World may not be warming, say scientists

[Taejin]

I don't think GW/CC is conclusive at all. The issue is though, if we are seeing the precursor to GW/CC, the price of inaction may be worse than action. But you have to wonder if a few hundreths of a change in the percentage of CO2 is capable of changing the overall temperature of the globe so drastically....?

 

[Paul98]

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/02/25/false-claims-proven-false/

 

[monovillage]

I loved this response from tamino when questioned if he's going to publish this report.

"[Response: I haven't decided whether or not to publish this (peer reviewed). If I don't I'll probably make the code available to those who I consider serious investigators. That does not include denialists.]"

In a later comment he states he's going to try to get it peer reviewed and published.

 

[Atheus]

I've never said, and the post did not say that science is bad. What it does say is that bad science is bad, junk science is bad, advocacy science is bad. Read the quote, it specifically mentions the faults in climate science. Here's a short quote for you.

"criminally secretive, furtively trying to hide their errors, debasing the system of peer review of scientific papers and conspiring to conceal the truth from once highly respected professional publications."

Or to give the full quote without trying to decieve anyone...

"scientists are suddenly and devastatingly revealed as fallible, mendacious, self-seeking, criminally secretive, furtively trying to hide their errors, debasing the system of peer review of scientific papers and conspiring to conceal the truth from once highly respected professional publications."

.. the quote clearly groups 'scientists' into one entity and levels it's accusations at that group as a whole.

Hardly. To take that from his quote is just silly.

It says what we all should already know. That science, no matter how objective it tries to be, it done by humans who are just as biased, subjective and prone to corruption as the rest of us. That science is as corruptible as religion when the masses are told they are too stupid to understand and to just have faith in the preists... I mean scientists.

It means that we SHOULD question everything.

The point of science as opposed to religion is that changing one's mind can be a good thing. Any good scientist, when proven wrong, will eventually accept the scientific proof and move on with new theories. When science fails it is because one or a few individuals have failed to move on - not because the scientific community as a whole has failed. For example Einstein's refusal to accept quantum mechanics held him back in his last years, and held back many younger researchers too who couldn't believe Einstein was so very wrong, but the progressive new guard carried on and developed the quantum theory into the solid piece of science it is today. The difference is that a priest will never change his mind - to do so would be to destroy the foundations of the religion itself. This is why science has a future and religion does not, and is also why you are so very wrong when you say science is as corruptible as religion; your 'corruption' is a scientist's 'progress'. Whatever is eventually conclusively decided some few hundred years from now will be decided by scientists - nobody else.

/edit: spelling

 

[Atheus]

In a later comment he states he's going to try to get it peer reviewed and published.

Good for him - what's wrong with that?

 

[monovillage]

I included the entire article, so no attempt to deceive. In Taminos quote he said he's going to keep the code from anyone who disagrees with his stance. Remind you of anything? such as Mann, Jones etc. from Climategate? Why do you seem so proud of scientists hiding and concealing the methods in which they publish their papers? Hiding, concealing, altering, fudging data to fit with their models? I support the scientific method which allows the free flow of information, not this hiding of data, breaking the law of FOIA release, colluding to prevent alternate views from being published. Keep supporting this junk science all you want, it's obvious Tamino does.

 

[sandorski]

I included the entire article, so no attempt to deceive. In Taminos quote he said he's going to keep the code from anyone who disagrees with his stance. Remind you of anything? such as Mann, Jones etc. from Climategate? Why do you seem so proud of scientists hiding and concealing the methods in which they publish their papers? Hiding, concealing, altering, fudging data to fit with their models? I support the scientific method which allows the free flow of information, not this hiding of data, breaking the law of FOIA release, colluding to prevent alternate views from being published. Keep supporting this junk science all you want, it's obvious Tamino does.

fail.

 

[Throckmorton]

I don't think GW/CC is conclusive at all. The issue is though, if we are seeing the precursor to GW/CC, the price of inaction may be worse than action. Personally though, I don't really see the science as conclusive at all. A few hundreths of a change in the percentage of CO2 changing the overall temperature of the globe so drastically....?

Not a few hundredths... 38-40%

 

[sandorski]

Not a few hundredths... 38-40%

He'd be talking Atmospheric composition. Still nonsense, but the number is small and gives Deniers comfort.

 

[monovillage]

So Sandorski doesn't have any problems with Tamino calling fellow scientists liars, but refuses to show the code on which he bases the charge against them. Why doesn't that surprise me?

 

[Paul98]

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/03/30/how-not-to-analyze-data-part-deux/

 

[sandorski]

So Sandorski doesn't have any problems with Tamino calling fellow scientists liars, but refuses to show the code on which he bases the charge against them. Why doesn't that surprise me?

wut?

 

[monovillage]

fail.

From this post.

 

[monovillage]

Response from Dr. Spencer on a Tamino post

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/08/dr-roy-spencer-evaporates-taminos-critique/

 

[Ozoned]

In the sciences, a scientific theory (also called an empirical theory) comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.


Just a little reminder from wiki

 

[Munky]

fail.

epic fail

 

[sandorski]

epic fail

Glad you agree and thanks for the correction.

 

[Munky]

Glad you agree and thanks for the correction.

/Facepalm

 

[WHAMPOM]

All this 'cause tree ring growth indicated a lower temperature then what was recorded.

 

[monovillage]

If you grant AGW or climate change the status of a theory, then it has to stand the rigors of the scientific method just like all other theories. AGW has made numerous predictions over the last 20 years and if just one is disproved then it disproves the theory. Antarctic ice pack extent is at record levels since 1979, even with a small amount of retreat on the southern peninsula. That's 1. Arctic ice pack extent is higher now then in 2007. That's 2. Polar bear populations are healthy and growing. That's 3. No statistically significant global warming in 15 years. That's 4. There are many, many more examples that disprove the theory. What the establishment climate scientists need to do is come up with new models instead of adjusting and changing the data to fit their old failed models. It's science, not political spin doctoring.

 

[sandorski]

If you grant AGW or climate change the status of a theory, then it has to stand the rigors of the scientific method just like all other theories. AGW has made numerous predictions over the last 20 years and if just one is disproved then it disproves the theory. Antarctic ice pack extent is at record levels since 1979, even with a small amount of retreat on the southern peninsula. That's 1. Arctic ice pack extent is higher now then in 2007. That's 2. Polar bear populations are healthy and growing. That's 3. No statistically significant global warming in 15 years. That's 4. There are many, many more examples that disprove the theory. What the establishment climate scientists need to do is come up with new models instead of adjusting and changing the data to fit their old failed models. It's science, not political spin doctoring.

False. Not one of those examples disproves it.

 

[FerrelGeek]

False. Not one of those examples disproves it.

Dude, you're hopeless. There's simply no other word that fits.

 

[sandorski]

Dude, you're hopeless. There's simply no other word that fits.

If this is hopeless, then that's fine with me. Show something of value and my mind might be changed. So far it's just nonsense, half-truths, and outright Lies.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

If this is hopeless, then that's fine with me. Show something of value and my mind might be changed. So far it's just nonsense, half-truths, and outright Lies.

Precisely!

 

[sandorski]

Precisely!

Glad you agree that the Deniers got nothing. Progress is being made here.