead, some of those scientists attributed black hole physics to religious phenomena, then those scientists wouldn't be doing real science. Their local vicar might love the idea of having black hole phenomena attributed to God, but it's not good science. A Muslim fanatic might describe a black hole as "proof of the supreme power of Allah" or "the ultimate graveyard of infidels".

[canuckamuck]

This thread is miles off topic, but as we have veered into an interesting discussion I will bite at this.

The theory of evolution aside; what fields of study are atheists more capable in than a theist?

We are discussing climate, and although it is hard to tell sometimes, it is often considered a scientific field. Why is the opinion of a theistic scientist not acceptable in this field, which is largely comprised of people crunching data?

Are Jews incapable of compiling statistics?

Are Muslims unable to read thermometers?

Is a Christian incapable of analysing the success of a computer model?

From this thread I get the impression people feel the answer is yes. So who is being realistic here?

You're missing the point. A person can have a religious persuasion and still do good science, but if that deist belief system skews the data, then that's where religion and science don't mix. By skewing/altering the data (or conclusions), I mean: if the religious person applies a 'God-Force' or 'Supernatural Force' to the scientific process, then the science segues toward fantasy/fiction.

Scientists who study black holes, do all they can to garner scientific data to formulate descriptions/conclusions. If, instead, some of those scientists attributed black hole physics to religious phenomena, then those scientists wouldn't be doing real science. Their local vicar might love the idea of having black hole phenomena attributed to God, but it's not good science. A Muslim fanatic might describe a black hole as "proof of the supreme power of Allah" or "the ultimate graveyard of infidels".

And what God force was doctor Spencer attributing to his comparison of the computer model predictions compared to what actually happened?

You rejected his truthful and clearly reviewable observations based on his entirely unrelated opinion, that for him, creationism gives a more realistic explanation of biodiversity. An opinion which has nothing to do with the temperature record.

Face it, it was your antitheism that produced that response.

[RickBradford]

... if that deist belief system skews the data, then that's where religion and science don't mix. By skewing/altering the data (or conclusions), I mean: if the religious person applies a 'God-Force' or 'Supernatural Force' to the scientific process, then the science segues toward fantasy/fiction.

It doesn't have to be a "deist" belief system, though, does it? Any belief system that skews or alters data or conclusions will do just as well.

A belief, for example, that capitalism is "evil" and "destroying the planet" is just as effective at applying a 'force' to the scientific process.

The climate data-fiddling which is the subject of this thread is a clear example of where a belief system (secular rather than religious) has skewed and altered both the data and the conclusions.

[boomerangutang]

This thread is miles off topic, but as we have veered into an interesting discussion I will bite at this.

The theory of evolution aside; what fields of study are atheists more capable in than a theist?

We are discussing climate, and although it is hard to tell sometimes, it is often considered a scientific field. Why is the opinion of a theistic scientist not acceptable in this field, which is largely comprised of people crunching data?

Are Jews incapable of compiling statistics?

Are Muslims unable to read thermometers?

Is a Christian incapable of analysing the success of a computer model?

From this thread I get the impression people feel the answer is yes. So who is being realistic here?

You're missing the point. A person can have a religious persuasion and still do good science, but if that deist belief system skews the data, then that's where religion and science don't mix. By skewing/altering the data (or conclusions), I mean: if the religious person applies a 'God-Force' or 'Supernatural Force' to the scientific process, then the science segues toward fantasy/fiction.

Scientists who study black holes, do all they can to garner scientific data to formulate descriptions/conclusions. If, instead, some of those scientists attributed black hole physics to religious phenomena, then those scientists wouldn't be doing real science. Their local vicar might love the idea of having black hole phenomena attributed to God, but it's not good science. A Muslim fanatic might describe a black hole as "proof of the supreme power of Allah" or "the ultimate graveyard of infidels".

And what God force was doctor Spencer attributing to his comparison of the computer model predictions compared to what actually happened?

You rejected his truthful and clearly reviewable observations based on his entirely unrelated opinion, that for him, creationism gives a more realistic explanation of biodiversity. An opinion which has nothing to do with the temperature record.

Face it, it was your antitheism that produced that response.

