What Climate Wars Did To Science

[jsgolfer]

Clearly.

Please learn to read.-Maybe it is your inability to read that leads you to think that a one-year blip is all it takes to reverse decades of ice loss.

I never said you WANTED to leave the world worse off.

So, not a strawman.-Just misreading on your part.

And Sorry-I will go with scientists and decades of data over a one-year blip-There are lots of them in those charts- and a hunch of some guy on a forum that is not even dedicated to talking about this topic.

I've been working in the environmental field for over 20 years, I'm well versed about the complexities of the models, problems with the data and the issues with the climate.  I was an Engineering consultant for the EPA on climate change issues dealing with water supplies, so my opinions aren't just a hunch.  After working with several EPA scientists, I'm highly suspect with the accuracy of the data involved (there is a lot of fitting to the data going on) and their reluctance to not go against the status quo and provide whatever it is that the bosses want to see.

[Phil McGleno]

You've gone pretty far for someone who can't read. ;-) I think your allegations that scientists are misleading people to please their bosses is disrespectful to hard working intelligent scientists. Decades of data.-You cited one year. That's bad science. Tapping out.-Good luck to your grandchildren.

[iacas]

You've gone pretty far for someone who can't read. ;-)

I see the smiley but cool it.

[David in FL]

You've gone pretty far for someone who can't read. ;-) I think your allegations that scientists are misleading people to please their bosses is disrespectful to hard working intelligent scientists. Decades of data.-You cited one year. That's bad science. Tapping out.-Good luck to your grandchildren.

Just because someone is hard working and intelligent, doesn't mean that they can't have an agenda. Some may, some may not. Saying that one individual or group does, doesn't impugn the entire population.

[jsgolfer]

You've gone pretty far for someone who can't read.

I think your allegations that scientists are misleading people to please their bosses is disrespectful to hard working intelligent scientists.

Decades of data.-You cited one year. That's bad science.

Tapping out.-Good luck to your grandchildren.

Good luck to you Phil and your unquestioning belief in catastrophic human-induced climate change and the ultimate doom it brings.

[iacas]

Good luck to you Phil and your unquestioning belief in catastrophic human-induced climate change and the ultimate doom it brings.

He said no such stuff. I take back my "cool it" comment. Wow. And @David in FL your post makes no sense either. Talk about misreading things. @jsgolfer disrespected the majority of scientists he didn't say "one might" or anything like that.

[David in FL]

He said no such stuff. I take back my "cool it" comment. Wow. And @David in FL your post makes no sense either. Talk about misreading things. @jsgolfer disrespected the majority of scientists he didn't say "one might" or anything like that.

He specifically spoke of ÉPA scientists, an extremely small subset of scientists. Phil, and now you, applied that statement as impugning all, or the majority of scientists. I'm not arguing one side or the other here, but i hate to see what @jsgolfer mischaracterized.

[iacas]

He specifically spoke of ÉPA scientists, an extremely small subset of scientists. Phil, and now you, applied that statement as impugning all, or the majority of scientists. I'm not arguing one side or the other here, but i hate to see what @jsgolfer mischaracterized.

Okay. Even if that was true (there are far more scientists than EPA ones publishing results on climate change) he impugned the majority of EPA scientists. Are you okay with @jsgolfer mischaracterizing things others say? I'll assume not but you didn't seem it necessary to point that out. Now then, @Phil McGleno says he's done so about him and this we are too. Both parties made mistakes here.

[Gunther]

I've been working in the environmental field for over 20 years, I'm well versed about the complexities of the models, problems with the data and the issues with the climate.  I was an Engineering consultant for the EPA on climate change issues dealing with water supplies, so my opinions aren't just a hunch.  After working with several EPA scientists, I'm highly suspect with the accuracy of the data involved (there is a lot of fitting to the data going on) and their reluctance to not go against the status quo and provide whatever it is that the bosses want to see.

Great post, I appreciate the knowledge of someone who actually worked in the field and understands the inner workings.

[rkim291968]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsgolfer

I've been working in the environmental field for over 20 years, I'm well versed about the complexities of the models, problems with the data and the issues with the climate.  I was an Engineering consultant for the EPA on climate change issues dealing with water supplies, so my opinions aren't just a hunch.  After working with several EPA scientists, I'm highly suspect with the accuracy of the data involved (there is a lot of fitting to the data going on) and their reluctance to not go against the status quo and provide whatever it is that the bosses want to see.

Great post, I appreciate the knowledge of someone who actually worked in the field and understands the inner workings.

I read most of @jsgolfer 's posts in this thread.   He is at the other end of spectrum against the "alarmist" many of whom are (I assume) just as "versed about the complexities of the models, problems," etc..    Data he pointed to may support his arguments but there are far more scientific data  that goes against his belief.    I read his threads with lots of grain of salt although I respected his view points.

Heard it on radio on my way to work that Washington is seeing a lot of wildfires a la California due to climate change.  In 2014, I took an Alaska cruise and saw in person how rapidly the ice sheets are retrieving.    Climate is changing at rapid rate and (I think) even @jsgolfer noted that some of that could be man induced.   I believe it is the opposite that the current climate change is mostly caused by humans in the last 200 years.

