NASA faked Climate Data?

[Fliegender]

I’m doing my part for global warming. I only idle my motor home’s V10 for 45 minutes every week now (down from 60 minutes) to keep the engine and exhaust system in tip-top shape.

[edwardmurphy]

The issue is that the only evidence we have is the data and people keep calling into question the data so the answer to that is to confirm the data to be correct and the answer the skeptics.

The issue that I have with this kind of thinking is that the people questioning the data don't usually seem interested in explanations. There's plenty of information out there, but it seems like most folks here are far more interested in listening to the skeptics' initial arguments than to the replies from the experts. If you listen to the skeptics but not the scientists you come off as insincere.

The answers can NOT be:
Consensus ( which is irrelevant to science)

This is a semantic game, and frankly it's nonsense. You're acting like "scientific consensus" means that the scientists get together and take a vote, then declare the most popular hypothesis to be factually correct. That's not what it means.

When there's scientific consensus for something it means that lots of scientists have done lots of experiments, collected lots of data, and published lots of papers (which have been vetted through the peer review process) and they've come to the conclusion that anthropogenic climate change is a both real and a crisis.

As NASA puts it:

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

*Technically, a “consensus” is a general agreement of opinion, but the scientific method steers us away from this to an objective framework. In science, facts or observations are explained by a hypothesis (a statement of a possible explanation for some natural phenomenon), which can then be tested and retested until it is refuted (or disproved).

As scientists gather more observations, they will build off one explanation and add details to complete the picture. Eventually, a group of hypotheses might be integrated and generalized into a scientific theory, a scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena.

Ad Hominem attacks

I'll give you that one, but sometimes it's hard. And frankly, sometimes it's deserved.

Calling DENIAR !

How should I characterize people who only mention climate change when they link stories like this one? And by "like this one" I mean stories in which an anonymous whistleblower makes unsubstantiated claims to Principia Scientific International, a website run by a guy named John O'Sullivan, has no scientific background, has never submitted a paper for peer review, and whose stated position is that anthropogenic climate change is "a monumental fraud" and he is "cracking the fraud wide open."

Show me that you're as interested in learning about the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change as you are in reading the opinions of skeptical bloggers and I'll retract the label and start taking you seriously on the matter.

You are literally looking at the consensus position of 97% of the trained scientists who study the climate as a career, comparing it to the opinion of some guy with a blog, and deciding that the latter has more credibility than the former. That's baffling to me.

The allegation of data manipulation need to be addressed.

Why? Why does a completely unsubstantiated claim made by a self described climate change denier who's dedicated his life to proving that CO2 isn't really a greenhouse gas need to be addressed?

[PaulSacramento]

Ed,
You know as well as I do that if you wanna change someone mind, you do it with facts and not insults, yes?
You also need to address the extreme versions of any argument, correct?
In regards to the ANY data:
IF that data can be proven unreliable, or at least, be questioned, then those concerns MUST b e addressed and they must be addressed by FACTS that are NOT subjective or debatable.
Agreed?

IMO, I don't see how humans can NOT effect the climate.
We have a substantial footprint in MANY ways.
I also have a degree in Mechanical Engineering so I understand data, physics and science.
I do NOT deny climate change NOR our role in it.
That said, when the reliability of ANY data is questioned what is done?
An objective 3rd part is brought in to asses the data and draw an unbiased conclusion.
THAT is what needs to be done.

As for consensus:
Remember this:
For a long time the consensus of the VAST MAJORITY of scientist (far more than 97%), was that the universe had always existed AS IS, that atoms were the smallest particles, that smoking was healthy and ALL that was proven wrong.
Heck, look at the food pyramid and all the "DATA" that showed how we "should" eat and where that got us.

My point and the point that everyone that is a fan of science is that consensus is not a answer to ANY question about ANY scientific "conclusion", so it should not be used.


And to a further point:
I have YET to here a viable solution to this problem.
A solution that is effective short AND long term, a solution that is affordable for ALL, a solution that won't make things actually worse for poor countries.

[edwardmurphy]

That said, when the reliability of ANY data is questioned what is done?
An objective 3rd part is brought in to asses the data and draw an unbiased conclusion.
THAT is what needs to be done.

There are layers and layers of objective third parties involved. Every paper published is peer reviewed. Every experiment must give consistent results when replicated by different people in different places. The thing that you say needs to be done is being done.

