The Bad Science Scandal - Research Fact Fabrication - UK News article.

by *lost* 73 Replies latest social current

• 

  besty

  @SBF

  What views?

  view - an opinion or judgment colored by the feeling or bias of its holder

  Here's a few examples of your 'views' on climate change from this thread:

  1 - " Yeah remember how they faked the global warming thing in Norwich." Your 'view' was shown to be factually incorrect, thats perhaps why you kept moving to another 'view' without further dialog:

  2 - "The weather is getting colder in the UK. What a farce." Your 'view' was shown to be factually incorrect, thats perhaps why you kept moving to another 'view' without further dialog:

  3 - " Yeah I forgot the new light, it's climate change not global warming any more." Your 'view' was shown to be factually incorrect, thats perhaps why you kept moving to another 'view' without further dialog:

  4 - "How come historically CO2 levels increased following rather than preceding global temperature increases? " Your 'view' was shown to be factually incomplete, thats perhaps why you kept moving to another 'view' without further dialog:

  5 - " From what I gather the climate is such a complex system that various interactions, causes and feedbacks are postulated, but it remains very difficult to attach any degree of certainty to models because of the complexity." Your 'view' was shown to be factually incorrect, thats perhaps why you kept moving to another 'view' without further dialog:

  6 - " Have 97% of scientists ever supported mistaken ideas in the past?" Your 'view' is that science has been wrong before and will therefore be wrong again, so therefore we should ignore science.

  In truth all scientific theories are rejected and replaced eventually . That is what history shows.

  Do you expect gravity and evolution to be superceded as descriptions of reality? i would argue that refinement is a better definition of the scientific method. Like I already said - and you ignored - make yourself the most famous scientist ever by describing why human-origin CO2 is not warming the planet.

  So is climate change a true story? That's an impossible question to answer and a bit boring too.

  It may be impossible to validate and boring for you - which doesn't prevent you expressing a clear 'view' that it is not impossible to define it as false, see above 'views'. The fact you categorize climate change as a 'story' tells me everything I need to know about your view - thats why I said I don't expect to change your mind.

  If you are really interested in the answers to the questions you ask - noted that you haven't engaged in any discussion so far on my responses to your 'views' - then you could do worse than http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_climate_change_science
• 

  slimboyfat

  You make many good points Besty.

  But history is strewn with discarded scientific theories. How many theories last forever? So far none. It doesn't inspire confidence in the current crop.

  I am reminded of an idea expressed by science fiction author Arthur C Clarke. When talking about future technology he said: " Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

  We could invert that and apply apply it to scientific knowledge: "Any sufficiently old scientific theory is indistinguishable from myth."

  Who are we to think we are any different? Our ideas will seem quaint one day.
• 

  Phizzy

  Many ex-JW's seem to equate Scientific Theories with absolute truth, which they are not, which is why they are called Theories, more facts coming to light may often mean that elements of a theory are adjusted, sometimes a seemingly opposing theory arises, and then a search for unification starts, as with Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.

  Not that often are Theories discarded completely, some have, but more often than not they are modified, and often absorbed in to a more up to date understanding.

  It is ironic that ex-JW's have difficulty with this concept when for the whole of their JW lives the very "Truth" was constantly changing.

  "Bad Science" does need to be looked out for though, many in various fields of Science wish to be wealthy or famous or both, some work directly for Big Pharma or similar interests, they have an agenda, and their findings and opinions need the utmost scrutiny. But this is a different area than pure science.
• 

  metatron

  "The average person will be dead soon. Climate change is about future generations".

  I say the next two years will be so filled with radical problems that climate change will be a minor issue. I do not see how banks that cannot be prosecuted (statement by US Attorney General), ruinous demographics or a host of other issues relate to a minor rise in temperature.

  I have made my prediction. If this climate related fear being promulgated by scientists is more than a politicized (97%) concern, then I expect exact, unambiguous predictions with dates provided from them that relate to this fear. If not, it's BS.

