Topic: Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers. - page 224. (Read 636458 times)

But now if you were in fact a polar bear researcher, and you did in fact falsify data on bears drowning, saying it was likely to increase and it was a dire consequence of the Big Warming Coming....you'd get away with it, and then you'd retire, and you'd get paid off Big.

Note, this is a complicated story and there may be several sides to it.  But I think we're cool on saying this guy helped develop the Polar Bears Dying myth, and the Believers Protect Their Own.

http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/global-warming-scientist-accused-of-falsifying-data-on-drowned-polar-bears-retires.html

Someone who loves to get paid to do "research"?

An Iowa State University professor resigned after admitting he falsely claimed rabbit blood could be turned into a vaccine for the AIDS virus.

Dr. Dong-Pyou Han spiked a clinical test sample with healthy human blood to make it appear that the rabbit serum produced disease-fighting antibodies, officials said.

The bogus findings helped Han’s team obtain $19 million in research grants from the National Institutes of Health, said James Bradac, who oversees the institutes’ AIDS research.

The remarkable findings were reported in scientific journals but raised suspicions when other researchers could not duplicate Han’s results.

The NIH uncovered the scam when it checked the rabbit serum at a lab and found the human antibodies.

Han resigned from his university post as an assistant professor of biomedical studies in October. His case came to light this week when it was reported in the Federal Register.

Han agreed last month not to seek government contracts for three years, the register said.

http://nypost.com/2013/12/26/professor-admits-faking-aids-vaccine-to-get-19m-in-grants/

Probably because there are not the likes of Einstein in the so called 'climate science' field.  In fact somewhere I read that there was a striking difference between the intellectual status of physics phd candidates and those in the earth sciences, which roughly means 'climate science'.

I mean, what kind of person would decide to spend his life researching polar bears, anyway.

That's what I'm hoping for. Right now I'm having a hard time discerning between the typical climatology whitepaper and pseudo-science. I keep coming back to the demarcation problem of science every time I read a report saying CO2, Methane, etc. levels have X impact and they don't even account one iota of solar radiation. I can't help but immediately think of the whole correlation != causation mantra, yet these alarming cries are still rampant in every corner of global warming research. I want to see SCIENCE, not hear Chicken Little.

Next month's magazine headline:

Surprising Flavor in Taylor!

LOL...

The human brain has a tendency to find organization and meaning where there is none, effectively there is no difference between reading chicken bones or tea leaves or tarot cards, and making simplified conclusions from selected sciency factoids.

That's a tendency we all have to cope with, you know.

That "science is settled" sort of talk needs to STFU.

Regarding my comments about the CERN experiments, here is one of the lead researchers being interviewed:

Let’s assume that you are able to show that cosmic radiation indeed does contribute a lot to cloud formation. What would that mean?

I think that the experiments are important in two ways. Firstly, they would show that there is a natural source to climate change. And the other point is that it would change our understanding of anthropogenic climate change. We know quite a bit about greenhouse gases. What we know little about are aerosols. These are particles that come from industry floating in the atmosphere. They surely have a cooling effect. However, we have no idea just how great this effect is. It may be small, but it may be very big. Maybe it is even big enough to offset the additional CO2 in the atmosphere.. We don’t know.

So... Are you saying the science is NOT settled??
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bW7Op86ox9g

Never, ever believe these clowns when they try to use the phrase "fingerprint analysis".

It's been something of an ongoing argument as to why the Sun's effect seems more pronounced than just a simple counting of watts impacting land and air.  The changes in that watt count year to year or solar cycle to solar cycle are small. 

Recent studies by CERN have partly validated the argument that cloud cover is affected by the electromagnetic and particle output of the Sun.

In other words, 'solar variability' is not the right measure, as defined.  Rather one needs to ask along the lines of 'the full impact of the Sun on Earth's climate', which turns out to be a surprisingly difficult question to answer.

