What Climate Wars Did To Science

[iacas]

1 hour ago, 14ledo81 said:

"There is a severe social or economic penalty for having the “wrong” opinion in the field. As I already said, I agree with the consensus of climate scientists because saying otherwise in public would be social and career suicide for me even as a cartoonist. Imagine how much worse the pressure would be if science was my career.  "

Scientists are taught to buck the established thinking and so on. There's less pressure on scientists to "conform." They are constantly challenging things. It's a big part of what makes me the way I am as a golf instructor. Scientists are, by their very nature, skeptics. They want to test things, get their own data, etc.

Yes, they build off others, but if they discover that the foundation on which they're building their research has holes, they look to rip it apart and either plug the holes or disassemble the whole thing.

A cartoonist is no more qualified to speak on what "pressures" scientists face than a scientist is on what's funny in a cartoon strip.

[phillyk]

3 minutes ago, Gunther said:

Admirable because I know how devout you are on this topic.

I am a proud denier of AGW although climate change cannot be denied.  That's why/how the term came to be.  And, I am interested in learning more about coral reef degradation; not a believer that it's man-caused but willing to keep an open mind.

I definitely lean heavily one way, but if it eventually comes out that it is completely wrong, I'll gladly admit I was wrong.

[newtogolf]

43 minutes ago, iacas said:

Scientists are taught to buck the established thinking and so on. There's less pressure on scientists to "conform." They are constantly challenging things. It's a big part of what makes me the way I am as a golf instructor. Scientists are, by their very nature, skeptics. They want to test things, get their own data, etc.

Yes, they build off others, but if they discover that the foundation on which they're building their research has holes, they look to rip it apart and either plug the holes or disassemble the whole thing.

A cartoonist is no more qualified to speak on what "pressures" scientists face than a scientist is on what's funny in a cartoon strip.

I agree that's how it works, but most scientist depend on grant money or are work for businesses that do have an agenda.  Science is big business today and many scientists will compromise their ethics to avoid going hungry and homeless.  

If I came to you and offered you a million dollars to teach me to swing a golf club like Moe Norman or Jim Furyk would you accept even though your primary teachings and philosophy don't focus on individual swings philosophies but common keys?  

[iacas]

15 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

I agree that's how it works, but most scientist depend on grant money or are work for businesses that do have an agenda.  Science is big business today and many scientists will compromise their ethics to avoid going hungry and homeless.  

If I came to you and offered you a million dollars to teach me to swing a golf club like Moe Norman or Jim Furyk would you accept even though your primary teachings and philosophy don't focus on individual swings philosophies but common keys?  

I'd take your money and then do what I wanted.

I get the realities but I don't think scientists are as quick to cave on their scientific morals as you do.

[newtogolf]

15 minutes ago, iacas said:

I'd take your money and then do what I wanted.

I get the realities but I don't think scientists are as quick to cave on their scientific morals as you do.

I tend to be a realist with pessimist leanings when it comes to humanity and self interest, so point taken.  

I don't always believe it's the scientists that cave on their scientific morals as much as it is they aren't in a position to do much because of business interests, politics, etc.  

[14ledo81]

2 hours ago, iacas said:

Scientists are taught to buck the established thinking and so on. There's less pressure on scientists to "conform." They are constantly challenging things. It's a big part of what makes me the way I am as a golf instructor. Scientists are, by their very nature, skeptics. They want to test things, get their own data, etc.

Yes, they build off others, but if they discover that the foundation on which they're building their research has holes, they look to rip it apart and either plug the holes or disassemble the whole thing.

A cartoonist is no more qualified to speak on what "pressures" scientists face than a scientist is on what's funny in a cartoon strip.

I was thinking about how it applied to "regular" people more than scientists.

[jsgolfer]

6 hours ago, iacas said:

I'd take your money and then do what I wanted.

I get the realities but I don't think scientists are as quick to cave on their scientific morals as you do.

For any other discipline other than Climate Science, I would totally be in agreement with you.  

Read a couple of these and you might change your mind on whether being skeptical on climate change will allow you to keep your funding. 

http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/12/03/extreme-weather-expert-dr-roger-pielke-jr-my-unhappy-life-as-a-climate-heretic/

https://judithcurry.com/2010/10/25/heresy-and-the-creation-of-monsters/

There are others who have been ostracized by not going the climate change dogma.

 

[Gunther]

30 minutes ago, jsgolfer said:

For any other discipline other than Climate Science, I would totally be in agreement with you.  

