Global Warming & Evolution: WHO are The Scientists?

[dogtowner]

Most journal articles use two or three reviewers. A controversial paper may go up to six reviewers. Many hundreds of scientists from 120 countries had to sign off unanimously on the IPCC report. That peer review process exceeds anything that was ever done in the history of science.

thats how its supposed to work. and its unlikely the admin signees even bothered to read the finding critically. even other scientists at east anglia were irate over portions of the content.

 

[Lagboltz]

thats how its supposed to work. and its unlikely the admin signees even bothered to read the finding critically. even other scientists at east anglia were irate over portions of the content.

The emails at East Anglia were taken out of context. They were scrutinized by the scientific community, which found that there was no tampering.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy#Science_Assessment_Panel

The report of the independent Science Assessment Panel was published on 14 April 2010 and concluded that the panel had seen "no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit." It found that the CRU's work had been "carried out with integrity" and had used "fair and satisfactory" methods. The CRU was found to be "objective and dispassionate in their view of the data and their results, and there was no hint of tailoring results to a particular agenda." Instead, "their sole aim was to establish as robust a record of temperatures in recent centuries as possible."

 

[dogtowner]

The emails at East Anglia were taken out of context. They were scrutinized by the scientific community, which found that there was no tampering.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy#Science_Assessment_Panel

is it really possible for there to have been no tampering when they cannot produce the data in question ?

of course they have attempted to save some face but the fact tht they admitted that there was no warming for 15 (now 16) demonstrates grave lapses in scientific practice.

 

[cashmcall]

I prepared this article for the website, WeThePeopleNation.com, in early 2012. I'm posting the article here, for it applies to "Global Warming", presently a sub-topic on a thread here at HOP. My article also includes commentary on 'Evolution", but readers can just skip over that part if they wish.

Democrats Against Science​

20 February 2012​

By JPRD “We The People Nation”​

​

In November of 2011, The New York Times published an article by op-ed columnist, Paul Krugman. The article was titled “Republicans Against Science”. In his article, Krugman quotes then GOP candidate, John Huntsman, as saying that the Republican Party is becoming the “anti-science party”. The claim that Republicans are “anti-science” has since become an integral part of the Democrat attacks leveled against Republicans. An accusation, however, is not necessarily a fact! One would think that those claiming to be “pro-science” would use it themselves when criticizing others, and when forming their own opinions on the issues of the day. What would an objective analysis conclude about the Democrat accusation?

Mr. Krugman addresses two examples in his article that he says represent the Republican anti-science bias. He implies that many Republicans doubt that “global-warming” is real, and that many Republicans have doubts about the theory of Evolution. Comments on those issues by then GOP candidate Rick Perry were especially “vile” according to Krugman. “Vile” isn’t a scientific term, but Krugman feels it applies to those disagreeing with him. Perry had suggested that some “scientists” were being driven more by monetary interests than by the interest of good science. Krugman says, “Mr. Perry and those who think like him know what they want to believe, and their response to anyone who contradicts them is to start a witch hunt.” An objective, comprehensive, and scientific assessment of these important issues, would more accurately conclude that it’s Democrats like Krugman who are anti-scientific witch hunters, not Republicans.

The global-warming issue is a complex and multifaceted one. Rick Perry grossly oversimplified those complexities in his comments. Paul Krugman grossly oversimplified those complexities in his article! There are many relevant questions needing to be answered by the scientific research on the subject: (1) Is the earth warming? (2) If so, is such warming a new occurrence in the earth’s history, or does it reflect natural trends that have and will always exist? (3) If present warming reflects natural, historical trends, do those trends reflect the entire scope of the present warming, or only part of it? (4) If the increasing temperature exceeds what the earth’s historical trends have been, by how much does it exceed what is expected to occur naturally? (5) If there is a difference between historical expectations and what we’re experiencing, what variables are causing the difference? (6) What impact on warming does each variable represent? (7) If human activity is proven to be a major contributor to warming, what steps can be taken by humans to reverse the warming? (8) What impact will each step have on the warming? (9) Will the results of taking those steps leave the earth “safe”? (10) Define what is “safe”? (11) How much money will each step cost to implement? (12) If steps are taken to reverse the effect of one or more variables, will those steps impact other variables in ways that are undesirable?

