US Congressman subpoenas NOAA climate scientists over study
Unhappy with temperature data, he wants to see the e-mails of those who analyze it.
Can someone please explain why Republicans are allergic to science?!
PaulSpoerry.com
Social Media, technology, and geeky stuff for your brain.
Yes, in this instance, it's because the land surface stations do not match the satellite data. And the disagreement is extremely important because the satellite data says there has been a hiatus for more than 18 years to the warming, and there are a number of corrections happening with the surface stations which suggest that it is those land stations which are wrong.
There is nothing really unscientific about asking these questions in light of "Mike's Nature trick" which was used to "hide the decline."
If you're not familiar with those Climategate quotes, then please learn their history from a UC Berkeley climatologist …
https://plus.google.com/+ChrisReeveOnlineScientificDiscourseIsBroken/posts/75nrFAYemUq
This second graphic adds additional detail to the origin of the hockey stick graph …
https://plus.google.com/+ChrisReeveOnlineScientificDiscourseIsBroken/posts/VrM9SW5EKjh
If you studied the planet through history you would know that the planet naturally goes through warming and cooling periods. Global warming is a scam.
+John Adams If I may speculate, I would guess that most advocates of AGW could not actually recount the most damning aspect of the Climategate emails. Nor, I'd bet, would most advocates understand that to create the hockey stick graph, the Medieval Warm Period had to go — even though, up to that point, it was widely accepted as fact. I'd also bet that the AGW advocates mostly do not yet know about the questionable statistical tricks that Michael Mann did in order to produce the incline for the hockey stick graph. Further, I'm skeptical that many understand much about dendrochronology or Mann's "divergence problem" with his Bristlecone Pines.
My point is that there's a lot of history at this point which sources like the Huffington Post are not educating their readers on. I read their articles. I'm a Democrat. The thing is: I also read the critics of climate science. And from what I can see, the climate scientists will ultimately lose this debate on the scientific terms.
A lot of environmentalists don't actually care how the science turns out. They are following the narrative, and they simply seek out reasons to believe the narrative.
But trust us! Trust us! THEY are the ones lieing! The people studying it all their lives! We, the ones subpoenaing their data are the ones to trust!
" could not actually recount the most damning aspect of the Climategate emails."
The fact that 2000+ emails there wasn't a trace of a wide international conspiracy that is needed in order to fake this stuff?
Instead what we got was a very small number of scientists acting a bit human and not doing what they should. But with the magic of confirmation bias, you can ignore the fact the emails almost dissprove a conspiracy and only look at what supports the claims they are making it up.
+John Adams
Why is it acceptable for people that have not studied the subject and have no qualifications to say "its fake!" ? Why do you think a few days reading websites somehow beats people that study a subject their lives?
You think scientists dont know the earth goes though naturally periods of variation? You think they dont know of certain cycles? You honestly think that its some revelation they are hidding?
+Thomas Wrobel Re: "Instead what we got was a very small number of scientists acting a bit human and not doing what they should."
If that is the story that you guys tell each other, then you've completely missed the critique.
Re: "We know the truth already! And because we know the truth we don't need the science"
Hey, it's either the satellites or the people that are wrong. This is not complicated. We cannot "ask" the satellites, right? We can only ask the people. I'm not getting what is wrong with this. The situation is obviously highly politicized, and the Climategate situation already revealed that Mann is willing to manipulate the data to make his case. Scientists are not some special breed of humans that are impervious to politics.
Re: "Why do you think a few days reading websites somehow beats people that study a subject their lives?"
I can't speak for John, but I study scientific controversies in my free time. This involves lots of claims checking with critics. It's a laborious process, but honestly the only way to get a solid feel for a controversy — because most people, as you say, only pay attention to the side which supports their preferred conclusion (which, I will be honest, I am getting the impression that you do, as well).
So, no, it's not been just a few days of reading websites. I've constructed a prototype controversy map which traces a detailed explanation for how the Sun is likely influencing climate. It's still just a static site, but this will eventually be interactive …
https://social-scientific.herokuapp.com/#/tab/controversies/0#claims
I also created the graphics I've been pointing you to, in order to teach people about controversies — since academia seems allergic to doing so.
