The warmers are becoming skeptics

[Sword_Of_Truth]

When you find some, let us know.

Remember this guy?

S Korea cloning research was fake

Research by South Korea's top human cloning scientist - hailed as a breakthrough earlier this year - was fabricated, colleagues have concluded.

A Seoul National University panel said the research by world-renowned Hwang Woo-suk was "intentionally fabricated", and he would be disciplined.

The irony here being that, IMO, we would have been in more serious trouble if this wasn't a fraud.

 

[Upchurch]

Remember this guy?

The irony here being that, IMO, we would have been in more serious trouble if this wasn't a fraud.

Sure. Science is a self-correcting mechanism. You'll note that his fellow scientists discovered the hoax and outed him. That is the purpose of peer review.

Perhaps I should have been more specific in my last post, but what does that have to do with global warming?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

You asked for one, were given one, and now the goal posts are moved over there?
Your inference was that there is no fraud in science. There is clearly, and AGW is just as susceptible to it as any other field afakct.

 

[Upchurch]

You asked for one, were given one, and now the goal posts are moved over there?

You are correct in the literal interpretation of my words, but not in their intent. The topic of discussion is AGW, is it not? Would it not be safe to assume that this is what I was referring to?

Your inference was that there is no fraud in science.

If we're going to be this literal, then it is you who inferred that from my post. What I was implying was that there is no sustainable fraud in science.

There is clearly, and AGW is just as susceptible to it as any other field afakct.

Instead of dancing around it, I'll just ask: are you saying that such fraud has taken place and, more to the point, that a large number of scientists are involved across several decades?

 

[fuelair]

I don't dare even have an opinion on the topic.

When someone knows what they're talking about, get back to me.

At the heart of it (without regard to who/what is causing it), when we moved to FL there was already discussion (Tampa Trib is where I read it) that by the mid 20s (ca 2050) Florida would have lost coastline quite visibly to the rising oceans as ice areas melted. (that's one) As I wrote on another thread that takes an increase of 1-2 degrees (we'll use Celsius here as there is a greater heat increase/decrease in heat with each degree up/down) in the AVERAGE (the yell letters aren't for you Sling, they are for the deniers) annual temperature of the entire world - i.e. the whole Earth's climate - not that of any one area. And more important, this has no bearing on the unimportant (except for local areas) weather that you get from your local weather person(s) (well, the info about it).

And, thats the big problem the deniers do not get. We aren't going to start having every area get rapidly hotter and hotter - it does not take that . All it takes is a few years of, say, 1/10th of a degree rise (or less - say 1/50th per year) in the overall world average each year to get us to melting glaciers, smaller snow fields, shorter winters (in the sense of cold periods - and the lowest temps/number of days at those temps during the cold periods.) and longer, dryer summers with more days of higher heat (not dramatically higher or dramatically - small chanes have effects that build up/add up quite nicely) .

And, years of El Nino can easily have movre immediate effects on local/wide area problems in the short term and areas El Nino affects - these should not be confused with the gradual change in warming - they are two seperate things though eventually the annual build up will eventually likely strngthen the effects of El Nino - but just a little bit at a time.



Oh, one last thing - one of the sillier things that the deniers have pushed is that there can't be a rise in sea level as the glaciers and other ice masses melt (though they really aren't because the scientists are just making the stuff up) because the water level stays the same when ice melts as it was before the ice melted. And that is actually true of all ice that is freely floating directly in the ocean (and, this can be checked by a simple, though misleading here, experiment: put ice in a glass of water, measure the surface level before and after the ice melts - no change. Problem is that they are not taking account of the fact that much of the world's ice is located on actual land masses (including enough on Greenland for a 7 meter rise and a lot more on Antarctica) so the only large mass of ice that experiment applies to is the Arctic ice mass as it's melting really would not raise the oceans (though it would have other big effects).


For deniers who read this, feel free to refute - but before you try, I'd research each of these and note I have made no comments on human effects vs. non-human (though I freely admit I think much of the increase is human caused and a direct result of technology (I love technology, by the way - I am no sabot thrower!!!)

 

[fuelair]

For clarity, the land masses of Greenland and Antarctica are not floating on top of the oceans anymore than North America or Hawaii, etc. are - if they were, the deniers would be correct. But, they aren't.

 

[Thunder]

A fair point - but only to a point.
Do you still 'blindly' believe them even in the light of human flaws, failures and controversy that follows them and their science?
Which experts do you believe?

i believe scientists who appear to have done their rigorous homework, and seem to have no apparent political or monetary motivation for their claims.

however, if their science is later proven to be false, by other scientists who also appear to be doing their boring, tedious, but necessary homework, with no political or monetary motivations, then I will believe those scientists instead.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Sure. Science is a self-correcting mechanism. You'll note that his fellow scientists discovered the hoax and outed him. That is the purpose of peer review.

Perhaps I should have been more specific in my last post, but what does that have to do with global warming?

Absolutely nothing.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Instead of dancing around it, I'll just ask: are you saying that such fraud has taken place and, more to the point, that a large number of scientists are involved across several decades?

Fraud has not been the word I used but simply followed on from others within this thread.
That said, some of the science has been 'hijacked' (fwoaw) by some and extraordinary predictions have been made to further careers, make political points, obtain funding and so on.
If that is fraud then the answer is yes.

But please do not for one second think I am tarring all with one broad brush stroke. You have asked me a direct question and I have been honest and hope I have answered it satisfactorily.