As for consensus:
Remember this:
For a long time the consensus of the VAST MAJORITY of scientist (far more than 97%), was that the universe had always existed AS IS, that atoms were the smallest particles, that smoking was healthy and ALL that was proven wrong.
Heck, look at the food pyramid and all the "DATA" that showed how we "should" eat and where that got us.

There's a film that you really ought to watch. It's called Merchants of Doubt. It outlines precisely how the tobacco industry, which knew that nicotine was addictive and cigarettes caused cancer back in the early '60s, used marketing agencies, friendly politicians, and shills inserted into various professional organizations to keep us convinced that the science wasn't settled and nobody knew for sure.

We found this out when anti-smoking activists successfully sued to get access to internal tobacco industry documents - documents that flat out stated that they knew their product was killing people but hired professional liars to convince people otherwise. They were successful for nearly 50 years, at a time when 500,000 Americans were dying every year from tobacco related health problems.

It also goes over a bunch of other industries that have done the same thing, invariably to the benefit of sme industry and the detriment of pretty much everybody else.

My point and the point that everyone that is a fan of science is that consensus is not a answer to ANY question about ANY scientific "conclusion", so it should not be used.

Nobody is doing that. What they're saying is that virtually every expert currently studying the climate has come to the same conclusion. That's evidence that the conclusion is correct.

And to a further point:
I have YET to here a viable solution to this problem.
A solution that is effective short AND long term, a solution that is affordable for ALL, a solution that won't make things actually worse for poor countries.

Which makes it that much more tragic that paid "skeptics" are working so hard to prevent us from taking it seriously, studying it, and sincerely seeking solutions.

And seriously, take an hour and twenty minutes and watch Merchants of Doubt.

[edwardmurphy]

Ed: It's a bit disheartening watching a bunch of old guys fighting tooth and nail to discredit the science because they can't get their heads around it.

Ed, unfortunately, you tend to think political over EVERYTHING - especially with your loading your comment with "climate denier" rhetoric!

It is all political, Phil. It's an information war between climate scientists and slick marketing guys on the energy industry payroll. The scientific community is screaming that there's a crisis and we need to do something about it now, now, now, now, now. The marketing guys are trying to distract us, create doubt, and cause partisan gridlock. And they're winning.

[Philip]

Ed: It is all political, Phil. It's an information war between climate scientists and slick marketing guys on the energy industry payroll.

True, there are entrenched interests on both sides. Industry certainly has motive to gloss over things for profit motive. But that doesn't negate the very accurate things I've referenced and the reasonable doubt they bring. It also doesn't negate the prudent cautions I see as likewise reasonable - clean up out output as much as possible. And the question of developing countries and places like China - how are we going to prevent what they are doing? How is 150 years of partially good data based upon modeling assumptions going to tell us anything with certainty about a 4.5 billion year old planet that has had many very hot and very cold cycles? See, these aren't marketing assertions, but reasonable questions that can't be glossed over, no matter the ulterior motives of many on both sides of the debate.

[PaulSacramento]

That said, when the reliability of ANY data is questioned what is done?
An objective 3rd part is brought in to asses the data and draw an unbiased conclusion.
THAT is what needs to be done.

There are layers and layers of objective third parties involved. Every paper published is peer reviewed. Every experiment must give consistent results when replicated by different people in different places. The thing that you say needs to be done is being done.

As for consensus:
Remember this:
For a long time the consensus of the VAST MAJORITY of scientist (far more than 97%), was that the universe had always existed AS IS, that atoms were the smallest particles, that smoking was healthy and ALL that was proven wrong.
Heck, look at the food pyramid and all the "DATA" that showed how we "should" eat and where that got us.

There's a film that you really ought to watch. It's called Merchants of Doubt. It outlines precisely how the tobacco industry, which knew that nicotine was addictive and cigarettes caused cancer back in the early '60s, used marketing agencies, friendly politicians, and shills inserted into various professional organizations to keep us convinced that the science wasn't settled and nobody knew for sure.

We found this out when anti-smoking activists successfully sued to get access to internal tobacco industry documents - documents that flat out stated that they knew their product was killing people but hired professional liars to convince people otherwise. They were successful for nearly 50 years, at a time when 500,000 Americans were dying every year from tobacco related health problems.

It also goes over a bunch of other industries that have done the same thing, invariably to the benefit of sme industry and the detriment of pretty much everybody else.

My point and the point that everyone that is a fan of science is that consensus is not a answer to ANY question about ANY scientific "conclusion", so it should not be used.

