Greta and the aristocrat sail the high seas to save the planet.

KyussB

Dakota Dan wrote: »

Science is. Science, climate change is a political agenda with nothing whatsoever to do with climate.

So it's a big conspiracy then, and all those climate scientists are being paid off or have other conflicts of interest?

That'd be a rather extraordinary claim - requiring extraordinary evidence...

KyussB

suicide_circus wrote: »

i dont doubt that humans have some impact on climate but the bullsh1t timelines for the imminent apocolypse do no one's argument any favours. what's wrong with saying "we're not sure"? i guess there's not much grant funding for vagueness.

The report you cited exactly says "we're not sure" - you magicked up the timeline/deadline, because you didn't read the fucking report - just shat an article about it onto the thread, to let others do the work of reading it for you...

Which is common among nearly all links posted to pour doubt on climate change - not one poster can bother their arse researching what they link, before they post it - so long as it suits a denial agenda.

KyussB

KyussB wrote: »

So it's a big conspiracy then, and all those climate scientists are being paid off or have other conflicts of interest?

That'd be a rather extraordinary claim - requiring extraordinary evidence...

The reality is, that if a scientist wants funding, and to eat etc., their conclusions have to toe a certain line..

KyussB

jackboy wrote: »

No. What I am saying is both the accuracy and integrity of data in science is critical.

Our ability to measure temperature around the world is far more accurate now than 50 or 100 years ago. Was there thousands of scientists around the world taking temperature measurements 100 years ago?

The integrity of the data should not be taken for granted either. That does not mean thousands of scientists are lying.

You think the scientists haven't thought about the integrity of the data? That they've never considered that or heard of basic statistical standards like 'margins of error'?

That's basically a nothing-concern. They know the accuracy and margins of error - it's already factored in to their research.

suicide_circus

KyussB wrote: »

The report you cited exactly says "we're not sure" - you magicked up the timeline/deadline, because you didn't read the fucking report - just shat an article about it onto the thread, to let others do the work of reading it for you...

Which is common among nearly all links posted to pour doubt on climate change - not one poster can bother their arse researching what they link, before they post it - so long as it suits a denial agenda.

oh relax, sure we'll all be dead in 10 years

SaintLeibowitz

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The reality is, that if a scientist wants funding, and to eat etc., their conclusions have to toe a certain line..

This is hilarious.

SaintLeibowitz

SaintLeibowitz wrote: »

This is hilarious.

Thanks..I'm here most evenings..

suicide_circus

SaintLeibowitz wrote: »

This is hilarious.

not that hilarious. scientists and science is just as susceptible to pressure and influence as any other facet of human endeavour. I'm not suggesting conspiracy, just that scientists are as subject to the same laws of the human condition as the rest of us.

SaintLeibowitz

suicide_circus wrote: »

not that hilarious. scientists and science is just as susceptible to pressure and influence as any other facet of human endeavour. I'm not suggesting conspiracy, just that scientists are as subject to the laws of the human condition as the rest of us.

'I'm not suggesting it's a conspiracy....'

The Human condition lol

This thread is hilarious.

Professor Moriarty

Deleted User wrote: »

The reality is, that if a scientist wants funding, and to eat etc., their conclusions have to toe a certain line..

Oh right. So the lizard people IPCC scientists are all corrupt. Thanks for clearing that up.

KyussB

suicide_circus wrote: »

no but its wild doomsday prophesies and child saint have more than a slight whiff

Citing 'doomsday prophesies' as representative of scientists work, is just pure bollocks - they don't predict anything beyond their level of certainty, given the science and evidence - and Greta isn't a scientist, she's a momentary figurehead for a political movement, which tries to promote awareness of that science.

Conflating the science and politics in this case, requires wilful ignorance.

suicide_circus

SaintLeibowitz wrote: »

'I'm not suggesting it's a conspiracy....'

The Human condition lol

This thread is hilarious.

whats wrong with that phrase?

suicide_circus

KyussB wrote: »

Citing 'doomsday prophesies' as representative of scientists work, is just pure bollocks - they don't predict anything beyond their level of certainty, given the science and evidence - and Greta isn't a scientist, she's a momentary figurehead for a political movement, which tries to promote awareness of that science.

