Global warming contrarian researcher investigated for not revealing funding sources

Climate Change

For several years, aerospace engineer Willie Wei-Hock Soon, with the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA) has been a well known figure in the debate regarding the cause of global warming. While most scientists have maintained that the elevated temperatures are due to increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere from man-made processes, such as coal and gasoline burning, Soon has insisted that it is instead caused by normal fluctuations of the sun. Taking such a contrarian view has led to praise from those that support his views, and harsh criticism from those who do not.

Soon is in the spotlight again, this time facing accusations that he has not disclosed funding he has received when publishing research papers. His accusers suggest that he has received most of his funding from energy companies which would constitute a conflict of interest. Most respected journals require the authors of research papers to state in their paper that they report no conflict of interest.

Documents obtained via the Freedom of Information Act, by workers with Greenpeace which were subsequently given to investigators at the Climate Investigations Center (CIC) indicate that Soon received approximately $1.2 million in funding over the past fourteen years from companies such as Exxon Mobile, the American Petroleum Institute and most heavily, Southern Company, one of the largest electricity producers (which relies mostly on coal) in the country. Further research by investigators at CIC revealed that Soon did not disclose his ties to such funding organizations on nine published in several different journals, in which he offers contrarian views on the cause of . Also among the documents was a contract between CfA and Southern Company in which representatives with CfA promised to provide notification before publicly disclosing Southern Company as a source.

Also, because the CfA is partially funded by the U.S. government, representatives with Greenpeace have written letters to several congressional representatives asking that an investigation be undertaken to ascertain whether public funds were misused.

In light of the recent allegations, the CfA has launched an investigation of its own regarding disclosure issues regarding Soon. And finally, because the investigation is still ongoing, it is not yet clear what action journal editors will take regarding already published articles by Soon, or what will occur going forward.


Explore further

BMJ investigation reveals network of links between public health scientists and sugar industry

© 2015 Phys.org

Citation: Global warming contrarian researcher investigated for not revealing funding sources (2015, February 24) retrieved 23 July 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2015-02-global-contrarian-revealing-funding-sources.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
897 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Feb 24, 2015
Admit it, oil companies and big business fund BOTH sides. Government funding is no more pure and free from biases and agendas than private funding. This whole article is nothing but a hatchet job!

Feb 24, 2015
This article just illustrates the total lack of professional ethics in the climate science community. DISSENT WILL NOT BE TOLERATED!!!!

Feb 24, 2015
"I was horrified to read yesterday the defamatory articles about Willie Soon written by reporters for the New York Times and the Guardian, and now spilling on to various web publications and blogs.

From the outside it is very clear that the attack on Willie is being co-ordinated, probably by the same persons who have sought to muddy his name in the past – Greenpeace being a prime suspect in this regard."
"The New York Times and other papers that have published the false accusations should be asked to withdraw them.

​Yours sincerely,
​Bob Carter

Professor Robert (Bob) M. Carter
FAIMM, Hon. Fellow RSNZ​
Emeritus Fellow, Institute of Public Affairs, Melbourne"
http://www.breitb...ch-hunt/

AGWites are getting desperate.

Feb 24, 2015
Hound and burn the heretics.
The AGW Cult at its best, right after greed and deceit.

Feb 24, 2015
His funding constitutes a conflict of interest. I would say that if you really, really dug into the funding of the majority of scientific projects you would find that they also constitute the same conflict of interest. They just hide it via "funding fronts".

People who say have grants to research the impact of genetic modification by monsanto, how about the impact of fracking by chevron, or maybe the safety of a car funded by ford.

At this point in time, because of external manipulations science is now lumped in with fields that are as corrupt as say politics, finance, media, music etc.

His funding is questionable. So is the rest of the scientific fields. I see only hypocrisy here.

Hard to trust hypocrites and liars and I find myself forced to examine scientists in the same light as I would examine an oil company or say a mob boss. A better example the Sinaloa cartels.

Feb 24, 2015
Hound and burn the heretics.
The AGW Cult at its best, right after greed and deceit.


Look more closely. Both sides have political agendas. They are both complicit in these acts. Greenpeace is a politically charged organization and are far from being angels.

Feb 24, 2015
Yes, both sides have agendas, one side wants to save the earth and keep it from becoming uninhabitable, and the other side wants to keep selling oil and gas without restrictions..

Feb 24, 2015
Yes, both sides have agendas, one side wants to save the earth and keep it from becoming uninhabitable, and the other side wants to keep selling oil and gas without restrictions..


They may have once resembled that but now they have morphed into something altogether different with the facade of selflessness.

Feb 24, 2015
".... one side wants to save the earth and keep it from becoming uninhabitable,...."

Or so they claim! Of course their sponsors will become Billionaires in the process. Your rights and freedoms will be nothing but collateral damage in this war on western affluence.

Feb 24, 2015
Yes, both sides have agendas, one side wants to save the earth and keep it from becoming uninhabitable, and the other side wants to keep selling oil and gas without restrictions..

If you truly believe that, then share with us your non-oil/gas sources of electricity, fuel and chemicals. Then we can join you in saving the planet.

Feb 24, 2015
I tried to find how Mann's institute is funded from its university web site with little success.

Feb 24, 2015
I never said answers were easy antigoricle but to stick your head in the sand and just pretend we don't have a serious problem is delusional.

I hope all you deniers posting are getting your 1.2 million from the oil and gas industries also, live it up guys.....

Feb 24, 2015
Americans who are desperately poor.

Why are they poor?
The 'liberals' have had a 'war on poverty' for over 50 years. Why is it failing?

Feb 24, 2015
Bad news this story has been debunked. The FOIA was for one paper, as guess what no one paid him or the others involved a dime.

Just like the C. Change gurus, who make up data, change stats, and flat out lie.

C. Change does occur, Summer Fall, Winter, Spring...happens all the time.

Feb 24, 2015
This article just illustrates the total lack of professional ethics in the climate science community. DISSENT WILL NOT BE TOLERATED!!!! -MR166

Dissent is tolerated. Soon was published in Geophysical Research Letters, "the 5th most cited publication on climate change between 1999 and 2009" (wikipedia). Soon lied about conflicts of interest. You have no problem with his ethics, which suggests you yourself don't have any ethics.

Feb 24, 2015
Bad news this story has been debunked. The FOIA was for one paper, as guess what no one paid him or the others involved a dime.

Just like the C. Change gurus, who make up data, change stats, and flat out lie.

C. Change does occur, Summer Fall, Winter, Spring...happens all the time.
No, this is not true. The FOIA requests were by 2 different groups and covered a number of years. Here is a pretty good review of the situation: http://insideclim...-company

You're even more wrong about the money he received, as he himself has admitted receiving grants from Koch, ExxonMobile and API, among others, and he has now been caught receiving monies from others he did not admit to, including Southern Co and the Koch Foundation, who were also given pre-publication copies of his work so they could review and "suggest" changes.


Feb 24, 2015
Unless a grant is for research in the paper it's not a funding source. Lots of researchers of all shades and in all institutions occasionally do work on their own dime, or using their regular tenure paycheck.

Feb 24, 2015
greenonions
"This of course has nothing to do with climate science. But the willingness to engage in an adult conversation about the problems we face does. If all we get is childish name calling (antigoracle calling people turds etc.) - and a complete shut down of any serious dialogue - by turning it into an ideological pissing match - we accomplish nothing - and the problems still stay with us. Sure wish we could grow up."
Your just as bad in your attacks on others. Hey nothing wrong with having opposing view but you and your ilk take it to personal level and degrades the discussion. Others and you could take the tactic, I do not agree with your post but this is what I think on the issue.
Civil discourse can be had but it does take effort then some come here just out of the need to argue.
For those that complain about Soon funding sources go see how hard it is to get funding to do research that maybe in opposition to the climate change/global warming crowed in the field. Not easy!

Feb 24, 2015
Hehe...

Seems most of our deniers fail to notice one very little, tiny fact.

Dr. Soon's science is not up to par and is proven WRONG.

http://phys.org/n...ate.html

"Gavin A. Schmidt, head of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan, a NASA division, said that the sun had probably accounted for no more than 10 percent of recent global warming and greenhouse gases produced by human activity explained most of it. "The science that Willie Soon does is almost pointless," he said."

Never mind that 98% of TRUE climate scientists agree on the anthropogenic origin of climate warming; never mind that the latest "paper" published by Dr Soon and his three colleagues had to be published in China for lack of credibility elsewhere; never mind the fact he is not an astrophysicist, has never been employed by Harvard, is only a part-time employee of the Smithsonian with a doctoral degree in aerospace engineering...

Feb 24, 2015
The anti-AGW trolls have been called into action! In ten years, you'll all have gone the way of the pro-tobacco trolls. And your grandchildren will pay the price for your folly.

Feb 24, 2015
If you truly believe that, then share with us your non-oil/gas sources of electricity, fuel and chemicals. Then we can join you in saving the planet.


http://thesolutio...graphic/

It breaks down how each state can achieve this. Nice try though.

Feb 24, 2015
I am subscribed to, and pay extra for, PGE's renewable power option:
https://www.portl...ult.aspx

Of course I realize that this is a only drop in the bucket. But going past fossil fuels will take huge efforts and resources and many years to realize. It will also require wide social agreement on the nature of the problem. Vested interests (like those secretly funding Dr. Soon) can delay this consensus by precious years. They no more believe their own propaganda than did the tobacco companies believe theirs, but they are buying time. As to the "science" behind the anti-AGW debate, see

http://www.amazon...08193942


Feb 24, 2015
I'll be surprised if Soon is ever able to publish in any journal again, but then he could always write for WUWT and other denier blogs.

sorry ... finger trouble I meant to give you a 5 for this

Feb 24, 2015
I hate to gloat but
Documents obtained via the Freedom of Information Act, by workers with Greenpeace which were subsequently given to investigators at the Climate Investigations Center (CIC) indicate that Soon received approximately $1.2 million in funding over the past fourteen years from companies such as Exxon Mobile, the American Petroleum Institute and most heavily, Southern Company, one of the largest electricity producers (which relies mostly on coal) in the country.

Can we start calling this Soongate? Any suggestions for a 'gate' name?


