97% of Scientists Can't be Wrong, Can They?

MK001 wrote:
We hear the phrase 97% of all scientists believe and agree that climate Change is real and global warming is real!

So what are they all agreeing to? and has anyone actually, definatively, explained the mechanism that causes the supposed change?

If they are correct and the sky has already fallen, then why arent governments actively working to find a real solution?

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

[quote]Surface Detail wrote:
GISS doesn't use the raw data because it would make no sense to ignore station moves (very few stations have not been moved at some time, or been influenced by nearby buildings, or been shaded by vegetation to varying degrees) and different measurement times.

You are denying your own argument here.

That seems to be your stock meaningless phrase when you're stuck for a reply. It's wearing thin.

Surface Detail wrote:

I have also found there was no need to correct problems at stations for the bulk of them.

Bullshit. I doubt there is a single station in the world that has taken measurements under exactly the same circumstances since 1880. And I certainly don't believe you've done any data analysis. Give an example of one of these many perfect datasets you claim to have found.

Surface Detail wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
They give their rationale here:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/FAQ.html

Q. Why use the adjusted rather than the "raw" data?
A. GISS uses temperature data for long-term climate studies. For station data to be useful for such studies, it is essential that the time series of observations are consistent, and that any non-climatic temperature jumps, introduced by station moves or equipment updates, are corrected for. In adjusted data the effect of such non-climatic influences is eliminated whenever possible. Originally, only documented cases were adjusted, however the current procedure used by NOAA/NCEI applies an automated system that uses systematic comparisons with neighboring stations to deal with undocumented instances of artificial changes. The processes and evaluation of these procedures are described in numerous publications — for instance, Menne et al., 2010 and Venema et al., 2012 — and at the NOAA/NCEI website.

The rationale is not sensible. It is fudging. Thermometers are calibrated to independent standards. So are precipitation gauges. There is no need to adjust (fudge) anything. The raw data coupled with the reliability log (also kept by each station) is all you need. If a station in influenced by non-weather problems, you move or repair the station so it isn't.

Still totally clueless, I see. This has very little to do with calibration. The main problems are:
1) most stations have been moved at some point
2) almost all stations have been affected by changes in their local environment
3) daily measurements have been taken at different times of day.

Surface Detail wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
Contrary to the unsubstantiated assertions of the conspiracy theorists, NASA has not been engaged in wholesale (but curiously public) "fudging" of the data; they have simply been ensuring that the temperature data used for comparison is as accurate as possible.

NASA does not do this job. The station operators do through NOAA funding. They've done a pretty good job too. The stations have excellent records of raw data.

The station operators can take precise measurements, but they cannot maintain their local environment in exactly the same state.

Surface Detail wrote:

No, a scientist will figure out why the data is errant and fix the instrument if necessary, then discard the errant data while logging the gap in data collection. This is how the station operators log their data.

You still don't comprehend the issue, do you? This has little to to with inaccurate instrumentation and everything to do with the circumstances of measurement.

Surface Detail wrote:

If a scientist includes errant data in their log, knowing it's errant data, they are knowingly introducing a bias into their result.

Still no understanding. All temperature measurements depend on the changing state of the local environment. It is the job of climate scientists to quantify and allow for the effects of this.

Surface Detail wrote:

No reputable scientist would do that. A disreputable scientist would. We certainly have no shortage of them through the years. Fortunately, they don't work for NOAA weather stations. The fudging and fabrication of data has been done by NOAA itself. NASA is even worse.

You clearly have very little comprehension of the processes involved in establishing a consistent temperature record, yet you have no hesitation in branding those that do to be liars.

Surface Detail wrote:
You are an arrogant fool.

Tim the plumber wrote:
97% of scientists say that humans have some effect on climate.

Tim the plumber wrote:
Yes, I want to know what the 3% can possibly say because we obviously do have some effect on climate.

Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night, your claims are ludicrous. You really believe that the majority of weather station operators throughout the world have been taking temperature readings every half hour since 1880, and that they have prevented any changes to buildings and vegetation that might affect their local microclimate during this time? That's crazy. Show us one, just one, of these fantastic weather stations (best not to pick one of the many located at airports).

Surface Detail wrote:
And it's not just that. Consider the example given in the GISS FAQ, where a new weather station opens at a higher altitude than neighbouring older stations. The temperatures recorded at the new station will, of course, be lower due to its altitude, so simply including its data in a local average would give a sudden, artificial, drop in temperature. This kind of problem is also rectified by adjusting the data, since averaging the raw data would give an incorrect discontinuity. Please note that these adjustments do not in any way imply any failings on the part of the station operators, but they are necessary in order to properly reflect regional temperature trends.

IBdaMann wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
97% of scientists say that humans have some effect on climate.

Did each one list his/her operating definition of "climate"? If so, where can I read them? I bet they're fascinating.

Would it be accurate to presume that one way to affect "climate" is to fudge the weather data?

Tim the plumber wrote:
Yes, I want to know what the 3% can possibly say because we obviously do have some effect on climate.

Maybe 3% recognize that Global Warming is a WACKY religion and that nothing any real human person can do can affect a religious deity figure.


.

Tim the plumber wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
97% of scientists say that humans have some effect on climate.

Did each one list his/her operating definition of "climate"? If so, where can I read them? I bet they're fascinating.

Would it be accurate to presume that one way to affect "climate" is to fudge the weather data?

Tim the plumber wrote:
Yes, I want to know what the 3% can possibly say because we obviously do have some effect on climate.

Maybe 3% recognize that Global Warming is a WACKY religion and that nothing any real human person can do can affect a religious deity figure.


.

Everybody else can use a word and mutually understand what the other guy is saying.

You, just you, say that that particular word has no meaning.

You are just trolling. It is just juvenile.

Into the Night wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
97% of scientists say that humans have some effect on climate.

Did each one list his/her operating definition of "climate"? If so, where can I read them? I bet they're fascinating.

Would it be accurate to presume that one way to affect "climate" is to fudge the weather data?

Tim the plumber wrote:
Yes, I want to know what the 3% can possibly say because we obviously do have some effect on climate.

Maybe 3% recognize that Global Warming is a WACKY religion and that nothing any real human person can do can affect a religious deity figure.


.

Everybody else can use a word and mutually understand what the other guy is saying.

You, just you, say that that particular word has no meaning.

You are just trolling. It is just juvenile.

It has no scientific meaning. That's his point. It's only meaning is in common usage.

Tim the plumber wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
97% of scientists say that humans have some effect on climate.

Did each one list his/her operating definition of "climate"? If so, where can I read them? I bet they're fascinating.

Would it be accurate to presume that one way to affect "climate" is to fudge the weather data?

Tim the plumber wrote:
Yes, I want to know what the 3% can possibly say because we obviously do have some effect on climate.

Maybe 3% recognize that Global Warming is a WACKY religion and that nothing any real human person can do can affect a religious deity figure.


.

Everybody else can use a word and mutually understand what the other guy is saying.

You, just you, say that that particular word has no meaning.

You are just trolling. It is just juvenile.

It has no scientific meaning. That's his point. It's only meaning is in common usage.

If it communicates then it has meaning.

If you look at one of the temperature records then it will show you temperatures. So? It's part of climate.

I think it is best to get over words you don't like and move on.

Into the Night wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
97% of scientists say that humans have some effect on climate.

Did each one list his/her operating definition of "climate"? If so, where can I read them? I bet they're fascinating.

Would it be accurate to presume that one way to affect "climate" is to fudge the weather data?

Tim the plumber wrote:
Yes, I want to know what the 3% can possibly say because we obviously do have some effect on climate.