I didn't reject anything. I say he may be off-base with his conclusions of scientific findings, if he mixes in a fudge factor having to do with an omnicient God or Intelligent Design. You can believe what you want. I'll do the same, thanks.

[JetsetBkk]

To track the relationship between ethics and data fiddling, you don't need to look further than the Gleickgate affair of 2012.

<snip>

Amazing story - thanks for the info.

[RickBradford]

I didn't reject anything. I say he may be off-base with his conclusions of scientific findings, if he mixes in a fudge factor having to do with an omnicient God or Intelligent Design

Oh, come on.

If you're seriously suggesting that Spencer might have brought Intelligent Design into an analysis of Model Prediction vs Observed Data, then you have become a prime example of your own methodology of someone applying an irrational belief and a 'force' which is skewing their conclusions.

[canuckamuck]

Boomer's point about the 'God Force', opens an interesting angle on the debate though. Although it is a major stretch to imagine how belief in a God would alter someone's reading of historical temperature records. There is a force out there which can apply tremendous force on all aspects of the climate debate. This is the 'Greater Good Force'. As long as someone is convinced that their actions (even unethical ones) are justifiable in light of the greater good. All bets are off as to how far a man can allow himself to go in order to serve his world view.

Religion is a parallel example of this force in action; the world is currently populated with millions of folk who would gladly strap a bomb to a child to please their god. But the left is also populated with folks who would gladly risk a foreign jail to save a Panda or a Northern Hairy-nosed Wombat. These are the extremists, but for every extremist you have thousands of enablers who agree with their politics but might not be as personally courageous.

Given the prevailing politics of the Climate Change industry. One must be deeply sceptical of any conclusions the mainstream arrives at because of the same reason Boomer rejects the opinions of scientists that believe in God. Because there is a tremendous amount of greater good force bearing down on them. Scientists after all are human and just because someone is trained in the ways of science it does not mean they are selfless robots. Do scientists never cheat on their wives/ taxes/exams? How hard was it for the tobacco industry to find doctors to promote tobacco in the 60's? Human's are weak and have a innate desire to fight for a cause. To disregard a scientist based on his religion and then not scrutinize another for their alarmist world view is foolish.

[boomerangutang]

I didn't reject anything. I say he may be off-base with his conclusions of scientific findings, if he mixes in a fudge factor having to do with an omnicient God or Intelligent Design

Oh, come on.

If you're seriously suggesting that Spencer might have brought Intelligent Design into an analysis of Model Prediction vs Observed Data, then you have become a prime example of your own methodology of someone applying an irrational belief and a 'force' which is skewing their conclusions.

Spencer wrote a book about backing 'Intelligent Design' in science - so I assume his embrace of Intelligent Design affects his views on science.

I'm not a scientist (are you?), but I look at scientific data for what it indicates. I don't mix in a 'Divine Hand' or whatever - to the data. I believe that GW is happening, just as I believe gravity is real. You can call those irrational beliefs. Your choice - to wear whatever blinders who care to wear.

Edited May 15, 2015 by boomerangutang

[RickBradford]

I really don't want to help you dig yourself deeper into a hole, but to try and infer any similarity between the science of gravity and that of global warming is, frankly, absurd.

[Neurath]

These top scientists should be applauded and their efforts to examine the figures welcomed. Just so long as they don't use science to do it, because that could come up with the wrong answers. Just like it did with the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?_r=0

[boomerangutang]

I really don't want to help you dig yourself deeper into a hole, but to try and infer any similarity between the science of gravity and that of global warming is, frankly, absurd.

Absurd, if a person chooses to not believe GW is happening.

[RickBradford]

I really don't want to help you dig yourself deeper into a hole, but to try and infer any similarity between the science of gravity and that of global warming is, frankly, absurd.

Absurd, if a person chooses to not believe GW is happening.

There's that irrational belief system skewing your conclusions again...

[boomerangutang]

I really don't want to help you dig yourself deeper into a hole, but to try and infer any similarity between the science of gravity and that of global warming is, frankly, absurd.

Absurd, if a person chooses to not believe GW is happening.

There's that irrational belief system skewing your conclusions again...

Coming from you, that's a compliment.