Feb 24, 2015
Can we start calling this Soongate? Any suggestions for a 'gate' name?
As I understand from this youtube video from the HEARTLAND TUBE, his friends call him Willie. Since we are all good friend with this gentleman why not call this the _ WealthyWillieGate_ . Anybody have a better idea? https://www.youtu...QUV5_r0A

Feb 24, 2015
I never said answers were easy antigoricle but to stick your head in the sand and just pretend we don't have a serious problem is delusional
@maxwell_bean
That pretty much sums up what the bulk of the above posters (everyone above your first post) are doing... there is a good study that really does explain the deniers here

read this: http://www.ploson...tion=PDF

As you can see from posters like rygg and verkle etc, it is not just AGW that they lean conspiratorial upon, but all science

Especially those who's religious beliefs don't allow them to recognize science

the biggest problem with them all is:
they cannot recognize science at all


Feb 24, 2015
Deniers are crooks and liars?

Most of them get their opinions from political prejudice. They only lie if it helps.

Feb 24, 2015
".... one side wants to save the earth and keep it from becoming uninhabitable,...."
Or so they claim! Of course their sponsors will become Billionaires in the process. Your rights and freedoms will be nothing but collateral damage in this war on western affluence.

Sponsors? Who sponsors those who like to recycle, reuse, repair?

The earth is becoming uninhabitable for humans. AGW is only a small part of the problem.

Happy to explain. Or, just google it...

What percentage of the Earth's land surface (only the land that is not ice covered) is being used for agriculture?

What weighs more: Humans on the planet. All other mammals in the wild.
(Don't include domesticated animals or cattle, pets etc.)
In a sustainable environment, what would happen if a top predator outweighed it's prey?
Have you noticed more articles lately recommending eating more insects?
How much of the life in the sea have we "affected" since 1960?
How long will 7Bn + be on Earth

Feb 24, 2015
Deniers are crooks and liars?
Most of them get their opinions from political prejudice. They only lie if it helps.
@gkam
i think it is more than just politics, though
it is also religion plus fear of change
then there is the conspiracy nutjobs too
some good links:
http://www.ploson...tion=PDF

http://sgo.sagepu...df+html?

http://arstechnic...nformed/

that first like is great... and a lot of the posters on PO actually validate it with their posts, especially most of the pseudoscience crowd!
From cantdrive (anti-AGW/ eu pseudoscience) to Verkle (creationist/7th day Adventist, anti-science)
they ALL really support the conclusions

Wow, huh?

Feb 24, 2015
@gham

If all you want to do his rant do it somewhere else. If you want to counter the deiners use SCIENCE!

Obviously some dieners posting here have a political bias against AGW and science in general but they are not representative of the country and not even of the Republican party.

http://environmen...warming/


Feb 24, 2015
I'll be surprised if Soon is ever able to publish in any journal again, but then he could always write for WUWT and other denier blogs.

And there it is, the sadistic, mentally inferior mind of the cult.
Here is the mind of one of your leaders.
http://phys.org/n...sex.html

Feb 24, 2015
I'll be surprised if Soon is ever able to publish in any journal again, but then he could always write for WUWT and other denier blogs.

sorry ... finger trouble I meant to give you a 5 for this

You should seek professional help runrig.

Feb 25, 2015
@antigoracle et al. If you are going to claim (as you have for years now) that climate scientists are fraudulent etc, then what makes you believe Willie Wei-Hock Soon is not also fraudulent?

Could it be your hypocrisy and denials are 'conveniently' saved for scientists you 'don't want' to be correct....for whatever personal/political/mercenary/ego reasons of your own?

You claim that other climate scientists are crooked, based on your 'impression' that they have some ulterior motives; but now that the latest revelations show that Willie Wei-Hock Soon is likely to have ulterior motives, you pretend it's "ok"?

How does that work?

Can't you see it's WRONG; no matter WHO is the scientist with ulterior motives? So is YOUR attempt to 'excuse' Willie Soon's increasingly apparent transgressions against scientific integrity.

Just because others may be corrupt, it is NOT an excuse/justification for YOUR 'favorite' so-called 'scientist' to be corrupt also. Either way, you're wrong.

Feb 25, 2015
Well, let's see --that's "Lord" Monckton down, Soon down...looks as if the Tower of Denial is in full-on collapse.

It appears that the denierside won't have any go-tos left to spoon-feed them their talking points for very much longer, so that should bring and end to all but the most desultory denierspin.

Won't it be lovely to not have to spend so much time troll-wrangling here in the PHYSorg comments!

Feb 25, 2015
I'm glad this corrupted dick is going to have his ass well spread... soon.

Feb 25, 2015
I'm glad this corrupted dick is going to have his ass well spread... soon.

Yes, I bet that it is going to be willie willie soon.

Feb 25, 2015
@ ryggesogn2

- "The 'liberals' have had a 'war on poverty' for over 50 years. Why is it failing?"

Oooohhhh I don't know...

Maybe because the 1% now has acquired 50% of the world's wealth, leaving only half the world's wealth for 99% of the people to fight over..?

I'd say that's a pretty good reason for the failure... wouldn't you ?

Feb 25, 2015
Hey guys, the wealth is the earth, not dollars. We be shittin' on it.

Feb 25, 2015
As a scientist I see it as plainly absurd to claim that government funded science is just as agenda driven as privately funded science. The NSF for instance provides funds based on a competitive scheme judged primarily on publication impact. This is quantifiable in terms of h-index, impact factors etc. What the publications actually conclude is almost immaterial if non-competing grant reviewers are chosen, which is what they try to do.

A business in contrast is of course profit driven. Why would a business fund studies that may weaken their profit? Of course they will fund studies that increase their profit! For a scientist, this means that only studies that promote their funder's bottom line will mean further money from this source. Surely this is elementary!

Feb 25, 2015
More interesting reading re Mr Soon...........

http://www.nature...-1.16972


Feb 25, 2015
I find it amazing how, article after article, many of you continuously rage that AWG studies are fraught with conflict of interest, yet in this article, all I see is folks condoning it when the shoe is on the other foot...

Hypocritical much?

Feb 25, 2015
I find it amazing how, article after article, many of you continuously rage that AWG studies are fraught with conflict of interest, yet in this article, all I see is folks condoning it when the shoe is on the other foot...

Hypocritical much?

Sorry ... to quick - should have been a 5

Feb 25, 2015
More on Soon........

From Gavin Schmidt:
http://www.giss.n...schmidt/

http://www.realcl...?p=18185

Regarding, err, Soon's science.

Feb 25, 2015
Hey runrig. I just read that linked nature.com article. Very interesting.

Did you notice the VIRGINIA connection between the "DonorsTrust" and the "Science and Public Policy Institute, a Virginia-based climate-advocacy group" which sponsor 'co-authors' Soon and Monckton?

Fishy as it gets, hey?

Feb 25, 2015
verkle claimed
This revelation is almost laughable given the MILLIONS of $$$ being pored into the AGW cult by political groups
You mean versus the vested interests of the oil lobby who have many billions to spend to ensure their income is not just retained by increased:-
http://en.wikiped...d_losses

Who is in the top 7 aye verkle ?

verkle the hypocritical dick of a open creationist claimed
"Science" at its worst
This misfire laughably tragic from YOU who claims a "god did it" !

How does your god communicate verkle ?

Is it ONLY by the claims of men who had problems with women, who said things Greeks already explained eg Golden Rule etc also practiced by Monkeys:-
https://en.wikipe...i/Bonobo

verkle, if & when u get an education in Science (not religion) u become virtually immune to the type of idiot propaganda you seem to mouthpiece !

verkle:- AGW is substantively empirical & not god's work !

;-)

Feb 25, 2015
MR166 claimed
Admit it, oil companies and big business fund BOTH sides
Beg Pardon ?

Just which big businesses fund propaganda re AGW (and not empirical studies) ?

R u being ordinary again & confusing exploiting a market opening & need with funding, Eg Satellite companies who compile data, evidence please MR166 & anything near the sort of numbers found in my last post to verkle the irrelevant creationist ?

MR166 claimed
Government funding is no more pure and free from biases and agendas than private funding. This whole article is nothing but a hatchet job!
So the FACT CO2 has well known thermal properties known for > 100 years is somehow faked by governments yet oddly never refuted by the 'other side' NEVER - how is that possible ?

Show it MR166 ?

Can U ?

Feb 25, 2015
Ooooo Yes... You clownies really let it all out today, becoming totally overfrisky i see ! too many dumb monkeys sprawling left right and centre, so let me not delay, let me expose the monkeys for the day, first and frisky most:

MR166, man i've never quite seen a nose getting shined like yours today, i mean...how dumb can a comment be made, you totally upped the dumbness right here, and oil daddy won't be proud... ah ah ahhh....

ryggesogn2 (usual clown, usual words full of air)
antigoracle, little monkey you keep saying you're an anti gorilla, why do you keep posting comments like a fat old gorilla then ? come now come now.... you gotta earn that title keep posting dumber comments and you'll get a big manly gorilla fury suit to replace your old monkey suit

syndicate_51 (another usual clown all lame comments today)

verkle (Verkle spickle spekcle) i once remember a toon that went to the tune of that, basically it was about 3 goons, dumb,dumb and dumber. cont

Feb 25, 2015
Ducklet: 'ol ducky jumping up and down in the pond, as his supportive fossil fuel boss turned up the heat on the dam, but being the dumb duck he is, still supports the one that feeds him down.

ManintheMoon Man like a goon, aahh that makes more sense..

Feb 25, 2015
So glad this article came to be, the physorg anti climate goons stayed up all night to get first dibbs on the comments, what more can you want, goons posting idiotic comments while being paid at it, and in turn making their superiors look like even bigger clowns comment by comment, this is the cherry on top i just can't get enough lol.... better yet, the world is currently witnessing this unfold and all the comments ;) as always..keep at it clownies... don't know bout you, but i'm pretty stoked about it all, and can't wait to see who'd win that trophy on the next article, you monkeys always pull through and i can't thank you enough... lol... ;)

Feb 25, 2015
And now for some of the briliant comments:

brilliantly said barakn !

This article just illustrates the total lack of professional ethics in the climate science community. DISSENT WILL NOT BE TOLERATED!!!! -MR166


Dissent is tolerated. Soon was published in Geophysical Research Letters, "the 5th most cited publication on climate change between 1999 and 2009" (wikipedia). Soon lied about conflicts of interest. You have no problem with his ethics, which suggests you yourself don't have any ethics.

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp

Feb 25, 2015
Well said Maggnus... oooo rubbing it in for the clowns today lol...

