Fox News: 120% Of The Public Thinks Scientists May Falsify GW Data

[Squiggy]

It would be nice if such a discussion could be carried out with zero reference to Al Gore, zero references to money-making, zero references to politics, and in fact zero references to anything other than verified data and the scientific interpretation of such.

However, since I doubt we have many climatologists here, that seems unlikely to happen.

Why should there be no reference to Al Gore? His energy usage is off the chart and he's asking us to buy into this propoganda. It's very fair to call his motives into question.

Same thing with recognizing that this is a giant money maker. Is it not?

And why is it that some people think the emails MUST have been doctored? Is it because if they weren't it would be a major problem?

Ed Begley Jr then.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

And to deny the clear profit motive of the proponents is beyond ludicrous.

 

[Lindley]

It would be nice if such a discussion could be carried out with zero reference to Al Gore, zero references to money-making, zero references to politics, and in fact zero references to anything other than verified data and the scientific interpretation of such.

However, since I doubt we have many climatologists here, that seems unlikely to happen.

Why should there be no reference to Al Gore? His energy usage is off the chart and he's asking us to buy into this propoganda. It's very fair to call his motives into question.

Same thing with recognizing that this is a giant money maker. Is it not?

If you want to call Al Gore a hypocrite, that's up to you. But that has absolutely no bearing on the validity of global warming or lack thereof.

I'm sure the issue is a huge moneymaker. It's important, and important things often are expensive, and someone always ends up with the money when things are expensive. But then, maintaining the status quo is also a huge moneymaker for someone else. When you come right down to it, that's what capitalism is all about----taking any given situation and finding a way to make money from it!

So the availability of moneymaking opportunities also has zero bearing on the scientific validity of the problem.

 

[Marc]

It would be nice if such a discussion could be carried out with zero reference to Al Gore, zero references to money-making, zero references to politics, and in fact zero references to anything other than verified data and the scientific interpretation of such.

However, since I doubt we have many climatologists here, that seems unlikely to happen.

Why should there be no reference to Al Gore? His energy usage is off the chart and he's asking us to buy into this propoganda. It's very fair to call his motives into question.

Same thing with recognizing that this is a giant money maker. Is it not?

If you want to call Al Gore a hypocrite, that's up to you. But that has absolutely no bearing on the validity of global warming or lack thereof.

I'm sure the issue is a huge moneymaker. It's important, and important things often are expensive, and someone always ends up with the money when things are expensive. But then, maintaining the status quo is also a huge moneymaker for someone else. When you come right down to it, that's what capitalism is all about----taking any given situation and finding a way to make money from it!

So the availability of moneymaking opportunities also has zero bearing on the scientific validity of the problem.

I'm not sure that going to green/renewable energy will be money makers for anyone the same way that oil, coal and gas has been.

 

[Squiggy]

And to deny the clear profit motive of the proponents is beyond ludicrous.

The opponents as well.

 

[Lindley]

I'm not sure that going to green/renewable energy will be money makers for anyone the same way that oil, coal and gas has been.

R&D always makes someone money. However, I'll grant that once the tech is in place it may not be as profitable in the long-term, by the very nature of its renewability: Increased supply to meet demand means lower prices.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

It would be nice if such a discussion could be carried out with zero reference to Al Gore, zero references to money-making, zero references to politics, and in fact zero references to anything other than verified data and the scientific interpretation of such.

However, since I doubt we have many climatologists here, that seems unlikely to happen.

Why should there be no reference to Al Gore? His energy usage is off the chart and he's asking us to buy into this propoganda. It's very fair to call his motives into question.

Same thing with recognizing that this is a giant money maker. Is it not?

If you want to call Al Gore a hypocrite, that's up to you. But that has absolutely no bearing on the validity of global warming or lack thereof.

I'm sure the issue is a huge moneymaker. It's important, and important things often are expensive, and someone always ends up with the money when things are expensive. But then, maintaining the status quo is also a huge moneymaker for someone else. When you come right down to it, that's what capitalism is all about----taking any given situation and finding a way to make money from it!

So the availability of moneymaking opportunities also has zero bearing on the scientific validity of the problem.

It has bearing if the scientists are lying about the research in order to promote a fraud.

 

[Lindley]

It has bearing if the scientists are lying about the research in order to promote a fraud.

It's possible some people might be lying, and some might be mistaken, and some might be trying to perpetrate a fraud.

But it is ridiculous to think that all scientists working on the problem would work together to falsify their results. In fact I'd say it's more than ridiculous, it's downright foolish. Science is about following the evidence to an answer, not twisting the evidence to suit the desired answer. (That's politics, not science.) It's one of the reasons why independently verified results are so important to the scientific process.

If global warming is not occurring, scientific results will support this assertion. If it is occurring, scientific results will support that too. Some data may be interpretable to either conclusion; that's the nature of research.

Scientists tend to be fairly apolitical as a group, but unfortunately this particular issue has become politicized. Which means it is all the more important to view the existing data and analyses with a completely unbiased, unprejudiced, apolitical viewpoint.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

It has bearing if the scientists are lying about the research in order to promote a fraud.

