I've heard anyone who makes over $500,000 yearly, and I've heard anyone with net worth more than 9 million.
Both of these seem a bit extreme to me... what is the real figure?
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-21 19:04
What's out of context about it, broseph?
Is it still a "conspiracy theory" when those responsible admit publicly what they're doing in interviews with the press?
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-22 5:40
"finding a neat trick" to "hide the decline." What's out of context about it, broseph?
Seriously?
As for the Schneider quote, all he's admitting is that they sometimes dramatize their findings to help dumb them down enough for public consumption. Dry facts are not very persuasive. And like it or not, scientists have to sometimes be persuasive. That's not the same story you've managed to spin at all.
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-22 15:08
>scientists have to sometimes be persuasive.
They do? Really? A scientist's job, a scientist's calling, is to find and publish objective, empirically proven facts about the way the universe works. And that is all. Period. Full stop.
Schneider et al, and all the "climate science" gang, have been using public money to create agitprop for the environmentalist wackos. That is a breach of the public trust, not to mention criminal. They should be forced to repay all the grant money, then imprisoned.
Government scientists have to be persuasive to get their checks of government funding, hence their theories have to be in line with the Party, otherwise they get no funding.
No scientist outside of the government or the UN seriously considers man-made global warming to be the unquestionable truth the media portrays it to be.
A scientist's job, a scientist's calling, is to find and publish objective, empirically proven facts about the way the universe works. And that is all.
Oh, you poor naive fool. I really wish that were the way it worked. But scientists always, always have to ask someone for money to operate. That doesn't make them corrupt; it's just how the world works.
No scientist outside of the government or the UN seriously considers man-made global warming to be the unquestionable truth the media portrays it to be.
That's a good point. But even if it isn't an unquestionable truth, the best decision based on what we currently know can still be to take precautions against it. That's more the media's and even the public's fault for wanting to deal only in absolute truths.
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-27 17:40
>But scientists always, always have to ask someone for money to operate.
And their findings must always be in concert with the Party's diktats this week, or those big juicy grants get chopped right off. Soviet psychiatric hospitals were filled with "madmen" who questioned the state, and Soviet "science" proved them insane. They too had an entrenched kleptocracy that used "science" to prove whatever Official Truth the State wished to proclaim that week.
>That doesn't make them corrupt;
cor·rupt
[kuh-ruhpt] Show IPA
adjective
1.guilty of dishonest practices, as bribery; lacking integrity; crooked: a corrupt judge.
2.debased in character; depraved; perverted; wicked; evil: a corrupt society.
3.made inferior by errors or alterations, as a text.
4.infected; tainted.
5.decayed; putrid.
verb (used with object)
6.to destroy the integrity of; cause to be dishonest, disloyal, etc., especially by bribery.
7.to lower morally; pervert: to corrupt youth.
8.to alter (a language, text, etc.) for the worse; debase.
9.to mar; spoil.
10.to infect; taint.
Mix clean water with dirty water, you get dirty water. Mix shit with milk, what results is unfit for human consumption regardless of the proportions. Mix science with politics, you get politics. Mix science with religion, you get religion. Mix truth with lies, you get lies.
>it's just how the world works.
It's how Stephen Schneider's world worked, but we can do better.
>But even if it isn't an unquestionable truth,
If it isn't an unquestionable truth, why is it being sold to us as if it were?
>the best decision based on what we currently know
Which is nothing. We know NOTHING about the Earth's climate and it is the height of arrogance to suggest that a few decades of temperature readings from major cities, with or without vast heaps of dubious "renormalized" data from sources like tree rings--all from a single tree, by the way, that 4000 year old bristlecone pine in California, which astonishingly allows "climate science" to see worldwide temperatures down to a fraction of one tenth of a degree Celsius going back to the Bronze Age--and to claim that we know what the Earth's normal temperature is, is risible. Oh, let's just make something up and publish another paper saying life on Earth is doomed. CHA-CHING, we got another grant!
>can still be to take precautions against it.
Precautions against what? "Keep dancing, it keeps the elephants away!" "I don't see any elephants." "It's working!"
>That's more the media's and even the public's fault for wanting to deal only in absolute truths.
Yeah, we KNOW BETTER than those unwashed rabble, and it's FOR THEIR OWN GOOD, right?
If you want to send all of Western Civilization back to the caves, then by God give me some proof. At least give me a testable hypothesis.
One notes that Brazil, China, and India are making the proper polite noises in public but when one looks at their actual economic policies, it's easy to see that they're laughing their asses off at your self-flagellating, puritanical, white-colonialist eco-religion. I wonder why.
