It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Skeptical Scientists Kicked Off UN Press Schedule in Bali ... Again

page: 6
2
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin


ABE: after reading the next post, avenger, I think you have some misunderstanding of the nature of science. A good book on philosophy of science would help. Science doesn't provide 100% proof, that's for mathematics.




Most of your comments don't merit a response, but my understanding of the nature of science has managed to get me by since 1972 when I began working in it. Perhaps I can be re-trained.




posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 12:19 AM
link   
Better source... but ah... it still didn't ring right to me.
Here's someone much more qualified than I, making a point by point rebuttal to that article: RealClimate: Lindzen point by point
I took some time to skim some of his papers while I was at it.
The fact that the man continues to have a careers kind of defeats the (paranoid) belief that the "alarmists are intimidating anyone who would question them".
He has quite the body of work out there and some of it is quite compelling, but if what he says is true, why hasn't he been run out of Doge?

Look, I'm not gonna try to tell you that some scumballs aren't going to attempt to hijack the issue and use fear to turn a profit, but that doesn't mean that the issue (and the science behind it) isn't real.



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 12:24 AM
link   
reply to post by TheAvenger
 


Sinse you reply to me I have been looking at documents cited by the paper you provided in your second link, which is right here: Avenger's Post

You said:


Ah, yet another misconception is that there are no peer-reviewed anti-global warming papers out there. Here's a short listing of peer reviewed papers that dispute many of the warmie's claims:
Friends of Science


In fairness to this discussion I saw the list of referenced materials provided by you and did what any honest person would, set about studying the documents to see if there was truth in the argument you made "Ah, yet another misconception is that there are no peer-reviewed anti-global warming papers out there. Here's a short listing of peer reviewed papers that dispute many of the warmie's claims".

I have been selecting papers at random searching them out, and at the very least reading their abstracts.

So far NOT ONE has attempted in its study to DISPUTE anthropogenic global warming. They all make study NATURAL catalysts and systems of climate variation. Few people will attempt to dispute that there is NO NATURAL climate cycles.

link1
link2
link3

My favorite citation provided by you is this one: "The influence of land-use change and landscape dynamics on the climate system: relevance to climate-change policy beyond the radiative effect of greenhouse gases" Link to abstract I like it because it is study showing ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING.

Sure I see the point that there is undeniable evidence to support natural climate variations. That doe snot excuse human activity from the picture.

I will continue to look at the material referenced by you in the second link you posted. If I do encounter well reasoned and legitimate research that disproves anthropogenic climate change I will gladly accept it. I still have not seen it.

Until that time I feel that it is important to continue to push for humanity to become responsible for our actions, and to ensure that our endeavors, no matter how great or small do no harm.

[edit on 24-12-2007 by Animal]



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 06:46 AM
link   
Ok guys, Peer review..................I have had "many" papers published world wide and reviewed many papers. Peer review is subject to personal opinion and the "review" team often has an agenda. All to often a paper must be revised to meet the opinion of the team. That does not mean pure science either. So the "pure science" of peer reviewed papers is BS. Many great papers have been chopped to bits by bias of the "pure science" agenda driven teams.

Money, greed, ego, and just plain fraud fills the science journals with "peer reviewed" toilet paper...................

[edit on 24-12-2007 by heliosprime]



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 07:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheAvenger
Most of your comments don't merit a response, but my understanding of the nature of science has managed to get me by since 1972 when I began working in it. Perhaps I can be re-trained.


It wasn't meant to suggest that you are not trained in anal chem. I've found that 'hard' sciences don't always teach the philosophical aspects of science, such as the differences between scientific fact, hypothesis, and theory.

I have the pleasure of schooling in both 'hard' and 'soft'. and i know from experience that being able to choose the correct column for your HPLC analyses doesn't necessarily require an understanding of Popper, Kuhn et al. But the social sciences tend to attempt to get this over, mainly because they have had to defend their scientific credentials more often.

