holy cannoli

[badhatharry]

The Koch Brothers strike again.

The following has been signed by the 16 scientists listed at the end of the article:

A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about "global warming." Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.

[handle]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

The Koch Brothers strike again.

Nah, just your boy Rupert.

Although the scandal enveloping Rupert Murdoch’s media empire has focused on his British properties, it has also put News Corp’s. U.S. outlets under a brighter spotlight—particularly the prestigious Wall Street Journal he acquired by purchasing Dow Jones for $5 billion in 2007.

Is there anything that comes from his extreme right slanted media empire that you don't gobble up like it was truffles on caviar?

As to the content? Same old stuff that was used to support the "hoax" conjecture is now deployed to back the softened "no big deal" stance.

Like I said, progress.

But the same rebuttals still apply.

The first thing they mention as a "collection of stubborn scientific facts" is "climategate"! Even if you are right, you gotta do better than that to even get people to read on!

Check out the declining number of environmental articles since the Rupie took the helm of the WSJ:

[handle]

Oh, and I almost forgot the funniest part of your "scientific" article. The direct comparison of the worlds scientific community to that of the soviet union under Stalinist rule!:

This is not the way science is supposed to work, but we have seen it before—for example, in the frightening period when Trofim Lysenko hijacked biology in the Soviet Union. Soviet biologists who revealed that they believed in genes, which Lysenko maintained were a bourgeois fiction, were fired from their jobs. Many were sent to the gulag and some were condemned to death.

No one with an actual, factual ax to grind would need to resort to this kind of false equivalence. Especially when touting their case as supported by "a collection of stubborn scientific facts".
I now really hope for your sake the no-panic crowd is wrong, because if they are right, they are doing their cause more harm than good IMO.

They are always saying "follow the money" meaning the scientists are fabricating climate concern to get grant money, but when you have almost unlimited oil and coal money behind you and this is the best you can come up with, it seems more an indicator of how weak your case really is!

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by handle

They are always saying "follow the money" meaning the scientists are fabricating climate concern to get grant money, but when you have almost unlimited oil and coal money behind you and this is the best you can come up with, it seems more an indicator of how weak your case really is!

Grant money, prestige, a place in history... pretty intoxicating. And lest we forget, safety from being thought of as a neanderthal or being barred from that research job you so want and need. This is a lot about politics with science taking the back seat.

And this article/letter is by no means the best skeptics can and have come up with. They've been coming up with substantive stuff for a very long time. Here's one example of a woman who does consistantly good analysis. People like Curry are not unique and all skeptics are interested in valid research and valid conclusions coming from that research.

The list of scientists is pretty impressive IMHO, and certainly as impressive as the supposed consensus list. Can you at least admit that the science is not settled as we were told so unequivocally?...which is to me the main point.

[handle]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

Grant money, prestige, a place in history... pretty intoxicating. And lest we forget, safety from being thought of as a neanderthal or being barred from that research job you so want and need. This is a lot about politics with science taking the back seat.

And this article/letter is by no means the best skeptics can and have come up with. They've been coming up with substantive stuff for a very long time. Here's one example of a woman who does consistantly good analysis. People like Curry are not unique and all skeptics are interested in valid research and valid conclusions coming from that research.

The list of scientists is pretty impressive IMHO, and certainly as impressive as the supposed consensus list. Can you at least admit that the science is not settled as we were told so unequivocally?...which is to me the main point.

Badhat, 16 "scientists" is probably less than .001% of the total number of people working on this. I put the word "scientist" in quotes, because just a cursory scan of the names shows Burt Rutan, who I admire greatly for his work at scaled composites, is an engineer, and not a scientist, let alone a climate one. Why would they make the bold claim they are all scientists when this is a lie from the outset, even by the facts on shown right there the page?

These editorialists have the entire fossil fuel industry behind them, PLUS the Murdoch "conservative" propaganda machine, and they can't even keep the facts in their own piece from contradicting themselves!
Embarrassing, at best.

If you really believe that having a job is the reason for an overwhelming majority of PHD's conclusions on this, then ask yourself this question:

If one does not accept the data analysis of the majority of researchers, then how hard do you think it would be to get a position with the most profitable industry the world has ever known, supporting a denier case that could save them trillions of dollars?

If you want to get me and others to accept the doubters case, you have a very, very long uphill climb, and you are sliding backwards right now.
Even the timing on this Murdoch "editorial" is suspicious. Couldn't have anything to do with the recent thumbs down on the pipeline could it? Or was there new data that came in? NOPE!