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-27 22:34
And their findings must always be in concert with the Party's diktats this week, or those big juicy grants get chopped right off.
There is more than one party, you know. I'm sure someone like big oil companies would be willing to fund climate-skeptical science.
but we can do better.
I agree my friend. If you have a better method of allocating funds to science I'm all ears. But as it stands, whoever writes the best (read: most persuasive) grant proposals gets the most money.
why is it being sold to us as if it were?
Because the media and even most scientists think that people are generally stupid. Because uncertainty doesn't sell and we live in a world where everyone has to sell something to someone at some point to be successful. It sucks. Again, I don't scientists are the problem here.
Which is nothing...
What we really have are mathematical models. Granted, there is no control earth to verify the models with so we can never say with absolute certainty that burning carbon causes catastrophic events. But those models are based on the same physical principles as the ones that are used to design bridges and spacecraft or just about any other piece of technology you have ever used.
then by God give me some proof. At least give me a testable hypothesis.
What would it really take to convince you? A prediction of future temperatures? Remember, it's average temperatures over many years that matter. And numbers are never persuasive.
that the entire north polar ice cap would be melted by 2013. We have eleven more months to see whether this prediction turns out to be true or false. That's a testable prediction. We can put it to empirical test and see whether it's true or false. PROTIP: the north polar ice cap was still there, at last observation.
If you don't have testable predictions, what you have is called "opinion," and like assholes, everyone's got one but they don't produce anything very useful.
Scientists publish their data. Scientists don't have secret computer models nor secret data. Scientists don't say "We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind," "I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act," "I think we have to stop considering 'Climate Research' as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal."
Science is mathematical modeling of reality, empirically constrained. Science strives for spareness of form with maximum generality. Science discards models which make predictions not borne out by reality.
If they can't predict whether it will rain in two weeks, why should we believe they can predict what the temperature will be in two hundred years? And how could we test it anyway, given that neither of us is likely to live long enough to read the thermometer when the day comes?
>What would it really take to convince you? A prediction of future temperatures? Remember, it's average temperatures over many years that matter. And numbers are never persuasive.
Until "climate scientists" present empirical proof of their radical and alarming claim that Ragnarok is upon us unless the entire human race goes back to the caves right now, the null hypothesis holds. And it really is that simple.
"Some of the models suggest that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during some of the summer months, could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years," says Gore.
Wow, you really managed to spin that out of proportion.
If they can't predict whether it will rain in two weeks, why should we believe they can predict what the temperature will be in two hundred years?
Because these are two completely different problems. Meteorology is not the same as climate science. Predicting a storm is difficult because it's a chaotic system. The outcome of a storm predicting model is too sensitive to initial conditions to be useful. Modeling average global temperature is much easier since we know how much energy is coming in from the sun, how much is able to escape from the atmosphere into space and what the content of the atmosphere is.
No, no, no. You should have just quit while you were ahead. All you have shown so far is the fallacy of argument from authority, over and over. "Mann and Jones and Al Gore are smart and know stuff, so everyone should do what they say."
When they have an atmospheric model that can take 1990's climate data and predict current temperatures--not even weather, just temperatures--let us know. They promise to be able to predict decades into the future. Let them start with 1990 and predict 2010. That's just twenty years, and that shouldn't be too hard, right?
This aside from the considerable technical problems. For example, I don't know where I'd begin modeling average global temperature down to one tenth of a degree Celsius, because I don't know where I'd begin measuring average global temperature down to one tenth of a degree Celsius. Do you take temperatures at sea level? Do you measure temperatures higher up also? Do you rely on satellite measurements only, going back a few decades only? Do you need, perhaps, a very sensitive thermometer in every cubic kilometer of air in the Earth's atmosphere? More? If you do that, do you average them? Or use a table of weighted averages? Who creates the table and decides on the weighting? Do you measure temperatures only in urban areas ("climate scientists" love this one, see also "urban heat island effect"), or in rural areas also? Never mind the Earth. What's the average temperature of the county you live in, down to one tenth of a degree Celsius? How would you measure it? These are not trivial questions. And don't bother asking Mann and Jones, their data and models are secret. "Trust us. We know what we're doing."
We don't know what we're measuring right now, nor do we have more than derived guesswork about the Earth's "average global temperature" fifty or a hundred years ago. And on the timescale of just the existence of our species, much less the existence of complex vertebrate life or the existence of the planet, a century is not even one flap of a gnat's wings. We have the tiniest thimbleful of hard data, with which "climate scientists" wish to fill the Grand Canyon with DOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMM. And I'm not buying it. Remember the null hypothesis.
