Quote:Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are down to ‘natural variability’, says study

- Duke University study looked at 1,000 years of temperature records

- It compared it to the most severe emissions scenarios by the IPCC

- Found that natural variability can slow or speed the rate of warming

- These 'climate wiggles' were not properly accounted for in IPCC report

Can all the other HIGHLY compensated (via Government Grants) researchers be wrong, or were they just delivering the results they were paid to deliver?

Nature Causes Climate Change

"Climate change" is a scam the Clinton's would be proud of.

(04-24-2015 05:34 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  "Climate change" is a scam the Clinton's would be proud of.

Climate change is mainly a wealth redistribution method designed to distribute industrial nation wealth to third world countries via Carbon Credit Tax. A secondary product of climate change is to direct the growing population into large urban areas by making mass transit the only affordable transportation method for all but the wealthy.

(04-24-2015 05:28 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

Quote:Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are down to ‘natural variability’, says study

- Duke University study looked at 1,000 years of temperature records

- It compared it to the most severe emissions scenarios by the IPCC

- Found that natural variability can slow or speed the rate of warming

- These 'climate wiggles' were not properly accounted for in IPCC report

Can all the other HIGHLY compensated (via Government Grants) researchers be wrong, or were they just delivering the results they were paid to deliver?

Nature Causes Climate Change

You can't honestly believe this. I'm sure the people getting government grants are really the researchers whose greed we need to worry about, not those working directly for the largest industry in the world.

(04-24-2015 06:32 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-24-2015 05:28 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

Quote:Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are down to ‘natural variability’, says study

- Duke University study looked at 1,000 years of temperature records

- It compared it to the most severe emissions scenarios by the IPCC

- Found that natural variability can slow or speed the rate of warming

- These 'climate wiggles' were not properly accounted for in IPCC report

Can all the other HIGHLY compensated (via Government Grants) researchers be wrong, or were they just delivering the results they were paid to deliver?

Nature Causes Climate Change

You can't honestly believe this. I'm sure the people getting government grants are really the researchers whose greed we need to worry about, not those working directly for the largest industry in the world.

Grants are based on delivering results the grant is written for, fail to deliver results and the money dries up. Deliver results and more research is needed. Money makes the world go round, it's no different in the academic world than the corporate world. Either the mistakes in the Climate Science crowd are greed driven or incompetence driven, I gave them the benefit of the doubt and went with greed.

(04-24-2015 06:35 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(04-24-2015 06:32 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-24-2015 05:28 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

Quote:Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are down to ‘natural variability’, says study

- Duke University study looked at 1,000 years of temperature records

- It compared it to the most severe emissions scenarios by the IPCC

- Found that natural variability can slow or speed the rate of warming

- These 'climate wiggles' were not properly accounted for in IPCC report

Can all the other HIGHLY compensated (via Government Grants) researchers be wrong, or were they just delivering the results they were paid to deliver?

Nature Causes Climate Change

You can't honestly believe this. I'm sure the people getting government grants are really the researchers whose greed we need to worry about, not those working directly for the largest industry in the world.

Grants are based on delivering results the grant is written for, fail to deliver results and the money dries up. Deliver results and more research is needed. Money makes the world go round, it's no different in the academic world than the corporate world. Either the mistakes in the Climate Science crowd are greed driven or incompetence driven, I gave them the benefit of the doubt and went with greed.

But you're not really addressing the issue I'm raising. Surely you'd agree that the pressure to produce favorable results in industry sponsored research is far greater than in general academia through government grants? This isn't exactly a new tactic.

(04-26-2015 02:59 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Surely you'd agree that the pressure to produce favorable results in industry sponsored research is far greater than in general academia through government grants?

No, absolutely not.

In fact, that's precisely what I would NOT agree to.

(04-26-2015 03:16 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-26-2015 02:59 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Surely you'd agree that the pressure to produce favorable results in industry sponsored research is far greater than in general academia through government grants?