Bad news this story has been debunked. The FOIA .......

Just like the C. Change gurus, who make up data, change stats, and flat out lie.

C. Change does occur, Summer Fall, Winter, Spring...happens all the time.


No, this is not true. The FOIA requests were by 2 different groups and covered a number of years. Here is a pretty good review of the situation: http://insideclim...-company

You're even more wrong about the money he received, as he himself has admitted receiving grants from Koch, ExxonMobile and API, among others, and he has now been caught receiving monies from others he did not admit to, including Southern Co and the Koch Foundation, who were also given pre-publication copies of his work so they could review and "suggest" changes.

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp

Feb 25, 2015
Captain Stumpy did you have to rub it in that deep to them...lol.. (of course you had to..brilliantly said)

I never said answers were easy antigoricle but to stick your head in the sand and just pretend we don't have a serious problem is delusional

@maxwell_bean
That pretty much sums up what the bulk of the above posters (everyone above your first post) are doing... there is a good study that really does explain the deniers here

read this: http://www.ploson...tion=PDF

Feb 25, 2015
Maybe because the 1% now has acquired 50% of the world's wealth, leaving only half the world's wealth for 99% of the people to fight over..?


Those 1% could not have done this without the aid and consent of a socialist state.

Feb 25, 2015
Sorry for all the rest of the brilliant scientists that i did not quote on... it's just too many good comments here and i'm so stoked about all of it... man i love this... :)

Feb 25, 2015
Most respected journals require the authors of research papers to state in their paper that they report no conflict of interest.

That's just standard practice. You always include what grants, etc. your research is funded by. That's just common courtesy to the grant source (after all: they want to be seen as someone who funds good research...be it a international/national/state or a company source).

Not including that information in published papers is...odd, to say the least. It should be disclosed. After that anyone can draw their own conclusions.

Feb 25, 2015
Arguing on the internet is just like competing in the special olympics;
even if you win, you're still...not an academic in the fields discussed.

'Butt' hey, opinions are like assholes; everybody has one.
Be conservative with yours, it could have the stink of ignorance.

Feb 25, 2015
to be removed please

Feb 25, 2015
So glad this article came to be, the physorg anti climate goons stayed up all night to get first dibbs on the comments, blah...blah..hee...haw...hee..haw
--HeloMeneloTard
Wow, confirming how slow it is and so obviously proud of it. Now, run along and pass on that lone neuron you share to the next AGW Chicken Little tard.
http://phys.org/n...sex.html

Dug
Feb 25, 2015
It seems one man's point of view is another man's bias? How is an energy consortium defending their industry - any less biased than another group claiming to "save the world" while defending their industry (environmentalism is an industry) and being funded by grants from govs. and organizations promoting "environmental" product industries such as solar and wind and a few million environmental consultants?

It looks like the general public and even the science communities will be dragged kicking in screaming into the position of actually having to critically examine the merit of science being used in producing any publications presented - regardless of their source and or their topic.

Feb 25, 2015
It looks like the general public and even the science communities will be dragged kicking in screaming into the position of actually having to critically examine the merit of science being used in producing any publications presented - regardless of their source and or their topic.


This quote just shows how ignorant of the scientific process you are. Professional science is COMPETITIVE. What this means is that EVERYONE is ALWAYS looking for gaps/deficiencies etc etc in EVERYONE else's work. This is probably the prime reason why one can put a lot of trust in mainstream science. Fake/crappy data doesn't do people any good in the long run. You get NAILED!


Feb 25, 2015
....How is an energy consortium defending their industry - any less biased than another group claiming to "save the world" while defending their industry (environmentalism is an industry) and being funded by grants from govs. and organizations promoting "environmental" product industries such as solar and wind and a few million environmental consultants? ......

No, only if you think the whole of science is corrupt (evidence pse).

And to do that you have to switch things from the minority to the majority, as very, very few papers refute AGW and most are done by people who repeatedly do so.
I suppose that makes sense if you're a conspiracy theorist (are you?).
Oh, also, last time I checked I couldn't buy "Greenpeace" shares on the stock market.
Could you link to papers that are supported by an "environmental" company?
Soon's "paper" is fraudulent
http://www.skepti...asic.gif
http://www.skepti...2008.gif


Feb 25, 2015
Why do those who work in fields in which we fudge and lie, such as business, finance, religion, politics, sales, assume we are all liars in our own professions?

Feb 25, 2015
...general public and even the science communities will be dragged kicking in screaming into the position of actually having to critically examine the merit of science being used in producing any publications presented...
This quote just shows how ignorant of the scientific process you are. Professional science is COMPETITIVE... EVERYONE is ALWAYS looking for gaps/deficiencies etc etc in EVERYONE else's work. This is probably the prime reason why one can put a lot of trust in mainstream science. Fake/crappy data doesn't do people any good in the long run. You get NAILED!
Wonderfully put.
It seems one man's point of view is another man's bias? How is an energy consortium defending their industry - any less biased than another group claiming to "save the world"...
Government of the people, by the people, for the people... is what make grants more legit than any other funding. It is our taxes and is use for science not for any particular interest.

Feb 25, 2015
greenonions
I'm not responsible for others on here to what they post. Also I stopped getting updates to post and I do not change any setting.
Some get their funding from the energy sector but claims are made that this automatically makes them biases. So can we make the same claim against those who are funded by pro climate change/global warmer sources? What make them more moral and ethical than the other side?

Feb 25, 2015
TechnoCreed
"Government of the people, by the people, for the people... is what make grants more legit than any other funding. It is our taxes and is use for science not for any particular interest."

Todays U.S. government is anything but government by the people for the people. Please
go follow the money. The amount of money that is funneled by special interest lobbyist to those in government make government for the people by the people totally impossible.
Politics and who is in control of government can to a large degree determines who's research get funded especially if it happens to be linked a controversial issue. Do you not believe that if the Republicans right now has total control of Congress that they would not kill every grant to the study of climate change even if it was proven to have clear merit?. The Democrats have done the same thing when in control. Also both parties have undermined basic research and development funding which I believe most Americans support.


Dug
Feb 25, 2015
Runrig - and the topic of the article is - the corruption of science. Having spent the last 40 years in scientific research both public and private I can assure that scientist necessarily have larger than average egos, are the worlds best at rationalizing their work, its results and their opinions and therein begins the basis of science corruption.

Feb 25, 2015
greenonions
Oh calling others you disagree with "gangs" isn't childish either! Which is an attempt to imply they lack morals and ethics by your own set rules.
How about getting just a little sense of humor!
So to discuss and render any opinion, which is a lot of what is expressed here, one has to be packing a degree in the field? I just disagree with such a contention and notion. If that position is to be taken than only a few voices on any important issues before the public and this site is about as public place has it gets, would every be heard.
So only those that post in your vein have an right to hold an opinion/view on an issue? Kind of narrow minded wouldn't you say.

Feb 25, 2015
More on Soon........

From Gavin Schmidt:
http://www.giss.n...schmidt/

Regarding, err, Soon's science.

Runrig, your link to Gavin appears to be his CV. Might want to look at it.

Feb 25, 2015
Also both parties have undermined basic research and development funding which I believe most Americans support.


Please give examples of actions taken by each party that undermined basic science funding.

Feb 25, 2015
Runrig - and the topic of the article is - the corruption of science. Having spent the last 40 years in scientific research both public and private I can assure that scientist necessarily have larger than average egos, are the worlds best at rationalizing their work, its results and their opinions and therein begins the basis of science corruption.

@Dug - the topic of the article is "scientist's ethics questioned". As runrig said earlier, the publication of lousy science usually ends up with the author being NAILED to the wall by other researchers. While you are correct about scientists egos, therein lies the basis for the catching of corruption, not it's cause. All scientists want to catch their rival's mistakes. It makes most of them very careful about their work and what they publish.

As a scientist you should know that.

Feb 25, 2015
DarkLordKelvin
http://www.mammal...-science
http://www.rbs0.c...ding.pdf
http://www.nsf.go...tart.htm
http://www.nsf.go...d=125542
There are tons more I could list but then a gain it would make zero difference


Dug
Feb 25, 2015
Marcush - No, science is not competitive - it is a process for discovering the most accurate truth within the current temporal environment. The perception of those truths is another process - marketing and it has little concern for truth. You confuse the people working in science and competing for funding with the process of science.


Feb 25, 2015
Why do many of these people assume everybody is corrupt?

Feb 25, 2015
greenonions
Oh you were so oh so civil. No even close!
There is no argument from me on climate change here just the claims of proof of cause is what is being questioned and there is not proof to cause for current trends. It's someone theory to the cause which Is no necessarily fact. Big difference! So we will have to agree to disagree on this one.

Feb 25, 2015
DarkLordKelvin
[links]
There are tons more I could list but then a gain it would make zero difference


Ok .. thanks for those links, (except the first "mammal science" one was broken). For what it's worth, I agree almost completely with what Ronald B. Standler had to say on the matter .. I have been saying many of the same things for a couple of decades now. I guess what I was after was more of a breakdown into policies pushed by Democrats (who are widely seen as pro-science) that hurt science funding, versus policies pushed by Republicans (who are widely seen as anti-science) that hurt science funding. To name one example in particular, it was my understanding that the loss of funding from the "peace dividend" of the early 90's following the end of the cold war, was almost entirely due to GOP initiatives. However I must admit that understanding is "soft sourced", having been compiled from several anecdotal accounts.

Feb 25, 2015
gkam laconically reflected
Why do many of these people assume everybody is corrupt?
I synpathise, have seen that knee jerk reaction so often by the red-neck uneducated crowd who are used to getting things easily plus the classic hollywood patterns in emotive motives plus its probably because they project themselves in that position with the presumption they would so easily sell their integrity so very easily & imagine no-one would notice, very sad indeed as to just how flakey and stupid the bulk of deniers are and the earnestwhile evidence is they don't have a basic physics education.

Feb 25, 2015
ManintheMoon might be able to notice his problem
There is no argument from me on climate change here just the claims of proof of cause is what is being questioned and there is not proof to cause for current trends. It's someone theory to the cause which Is no necessarily fact. Big difference! So we will have to agree to disagree on this one.
No, incorrect, the Science is based upon this irrefutable issue called Physics which includes the vast body of evidence but, unfortunately it requires an educated mind & especially so in mathematics & that broaches calculus - that way u can appreciate the causal relationship water vapour being lifted by heat trapped by greenhouse gases re infra-red absorbances

Sadly without the sort of technical education u will have immense difficulty in getting your head around it !

