Remember me
▼ Content

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



Page 2 of 2<12
16-12-2015 20:13
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
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?


97% of scientists say that humans have some effect on climate. Yes, I want to know what the 3% can possibly say because we obviously do have some effect on climate.

They do not say that this is bad, or in any way threatening.

At least not 97% of them.
16-12-2015 20:15
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
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.
Then stop doing it. Every time you do it I will call you on it. You DO know what a contradiction is, right?

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.

I already did. You even agreed to it, even though you deny it now. If you now want to ignore that, well...that's your problem.

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.

Back to this claim again, eh? You seem to be very inconsistent with your arguments.

Statements 1 and 2 deny an earlier argument you made and I agreed to.
Statement 3 I have already discussed. You are choosing to ignore it. I can't help you further there.

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.

Again, already discussed. They are actually pretty damn good about that.

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.

The circumstances of measurement ARE controlled. People maintain their own stations pretty well.

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.

There is no legitimate job of a 'climate' scientist. Station operators have already taken care of this, as I've already discussed with you.

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.

I am not calling station operators liars. I am calling central NOAA climate scientists liars. They are the ones fudging and fabricating data. The station operators are not. There is no need to.

Surface Detail wrote:
You are an arrogant fool.

Ad hominem ignored.


The Parrot Killer
16-12-2015 21:50
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4267)
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.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
17-12-2015 00:40
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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).

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.
17-12-2015 02:50
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
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).
Why? You got something against airports?

Believe what you will. I don't have to show you anything. You'll just discard it with the rest. I say the bulk of these stations satisfy the requirements. You say they don't. There is no convincing you from here.

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.

The new station has a new dataset. That's why they terminate the old dataset. The new dataset does not run under the same name.

But again, you say it's a problem, I say it's not. There's no convincing you.


Believe your wacky views about how data must be fudged to be accurate. Believe your wacky views that fabricated data is valid. Believe your wacky views the calibrations don't mean anything.

We agree to disagree is the only path from here.


The Parrot Killer
17-12-2015 22:27
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
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.
17-12-2015 22:40
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
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.


The Parrot Killer
19-12-2015 13:32
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
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.
19-12-2015 21:31
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
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).


The Parrot Killer
20-12-2015 13:03
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
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.
20-12-2015 22:14
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
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.


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


The Parrot Killer
21-12-2015 19:51
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1041)
I'd like to know their names. Who are these scientists and what are their credentials?
21-12-2015 19:54
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
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.
21-12-2015 19:59
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4267)
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.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
21-12-2015 20:06
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
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.


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

If you want to think that climate is the same as weater then fine.

I don't often use the word climate. I do not have a problem with other people's use of such words.
21-12-2015 20:30
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4267)
Tim the plumber wrote:
You are in the ongoing process of making yourself look stupid and being determined to derail any sensable discussion.

This is the tell-tale sign that you feel threatened.

I absolutely don't mind you using the word "climate," however you can plan on me calling you on your attempts to pass off your beliefs as science. Remember that when you do, you make yourself look stupid.

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.

You don't have a problem just believing whatever you are told to believe, as long as it gives you that touchy-feely-good feeling of aligning with your religious beliefs. People can get you to believe any WACKY thing as long as they attach the word "climate" or "greenhouse."

You are welcome to believe whatever you want, but sooner or later you're going to feel the irresistible urge to preach it as "science" and you and I will be right back here having this same discussion.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
21-12-2015 22:19
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
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.


I simply stated the reason 'climate' cannot be used quantitatively and the reason IBdaMann doesn't like the term. It is YOU that has been so offended by these reasons that you make a meal out of the issue. What makes you like this word 'climate' so much you want to replace 'weather' or 'meteorology' for it?

Now you turn to a thought terminating cliche, based on a naturalistic fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
Page 2 of 2<12





Join the debate 97% of Scientists Can't be Wrong, Can They?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
What makes IPCC scientists sure warmer air hundreds of millions of years ago due to7106-06-2019 23:39
climate change is wrong grammer910-04-2019 21:57
If it's so important why don't some climate scientists kill themselves?028-03-2019 02:21
Climate change is creating toxic crops and poisoning some of world's poorest people, scientists warn022-03-2019 17:30
Angstrom is right. Arrhenius is wrong.218-03-2019 19:43
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact