News Global Warming fraud uncovered?

[Jeros]

Perhaps Jeros you could explain how people hope to accurately model the Earth's environment, to produce such projections—when they can't even accurately model the Stock Exchange.

Mathmatics,Chemistry and Physics

They dont work with the stock exchange

 

[Ctuchik]

I'd rather wait for independent verification of this before I comment, however scientists should be apolitical.

i dont think you can find anyone neutral enough to be properly trustworthy tho


theres just to much money at stake here.

 

[Scouse]

i dont think you can find anyone neutral enough to be properly trustworthy tho


theres just to much money at stake here.

Who for? Most scientists I know get paid shit. And I mean shit. Especially if you compare how clever they are against, say, the average plumber.

Science, if done right (i.e. not by a fucking homeopath) is pretty easy to do. You take measurements and then report what you measured. Job done.

The fact that politicians don't like it and press twist it is beside the point.

Why do you think that the drugs advisor resigned? Was it because they wouldn't pay him enough, or the fact that science says extacy is actually safer than peanuts and nobody, ever, died from weed?

 

[Krazeh]

Yes and all the weather monitering stations, all the scientists, all the universitys are in on it. They even went so far as to fake the geological evidence and pumped massive amounts of CO2 into the atmopshere and blamed it on industry!

Ya thats right....

Well done on missing the point. It doesn't require all the weather monitoring stations, all the scientists or all the universitys to be in on it. All it takes is for the initial science, which everyone further down the line uses to base their work/projections/conclusions on, to be flawed and you can very quickly end up with a mass of "evidence" that actually means nothing.

 

[Scouse]

All it takes is for the initial science, which everyone further down the line uses to base their work/projections/conclusions on, to be flawed

Er. It doesn't work like that. You batshit crazy conspiracy theorist.


Here's a theory: Almost everyone on this board jumps on people at the merest hint of 'conspiracy'. They call them all the names under the sun. Yet when there's an incredibly unlikely conspiracy of scientists (set against a radically probable political/central banking conspiracy) then almost everyone on this board is ready to jump on science like it's made of AIDS and killed your grandma.

I'm thinking it's because most people haven't the first clue about real science and take most of their lead off what they read in the press.....

 

[Krazeh]

Er. It doesn't work like that. You batshit crazy conspiracy theorist.


Here's a theory: Almost everyone on this board jumps on people at the merest hint of 'conspiracy'. They call them all the names under the sun. Yet when there's an incredibly unlikely conspiracy of scientists (set against a radically probable political/central banking conspiracy) then almost everyone on this board is ready to jump on science like it's made of AIDS and killed your grandma.

I'm thinking it's because most people haven't the first clue about real science and take most of their lead off what they read in the press.....

Go on then, enlighten us as to how real science works. Because I was obviously wrong in my view that scientists actually base their work on previous work done by others. How silly of me, clearly every scientist must start from scratch and produce all their own data independently everytime they do some research.

Oh and i'm not jumping on board with any conspiracy theory. I don't know one way or another if the leaked information is verifiable, I was merely pointing out that if it is the case that research put out by the CRU was doctored then work done using that research as a starting point won't be worth much anymore.

 

[Bugz]

Edit: And those who think it's about tax know nothing, nothing, about our economic system.

What do you think its about then?

I have my hunches in regards to the economy etc. but as you're coming in here like johnny-large, I want to hear your view on it.

 

[rynnor]

Edit: And those who think it's about tax know nothing, nothing, about our economic system.

Dont be dense - climate change is used as the reason to pass dozens of tax raises because people have been sold on this nonsense.

Politicians were quick to realise here was a way to raise taxes with less resitance.

 

[rynnor]

Yes and all the weather monitering stations, all the scientists, all the universitys are in on it. They even went so far as to fake the geological evidence and pumped massive amounts of CO2 into the atmopshere and blamed it on industry!