Strongly suggest a formal course such as community college because trying to get to grips with calculus re sporadic google searches etc is pointless...

Feb 25, 2015
DarkLordKelvin
Here the broken link.
http://www.mammal...-science
This may be more to what your asking from Scientific America.
http://www.scient...esearch/


Feb 25, 2015
Anti gorilla wrote:

1 / 5 (3) 5 hours ago

So glad this article came to be, the physorg anti climate goons stayed up all night to get first dibbs on the comments, blah...blah..hee...haw...hee..haw

--HeloMeneloTard
Wow, confirming how slow it is and so obviously proud of it. Now, run along and pass on that lone neuron you share to the next AGW Chicken Little tard...


O no exposing clowns is what i do best, this is too much fun, i'll never leave...lol ;) You and your oil gnomes promoting the earth's destruction and then boasting at it will always be exposed... you gotta work a bit harder for that furry suit though... last time i check your ratings is still at 1 out of 5... say that's about for every single post you ever made... ;) (but we need 20 one out of 5 votes to upgrade your suit)

Feb 25, 2015
greenonions
No you were on your high horse about me no being civil when attack and I would not take the nonsense..
And so called 'irrefutable issue called Physics" Like the interpretation by the use of physics have no change through time on such issues? Really! Some have been caught in this field being suspect in their interpretation and manipulation of the physics. Seen this is were you are wrong physics never has been a static science it changes with time as our understanding of nature improve. Go put 100 physicist in a room together an see how long it take before a argument break out over the fundamentals in some field of physics. The question that you keep trying to avoid is that it come down to the question someone's interpretation of the physics. And it is a matter of interpretation!


Feb 25, 2015
"Go put 100 physicist in a room together an see how long it take before a argument break out over the fundamentals in some field of physics."
-------------------------

Does that refute the Laws of Physics? Do we not still use them successfully?

Do you think anybody's argument refutes everything?

Feb 25, 2015
@ryggesogn.
Maybe because the 1% now has acquired 50% of the world's wealth, leaving only half the world's wealth for 99% of the people to fight over..?


Those 1% could not have done this without the aid and consent of a socialist state.
WTF, ryggesogn? Govts are 'owned' by corporate/religious/criminal interests whose money distorts what govts can do, or not do, for 99% democratic populace interests. That the populace gets any 'crumbs' at all from their corrupt political-ideological-mercenary system's 'table' is due to the populace constantly having to fight for it against vested interests of the "1%" in control of the money, finance and wealth 'pool'.

As for big money and corrupt 'scientists': recall 'studies' commissioned by Big Tobacco for exactly the same 'money-for-contrary-results' in order to confuse issue of known carcinogen effects & allow 'executives' to LIE to congressional inquiries? Remember Asbestos Industry denials?

No good. Biased. Do better.

Feb 25, 2015
"Go put 100 physicist in a room together an see how long it take before a argument break out over the fundamentals in some field of physics."
-------------------------

Does that refute the Laws of Physics? Do we not still use them successfully?

Do you think anybody's argument refutes everything?
And to add to gkam's excellent argument, what about a situation where 97 of the 100 physicists agree? Would you agree that the 97% are more likely to be correct?

Feb 25, 2015
Maninthemoon is correct. Physics is constantly changing and being worked on. Signed, a Physicist.

"Go put 100 physicist in a room together an see how long it take before a argument break out over the fundamentals in some field of physics."
-------------------------

Does that refute the Laws of Physics? Do we not still use them successfully?

Do you think anybody's argument refutes everything?
And to add to gkam's excellent argument, what about a situation where 97 of the 100 physicists agree? Would you agree that the 97% are more likely to be correct?


LOL! That same old lie.

Feb 25, 2015
"Go put 100 physicist in a room together an see how long it take before a argument break out over the fundamentals in some field of physics."
-------------------------

Does that refute the Laws of Physics? Do we not still use them successfully?

Do you think anybody's argument refutes everything?
And to add to gkam's excellent argument, what about a situation where 97 of the 100 physicists agree? Would you agree that the 97% are more likely to be correct?

Maggnus.....
reminds me of this spoof debate on Global warming.
And what makes a "fair" debate.
And even at 97:3 the 3 will still start an argument.

https://www.youtu...GCJJUGsg

Feb 25, 2015
And to add to gkam's excellent argument, what about a situation where 97 of the 100 physicists agree? Would you agree that the 97% are more likely to be correct?
I'd actually try to resist such "proof by consensus" arguments. First off, they aren't far off "appeal to authority", which is only valid when all parties in the discussion agree on the validity of the "authority", and that is nearly never the case. Also, remember that quantum mechanics and special relativity were not widely accepted for many years after their initial introduction in the physics community. Even the existence of atoms wasn't considered "settled" in the physics community (chemists notwithstanding) until 1908 or so.

That's said, I do agree with your point in the case of climate change, because there are really no new or controversial questions of fundamental physics involved. It's more a case of applying known radiation balance laws (Kirchoff, Stefan-Boltzmann) to a complex geophysical system.

Feb 25, 2015
greenonions
**NANNY NANNY BOO BOO**! Now stomp your feet, hold your breath, and turn blue! If you do not like that then you can eat me!

How many times have we seen in the history of science where a majority of scientists in a field claimed something as fact, an irrefutable truth, turns out to be pure biases and just junk science? I do not have enough fingers or toes to count how many times that's happened.
Yep, just bad interpretations of the physics nothing more.
But please do keep jumping up and down like the world will stop spinning because others do no agree with you and like you can stop climate change. Not even!

Feb 25, 2015
"And while the energy industry funds both sides of the climate debate, the government/foundation monies go only toward research that advances the warming regulatory agenda. With a clear public-policy outcome in mind, the government/foundation gravy train is a much greater threat to scientific integrity."
"experts in the research community say that it is much more difficult for some of the top climate scientists — Soon, Roger Pielke Jr., the CATO Institute's Patrick Michaels, MIT's now-retired Richard Lindzen — to get funding for their work because they do not embrace the global-warming fearmongering favored by the government-funded climate establishment."

Read more at: http://www.nation...ry-payne

Feb 25, 2015
"Last summer, a minority staff report from the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works gave details on a "Billionaire's Club" — a shadowy network of charitable foundations that distribute billions to advance climate alarmism. Shadowy nonprofits such as the Energy Foundation and Tides Foundation distributed billions to far-left green groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council, which in turn send staff to the EPA who then direct federal grants back to the same green groups. It is incestuous. It is opaque. Major media ignored the report."

Read more at: http://www.nation...ry-payne

Feb 25, 2015
For those that complain about Soon funding sources go see how hard it is to get funding to do research that maybe in opposition to the climate change/global warming crowed in the field. Not easy!

@ManintheMoon
You've got your ideas about research wrong. You get funded to do research, not to take a side!

Soon wasn't being paid to do new research. He was being paid to find and spin known facts into a position that supported his funders.

Feb 25, 2015
You get funded to do research, not to take a side!

So why does just about every paper about just about anything pay homage to AGW?

Look at all the stories physorg ties into AGW. Why?

Feb 25, 2015
MandoZink
So tell us why you believe the same is not true with the other side of this issue and their funding sources. Like spin has not been going on with the Climate change /Global warmer side of the issue.
Just maybe you need to preach this also to your choir.
Your trying to claim your side is above the human condition you charge the other side with which is a very bold statement verging on claims of sainthood and divinity.


Feb 25, 2015
How many times have we seen in the history of science where a majority of scientists in a field claimed something as fact, an irrefutable truth, turns out to be pure biases and just junk science? I do not have enough fingers or toes to count how many times that's happened.

Actually, I can't think of any cases where that has happened. For one thing, scientists don't speak in "irrefutable truths". The natural progression of research is that older theories are supplanted by more modern ones that do a better job of explaining all of the available data. That is a far cry from "junk science".
Yep, just bad interpretations of the physics nothing more.
A "bad interpretation of the physics" is a very different thing from "a theory that was initially consistent with observation, but later found to be flawed." A classic example is J.J.Thomson's "plum pudding" model of the atom being supplanted by the nuclear model following Rutherford's famous "gold foil" experiment.

Feb 25, 2015
The example of N-rays should show us all how science works. They were detected by a researcher and demonstrated, and it was followed by the gullible, (like cold fusion or "free energy" today), until it was completely and dramatically disproven in public.

Feb 25, 2015
DarkLordKelvin
Well some here claim Physics is such irrefutable truth maybe you can tell them that and not be attacked. Hey I get science changes with time. Einstein took a pretty bad beating from the main stream science community before is ideas were excepted. There were some pretty ugly attacks this is just one example.
Check out these also.
Ignaz Semmelweis Hand washing for Doctors
Steve Wozniak Tried to sell the idea to HP and when down in flame Start his on company Apple
Lynn Margulis endosymbiotic theory
Georg Cantor Set theory
And there is
Ludwig Boltzmann
Kurt Gödel
Gregor Mendel
Daniel Shechtman
Alfred Wegener
Jim Gray
Let us no leave out the Wright brothers who were treated pretty much a amateurs by the experts of their day when actual they were the leading authority in the field.
If need be let me know if I need to go on.

Feb 25, 2015
why the fun ending so soon :( ?? i see Joeblow and man like a goon competing for the trophy, but barely scratching the surface here, i've seen dumber comments from you monkeys in the past.. c'mon rub those clowny noses harder, you can do it.

Feb 25, 2015
HeloMenelo
Now that added to the discussion what insight.
Seems some may not like it being shown that the main stream science community has a history of been real jackass at times to others with views out side the excepted mains stream view.

Feb 25, 2015
Einstein took a pretty bad beating from the main stream science community before is ideas were excepted. There were some pretty ugly attacks
but the vast majority didn't come from scientists (http://www.mpiwg-...ature7), and happened long after his theory had been published, and accepted as at least theoretically sound by a large fraction of other physicists working in his area.

The rest of your examples are also not particularly germane to the claim you made .. that scientists have "many times" defended what was later shown to be "junk science", due to their "strong bias". The notable example where you may have a point is Semmelweis, since the basis for objection to his hypothesis seems mostly to involve the arrogance of doctors. "Reluctance to accept new ideas" =/= "defense of junk science" ... experienced scientists know that claims of new "revolutionary" theories are common, and are also commonly wrong, and so tend to be skeptical.

Feb 26, 2015
I'd actually try to resist such "proof by consensus" arguments. First off, they aren't far off "appeal to authority", which is only valid when all parties in the discussion agree on the validity of the "authority", and that is nearly never the case.
Well yes, but that is not what I asked. In a hypothetical room where 100 physicists were gathered, and 97 of those 100 physicists agreed about something, would you be more likely to accept the opinion of the 97 or the 3? That is not ad verecundiam. In fact, it isn't ad populum either, in that the popular opinion does not make the 97 right - rather, from a logical point of view and in the absence of other evidence, one would expect the 97 to be correct more often than the 3.

Other than that, I agree with your critique.

Feb 26, 2015
MandoZink
So tell us why you believe the same is not true with the other side of this issue and their funding sources. Like spin has not been going on with the Climate change /Global warmer side of the issue.
Just maybe you need to preach this also to your choir.
Your trying to claim your side is above the human condition you charge the other side with which is a very bold statement verging on claims of sainthood and divinity.

There are no "sides". There are only dedicated researchers who's job is to gather evidence of what is or isn't happening on this planet. The evidence speaks for itself.

You act as if an entire branch of science is competing to irrationally herald a devious message of foreboding doom. That is absurd.

There are individuals and corporate entities that do not like the evidence we find. They feel threatened by the implications that they are possibly both complacent and complicit to varying degrees in the acceleration of our climatic predicament.

Feb 26, 2015
(cont'd)
Taking a lesson from the tobacco companies and their cancer denials, they understand the value of sowing seeds of doubt. All they need to do is find, and finance, a few like-minded and sympathetic individuals with sufficient credentials that might give the appearance of being genuinely qualified.

These people are paid well to skew evidence and twist facts with a narrative that appears legitimate. There are plenty enough politicians, and others with entrenched corporate interests, to promote these misleading and unethical diatribes against the current consilience of evidence that our climate is likely undergoing an unnatural, if not disturbing, rate of alteration.

What adds to our difficulty is that the issue inherits a politically polarizing disorder. Any effort improve true public awareness of our habitat is poisoned by division and distrust. This is no less the result of malicious self-interest, with absolutely no apparent concern for humanity's well-being.

Feb 26, 2015
(cont'd)
"Willie" Soon has taken his education and spent his efforts bolstering various conservative institutes with policies geared toward sowing doubt about legitimate science efforts. This is an affront to an extensive body of dedicated scientists that devote their best efforts to the work that they do.

I believe you need to see an example of what kind of person is committed to not only educating people as best as he can, but being honest and upfront about his areas of expertise. Below are links to a 3-part series from a frequent, almost daily column written by a truly dedicated theoretical astrophysicist and indefatigable educator, Ethan Siegel.

Feb 26, 2015
(cont'd)
In his "Starts with a Bang" science blog called "How would you figure out whether Global Warming is real?" Ethan Siegel gives it his honest best. He begins with -

"It's been a long time since I've written anything on this blog about global warming, climate change, or most Earth-based environmental topics in general. After all, I'm a physicist - an astrophysicist in particular - and although I'm well-versed in the physics of the Earth and in science in general, it's not my particular area of expertise"

In the 3 articles about atmosphere, radiation and more, is one of the most descriptive and comprehensive explanations of planetary climate you may have ever read. The illustrations and graphics are great. It is a dedicated attempt by an actual educator.

http://scienceblo...-part-1/

Feb 26, 2015
(Ethan Siegel's series cont'd)

http://scienceblo...-part-2/

http://scienceblo...-part-3/

ManintheMoon,
I suspect you won't even bother to look at it, but you ought to, just to see what it's like to read an honestly informative and highly well-written description of planetary climate knowledge. It's not just about this planet either, but that is where Ethan is the most detailed and interesting.

Feb 26, 2015
I'd actually try to resist such "proof by consensus" arguments. First off, they aren't far off "appeal to authority", which is only valid when all parties in the discussion agree on the validity of the "authority", and that is nearly never the case.
Well yes, but that is not what I asked. In a hypothetical room where 100 physicists were gathered, and 97 of those 100 physicists agreed about something, would you be more likely to accept the opinion of the 97 or the 3? That is not ad verecundiam. In fact, it isn't ad populum either, in that the popular opinion does not make the 97 right - rather, from a logical point of view and in the absence of other evidence, one would expect the 97 to be correct more often than the 3.
Other than that, I agree with your critique.

Exactly my opinion to Maggnus. I call it "appeal to common-sense".
deniers display a mind-blowing lack of it. Rather believing in conspiracy than the balance of probability.

Feb 26, 2015
The natural progression of research is that older theories are supplanted by more modern ones that do a better job of explaining all of the available data.


A researcher in Australia had to infect himself with bacteria to demonstrate his theory that some ulcers were caused by bacteria.
How long did it take for the theory of plate tectonics to supplant?
You make it sound like every scientist is eager to have new theories be proposed to supplant their pet theory. That is far from reality as Fleischmann and Pons painfully discovered.
Real scientists abhor and resist paradigm shifts.

Feb 26, 2015
The natural progression of research is that older theories are supplanted by more modern ones that do a better job of explaining all of the available data.


A researcher in Australia had to infect himself with bacteria to demonstrate his theory that some ulcers were caused by bacteria.
How long did it take for the theory of plate tectonics to supplant?
You make it sound like every scientist is eager to have new theories be proposed to supplant their pet theory.

Not sure how you got that idea.
That is far from reality as Fleischmann and Pons painfully discovered. Real scientists abhor and resist paradigm shifts.

I echoed your last sentence in my last post, except less strongly stated. As for Fleichman and Pons, that is not relevant to the discussion, since their claims proved unreproducible, even by themselves. The topic under discussion was the slow acceptance of legitimate new theories that are well-supported by evidence.

Feb 26, 2015
So, . . . this Denier is just another Bill O'Reilly?

Feb 26, 2015
The topic under discussion was the slow acceptance of legitimate new theories that are well-supported by evidence.


That's what you assert to be the topic.

Ptolemy's epicycles were well accepted models for centuries. It was legitimate as the model provide the results they desired.


Feb 26, 2015
The topic under discussion was the slow acceptance of legitimate new theories that are well-supported by evidence.


That's what you assert to be the topic.

Ptolemy's epicycles were well accepted models for centuries. It was legitimate as the model provide the results they desired.


Yes, that is precisely what I have been saying all along. Then some better experiments proved that the epicycles were a flawed representation of reality, despite their ability to reproduce some observations, and so science progressed. Ptolemy's epicycles were hardly "junk science", they just made the (mathematically inconvenient) assumption that earth was at the center of everything. As an empirical model, they were quite robust (at least initially) at reproducing experimental observations .. the catch (of course) was that there was no way to extract a consistent theory of a physical mechanism to explain the motion.

Feb 26, 2015
Not sure what happened here .. tried to edit my last post a bit, and it seems to have gotten duplicated .. so I replaced it with this (a mod should probably remove this to avoid confusion).

Feb 26, 2015
ManintheMoon claimed
And so called 'irrefutable issue called Physics" Like the interpretation by the use of physics have no change through time on such issues? Really! Some have been caught in this field being suspect in their interpretation and manipulation of the physics. Seen this is were you are wrong physics never has been a static science it changes with time as our understanding of nature improve.
Really ?

Where r these 100 Physicists who have shown evidence re CO2 NOT having specific issues re vibrational states & the related infra-red (IR) absorbancy/re-radiation ?

Try to get a grip, we r NOT talking re CP Symmetry or such subjects that can ONLY so far be converged by interpretation !

We are talking CO2's specific thermal properties re IR, proven & known for > 100 yrs & as far as evidence goes it IS a static, formulas & tests doable & not refuted eg Re Watts per square meter per concentration etc

Find a paper with EVIDENCE against it, can U ?

Feb 26, 2015
JoeBlue claimed
Maninthemoon is correct. Physics is constantly changing and being worked on. Signed, a Physicist
No obviously NOT.

Show where infra-red or vibrations re statistical mechanics or heat or specific is "constantly changing" ?

So when CO2's tests > 100 yrs ago showed its propensity re IR, these experiments changed physics are instead asymptotically advanced the knowledge base ?

JoeBlue, do u know the difference between an advance on the periphery of interpretations versus measurable quantities.

CO2's thermal properties are quantifiable & with Science we can re-test whenever we like.

So far, & for some time as well, definitions & practical use of fundamentals such as IR, mass, spectra etc hasnt changed...

JoeBlue showing immense ignorance of Science & Physics philosophy & practice !

Feb 26, 2015
that is precisely what I have been saying all along


But you imply there is no 'weeping and gnashing of teeth' in the this process.
Science just rolls along with every scientist eager to embrace any new data that would destroy his world view.
It is interesting the watch the debate on whether an asteroid impacted a glacier in Canada 12,000 years ago creating micro-diamonds and creating a major shift in climate.
Evidence from around the world keeps piling up yet there is significant resistance. Whose ox is being gored?
Kuhn's description of how science really works appears to be most accurate.

Feb 26, 2015
Rygg acts as if new information always destroys theories, rather than filling them out.

Feb 26, 2015
that is precisely what I have been saying all along


But you imply there is no 'weeping and gnashing of teeth' in the this process.


No, I don't imply that at all .. I just apparently don't emphasize the "strife" as much as you want. Of course there is disagreement in science .. in many ways, disagreement about important (and sometimes even trivial) topics is what drives science forward. The point here is that consensus in science is actually pretty rare, particularly when you dig down into the nitty-gritty details. This is precisely the situation in climate science .. the vast majority of scientists *agree* that the addition of CO2 to the atmosphere is causing increased trapping of heat due to the greenhouse effect. However, as soon as you start to get into details about which mechanisms are in play, or which effects are dominant, or how they are manifested, you run into disagreements, with the number of opinions increasing with the fineness of the detail.

Feb 26, 2015
@DLK - That was very well said, I hope you don't mind me paraphrasing that elsewhere. I especially like this part
Of course there is disagreement in science .. in many ways, disagreement about important (and sometimes even trivial) topics is what drives science forward.
except that I would trade the positions of the words "trivial" and "important". I say this because it is often the trivial items that lead to a sudden understanding - like noticing a finch's beak is different on different islands.

Feb 26, 2015
True to their cultist behavior, the AGW Cult attacks the scientist not the SCIENCE.

Feb 26, 2015
you run into disagreements

Where?
Anyone who disagrees is viciously attacked.

Feb 26, 2015
@antigoracle...
True to their cultist behavior, the AGW Cult attacks the scientist not the SCIENCE.
...and @ryggesogn...
Anyone who disagrees is viciously attacked.
As to Willie Soon's 'science' (obviously loose term): I already elsewhere debunked it.

Ie, regardless of 'inputs' (including insolation heating), it is the atmosphere's 'lagging' and 'insulation' effects that determine the 'net effect'; ie, what happens to heat inputs. I already used the example where sun's extreme inputs still don't raise Mecury's 'dark side' above CRYOGENIC temps.

Also, example of certain deserts on Earth go NEAR/BELOW FREEZING at night because SUN's (more/less) daytime heat inputs are mostly re-radiated to atmosphere.

See? NOW atmosphere's INCREASED CO2 content does not pass as much re-radiated heat to space.

So AFTER I already debunked his OBVIOUSLY incomplete and confirmation-biased Sun-input-based 'science' and 'results', we CAN PROPERLY question Soon's 'motives'. Ok? :)

Feb 26, 2015
As to Willie Soon's 'science' (obviously loose term): I already elsewhere debunked it.


@Really-Skippy. How you are Cher. I'm good, thanks.

Skippy, I got to give you a down karma vote for that one. It's a GREAT BIG LIE because you didn't debunk anybody. Choot you didn't even bunk somebody. This is just like when you tried to take credit for telling the anti-BICEPS2-Skippys what to write. You never bunked, debunked, or even wrote a paper about anything.

Do your better diligence and apologize to everybody for telling the lie about what you didn't do.

Feb 26, 2015
You get funded to do research, not to take a side
So why does just about every paper about just about anything pay homage to AGW?
@ryg-tard
really? you couldn't figure that out on your own?
even with the 97% agree 3% disagree comments?

it is really simple: the ENTIRE WORLD is working on the same problems
they are trying to find out WHY things are doing what they are doing
and (as you point out) they are all pointing in the SAME direction!

Considering that multiple cultures still can't get together to determine a single breakfast food, the suggestion that they are all in collusion in a grand conspiracy to get rich is absolutely rediculous
(yeah...because there are so many billionaire research scientists in climate science)

IOW - the SCIENCE is supporting AGW

it is only those with a vested interest in keeping the status quo that are fighting against the SCIENCE... big oil, big $$$ manufacturing, etc

Feb 26, 2015
@poor poor insensible bot-voting Uncle twit.
@Really-Skippy. How you are Cher. I'm good, thanks.

Skippy, I got to give you a down karma vote for that one. It's a GREAT BIG LIE because you didn't debunk anybody. Choot you didn't even bunk somebody. This is just like when you tried to take credit for telling the anti-BICEPS2-Skippys what to write. You never bunked, debunked, or even wrote a paper about anything.

Do your better diligence and apologize to everybody for telling the lie about what you didn't do.
The debunking points were actually THERE in the post you quote-chopped. And I have elsewhere and often already debunked Soon et al's 'argument' of "the sun did it", using exactly those points. Just because you are too dumb and biased to 'see' it makes you even more irrelevant and ridiculous here. Poor poor Ira nitwit. Loser internet troll BOT-VOTING ON A SCIENCE SITE is all you are, dimwit.


Feb 26, 2015
The debunking points were actually THERE in the post you quote-chopped. And I have elsewhere and often already debunked Soon et al's 'argument' of "the sun did it", using exactly those points. Just because you are too dumb and biased to 'see' it makes you even more irrelevant and ridiculous here. Poor poor Ira nitwit. Loser internet troll BOT-VOTING ON A SCIENCE SITE is all you are, dimwit.


@ Really-Skippy. I am sorry Cher but I told you I can't accept anymore of your apologies because you keep taking them right back. But I'm glad to see you change your song, keep up the good work.

Oh yeah, I almost forget. Scientists and humans are not able to do their diligence with you always interrupting the science discussing with your silly "pretend to be a scientist" games, This is the place where all the real scientists come to dress up their Nobel Prize ideas, so knock it off so they can do their diligent science.


Feb 26, 2015
The debunking points were actually THERE in the post you quote-chopped. And I have elsewhere and often already debunked Soon et al's 'argument' of "the sun did it", using exactly those points. Just because you are too dumb and biased to 'see' it makes you even more irrelevant and ridiculous here. Poor poor Ira nitwit. Loser internet troll BOT-VOTING ON A SCIENCE SITE is all you are, dimwit.


My guess is that Ira is objecting to your use of first person pronouns as to who actually did the debunking. What you did was present a logical argument based on facts that are freely available in the public domain; debunking implies that one did original research, or at least presented a new viewpoint on things .. did you do that somewhere? My guess is that he would not have objected (or at least not nearly as strenuously) if you had simply changed the phrasing of "I debunked Soon", to "I explained why Soon is wrong", or even better, "I explained why I disagree with Soon's work."

Feb 26, 2015
Considering that multiple cultures still can't get together to determine a single breakfast food, the suggestion that they are all in collusion in a grand conspiracy to get rich is absolutely rediculous (sic)

When I first learned of the conspiracy a couple years ago, I came up with a few questions that seriously need answers:

1. When was the conspiracy conceived?
2. When and where did they hold meetings to plot this?
3. Who were the organizers?
4. What made them decide they could successfully corrupt a global collection of professionals to abandon all integrity?
5. How did they manage to contact 97% of the planets climate researchers and leave no evidence?
6. What the hell did they offer all these people to abandon their dignity?
7. How did the other 3% manage to ALL get hired by oil companies and conservative think-tanks?
8. Since this was so very stealthily done, RIGHT UNDER OUR NOSES, what can we do to prevent this from happening to all other research fields?

Feb 26, 2015
@DarkLordKelvin. :)
My guess is that Ira is objecting to your use of first person pronouns as to who actually did the debunking. What you did was present a logical argument based on facts that are freely available in the public domain; debunking implies that one did original research, or at least presented a new viewpoint on things .. did you do that somewhere?
Hi,DLK. I have for years used known observations (re deserts and Planets as to heat-flow and dynamics/effects of 'inputs' from all causes, including insolation variations) to point out that any "the sun did it" arguments are flawed; as they stop short of recognizing what happens to heat input given more/less CO2 in atmosphere ultimately determines the 'net effect'. It is the "the sun did it" type of 'argument' used by Soon and others that I debunk thereby. So again, Soon et al's "the sun did it" argument is already debunked by me/known observations, irrespective of which instance/paper they present. Cheers.

Feb 26, 2015
Poor poor Idiot Ira troll still babbling and BOT-VOTING ON A SCIENCE SITE. How sad.

Feb 27, 2015
Any scientists remotely affiliated with climate science who doesn't toe the AGW line is viciously and publicly attacked personally and professionally.

Evidence abounds.

Feb 27, 2015
" so far the liberal media seems far more concerned about enforcing the comparatively trivial doctrinaire liberal line on climate change policy than the more important issues of academic freedom and freedom of speech. "So far, I have been contacted by only 2 reporters at relatively small media outlets. I'd say that the lack of interest in a politician coming after academics is surprising, but to be honest, pretty much nothing surprises me in the climate debate anymore," says Pielke."
http://www.weekly...050.html

Feb 27, 2015
" "We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?"

— Phil Jones in a reply to climate skeptic Warwick Hughes *
"
http://www.akdart...ng5.html

"Scientists skeptical of climate-change theories say they are increasingly coming under attack — treatment that may make other analysts less likely to present contrarian views about global warming. "
http://www.washin...2-4433r/

Feb 27, 2015
ryggesogn2
What do you expect from the once call drive by media which is now call the fly by media because driving by was just to damn slow.
ryggesogn2 your wasting your time it does matter how many time members of Climate change/global warmer crowd has been caught having manipulated and miss represented the data they do not care. That the fly by media is missing in action on the abuse of scientists that do not toe the line. Their saintly crowed would never do such a thing or at least that is what they claim Do you really think they want to here the studies by their own peers ,released this week, that support that the warning trend did stop in the late 1990's. It fails to meet their narrow narrative.It does not matter they will only see the predictions of just wait it will start again. They do not want to hear any serious questions about the fine details on their theories that they support but again some do understand that the devil is in the details. Any questioning is forbidden!


Feb 27, 2015
Do you really think they want to here the studies by their own peers ,released this week, that support that the warning trend did stop in the late 1990's. It fails to meet their narrow narrative.It does not matter they will only see the predictions of just wait it will start again.
*Sigh* Think about the following sentence: "It is possible for warming to show a pause, while heating still continues." Does that make sense to you? Do you understand how such a statement can be supported by physical laws? Does that help you understand why those who actually understand climate science are not concerned that the apparent "pause" somehow invalidates decades of science?

And before you say, "But none of the models predicted the pause", consider this: can you not see that it can be GOOD thing when observations disagree with predictive models, because it leads to improvement of those models, by incorporation of physical phenomena that were initially neglected or misrepresented?

Feb 27, 2015
And before you say, "But none of the models predicted the pause", consider this: can you not see that it can be GOOD thing when observations disagree with predictive models, because it leads to improvement of those models, by incorporation of physical phenomena that were initially neglected or misrepresented

Wow!! Telling someone else to THINK when you are incapable of it.
Those FRAUDULENT models drive policies that incur wasteful spending and destroys economies and lives. Only the ignorant like you can see that as good.

Feb 27, 2015
Posting political nonsense from the Washington Times is not proof.

Feb 27, 2015
And before you say, "But none of the models predicted the pause", consider this: can you not see that it can be GOOD thing when observations disagree with predictive models, because it leads to improvement of those models, by incorporation of physical phenomena that were initially neglected or misrepresented

Wow!! Telling someone else to THINK when you are incapable of it.
Those FRAUDULENT models drive policies that incur wasteful spending and destroys economies and lives. Only the ignorant like you can see that as good.

I can't tell which is worse, your basic reading comprehension, or your understanding of scientific principles. I asked people to consider a question, before answering other question I had asked. That is a far cry from "telling them how to think". Also, your political rants are boring and tedious and really have no place on a science site.

Feb 27, 2015
blah....blah...blah...really have no place on a science site.

But your stupidity does. As I said, you are incapable of an independent thought and so come here to bray what your cult feeds you.