It's possible some people might be lying, and some might be mistaken, and some might be trying to perpetrate a fraud.

But it is ridiculous to think that all scientists working on the problem would work together to falsify their results. In fact I'd say it's more than ridiculous, it's downright foolish. Science is about following the evidence to an answer, not twisting the evidence to suit the desired answer. (That's politics, not science.) It's one of the reasons why independently verified results are so important to the scientific process.

If global warming is not occurring, scientific results will support this assertion. If it is occurring, scientific results will support that too. Some data may be interpretable to either conclusion; that's the nature of research.

Scientists tend to be fairly apolitical as a group, but unfortunately this particular issue has become politicized. Which means it is all the more important to view the existing data and analyses with a completely unbiased, unprejudiced, apolitical viewpoint.

In a perfect world I'd agree with you. However.....

Honestly, if the leaked emails are accurate it is a damning piece of evidence that data manipulation and opponent marginalization has and is taking place.

Also, according to the emails in question, the data did not support the warming theory if I remember correctly.

And we ought to consider that the scientists in question are serving their own political and financial self-interest in this case.

 

[Misfit Toy]

And we ought to consider that the scientists in question are serving their own political and financial self-interest in this case.

As are the critics of those scientists.

 

[Marc]

It has bearing if the scientists are lying about the research in order to promote a fraud.

It's possible some people might be lying, and some might be mistaken, and some might be trying to perpetrate a fraud.

But it is ridiculous to think that all scientists working on the problem would work together to falsify their results. In fact I'd say it's more than ridiculous, it's downright foolish. Science is about following the evidence to an answer, not twisting the evidence to suit the desired answer. (That's politics, not science.) It's one of the reasons why independently verified results are so important to the scientific process.

If global warming is not occurring, scientific results will support this assertion. If it is occurring, scientific results will support that too. Some data may be interpretable to either conclusion; that's the nature of research.

Scientists tend to be fairly apolitical as a group, but unfortunately this particular issue has become politicized. Which means it is all the more important to view the existing data and analyses with a completely unbiased, unprejudiced, apolitical viewpoint.

And why is that only the AGW proponents are accused of lying and falsifyng data give that the oil companies etc etc stand to lose a great deal of money they have a vested interest in the truth not coming out.

 

[David cgc]

It would be nice if such a discussion could be carried out with zero reference to Al Gore, zero references to money-making, zero references to politics, and in fact zero references to anything other than verified data and the scientific interpretation of such.

However, since I doubt we have many climatologists here, that seems unlikely to happen.

Why should there be no reference to Al Gore? His energy usage is off the chart and he's asking us to buy into this propoganda. It's very fair to call his motives into question.

So, if Al Gore's apparent hypocrisy can be used as evidence to disprove the whole of global warming, does that mean Mark Sanford's apparent hypocrisy can be used as evidence to disprove Christianity?

Sanford committed adultery, yet he'd have us buy into this propaganda that you need to live a Christian life to not go to Hell after you die. Since he clearly doesn't believe that himself, doesn't that suggest the entire religion is a scam?

(And, being RCC, I should know a little something about scam religions. Keep wearing those prada shoes, padre! At this rate, the poor really will always be with us!)

 

[TheLonelySquire]

It would be nice if such a discussion could be carried out with zero reference to Al Gore, zero references to money-making, zero references to politics, and in fact zero references to anything other than verified data and the scientific interpretation of such.

However, since I doubt we have many climatologists here, that seems unlikely to happen.

Why should there be no reference to Al Gore? His energy usage is off the chart and he's asking us to buy into this propoganda. It's very fair to call his motives into question.

So, if Al Gore's apparent hypocrisy can be used as evidence to disprove the whole of global warming, does that mean Mark Sanford's apparent hypocrisy can be used as evidence to disprove Christianity?

Sanford committed adultery, yet he'd have us buy into this propaganda that you need to live a Christian life to not go to Hell after you die. Since he clearly doesn't believe that himself, doesn't that suggest the entire religion is a scam?

(And, being RCC, I should know a little something about scam religions. Keep wearing those prada shoes, padre! At this rate, the poor really will always be with us!)

Mark Sanford is not leading the charge for Christianity. I'd agree he is also a liar though.

 

[Arrqh]

Honestly, if the leaked emails are accurate it is a damning piece of evidence that data manipulation and opponent marginalization has and is taking place.

Even if this is the case, if only applies to the people who sent the emails which is but a subgroup of scientists working in climatology. You would toss aside all the other similar conclusions that have been independently reached because of this? That isn't objective in the slightest.

Further, Al Gore is not "leading the charge" either. He's a politician who has set himself up as a self-proclaimed spokesperson. He is not a scientist. He is not the one with data and climate models and all that other good stuff. Attack him if you want to attack the politics around climate change, but acting as if you are making a valid point on the science is nothing but a straw man.

