AGW: The Fiddling with Temperature Data is the Biggest Science Scandal Ever

Is that what you take from what I said? I was just pointing out that it was funny how those who belong to the religion of "science" are almost always arrogant dicks about things they think they know....then something new surfaces to disprove what they thought they knew and they immediately go to being arrogant dicks about the new thing they think they know without acknowledging that those who questioned their previously held belief were right.

For example, if in 50 years, our understanding of climate science is different than today and the AGW theory is debunked, will those who made asses of themselves about the subject admit it? Of course not. They'll be on to a new topic to be arrogant about, just constantly telling tales out of school.

 

Ah, I get it, you don't know enough to know that you are wrong. Fair enough, I'm fine with you believing that the current understanding of evolution is the same as it was in 1859.

One shouldn't "believe" in a scientific theory, yet....

 

That isn't what i said at all, but i should have expected such a reply from someone e like you.

 

You might as well be a solipsist. You act as if someone on this message board is denying that scientific observations/laws/theories have the ability to be altered from new observational data. That is the point of science. It wants to admit it's wrong. All scientific principles are constantly being challenged and reassessed. Your statement about the "religion of science" speaks volumes about your preconceived bias.
Your logic propagates the notion that we should NEVER heed the warnings that scientists pose as their theories and data constantly change. Asteroid in a trajectory towards Earth in a few hundred years? No point in heeding their warnings as science constantly changes. Even if they are wrong and we "mistakenly" act on their premature warnings about climate change what would follow from this grave mistake? Our independence from fossil fuels? I shiver from the notion. Well, at least oil companies do.

 

yet I understand that the current theory on climate change propagated by a overwhelming consensus of climate scientists is the current best explanation. Could the predictions be altered and redacted within the next few decades from newer data? Of course. Does that mean we should ignore climate scientists' warnings? If you are the type of half-wit that says "It's only a theory", then yes.

I am some what impressed that your level of arguments do not fall to such depths as "MOAR snow in the Northeast! Climate change wut!?!?!". Low expectations I guess.

 

Bobby basically believes that the scientific method is self-discrediting, so we can never really know anything.

 

Maybe he likes things proven to him without just taking someone's word for it. Once he took a international flight to see if in fact the world flat or round. But he fell asleep looking out the window on hour 9, and ruined the entire experiment.

 

It's not a surprise that a certain crowd here would fail to understand what I was saying and roll off with strawman arguments and ad hominem nonsense. Anyway, feel free to go back to the AGW circle jerk.

 

a person is a doctor if they make a living practicing medicine.......

credentials ain't got **** to do with it. The fact that you abdicate all individual thought and rely on 'top men' for validation is pathetic.

 

It's not a surprise that you don't comprehend the implications of your ideas.

 

Correct so QUACK doctors are considered DR's in your world I rely on information that has gone thru certain validation, process and done by certified professionals. A process by the way that I can validate myself. You rely on information on anonymous bloggers and call it science? LOL.

 

Why is the thread in which the OP said that "Fox News is a reliable news source" still alive?

 

because Benghazi.

 

Fair enough and I saw the other poster's link. That said I will point out even in the link that was provided it did say there is disagreement on this and some models do show that the drought could be caused by man made factors.

Consider first how much is spent on combating terrorism versus how much is spent on combating global warming I doubt that the Obama Administration is actually focusing on AGW more than terrorism.

On a personal level other than the hassles I face dealing with the TSA, and friends who serve in the military, terrorism doesn't affect me very. Even considering that I travel internationally a fair amount including to countries that have bigger issues with terrorism than the US does such as Indonesia.

And you don't think Republicans don't use the threat of terrorism to divide people?

I don't know the statistics off hand but I would strongly suspect that a fair amount of those who died did refuse the flu vaccine. Given that only about 42% of adults get the vaccine. Further I suspect that those unvaccinated also weaken the herd immunity that can spread the vaccine. While yes the flu vaccine doesn't provide full coverage for all strains it is better than nothing.

The point is though with only about 42% of the adult population getting vaccinated for the flu while 2.5 million die it does make sense that even with partial protection many could still be protected with greater vaccination. Compare that to the numbers of Americans who have died from terrorism and it is clear that the flu represents a far greater threat to the lives of US citizens than terrorism.

I don't want to discount the threat of terrorism but again if you look at the numbers the DOD budget for 2014 was $527 billion and Homeland Security was $48.5 billion.. The NOAA Budget was 5.5 billion. Looking at figures form 2013 for fed subsidies and research in things like energy efficiency and alternative fuels it is $16.6 billion. The numbers don't actually support your imagined alternate reality that Obama lives in where much more emphasis is placed on global warming than terrorism.

 

Forecasting isn't the same as modeling and proving Global Warming.

With complex systems the key is to be able to first build a model that fits historical data. Forecasting is more complex because there are variables that introduce randomness into the systems that are not predictable in short term.

For instance, La Nina. In order to forecast temp increases over a 10 years period, you have to know what the La Nina / El Nino cycle will do. That's independent of global warming so if the model can't predict that cycle it's going to be off in the short run. But in the long run, it will be more accurate assuming there are not any other variables that have not been totally accounted for.

But the models do describe the historical data very nicely. That is, once you know things like historical la nina's you can get the story right.

 

I love it when nutjobs give me insult rep. Goes to show how much of a coward they really are, enough to increase my rep!

 

I think you're the arrogant d******d for dismissing the hard work these scientists have put forward and opting for the lazy work neocon bloggers paid by oil companies throw out there without any rigor.

The fact you won't even examine the truth and look into the facts yourself is scary.

People on this board will know that I actually was a climate skeptic 10 years ago. I wasn't fully convinced. But I changed my mind after looking into it without a biased perspective. The evidence is overwhelming, it's not just a bunch of temperature guages in s. america - which by the way were never doctored.

 

Why not quote the writing on the bathroom wall then? That surely is just as valid as a scientific journal. Who cares about peer review? As long as someone makes it up with conservative creds, it's good by you!

Oh, here's a graph that shows how much using the unadjusted temperatures would have on the data - it's the black line.



So here's the question: Are you stupid or are you just playing a game?

 

Berkley Earth was mentioned in this thread. They took the freely available "uncooked" data and came up with their own independent conclusions.

If after reading Telegraph and you're convinced that the numbers are fixed, their work is the closest thing without doing it yourself.

Maybe the problem about being arrogant dick is having the same old mouthbreathing **** to push through before getting something real and juicy.

 

Every state in the country would beg to differ that credentials ain't got **** to do with it. Fortunately, those states over time have learned that having trained and licensed doctors is superior to just having anyone practicing medicine.