But you keep believing this is a hoax, sorry, a non issue, wait, no need to panic, or is it no need for any drastic measures, what's the position du jour again?

But I haven't presented any science here, or rebutted your assertions or links. I've just pointed out that when exposed to a just quick sniff test, your case stinks to high heaven!

But this isn't even worth the time I've wasted posting this. You are gonna beat this drum till there's nothing to gain. Maybe you can get Aemjeff to provide a thousand links for you to trivialize. But your pipeline is dead till you can get Newt, Romney, or some other upstanding genius in the white house. Sorry.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by handle

Badhat, 16 "scientists" is probably less than .001% of the total number of people working on this.

I doubt that but so what? They don't claim to be the only scientists who think this way. They just happen to be 16 who got together, wrote the letter and signed it.

I put the word "scientist" in quotes, because just a cursory scan of the names shows Burt Rutan, who I admire greatly for his work at scaled composites, is an engineer, and not a scientist, let alone a climate one. Why would they make the bold claim they are all scientists when this is a lie from the outset, even by the facts on shown right there the page?

I actually would argue that aerospace engineering is a science. Never mind about climate...what makes aerospace engineering not a science?

These editorialists have the entire fossil fuel industry behind them, PLUS the Murdoch "conservative" propaganda machine, and they can't even keep the facts in their own piece from contradicting themselves!
Embarrassing, at best.

No proof, just ad hominums. That's embarassing! And what 'facts' contradict themselves?

If you really believe that having a job is the reason for an overwhelming majority of PHD's conclusions on this, then ask yourself this question:

I don't.

If you want to get me and others to accept the doubters case, you have a very, very long uphill climb, and you are sliding backwards right now.
Even the timing on this Murdoch "editorial" is suspicious. Couldn't have anything to do with the recent thumbs down on the pipeline could it? Or was there new data that came in? NOPE!

Oh yeah, it's all about the pipeline. God save us from that! Hansen says if the tar sands are mined that'll be game over for the planet and people believe him. Never mind that that oil is going to get mined anyway and sold to someone. At least it won't be making its filthy way across America's heartland!


Further, I don't think the doubters case is sliding backwards at all. For instance you might note that Canada pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol. OOOPS!

It's the alarmists who are losing steam. And it's because of the way that they presented their case and all of the scandals which have ensued. They set themselves up for failure. Classic unbridled hubris. It'll get ya every time.

[handle]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

I doubt that but so what? They don't claim to be the only scientists who think this way. They just happen to be 16 who got together, wrote the letter and signed it.

It was an Murdoch controlled paper editorial, they didn't write it, they signed it.

Originally Posted by badhatharry

I actually would argue that aerospace engineering is a science. Never mind about climate...what makes aerospace engineering not a science?

Engineering is applied science, engineers are not considered scientists, but nice try. You might want to check your facts, because now you look like you really don't know what you are talking about.

Originally Posted by badhatharry

No proof, just ad hominums. That's embarassing! And what 'facts' contradict themselves?

See engineers vs. scientists above.

Originally Posted by badhatharry

Oh yeah, it's all about the pipeline. God save us from that! Hansen says if the tar sands are mined that'll be game over for the planet and people believe him. Never mind that that oil is going to get mined anyway and sold to someone. At least it won't be making its filthy way across America's heartland!


Further, I don't think the doubters case is sliding backwards at all. For instance you might note that Canada pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol. OOOPS!

Where's that pipeline coming from again? Bigger oops!!

Originally Posted by badhatharry

It's the alarmists who are losing steam. And it's because of the way that they presented their case and all of the scandals which have ensued. They set themselves up for failure. Classic unbridled hubris. It'll get ya every time.

Shorter Bandhat: Duh! Winning!

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by handle

It was an Murdoch controlled paper editorial, they didn't write it, they signed it.

The way I see it the scientists wrote it. You say a Wall Street Journal editor wrote it. Who is he/she?

[handle]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

The way I see it the scientists wrote it. You say a Wall Street Journal editor wrote it. Who is he/she?

Good question, I couldn't find an author, but an editorial piece usually means the editor wrote it unless otherwise attributed. Maybe your propaganda god Rupert wrote it. I does smack of his far right POV.

I like how you funnel my responses down to the only point you think you can refute:

Originally Posted by handle

It was an Murdoch controlled paper editorial, they didn't write it, they signed it.



Engineering is applied science, engineers are not considered scientists, but nice try. You might want to check your facts, because now you look like you really don't know what you are talking about.



See engineers vs. scientists above.


Where's that pipeline coming from again? Bigger oops!!

Shorter Bandhat: Duh! Winning!

Way to dumb down the conversation. You think you are gaining ground in these things, but you just grind them down to pointlessness in an effort to get the last post.
Keep up the good work for your cause! Your efforts are appreciated though, by the other side, that is.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by handle

I like how you funnel my responses down to the only point you think you can refute:

You've finally discovered my dastardly plan.

[handle]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

You've finally discovered my dastardly plan.

I'd characterize it as a nasty, annoying, and misleading habit, but call it what you like.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by handle

Engineering is applied science, engineers are not considered scientists, but nice try. You might want to check your facts, because now you look like you really don't know what you are talking about.

So engineers are not scientists. What is the defining quality of a scientist may I ask? For instance are people involved in genetic engineering scientists or are they engineers?

[handle]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

So engineers are not scientists. What is the defining quality of a scientist may I ask? For instance are people involved in genetic engineering scientists or are they engineers?

You're kidding, right? I just explained this.
FROM THE WIKI (yawn):

Scientists are also distinct from engineers, those who develop devices that serve practical purposes. When science is done with a goal toward practical utility, it is called 'applied science' (short of the creation of new devices that fall into the realm of engineering).

I'm just going to start merely contradicting your posts, and let you ruin your cause by exposing a lack of competence with regards to critical thinking.

[AemJeff]

Originally Posted by handle

You're kidding, right? I just explained this.
FROM THE WIKI (yawn):


I'm just going to start merely contradicting your posts, and let you ruin your cause by exposing a lack of competence with regards to critical thinking.

Engineering is not science. Engineers are not scientists. Engineers make or design things. The test for the quality of an engineer's work is whether or not the things function within the parameters of their designs. Scientists produce papers. The test for the quality of a scientist's work is based on peer approval in regard to the papers he or she has produced. These are intrinsically different tasks, requiring completely different sets of skills (and that's apart from the specific technical skill sets that accompany each discipline.) And you're right, this goes directly to harry's critical thinking skills, at least insofar as she allows us to glimpse them, such as they are, in this forum.

[handle]

Originally Posted by AemJeff

Engineering is not science. Engineers are not scientists. Engineers make or design things. The test for the quality of an engineer's work is whether or not the things function within the parameters of their designs. Scientists produce papers. The test for the quality of a scientist's work is based on peer approval in regard to the papers he or she has produced. These are intrinsically different tasks, requiring completely different sets of skills (and that's apart from the specific technical skill sets that accompany each discipline.) And you're right, this goes directly to harry's critical thinking skills, at least insofar as she allows us to glimpse them, such as they are, in this forum.

Thank you for your input.
She does seem to know enough to avoid rebutting your statement, unless the post below applies:

Originally Posted by badhatharry

And you never explained just what is the the defining feature of science or a scientist that makes it/him unique...except to say DUHHHH!

I suspect that is because you can't.

[handle]

Oh and Jeff, did you see this page in Rutan's piece refuting climate change?

Modern Human-Extinction Scares
• PopulationBomb,starvation/crowding-1940sto1970s
• Silent Spring, DDT - 1960s & 1970s (outlawing DDT killed millions)
• Global Nuclear War - 1950s thru 1980s
• Global cooling, Ice Age/starvation - 1956 to 1977
• Hole in the Ozone layer, caused by CFCs, 1970s & 1980s (We now know that the Ozone changes were not caused by human CFCs)
• Nuclear Winter, nuke-caused ice Age - 1980s & 1990s
• Asteroid Impact - 1930 to present (a real, but remote risk)
• Global Warming - 1929 to 1969 and 1987 to 2003
• “Climate Change” - 2003 to present
Is ‘Climate Change’ just another over-blown scare?

Call me nutty, but I think there might be a pattern here.
Global nuke war just a "scare"? DDT is harmless? Ozone hole not caused by humans? Over population not a threat?

I guess most claims toward man made damage to the environment are without any real basis!

[AemJeff]

Originally Posted by handle

Oh and Jeff, did you see this page in Rutan's piece refuting climate change?