[Thaddeus]

Please, all posters above, waste 4 minutes and 28 seconds of your life.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQjqxayxwt4

And tell me which part of it strikes you as being the most relevant comment.

[RickBradford]

I really don't want to help you dig yourself deeper into a hole, but to try and infer any similarity between the science of gravity and that of global warming is, frankly, absurd.

Absurd, if a person chooses to not believe GW is happening.

There's that irrational belief system skewing your conclusions again...

Coming from you, that's a compliment.

I only deal in compliments. Its my generous nature.

But the point is clear. Belief systems of whatever kind, based as they are on feelings, can skew scientific conclusions, and more. Peter Gleick's belief that Heartland was 'evil' totally overrode his rational senses and led him to commit an idiotic series of crimes.

The belief that 'industrial man is evil', and that capitalists 'should' be blamed for global warming, has undoubtedly skewed climate science to the point where it is almost indistinguishable from religion.

[sirineou]

There's that irrational belief system skewing your conclusions again...

Coming from you, that's a compliment.

I only deal in compliments. Its my generous nature.

But the point is clear. Belief systems of whatever kind, based as they are on feelings, can skew scientific conclusions, and more. Peter Gleick's belief that Heartland was 'evil' totally overrode his rational senses and led him to commit an idiotic series of crimes.

The belief that 'industrial man is evil', and that capitalists 'should' be blamed for global warming, has undoubtedly skewed climate science to the point where it is almost indistinguishable from religion.

the word belief can be used in different ways

you can examine the evidence and upon review, you can believe the results, or you can disregard the evidence and base your conclusions on belief. Two different things

The "belief" that industrial culture is evil is based on supporting evidence, where the belief in creationism is not

the way people think about one thing indicates a thing about their thought possess and might provide an insight in the way they might think about an other , an insight in their predisposition

you are correct that both a scientist's and a person's of faith predisposition could 'skew" their thinking outcome, but because their predispositions are diametrically opposed, it will "skew" it in different directions.

For a person of faith , towards taking certain things on faith and for a scientist towards examining the evidence.

[boomerangutang]

from Sirineou: "Send from a Tin Can using connected to Thaivisa via a string"

is that further proof of 'String Theory' ?

note: first word with a 't' Sent....

[canuckamuck]

I only deal in compliments. Its my generous nature.

But the point is clear. Belief systems of whatever kind, based as they are on feelings, can skew scientific conclusions, and more. Peter Gleick's belief that Heartland was 'evil' totally overrode his rational senses and led him to commit an idiotic series of crimes.

The belief that 'industrial man is evil', and that capitalists 'should' be blamed for global warming, has undoubtedly skewed climate science to the point where it is almost indistinguishable from religion.

the word belief can be used in different ways

you can examine the evidence and upon review, you can believe the results, or you can disregard the evidence and base your conclusions on belief. Two different things

The "belief" that industrial culture is evil is based on supporting evidence, where the belief in creationism is not

the way people think about one thing indicates a thing about their thought possess and might provide an insight in the way they might think about an other , an insight in their predisposition

you are correct that both a scientist's and a person's of faith predisposition could 'skew" their thinking outcome, but because their predispositions are diametrically opposed, it will "skew" it in different directions.

For a person of faith , towards taking certain things on faith and for a scientist towards examining the evidence.

Sketchy argument at best. First you assert that industrial culture is evil based on supporting evidence. This suggest two things. 1 That you believe in the dichotomy of good and evil. and 2 That you believe that industrial culture is evil.

I would suggest that industrial culture is both positive and negative. It has historically been an important part of the improvement in living standards in various places. Alternately It has also been connected to wars, corruption, ecological damage and other abuses. The world had all of those things before we had industrial culture, so industrial culture is not inherently evil, but rather it can be a tool of evil people.

The real issue is the existence of this evil which you clearly accept. Good and evil has been with humanity since when? Where did it start? Creationism is based on the evidence that observable nature and the laws of physics do not have any precedent for something coming from nothing. In fact it is impossible based on the scientific laws we depend upon daily. Further to that we do not just see in this universe a simple something, but a complex something. A vast cosmos of seemingly infinite proportion, a vast ecosystems with astonishing diversity and biological and chemical interactions, balanced and self regenerating. And we have consciousness, and ethics, and love. And a systematic morality which when obeyed fosters tremendous positive and self sustaining human interactions. We also have evil which appears to fill the void of absent morality. Evil in itself is a part of the vast evidence suggesting creation is more logical that evolution. It is unscientific to believe otherwise.