Here is another format for this same line of investigation …
http://en.arguman.org/there-is-no-such-thing-as-global-warming
If you are having trouble understanding why climate scientists might be ideologically trained to believe in manmade global warming, then you should learn about the largest freedom-of-expression case in North American physics …
https://plus.google.com/108466508041843226480/posts/UBHrj2f3zKs
You're throwing a lot of very superficial arguments at the wall to see what will stick. The truth is that the answers are all beneath this superficial layer. You have to dig quite a bit deeper, and you have to expand your focus beyond just the discipline of climate science, if you want real answers.
+Thomas Wrobel There's corrupted scientists out there working for the conspiring elites who are pushing this global warming scam to gain more power and control. You have no clue what's really going on. Just a brainwashed slave.
Um… InsideClimateChange (Pulitzer winner btw) found and published that Exxon knew as early as 1977 that its main product would heat up the planet disastrously. http://insideclimatenews.org/news/15092015/Exxons-own-research-confirmed-fossil-fuels-role-in-global-warming
+John Adams What's more likely… billion dollar industries trying to cover it up or scientists worldwide colluding against industry?! Oh and… don't forget we've been down this road before. Take lead… we were told by the "industries" that it was fine… totally safe… even after much of the world abandoned it the US didn't. If it wasn't for Clair Cameron Patterson fighting to prove it wasn't safe the industries would still be using it because: profits. Or what bout the tobacco industry? When finally sued here in the US it was found the tobacco industry had decades of internal memos confirming in detail that tobacco was both addictive and carcinogenic (cancer-causing). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legacy_Tobacco_Documents_Library
I don't think either side understands science when decisions are being made based on one study. And to be fair, the "Left" seem to have the most vaccine and GMO allergies! 😉
+Paul Spoerry How can anybody "know" in light of the fact that the water vapor feedback is still only understood in qualitative terms?
You know, there's a real opportunity here for the most fervent advocates of climate change to heed the recent critique of Sunita Narain …
https://plus.google.com/+ChrisReeveOnlineScientificDiscourseIsBroken/posts/WsqRw1riqmn
If you agree with Sunita, then you can make a difference by ceasing your own gluttonous consumption. A good first step might be to pack up your tent and cooking stove, and begin your life as a first-world resident. Nobody can stop you.
But, please understand that this is not what America is about: We do not feel guilty for our consumption; it's what drives our f*cking economy.
+Paul Spoerry Re: "What's more likely… billion dollar industries trying to cover it up or scientists worldwide colluding against industry?!"
By the way, this is called a statistical syllogism: You're not actually evaluating the claims. What you're doing is stereotyping the people involved, and trying to identify the most believable narrative.
Wikipedia: "It argues, using inductive reasoning, from a generalization true for the most part to a particular case."
Science exists as a check upon these unscientific tendencies. Stereotyping comes from your "lizard brain" (your subconscious). It's a system that bases upon emotions, which makes it completely inadequate for evaluating complex scientific controversies.
The whole point of science is to engage claims rationally, using the part of your brain that lizards do not have.
In essence, when you point to the success of science, but then refuse to use it as a tool, what you are doing is thinking what scientists think — which, to be clear, is completely different than actually thinking like a scientist.
The former is a form of faith in somebody else's opinion, whereas the latter is a process which strives to follow the best, most convincing argument and evidence.
Part of the problem is that climate science is increasingly marketed to this lizard brain. The public is today quite commonly invited to refuse to think like a scientist, by the actual scientists, through marketing campaigns.
I understand why people fall for this: Rationally engaging claims requires a lot of time and effort. But, at the point where you are going online and telling the critical thinkers to place faith in scientists, you need to really stop and think hard about what the hell you're doing.
It's wrong, and honestly, the critical thinkers see straight through that garbage. If the claims are so great and clearcut, then nobody should have to place faith in anybody else's beliefs.
+Chris Reeve I'm sorry you wasted so much of your time attempting to make me look like I was just making logical leaps. Had you bothered to read the first part of my comment it linked directly to information about how Exxon had decades of research (prior to the people currently studying climate change) that shows they knew their product would do exactly what is happening. But hey man… keep on trying to be the smart kid at the table.