Catholicism and Climate Change: The Sequel

  • Thread starter Thread starter kimmielittle
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
At last, a true scientist demonstrates how the global warming scandal was perpertrated upon the human race by bad science.

Professor of Physics, Richard A. Muller, at Berkeley University says he will never again read any of the papers put out by the scientists involved in the climate gate scandal.

How they hid the decline
 
John21652 said:
At last, a true scientist demonstrates how the global warming scandal was perpertrated upon the human race by bad science.

Professor of Physics, Richard A. Muller, at Berkeley University says he will never again read any of the papers put out by the scientists involved in the climate gate scandal.

How they hid the decline
Click to expand...
Oh, dear. Are you suggesting that Prof Muller was scandalized by the revelations contained in the climategate emails?

Interesting.
 
Monte_RCMS said:
Oh, dear. Are you suggesting that Prof Muller was scandalized by the revelations contained in the climategate emails?

Interesting.
Click to expand...
Well, he did say it was very dodgy science!

Maybe he’s trying to jump ship?!!
 
As some here know: I can’t do UTUBES …but this is what Judith Curry has to say about it.
Bad science and/or dishonesty?
Click to expand...
There is no question that the diagrams and accompanying text in the IPCC TAR, AR4 and WMO 1999 are misleading. I was misled. Upon considering the material presented in these reports, it did not occur to me that recent paleo data was not consistent with the historical record. The one statement in AR4 (put in after McIntyre’s insistence as a reviewer) that mentions the divergence problem is weak tea.
Click to expand...
It is obvious that there has been deletion of adverse data in figures shown IPCC AR3 and AR4, and the 1999 WMO document. Not only is this misleading, but it is dishonest (I agree with Muller on this one). The authors defend themselves by stating that there has been no attempt to hide the divergence problem in the literature, and that the relevant paper was referenced. I infer then that there is something in the IPCC process or the authors’ interpretation of the IPCC process (i.e. don’t dilute the message) that corrupted the scientists into deleting the adverse data in these diagrams.
Click to expand...
McIntyre’s analysis is sufficiently well documented that it is difficult to imagine that his analysis is incorrect in any significant way. If his analysis is incorrect, it should be refuted. I would like to know what the heck Mann, Briffa, Jones et al. were thinking when they did this and why they did this, and how they can defend this, although the emails provide pretty strong clues. Does the IPCC regard this as acceptable? I sure don’t.
Click to expand...
Can anyone defend “hide the decline”? I would much prefer to be wrong in my interpretation, but I fear that I am not.
Click to expand...
judithcurry.com/2011/02/22/hiding-the-decline/
 
Source: www.sepp.org The Week That Was newsletter for March 19

TWTW Correction: Last week TWTW referenced a finding by the Virginia Supreme Court on the litigation between Virginia Attorney General Cuccinelli and the University of Virginia regarding Michael Mann. The ever alert Chris Horner, a senior fellow of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, informed SEPP that it incorrectly interpreted the finding.

“The VA Supremes merely agreed to hear the enumerated issues. No rulings were issued. For a discussion of the ‘person’ issue, see the briefs in Albemarle County Circuit Court, Rector and Visitors v Cuccinelli. I attended oral argument and it was clear that even Judge Peatross, who otherwise was sympathetic to a fault with most of what the University argued – which sympathies are now going to be heard by VASC – was visibly unimpressed by the University’s efforts on that latter issue.” TWTW stands ably corrected. Please see article referenced under “Oh Mann!”
 
We could post articles from “experts” on both sides of the AGW issue until the cows come home. We all know that data is skewed and that some who call themselves scientists go into a study with preconceived notions of what the results will show. We also all know that journalists pick and choose their sources and that newspapers, books, etc. are here because people need to make a profit.

This is why I don’t know for sure if AGW does not exist. How do I know who the experts are? Who has conducted their research correctly, who is not in this for the big bucks, who is not so concerned with selling newspapers or books as in telling the truth?

I can’t know. There’s no way for me to know. I’m not an expert in this field and I don’t know who is.

I may tell the truth but I don’t think many people do. I wish I knew how to choose who is telling the truth. I don’t. None of us do. We only know if we tell the truth.

Does it exist? I don’t know. I don’t think so, but there is no way I can be sure. The only thing I can be sure of is that God exists, God is Love, God is Truth, and I can put my faith in Him.
 
LittleSoldier said:
We could post articles from “experts” on both sides of the AGW issue until the cows come home. We all know that data is skewed and that some who call themselves scientists go into a study with preconceived notions of what the results will show. We also all know that journalists pick and choose their sources and that newspapers, books, etc. are here because people need to make a profit.

This is why I don’t know for sure if AGW does not exist. How do I know who the experts are? Who has conducted their research correctly, who is not in this for the big bucks, who is not so concerned with selling newspapers or books as in telling the truth?

I can’t know. There’s no way for me to know. I’m not an expert in this field and I don’t know who is.

I may tell the truth but I don’t think many people do. I wish I knew how to choose who is telling the truth. I don’t. None of us do. We only know if we tell the truth.

Does it exist? I don’t know. I don’t think so, but there is no way I can be sure. The only thing I can be sure of is that God exists, God is Love, God is Truth, and I can put my faith in Him.
Click to expand...
Interesting.

How will you vote when many of these issues are [indirectly] on the ballot?

How do you decide?

Can you figure out a way to determine if someone is obviously not telling the truth?

Or does every argument seem to be equally persuasive?

Who do you believe? Some computer guru? Or someone who says the computer simulations are faked? Someone who changes his tune all the time? Someone who is projecting a one degree increase over one hundred years? Or someone who says one degree per century but acts like it’s one degree per year? Or someone who says the temperature data is corrupted because the recording instruments are badly sited and get hit with hot exhausts and oven-like heat reflecting conditions? Do the discussions of fakery contained in emails mean anything? Have you read the emails? They are not reported by the newsmedia; they are available for purchase from Amazon and are available on some Web sites.

Al Gore is connected with some movie and yet a dozen or so significant errors have been pointed out.

Do you believe that although polar bear populations are at an all time high, but that they are nearing extinction? The data are there. What do you make of the data?
 
Sorry, apologies, but I got timed out while editing my previous post. Here is the revised text:

Interesting.

How will you vote when many of these issues are [indirectly] on the ballot?

How do you decide?

Can you figure out a way to determine if someone is obviously not telling the truth?

Or does every argument seem to be equally persuasive?

Can you separate the various issues and work on each one separately?

Or do you just lump them all together into one giant undifferentiated mass?

If you can separate the issues, then you will be light years ahead:
  1. temp recording instrument accuracy.
  2. computer models, pro and con
  3. emails
  4. look at the 30+ issues posted somewhere on CAF, that lists all of the items in question; can you look at each one to organize your thinking?
Separate each issue from the other issues and then ask yourself with respect to each separate issue:

Who do you believe? Some computer guru? Or someone who says the computer simulations are faked? Someone who changes his tune all the time? Someone who is projecting a one degree increase over one hundred years? Or someone who says one degree per century but acts like it’s one degree per year? Or someone who says the temperature data is corrupted because the recording instruments are badly sited and get hit with hot exhausts and oven-like heat reflecting conditions? Do the discussions of fakery contained in emails mean anything? Have you read the emails? They are not reported by the newsmedia; they are available for purchase from Amazon and are available on some Web sites.

Al Gore is connected with some movie and yet a dozen or so significant errors have been pointed out.

Do you believe that although polar bear populations are at an all time high, but that they are nearing extinction? The data are there. What do you make of the data?
 
Guys I’m all for being a good steward, and I think I am. I clean up after myself. I don’t litter. I don’t leave the water running. I respect all the wildlife I encounter.

Only in the last decade or so did environmentalism and climate change activism become necessary for being a good steward. Perhaps I’m just naive but I think something funny is going on here.

I’m a student of science, and have studied this issue for several years now. The climate changes. It always has… But there’s not much else to say about the issue. Nobody has any clue as to the extent by which we can influence the climate. Anyone, scientist or lay person, who says otherwise is purely influenced by politics. That’s the biggest problem with science today is that it is so polluted with politics. It disgusts me as an aspiring scientist that lay people with no advanced education in the sciences place such a false value on the word “science.” “Science shows this, science proves that.” Science does not “prove” anything. It either disproves, or supports. The design of the scientific method is that of falsification, not proof. If a hypothesis is not falsified, it is not proven but is supported. Need I remind society of just how many times science has been wrong?

Though few like to admit it, the reality is we simply do not know many of the answers we seek.
 
Monte_RCMS said:
Interesting.

How will you vote when many of these issues are [indirectly] on the ballot?

How do you decide?

Can you figure out a way to determine if someone is obviously not telling the truth?

Or does every argument seem to be equally persuasive?

Who do you believe? Some computer guru? Or someone who says the computer simulations are faked? Someone who changes his tune all the time? Someone who is projecting a one degree increase over one hundred years? Or someone who says one degree per century but acts like it’s one degree per year? Or someone who says the temperature data is corrupted because the recording instruments are badly sited and get hit with hot exhausts and oven-like heat reflecting conditions? Do the discussions of fakery contained in emails mean anything? Have you read the emails? [They are not reported by the newsmedia; they are available for purchase from Amazon and are available on some Web sites.

Al Gore is connected with some movie and yet a dozen or so significant errors have been pointed out.

Do you believe that although polar bear populations are at an all time high, but that they are nearing extinction? The data are there. What do you make of the data?
Click to expand...
Fair questions and points. I’ll address them to the best of my ability. I’d like to restrict what I’m saying to AGW. I don’t want to just say environmental issues because there are so many and the truth may have been reported on one issue but not on others. As to the polar bear situation, I know nothing about that. Right now I’m focused on AGW.

I honestly don’t know how to choose experts so I had better find out how. In science every research study should include a Discussion part in which the findings and any possible confounding factors should be, well, discussed. And other researchers should look at the data and the analysis of said data and point out any problems. The study should then be repeated as many times as is possible, and each time the problems should be discussed and removed.

For something that may end up on a ballot I have a firm rule: I don’t vote unless I know what it is that I am voting for or against. If this ends up on a ballot it’s my responsibility (if I’m going to vote on it) to try to find out everything I can about the issue. Now this is not something I have done before re AGW, although I’ve done it on other issues. My main objective is to help stop abortion and I spend most of my time on that issue. Environmentalism is not as important to me but my mind is clear about abortion so I can spend some time on environmental issues now. Only some time, though, because although my mind is clear on abortion I am currently involved in the fight to stop it and that does take up a lot of my time, especially now that I’m receiving emails daily with lists of new stories re abortion.

I think the first step I will take is to find out who funded the research. I know that any “research” funded and/or reported by the Guttmacher Institute re abortion is going to be misleading. I need to find the same information re AGW. Universities are good. I have a lot of respect for universities. I realize that the government is usually the ultimate source of funding but I have little respect for research that is funded directly by the government and conducted by a government agency. I’ve read some of their studies and I was surprised to find that it was so poorly conducted and analyzed.

I’m going to read and read and read and read and then make the best decision I can. As a scientist myself, I know that going into a research project with preconceived notions about what the research will reveal is not appropriate. :tsktsk: I think that studying a subject with preconceived notions about what I will find is also not appropriate.

I’m in search of the truth here. It has nothing to do with my opinions of other posters. It has to do with my responsibilities as a Catholic and as a voter. If I’m right I’m right. If I’m wrong I have absolutely no problem with admitting it. I want to know the truth.