Call me nutty, but I think there might be a pattern here.
Global nuke war just a "scare"? DDT is harmless? Ozone hole not caused by humans? Over population not a threat?

I guess most claims toward man made damage to the environment are without any real basis!

Heh. Thank whatorwhomever that overpopulation and starvation have never been a problem! The unsourced assertion about CFCs is amazingly convincing. But, he wrote something that you can read on the internet, so I guess quoting him is just as good as citing primary sources!

[handle]

Originally Posted by AemJeff

Heh. Thank whatorwhomever that overpopulation and starvation have never been a problem! The unsourced assertion about CFCs is amazingly convincing. But, he wrote something that you can read on the internet, so I guess quoting him is just as good as citing primary sources!

Yes, especially convincing when entirely untempered by any degree of threat, or potential consequence of inaction.
But very "logical" i.e. since there was no global nuclear war, the threat was exaggerated! Or DDT for sure would only have prevented malaria from spreading, and the continued (proven) collection of the known toxin in the fat cells of every living thing on the planet (with fat cells that is) would have been inconsequential. Wow.

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by handle

Yes, especially convincing when entirely untempered by any degree of threat, or potential consequence of inaction.
But very "logical" i.e. since there was no global nuclear war, the threat was exaggerated! Or DDT for sure would only have prevented malaria from spreading, and the continued (proven) collection of the known toxin in the fat cells of every living thing on the planet (with fat cells that is) would have been inconsequential. Wow.

I haven't followed this thread closely, so, has anyone linked to this article?

h/t AR via Dot Earth/NYTimes.

[handle]

Originally Posted by Ocean

I haven't followed this thread closely, so, has anyone linked to this article?

h/t AR via Dot Earth/NYTimes.

No need to follow it, badhat is just rehashing the same old denier drivel. But she now asserts:

Originally Posted by badhatharry

. Second, I have no cause. This whole controversy is mostly an interesting social phenomenon in my opinion.

But that's a great link, thanks!

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by handle

You're kidding, right? I just explained this.
FROM THE WIKI (yawn):


I'm just going to start merely contradicting your posts, and let you ruin your cause by exposing a lack of competence with regards to critical thinking.

Ruin my cause on a long since abandoned forum. That's rich.

Your original point (?) was that Rutan had no business weighing in on the subject of climate change because he is not a scientist. AND your other brilliant point was to say that the writer of the editorial (which it was not and who you could not identify) mis-stated that 16 scientists signed it.

And then you accuse me of picking silly points to argue. Hilarious.

And BTW, my husband is an electro-mechanical engineer and when asked, he said that very often he was involved in scientific endeavors in his R&D work. So I would say that there are many cutting edge engineers (of which even you would have to admit Rutan is one) who could honestly call themselves scientists. Not to mention the fact that an engineer of his stature is certainly qualified to speak about the efficacy of the climate models and statistics which are being offered in the research.

And you never explained just what is the the defining feature of science or a scientist that makes it/him unique...except to say DUHHHH!

I suspect that is because you can't.

[handle]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

Ruin my cause on a long since abandoned forum. That's rich.

Your original point (?) was that Rutan had no business weighing in on the subject of climate change because he is not a scientist. AND your other brilliant point was to say that the writer of the editorial (which it was not and who you could not identify) mis-stated that 16 scientists signed it. And clearly speaks to the credibility of the entire piece, IMO.


And then you accuse me of picking silly points to argue. Hilarious.

My original point(!) was that you were simply linking to Murdoch propaganda which you were, and I never said "Rutan had no business weighing in on the subject of climate change because he is not a scientist.". But you are correct that the headline of the article falsely claimed it was signed by 16 scientists. "Brilliant point" or not, it's true. And clearly speaks to the credibility of the entire piece, IMO.

Whoever wrote that drivel did not claim authorship, and since you think sixteen guys got together and wrote it, then prove it. This seems unlikely to me.

Originally Posted by badhatharry

And BTW, my husband is an electro-mechanical engineer and when asked, he said that very often he was involved in scientific endeavors in his R&D work. So I would say that there are many cutting edge engineers (of which even you would have to admit Rutan is one) who could honestly call themselves scientists. Not to mention the fact that an engineer of his stature is certainly qualified to speak about the efficacy of the climate models and statistics which are being offered in the research.