No, absolutely not.

I don't think you actually believe that, and instead are just trying to make a point that doesn't need to be made about general bias.

Finally: Top scientists looking into climate data tampering



Remember this? It’s the story of how the NOAA “adjusted” the surface temperature readings from hundreds of the 3,000+ temperature stations worldwide just before announcing that 2014 was the hottest year evah. Well, according to a recent report, a group of scientists will now be looking into the tampering.

Quote:Last month, we are told, the world enjoyed “its hottest March since records began in 1880”. This year, according to “US government scientists”, already bids to outrank 2014 as “the hottest ever”. The figures from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) were based, like all the other three official surface temperature records on which the world’s scientists and politicians rely, on data compiled from a network of weather stations by NOAA’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN).

But here there is a puzzle. These temperature records are not the only ones with official status. The other two, Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama (UAH), are based on a quite different method of measuring temperature data, by satellites. And these, as they have increasingly done in recent years, give a strikingly different picture. Neither shows last month as anything like the hottest March on record, any more than they showed 2014 as “the hottest year ever”.

My cue for those pieces was the evidence multiplying from across the world that something very odd has been going on with those official surface temperature records, all of which ultimately rely on data compiled by NOAA’s GHCN. Careful analysts have come up with hundreds of examples of how the original data recorded by 3,000-odd weather stations has been “adjusted”, to exaggerate the degree to which the Earth has actually been warming. Figures from earlier decades have repeatedly been adjusted downwards and more recent data adjusted upwards, to show the Earth having warmed much more dramatically than the original data justified.

So strong is the evidence that all this calls for proper investigation that my articles have now brought a heavyweight response. The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) has enlisted an international team of five distinguished scientists to carry out a full inquiry into just how far these manipulations of the data may have distorted our picture of what is really happening to global temperatures.
Back in January and February, two items in this column attracted more than 42,000 comments to the Telegraph website from all over the world. The provocative headings given to them were “Climategate the sequel: how we are still being tricked by flawed data on global warming” and “The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest scientific scandal”.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11561...gures.html

Perhaps we need to have a Climate Change Fabricators tournament.

(04-26-2015 02:59 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-24-2015 06:35 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(04-24-2015 06:32 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-24-2015 05:28 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

Quote:Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed - and recent changes are down to ‘natural variability’, says study

- Duke University study looked at 1,000 years of temperature records

- It compared it to the most severe emissions scenarios by the IPCC

- Found that natural variability can slow or speed the rate of warming

- These 'climate wiggles' were not properly accounted for in IPCC report

Can all the other HIGHLY compensated (via Government Grants) researchers be wrong, or were they just delivering the results they were paid to deliver?

Nature Causes Climate Change

You can't honestly believe this. I'm sure the people getting government grants are really the researchers whose greed we need to worry about, not those working directly for the largest industry in the world.

Grants are based on delivering results the grant is written for, fail to deliver results and the money dries up. Deliver results and more research is needed. Money makes the world go round, it's no different in the academic world than the corporate world. Either the mistakes in the Climate Science crowd are greed driven or incompetence driven, I gave them the benefit of the doubt and went with greed.

But you're not really addressing the issue I'm raising. Surely you'd agree that the pressure to produce favorable results in industry sponsored research is far greater than in general academia through government grants? This isn't exactly a new tactic.

Why should the government source be taken more seriously? Why does the source of funding invalidate the hypothesis?

(04-26-2015 03:20 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-26-2015 03:16 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-26-2015 02:59 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Surely you'd agree that the pressure to produce favorable results in industry sponsored research is far greater than in general academia through government grants?

No, absolutely not.

I don't think you actually believe that, and instead are just trying to make a point that doesn't need to be made about general bias.

No, I absolutely believe precisely that. And I work in the system, just last week I peer reviewed three articles and got one of my own approved with another pending, so I know how it works. It's a game. Period.