Conflating the science and politics in this case, requires wilful ignorance.

its my perception, nothing more. why cant you accept that other people see the world differently?

KyussB

Deleted User wrote: »

The reality is, that if a scientist wants funding, and to eat etc., their conclusions have to toe a certain line..

Eh, no - people with conflicts of interest like that aren't engaging in science, they are engaging in propaganda. Have a read on how the scientific method works.

If you can please provide the evidence that all the climate scientists out there, have gigantic conflicts of interest, and show how those conficts of interest lead them to come to particular conclusions?

Extraordinary claims, requiring extraordinary evidence, after all...

KyussB

suicide_circus wrote: »

not that hilarious. scientists and science is just as susceptible to pressure and influence as any other facet of human endeavour. I'm not suggesting conspiracy, just that scientists are as subject to the same laws of the human condition as the rest of us.

Claims of conflicts of interest require evidence.

Did you notice that yes, there are a lot of examples of 'scientists' in this thread discussing climate change, having conflicts of interest - and how it was pretty much always the scientists spreading denial? (usually those scientists being linked to oil oligarchs like Exxon Mobil or the Kochs?)

There was a time a couple months back, when this thread was literally one page after the other of links/'research' being exposed as having conflicts of interesst tied to oil olgiarchs...

I'm not saying it's conflicts of interest..I'm saying the system is set up in such a way that if you want to apply for funding/grants you can only do it with a certain viewpoint in mind..

jackboy

KyussB wrote: »

You think the scientists haven't thought about the integrity of the data? That they've never considered that or heard of basic statistical standards like 'margins of error'?

That's basically a nothing-concern. They know the accuracy and margins of error - it's already factored in to their research.

Integrity of data is a massive concern in all of science and issues are common place. If you are assessing old data then the concerns are greater.

Those temperature trend graphs commonly shown don’t usually show the margins of error. The old data is treated the same as new data with pencil thin trendlines going back hundreds of years. It is misleading.

Professor Moriarty

jackboy wrote: »

Integrity of data is a massive concern in all of science and issues are common place. If you are assessing old data then the concerns are greater.

Those temperature trend graphs commonly shown don’t usually show the margins of error. The old data is treated the same as new data with pencil thin trendlines going back hundreds of years. It is misleading.

If you know it's misleading then you know the truth. In your own time...

KyussB

suicide_circus wrote: »

its my perception, nothing more. why cant you accept that other people see the world differently?

Not everything is just an opinion. The validity of climate science, for one, is not just an opinion - it's earned scientific credibility and has an entire fields research worth of evidence and work put in to back it as valid.

It would be rather a waste of time if this thread was just a restatement of peoples individual opinions again and again - without ridiculous opinions being invallidated through debate and discarded.

KyussB

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not saying it's conflicts of interest..I'm saying the system is set up in such a way that if you want to apply for funding/grants you can only do it with a certain viewpoint in mind..

Can we see the evidence for this in the field of climate science?

Certainly, that is true for fields such as e.g. economics - which is riddled with that kind of bias - along with other scientific fields, but it requires evidence to show this.

jackboy

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

If you know it's misleading then you know the truth. In your own time...

Those commonly shown temperature trendlines are misleading. That statement is not controversial. Do you believe they are highly accurate?

KyussB

jackboy wrote: »

Integrity of data is a massive concern in all of science and issues are common place. If you are assessing old data then the concerns are greater.

Those temperature trend graphs commonly shown don’t usually show the margins of error. The old data is treated the same as new data with pencil thin trendlines going back hundreds of years. It is misleading.

What you express isn't a concern with the integrity of data, but with how it's presented.

I can pretty much guarantee you that there is no scientist out there who doesn't deal with margins of error - it's basic statistics that's fundamental to almost all scientific research.

suicide_circus

KyussB wrote: »

Not everything is just an opinion. The validity of climate science, for one, is not just an opinion - it's earned scientific credibility and has an entire fields research worth of evidence and work put in to back it as valid.