Read a couple of these and you might change your mind on whether being skeptical on climate change will allow you to keep your funding. 

http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/12/03/extreme-weather-expert-dr-roger-pielke-jr-my-unhappy-life-as-a-climate-heretic/

https://judithcurry.com/2010/10/25/heresy-and-the-creation-of-monsters/

There are others who have been ostracized by not going the climate change dogma.

 

I think you stole my bedtime reading list, lol.  This and many hundreds of other articles are why I'm an assured AGW denier. If it were all true, there would be no need for the legion of demonstrable falsification, fraud and lies that have followed this illicit hoax since day 1.

[newtogolf]

51 minutes ago, jsgolfer said:

For any other discipline other than Climate Science, I would totally be in agreement with you.  

Read a couple of these and you might change your mind on whether being skeptical on climate change will allow you to keep your funding. 

http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/12/03/extreme-weather-expert-dr-roger-pielke-jr-my-unhappy-life-as-a-climate-heretic/

https://judithcurry.com/2010/10/25/heresy-and-the-creation-of-monsters/

There are others who have been ostracized by not going the climate change dogma.

 

But it's not just climate change.  Look hard enough at "science" and you'll find in many cases it's about money and politics, not science.  How did businesses get approval to add tiny plastic balls to tooth paste, face scrubs, etc and no one in science figured out before hand that these plastic balls wouldn't get filtered out at waste treatment plants and kill fish?  

How about all the drugs that have been released and deemed safe by scientists only to be recalled due to severe side effects.  How about pesticides that were developed by science that have been banned.  

Science wants to be about facts but usually the best they get to is theory based on available data.  

[boogielicious]

7 hours ago, newtogolf said:

But it's not just climate change.  Look hard enough at "science" and you'll find in many cases it's about money and politics, not science.  How did businesses get approval to add tiny plastic balls to tooth paste, face scrubs, etc and no one in science figured out before hand that these plastic balls wouldn't get filtered out at waste treatment plants and kill fish?  

How about all the drugs that have been released and deemed safe by scientists only to be recalled due to severe side effects.  How about pesticides that were developed by science that have been banned.  

Science wants to be about facts but usually the best they get to is theory based on available data.  

You've left off the "money" variable. Money changes everything. There are huge dollars in Pharma, so there will always be a battle between the researchers and the finance department. Same with pesticides, big money and less will go towards research. Profits drive the releases.

Research takes time. Data collection is expensive. Data doesn't have feelings. Data isn't liberal or conservative. It is just data. The more you have, that is collected with sound scientific methods, the better the model will be for safety, predictions, etc.

There are also huge dollars in denying the affect humans have on climate change. I feel that is the primary motivation behind the deniers. They are not arguing the math per se. They want to keep the status quo so their bottom line improves, so they fit their model that way.

[newtogolf]

39 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

You've left off the "money" variable. Money changes everything. There are huge dollars in Pharma, so there will always be a battle between the researchers and the finance department. Same with pesticides, big money and less will go towards research. Profits drive the releases.

Research takes time. Data collection is expensive. Data doesn't have feelings. Data isn't liberal or conservative. It is just data. The more you have, that is collected with sound scientific methods, the better the model will be for safety, predictions, etc.

There are also huge dollars in denying the affect humans have on climate change. I feel that is the primary motivation behind the deniers. They are not arguing the math per se. They want to keep the status quo so their bottom line improves, so they fit their model that way.

I said in my first statement, it's about "money and politics"  I'm fully aware of the impact of money and now politics which is why I don't fully trust science. 

[phillyk]

10 hours ago, Gunther said:

I think you stole my bedtime reading list, lol.  This and many hundreds of other articles are why I'm an assured AGW denier. If it were all true, there would be no need for the legion of demonstrable falsification, fraud and lies that have followed this illicit hoax since day 1.

I just want to see where you lay on this. Let's assume for this question that only man made functions can change the climate, so no natural changing functions.  Which way do human activities tip the scale.  There are only 3 ways to go: either humans are actually cooling the earth, they are warming the earth, or they don't effect the earth whatsoever.  Where do you lay?

Seriously, there really is only one answer, in that they can only be helping to warm the earth.  This isn't talking about by how much we are warming it.  This is just saying that we are, if anything, most likely warming it regardless of what natural changes may occur.

[Gunther]

12 minutes ago, phillyk said:

I just want to see where you lay on this. Let's assume for this question that only man made functions can change the climate, so no natural changing functions.  Which way do human activities tip the scale.  There are only 3 ways to go: either humans are actually cooling the earth, they are warming the earth, or they don't effect the earth whatsoever.  Where do you lay?

