• We will be taking the forum down for maintenance at [3:30 PM CDT] - in 25 minutes. We should be down less than 1 hour.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why Do Climate Scientists Act So Much Like Con Artists?

VanceMack said:
"Science" does not in any way shape or form involve manipulating data to reach results you WANT to find.
Click to expand...

Why are you putting Science in scare quotes?
 
Deuce said:
Same as you guys always whine about: scientists get funding, so can't be trusted.
Click to expand...

So you believe he somehow has less integrity than those who have already jumped on the AGW gravy train then ?

Hmmmm....... :roll:
 
jimbo said:
Climate scientists look like scam artists because they are.
Click to expand...

By their own argument. If Climate Change is 'settled science' why is it that US federal government should continue to fund further research?

Smells like a federal government research grant funding scam, at the very least.
 
VanceMack said:
"Science" does not in any way shape or form involve manipulating data to reach results you WANT to find.
Click to expand...

It does involve adjusting and improving data as time goes on.

This sinister motive you are inserting is just a partisan assumption.

When a computer error reports a temperature of 6000 degrees, people like you demand it be left in the data.
 
Deuce said:
So, they're like scam artists because they attempt to project future scenarios and are sometimes wrong.

This is a useful thread.

The point about not changing models after a test is just... ****ing stupid. They tweak the models to improve them. This idiot is suggesting they stop improving models.

Scott Adams isn't a scientist, that's absolutely clear. He's making suggestions that are terrible scientific policies.
Click to expand...

He's not making an argument about the science. He's making an argument about their ability to persuade people.
 
Deuce said:
It does involve adjusting and improving data as time goes on.

This sinister motive you are inserting is just a partisan assumption.

When a computer error reports a temperature of 6000 degrees, people like you demand it be left in the data.
Click to expand...

Thinking reasoned rational people might question why it is that those adjustments always seem to go in one direction...and only after a constant pattern of failed predictions and projections.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Deuce said:
Same as you guys always whine about: scientists get funding, so can't be trusted.
Click to expand...

No, that's not the argument. The argument is that only scientists that toe the AGW party line get funding, therefore they can't be trusted.
 
LowDown said:
He's not making an argument about the science. He's making an argument about their ability to persuade people.
Click to expand...

He called them scam artists, implying deception.

While suggesting they should use bad scientific procedures to fix it.
 
VanceMack said:
Thinking reasoned rational people might question why it is that those adjustments always seem to go in one direction...and only after a constant pattern of failed predictions and projections.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

You aren't questioning. You're accusing.

People asking questions go find answers.
 
LowDown said:
No, that's not the argument. The argument is that only scientists that toe the AGW party line get funding, therefore they can't be trusted.
Click to expand...

And yet, all these skeptical scientists keep working and publishing.

Strange argument.
 
Deuce said:
I agree, Vancemack. No attempt should be made to improve data as time goes on. That's not how science works!!
Click to expand...

But they are not trying to improve the models. They refuse to change the models so that they don't run too hot.

It's like the fund manager who after 20 years of less than 1% per annum returns despite his claim that he'd be getting 10% a year still insists that he's going to get 10% next year.
 
LowDown said:
But they are not trying to improve the models. They refuse to change the models so that they don't run too hot.

It's like the fund manager who after 20 years of less than 1% per annum returns despite his claim that he'd be getting 10% a year still insists that he's going to get 10% next year.
Click to expand...

They don't adjust the models based on short-term variations.
 
Deuce said:
What is there to address? Some blogger who admittedly doesn't understand the models has a bunch of complaints about the models. That would be like me whining about the design of my car's engine. Why is the oil filler cap on the top? They're just trying to get me to put more oil aka money into it, the scammers!!!

Someone who says "they should all just agree on one model" and "they shouldn't update models after testing" is just not in a position to have a meaningful conversation on this topic. Why bother?
Click to expand...

Surely when you have a bunch of models you test them against the past recorcd, see if they hind cast well witout fiddling them, and then from the ones that past that semi test you take the ones that have sucessfully predicted the conditions since they were written and look at those to see which is best.

Ah, but none of them has even past the first test.............
 
LowDown said:
Scott Adams was asked what it would take for him to believe that climate change is real.

He replied that if climate scientists are to persuade him they need to stop using climate models in a way that looks so much like it's all a scam (or hoax).

Adams is not a scientist, which he freely admits. He has no way of judging the science. But he can see that the climate model business resembles known scams. And he asks, if it's not a scam why does it look so much like a scam?

People are well aware of financial scams. One type is when you're offered an investment that has had a great return in the past, or, at least, that's what you are told. The scammers will tell you that they'll make you 20% a year on this investment. That is, they claim that they can predict future performance. But there is no economic model that can accurately predict future performance. Hence the warning: "Past performance does not guarantee future results." So it is, or should be, with climate models.

