I am not a climate scientist, or a scientist at all, but it would seem that we should be dealing with the effects of global warming and how to reduce those effects. Arguing about whether global warming is happening is a waste of my time: the science has been proved...why these deniers persist with their nonsensical arguments could better be explained by a psychologist than a climate scientist.
Answered By: squid - 5/20/2010 |
|
If a theory has been tested many times, there has to be proof unless someone is hiding something from society through a bribe. Most can actually be witnessed in real life. The whole debate on global warming. It may not be what we expected but in some parts of the country, strange weather patterns are taking place that had never existed.
Source(s):
Science is all around us.
Answered By: East Indians are smart - 5/19/2010 |
|
My thought is that they are not the world's best scientists. They do not use the scientific method and do not deal with real problems, yet instead imagine way to exaggerrate the problems that they are looking at to the point of being able to scare govts out of research funding.
The best scientists are in the Pharma industry and other sectors that still actually use the scientific method. Further these people are paid to do real work that has made a difference. Example is with the drugs developed millions upon millions upon millions of lives have been saved. In the AGW field they have to pretend some disaster is coming, pretend that it will be catastrophic and pretend that humans can do nothing to even pretend like they can save one life.
Why don't the physicists go back to trying to make a living by imagining some other type of "dark matter" or imaginary universes ro dimensions that can explain away why their equations don't work and leave the real science to those who are capable?
I truly hate to be this harsh, but honestly given that you do not even understand linear regression but claim to have an MS in physics, with Paul also not understanding and claiming a PhD in Physics, my faith in physicists is beginning to wain. To add to your demonstrations of not understanding statistics, which is almost always necessary in performing the scientific method, you have your group leading the charge with assinine statements of impending doom. Further they make even dumber statements on the economic policy that the US should engage in, as if they are economists. All of this done because of computer models that have failed to make accurate and precise predictions, all the while understanding that they do not have a grasp on the feedback effect of clouds. HELLO! Clouds are pretty prevalent in the atmosphere. I dare say more prevalent than CO2, yet you are claiming certainty on the effect of CO2 and the climate in general for 100 years into the future to the point of scaring the public and suggesting economic policy!!!
Your arrogant broad is making us real scientists look bad.
Linlyons, don't forget about
Linlyons would say "I have nothing important to add to the conversation right now, so I will just insult. Its all I am even capable of doing and still I come across as no better at it then a second grader."
Further to address your assinine comment.
You are well aware of Dana's constant questioning of my statistics background, even though he has demonstrated no ability to even do linear regression. Given the amount of statistical knowledge currently needed in every field of science, this is a valid concern. Or are you denying the amount of statistics currently seen in every field of science. Perhaps you are denying that they constantly use linear regression for the trend lines seen in AGW altogether. Nope you don't deny this at all do you. You just like to insult when you ahve nothing better to say.
Virtualguy,
You are right, some scientists falsify their data. The difference is that in the Pharma industry, we have the FDA EMEA and others watching our every move and checking our every calculation and sitll you have fools that try to buck the system and those that do lose tons of money. In the AGW arena, you don't even have to follow the FOIA. But I am sure you are right. I am sure it is easy to come up with cures for AIDS and CANCER. Its just child's play right? Good call genious.
Beren,
More likely, they would be embarrassed to call you a friend. Your rant truly shows your own ignorance. Further I would suggest if that scientist ever got ahold of your data, he would change his tune instantly. He would realize that at least the pharma industry has someone to answer to for inconsistently kept ill-managed data and for making claims that are not supported by that data. Further, as all of you people seem to have a problem with reading comprehension, I certainly did not suggest the Pharma was the only industry that performed science, but used it as an example. Thank you for demonstrating my point though. You have a high degree in physics and can't perform reading comprehension to the standards of a middle schooler. But your firend is correct that there are problem in the pharma industry as there are in any human institution. Otherwise I find it humorous that you address problems that are entirely different than the one I have addressed in your field. Nice evasion, but you might want to try it on the less educated stooges that buy every piece of garbage you sell.
Gary F,
Small minority of cases in an extremely large industry is your evidence? My evidence is that AIDS IS NO LONGER A DEATH SENTENCE. I think my evidence trumps yours. But your worthless answer displays the inability of greeners to understand even the simplest concept, so I thank you for that.
Also while the industry is secretive about the compound they place their results and methods of obtaining those results for the public to see. Maybe you should think before you write.
Francis Galton was where regression got it name. Not that the name is important as it should truly be called the least squared method.
Anta,
Could not make heads or tails of what you said, except that you do not like my viewpoint. That is alright, we are all entitled to our own viewpoint.
Squid,
Shoudl CO2 be reduced, yes. Is it causing some warming, yes. But pretending as if it will end the world, is not even jsutifiable by the most ardent AGW scientists, yet they are parading around this tripe and asking to institute a tax in the middle of a recession, all to fix a problem that could be fixed by increasing the use of nuclear power. No psychologist necessary to figure out that this is wrong.
Virtualguy,
Your ignorance is astounding given that in the pharma industry we have to have two independent phase 3 trials (not to mention all of the other trials required and the post-drug approval trials that are required, plus the FDA looks at the process the data management, and everything else. Instead you are impressed with many labs coming to many differing conclusions with large variations in the results (1.5 to 12 degrees on averages of computer models), all of which come from the same mismanaged datasets, from the same mismanaged sites, with the same mismanaged or complete lack of standards. Forgive me if I do not agree.
This is almost entertaining. Seriously I don't even believe what I wrote about physicists (except that you all need a shot of humility especially when you try to act as economic advisors), and still you can barely defend against the attack. Probably because you know that while many physicists understand statistics and do good work, many of you AGWers have allowed yourselves to get caught in rhetoric more than science. You look at how you can use statistics to make your point instead of allowing statistics to inform you. Certainly this becomes apparent when you claim certainty on the predicted results of a chaotic model for 100 years from now. You all really have not been representing physicists well. The physicists that I know would not think a physicists should be advising economic policy. Also to inform you, I respect someone that know their weakness in statistics and gives it over to biostatisticians over a group that doesn't and makes grossly exaggerrated claims of certainty.
GaryF.
Ask for something clearly and stop acting like an idiot. We were talking about linear regression, I gave you the answer you know was correct and then you changed the question. You want to play childish games like this, you may be able to fool your uneducated stooges, but not me. Further luckily even if you do not understand brain chemistry, but you find a compound that works, you can use the scientific method of testing to show that it works. You should probably look into that. Further while I am glad your sister is better, your assinine comments that it has nothing to do with the new medications is just stupid. You have demonstrated more ignorance than normal today.
Now if you are asking where you can retrieve the information of how the studies were conducted and their results, I will give you that web page. If you are curious how chemotherapy works I will tell you. If you want to know how to do other forms of regression or even time series analysis, I will tell you, but it will be by email because this is too short. If you want to just continue playing childish games, then grow up.
BTW until they introduced statistics, physicians gave no better chance of survival than them not being present.
Virtualguy,
Then, also having worked with both, I call into question your entire statement and think you are wrong. My "handwaving" at the ugliness of the data comes from the programmers statements who worked with the data and from having looked at poor coding job done. You worthless handwaving at some credentials in place of fact is exactly what I am talking about!
Further the multimillion dollar lawsuits serve as more of an incentive to stop fraud than anything you can poitn to in the university setting. Only a fool would pretend that every peice of research coming from academia gets more than a cursory "peer review". The standard for Pharma is much higher, and I don't think you ever worked with the FDA, if you do not know this. I worked with academics that did not even understand that our process of double-blind means that the analysts did not get to know the randomization of the drugs until the study was complete. You have no idea what you are talking about.
Answered By: I expel CO2 everytime I breathe - 5/19/2010 |
|
Well, that depends on who i am.
eg, if i'm jello, "It's been cooling since 1998."
if i'm james, "What about the ice age that's scheduled to start in 2012?"
if i'm ottawa mike, "yes, but the problem is that the basis for all those tests is the CRU database, that's been corrupted. A thousand different simulations, with corrupted data, does not constitute overwhelming evidence."
if i'm all black, "It's cold here. (it is cold here.) We've never had a spring that's been so cold or has had so much rain."
if i'm richie, "it's been warming for 200 years. 99.999999?f global warming is natural. what don't you understand about that?"
if i'm dumdum, "Why are those who say 'respect nature' often the ones who disrespect nature the most?"
if i'm jim z, "i'm a trained geologist, and smarter than everyone else here added together, and the geologic records show that global warming has been occurring for 4 billion years, and the rock record doesn't lie."
if i'm bravozulu, "if the melting that is claimed is true, then we should see a land rebound in Greenland, which will be balanced by sinking around it, so sea levels should be declining. Since we don't see declining sea levels, then global warming cannot be happening."
Sarah Palin, "Drill baby ...." (whisper, 'shut up, if you'd read a newspaper, there's the biggest oil spill ever a month ago.')
Oh, and then, there's the choir being preached to. One would hope that they're not going to change their opinions.
Oh my, i forgot i expel CO2, "I truly hate to be this harsh, but honestly given that you do not even understand linear regression but claim to have an MS in physics, i mean, how did you even graduate from high school? Where did you go to school? OH yeah, Berkeley where they teach liberal science -- get out of school and apply for a government handout. is there a minimum gpa which, if you're over it, you cannot be admitted?"
i gotta quit. this is too easy. sorry.
in truth, "My thought is that they are not the world's best scientists" just about sums up what you're going to hear from deniers, claiming to be skeptics. There isn't enough science in the world, until the dust bowl is back, and they cannot afford to buy food, to convince them. I do wonder how the demographic is split -- some are easily swayed, most of the rest are just so infused with greed that they won't pay for anything without a fight. It is a sad state that this country has come to.
Edit: <<Linlyons would say "I have nothing important to add to the conversation right now, so I will just insult. Its all I am even capable of doing and still I come across as no better at it then a second grader.">> Interesting that you feel the need to respond to a "second grader". Twice. :-) I'll take that as a compliment, thanks.
<<Lynlions, i'm a trained geological engineer and the geologic record (not records) shows that climates change. You might want to read what I write instead of misquoting me but that might involve learning something which is clearly not your agenda.>> i'm well aware that climate does change. seems that i've pegged you far better than you've pegged me. don't you find it interesting that i quoted science that you might use far more accurately than your analysis of me? Sarcasm is truly fun, but i don't use it all that often. Occasionally it's just too tempting though. Like fish in a barrel. *sigh*
12 down. (14 now, y'all are slacking off :) My, my, seems i got under somebody's skin. Uh, 12 somebodies skin in fact. It's a good day.
Answered By: linlyons - 5/19/2010 |
|
Congress asked for the reports, NAS responded, Congress will now proceed to ignore the recommendations.
I find it interesting that Mr expel co2 cites big pharma as the only real scientists. With the monetary incentives involved, they are the only ones that can be counted on, year after year, to have a proven scandal involving falsifying their data for profit. Do a Google search on "falsified drug data"
Edit for expel CO2 (and a lot of skatols) you really ought to check out where the science, as opposed to engineering technology and screening, for cancer cures and AIDS drugs came from. You might check where the Nobel Prizes for medicine come from, too. Hint - it ain't big pharma, it even includes (GASP) Berkeley researchers. As to oversight - scientists from different labs in different disciplines checking the same data impress me a hall of a lot more than the FDA ever did.
N.B> my "ignorance" comes from experience in university labs and with the FDA - and, in spite of your handwaving about mismanaged datasets, I'll stand by my claim as to which is more likely to catch error and or fraud, as well as who's more likely to commit it.
Answered By: virtualguy92107 - 5/19/2010 |
|
GW is one of, if not the biggest hoaxes ever. Thank you Al Gore- where did you get YOUR facts- Sesame Street?
