Looking at the list of "societies", "associations" and "unions" it would be interesting to "follow the money".  I would wager that at least half of these groups are pretty much liberal  progressive
 "think" tanks that siphon money from the American people.  I wonder how many of those groups actually "fudge" their data in order to keep the money flowing?

 

Also, I'm not exactly clear on why NASA (National Aeronautical and Space Administration) would even be involved in global warming climate change.  I suspect that the answer lies with my first statement.  Follow the money.  Rather than research and develop means to explore Space, they are now tasked to "research" global warming climate change.

You missed one. I got your back  :thumbsup:

---

You missed one. I got your back  :thumbsup:

 

LOL, I owe you one.   :thumbsup:

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

I don't need to "try again." You need to open your mind up to the possibility that politicians are lying.


You know that old joke about how you can tell if a lawyer is lying? His lips are moving.


When did America become so gullible that they take what POLITICIANS (career liars) say at face value despite mountains of evidence at odds with their position?


When did it make more sense to believe a guy who is just talking (paid to no less) over someone published (merit-based)?

 

But you refuse to open your mind to the notion that scientists could be either wrong or corrupt. How do you know that a scientist is lying? His data has to constantly be adjusted from real measurements to what he "thinks" the measurement ought to be to prove his theory. When did America become so gullible that hysterics who depend on having a crisis to investigate become the foremost policy advisers? When did it make sense to believe a guy who is talking (paid to no less AND dependent on having additional concerns to "Study" to retain his funding) over simple common sense?

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I don't need to "try again." You need to open your mind up to the possibility that politicians are lying.


You know that old joke about how you can tell if a lawyer is lying? His lips are moving.


When did America become so gullible that they take what POLITICIANS (career liars) say at face value despite mountains of evidence at odds with their position?


When did it make more sense to believe a guy who is just talking (paid to no less) over someone published (merit-based)?

 

Well since I attach no truth to anything a politician says ... what's your point?


 

I've read the papers that were referenced. They didn't base the 97% on the statement the NASA link claims they did.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Looking at the list of "societies", "associations" and "unions" it would be interesting to "follow the money". I would wager that at least half of these groups are pretty much liberal "think" tanks that siphon money from the American people. I wonder how many of those groups actually "fudge" their data in order to keep the money flowing?


Also, I'm not exactly clear on why NASA (National Aeronautical and Space Administration) would even be involved in <del>global warming</del> climate change. I suspect that the answer lies with my first statement. Follow the money. Rather than research and develop means to explore Space, they are now tasked to "research" <del>global warming</del> climate change.

Go ahead and vett those agencies. I think you will be surprised they are actual science agencies doin actual science as opposed to right wing think tanks coming up with talking points in opposition of the science.


The reason NASA is working on this issue is fairly self-evident. What is goin on in the atmosphere (do you believe in that?) has a lot to do with global warming. Naturally, some of the brightest minds studying the atmosphere are at NASA. It doesn't take a rocket scientist (get it? get it?), to figure out the correlation.


But no, you're right, NASA is evil.


And they are all fudging their data. Cause you can do that. It's not like there is a process of peer review or a highly competitive market for getting published in these prestigious science journals whose credibility is necessarily contingent on the content of their pages.


You have a programming background. Can you fudge the data behind a program? Is that something that can happen? Or will the program simply not work correctly if not coded correctly? You can't lie via science. It's mostly math. All there in black and white. There is no where to fudge anything and furthermore no reason to.

---

And they are all fudging their data. Cause you can do that. It's not like there is a process of peer review or a highly competitive market for getting published in these prestigious science journals whose credibility is necessarily contingent on the content of their pages.


You have a programming background. Can you fudge the data behind a program? Is that something that can happen? Or will the program simply not work correctly if not coded correctly? You can't lie via science. It's mostly math. All there in black and white. There is no where to fudge anything and furthermore no reason to.

 

Peer review checks for obvious errors, poor wording, and missing references (and you'd better reference all of the related papers of the reviewers). Peer review does not vet computer programs used in the research, and unless the paper disagrees with the viewpoint of the reviewer, the quality of the research is not questioned. You assign far too much value to peer review.


 

And yes, one can easily fudge the data behind a program, or even fudge it inside a program. The following example is from CRU, not NASA. CRU is as highly regarded as NASA in the field of Global Warming Climate Change.


 

;

; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
;
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
(...)
;
; APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION
;
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,x)
densall=densall+yearlyadj

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

How is making fun of your stupid petition a personal attack?

You called him a loon. That is an ad hominem statement

---

Peer review checks for obvious errors, poor wording, and missing references (and you'd better reference all of the related papers of the reviewers). Peer review does not vet computer programs used in the research, and unless the paper disagrees with the viewpoint of the reviewer, the quality of the research is not questioned. You assign far too much value to peer review.