[chuckd]

Along with the good and evil dichotomy, there is yet another burning question in my mind.

The big Bang!

What went "bang"???

[sirineou]

I only deal in compliments. Its my generous nature.

But the point is clear. Belief systems of whatever kind, based as they are on feelings, can skew scientific conclusions, and more. Peter Gleick's belief that Heartland was 'evil' totally overrode his rational senses and led him to commit an idiotic series of crimes.

The belief that 'industrial man is evil', and that capitalists 'should' be blamed for global warming, has undoubtedly skewed climate science to the point where it is almost indistinguishable from religion.

the word belief can be used in different ways

you can examine the evidence and upon review, you can believe the results, or you can disregard the evidence and base your conclusions on belief. Two different things

The "belief" that industrial culture is evil is based on supporting evidence, where the belief in creationism is not

the way people think about one thing indicates a thing about their thought possess and might provide an insight in the way they might think about an other , an insight in their predisposition

you are correct that both a scientist's and a person's of faith predisposition could 'skew" their thinking outcome, but because their predispositions are diametrically opposed, it will "skew" it in different directions.

For a person of faith , towards taking certain things on faith and for a scientist towards examining the evidence.

Sketchy argument at best. First you assert that industrial culture is evil based on supporting evidence. This suggest two things. 1 That you believe in the dichotomy of good and evil. and 2 That you believe that industrial culture is evil.

I would suggest that industrial culture is both positive and negative. It has historically been an important part of the improvement in living standards in various places. Alternately It has also been connected to wars, corruption, ecological damage and other abuses. The world had all of those things before we had industrial culture, so industrial culture is not inherently evil, but rather it can be a tool of evil people.

The real issue is the existence of this evil which you clearly accept. Good and evil has been with humanity since when? Where did it start? Creationism is based on the evidence that observable nature and the laws of physics do not have any precedent for something coming from nothing. In fact it is impossible based on the scientific laws we depend upon daily. Further to that we do not just see in this universe a simple something, but a complex something. A vast cosmos of seemingly infinite proportion, a vast ecosystems with astonishing diversity and biological and chemical interactions, balanced and self regenerating. And we have consciousness, and ethics, and love. And a systematic morality which when obeyed fosters tremendous positive and self sustaining human interactions. We also have evil which appears to fill the void of absent morality. Evil in itself is a part of the vast evidence suggesting creation is more logical that evolution. It is unscientific to believe otherwise.

Really? are we now going to debate the validity of creationism?

This is all you guys got out of my "Sketchy argument"

my "sketchy argument" was intended to illustrate the different application of the word "belief" as it applies in the subject at hand, which is Global warming and climate change, and it;s affect in the thought process that could lead people to different conclusions .

There are other things I could say, concerning the Amorality of corporate culture bu then we will be arguing that, to be honest I dont know why moderation has alowed this thread to meander so out of topic,

[canuckamuck]

Really? are we now going to debate the validity of creationism?

This is all you guys got out of my "Sketchy argument"

my "sketchy argument" was intended to illustrate the different application of the word "belief" as it applies in the subject at hand, which is Global warming and climate change, and it;s affect in the thought process that could lead people to different conclusions .

There are other things I could say, concerning the Amorality of corporate culture bu then we will be arguing that, to be honest I dont know why moderation has alowed this thread to meander so out of topic,

I simply demonstrated that creationism has logical merits and that the belief that industrial culture is evil is merely an emotional attachment; which overlooks the fact that men with wealth and power have been selfish abusers - long before the industrial revolution. Destroy the industrial complex and you find the same inequality and abuse of power popping up immediately. Only we won't have smart phones anymore.

This is not off topic, the motive for fiddling with global warming figures is the belief that industrial culture is evil. It is the same basic propaganda that socialists use to overthrow governments before they can bring in much greater inequality and destructive social policies.