For example, there are a multitude of climate models. The scientists won't settle on one model. They tweek these models by adjusting them to match known data as they go along. Many of the models turn out to be wrong, and maybe one of them is right by chance, so the modelers claim their science if validated. But it's not science; it's a bunch of blind mice in a field of acorns. Some of them are going to find acorns. This doesn't mean the science is right.

Can't the scientists act in a way that would look more credible? Adams asks. For example, they could settle on one climate model, it's underlying assumptions and hypothesis would be well understood. Then they test it, and when they compare the prediction with the real climate data, they transparently conclude that the model is accurate or it is not. If they miss they don't try to shade the results, they don't try to change the data or go back and change the model post hoc.

How Leonardo DiCaprio Can Persuade Me on Climate... | Scott Adams' Blog
Click to expand...

Oh boy.

Wait til Flogger finds out he's defending a cartoonist.
 
Deuce said:
What is there to address? Some blogger who admittedly doesn't understand the models has a bunch of complaints about the models. That would be like me whining about the design of my car's engine. Why is the oil filler cap on the top? They're just trying to get me to put more oil aka money into it, the scammers!!!

Someone who says "they should all just agree on one model" and "they shouldn't update models after testing" is just not in a position to have a meaningful conversation on this topic. Why bother?
Click to expand...

It's simple.

It's the methodology that is modeling is using.

Is that too complex to understand?
 
Tim the plumber said:

Surely when you have a bunch of models you test them against the past recorcd, see if they hind cast well witout fiddling them, and then from the ones that past that semi test you take the ones that have sucessfully predicted the conditions since they were written and look at those to see which is best.

Ah, but none of them has even past the first test.............
Click to expand...

Um, not remotely true. They succesfully "hindcast" all the time.
 
Deuce said:
You aren't questioning. You're accusing.

People asking questions go find answers.
Click to expand...

Accusing? I'm simply stating the facts about what they have been caught redhanded doing.

It's 2017. Aren't we supposed to be under water already?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
VanceMack said:
Accusing? I'm simply stating the facts about what they have been caught redhanded doing.

It's 2017. Aren't we supposed to be under water already?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

They haven't been "caught" doing anything. Homogenization has always been part of the process, published in various papers over and over again. You are assuming an ulterior motive, that these adjustments are unwarranted. Where's your evidence? That's all I need. Show me the math that says these adjustments are unwarranted.
 
Deuce said:
They haven't been "caught" doing anything. Homogenization has always been part of the process, published in various papers over and over again. You are assuming an ulterior motive, that these adjustments are unwarranted. Where's your evidence? That's all I need. Show me the math that says these adjustments are unwarranted.
Click to expand...

Whistle-Blower Scientist Exposes Shoddy Climate Science NOAA | National Review

Of course they have been caught. Numerous times. Their emails complaining that the data didn't show what the expected it to show and that if you changed the model you could achieve expected results...those were just priceless. Changing archived data...that's just corrupt.

It's laughable that you ARENT skeptical. But then...they are counting on the Deuces and 3GS of the world to buy and swallow everything.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
VanceMack said:
Whistle-Blower Scientist Exposes Shoddy Climate Science NOAA | National Review

Of course they have been caught. Numerous times. Their emails complaining that the data didn't show what the expected it to show and that if you changed the model you could achieve expected results...those were just priceless. Changing archived data...that's just corrupt.

It's laughable that you ARENT skeptical. But then...they are counting on the Deuces and 3GS of the world to buy and swallow everything.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Ever notice how denier stories always come out of shady 'news' sources like the Daily Mail?

Even Bates says there's been no misconduct.

How a culture clash at NOAA led to a flap over a high-profile warming pause study | Science | AAAS

Who's the one swallowing BS now?
 
VanceMack said:
Whistle-Blower Scientist Exposes Shoddy Climate Science NOAA | National Review

Of course they have been caught. Numerous times. Their emails complaining that the data didn't show what the expected it to show and that if you changed the model you could achieve expected results...those were just priceless. Changing archived data...that's just corrupt.

It's laughable that you ARENT skeptical. But then...they are counting on the Deuces and 3GS of the world to buy and swallow everything.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

We already went over this.
 
Deuce said:
We already went over this.
Click to expand...
Yes...we have. They have lied for decades and you will swallow anything they tell you.
 
Deuce said:
We already went over this.
Click to expand...

OK we can approach this from a different angle then. What is the optimum level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? No one talks about it because no one knows. We do know the rising level of carbon dioxide has caused plants to grow faster (the earth is getting greener) causing real (inflation-adjusted) food prices to fall, which has been a great benefit to the world’s poor.

If we cannot define our target level for carbon dioxide, why are we spending trillions of dollars to reduce it, when even those in governments admit that all of the measures they are proposing will cause a fraction of 1 degree temperature reduction in a century ...... if they are right of course ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom