Ultimate College Softball
Register Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 6 of 8     «   Prev   3   4   5   6   7   8   Next
pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 11,487
Reply with quote  #151 
Data doesn't support your politically correct hypothesis?  No problem - just change the data.  Voila - inconvenient truth nullified.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/04/noaa-fiddles-with-climate-data-to-erase-the-15-year-global-warming-hiatus/


Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #152 
Reporter:  You spent years developing your intelligence and getting a high level education in order to become a scientist.  Why did you go to such great efforts to gain such knowledge?  Did you hope to find the great answers of our time and help humanity?

Scientist:  No no no.  I wanted to mislead the folks in order to gain Federal grants which would lead to a good family income.  The wife and I want to buy a motor-home.
pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 11,487
Reply with quote  #153 
Reporter:  You have data that shows a hiatus in global warming.  Then, you adjusted that data so that there is no hiatus.  Why did you do that?

Scientist:  Because I really believe the earth is warming and the data needs to support it.  After all, if we can't convince people that the science is settled and the conversation is over, then people might actually think the earth is not warming.  Never mind that none of the dire predictions that we made attributable to man-made global warming have come true.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #154 
pabar - Actually, that's kind of fair.  I believe some scientists might hype their recent data out of fear people aren't listening to the potential dangers they are predicting.  Sounds a little like those making up hypotheticals about what will happen if we let the Government collect phone data.  None of that bad stuff appears to have happened either.  Or budget deficits and we're going to be Greece.  I think people often hype the problem to win the day.   However, it doesn't mean these initial problems shouldn't be considered.  Needless to say, I think most scientists who believe in man made global warming are not faking their conclusions for money.
pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 11,487
Reply with quote  #155 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
pabar - Actually, that's kind of fair.  I believe some scientists might hype their recent data out of fear people aren't listening to the potential dangers they are predicting.  Sounds a little like those making up hypotheticals about what will happen if we let the Government collect phone data.  None of that bad stuff appears to have happened either.  Or budget deficits and we're going to be Greece.  I think people often hype the problem to win the day.   However, it doesn't mean these initial problems shouldn't be considered.  Needless to say, I think most scientists who believe in man made global warming are not faking their conclusions for money.


Hype?  That's what we now call falsifying data?

All of those predictions so far have proven false.  The evidence would contradict your assumption that most scientists are not lying about their data, regardless of the motivation.  I don't believe money has anything to do with it.  East Anglia and NOAA.  Liars in support of a political agenda.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #156 
And now we're back to square one.  Who would go to such great lengths to get and tell it wrong...and why?
pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 11,487
Reply with quote  #157 
I don't know.  Why did the researchers at East Anglia lie about their research?  Why did NOAA just change the data for no reason other than to make it look like there has been no hiatus in global warming?  Why does Obama keep saying the science is settled when science, by its very nature, can never be settled?  Why are those who question the theory of man-made global warming continually threatened, shunned and made to feel like idiots?  

Whenever you get boxed in like this, you like to pretend that everyone thinks rationally 100% of the time.  That's not how it is.


pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 11,487
Reply with quote  #158 
Why are people lying about the supposed consensus over global warming?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/

pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 11,487
Reply with quote  #159 
Dewey - try to read this entire article before responding.  It lists five reasons why scientists lie, money being one of them.  Career pressure is cited as the most common reason to lie.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2009/12/why_scientists_lie_and_what_to.html



Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #160 
Gotta go but I don't think it's fair to imply lying.  Read this objective analysis.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #161 
pabar - While I can understand and agree with many of the reasons behind fudging data listed in your article, it seems the obvious physical evidence around the planet should still raise concerns.  We just heard Texas say it had their worst flood ever.  We've all been amazed at the recent record size hurricanes over the last several years.  Throw in droughts and it seems to me more skeptics might start paying closer attention.  The EPA, (I know you'll find them untrustworthy), puts out some interesting information.

When you see how easy it is to convince the Right of some things, it's odd how difficult it is to convince them in this case.  They believe this Administration lied for a week about Benghazi in order to gain politically in an election two months away.  They believe the President is a foreign born Muslim.  They believe the White House put the IRS up to no good.  They believe we'll soon be Greece and our markets will crash because of Fed policy.  They believe all our phone conversations are being listened to and they believe Democrats are trying to take all their guns away.  They believe Democrats want poor people to stay in poverty and they believe a lot of people are voting who shouldn't be.  On and on many on the Right, not all and maybe not most, are so easily convinced of so much but not in this instance.  Not only do so many remain unconvinced, they go out of their way to discredit anything that may show otherwise.  It's an odd debate for sure.
pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 11,487
Reply with quote  #162 
How about the polar ice cap at record levels?  How about a record lack of hurricanes in recent years?  Also attributable to global warming?
mikec

Registered:
Posts: 8,562
Reply with quote  #163 
Wow, pabar answers a question on climate change, and Dewey introduces Greece, budgets, deficits, poor people, guns, voter deprivation, Benghazi, and the NSA.

All of this was done in only about 6 sentences.  It is quite breathtaking in its scope and efficiency, actually.
pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 11,487
Reply with quote  #164 
Happens every time the argument is lost.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #165 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikec
Wow, pabar answers a question on climate change, and Dewey introduces Greece, budgets, deficits, poor people, guns, voter deprivation, Benghazi, and the NSA.



mikec - You have to go all the way to the beginning.  Pabar didn't answer any question.  He made a comment that some group lied and one shouldn't believe their study.  I simply noted how Conservatives only believe what they want to believe anyway.  Evidence is of little importance regardless.  Birth certificate?  Fake.  Plea the fifth?  Liar.  Climate data?  Manipulated.  If one follows this pattern of thought, of course they think they've won every argument.  Whatever floats your boat I suppose.
mikec

Registered:
Posts: 8,562
Reply with quote  #166 
Way to add a few more lefty rant points.
pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 11,487
Reply with quote  #167 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikec
Wow, pabar answers a question on climate change, and Dewey introduces Greece, budgets, deficits, poor people, guns, voter deprivation, Benghazi, and the NSA.



mikec - You have to go all the way to the beginning.  Pabar didn't answer any question.  He made a comment that some group lied and one shouldn't believe their study.  I simply noted how Conservatives only believe what they want to believe anyway.  Evidence is of little importance regardless.  Birth certificate?  Fake.  Plea the fifth?  Liar.  Climate data?  Manipulated.  If one follows this pattern of thought, of course they think they've won every argument.  Whatever floats your boat I suppose.


You got this completely wrong.  I noted how they changed the data so that a hiatus in global warming was no longer a hiatus in global warming.  They gave no reason for changing the data.

Hilarious that you chide us about evidence being of little importance when NOAA CHANGED THE EVIDENCE.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #168 
The first lady isn't proud of her Country.
The President is a liar.
The President dismisses the Constitution.
The President doesn't care about police.


mikec - The above are what I consider right wing rants/opinions that I disagree with as being completely inaccurate.  Below are the opinions I've shared and you referred to as left wing rants and talking points.  If you can't see the distinction, please tell us which ones below you find inaccurate?


There are Conservatives who believe Democrats want to keep people in poverty.
There are Conservatives who believe the President's birth certificate has been doctored.
There are Conservatives who believe the President is a Muslim.
There are Conservatives who believe pleading the fifth means you're guilty of something or lying.
There are Conservatives who believe all our phone conversations are being listened to.
TylerDurden

Registered:
Posts: 3,869
Reply with quote  #169 
I clicked on this link thinking it was about climate change....
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #170 
No, it's a thread that supposedly tries to illustrate how facts are too often manipulated and how people choose to believe what they wish, mostly for ideological reasons.
pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 11,487
Reply with quote  #171 
No - it's about global warming.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #172 
OK, let's test the subject matter.  Do you believe we are experiencing man made global warming?

I'll answer yes.
pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 11,487
Reply with quote  #173 
My answer - I don't know.  There is conflicting data on the pace and severity of climate change so the earth may be warming or its temperature may be flat as the NOAA data supported prior to their decision to arbitrarily change the data.  So before we can attribute any causes to changes in the climate, we should all agree on what those changes are and the data doesn't allow us to do that.

I can tell you this.  I am all for solar energy to the point where I am willing to stray from my anti-regulatory principles and say it should be required on all new structures.  I am all for nuclear energy.  I am all for reducing our reliance on fossil fuels if it makes economic sense.  I am all for reducing our reliance on unstable governments for some portion of our energy needs.  I think wind energy is a joke and it kills a lot of birds.  I am all for companies allowing their employees to work at home some of the time to reduce cars on the road.  I am all for mass transit.  I am all for building high-speed rail between two very populated areas, not in the middle of farmland.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #174 
pabar - Thanks.  It sure seems as if you've gone to great lengths in this thread to discredit those who try to make the case we should be concerned.  And I'm not talking about just the most recent charge you made.
pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 11,487
Reply with quote  #175 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
pabar - Thanks.  It sure seems as if you've gone to great lengths in this thread to discredit those who try to make the case we should be concerned.  And I'm not talking about just the most recent charge you made.


Discredit?  

How do you characterize the act of arbitrarily changing data with no explanation?
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #176 
pabar - Both times I read your article, I got the sense they accused the study of mischaracterizing the research papers.  I didn't see a charge that data was being changed.  It sounded like they didn't appreciate how Mr. Cook used answers to leading questions to form his conclusions, or took research papers to mean something they didn't.  Maybe I missed it but, as I said, very early on you said those presenting evidence that man made warming exists are doing it for income redistribution.  Didn't sound like an open minded position for somebody who accepts it might be true.
Lost_1

Registered:
Posts: 2,912
Reply with quote  #177 
http://media.wix.com/ugd/857cde_4e48a92c95df433ba869069b1dbcee7d.pdf


Why Some Believe Human Activity is Causing Global Warming

After reading the section on plant stomata and photosynthesis, we may wonder if any of the Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scientists have ever taken basic biology or environmental science in high school. In this handbook, you will learn that carbon dioxide is actually a very good gas, and a beneficial by-product of interglacial global warming cycles which occur like clockwork approximately every 116,000 years, and last for nearly 30 thousand years.

However, the United Nations IPCC is largely controlled by politics interested in creating a world governing order, and a ruse to fulfill their agendas. Due to the politics behind the IPCC's well meaning motives, the organization has become misguided, and often distorted because of a politically driven grant system by the European and North American governments.

Since the mid 1990s, it has been pounded into our heads by government agencies and the media that rising carbon dioxide levels are caused almost entirely by human activity, and more precisely, by the burning of fossil fuels. We have also been told that current levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide have never been this high during the past million years, and that high CO2 levels today are destroying earth, and we are very close to runaway global warming. However, you will learn later in this handbook that it was indeed this high 1000 years ago.

For the last 15 years, some scientists and political organizations have equated rises in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations to rises in global temperatures, and unfortunately this is the generally accepted hypothesis by some groups. But, is the release of carbon dioxide through the process of burning fossil fuels actually the primary cause for earth’s warming temperatures since 1850? Can carbon dioxide enhance a natural warming cycle? If not, why is this an accepted theory among some groups?

Politics, manipulated censorship and biased research are the key words that describe manipulation by the press, local and state governments, university systems and the general public around the world. For nearly 15 years, almost all United States Federal grants and European grants were awarded to universities and colleges for the specific purpose to study how human activities and the burning of fossil fuels have induced climate change.

How does the grant system work? Universities and colleges apply for available government grants each year. The governments announce subject matter to be researched, and the educational systems are directed toward finding research results within this specified offering. Almost all grants were worded in such a way to indicate that the research will be conducted to find the adversity of carbon dioxide on the environment. Because of this, just about all research published in science journals during the past 15-years were biased and

slanted toward adverse affects of fossil fuel burning and carbon dioxide. This was especially true within the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC.

Due to the grant system, the media and government officials were mainly exposed to slanted research focused on human activity as the cause for global warming. There was very little research concerning "Natural Cycles" being conducted at universities or in governmental agencies during this 15 year period. And if a university mentioned Natural Cycles, they were either denied future grants, or even lost grants. Even United States Federal Employees were cautioned not to talk about natural cycles. What a great way to manipulate researchers in Europe and the United States. In the meantime, the only natural cycle research during this time was basically coming from private companies, such as Global Weather Oscillations (GWO).





__________________
If we are not careful, our colleges will produce a group of close-minded, unscientific, illogical propagandists, consumed with immoral acts. - Dr. Martin Luther King


“Everyone is in favor of free speech. Hardly a day passes without its being extolled, but some people's idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone else says anything back, that is an outrage.” Winston S. Churchill


spazsdad

Registered:
Posts: 5,550
Reply with quote  #178 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
OK, let's test the subject matter.  Do you believe we are experiencing man made global warming?

I'll answer yes.

Hell no. And there s no proof. Correlation is not causation. I still remember the coming ice age when I was in elementary school. Even as a young lad I knew better."

__________________
#SCOTUS

Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #179 
spazsdad - An answer!  [thumb]
mikec

Registered:
Posts: 8,562
Reply with quote  #180 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pabar61
Data doesn't support your politically correct hypothesis?  No problem - just change the data.  Voila - inconvenient truth nullified.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/04/noaa-fiddles-with-climate-data-to-erase-the-15-year-global-warming-hiatus/




I just read a more detailed analysis of how these changes were justified by NOAA.  It really is quite remarkable, and is being denounced by scientists the world over.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.