Science held hostage in climate debate

If they cant make a name for themselves they have no career to spend their time on or make money.

Peer review doesn't check of validity. All peer review does is look to see if the author make any glaring errors. Peer reviewers don't have the information at their disposal nor the time to actually validate a studies findings. There is a huge misconception in the general public exactly what a peer review entails.

Please have you paid attention at all to the arguments that go on in science. You are creating a strawman. A scientists may not say that they have all the answers but when they say that something is correct they will often defend that assertion through means well outside of the scientific method. They cannot afford to be proven wrong.

You should care about 1000 applicants. We have too many universities turning out too many PhDs for too few posts. This encourages corruption.

 

By selling their reputation on the UN agenda, science in general has forfeited credibility for decades to come.

 

In the past week 1,011 records broken... including 251 new daily high temperature records tuesday.

This is in the U.S.

We are having a heat wave....step outside ....you cannot deny it.

 

Amazing how easily impressed some people are.

By your reasoning I most certainly can, as it's been on the cool side in my neck of the woods.

 

Must be near the west coast....the sea level is still rising 1.7 mm a year and carbon dioxide in the air is still increasing.

It fits in the models.

 

Chiming in as someone who has an award on the wall as "Staff Scientist", I would volunteer that I go out of my way to give every other publishing scientist on the planet the means to prove me wrong, because if I don't, I really am not doing "science". Can't afford to be proven wrong? Ridiculous...science is all about taking your best idea and concept and data...and then finding the people who hate you or the idea the most, and handing them all the machine guns and ammo they need to swiss cheese your idea. The quality of the idea then being determined by its bulletproofness.

This comes from the experience of 3 professional society reviews in the past decade, one Academy of Science review (with another expected within a year I imagine). Of course, I don't work with anyone who has ever claimed that "the science is settled" (thereby proving they don't know anything about science).

 

I applaud you for making your data and methods available. Unfortunately, that is not the case in climate science and many sciences associated with academic institutions.

To quote Dr. Phill Jones he seems to have an entirely opposite view from you.

“Why should I make my data available to you when your only objective is to find something wrong with it?”

As I said in academia there are simply too many PhDs being turned out so keeping your power has become more important than engaging in good science.

Then we are both in agreement that academics and climate science don't know anything about science since they say that all the time.

 

Do you think the primary religions are judged by the behaviors and actions of Reverend Jim Jones?

The 'few' whore scientists cannot be used to stereotype all scientific study...

 

Bernie Madoff pretty much puts the lie to that, having run a blatant Ponzi scheme for decades under the noses -- and with the enthusiastic admiration -- of the whole financial, investment and regulatory community.

 

the politicisation of climate science by the denialist lobby has dumbed down the (especially) american public's understanding of science as much as the creationists and IDers have done.

The science is credible, no matter how much the denialists try to pretend it isn't.

 

Nonsense.

Sure it's credible. So are skeptical arguments. It is La Carbonostra that has unscientifically claimed the science is not only credible but "settled," not the skeptical side.

 

Madoff will spend the rest of his life in prison, as well as others involved in similar Ponzi schemes.

Many companies and people avoided Madoff because they sensed something was fishy, so only those who never question 12% annual returns on their investments got caught up in his scheme.

No matter, makes no difference the job, if someone deceives or has greedy actions, it will catch up with them...

 

Reference; Originally Posted by cassandrabandra
the politicisation of climate science by the denialist lobby has dumbed down the (especially) american public's understanding of science as much as the creationists and IDers have done.
Nonsense.

The science is credible, no matter how much the denialists try to pretend it isn't.

Cassandrabandra's comments above are spot on so please explain why you believe their comments are nonsense?

There is zero doubt the Earth's temperatures are rising.
There is zero doubt that mankind is contributing to this climate change.
There is zero doubt that glaciers are melting and ocean levels are rising.
There is zero doubt that if this trend continues there will be crisis.

Please provide some facts that dispute any of the above??

 

There is no evidence whatever that CO2 Armageddon skeptics have dumbed down the American public's understanding of science as much as creationists and IDers.

Wrong. There is zero doubt that the earth's temperatures WERE rising until about 15 years ago. There is now plenty of doubt that the earth's temperatures ARE rising.

That is trivially true, but there is great doubt about the magnitude and principal mechanism of that contribution.