  Global warming, over time, is a fact (aside from the last 17 years, like it or not). What happens beyond is speculation.

  We have suffered enough from years of 'doom and gloom' predictions that never came true. If scientists want to go down this route, let them set hard dates and specific events - not in the timeframe of "future generations". Otherwise, we are in the realm of the "Awake" magazine, with its use of "soon".

  metatron
• 

  besty

  @metatron

  I think you should be wary of predictions:

  " Whether thru lawsuit or otherwise, in ten years the Watchtower will be relegated to the scrap heap of history." metatron Nov 2001

  Remember that? :-)

  Anyways, I'll check back in 2 years for your latest prophesy - it's more difficult than it looks to get it right though - heh?

  Climate scientists give their informed best efforts estimate of future conditions given their current understanding. They typically give a range of outcomes and probabilities. eg its 75% likely that sea level will rise by 30-100cm by the end of the 21st century. And of course that is subject to change when more and better information becomes available.

  That is why the US Military has plans to mitigate the social and economic impacts brought by climate change. Are they naive or under-informed or what?

  If this climate related fear being promulgated by scientists is more than a politicized (97%) concern, then I expect exact, unambiguous predictions with dates provided from them that relate to this fear. If not, it's BS.

  Mother Nature doesn't care for your definition of BS, nor does she care for politics and ideology, or your rights to chose your threats to respond to. None of that matters to her.
• 

  besty

  @SBF

  hold on a moment. I have responded to 5 points you have made here on climate change, without further comment from you.

  Lets take a step back.

  Do you expect gravity and evolution to be superceded as descriptions of reality?

  Your answer please, sir.
• 

  slimboyfat

  Yes.
• 

  metatron

  My comments on the WTS future were based on excessive rationalism . You are entirely fair to point it out.

  But you have made no specific predictions consistent with the frequent hysteria associated with climate change.

  Actually, you have no proof global warming is taking place, given the 17 year pause. We assume it will restart upwards, but that's only an assumption.

  Meanwhile, your Mother Nature is on holiday.

  Without hard core predictions and the possibility of looking foolish ( as in my case), this subject is BS. It's just speculation, not scientific fact. "Soon", "Near", "Imminent" and so on.

  If it were otherwise, someone in the Warmist movement would create a Ehrlich vs Simon bet and walk away richer. I would like to see that.

  metatron
• 

  besty

  @SBF - thats why I correctly assumed I would not be in a position to change your mind with facts.

  Feel free to ignore anything I write on climate change and I will do likewise for your goodself - no harm, no foul.
• 

  besty

  @metatron

  My comments on the WTS future were based on excessive rationalism . You are entirely fair to point it out. But you have made no specific predictions consistent with the frequent hysteria associated with climate change.

  So you want me to fall into the trap you recently escaped from? :-)

  I am not hysterical about the possible future effects of climate change - I do want people to at least acknowledge our lifestyle choices today have unintended consequences tomorrow.

  Actually, you have no proof global warming is taking place, given the 17 year pause. We assume it will restart upwards, but that's only an assumption. Meanwhile, your Mother Nature is on holiday.

  That's incorrect. There is abundant proof global warming is taking place, and Mother Nature doesn't take holidays. You might be confusing land/sea surface temperatures with the total energy imbalance in the global system.

  

  http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm

  Taking an anomalous high surface temperature from 1998 and saying we have stopped total global warming is cherry picked garbage, and you probably know that - or if you don't I have given you enough data to figure out that it is.

  Without hard core predictions and the possibility of looking foolish ( as in my case), this subject is BS

  Climate science says that extreme weather events will become more common and more extreme. That is observable now.

  One example from one insurance company in one year - http://www.munichre.com/en/media_relations/company_news/2013/2013-04-08_company_news.aspx

  You haven't commented on why the US Military are planning for climate change - easier to call BS than to comment on reality?