Answered By: Edward O - 5/19/2010 |
|
Anyone who has study this matter knows that there are far too many unknowns in climate science (which the IPCC also acknowledges, such as clouds and aerosols)and this statement is a load of garbage. Such statements advance the notion that this is indeed a political matter and not a scientific one.
The NAS is also one of the best examples of scientific groups being political advocates. For over 20 years, there was a Temporary Nominating Group for the Global Environment to provide a back door for the election of candidates who were environmental activists, bypassing the conventional vetting procedure. Members, so elected, proceeded to join existing sections where they hold a veto power over the election of any scientists unsympathetic to their position. Moreover, they are almost immediately appointed to positions on the executive council, and other influential bodies within the Academy. One of the members elected via the Temporary Nominating Group, Ralph Cicerone, is now president of the National Academy. Prior to that, he was on the nominating committee for the presidency. It should be added that there is generally only a single candidate for president. Others elected to the NAS via this route include Paul Ehrlich, James Hansen, Steven Schneider, John Holdren and Susan Solomon.
Answered By: Eric c - 5/19/2010 |
|
If you weren't so political biased yourself, you would easily see the political bias from from the statements in the NAS. They are just politics as usual with very little substance.
That was an excellent answer CO2 as usual. Thumbs up from me!! Keep up the good posting.
Lynlions, i'm a trained geological engineer and the geologic record (not records) shows that climates change. You might want to read what I write instead of misquoting me but that might involve learning something which is clearly not your agenda.
P.S. Eric c earned a thumbs up as well.
Answered By: jim z - 5/19/2010 |
|
I agree with them. There is nothing radical about their statement.
Answered By: Richard the Physicist - 5/19/2010 |
|
There's an excellent article in the March 2010 edition of Smithsonian concerning the collection of climate science and data in Alaska. Currently the effort isn't to determine if there is 'climate change' or to even 'prove' that human activity is the culprit...all of that is already proven. The current scientific investigation is about determining the current extent and effect so far. The deniers are already way behind the wave...that ship has already sailed. While it's still possible to argue about the final outcome and it's time frame, there's NO possible argument against the data. Just as human rights would exist even without a written constitution, climate change would exist without Al Gore, the Pope or the Man in the Moon. In my own Alaska experience there are now trees previously found as much as 200 miles further south now growing on the tundra where there have been no trees since human beings swung down out of the trees. Lakes that once existed because they rested on permafrost are now percolating deep into the soil releasing tons of CO2 and methane...the feedback 'circle of life' is already well established. Sorry 'deniers', I gotta; go with science...you guys can stick with the right wing radio dummies.
Answered By: Noah H - 5/19/2010 |
|
The report does not surprise me, nor does the garbage in the responses here. But I guess the NAS, and the hundred Nobel prizewinners who signed the Nobel centennial warning letter, will survive CO2's poor opinion of them.
Can Eric C give a credible reference for his story about NAS?
Answered By: Paul B - 5/19/2010 |
|
"The best scientists are in the Pharma industry and other sectors that still actually use the scientific method. Further these people are paid to do real work that has made a difference."
OMG this is too funny. Nothing like beating your chest and saying my group is the best scientists in the world. The truth is that Pharma scientists were not generally good at math and shyed away from physics and other hard sciences. Heck they don't even do their own statistics, they get biostatisticians to do it for them. I know many scientists in big Pharma and they will admit they are not that great at math. None of the ones I know deny AGW either.
Please don't give me this crap about them doing great science. They follow FDA guidelines and standard laboratory practices and that is it. Most of the Pharma scientists I talk to feel they don't do science, they follow a rote procedure and say their hands are tied most of the time. These people know their field too and are much more knowledgeable than most physicians. Perhaps CO2 is confused about the distinction between practicing research and practicing science. The Pharma scientists that I know do not.
And yes they cheat too. Not the ones I know, but they have told me that they know of a few instances where the statistics from clinical trials have been manipulated and they get away with it.