In fact, AGW is full of very simple questions that we don't have anywhere near complete answers for.  What is the albedo of the earth?  What is the ocean heat content?  What is the effect of the Sun?  How do these factors change?

Realistically, 50-100 years into the future we may have good answers.

[...]
And the large values simply don't work very well. With a high value for solar influence, nearly three hundred of the 1,000 years of the comparison failed to line up—the model output failed to match the historical record. In contrast, with a low value of solar influence, the number of mismatched years was cut by more than half. There was also an extended period at the start of the last millennium where the Northern Hemisphere's temperatures were high (commonly called the Medieval Warm Period), yet the solar activity was relatively low.

Doing a fingerprint analysis, which identifies the climate influences that produce the climate changes we actually measure, researchers showed that volcanoes and greenhouse gasses were the largest influences on the climate over the last 1,000 years, with greenhouse gasses playing a role even before their recent rise due to industrialization. In addition, they find that volcanic eruptions have both a short-term impact on climate (which was known) as well as a longer-term cooling impact.

Clearly, this study is limited by being focused on the Northern Hemisphere, when what we generally care about is the global effect. If solar activity did have a strong global influence, however, there should be periods where at least some of that effect was apparent in the Northern Hemisphere. It's also limited by being focused on a single climate model. The authors confirmed that a second model produced similar results, and they note that the fingerprint analysis depends only on the timing of changes, and not their magnitude. As a result, they "conclude that large solar forcing is inconsistent with reconstructions of climate of the past millennium."

That doesn't mean that the Sun couldn't force changes if its activity shifted more significantly than it has over the last thousand years or so. But that period includes both the Maunder and Dalton minimums, which are periods of exceptionally low activity in the historical record. It also doesn't rule out solar activity driving regional changes that are swamped when averaging across the entire Northern Hemisphere.

Nevertheless, the study is another point against the idea that the Sun's variability has had a significant influence on the historic climate. And, in that, it's consistent with the majority of other results.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/12/solar-variability-has-a-small-effect-on-climate-change/

And then there are the people who believed in hope and in change and in obamacare.

Well, looks like we all have to believe in something.

The windmills could power the Soylent Green factories...

Think of the number of jobs, the budget, the new agency to accomplish this important task!

  Should climate change deniers be eliminated?

Now there can't be any doubt! 

what no mention of the people who believe that there is a magical invisible man in the sky who demonstrated the epitome of virtue by murdering his son to save us from a fate that he chose to impose upon us to begin with?

thats wayyyyy crazier than a flat earth. atleast the earth looks flat.

You lost the argument about science and probabilities, so predictably you shift to fear mongering.

I wish the $150 trillion global debt bubble would hurry up and pop, so you useless individuals will lose your funny money and be relegated to arguing with yourself in the mirror.

Red herrings all.  Belief in or against anthropogenic global warming has nothing to do with those topics.

Actually the Noah's Ark in Turkey was exposed as a hoax, the pictures were fake and refuted by various scientists and explorers including National geographic. The Turkish government kept silent about it as to attract misinformed tourists.

I believe it all comes down to one thing. When it costs the rich more than the poor then it becomes a non issue.

When I hear Global Climate Change, I hear prices going up in electricity and gas and food and and and. I don't hear the rich complaining about those things.
Why do I have to believe in your climate change?

Just send me the fucken bill and get over the fact that you all need more money from the working joe to cover your lifestyles.



Seriously what happened to acid rain? Did we fix this problem?

I'll bite.  FIRST we need a global, visually identifiable proxy by which we can establish the presence or absence of the phenomena, global warming.  Selection of said proxy is made according to well understood scientific principles.

Null hypothesis:

(1)

(bikini-days/year x number of girls wearing bikinis)/world population

 has no statistical variation from a constant straight line for the years

1993...2013

(2)

Prediction is year 2014 will show no statistically significant variation from the norm previously established in (1).

Extensive budgets, jet travel aircraft, hotel bills are required for data collection for 2014.