I wasn’t aware of the emails. I read some of the comments that are usually posted below research that has been published by news media but that’s kind of a waste of time and they usually deteriorate into ad hominem attacks. Are the emails expensive? Would you post a link to the web sites that present them? I would like to use every single source I can find in order to help form my conclusions.

The biggest problem is time. It took me two years to write my thesis (this doesn’t include the actual research) and most of that time was spent in the stacks at UCI, reading and copying. With the Internet it should be easier. But I can’t spend as much time on this issue as I spent on the subject of my thesis. With my thesis I went back to the beginning of the research (it started about 1900) and read absolutely everything I could find up to the current research findings. I learned about how beginning research that is based on almost nothing can still provide information and at least a base on which to start new research. Over the years the research improves.

-----continued in next post-----
[/quote]
 
-----continuation of last post-----

Reporting research is like that game where you whisper a message into someone’s ear and that someone whispers the “same” sentence into someone else’s ear and by the time the message is passed through ten or so people it has changed. I want to read the original research study first. If I can’t do that I want to hear what the researcher has to say. Once the media reports it it’s probably been diluted, altered, and might even be reported as supporting something completely opposite to what it really supports.

I can’t tell if someone is telling the truth. I can guess but I really don’t know. But it helps to have the original research in front of me.

There is one other thing: I do trust some people that I know; people who are my friends and have taken the time to study this issue. I don’t think they would lie to me and I don’t think they are lecturing me or being condescending. I think they are trying their best to tell me what they believe is the truth and I respect that. Unfortunately one of my friends has passed on. But there is another friend, a member of CAF, who also has spent some time discussing AGW with me. Neither of these friends believes (or believed) that AGW exists. That’s probably the main reason why at this point I also don’t believe that AGW exists.

I hope this answers your questions. I haven’t spent nearly as much time on environmentalism, including AGW, as I have wanted. I’m going to try to make up for that. But the fight against abortion is still my top priority.
 
LittleSoldier said:
-----continuation of last post-----

Reporting research is like that game where you whisper a message into someone’s ear and that someone whispers the “same” sentence into someone else’s ear and by the time the message is passed through ten or so people it has changed. I want to read the original research study first. If I can’t do that I want to hear what the researcher has to say. Once the media reports it it’s probably been diluted, altered, and might even be reported as supporting something completely opposite to what it really supports.

I can’t tell if someone is telling the truth. I can guess but I really don’t know. But it helps to have the original research in front of me.

There is one other thing: I do trust some people that I know; people who are my friends and have taken the time to study this issue. I don’t think they would lie to me and I don’t think they are lecturing me or being condescending. I think they are trying their best to tell me what they believe is the truth and I respect that. Unfortunately one of my friends has passed on. But there is another friend, a member of CAF, who also has spent some time discussing AGW with me. Neither of these friends believes (or believed) that AGW exists. That’s probably the main reason why at this point I also don’t believe that AGW exists.

I hope this answers your questions. I haven’t spent nearly as much time on environmentalism, including AGW, as I have wanted. I’m going to try to make up for that. But the fight against abortion is still my top priority.
Click to expand...
EXCELLENT posts 👍👍:clapping::clapping:

I’ll get you a link for emails posted on line…and can help you with follow-up views of them by others.
 
I have to admit I’ve been thinking about polar bears and what confounding factors might be problematic in any research re population increase, decrease, or stability. The first thing I would need would be an operational definition of “increase.” This means a significant positive change from an accepted baseline number of polar bears in years past. Has this baseline number been established? How? Who did it? Has the research been repeated? Have the results been replicated? Have polar bear populations been running steady during the last century or so? What about the human population? Has it increased significantly?

I’ve read a few articles now and what I have read throws the polar bear problem straight into the middle of the AGW controversy. I honestly don’t know if the polar bear population is increasing. I’m not in polar bear country seeing and counting all the polar bears and comparing them to the polar bears I counted last year and the year before that and on back fifty or so years.