Defenders of certain views held widely in academia like to portray the process as some fount of objectivity and honesty, because it then gives those views an undeserved air of credibility.

Climate research is expensive. Nobody spends the kind of money required to fund it without an axe to grind. And when your funding comes from a source that wants a particular answer, you learn to give that source as close as possible to the answer that it wants, in order to keep the research bucks coming.

My research does not require heavy funding, so I am not beholden to the funding sources, but I know exactly how the game is played by those who are.

Owl, everything you said just supported my views that privately funded research is more prone to bias. Pressure can be exerted on both sides, but a process which at some level attempts to control for some space between funding and findings surely beats out a company paying a scientist directly to find helpful information. Academia is far from some fount of integrity, never said it was, but your stance doesn't seem to be backed by what you just said here.

(04-27-2015 10:43 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-26-2015 03:20 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-26-2015 03:16 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-26-2015 02:59 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Surely you'd agree that the pressure to produce favorable results in industry sponsored research is far greater than in general academia through government grants?

No, absolutely not.

I don't think you actually believe that, and instead are just trying to make a point that doesn't need to be made about general bias.

No, I absolutely believe precisely that. And I work in the system, just last week I peer reviewed three articles and got one of my own approved with another pending, so I know how it works. It's a game. Period.

Defenders of certain views held widely in academia like to portray the process as some fount of objectivity and honesty, because it then gives those views an undeserved air of credibility.

Climate research is expensive. Nobody spends the kind of money required to fund it without an axe to grind. And when your funding comes from a source that wants a particular answer, you learn to give that source as close as possible to the answer that it wants, in order to keep the research bucks coming.

My research does not require heavy funding, so I am not beholden to the funding sources, but I know exactly how the game is played by those who are.

The best example is this...

People act as if there isn't trillions of dollars to be made by corporations to deal with global warming. Even oil drillers don't really care because they have decades of continued need and can pass all their expenses on to consumers. They've adapted to $18 and $120 oil, ethanol and natural gas and will simply react to this as well.

Heck, they're probably just as concerned that they actually COULD use up all their reserves at some point than they are that they will become worthless. Heck, it's probably oil companies who are MOST interested in actually getting the facts about this sort of thing so they can know what to do about it to make money in the future.

Politicians are mostly after power and control, not answers. They won't still be politicians long before any of these consequences will occur. They are interested in power NOW... and let other politicians worry about power later. I'm not saying they don't want answers to the bigger questions, just that their horizon is far shorter than a corporations would be.

Even if we all agreed tomorrow that the world is going to flood, it would be decades before we stopped using lots of oil.

(04-27-2015 11:19 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  Owl, everything you said just supported my views that privately funded research is more prone to bias. Pressure can be exerted on both sides, but a process which at some level attempts to control for some space between funding and findings surely beats out a company paying a scientist directly to find helpful information. Academia is far from some fount of integrity, never said it was, but your stance doesn't seem to be backed by what you just said here.

I think you need to go back and re-read my post, because you obviously failed to comprehend it.

I would favor a process which attempted to put some space between funding and findings. You say that corporate funding does not provide that space. Without debating that one way or the other, my point is that academic grant funding does not provide that space either, at least not as a practical matter. Just where do you think that space exists in academia anyway?

The difference might be that you might be able to get a first grant through the academic process without whoring yourself, whereas you might not get even the first grant from industry unless they expect favorable results. But with that academic grant, if you don't produce the desired outcome with the first grant, you're never going to get the second, and one-grant wonders don't get very far in academia. And even in this case, you'll note that the operative word in my first sentence was "might." I've seen no indication that this actually happens, I'm just noting that the possibility exists that it might. Moreover, nobody who is regarded as having any credibility by anyone on either side of this issue is working on his first grant project, so this exception would not apply to the leading literature.