[mdl]

Even with ice cores you still have to make pretty liberal assumptions on what the exact climate was like. There might be other factors we do not know about that don't leave data in the ice cores.

I am not dismissing the data. The data is the data, but interpreting the data is the key. At best they might have a decent hunch as to what climate close to being. A hunch is not definitive answers. Can we say the world was warmer, probably. Can we say by how much, not sure. There is always a good amount of variance. To assume we know exactly what the climate was by taking ice samples from one area in the world is highly short sited.

I have a statistics PhD and have been colleagues with a number of people who work in climate modeling.  Human causation of climate change isn't a hunch.  Pretending that uncertainty about the degree of measurement error and association of various measurements with other features of interest and general variance of both measurement and the natural processes under investigation implies that the correct answer is a wave of the hands and a declaration that we just don't know and shouldn't take any actions based on hunches is either deeply uninformed, willfully deluded, or gullibly propagandized.

I'm not going to write 10,000 words about it, but suffice it to say that the evidence that the globe is warming and that it's caused by human activity is as strong or stronger than the evidence for many many things that basically everyone thinks is true without question.  Almost everyone accepts that smoking causes cancer, because it does, but we can't run experiments on that either and it isn't "proven" to the degree that climate skeptics insist we must prove global warming and human causation before we should take action.

[Lihu]

[QUOTE name="iacas" url="/t/83264/what-climate-wars-did-to-science/90#post_1173535"] He said no such stuff. I take back my "cool it" comment. Wow. And [@=/u/13691/David-in-FL]@David in FL[/@] your post makes no sense either. Talk about misreading things. [@=/u/49016/jsgolfer]@jsgolfer[/@] disrespected the majority of scientists he didn't say "one might" or anything like that.[/QUOTE] I don't believe I disrespected the majority of EPA scientists, climate science is a small subset of all scientists in the government but they have one of the largest voices (or at least one of the largest in the media).   But if you do think I overstepped my bounds, I will post no more on this subject.

As you know, data from science can be represented many ways. When it comes to something as nonspecific as climate "science" politicians are free to show anything they like conservative or liberal. I'm trying to say scientists might not be to blame, and they're human as well. This is why we have science. It's an attempt to place facts and theories in an unbiased manner for other scientists to confirm or deny. If you feel the current theories are incorrect you would need to put your own theories and data for other scientists to evaluate. Statements made without any proof nor data are worthless.

[jsgolfer]

As you know, data from science can be represented many ways. When it comes to something as nonspecific as climate "science" politicians are free to show anything they like conservative or liberal. I'm trying to say scientists might not be to blame, and they're human as well. This is why we have science. It's an attempt to place facts and theories in an unbiased manner for other scientists to confirm or deny. If you feel the current theories are incorrect you would need to put your own theories and data for other scientists to evaluate. Statements made without any proof nor data are worthless.

Unfortunately, unless you totally agree with man-made global warming and let's say it's the sun or natural variability, you are considered a.......

[Lihu]

[quote name="Lihu" url="/t/83264/what-climate-wars-did-to-science/90#post_1173866"] As you know, data from science can be represented many ways. When it comes to something as nonspecific as climate "science" politicians are free to show anything they like conservative or liberal. I'm trying to say scientists might not be to blame, and they're human as well. This is why we have science. It's an attempt to place facts and theories in an unbiased manner for other scientists to confirm or deny. If you feel the current theories are incorrect you would need to put your own theories and data for other scientists to evaluate. Statements made without any proof nor data are worthless.

Unfortunately, unless you totally agree with man-made global warming and let's say it's the sun or natural variability, you are considered a.......[/quote] Science is not about "totally agreeing" with anything. It's about presenting data in a manner that attempts to prove the theory being presented.

[CR McDivot]

Science is not about "totally agreeing" with anything. It's about presenting data in a(n unbiased manner) that attempts to either proves (or disproves) the theory being presented.

Fixed it for ya!

[Lihu]

[QUOTE name="Lihu" url="/t/83264/what-climate-wars-did-to-science/90#post_1173938"] Science is not about "totally agreeing" with anything. It's about presenting data in [COLOR=FF0000]a(n unbiased manner)[/COLOR] that [S]attempts[/S] [S]to[/S] either prove[COLOR=FF0000]s[/COLOR] [COLOR=FF0000](or disproves)[/COLOR] the theory being presented.[/QUOTE] Fixed it for ya!

Thanks, except that science doesn't claim absolute truths.

[CR McDivot]

Thanks, except that science doesn't claim absolute truths.

Thus indicating that man made climate change is more religion than science. Those who question the shaky theory are promptly declared to be heretics.

[dkolo]

Thus indicating that man made climate change is more religion than science. ;-) Those who question the shaky theory are promptly declared to be heretics.

Calling it a shaky theory at this point is blithely misrepresenting the truth of the matter.