Seriously, there really is only one answer, in that they can only be helping to warm the earth.  This isn't talking about by how much we are warming it.  This is just saying that we are, if anything, most likely warming it regardless of what natural changes may occur.

Humans affect the earth, they do not affect the earth's temperatures.  

[phillyk]

10 hours ago, newtogolf said:

But it's not just climate change.  Look hard enough at "science" and you'll find in many cases it's about money and politics, not science.  How did businesses get approval to add tiny plastic balls to tooth paste, face scrubs, etc and no one in science figured out before hand that these plastic balls wouldn't get filtered out at waste treatment plants and kill fish?  

How about all the drugs that have been released and deemed safe by scientists only to be recalled due to severe side effects.  How about pesticides that were developed by science that have been banned.  

Science wants to be about facts but usually the best they get to is theory based on available data.  

It's always been our best guess or option based on data we have.  It's the marketing department that wants to tell you facts and that this drug is the only possible option.  The deeming of being safe or not is not by the people making the drug but by drug administrations having to decide whether to try and save 950 people and let 50 die from side effects or let all 1,000 people die.  It also doesn't stop there, though. While they may be trying out this drug for the first time that doesn't work as well, they may have upgraded and developed a new drug that works better, but must go through trials again.  And when that comes out or something better comes out, they can ban the worse one.

Science is not meant to be perfect, but people expect it to be.  My mom will be the first to tell you that while her drug can cure HEP C in 99% of patients, it is not perfect.  So they will continue to modify what can be modified until they are satisfied with the results.

[iacas]

4 hours ago, boogielicious said:

There are also huge dollars in denying the affect humans have on climate change. I feel that is the primary motivation behind the deniers. They are not arguing the math per se. They want to keep the status quo so their bottom line improves, so they fit their model that way.

Yeah, I think that the money argument would tend to lean that way - favoring the "deniers." There's almost always more money in fighting a change to the status quo.

1 hour ago, Gunther said:

Humans affect the earth, they do not affect the earth's temperatures.  

So… if we put a bunch of greenhouse gases in the air and that traps more of the sun's energy, the earth's temperature increases, and yet… we didn't affect that?

[Lihu]

52 minutes ago, phillyk said:

It's always been our best guess or option based on data we have.  It's the marketing department that wants to tell you facts and that this drug is the only possible option.  The deeming of being safe or not is not by the people making the drug but by drug administrations having to decide whether to try and save 950 people and let 50 die from side effects or let all 1,000 people die.  It also doesn't stop there, though. While they may be trying out this drug for the first time that doesn't work as well, they may have upgraded and developed a new drug that works better, but must go through trials again.  And when that comes out or something better comes out, they can ban the worse one.

Science is not meant to be perfect, but people expect it to be.  My mom will be the first to tell you that while her drug can cure HEP C in 99% of patients, it is not perfect.  So they will continue to modify what can be modified until they are satisfied with the results.

Politically motivated individuals convince the public to believe only that the science that supports their stance are "facts".

Science is very inexact, and most of it is accidentally discovered.

Science, like us, is "human". Some of the things like mathematical truths are exact and universal, but science in general is not exact at all.

[Gunther]

18 minutes ago, iacas said:

So… if we put a bunch of greenhouse gases in the air and that traps more of the sun's energy, the earth's temperature increases.

There is no credible data that supports this statement.  The earth is not warming, indeed, recent studies have shown it may be cooling which would be far more devastating to the planet.  You know where I stand, I've posted 2 or 3 articles in this thread and others (there are hundreds of others out there) that shine a spotlight on the data falsification that NASA and NOAA have engaged in.  There's the East Anglia fraud scheme, and the 97% of scientists believe in AGW hoax (not even close to that).  As I have said, if AGW were in fact legit, there would be no need for the data manipulation and fraud that is legion around this field of study.

There are other deleterious effects man creates for the planet so we must be judicious but global warming isn't among them.

[mdl]

19 minutes ago, Gunther said:

There is no credible data that supports this statement.  The earth is not warming, indeed, recent studies have shown it may be cooling which would be far more devastating to the planet.  You know where I stand, I've posted 2 or 3 articles in this thread and others (there are hundreds of others out there) that shine a spotlight on the data falsification that NASA and NOAA have engaged in.  There's the East Anglia fraud scheme, and the 97% of scientists believe in AGW hoax (not even close to that).  As I have said, if AGW were in fact legit, there would be no need for the data manipulation and fraud that is legion around this field of study.

There are other deleterious effects man creates for the planet so we must be judicious but global warming isn't among them.

Welcome to post-truth America.  The depth of the self-deception is...  I'm not mad, I'm impressed.