It doesnt take thousands to pull data out of the air or to cherry pick from the raw data just those few who agree with your 'theory' - its bad science in action.

 

[rynnor]

Who for? Most scientists I know get paid shit. And I mean shit. Especially if you compare how clever they are against, say, the average plumber.

Scientists want money for Research - without research they are nothing - no new papers etc.

In order to get money to do Research these days the best route is to say 'I want to study the effects of Climate Change on X' - that alone will warp things.

 

[rynnor]

Go on then, enlighten us as to how real science works. Because I was obviously wrong in my view that scientists actually base their work on previous work done by others. How silly of me, clearly every scientist must start from scratch and produce all their own data independently everytime they do some research.

I agree - theres quite a lot of papers produced by the 'believers' that are composed of combining cherry picked prior studies to fit their agenda.

Those original studies dont need to have been tainted - you just push the ones that agree with your results whilst questioning the quality of data that conflicts.

 

[Chilly]

Scientists want money for Research - without research they are nothing - no new papers etc.

In order to get money to do Research these days the best route is to say 'I want to study the effects of Climate Change on X' - that alone will warp things.

If you happen to be a climate scientist. theres plenty of scientific fields with fuck all political fiddling.

 

[Zenith]

Wait, and you base this shit from someone who HACKED a homepage to LEAK stuff that apparently Very very very very secret? Way to go conspiracy theorist! Almost as bad as all the 9/11 stuff going around

 

[Raven]

If you happen to be a climate scientist. theres plenty of scientific fields with fuck all political fiddling.

Do they get the same funding though?

 

[Chilly]

Now be honest, have you ever looked at budget allocations for funding? Do you know how much gets spent on pure sciences? LHC? Rutherford Appleton, JET, CERN, numerous medical facilities. Climate is large, sure, and requires big ass computers but so do nuke labs and governments are much more scared of nukes than the weather.

 

[Raven]

They do get huge funding. I worded the question incorrectly, I should have asked, is it as easy to get funding?

Any old hack "scientist" with a 2:2 in whatever can get in on an environmental study, easy money. I have a couple of friends who are scientists, one a marine geologist the other a geneticist, the geneticist gets sod all and he is doing vaccine research, the geologist gets bucket loads for sitting on a boat playing with a lap top.

 

[Tom]

Mathmatics,Chemistry and Physics

They dont work with the stock exchange

Of course they don't. But don't let that stop you from answering the question with a slightly more intelligent answer.

 

[Jeros]

Of course they don't. But don't let that stop you from answering the question with a slightly more intelligent answer.

We can use the scientific disciplines to predict and measure the effects of humans on the environment.

Take CO2 for instance:

Using Geology we can see the effects of past levels of high CO2 and its effects on the life on the planet.

Using Chemistry we can see how the CO2 effects the world.

Using Biology we can see how life will be affected by high CO2 levels and the releated global changes.

Using Geophysics we can try to predict what happens when these global systems go crazy.

And going back to Geology, we can see what happend before.

Its all cause and effect.


We should not be tempting fate, there have been 5 to 7 mass extinctions before, and we are making another one by our own hands, sorry i should say we MIGHT be, science is all just theory, but the evidence supports global warming.

But if it makes you feel any better, there are a million others things that could wipe us out in the blink of an eye anyway.

 

[Chilly]

You'd be amazed how many PhDs get funded by banks and investment firms in comp sci and maths (and 500000 sub branches thereof) purely because they might be able to use a thesis to squeeze 0.2% out of a trading position. The company I work for does similar, and we dont even fiddle about with exchanges (except the one we run). Industrial funding is vast and most companies couldnt give a shit about climate change.

 

[Tom]

You still haven't answered my question. Instead you've raised a nice little straw man argument.

I'll give you another chance. If the Stock Market cannot accurately be predicted, what hope do we have of producing accurate projections of future climate trends?