Mr. Krugman and those “scientists” friendly to his claim tell us that global-warming is caused by human beings. They tell us what we must do to reverse the warming. Unless Krugman and his “scientific experts” can answer every one of the aforementioned questions, their claim that human activity is responsible for the warming, that the warming endangers our survival, and that it can be reversed by taking the steps they demand is nothing more than a wild guess! Wild guesses are not science! Those Democrats demanding that trillions of dollars be spent to reverse a trend that may or may not exist, may or may not be human-caused, and may or may not be reversible for any amount of money, are not scientific! Democrat demands to take actions that might well bankrupt our nation while accomplishing nothing worthwhile are not only un-scientific, they're insane. It’s the Republicans who demand comprehensive and objective answers to these questions who are pro-science, not their wild-guessing, Democrat critics! The Democrats are sticking to Mr. Obama’s demand that immediate action is vital on everything he wants to do. Taking immediate action to address a problem that they can’t even identify and quantify properly is not scientific!

The question of “evolution” is as complex or more-so than “global warming”. Mr. Krugman seems to think that a belief in God is unscientific. Many Republicans believe that God and evolution are not mutually exclusive. Anyone claiming that God can be proven to be a myth is anti-science, not those with open, scientific minds on the subject! Although Darwin didn’t create the term himself, he agreed that the concept of “survival of the fittest” was a generally accurate term to describe his theory. Evolution holds that the fittest and most adaptable of species will prosper and survive. Those who are incapable of adapting and overcoming will cease to exist. Why is it then, that Democrats do everything within their power to ensure the survival of the most unfit and un-adaptable within society? In the world of evolution, those who can’t survive without the largess of their successful and adaptable brothers and sisters would go the way of the dinosaurs. Darwinism is by nature a “Capitalistic” theory. Those who believe in evolution should have been on the front line in denying bailouts to failing banks and failing car manufacturers. Those who say that Darwinism is a scientific fact, should be at the forefront in demanding that government spending be cut, our budget balanced, and our future prosperity secured. They should be screaming from the rooftops to Americans, “Adapt and Survive”! Instead, those anti-science Democrats are telling us to accept their “free” gifts, don’t question their “science”, give them your votes, and quietly devolve.

As the November election gets closer, Republican candidates must prepare to counter the oversimplified and unscientific attacks that Democrats will level against them. For too long now, Democrats have successfully placed Republicans in a position of trying to prove they are not what Democrats accuse them of being. This year, Republicans must address the Democrat attacks with accurate counter-attacks of their own. It is the Democrats who cling to illogical, anti-science positions, not Republicans!

As I have said before.. denial of science is bi-partisan. The only difference is the issues affected by the denial. just being a little sarcastic..great post..

 

[kowalskil]

Climate change is a very slow process. Scientists are working hard to learn more. This is not the Apocalypse. No need to tape plastic over your windows like people did after 9-11. In 10 years we will understand what really is happening. We will find a way to cure this problem where the cure is not worse than the disease. Give it time - nothing we can do now anyway.

Yes, give scientists time and keep politicians away from this problem.

 

[dogtowner]

Yes, give scientists time and keep politicians away from this problem.

I would add have those scientists who were inclined to jump the gun to allow for normal review to occur.

 

[Cruella]

I would add have those scientists who were inclined to jump the gun to allow for normal review to occur.

And miss out on all that "green" money?

 

[Iolo2]

The only scientists relevant to global warming are climatologists, obviously. As to evolution, all educated people know its is hugely more likely than any other notion.

 

[cashmcall]

I remain of the opinion that we may well be experiencing climate-change. I'm also of the opinion that a comprehensive cause of the changing climate is unknown. I've yet to see anyone, scientist or otherwise, provide a clear statement of what the eventual outcome of climate-change will be, when it will occur, nor what the combined effect (If Any) of the IPCC "Mitigation" plans will have on that projected outcome.

I believe that the climate-change issue is being used for several purposes. (1) To enrich those offering mitigation plans that won't have much if any effect. (2) To redistribute wealth from the Western nations to those less developed ones. (3) To increase the powers wielded by the World-Governance fanatics. (4) To cripple the military, industrial, and civilian populations such that the eventual world leaders can impose enforced population-reduction in whatever manner they decide is easiest for them.

I wouldn't be that upset if the rest of the world bankrupts itself, destroys civilian freedoms, and goes to hell in a handbasket. I'd rather return the USA to what is was intended to be, maintain our powers and our freedoms, and be the ones left happy and alive when everyone else is gone.

Given that we know that the warming so far has increased global vegetation cover, increased precipitation, lengthened growing seasons, cause minimal ecological change and had no impact on extreme weather events, I need persuading that future warming will be fast enough and large enough to do net harm rather than net good. Unless water-vapour-supercharged, the models suggest a high probability of temperatures changing less than 2C, which from what I understand and almost everybody agrees will do net good.