When you look at the history of these people, one comes away with the distinct impression that these were angry spoiled children, furious with Daddy, who have been obsessed with the idea of proving that Daddy/America/Nixon/capitalism/Whitey have SINNED AGAINST GAWD AND NATURE and THE END IS NIGH. Psychiatrists call this "l'idee fixe," the fixed idea. "Pollution is causing a new ice age and you're all DOOMED!" "No, wait, white people's sinful insistence on not living in mud huts is causing 'global warming' and you're all DOOMED!" "No, wait..."
More Stephen Schneider quotes:
"On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." Interview in Discover Magazine, October 1989, pp. 45–48, Oct. 1989
"I readily confess a lingering frustration: uncertainties so infuse the issue of climate change that it is still impossible to rule out either mild or catastrophic outcomes, let alone provide confident probabilities for all the claims and counterclaims made about environmental problems. Even the most credible international assessment body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has refused to attempt subjective probabilistic estimates of future temperatures. This has forced politicians to make their own guesses about the likelihood of various degrees of global warming." From his article "Misleading Math about the Earth: Science defends itself against The Skeptical Environmentalist," Scientific American, January 2002.
When they have an atmospheric model that can take 1990's climate data and predict current temperatures--not even weather, just temperatures--let us know. They promise to be able to predict decades into the future. Let them start with 1990 and predict 2010. That's just twenty years, and that shouldn't be too hard, right?
Flawed logic. Later into the future = more carbon = more change.
For example, I don't know where I'd begin modeling average global temperature down to one tenth of a degree Celsius, because I don't know where I'd begin measuring average global temperature down to one tenth of a degree Celsius.
I think you may have a little misconception as to what mathematical modeling means. You can build a useful model without precise measurements. We know the laws of physics. We know how radiation heat transfer works. We use it every day to design engines and turbines. You can guess an average temperature to start with and then run your simulation with different starting temperatures. If there is always a significant increase no matter the starting temperature, then the model tells you that adding carbon increases temperature.
And for the record, I didn't say it was easy, just easier than predicting a storm. As for how to calculate average temperature, I'm not a climatologist but this is how I would do it and I assume this is how they do it too because it's the only way that makes sense. Take temperature and multiply it by the mass of how much atmosphere is at that temperature. If there are sections for which you're missing data, interpolate (include this in your uncertainty calculations). Do this until the entire atmosphere is accounted for. Add all of these up. Now divide by the total mass of the atmosphere.
Like I said before though, we don't have a way to completely validate our models because we don't have an extra earth. That doesn't mean we should ignore what the models tell us. And burning less carbon is not the same as living in caves. Grow the fuck up.
When you look at the history of these people...
And... you've just demonstrated that you can't look at this objectively. Stay comfortable in your little world where everyone is out to get whitey. That way you have an excuse if you fail just like those whiny minorities!
Name:
Anonymous2012-02-08 12:39
The 1% is the bourgeoisie(capitalists/business owners). Technically that is more than just 1% though if you are counting the petite-bourgeoisie. Class warfare and ultimately a socialist revolution is what needs to be focused upon, not an Obama reelection campaign.
Name:
Anonymous2012-02-12 22:44
>>91
Wow, you've just demonstrated that you have no arguments at all other than appeal to authority. "These people are smarter than you, so you should let them control your life, because, uh, just because."
I think you may have a little misconception about what science is and what science isn't. No falsifiable hypothesis = not science.
Tell me, is there any qualification to get into the "Climate Science" mafia? Or can anybody claim to be one and start cashing the big fat checks for the doomsday predictions?
Grow the fuck up, indeed. The Emperor isn't wearing any clothes here.
>>93
I'm surprised you didn't compare yourself to Galileo and claim you're being "persecuted" for "your beliefs", though I'm sure that's to come soon. "Climate science mafia", jeez, could you get any more whiney and populist? You can deny that global warming exists, but it's *almost* like denying that gravity exists. I say "almost" because the former is not as noticeable in day-to-day life.
demonstrated that you have no arguments at all other than appeal to authority.
What? No, I demonstrated that the way you're evaluating this is flawed. "They can't tell me exactly what the temperature will be tomorrow within a tenth of a degree so all of their evidence is useless." See, I would give you hard data but you'd just stick your head in the sand and claim that mathematics is voodoo.
>"You can build a useful model without precise measurements. We know the laws of physics. We know how radiation heat transfer works. We use it every day to design engines and turbines. You can guess an average temperature to start with and then run your simulation with different starting temperatures. If there is always a significant increase no matter the starting temperature, then the model tells you that adding carbon increases temperature."