I know about your spouse already (you've alluded to this before), and I am an electro-mechanical engineer who designs, fabs, and consults on equipment for scientific research and would never claim to be a scientist, as this is simply incorrect. Signing a document to that effect by me would constitute fraud, IMO. And a double fraud when I (or Rutan) do not have PHD's in hard science, nor have we published scientific works in any field, let alone those even remotely related to climate science.

Originally Posted by badhatharry

And you never explained just what is the the defining feature of science or a scientist that makes it/him unique...except to say DUHHHH!

I suspect that is because you can't.

Please try to follow the discussion before you claim someone has not made a point. The "duhhhh!" was accompanied by a link plus a quote, which you have neglected to acknowledge, let alone refute. I suspect you are now grasping at straws with your false implication that I can't do what I (and Jeff) have already done here.

I do appreciate you falsely summarizing my points though, because dead forum or not, it makes you seem a little detached from reality. Kinda like all your "science" links. You have issues with critical thinking that are degrading your credibility.
Are you saying you don't care because you think no one is reading this?

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by handle;237032
I know about your spouse already (you've alluded to this before), and I am an electro-mechanical engineer who designs, fabs, and consults on equipment for scientific research and would [I

never[/I] claim to be a scientist, as this is simply incorrect. Signing a document to that effect by me would constitute fraud, IMO. And a double fraud when I (or Rutan) do not have PHD's in hard science, nor have we published scientific works in any field, let alone those even remotely related to climate science.

Oh! so now we have raised the bar to "hard science" Clever how you slipped that in (well, not really). Did the introduction say 16 hard scientists...?

What you would claim is irrelevant. I doubt anyone would ever be faced with some piece of paper to sign which says "I am a scientist." Mostly people are asked to provide the credentials from their education or work and one should be very careful not to misrepresent those things. If you are just a cubbyhole guy who follows orders and procedures and doesn't get into the discovery phase of engineering than I guess you should not claim to be a scientist.

And, I have yet to hear from you what it is that constitutes a scientist... But here is something from Wikipedia which might give you pause, but check with Jeff first.

"Engineering is the discipline, art, skill and profession of acquiring and applying scientific, mathematical, economic, social, and practical knowledge, in order to design and build structures, machines, devices, systems, materials and processes."

"Engineering, much like other science, is a broad discipline which is often broken down into several sub-disciplines."

Please try to follow the discussion before you claim someone has not made a point. The "duhhhh!" was accompanied by a link plus a quote, which you have neglected to acknowledge, let alone refute. I suspect you are now grasping at straws with your false implication that I can't do what I (and Jeff) have already done here.

I don't read Jeff's posts. There is no need. I already know what he will say. He usually just makes me want to throw up a little.
And you still haven't told me what makes a scientist a scientist.

I do appreciate you falsely summarizing my points though, because dead forum or not, it makes you seem a little detached from reality. Kinda like all your "science" links. You have issues with critical thinking that are degrading your credibility.
Are you saying you don't care because you think no one is reading this

How about you try to follow?...you said that I am hurting my cause. First, I already know that you have no interest in discussing any of this and that you know pretty much nothing about it so it will go nowhere. What is important to you is arguing about stupid stuff like whether or not Bert Rutan is a scientist and giving your visiting guest, Jeff, high fives. Second, I have no cause. This whole controversy is mostly an interesting social phenomenon in my opinion. People like you have chosen a side because you have bought into the 99% propaganda and will never change their minds until the issue is eventually forgotten. It's going to be interesting to see where this thing is at in twenty years.

But, I'm so glad that you at least appreciate something about my posts. The "detached from reality" bit is pretty much how I would sum up my opinion of you.

[handle]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

Oh! so now we have raised the bar to "hard science" Clever how you slipped that in (well, not really). Did the introduction say 16 hard scientists...?

Climate science is not hard science?

Originally Posted by badhatharry

What you would claim is irrelevant. I doubt anyone would ever be faced with some piece of paper to sign which says "I am a scientist." Mostly people are asked to provide the credentials from their education or work and one should be very careful not to misrepresent those things. If you are just a cubbyhole guy who follows orders and procedures and doesn't get into the discovery phase of engineering than I guess you should not claim to be a scientist.

Cubby hole guy? WTF are you on about now? I think you mean "cubicle" but no, I work in a lab. But you think the cubicle thing is an insult or something? Or a reason to doubt someone?
Notice how I didn't lead with this until you started implying special spousal knowledge? I then clearly outlined what I do, and designing, and implementing research equipment involves mostly discovery, as the research is in itself discovery by definition. But do let me know what your "scientist" husband says.