Nor is it clear that ecosystems and people will fail to adapt, for there is clear evidence that adaptation has already vastly reduced damage from the existing climate – there has been a 98% reduction in the probability of death from drought... flood or storm since the 1920s, for example, i read that malaria retreated rapidly even as the temperature rose during the twentieth century.

So I cannot see why the poor should bear the cost of damage that will not become apparent until the time of a far richer future generation, any more than people in 1900 should have borne sacrifices to make people today slightly richer. Or why today’s poor should subsidise, through their electricity bills, today’s rich who receive subsidies for wind farms, which produce less than 0.5% of the country’s energy....THATS JUST NUT'S

Indeed I will need persuading that pushing everything to renewables can cut emissions rather than make them worse; this is by no means certain given that the increased use of bioenergy, such as wood or corn ethanol, driven by climate policies,and from what I nderstand is indeed making them worse. Meanwhile shale gas use in the USA has led to a far greater cut in emissions thanany other technology, yet it is opposed every step of the way by climate alarmists/OUR PRESIDENT.

Finally, you might make the argument that even a very small probability of a very large and dangerous change in the climate justifies drastic action. But I would reply that a very small probability of a very large and dangerous effect from the adoption of large scale renewable energy, reduced economic growth and hurt the poor the most through carbon taxes or geo-engineering also justifies extreme caution. At the moment, to me, it seems highly likely that the cure is worse than disease.
We are taking chemotherapy for a cold.

 

[DavidCervid]

It appears like each time another story is made by the media about science, there should be some kind of questionable subject or verbal confrontation included. The Theory of Evolution is no more bizarre to debate, particularly the possibility that people developed after some time from different species. Numerous religious gatherings and others don't have faith in advancement due to this contention with their creation stories.

Another dubious science point regularly discussed by the news media is worldwide environmental change, or a dangerous global warming.

Life on Earth has as of now been on a very basic level modified by a worldwide temperature alteration, influencing the qualities of plants and creatures and modifying each biological system on the planet, as per a noteworthy survey of the logical writing.

Australia's wild parrots, which are progressively being presented to a portion of the world's most noteworthy temperatures, have advanced to develop longer wings to adapt to the additional warmth.

Researchers at the University of Notre Dame Australia have found that the wings of ringneck parrots, which live in Western Australia, have developed by 4-5mm in the course of recent years.

Specialists guarantee the adjustment implies the feathered creatures, generally called 28s after their shrieked "twen-ty-eight" call, have adjusted so they can shed more warmth when they fly.

 

[palerider]

The emails at East Anglia were taken out of context. They were scrutinized by the scientific community, which found that there was no tampering.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy#Science_Assessment_Panel

And I am sure that if you have the mob scrutinize its own activities, they will find that there was no illegal activity.

 

[palerider]

The only scientists relevant to global warming are climatologists, obviously. As to evolution, all educated people know its is hugely more likely than any other notion.

Far from true...climatology is a soft science...those with a degree in climatology are grossly lacking in upper level mathematics, statistics, physics, chemistry, etc...a person graduating with a bachelors degree in physics could effectively teach any course in climatology while a masters or PhD in climatology would be lost teaching any but the most basic courses required for a degree in physics.

This is why climate science tends to hide their data and methodology...when actual experts look at their work, they find mistake after mistake after mistake...upside down proxies, flawed statistical work, shitty programming..etc. etc. etc. and on and on and on.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Far from true...climatology is a soft science...those with a degree in climatology are grossly lacking in upper level mathematics, statistics, physics, chemistry, etc...a person graduating with a bachelors degree in physics could effectively teach any course in climatology while a masters or PhD in climatology would be lost teaching any but the most basic courses required for a degree in physics.

This is why climate science tends to hide their data and methodology...when actual experts look at their work, they find mistake after mistake after mistake...upside down proxies, flawed statistical work, shitty programming..etc. etc. etc. and on and on and on.

Eco-Eunuchs

They are B students jealous of A students. Resentful of their inferiority and vindictive about it, they have a desperate psychological need to preach that all inventions that geniuses brought to us have only desecrated their sacred Gaia and doomed mankind.

These self-protecting snakes invented the Ad Hominem "fallacy" so that their creepy motivations will never be questioned. Only someone intimidated by academic shields would treat the preachings of these minor-league scientists as objective and fall for the mandate that every squeaky-voiced, pencil-necked, hollow-chested nerd is an impersonal and angelic mentor offering us humanitarian science. These dangerous mutant misfits have to feel they are on the cutting edge. If they are, it should be the cutting edge of a shredder.