You really need to read the leaked Climategate emails and look a little more closely at the computer code from their so-called models. It was written to show a significant increase regardless of starting conditions, the sun ceasing to radiate energy, etc. "I found a neat trick to hide the decline."
They've been caught with their hands in the cookie jar.
>>96 They'll make that illegal soon, wait and see
Uh, yeah. Sure. just like it's already illegal in many countries to ask questions about the so-called "holocaust."
I'm against those laws, particularly because I'm an advocate for complete unmitigated free speech. They're not constructive, and they just end up making martyrs of deniers/"revisionists". It would be much better and effective if instead of laws against that, governments, politicians, academics, countered the denial head on, but of course it's easier to deal with it all via legal sanction.
>>98 Climategate
Towing that old horse again? Yeah, and other scientists have said within that "leak" some of the papers in there are outright trash. Apparently, some do the research sloppy and other scientists help improve it. This is the open exchange of ideas at work, and news organizations (especially ones sponsored by oil companies) take this stuff completely out of context and foment populist reaction against the whole system, saying it's corrupt, which is clearly not the case. This also makes the implication that climate research is only being done at the University of East Anglia (http://www.uea.ac.uk/) which of course is bullshit. They've been caught with their hands in the cookie jar.
No denialists are grasping at straws, and if they didn't have big news media constantly taking things out of context, they wouldn't have a pot to piss in.
You really need to read the leaked Climategate emails and look a little more closely at the computer code from their so-called models. It was written to show a significant increase regardless of starting conditions, the sun ceasing to radiate energy, etc.
Ok, show me a specific example of this.
Name:
Anonymous2012-02-15 9:00
Name:
Anonymous2012-02-17 4:33
i always thought the 1% was all the nepotism
google the bush family tree
Stop TPP to save people both in the U.S. and Japan #USA #Japan #TPP Please sign the petition! http://bit.ly/wj4EZ6
We petition the obama administration to:
STOP 1%-led TPPA negotiations and defend the rights of his own people, NOT bankers and corporate America.
TPPA (Trans-Pacific Partnership) is a secretive, super free trade pact covering 24 fields including medicine, insurance, finance, investment, labor and government procurement, allowing corporations to exploit ordinary people.
This is economic colonization by corporations.
This trade pact puts the interests of corporations above that of the citizens of signatory nations. It enables corporations to sue governments if their profits are threatened by government action to protect citizens.
If TPPA is introduced, jobs will be lost, the price of medicine and insurance fees will go up, wages will get lower, working conditions will erode, the environment will be degraded, and the gap between the rich and the poor will widen for all member nations!
Stop TPPA of 1%, by 1%, for 1%!
Please sign here⇒http://bit.ly/zTkaKA
(This petition is due on March 2nd)
>>98
Still waiting for you to show me an example. I would like to continue this conversation.
Name:
Anonymous2012-02-29 21:31
>>1 I've heard anyone who makes over $500,000 yearly, and I've heard anyone with net worth more than 9 million.
What is their nationality/religion? Does their skull pass goniometer test? Do they have fused earlobe? If not, they are most likely these ugly illegal immigrants, expelled from eastern europe.
Name:
Anonymous2012-03-01 0:35
>>100 some of the papers in there are outright trash. Apparently, some do the research sloppy and other scientists help improve it.
But you can't love the comments like: "I can't see either of these [critical] papers being in the next report. [We] will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
They really show the true state of science, where scientists act similar to prosecutors, searching for evidency, and forging it if nothing found, while ignoring the alibi of the prosecuted.
If you pay them enough, modern scientists can prove even the existence of bigfoot and aliens. So is the power of science!
Name:
Anonymous2012-03-01 20:50
>>109
So what one person says in private via email somehow represents the entire scientific community? Never mind that those papers actually did get published.
So what one person says in private via email somehow represents the entire scientific community?
It is a glimpse inside the kitchen, with all its fat rats, audacious cockroaches and unsanitary mess: publish biased results, suppress critical reviews.
Never mind that those papers actually did get published.
Because there was such a drama. But in other, less publicized cases, the System could easily suppress uncomfortable results. For example, Intel could pay computer scientists to publish and survey only ineffecient algorithms, so the users would feel they need a faster CPU.
>>64
Has never heard of the Works Progress Administration. Keep voting against your own interests and browsing Stormfront, that'll show 'em!
>>109 If you pay them enough, modern scientists can prove even the existence of bigfoot and aliens. So is the power of science!
In your "science", maybe. The "science" of chiropractic, anti-vaxxers, "alternative" medicine, homeopathy, etc.