(04-27-2015 12:43 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-27-2015 11:19 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  Owl, everything you said just supported my views that privately funded research is more prone to bias. Pressure can be exerted on both sides, but a process which at some level attempts to control for some space between funding and findings surely beats out a company paying a scientist directly to find helpful information. Academia is far from some fount of integrity, never said it was, but your stance doesn't seem to be backed by what you just said here.

I think you need to go back and re-read my post, because you obviously failed to comprehend it.

I would favor a process which attempted to put some space between funding and findings. You say that corporate funding does not provide that space. Without debating that one way or the other, my point is that academic grant funding does not provide that space either, at least not as a practical matter. Just where do you think that space exists in academia anyway?

The difference might be that you might be able to get a first grant through the academic process without whoring yourself, whereas you might not get even the first grant from industry unless they expect favorable results. But with that academic grant, if you don't produce the desired outcome with the first grant, you're never going to get the second, and one-grant wonders don't get very far in academia. And even in this case, you'll note that the operative word in my first sentence was "might." I've seen no indication that this actually happens, I'm just noting that the possibility exists that it might. Moreover, nobody who is regarded as having any credibility by anyone on either side of this issue is working on his first grant project, so this exception would not apply to the leading literature.

So you agree that whatever bias exists in academia, the bias which exists in industry research is worse? Gotcha.

You're really losing it on this topic. You want to rage against academia in some vague manner, fine, but to sit here and wax poetic as if it's not any different than industry research is bullsh*t, and you even know it.

(04-27-2015 09:14 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  So you agree that whatever bias exists in academia, the bias which exists in industry research is worse? Gotcha.

No, what did I say that gave you the idea that I agreed with that?

Quote:You're really losing it on this topic. You want to rage against academia in some vague manner, fine, but to sit here and wax poetic as if it's not any different than industry research is bullsh*t, and you even know it.

I'm not raging in any vague manner. Nobody is raging at all. At least I'm not, I can't speak for you. I'm describing very specifically what happens. Nobody funds a climate study without having an axe to grind. Nobody. Period. And profs know how the game is played. I can get funding from A, B, or C if my study shows there is AGW, and I can get funding from X, Y, or Z if my study says no. And if I'm a prof, my university expects me to get grants, particularly if I've got a slew of graduate assistants to feed. Money talks, just like anywhere else. I was shocked when I first realized that, but not any more.

Theis whole idea that academic research is somehow pure and objective is simply BS, and you should know it. If you don't, I've done about as much as I can to inform you.

Quote: Theis whole idea that academic research is somehow pure and objective is simply BS, and you should know it. If you don't, I've done about as much as I can to inform you.

Nope, not at all an accurate representation of my argument. Reread my comments. Not being rude, just no need to restate it.

(04-27-2015 10:05 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

Quote: Theis whole idea that academic research is somehow pure and objective is simply BS, and you should know it. If you don't, I've done about as much as I can to inform you.

Nope, not at all an accurate representation of my argument. Reread my comments. Not being rude, just no need to restate it.

I wasn't meaning that as a representation of your argument, but rather as a more generic refutation of what i perceive as a widely held belief, and one that academia is trying hard to perpetuate. You've already admitted that it's not pure and objective, so no need to go there with you. I probably could have worded that better to clarify.

I WILL submit this.

Corporate sponsored research (including all of those 'studies' for weight loss drugs etc) are absolutely questionable... however, we're not talking about studies where nobody is going to take the time to refute it (this statement is not approved by the FDA) but instead, those issues where there is conflict in the data/research.

If the research funded by corporations is flawed, then academia (or Al Gore et al) should show how it is flawed, just as both academia and corporations have shown how some of the data from academia is flawed. Rather than do that, we engage in 'dismissal by reputation'... arguing about who funded it, or the specific credentials of the members.

Science is science and facts are facts. Theories too are only theories. Science should argue the science or the facts, not the reputations or funding sources. Being funded by Shell oil doesn't make your science or facts wrong and being funded by the USDA doesn't make them right. They should be able to stand up to scrutiny on their own. That is what science is.