It would be rather a waste of time if this thread was just a restatement of peoples individual opinions again and again - without ridiculous opinions being invallidated through debate and discarded.

but i dont deny the science necessarily, just stating that its subject to external forces like everything else. and as someone who studied european history for 4 years, i can't help getting a medieval religious zealot vibe off some people when it comes to climate change, not you personally, i dont know you. all my own perceptions, thats all.

Professor Moriarty

jackboy wrote: »

Those commonly shown temperature trendlines are misleading. That statement is not controversial. Do you believe they are highly accurate?

So your alternative science is?

KyussB

KyussB wrote: »

Can we see the evidence for this in the field of climate science?

Certainly, that is true for fields such as e.g. economics - which is riddled with that kind of bias - along with other scientific fields, but it requires evidence to show this.

Well, like, if you understand it happens in certain fields, what makes you think climate is immune from it..in reality there's a massive climate change industry that has developed around it.. There's a lot of money involved..The answer we keep hearing is "more taxes on everybody" and pushing solutions that aren't really viable while ignoring the one that probably is, nuclear..why is that, do you think?

KyussB

suicide_circus wrote: »

but i dont deny the science necessarily, just stating that its subject to external forces like everything else. and as someone who studied european history for 4 years, i can't help getting a medieval religious zealot vibe off some people when it comes to climate change, not you personally, i dont know you. all my own perceptions, thats all.

We're kind of in the realm of an opinion being restated again and again without evidence, here.

I think everyone in the thread can agree that merely restating an opinion again and again, when it requires evidence, is a bit of a waste of time - so can some evidence be provided, of how these 'external forces' or conflicts of interest, are affecting the field of climate science?

I mean, religious zealotry is precisely involved with feverously restating opinions which don't have any evidence backing them or which have been debunked - so it's a bit odd that you do exactly that, in arguments insinuating religous zealotry.

KyussB

Deleted User wrote: »

Well, like, if you understand it happens in certain fields, what makes you think climate is immune from it..in reality there's a massive climate change industry that has developed around it.. There's a lot of money involved..The answer we keep hearing is "more taxes on everybody" and pushing solutions that aren't really viable while ignoring the one that probably is, nuclear..why is that, do you think?

Feels close to asking me to prove a negative. If people are insinuating that climate science has been corrupted by irrecoverable conflicts of interest - they need to provide evidence...

Science isn't perfect, it's a human endeaver etc. and people have flaws - but it's not all just bullshit - and when there is something wrong with a scientific field (e.g. even fields like theoretical physics have a lot wrong, with e.g. string theory being a 'not even wrong' theory), then some evidence needs to be provided to show the problem...

Otherwise we're just wasting time hypothesizing over nothing, over completely made up conspiracies etc..

Tuisceanch

KyussB wrote: »

I think everyone in the thread can agree that merely restating an opinion again and again, when it requires evidence, is a bit of a waste of time - so can some evidence be provided, of how these 'external forces' or conflicts of interest, are affecting the field of climate science?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/28/climate/trump-administration-war-on-science.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

WASHINGTON — In just three years, the Trump administration has diminished the role of science in federal policymaking while halting or disrupting research projects nationwide, marking a transformation of the federal government whose effects, experts say, could reverberate for years.

Political appointees have shut down government studies, reduced the influence of scientists over regulatory decisions and in some cases pressured researchers not to speak publicly. The administration has particularly challenged scientific findings related to the environment and public health opposed by industries such as oil drilling and coal mining. It has also impeded research around human-caused climate change, which President Trump has dismissed despite a global scientific consensus.

I'm not asking you to prove anything..you're the one asking for evidence..I'm asking you what makes you think the climate industry is immune from manipulation, and why don't they realistically look at nuclear, in your opinion?

suicide_circus

KyussB wrote: »

We're kind of in the realm of an opinion being restated again and again without evidence, here.

I think everyone in the thread can agree that merely restating an opinion again and again, when it requires evidence, is a bit of a waste of time - so can some evidence be provided, of how these 'external forces' or conflicts of interest, are affecting the field of climate science?

I mean, religious zealotry is precisely involved with feverously restating opinions which don't have any evidence backing them or which have been debunked - so it's a bit odd that you do exactly that, in arguments insinuating religous zealotry.

yes certainly, a two way street would be entirely in keeping with the metaphor; reformation and counter reformation.