Originally Posted by badhatharry

And, I have yet to hear from you what it is that constitutes a scientist... But here is something from Wikipedia which might give you pause, but check with Jeff first.

"Engineering is the discipline, art, skill and profession of acquiring and applying scientific, mathematical, economic, social, and practical knowledge, in order to design and build structures, machines, devices, systems, materials and processes."

Or "applied science" like I said. Thanks for supporting my claim.

Engineering is not science. Engineers are not scientists. Engineers make or design things. The test for the quality of an engineer's work is whether or not the things function within the parameters of their designs. Scientists produce papers. The test for the quality of a scientist's work is based on peer approval in regard to the papers he or she has produced. These are intrinsically different tasks, requiring completely different sets of skills (and that's apart from the specific technical skill sets that accompany each discipline.) And you're right, this goes directly to harry's critical thinking skills, at least insofar as she allows us to glimpse them, such as they are, in this forum.

There, you just read Jeff's post, hope you didn't have breakfast yet.

Originally Posted by badhatharry

"Engineering, much like other science, is a broad discipline which is often broken down into several sub-disciplines."

Notice how they have different words for "science" and "engineering" that's how we delineate things that are not the same! But since the wiki says "other science" then I must be a scientist!!!!
I can't thank you enough badhat! I'm gonna ask for a raise!!!!

Originally Posted by badhatharry

I don't read Jeff's posts. There is no need. I already know what he will say. He usually just makes me want to throw up a little.
And you still haven't told me what makes a scientist a scientist.

You're right, the very definition of both that I linked to can now be discounted because we have gone far enough down thread for you to inaccurately claim it never happened.

Originally Posted by badhatharry

How about you try to follow?...you said that I am hurting my cause. First, I already know that you have no interest in discussing any of this and that you know pretty much nothing about it so it will go nowhere. What is important to you is arguing about stupid stuff like whether or not Bert Rutan is a scientist and giving your visiting guest, Jeff, high fives. Second, I have no cause. This whole controversy is mostly an interesting social phenomenon in my opinion. People like you have chosen a side because you have bought into the 99% propaganda and will never change their minds until the issue is eventually forgotten. It's going to be interesting to see where this thing is at in twenty years.

But, I'm so glad that you at least appreciate something about my posts. The "detached from reality" bit is pretty much how I would sum up my opinion of you.

Now who resorts to the Ad Hominem? Plus backing away from vehemently endorsing and defending your propaganda! I know I've given you a hard time about your reliance on attitude, but I have to say this whole rant is really quite funny.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by handle

a cursory scan of the names shows Burt Rutan, who I admire greatly for his work at scaled composites, is an engineer, and not a scientist, let alone a climate one.

You don't have to be a climate scientist to be able to read data and evaluate whether or not research has been done properly or inproperly. Here's Rutan talking about why he is qualified to weigh in in the climate controversy.

Brian,
In my background of 46 years in aerospace flight testing and design I have seen many examples of data presentation fraud. That is what prompted my interest in seeing how the scientists have processed the climate data, presented it and promoted their theories to policy makers and the media.
What I found shocked me and prompted me to do further research. I researched data presentation fraud in climate science from 1999 to 2010.

I do not have time here to define the details; if interested in my research, a PPT or PDF can be downloaded at:
http://rps3.com/Pages/Burt_Rutan_on_Climate_Change.htm

[handle]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

You don't have to be a climate scientist to be able to read data and evaluate whether or not research has been done properly or inproperly. Here's Rutan talking about why he is qualified to weigh in in the climate controversy.

Your Rutan quote was a comment response to this rebuttal of the WSJ article.

Here's the comment right under his:

Michael Tobis, January 28, 2012 at 11:12 pm :
Bert Rutan’s reply here is vastly more cogent than the absurdly vague and tendentious article in the WSJ to which he is a signatory.

Nevertheless, he remains in thrall of a completely inaccurate view of the intellectual basis for the concerns about anthropogenic climate change, the substance of the discipline, the nature of the models, and even the balance of observational evidence. There are numerous errors in this exposition.

I hope Bert Rutan is amenable to re-examining the evidence. People who stick their necks out that far are often hard to reach, unfortunately.