If AGW exists, I believe polar bears are in for the fight of their lives. IF AGW exists. Or maybe even if it doesn’t exist. Maybe the number of polar bears will significantly decrease for a reason other than AGW.

To start with I found this article:

grist.org/article/will-polar-bears-go-extinct-by-2030-part-i/

“The point is that you cannot simply summarize the status of polar bears-the information lies in the individual populations. You cannot put the various time periods together into a simplistic overview. Sea ice is declining but again, it is not declining the same everywhere. Some small areas of multi-year ice may improve habitat for polar bears. This latter point, however, does not mean that the habitat in all areas will improve and the predictions are very clear that the primary habitat of polar bears is at risk.”

I don’t know the source. I don’t know if this can be trusted. One thing that struck me is that a government agency is conducting research and that throws up a red flag. I would need to see the research itself. I can probably make some sense of it if I can see it. Other than that, this article sounds good to me. But then an opposing article might sound good to me, too. I can see some potential problems with studies but I haven’t found the studies yet. If people are seeing more polar bears, well, that’s not a very good way to determine if the polar bear population is increasing. It could be because humans are encroaching on their territory (it’s for that reason that where I live we are seeing more black bears, along with deer, raccoons, and bobcats). It could be because the habitat that the polar bears live in is being destroyed due to AGW or due to something else.

I don’t know at this point but it’s making me think. What if AGW does exist? I probably am not going to be around counting polar bears fifty years from now. What if there is a problem? What if our children and grandchildren and great great grandchildren are the ones that have to deal with it?

I’m just sayin’ here. Nothing upsetting me, nothing confusing me at this point. This is a starting point for me. I hope you all respect that.

I like that photo that is shown with the article; it shows off that blue tongue very well.

BTW, if I didn’t mention it before, the Sierra Club is pro-abortion IMHO (and a representative refused to be pinned down on the club’s position when I challenged him/her several days ago in a thread on facebook). He/she blew me off completely. I’ve cut off my tiny bit of financial support and I’m returning their current request for more money from me, along with a note explaining why I will never send them one cent again, in their nice SASE which they kindly provided (thank you, Sierra Club :)). The problems I run into re the environment sometimes overlap with the pro-life position and in cases like that I NEVER support any organization that is pro-abortion. Sierra Club is out. And if you know of any other environmental/political organizations that are pro-abortion (such as Amnesty International), please let me know. It sickens me to think that I helped to support an organization that supports the murder of our unborn. That is anti-environmentalism, anti-Catholic, and anti-God.
 
LittleSoldier said:
I have to admit I’ve been thinking about polar bears and what confounding factors might be problematic in any research re population increase, decrease, or stability. The first thing I would need would be an operational definition of “increase.” This means a significant positive change from an accepted baseline number of polar bears in years past. Has this baseline number been established? How? Who did it? Has the research been repeated? Have the results been replicated? Have polar bear populations been running steady during the last century or so? What about the human population? Has it increased significantly?
Click to expand...
Another question you may want to ask yourself concerning these bears…
In the frozen wasteland that is their natural habitat, how do they know how many there are?
Is that method of counting really reliable?
If so, how do we know the population is not simply moving from where they can be readily counted to some place even less hospitable?
 
obama549 said:
They had “fish ladders” and a glass tube about ~ 3 feet in diameter passed through the office and people sat there and counted the fish as they swam upstream.
Click to expand...
I hope these people were paid enough to make sure their count was accurate.

Of course, all we get is a count of fish in a tube.
That may or may not accurately tell us the fish in the stream at either end.

Of course, I am questioning the count of bears in the wild.
But the accuracy of the fish count I can see being just as problematic.

Now if we can get the bears to swim through the tube…😉
But then, we still get the same problem.
We know how many go through the tube, but do not know if it accurately portrays the number on either side.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top