So, in sum, the point was that no scientific theories are proven fact. None are proven 'once and for all'. All are tentative and open to reassessment with reliable and valid contradictory evidence. A theory is a logically consistent and repeatedly verified explanation of a series of scientific facts. So you are expecting more from AGW than is required of other theories.

ABE: and I see we are now turned to attacking the mechanisms of science itself, the last refuge of cranks. Peer review isn't perfect, but it is the best quality control we have. On occasion, an explicit 'deniers' manuscript makes it through, and sheesh, they are generally crap. The recent paper on geomagnetism is a great example of this (Courtillot et al), with the editor actually protecting the authors from extensive criticism by removing particular comments in response, allowing the authors to correct obviously erroneous claims. That's kinda what can be considered borderline editorial misconduct, indeed claims of fraud have been raised in France.

The idea that peer-review is biased against these guys is BS. Some of these dudes have no problem publishing science. They do tend to massively exaggerate their claims of their work in the media (you know one recent paper which does this, avenger). Svensmark is a great example, he has just been funded to the tune of 10m Euros, he is publishing stuff on cosmic rays and climate with little issue, but he does make more expansive claims in the media which are not supported by his studies.

.................

Oh, and I meant to point out that some, like Pat Michaels, are no longer sceptics of the basic science. He has repeatedly claimed this year that the science is essentially correct, but that he thinks future projections will be at the lower end. Therefore, he doesn't really belong on your list, he accepts that humans contributed to a 'substantial' part of warming since the latter 20th :


[S]cientists know quite precisely how much the planet will warm in the foreseeable future, a modest three-quarters of a degree (C) [in 50 years]
All this has to do with basic physics, which isn't real hard to understand. It has been known since 1872 that as we emit more and more carbon dioxide into our atmosphere, each increment results in less and less warming. In other words, the first changes produce the most warming, and subsequent ones produce a bit less, and so on. But we also assume carbon dioxide continues to go into the atmosphere at an ever-increasing rate. In other words, the increase from year-to-year isn't constant, but itself is increasing. The effect of increasing the rate of carbon dioxide emissions, coupled with the fact that more and more carbon dioxide produces less and less warming compels our climate projections for the future warming to be pretty much a straight line. Translation: Once human beings start to warm the climate, they do so at a constant rate


The only thing he is ignoring here is the response from feedbacks along with CO2-induced warming. And on O'Reilly he stated that:


I think human beings are warming the planet and they have been doing so for several decades and they are responsible for a substantial part of the warming since 1975, but there are people out there that are very bright and very good scientists that will argue otherwise.

linky

So he has made a Singer-like move from 'it ain't happening' to 'it is happening, but there's nothing we can do but adapt'. I think more will do so in the near future.


Look this new UN report comes out and it says human beings are warming the surface temperature. To me that is like a breathless announcement that there is gambling in Las Vegas.

linky

[edit on 24-12-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by heliosprime
 


ok heliosprime, if you think the system of peer review is flawed, and some how plays a roll in the blocking of the release of information, show me some background on what you are talking about.

As much as I love conversing with a few members my primary reason for being on ATS is to debate. I want to tell you what I know and show you how I know it to persuade you to agree.

I am also looking for that in return. How can I grow and evolve without people MAKING me see the truth. if I was you I would have provided links like these below to prove your point:

link1

Link 2

Link 3

So there are three sources backing up your claim. having now read these sources I am more inclined to believe you when you say that "So the "pure science" of peer reviewed papers is BS. Many great papers have been chopped to bits by bias of the "pure science" agenda driven teams.

Money, greed, ego, and just plain fraud fills the science journals with "peer reviewed" toilet paper................... " link

There are obviously serious issues with the peer review process that must be dealt with in order to make the publication of scientific research more credible. Still, I full heartedly believe that the system is not entirely corrupt, and that in the field of science there is a general level of honesty and integrity.

You and I both know (you did say you worked in a science field right?) that a scientists who lies, makes up false results, makes outlandish claims, etc will be called out and punished by the scientific community.