Feb 27, 2015
incorporation of physical phenomena that were initially neglected or misrepresented?

Models used the govts around the world to promote socialism and cony capitalism are wrong?

Scientists and politicians lie to promote their agenda.

Scientists won't be trusted now for quite some time.

Feb 27, 2015
Dark, you can tell by his chosen moniker he is on this thread for political reasons. It is all about politics to deniers.

Feb 27, 2015
Dark, you can tell by his chosen moniker he is on this thread for political reasons. It is all about politics to deniers.

And you also think that if your False "Profit" Al, truly believed that CO2 will destroy us he would:
Fly private jets all over the world
Leave his fleet of SUVs running while he collects millions preaching to morons like you
Burn 24 times the power that the average home consumes.
Purchase a multimillion dollar beach front home with his ill gotten millions.

Feb 27, 2015
Political prejudice is a terrible criterion to use to evaluate science.

Feb 27, 2015
Dark, you can tell by his chosen moniker he is on this thread for political reasons. It is all about politics to deniers.

And you also think that if your False "Profit" Al, truly believed that CO2 will destroy us he would:
Fly private jets all over the world
Leave his fleet of SUVs running while he collects millions preaching to morons like you
Burn 24 times the power that the average home consumes.
Purchase a multimillion dollar beach front home with his ill gotten millions.

One of the "There is no global warming because Al Gore/Democrats/Obama" crowd.

Feb 27, 2015
Political prejudice is a terrible criterion to use to evaluate science.

And your stupidity is absolutely perfect.

Feb 27, 2015
blah....blah...blah...really have no place on a science site.

But your stupidity does. As I said, you are incapable of an independent thought and so come here to bray what your cult feeds you.


Ad hominem attacks, distortion, and political invective are all you have to offer .. you have no idea about my capacity for independent thought. You have assumed for some reason that I buy into AGW ... why is that? I have never even mentioned it in one of my posts, I am here to talk about science. You assume that because I understand the physical mechanism of the greenhouse effect, and have been convinced by the evidence supporting it, that you know something about my political stance on the issue, or to what extent I accept the popular media narrative on AGW. I won't discuss all of that ideology-driven crap, because it's pointless. I am happy to talk about science, where the evidence to support a given claim can be objectively assessed. You have no interest in that.

Feb 27, 2015
Dark, you can tell by his chosen moniker he is on this thread for political reasons. It is all about politics to deniers.

And you also think that if your False "Profit" Al, truly believed that CO2 will destroy us he would:
Fly private jets all over the world
Leave his fleet of SUVs running while he collects millions preaching to morons like you
Burn 24 times the power that the average home consumes.
Purchase a multimillion dollar beach front home with his ill gotten millions.


For what it's worth, I think Gore comes off as a pompous blowhard whose overblown speaking style and generally shrill, insistent tone may have done more harm than good to legitimate scientific discourse about these important climatic issues. I know plenty of people whose won't even listen to a word of scientific content about the issue, because they were so turned off by Gore's work on "Inconvenient Truth", etc.

Feb 27, 2015
I am happy to talk about science,

Not really much to talk about is there as the science is so sparse.

Feb 27, 2015
Science? We're talking about a Denier taking money on the sly.

Feb 27, 2015
Why do those who work in fields in which we fudge and lie, such as business, finance, religion, politics, sales, assume we are all liars in our own professions?
Uh because you arent a professional and never were, by your own admission. What you ARE, is an compulsive liar which has been demonstrated many times in these threads.

Feb 27, 2015
Why do those who work in fields in which we fudge and lie, such as business, finance, religion, politics, sales, assume we are all liars in our own professions?
Uh because you arent a professional and never were, by your own admission. What you ARE, is an compulsive liar which has been demonstrated many times in these threads.


More trolling like a childish grade school mean girl. He must have really gotten into your wheelhouse. Are you pounding on your keyboard and shouting obscenities at your screen too? Why don't you use all capitals, that will show him!!

Feb 27, 2015
to re-post some sentences:

otto, I know my experiences were unusual, but so was the rest of my life. Sorry.

I tried to be normal and boring, but it never worked out. Some of us think and speak differently. I was always outside of that box the rest of you are now all trying to get out of.

We had very different experiences in life. That does not mean we are liars.

Send me an address, and I'll send you proof.

Will that shut you up? Will I get an apology?

Feb 28, 2015
In the long run, it matters little whether scientists are correct or not. The natural world is, regardless of how scientists want it to be.
It would be useful for scientists to be open to all critiques and to those who assert scientists and the peer review process is not corrupted. A fine example is when the US Senate forced the National Academy of Science to hold public hearings and listen to critics of Mann's infamous hockey stick. Such extraordinary measures had to be taken as the 'peer' reviewed journals refused to cooperate.
While the natural world is what it is, the sooner we all understand that world, the better we all will be. Stifling and covering up debate or personally and professionally attacking critics prolongs the knowledge seeking process.

Feb 28, 2015
Nature magazine among others denied any critique of Mann's hokey schtick and refused to release data when requested.
After the NAS was forced to listen, they agreed with the critique.

Roj
Feb 28, 2015
86,000 a year to buy off a prominent climate scientist.

What a bargain for Big Coal.

Feb 28, 2015
the US Senate forced the National Academy of Science to hold public hearings..hockey stick
@rygg-TARD
and if you would read the SCIENCE as well as NEWS: Mann was vindicated
the RESULTS of said investigation - Mann was vindicated: http://grist.org/...-umptee/

But don't believe the NEWS... lets look at the results of the OTHER scientists who re-did the experiments and reviewed the data ETC
http://onlinelibr...8.f01t04

http://www.nature...32a.html

http://www.nap.ed...00-years

so, again, you are simply being a conspiracy theorist trying to validate your BELIEFS with regard to AGW
http://www.ploson...tion=PDF

Mar 01, 2015
he data for Mann's hockey stick is public data - open to any one to analyze.


"In the case of the Mann et al [1998,1999] study, used for the IPCC's "hockey stick" graph, Mann was initially unable to remember where the data was located, then provided inaccurate data, then provided a new version of the data which was inconsistent with previously published material, etc. The National Post has recently reported on my experience as this unfolded.

In addition to the lack of due diligence packages, authors typically refuse to make their source code and data available for verification, even with a specific request. Even after inaccuracies in a major study had been proven, when we sought source code, the original journal (Nature) and the original funding agency (the U.S. National Science Foundation) refused to intervene."
http://climateaud...science/

Mar 01, 2015
"Peer review for climate publications, even by eminent journals like Nature or Science, is typically a quick unpaid read by two (or sometimes three) knowledgeable persons, usually close colleagues of the author.

It is unheard of for a peer reviewer to actually check the data and calculations. In 2004, I was asked by a journal (Climatic Change) to peer review an article. I asked to see the source code and supporting calculations. The editor said that no one had ever asked for such things in 28 years of his editing the journal. He refused to ask for source code; the author refused to provide supporting calculations. Out of my involvement, the journal ended up with a new data policy, which was all to the good. But there is nothing at the journal peer review stage in climate publications which is remotely like an audit. "
http://climateaud...science/

Mar 01, 2015
"Back when paleoclimate research had little implication outside academic seminar rooms, the lack of any adequate control procedures probably didn't matter much. However, now that huge public policy decisions are based, at least in part, on such studies, sophisticated procedural controls need to be developed and imposed. Climate scientists cannot expect to be the beneficiaries of public money and to influence public policy without also accepting the responsibility of providing much more adequate disclosure and due diligence. "
http://climateaud...science/

Mar 01, 2015
Will that shut you up? Will I get an apology?
Ill tell you what will shut me up. Substantiate all these grand proclamations of yours...
Fukushima explosions could throw reactor parts 120km, that thorium reactor tech is being abandoned worldwide, that fallout is the main cause of lung cancer, that plutonium is raining down on idaho, that high-energy alpha radiation cant penetrate skin, etcetcetc
-and refrain from posting any more, as well as lying about your past and your qualifications. Can you do that? Can you do that gkam?

Mar 01, 2015
otto, this is too much. I would like someone else to give me an address where I can send confirming evidence of my experience. We can't let our discussions deteriorate into some personal blood-feud. You have to let it go.

Mar 01, 2015
Ryggy - the data regarding the hockey stick is freely available. The original hockey stick has been validated multiple times - with multiple lines of research. ............... Why don't you stop it? Here read this -

http://www.desmog...t-filing

Thing is Green:

This comment from that link
"His opponents constantly raise allegations against Mann, without ever mentioning the half dozen or so investigations into his academic work and conduct that have concluded his work and conduct to be sound."

Just makes the likes of ryggy even more paranoid... because, of course it's all a conspiracy anyway.
Self-fulfilling prophecy, you cannot use rational things to argue with an irrational mind.
There are plenty who come here to exhibit that bizarre and puzzling behaviour (deniers).
A myth, a lie, once in the Denialosphere is there for good.

Mar 01, 2015
"The idea that a government grant comes with no agenda should be preposterous on its face. After all, who has more to gain from "action on climate change" than the very people providing the research dollars and their solar-powered cronies? The members of the Climate-Industrial Complex have enormous incentives to hide the decline, cook the books, and keep the funds flowing into their department coffers and crony projects. And those with taxing authority — that is, those who hold the government purse strings — have an even bigger incentive."
http://fee.org/bl...kes-back

Mar 01, 2015
Rygg, quoting from your bible is not proof of anything.

Mar 01, 2015
@ryggesogn2. Re "source code" requests, i may be hat such is "proprietary" (ie, private intellectual property) being licensed for use by various 'modelers' on contractual conditions not allowing same to be passed on to any third party. I am sure you understand and respect this, since you have loud and often been the 'champion' for 'private property rights', yes?

Anyhow, better we all drop all personal/political/emotional etc 'subjective attachments' to past confusions during the early stages of climate science study/modeling/reporting, and just concentrate now on what is the increasingly irrefutable reality now...and move on to using our collective intellectual assets and researching funds/energy ways of tackling and solving for that reality before it develops beyond our remedy. Good luck all.

Mar 01, 2015
Just to remind the deniers what Soongate is; it's about how utterly despicable and desperate the climate change deniers are. From the article;
Documents obtained via the Freedom of Information Act, by workers with Greenpeace which were subsequently given to investigators at the Climate Investigations Center (CIC) indicate that Soon received approximately $1.2 million in funding over the past fourteen years from companies such as Exxon Mobile, the American Petroleum Institute and most heavily, Southern Company, one of the largest electricity producers (which relies mostly on coal) in the country.