As they have been since long before anthropogenic CO2 could possibly have been a significant factor. The melting glaciers have uncovered villages dating to the Medieval Warm Period. Hello? That proves the glaciers weren't there then.

What trend? The non-trend of the last 15 years, when CO2 continued its exponential rise? Any honest analysis of climate data shows it is cyclical, not a trend.

And what crisis would that be? Periods of warm climate are called "optimums" because they are BETTER FOR PEOPLE THAN PERIODS OF COLD CLIMATE.

http://www.politicalforum.com/envir...climate-change-hysteria-5.html#post1061393592

 

You're right. The creationists are dumbing us down more. But that doesn't mean climate denial is scientific.

You might as well say there is doubt that the earth's temperature has risen in the past week. The signal-to-noise ratio in global temperatures requires 17 years of data to unambiguously detect a signal in annual data (Santer et al. 2011).

But you can reduce that noise subtracting out the effects of El Niño, the Sun, and volcanoes. And when you do that, global temperatures are rising unambiguously, and have been for decades. See Foster & Rahmstorf 2011.

No there isn't. All attribution studies to date have given very similar results. Here they are:


The human contribution is about 100% to 120% of the observed warming over the last 50 to 65 years.

Glacier melting is also caused by the significant albedo change due to carbon soot, a product of coal burning. In other words, once you start coal burning, you don't have to wait for CO2 increase to melt glaciers.

False. The last 180 months of GISS global temperature data shows a statisically significant warming trend. Ditto NCDC, ditto HADCRUT4. You've been lied to.

It's fairer to say that warm climates are called "optimums" by European and American scientists who live in cold climates. No Indonesian scientist would use "optimum" for a warm climate.

 

If the heat continues in the corn belt for the next few weeks there will be a greatly reduced corn harvest.

How is this "optimum" and better for people.

And since we have been roasting here in the south with temperatures in the triple digits how is this better for people than a cold climate?

The old with little money will start to die off first.

This heat can be a real killer.

 

From WHO...http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs266/en/

Excerpts;

Climate change affects the fundamental requirements for health – clean air, safe drinking water, sufficient food and secure shelter.

The global warming that has occurred since the 1970s was causing over 140 000 excess deaths annually by the year 2004.
Many of the major killers such as diarrhoeal diseases, malnutrition, malaria and dengue are highly climate-sensitive and are expected to worsen as the climate changes.

Areas with weak health infrastructure – mostly in developing countries – will be the least able to cope without assistance to prepare and respond.

In the last 100 years, the world has warmed by approximately 0.75oC. Over the last 25 years, the rate of global warming has accelerated, at over 0.18oC per decade.

Sea levels are rising, glaciers are melting and precipitation patterns are changing. Extreme weather events are becoming more intense and frequent.

Extreme high air temperatures contribute directly to deaths from cardiovascular and respiratory disease, particularly among elderly people. In the heat wave of summer 2003 in Europe for example, more than 70 000 excess deaths were recorded.

High temperatures also raise the levels of ozone and other pollutants in the air that exacerbate cardiovascular and respiratory disease. Urban air pollution causes about 1.2 million deaths every year.

Pollen and other aeroallergen levels are also higher in extreme heat. These can trigger asthma, which affects around 300 million people. Ongoing temperature increases are expected to increase this burden.

Globally, the number of reported weather-related natural disasters has more than tripled since the 1960s. Every year, these disasters result in over 60 000 deaths, mainly in developing countries.

Increasingly variable rainfall patterns are likely to affect the supply of fresh water. A lack of safe water can compromise hygiene and increase the risk of diarrhoeal disease, which kills 2.2 million people every year. In extreme cases, water scarcity leads to drought and famine.

Rising temperatures and variable precipitation are likely to decrease the production of staple foods in many of the poorest regions – by up to 50% by 2020 in some African countries4. This will increase the prevalence of malnutrition and undernutrition, which currently cause 3.5 million deaths every year.

Malaria is strongly influenced by climate. Transmitted by Anopheles mosquitoes, malaria kills almost 1 million people every year – mainly African children under five years old. The Aedes mosquito vector of dengue is also highly sensitive to climate conditions. Studies suggest that climate change could expose an additional 2 billion people to dengue transmission by the 2080s.

A WHO assessment, taking into account only a subset of the possible health impacts, concluded that the modest warming that has occurred since the 1970s was already causing over 140 000 excess deaths annually by the year 2004.