Nobody is doing that. What they're saying is that virtually every expert currently studying the climate has come to the same conclusion. That's evidence that the conclusion is correct.

And to a further point:
I have YET to here a viable solution to this problem.
A solution that is effective short AND long term, a solution that is affordable for ALL, a solution that won't make things actually worse for poor countries.

Which makes it that much more tragic that paid "skeptics" are working so hard to prevent us from taking it seriously, studying it, and sincerely seeking solutions.

And seriously, take an hour and twenty minutes and watch Merchants of Doubt.

First off watched it.
Second, you missed all the points I made.

What do you get when you feed the same information to a group of people looking for the same results?
Hint: you don't get falsifiable results.
And you certainly don't get viable solutions.

[PaulSacramento]

What pains me in all this is how those like me, people that believe the human effect on climate change BUT understand the issue that the skeptics ( not the deniers) have.
It's the same when you talk about evolution with a Darwinist.

So closed minded that you refuse to see the issues and don't realize that YOU are the actual problem.

Deny the issues that skeptics bring up is what fuels the fire and causes deniers.

Pains me that people don't see that BUT I should not be surprised since we live in the time of extremes.

[PaulSacramento]

As for consensus:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/11/19/ ... ot-a-myth/

Conclusions
A review of the climate science literature of the 1965-1979 period is presented and it is shown that there was an overwhelming scientific consensus for climate cooling (typically, 65% for the whole period) but greatly outnumbering the warming papers by more than 5-to-1 during the 1968-1976 period, when there were 85% cooling papers compared with 15% warming.

It is evident that the conclusion of the PCF-08 paper, The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus, is incorrect. The current review shows the opposite conclusion to be more accurate. Namely, the 1970s global cooling consensus was not a myth – the overwhelming scientific consensus was for climate cooling.

It appears that the PCF-08 authors have committed the transgression of which they accuse others; namely, “selectively misreading the texts” of the climate science literature from 1965 to 1979. The PCF-08 authors appear to have done this by neglecting the large number of peer-reviewed papers that were pro-cooling.

I find it very surprising that PCF-08 only uncovered 7 cooling papers and did not uncover the 86 cooling papers in major scientific journals, such as, Journal of American Meteorological Society, Nature, Science, Quaternary Research and similar scientific papers that they reviewed. For example, PCF-08 only found 1 paper in Quaternary Research, namely the warming paper by Mitchell (1976), however, this review found 19 additional papers in that journal, comprising 15 cooling, 3 neutral and 1 warming.

I can only suggest that the authors of PCF-08 concentrated on finding warming papers instead of conducting the impartial “rigorous literature review” that they profess.

If the current climate science debate were more neutral, the PCF-08 paper would either be withdrawn or subjected to a detailed corrigendum to correct its obvious inaccuracies.

[Philip]

Why is it that when Ed asserted there aren't any reasonable questions about the debate, that it's only matter of skepticism being stirred up by the marketers, evil industry, and climate deniers did it eerily remind me of ACB's rhetoric about Saint Trump and the deep state swamp creatures who he's supposedly trying to save us all from?

[edwardmurphy]

Yep, that's me. The wild eyed lunatic who finds people who study the climate more credible than people who don't, at least when we're talking about the climate.

[RickD]

Yep, that's me. The wild eyed lunatic who finds people who study the climate more credible than people who don't, at least when we're talking about the climate.

What about the people who study the climate, and come to the conclusion that they don't know what role, if any, mankind has in climate change? And, what about those who study the climate, and realize that the earth's climate has always been changing?

What about the con men like Al Gore, who make millions off of their chicken little scenarios?

[PaulSacramento]

Yep, that's me. The wild eyed lunatic who finds people who study the climate more credible than people who don't, at least when we're talking about the climate.

So, you are saying that there aren't ANY climatologist that disagree with the "consensus" ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... al_warming

[Philip]

Paul: So, you are saying that there aren't ANY climatologist that disagree with the "consensus"

Noooo - they're all just part of the deep state industrialists' disinformation campaign!

[Byblos]

Yep, that's me. The wild eyed lunatic who finds people who study the climate more credible than people who don't, at least when we're talking about the climate.

What about the people who study the climate, and come to the conclusion that they don't know what role, if any, mankind has in climate change? And, what about those who study the climate, and realize that the earth's climate has always been changing?

What about the con men like Al Gore, who make millions off of their chicken little scenarios?

They're all blinded by trumpism.