The deniers only "scientist" has been shown to be a fraud! and ethically compromised by big energy. Hahaha. You all deserve every piece of crap heading your way as the world spins down into a global warming crisis that will prove to be modern mankind's extinction!
The sooner we go green, the more we can help our grand-children survive the next heat wave and exponential climb up.

Mar 01, 2015
refuse to make their source code and data available
@RYG-TROLL
this argument didn't fly six months ago when you & two others made the exact same claims and then Thermo & Pink went and pulled the source code for you in less than 3 minutes... what makes you think it is going to fly now?
http://phys.org/n...ans.html
http://phys.org/n...sed.html
it's not hard to find the truth
see link below or Pinks/Thermo's link in the comments in the above links

such is "proprietary" (ie, private intellectual property) being licensed for use by various 'modelers' on contractual conditions ...
@rc
except that because of politics and idiots who want to say AGW/GW is a debatable science... the source code is OPEN on almost all climate science studies
if' you're going to jump in an comment, try a Google search first,eh
http://climatecod...te-code/

Mar 02, 2015
Greenpeace is a special interest group as are other NGOs. In high taxed, economically depressed areas, they are the well to do employment centers and their executives pull down 1% salaries. Al Gore and others have made millions milking the environmental movement's special subsidies.
The controversy is over AGW.
Nobody disputes that the climate warms and cools cyclically.
No one disputes that CO2 and methane are greenhouse gases.
The "World is ending" AGW models have been wrong much like the corner palm reader. It is obvious that some variables are missing from whatever formula or data sets the models use.
Many business, government, and NGO employees profit from this controversy. To say that accurate predictions using the limited understanding of climate fluctuations are available is foolish. The science on this matter is not settled.
Take day to day weather modeling as an example. There are many models, but too many give an inaccurate forecast...close but?

Mar 02, 2015
@Stumpy.
@rc
except that because of politics and idiots who want to say AGW/GW is a debatable science... the source code is OPEN on almost all climate science studies
if' you're going to jump in and comment, try a Google search first,eh http://climatecod...te-code/
Stumpy, before you yourself "jump in and comment", please read and understand properly the full implications of your own 'link', which clearly states:
the project INTENDS to create a web directory of all published climate science software,...
See? Project 'intent' is not YET fully achieved.

An old friend and neighbor of mine, with whom I've spent many a day for years sound-boarding my (and his own) ideas re 'BIG' science/humanity issues/problems, has a brilliant son who's a Mathematician-Programmer developer of SIMULATION and MODELING maths for all sorts of dynamic systems. His work is freelance; and 'proprietary' still.

Unlike you, I don't just depend on 'links', Stumpy.

Mar 02, 2015
@cjones1.
Take day to day weather modeling as an example. There are many models, but too many give an inaccurate forecast...close but?
The time scales and inputs involved in any local/regional short-term (matter of days) WEATHER forecasting model is entirely different from the time scales and inputs involved in long-term GLOBAL CLIMATE forecasting models.

Moreover, the later models involve DEEP factoring/projection of a CHANGING inputs base as warming, buffering, re-balancing, sudden excursion etc processes 'play out' year in year out across globally distributed 'sources, vectors and sinks'.

Most imporantly, one must understand and consider the TRENDING over longterm of climate changes. Something which local/regional short-term 'weather changes' do not exhibit as 'clearly' and 'inexorably as global climate change does.

The matter is too complex/important, in a SERIOUSLY DANGEROUS way, for us to get bogged down in 'simplistic' arguments....from either 'side'. Cheers.

Mar 02, 2015
I am sure you understand and respect this, since you have loud and often been the 'champion' for 'private property rights', yes?

Not when that property was paid for by the taxpayers.

drop all personal/political/emotional etc 'subjective attachments' to past confusions during the early stages of climate science study/modeling/reporting,


Why?
What has changed?
Mann et al and the AGWites have not changed as this attack on Soon indicates.

Mar 02, 2015
Unlike you, I don't just depend on 'links'
@rc
neither do i, nor do i depend on a SINGLE link
and if you would have looked at the other links or go into the PO history and read Pink's and Thermo's posts, you would see that there are quite a few other links!

i used a single link to demonstrate my point because there was no need to go any further
why?
because it debunks the suggestion that all source codes are hidden from the public...

FACT- MOST climate science source codes are released for the public and other scientists to review the data and check the facts

and THAT is easily found by simply searching
OR
reading the freakin STUDIES

so take your "Project 'intent' is not YET fully achieved" comment and get back to your ToE jam and saving the world from AGW as promised

PS that "link" is just one place that is trying to get everything into a single point of reference for ease of searching or research, troll boy


Mar 02, 2015
An old friend and neighbor of mine ... His work is freelance; and 'proprietary' still
@rc
besides being OT and irrelevant... SO WHAT?
i also know several programmers who own source code that is proprietary... including my own daughter who just sold code and projects to DARPA
SO WHAT?
it is NOT relevant

POINT-
the issue: a "claim" that source codes were all locked and proprietary

this is personal conjecture based upon laziness and accepting blogs and articles from extremist sites as all-encompassing and legit without checking for themselves

DEBUNKED
FACT: most climate science codes are released to the public for review

this is easily checked and verified and most studies will also list code in their papers

IOW - the argument is a circular attempt to obfuscate the issue and create a strawman or red herring
it is nothing more than conjecture that is easily debunked by simply reading the study and asking the author

Mar 02, 2015
Not when that property was paid for by the taxpayers
@ryggTARD the TROLL
it is NOT paid for by the taxpayers
it is USED BY the scientists during a study

normally it is personally developed (or hired out to develop, or bought) and used during the research
just because it is USED in research doesn't mean it was not personally developed

which brings us back to the issue of open source code in climate science
it is OPEN because of stupid people who cannot comprehend the science making waves and thinking that there is a conspiracy, which drives politicians etc to create stupid policies...

you are a front runner for the conspiracy theorists ruining the country rygg
you should read this
http://www.ploson...tion=PDF

why can you accept the science of vaxx but not climate?
after all... most Pharm co's are crooked, right?
and make far more than Oil co's paying for your posts
LMFAO

Mar 02, 2015
I never said answers were easy antigoricle but to stick your head in the sand and just pretend we don't have a serious problem is delusional.

I hope all you deniers posting are getting your 1.2 million from the oil and gas industries also, live it up guys.....

Hey max, stick your head where the sun don't shine and keep shouting, maybe you'll hear your ignorant rant.

Mar 02, 2015
@Stumpy, infer proper context before "jumping in and commenting", based on your own 'construction'. My response was to ryggesogn2; to point to why some request or other may be 'refused'. I was not involving/implying 'all' requests/source codes cases. I merely offered a possible reason why any 'particular' request MAY be refused. I made no comment re the merits or otherwise of his claims that most/all were refused. Context.

Did I mention my friend and neighbor's son is brilliant? His 'proprietary' mathematical/programming techniques in great demand in many fields...in latter years ESPECIALLY by groups/institutions involved in CLIMATE CHANGE MODELING, all over the globe.

PS: Congrats to your daughter! FYI, I had occasion to use my own knowledge/programming skills (acquired using my own time/money) to solve urgent problems for my last employer, who were aware of my unusual skills. They asked me when all external 'consultants' and internal 'systems people' failed. I succeeded.

Mar 02, 2015
@ Really-Skippy. How you are today Cher? I'm really good me, thanks for asking.

who were aware of my unusual skills


I'm glad other peoples notice them too.

Mar 02, 2015
"Grijalva was joined by Democratic Sens. Ed Markey of Massachusetts, Barbara Boxer of California and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island who wrote letters to 100 companies, trade groups and organizations with ties to coal and oil companies. Senators asked these groups to disclose how much money they have spent funding climate science.

"Rather than empower scientists and researchers to expand the public discourse on climate science and other environmental topics, the [Democrats'] letter could be viewed as an attempt to silence legitimate intellectual and scientific inquiry," Republican Senators wrote to the same universities and business groups.

"We ask you to not be afraid of political repercussions or public attacks regardless of how you respond," Republicans wrote. "Above all, we ask that you continue to support scientific inquiry and discovery, and protect academic freedom despite efforts to chill free speech.""
http://dailycaller.com

Mar 02, 2015
"Climate scientists get funding from all sorts of sources, including the government. The Obama administration has spent billions on global warming research in the last six years. In that time, they have used government-backed science to justify more regulations on energy production. Some climate scientists even get funding from environmental groups and liberal foundations that promote policies aimed at curbing or even banning fossil fuels, yet there is no mission to out and discredit them for conflict of interest.

The "witch hunt" has already forced one scientist out of climate research for good. University of Colorado climate scientist Dr. Roger Pielke announced he was bowing out of climate research because of pressure from politicians and environmental groups."
http://dailycalle...science/

Mar 02, 2015
""Congressman Grijalva doesn't have any evidence of any wrongdoing on my part, either ethical or legal, because there is none," Pielke wrote. "He simply disagrees with the substance of my testimony – which is based on peer-reviewed research funded by the US taxpayer, and which also happens to be the consensus of the IPCC (despite Holdren's incorrect views).""
http://dailycalle...science/

AGWism is now Lysenkoism.

Mar 05, 2015
"Democrats may be flustered after a week of being accused of engineering an anti-science "witch hunt," but they aren't backing down from their investigations into the financial backing of climate-change researchers who challenge the movement's doomsday scenarios.

U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva of Arizona, the ranking Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee, told National Journal earlier this week that he may have been guilty of "overreach" even as he defended his probe into the funding sources of seven professors, now known as the "Grijalva seven.""
http://www.washin...entists/

'Liberals' have been stifling speech on campus for decades. What's new?

Mar 05, 2015
@ryggtard
you are promoting politics, NOT science

you are accepting political views of science over the factual science because you don't want to have to address the facts involved

you are NOT promoting science, nor are you sharing it with your links
you are sharing politics

which is the exact same thing as sharing a dirty diaper
and they should both be thrown away for exact same reason
they're full of crap and irrelevant to the scientific discussion

...especially with regard to the known factors as well as science which has been validated and observed

what i wonder about is why, WRT Climate Science only, you would trust a politician over a study with empirical data?

http://www.ploson...tion=PDF


Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more