Look at the doctor in korea, Hwang Woo-Suk, who lied about his work with stem cells.



The scandal took a dramatic turn on December 15, when Roh Sung-il, who collaborated on that paper, stated to media outlets that nine of those eleven lines had been faked; specifically, DNA tests illustrated that those nine lines shared identical DNA, implying that they had come from the same source. Roh stated that "Professor Hwang admitted to fabrication," and that he, Hwang, and another coauthor had asked Science to withdraw the paper.[13] Adding fuel to the flame, MBC broadcasted the content of the canceled PD Su-cheop show, which substantiated Roh's claim.

On the same day, ABC news reported that Science had not yet received an official request from Hwang to withdraw the paper, and it had refused to remove Schatten's name from the paper, stating, "No single author, having declared at the time of submission his full and complete confidence in the contents of the paper, can retract his name unilaterally, after publication."

Several prominent scientists, including Ian Wilmut, who cloned Dolly the sheep in 1998, and Bob Lanza, a cloning expert based in Worcester, Massachusetts, did call on Hwang to submit his paper to an outside group for independent analysis---essentially, the same test used to determine parenthood for children of questionable legitimacy. Lanza noted, "You can't fake the results if they're carried out by an independent group. I think this simple test could put the charges to rest."

Link

His punishment?



On May 12, 2006, Hwang was "indicted on embezzlement and bioethics law violations linked to faked stem cell research."[2] Korea Times reported on June 10, 2007 that "The university expelled him and the government rescinded its financial and legal support. While being charged with fraud and embezzlement, he has kept a low profile at the Suam Bioengineering Research Institute in Yongin, Gyeonggi Province, where he is officially engaged in animal cloning. The government barred Hwang from conducting human cloning research.[3]

link

He got toasted. He published fabricated data and was called on it. Although I am sure there is more fraud in science than I would like to believe, I do not in any way see the field as completely corrupted, and there fore I believe in the veracity of the majority of published scientific research.

My overall point? I still want to see peer reviewed data that stands up to scrutiny that disproves anthropogenic contributions to climate variation. While I have to look into the flawed nature of peer review i still put my faith in the scientific community. While I know humans to be flawed creatures, I know enough scientists who put their love and honor into their work and would never defile their profession which they love so well.

If you want to disprove anthropogenic climate change you are going to have do provide evidence.




[edit on 24-12-2007 by Animal]

Edits: I really should not write before coffee in the morning.

[edit on 24-12-2007 by Animal]



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 02:59 PM
link   
We all have different opinions on many things. In the spirit of the Christmas holiday, I put aside my disagreement and wish Mel and the rest of you a happy holiday. Spend time with family and friends, enjoy life. We can get back to "AGW skeptics blocked in Bali" or whatever another day. Cheers and best wishes.

T.A.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 10:37 AM
link   
well that was very sweet of you avenger. and now back to our regular broadcasting...

Avenger I would be rally interested to hear what you have to say to my response to your post which provided a list of sources, which you asserted argued against AGW. link

AND

Heliosprime I would be interested to hear your response to link

Thanks guys =)

[edit on 27-12-2007 by Animal]



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Animal

Heliosprime I would be interested to hear your response to link

Thanks guys =)

[edit on 27-12-2007 by Animal]


The short answer.......(author take big deep breath) is that based on data in link3, 1997-98 coincides with field testing of the newly completed HAARP array. The surface heating of the pacific ocean was outside the observed solar activity of that time period, but, does coincide with full power testing of the HAARP array and new gen-set.

The surface warming of the pacific at that time was (gulp) man-made.....

(author runs to closet and retrieves oversized kevlar combat helmet and places it on head)

[edit on 27-12-2007 by heliosprime]



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by heliosprime
 


ok, what is it that i missed? you are in fact responding to my response to your comment about peer review, correct? i do not follow you at all...



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Animal
 


A beginning for you:

Above Top
Secret


I will post more later.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join