 

[Thunder]

i believe scientists who appear to have done their rigorous homework, and seem to have no apparent political or monetary motivation for their claims.

however, if their science is later proven to be false, by other scientists who also appear to be doing their boring, tedious, but necessary homework, with no political or monetary motivations, then I will believe those scientists instead.

no response from A.A. Alfie?

or does he prefer we just ignore all experts in the field of climatology and instead trust the most obscure scientists we can find, as long as they provide us with anti-AGW "evidence"?

 

[King of the Americas]

Apparently the glaciers are in on the hoax.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_81544b1a11b1bd094.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_81544b1a121605a7a.jpg[/qimg]

Steve S

But it is SNOWING in D.C. right now, so the glaciers are obviously wrong...

 

[Upchurch]

Fraud has not been the word I used but simply followed on from others within this thread.
That said, some of the science has been 'hijacked' (fwoaw) by some and extraordinary predictions have been made to further careers, make political points, obtain funding and so on.
If that is fraud then the answer is yes.

But please do not for one second think I am tarring all with one broad brush stroke. You have asked me a direct question and I have been honest and hope I have answered it satisfactorily.

But do you think that multiple scientists have been conspiring over an extended period of time to commit this fraud?

In other words, do you, for example, believe that one group of scientists have been submitting fraudulent papers to respected journals and that other scientists have circumvented the peer-review process by agreeing with these hoaxes, putting their own reputations on the line, and allowing them to be published?

I'm just trying to know if you understand the depth of the conspiracy that you are, um, theorizing about here. Do you understand how many scientists would have to put their reputations (and thus, livelihoods) on the line to pull this off, all the while trusting that none of them will blow the whistle on the whole thing? Do you understand how long they would have had to have been at this for it to become as established as it has? We're talking a decade, at least.

 

[Thunder]

That said, some of the science has been 'hijacked' (fwoaw) by some and extraordinary predictions have been made to further careers, make political points, obtain funding and so on.

prove it. or back away from the keyboard.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

But do you think that multiple scientists have been conspiring over an extended period of time to commit this fraud?

In other words, do you, for example, believe that one group of scientists have been submitting fraudulent papers to respected journals and that other scientists have circumvented the peer-review process by agreeing with these hoaxes, putting their own reputations on the line, and allowing them to be published?

I'm just trying to know if you understand the depth of the conspiracy that you are, um, theorizing about here. Do you understand how many scientists would have to put their reputations (and thus, livelihoods) on the line to pull this off, all the while trusting that none of them will blow the whistle on the whole thing? Do you understand how long they would have had to have been at this for it to become as established as it has? We're talking a decade, at least.

I think I answered that in round terms in the above post.
Investigations are continuing re Climategate and more and more will come out this year it seems.
I (like you) can only watch and wait on that.
What I do know is that something stinks and the stench is getting stronger.

prove it. or back away from the keyboard.

The investigations into climategate will show these.
Do you claim that all these people are 100% guilt free of the things suggested?

Have the IPCC not (basically) admitted they lied for politicaly prudent reasons in recent times. And what of their fearless leader Pachuri - no conflict of interest there is there?
Money! There are truck loads of it flying around this and you seem to think everyone is in the game for some altruistic reason and all the players are justified in wearing virgin white.

I have some real estate you may be interested in.

 

[Dancing David]

You asked for one, were given one, and now the goal posts are moved over there?
Your inference was that there is no fraud in science. There is clearly, and AGW is just as susceptible to it as any other field afakct.

Except you and your epic fail to show that AGW is fraud?

Now you want to move the goals posts to korean cloning?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Nahh.
It wasn't my question to start with and at any rate AGW wasn't specified. The goalposts were not set, nor moved by me.
Aar, I have accepted the reply given in terms of the literal (or not) reading of the original post.

 

[Upchurch]

I think I answered that in round terms in the above post.
Investigations are continuing re Climategate and more and more will come out this year it seems.
I (like you) can only watch and wait on that.
What I do know is that something stinks and the stench is getting stronger.

I don't know what "round terms" are, but can I take it from this that you honestly think that scientists would cover for other scientists hoaxes in peer reviewed journals and wouldn't expose them as frauds? For years?

And your evidence for this are the debunked claims about emails taken out of context by hackers and thieves?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

And your evidence for this are the debunked claims about emails taken out of context by hackers and thieves?

First, please show me where these have been debunked by independant parties. That includes police, parliaments et al.

Second, hackers or theives (or a whistleblower) matters how exactly if, they are ultimately shown to have done the wrong thing?

 

[Thunder]

Originally Posted by A.A.Alfie
That said, some of the science has been 'hijacked' (fwoaw) by some and extraordinary predictions have been made to further careers, make political points, obtain funding and so on.

any proof yet...A.A. Alfie???

 

[Hallo Alfie]

any proof yet...A.A. Alfie???

Not yet, all allegations and much under investigation.
Please don't take things out of context and try and trap me, poor show and not really honest.

On the proof - look to Pachuri and/in/of the IPCC. The stench is overwhelming.
Also as I said previously, the allegations are 'in' the Climategate emails which are also under investigation.

Proof, no - not exactly.
Suspicions, absolutely.
Likelihood - I think that depends on where you sit in the debate.

So I ask again.

Are they all entitled to wear virgin white?
And why aren't you at least a little suspicious on at least some levels?