Maybe 3% recognize that Global Warming is a WACKY religion and that nothing any real human person can do can affect a religious deity figure.


.

Everybody else can use a word and mutually understand what the other guy is saying.

You, just you, say that that particular word has no meaning.

You are just trolling. It is just juvenile.

It has no scientific meaning. That's his point. It's only meaning is in common usage.

If it communicates then it has meaning.

If you look at one of the temperature records then it will show you temperatures. So? It's part of climate.

I think it is best to get over words you don't like and move on.

But it doesn't communicate meaning in a quantitative sense. That's his point.

It's when people starting using vague terms to describe a quantitative thing and calling it science, you enter the realm of fabrications. To the scientist, looking at weather temperature records could only be called weather. There is no quantitative thing called 'climate', even though we have 'climate' scientists (whatever THAT is).

Tim the plumber wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
97% of scientists say that humans have some effect on climate.

Did each one list his/her operating definition of "climate"? If so, where can I read them? I bet they're fascinating.

Would it be accurate to presume that one way to affect "climate" is to fudge the weather data?

Tim the plumber wrote:
Yes, I want to know what the 3% can possibly say because we obviously do have some effect on climate.

Maybe 3% recognize that Global Warming is a WACKY religion and that nothing any real human person can do can affect a religious deity figure.


.

Everybody else can use a word and mutually understand what the other guy is saying.

You, just you, say that that particular word has no meaning.

You are just trolling. It is just juvenile.

It has no scientific meaning. That's his point. It's only meaning is in common usage.

If it communicates then it has meaning.

If you look at one of the temperature records then it will show you temperatures. So? It's part of climate.

I think it is best to get over words you don't like and move on.

But it doesn't communicate meaning in a quantitative sense. That's his point.

It's when people starting using vague terms to describe a quantitative thing and calling it science, you enter the realm of fabrications. To the scientist, looking at weather temperature records could only be called weather. There is no quantitative thing called 'climate', even though we have 'climate' scientists (whatever THAT is).

Just like there is no quantitive thing called chemistry.

Where does it start and end? Is biology chemistry? Is geology? Is material science?

Not all words have exact meanings. Live with it.

Into the Night wrote:No one is attempting to use these words quantitatively. People ARE attempting to use the word 'climate' quantitatively.

Tim the plumber wrote:
If it communicates then it has meaning.

If you look at one of the temperature records then it will show you temperatures. So? It's part of climate.

I think it is best to get over words you don't like and move on.

IBdaMann wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
If it communicates then it has meaning.

If you look at one of the temperature records then it will show you temperatures. So? It's part of climate.

I think it is best to get over words you don't like and move on.

It would probably be best to get beyond religion that has a hold on your mind and just be free.

There's a reason why you cannot answer basic fundamental science questions about the holy word "climate" to which you cling so dearly? Some people need a stiff shot of coffee in order to make it through the day. Others require alcohol or heavy drugs. You need this one word to get your fix.

If "climate" is just weather then just say "weather." We already have the word "weather" and we don't need another word to convolute matters. Do you not get the same euphoric feeling from saying the word "weather"?

"Climate" doesn't mean anything when you use it because you haven't the vaguest idea what you're talking about when you utter/write it. You'd have more credibility if you could address the matter honestly rather than stretching semantics to defend your faith.

You call me juvenile while you pout like a baby at being taught science. Rich.

Tim the plumber wrote:
You are in the ongoing process of making yourself look stupid and being determined to derail any sensable discussion.

Tim the plumber wrote: I don't often use the word climate. I do not have a problem with other people's use of such words.

Tim the plumber wrote:

Into the Night wrote:No one is attempting to use these words quantitatively. People ARE attempting to use the word 'climate' quantitatively.

If you want to play word games you can but you need to understand that all you do is make yourself look like a deliberately obtuse disruptor of debate with no real point to make.

There are serrious issues in this area. Stick to them and try to change the opinion of the world.