That was really a pathetic rant and I am sure my friends in pharma would be embarrassed to find out that you are one of their own.
What's next, are we going to hear that geologists also the best scientists?
Answered By: beren - 5/19/2010 |
|
I expel CO2 everytime I breathe --
Bribery and corruption of physicians and politicians; testing and marketing fraud; criminal negligence and intent in the manufacture of drugs – name a branch of science with a worse criminal record than the Pharm industry.
As for FOIA, what industry is more secretive than the pharm industry?
And I guess the only science is one with a periodic table, huh?
That is pathetically lame and, more than anything, shows complete ignorance of the philosophy of science and the epistemology of human knowledge (the scientific method).
If you are concerned about linear regression models, why do you never criticize the vast population of moronic deniers that spout off about cycles although they’ve never heard of time series analysis; FFTs (or who it is named after); time and frequency domains; or spectral analysis?
Do you even know how "Regression" analysis got its name?
=====
I expel CO2 everytime I breathe --
>>"Also while the industry is secretive about the compound they place their results and methods of obtaining those results for the public to see.."
Where?
Show me where I can find the results of the experiments that statistically validate the use of the many drugs that have become a part of daily life for millions of Americans.
Show me anything indicating that they know anything about brain biochemistry that makes the treatment of mental illness any better than it was 100 years ago.
And as much as I appreciate cancer treatments - my sister was saved by it - her cure was more a result of the excellent, spare no expense, treatment and care she received from Walter Reed AMC than from the pharm industry..
Most chemo-therapy treatments people receive are still d**n-near Medieval.
Besides, if all chemists are all so damned smart, why are so many of their discoveries accidental?
Penicillin
helium
Minoxidil
Viagra
Retin-A
l-dopa
benzodiazepine
chlorpromazine
cisplatin
nitrous oxide
Mustine
Prontosil
Interferon
Aspartame
Gelignite
Polymethylene
rubber
Racemization
Teflon
Superglue
Scotchgard
Cellophane
Iodine
Polycarbonates
Rayon
cyclamate
Saccharin
And, least squares is just the simplest and most familiar form of regression.
Answered By: Gary F - 5/19/2010 |
|
Good day Danna and everyone! The point I'd like you to attent is the question: "What are we doing or what can we do to respond in order to help future generations to keep life living in Earth?"
To: I expel CO2 everytime I breathe, I didn´t like your point of view.
The little womam and other litltle guy seems not to be worried about the education basically and primary that we usually get from the people that take care us. Talking about me, my grandmother used finished tobacco to preserve her little culture of lettuce and other we have here and you don´t eat there, burying those smoked cigarrets about 5cm on the round of each plant. Her "huerta" was very good. Now we know that we can recycle all type of papers into other staff, including rubish from sanitaries. And I ask to the National Industry of Pharma and cathedratics of medicine: "How they recycle garbage in hospitals? I allways thougt, since I knew the discovery of "algodón", how it was planted and colected by slaves, that they came to the industry of cosmetics... don´t you people think its an absurd?" And know the knew packages for juices in powder or tomato sauce have "aluminium"! It´s horrible!
Just litlle more lines:
I read the resumée you sent. Thanks. It is interesting. The other day I saw a documentary on TV about the position of a planet interferring on the "behaviour" of the sun. It was fact. Science not horoscope. Be counscious and investigate, ok?
And:
Latelly I have noticed many new insects flying during the night that I have never seen before. But they seem to be beautifull and small. But no night birds no more to eat insects like these. Cats would solve an "epidemy". But where I live is not ok. The last bee visited my cup of coffee in the middle of the afternoon seeking for food and here is fall. Strong storms in south. Hard lack of humidity in middle-center.
"What do I do to help as I re-remembered the conclusions of the scientists in the begining?"
Recycle boxes to make "artesanato" like Lídia did once to help Paul and their community.
Hope I have helped you too. Nice report you all show me. I appreciate the opportunity. Bye!
Answered By: little anta - 5/19/2010 |
|