 

[Jupitus]

You'd be amazed how many PhDs get funded by banks and investment firms in comp sci and maths (and 500000 sub branches thereof) purely because they might be able to use a thesis to squeeze 0.2% out of a trading position. The company I work for does similar, and we dont even fiddle about with exchanges (except the one we run). Industrial funding is vast and most companies couldnt give a shit about climate change.

What exchange to you run, dude?

 

[Ctuchik]

Who for?

the companies that risk having to do something about all the shit they spew out in the air, the companies that advocates "clean" stuff etc etc etc.

the possibilities for losing or gaining insane ammounts of cash on this is staggering.

and its THOSE 2 sides that are the most loudmouthed in all this. the scientists arent because they gain very little from it so they just do their job mostly.

 

[Ctuchik]

You still haven't answered my question. Instead you've raised a nice little straw man argument.

I'll give you another chance. If the Stock Market cannot accurately be predicted, what hope do we have of producing accurate projections of future climate trends?

what the hell do stock markets have to do with anything anyway?

 

[Chilly]

You still haven't answered my question. Instead you've raised a nice little straw man argument.

I'll give you another chance. If the Stock Market cannot accurately be predicted, what hope do we have of producing accurate projections of future climate trends?

Is that aimed at me?

If so: the stock market is broadly speaking random but on the micro scale can be predicted. Annoyingly it's based hugely in human emotion, which is understandable.

The planetary climate is a similar problem, but human emotion can be stripped away, to be replaced by a highly dimensional vector problem where vast assumptions have to be made to get anything like reasonable computational times and still have ok results.

I'm not saying we have mastered a climate model, but I reckon that predicting something on a macro level is easier than on a micro level (much of thermodynamics is one big fuck off statistical model based on discrete interactions). The only reason macro level predictions arnt seen as much with regards to the stock exchanges is because the most common type of exchange activity you hear about in the press is short term. you rarely hear about some fund making 15% over 40 years because we are too impatient. Yet companies DO make that kind of return. Obviously stuff like major wars and earthquakes can fuck this up, but that's never going to be solved imo.

With a climate model, I think we can do a lot with the macro predictions, the models are inherently parallel and our computing power is leaping orders of magnitude every few years. With enough historical data and a big enough box to run it on, I reckon we can produce pretty decent macro models of the climate with plenty of knobs to tweak. We're not there yet but at least the climate's underlying mechanisms don't change all the time like a stock exchange's do.

 

[rynnor]

what the hell do stock markets have to do with anything anyway?

Its a very complex system which makes it a good analogy for climate which is also a very complex system - both have spent a lot of money on computer modelling but they still cant predict crashes as demonstrated by the massive losses by basically every big investor/pension fund in the last crash.

Its reasonable to suggest that modelling is not a good approach for prediction - the main problem with modelling is that you really need to be able to identify all the things that can influence the thing your trying to model to predict with any great accuracy.

Generally its the influences that you miss out that screw your model - in climate science the most likely issue with their models is grossly overplaying the influence of CO2 whilst practically ignoring the influence of the sun.

If the models were any good they should have predicted the last decade of non-growth but they didnt.

If you cant predict next year why should we believe your 50 or 100 year estimates - its all rather ridiculous

 

[Ctuchik]

Its a very complex system which makes it a good analogy for climate which is also a very complex system

yes but you cant use one as a argument towards the other because there isnt anything to compare the 2 with.

yes they are both complex but one is invented and controlled by man and the other is clearly not.

 

[Bugz]

Predictions are easy to make and easy to back up - knowing when your predictions will come true is not so easy.

Important distinction.

 

[Tom]

Is that aimed at me?

No.

 

[rynnor]

yes they are both complex but one is invented and controlled by man and the other is clearly not.

I think you are over simplifying the stock market - its affected by the weather and many other un-controllable factors which makes it a pretty good analogy for the climate.

 

[Bugz]

lol rynnor - thats such a shit reason to compare the two in this discussion.