The evidence that the sensitivity of GMST to CO2 forcing is in the neighborhood of 3 C per doubling is quite strong, but the evidence that it is above 1 C is absolutely compelling. I would welcome honest discussions competent openminded critics the field has on this matter, though I confess it has been quite a while since I encountered one.

But regardless of the state of the science, it is very difficult to argue that it is not necessary to take policy action. If you even stipulate that there is a CO2 sensitivity it becomes difficult to argue that the immaturity of the science argues in your favor. The less we know, the greater the risk that the sensitivity is very high.

Direct observation tells us little in the absence of a mature science, because the lags in the system remain uncharacterized. Rutan’s closing sentence, then, is surprisingly naive. The atmosphere/ocean thermodynamic system has multiple time constants, some on the order of a thousand years. We must resort to physics rather than relying solely on observations. If you insist that the physics is unknown, the damage we may be doing is unconstrained, and we’d best stop rocking the boat sooner than later.

Finally, it would also be best to go about identifying who the best scientists are, who think about this problem, without obsessing about the sorts of errors generally made by non-scientists with “granola” tendencies, which are entirely irrelevant.

Lindzen indeed (with Houghton) was coauthor of an excellent atmospheric dynamics paper some thirty years ago. I think it was a masterpiece. But he pretty much stands against every other competent dynamicist, paleoclimatologist or modeler.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by handle

Your Rutan quote was a comment response to this rebuttal of the WSJ article.

Here's the comment right under his:

Yes, I know that the Rutan quote was a rebuttal of the post criticizing the WSJ article. That's where I got it. What's your point? You certainly didn't address mine.

[handle]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

Yes, I know that the Rutan quote was a rebuttal of the post criticizing the WSJ article. That's where I got it. What's your point? You certainly didn't address mine.

I was providing context for my link and quote that made my point better than I could. But you barely scanned my post, obviously.
Notice how I generously give you credit for laziness rather than accusing you of ignorance or stupidity? Try to live up to the expectation.

Here's the point (again):

Nevertheless, he remains in thrall of a completely inaccurate view of the intellectual basis for the concerns about anthropogenic climate change, the substance of the discipline, the nature of the models, and even the balance of observational evidence. There are numerous errors in this exposition.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by handle

I was providing context for my link and quote that made my point better than I could. But you barely scanned my post, obviously.
Notice how I generously give you credit for laziness rather than accusing you of ignorance or stupidity? Try to live up to the expectation.

Here's the point (again):
Nevertheless, he remains in thrall of a completely inaccurate view of the intellectual basis for the concerns about anthropogenic climate change, the substance of the discipline, the nature of the models, and even the balance of observational evidence. There are numerous errors in this exposition.

You think somehow that I am supposed to be cowed by some guy on the internet saying that Rutan is in error. I suppose you also think that I should change my mind about the whole issue because some guy on the internt thinks that Rutan has a completely inaccurate view.

I doubt very much that you have any notion about what the real issues are in this conflict and that is why you have to use some guy on the internet's words instead of your own.

[handle]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

You think somehow that I am supposed to be cowed by some guy on the internet saying that Rutan is in error. I suppose you also think that I should change my mind about the whole issue because some guy on the internt thinks that Rutan has a completely inaccurate view.

I doubt very much that you have any notion about what the real issues are in this conflict and that is why you have to use some guy on the internet's words instead of your own.

No I don't think any of that stuff, but thanks again for the errant interpretations of my posts. More holes in your credibility.
My actual view is that arguing with you and others on this subject is no different than refuting the claims of birthers, truthers, paranoid conspiracy theorists, and the like. Those who doggedly cling to concepts that fly in the face of overwhelming evidence, and expert consensus.
You have your mind made up and eat up anything that supports your foregone conclusions.
And it's laughable when you, and those like you try to accuse others, especially 98% of the scientific community, of doing the same!

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by handle

Oh, and I almost forgot the funniest part of your "scientific" article. The direct comparison of the worlds scientific community to that of the soviet union under Stalinist rule!:


No one with an actual, factual ax to grind would need to resort to this kind of false equivalence. Especially when touting their case as supported by "a collection of stubborn scientific facts".

I think the point was how ugly politicized science actually gets.

[handle]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

I think the point was how ugly politicized science actually gets.

Under Stalin! And by factual deniers, BTW!

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by handle

Under Stalin! And by factual deniers, BTW!