And yes, one can easily fudge the data behind a program, or even fudge it inside a program. The following example is from CRU, not NASA. CRU is as highly regarded as NASA in the field of <del>Global Warming</del> Climate Change.


;

;
Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
;

yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]

valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$

2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor

(...)

;

;
APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION
;

yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,x)

densall=densall+yearlyadj

Or perhaps you assign too little value to peer review? You can admit that, right.


You are implying that peer review is merely a grammar check? You realize how silly that is, right?

---

Or perhaps you assign too little value to peer review? You can admit that, right.

You are implying that peer review is merely a grammar check? You realize how silly that is, right?

When the peer group already posses the same biases and conclusions then yes, peer review is of relatively little value.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

When the peer group already posses the same biases and conclusions then yes, peer review is of relatively little value.

But they don't. The guy peer-reviewing the science would rather have his science published. They are direct competitors (peers). So he looks for errors in their science to bolster his own argument. So he gets published instead. It's not at all how you described.

---

Maybe, maybe not. Real scientists are doing work and accumulating data. Currently they think one thing more data could change that since that's how science works. That's the best part about science. it doesn't matter what you or I think, science just is what it is. Arguing about it from an untrained and clearly political bias is silly.

That's the beauty of science. We know the climate is changing and their is evidence we could be effecting the change. So scientists research, hypothesis, test their theories, etc... no need to come to a conclusion because we don't know.

---

Or perhaps you assign too little value to peer review? You can admit that, right.


You are implying that peer review is merely a grammar check? You realize how silly that is, right?

 

I didn't say that. Peer review is more than a grammar check. It's also a check on the basics and to determine if the results are logical based on the knowledge of the reviewer. The peer reviewer might ask for a deeper explanation on some parts. As I said before, the one thing a peer reviewer is most likely to criticize is lack of references to previous works in the field, especially papers authored by the reviewer.


A peer reviewer only sees the paper, not the data or computer code behind the paper. The assumption is that the author was diligent in his data reduction techniques, or in the case of a computer model that the programming was correct. If the results agree with the opinions of the reviewer then the reviewer won't question the methods. 
This leads to confirmation bias.

 

Confirmation bias is a big problem in a field like Global Warming Climate Change. Results that agree with the prevailing dogma are not questioned, results that disagree are gone over with a fine tooth comb. Almost everyone in the field chose that branch of science in order to 'save the planet.' You don't join the priesthood if you don't believe in God to begin with.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

That's the beauty of science. We know the climate is changing and their is evidence we could be effecting the change. So scientists research, hypothesis, test their theories, etc... no need to come to a conclusion because we don't know.

Pretty much my take. 

---

That's the beauty of science. We know the climate is changing and their is evidence we could be effecting the change. So scientists research, hypothesis, test their theories, etc... no need to come to a conclusion because we don't know.

 

But we already have a conclusion. Heck they had a conclusion before they had a problem

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

But we already have a conclusion. Heck they had a conclusion before they had a problem

So now you've create your own conclusion while criticizing others for doing the same thing. There is a term for doing that you know?

---

But we already have a conclusion. Heck they had a conclusion before they had a problem

There is a belief that we are having an impact on climate change. The question is, if that is true, how much? We don't know.

---

There is a belief that we are having an impact on climate change. The question is, if that is true, how much? We don't know.

I think the AGCC position is a tiny bit more zealous than you're giving it credit for.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

So now you've create your own conclusion while criticizing others for doing the same thing. There is a term for doing that you know?

My conclusion? That the climate is always changing getting both warmer and colder in various cyclical events? I thought that was a proven historical fact? Does anyone disagree with that?

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

But they don't. The guy peer-reviewing the science would rather have his science published. They are direct competitors (peers). So he looks for errors in their science to bolster his own argument. So he gets published instead. It's not at all how you described.

 

Gosh, this appears timely...

 

http://io9.com/i-fooled-millions-into-th...1707251800

 

But don't you worry man, everything that's peer reviewed is like, totally trustworthy!

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Gosh, this appears timely...

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://io9.com/i-fooled-millions-into-thinking-chocolate-helps-weight-1707251800'>http://io9.com/i-fooled-millions-into-thinking-chocolate-helps-weight-1707251800</a>


But don't you worry man, everything that's peer reviewed is like, totally trustworthy!

Jeepers! You just undermined 45 years of climate science with yet another blog post! Way to go bro! Stop the presses! Get the prez on the line! Let's stop the tyranny of the scientists before it's too late! Help us congressional republicans, you are our only hope!

---