 

[RJDiogenes]

It would have to be a pretty extensive conspiracy to falsify the collapsing ice shelves, shrinking glaciers and changing weather patterns. In fact, in my area, they've been able to falsify the actual weather.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Reposting my post from a similar topic in TNZ:
_________________________________________

- Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion. Some organisations hold non-committal positions.

- Since 2001, 32 national science academies have come together to issue joint declarations confirming anthropogenic global warming, and urging the nations of the world to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The signatories of these statements have been the national science academies of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Cameroon, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Ghana, Germany, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, India, Japan, Kenya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, New Zealand, Russia, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Sweden, Tanzania, Uganda, United Kingdom, United States, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

- With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

The conclusion that global warming is mainly caused by human activity and will continue if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced has been endorsed by more than 75 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Meteorological Society, the International Union for Quaternary Research, and the Joint Science Academies of the major industrialized and developing nations explicitly use the word "consensus" when referring to this conclusion.

A 2004 essay by Naomi Oreskes in the journal Science reported a survey of 928 abstracts of peer-reviewed papers related to global climate change in the ISI database. Oreskes claimed that "Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. ... This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies." Benny Peiser claimed to have found flaws in Oreskes' work, but his attempted refutation is disputed and has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal. Peiser later withdrew parts of his criticism, also commenting that "the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact. However, this majority consensus is far from unanimous."

A survey published in 2009 by Peter Doran and Maggie Zimmerman of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago of 3146 Earth Scientists found that 97% of active climatologists agree that human activity is causing global warming.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_consensus

Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have long been hostile to international climate change negotiations, so their scientific organizations may well have official positions opposing the consensus. However, the Saudis are apparently changing their stance, as announced in May 2006 at a U.N. sponsored meeting in Germany. "I believe the petroleum industry should actively engage in policy debate on climate change as well as play an active role in developing and implementing carbon management technologies to meet future challenges," said the president of the Saudi state-run oil industry giant, Aramco. In 2005, both Saudi Arabia and Kuwait signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol to limit greenhouse gases.

http://www.wunderground.com/education/928.asp

Even many nations and organizations whose economic well-being is dependent on fossil fuels have at least changed from a hostile to a non-committal or supportive position, thus throwing out the "only doing this for the money" argument.

Before someone tries to dismiss the excerpts above because they come from Wikipedia, every one of those commentaries has a link back to their source down at the bottom of the page.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

Reposting my post from a similar topic in TNZ:
_________________________________________

- Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion. Some organisations hold non-committal positions.

- Since 2001, 32 national science academies have come together to issue joint declarations confirming anthropogenic global warming, and urging the nations of the world to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The signatories of these statements have been the national science academies of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Cameroon, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Ghana, Germany, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, India, Japan, Kenya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, New Zealand, Russia, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Sweden, Tanzania, Uganda, United Kingdom, United States, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

- With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

The conclusion that global warming is mainly caused by human activity and will continue if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced has been endorsed by more than 75 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Meteorological Society, the International Union for Quaternary Research, and the Joint Science Academies of the major industrialized and developing nations explicitly use the word "consensus" when referring to this conclusion.

A 2004 essay by Naomi Oreskes in the journal Science reported a survey of 928 abstracts of peer-reviewed papers related to global climate change in the ISI database. Oreskes claimed that "Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. ... This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies." Benny Peiser claimed to have found flaws in Oreskes' work, but his attempted refutation is disputed and has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal. Peiser later withdrew parts of his criticism, also commenting that "the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact. However, this majority consensus is far from unanimous."

A survey published in 2009 by Peter Doran and Maggie Zimmerman of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago of 3146 Earth Scientists found that 97% of active climatologists agree that human activity is causing global warming.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_consensus

Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have long been hostile to international climate change negotiations, so their scientific organizations may well have official positions opposing the consensus. However, the Saudis are apparently changing their stance, as announced in May 2006 at a U.N. sponsored meeting in Germany. "I believe the petroleum industry should actively engage in policy debate on climate change as well as play an active role in developing and implementing carbon management technologies to meet future challenges," said the president of the Saudi state-run oil industry giant, Aramco. In 2005, both Saudi Arabia and Kuwait signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol to limit greenhouse gases.

http://www.wunderground.com/education/928.asp

Even many nations and organizations whose economic well-being is dependent on fossil fuels have at least changed from a hostile to a non-committal or supportive position, thus throwing out the "only doing this for the money" argument.

Before someone tries to dismiss the excerpts above because they come from Wikipedia, every one of those commentaries has a link back to their source down at the bottom of the page.

Sure, if you were a climatologist and were given falsified or "generously interpreted" data, you might go along with it as well.

Question: Why were these scientists hiding data exactly? Why were they trying to hide the decline in temperature? Or is this all a lie?

 

[Deckerd]

It's remarkably difficult to hide what the planet's weather is doing.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

It's remarkably difficult to hide what the planet's weather is doing.

And you hit it on the head.

Weather.

 

[Roger Wilco]

Damn, Deckerd, why did you have to misspeak? Now the whole conspiracy is exposed.