I found this quote yesterday while listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe podcast, and I remembered the many threads in this forum to which it would apply. I decided to share it:

“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.” ― Isaac Asimov

PS: The podcast includes a segment with an interview with Sean Carroll, if anyone is interested.

[Unit]

“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.” ― Isaac Asimov

The flip-side is hubris, immodesty, arrogance, authoritarianism, elitism etc.....

Once again there are trade-offs.

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by Unit

The flip-side is hubris, immodesty, arrogance, authoritarianism, elitism etc.....

Once again there are trade-offs.

I would hope you will grant this is not an either/or possibility. There are multiple points in between. There's no need for trade offs.

Accepting that there are undesirable extremes is fine. Embracing one extreme (exultation of ignorance) and making it appear as virtuous is what bothers me. It's regressive and brutish.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by Ocean

Embracing one extreme (exultation of ignorance) and making it appear as virtuous is what bothers me. It's regressive and brutish.

This type of characterization is hardly ever true but it is a characterization that the opposition group always uses.

And just one more thing...climate skeptics are not exulting ignorance. They are heartily against it...as in an entire population in the thrall of a bunch of political opportunists who tell them the sky is falling. It's a religion, as Michael Crichton pointed out over a decade ago. Don't question or the planet will be annihilated.

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

This type of characterization is hardly ever true but it is a characterization that the opposition group always uses.

We're all brutes intent on having our way prevail. Admit it.

And just one more item...climate skeptics are not exulting ignornace. They are heartily against it...as in an entire population in the thrall of a bunch of political opportunists who tell them the sky is falling. It's a religion, as Michael Crichton pointed out over a decade ago.

I think the ignorance is in not knowing how to evaluate controversy. If 99% of scientists say one thing, and 1% say another, who would you be more likely to believe? Let's say the 1% does not represent the top authorities in the topic, but rather a random collection of science related people. Who to believe?

What if that 1% support a claim that benefits a powerful lobby, such as the oil industry? What if the media platform that gives voice to that 1% happens to be a well-known biased media, which has been exposed repeatedly for presenting a very skewed view?

What is the interest of the 99% of scientists to make a claim? If someone is primarily driven by interest in money or funding they may pursue a whole bunch of careers, but very unlikely that they would choose a career in science for that purpose.

We know you've been invested in defending your point of view on climate change for a couple of years now. I'm not expecting to convince you, but rather show you that there's always some degree of dissent in science, and an integral part of it is to know how to evaluate different claims, weigh the body of evidence, and move forward with the claims that are best supported.

That doesn't mean that the dissenting voices should be ignored completely. If they have sufficient evidence, they would get funding from reputable sources. If their view supports a certain industry, that industry will fund them. Unfortunately, their results may be tainted by a biased source of funding, but, they can still present them.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by Ocean

I think the ignorance is in not knowing how to evaluate controversy. If 99% of scientists say one thing, and 1% say another, who would you be more likely to believe? Let's say the 1% does not represent the top authorities in the topic, but rather a random collection of science related people. Who to believe?

I have gone into this statistical trick multiple times and I'm not going to do it again. Suffice it to say, it has been shown the the study that resulted in these numbers was not rigorous and yet the statistics stand as a red flag for the alarmist side.

As far as who to believe I would think you should do some independent reading. If you are truly interested in the subject and would like to do your own investigations I would direct you to three skeptics' sites. These are just three of many who are working in the field. There is much controversy and few conclusions but hopefully you can glean from these sites that these people are not the Neanderthals the left would make them out to be.

Judith Curry

Anthony Watts

Roger Pielke, Jr.

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

I have gone into this statistical trick multiple times and I'm not going to do it again. Suffice it to say, it has been shown the the study that resulted in these numbers was not rigorous and yet the statistics stand as a red flag for the alarmist side.

As far as who to believe I would think you should do some independent reading. If you are truly interested in the subject and would like to do your own investigations I would direct you to three skeptics' sites. These are just three of many who are working in the field. There is much controversy and few conclusions but hopefully you can glean from these sites that these people are not the Neanderthals the left would make them out to be.

Judith Curry

Anthony Watts

Roger Pielke, Jr.

Thank you for the links.

I am interested in the topic, and I already follow the sources that I can trust.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by Ocean

I am interested in the topic, and I already follow the sources that I can trust.

I'm not sure if this means you will be looking at the links or not.

Oh I get it...you don't like to let anyone assume that you don't know everything.

Whatever.

god, I miss this forum.