gut;1500578 wrote:Along those same lines, IMO most of this research involves trying to prove a conclusion rather than testing assumptions. That is something we are seeing increasingly as politics hijack science.

On what basis are you forming these opinions?

jmog;1501370 wrote:This is the smartest thing said by anyone on either side of this discussion.

The only change I would make is that science should be used to prove or disprove hypothesis, not assumptions. Other than that you are spot on. Many scientists on both sides of this debate are so politicized that they are set to prove a conclusion that they already "know" instead of testing a hypothesis.

It is deeply inbedded in their models, for sure.

What makes you think this?

BoatShoes;1501570 wrote:On what basis are you forming these opinions?

My education and training in research, and paying attention over the past 10-15 years. JMOG, who's background is more advanced than mine, sees the same thing.

I pick up any paper with a "90% confident" conclusion and immediately know the findings are very weak, not to mention the overfit models in the first place (which is why they fail in just a few years, and are being constantly revised).

gut;1501668 wrote:My education and training in research, and paying attention over the past 10-15 years. JMOG, who's background is more advanced than mine, sees the same thing.

I pick up any paper with a "90% confident" conclusion and immediately know the findings are very weak, not to mention the overfit models in the first place (which is why they fail in just a few years, and are being constantly revised).

So, what about all of these other people with similarly advanced backgrounds as yours and Jmog's who don't seem to share such rash conclusions that there's rampant politicization and fraud etc.??? I mean, JMog is a committed evangelical and young earth creationist...why be so in agreement with his opinion on the matter as opposed to the 97% of people as smart or smarter than he and similarly educated his disagree...why assume they must be politically motivated and not engaging in proper science, etc.?

BoatShoes;1501688 wrote:So, what about all of these other people with similarly advanced backgrounds as yours and Jmog's who don't seem to share such rash conclusions that there's rampant politicization and fraud etc.??? I mean, JMog is a committed evangelical and young earth creationist...why be so in agreement with his opinion on the matter as opposed to the 97% of people as smart or smarter than he and similarly educated his disagree...why assume they must be politically motivated and not engaging in proper science, etc.?

You mean all the climate researchers? Academia is rife with liberals as well. My conclusion is not rash - you WOULD direct that at the other side if you had even a scratch of statistical and research training.

Climate research isn't junk in the intentional sense, but it is "nascent" much like econometrics and social sciences.

I can't explain economics to you, I'm not going to bother trying to explain statistics. If you had an actual clue this whole field of research screams "bullshit". And I don't have an agenda or an interest in winning this debate, just calling it as I see it. It's basic and fundamental, but "it can't hurt" so everyone jumps on board because it's "just common sense".

The earth's climate has been changing back and forth for millions and millions of years, long before man was around, and long before the demonized 'industrial revolution'. Please explain all those changes in climate prior to our arrival, and how they differ from our current entrance into another cooling cycle.

Only those devoid of "common sense" would think we have any bearing on climate change. Ergo, the trumped up climate models based on (proven) faulty statistical data are introduced to fill the void where common sense once existed in the minds of the sheeple, and to keep the dollars flowing to those who profit from peddling the hoax.

BoatShoes;1501571 wrote:What makes you think this?

Having spent 8 years in academia, 7 years in energy research, and another 5 years in industry. So in other words, experience with that kind of stuff.

What kind of experience do you have with it to refute my believe?

BoatShoes;1501688 wrote:So, what about all of these other people with similarly advanced backgrounds as yours and Jmog's who don't seem to share such rash conclusions that there's rampant politicization and fraud etc.??? I mean, JMog is a committed evangelical and young earth creationist...why be so in agreement with his opinion on the matter as opposed to the 97% of people as smart or smarter than he and similarly educated his disagree...why assume they must be politically motivated and not engaging in proper science, etc.?

If you can please make a single connection between fact that I believe in creation (never said it was scientific fact, or even the best scientific theory) and my statements on the politicized climate research, I would love to hear how they are connected.

If you can not then you just lost all logical arguments you thought you had.

I mean you logic there was as stupid as saying "jmog believes aliens exist, so therefore his belief on climate research is completely bunk!".

The two topics have ZERO to do with each other, that was just your attempt at an ad hominem attack trying to attack my "credibility" (like I really care if you think I'm credible or not, I have been published in multiple peer reviewed scientific research journals/magazines, you have not).

QuakerOats;1502016 wrote: keep the dollars flowing to those who profit from peddling the hoax.

gut;1501885 wrote:You mean all the climate researchers? Academia is rife with liberals as well. My conclusion is not rash - you WOULD direct that at the other side if you had even a scratch of statistical and research training.

Climate research isn't junk in the intentional sense, but it is "nascent" much like econometrics and social sciences.

I can't explain economics to you, I'm not going to bother trying to explain statistics. If you had an actual clue this whole field of research screams "bullshit". And I don't have an agenda or an interest in winning this debate, just calling it as I see it. It's basic and fundamental, but "it can't hurt" so everyone jumps on board because it's "just common sense".

Let's accept your assumed proposition that I'm stupid. You have all of these other scientists who are at least as skeptical and intelligent as you with experience with research, etc. Why does the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineers, etc. not take a similar position to the one you're taking. They've all had statistical and research training. If it's all teh librulz running things...why don't the smart, pragmatic scientists and engineers stand up in unison???

You've got an overwhelming number of these folks who are just as smart as you who are just "calling it as they see it" too. Why don't these people seem to think the field screams "bullshit"?

jmog;1502020 wrote:Having spent 8 years in academia, 7 years in energy research, and another 5 years in industry. So in other words, experience with that kind of stuff.

What kind of experience do you have with it to refute my believe?

^^^You're appealing to your authority....exactly what you claim I do when I point out that there are thousands of people who are just as smart as you and just as experienced who believe the exact and total opposite of you.

jmog;1502025 wrote:If you can please make a single connection between fact that I believe in creation (never said it was scientific fact, or even the best scientific theory) and my statements on the politicized climate research, I would love to hear how they are connected.

If you can not then you just lost all logical arguments you thought you had.

I mean you logic there was as stupid as saying "jmog believes aliens exist, so therefore his belief on climate research is completely bunk!".

The two topics have ZERO to do with each other, that was just your attempt at an ad hominem attack trying to attack my "credibility" (like I really care if you think I'm credible or not, I have been published in multiple peer reviewed scientific research journals/magazines, you have not).

The point is that yourself and now Gut have appealed to your own authority on all scientific matters, including anthropogenic global warming. Ironic of course because you accuse me of "appealing to authority" when I merely point out that the number of authorities who are just as smart and talented as yourself and disagree with you outnumber you something like 97:1. Your fellow engineers in the National Academy of Engineering disagree with you in their published positions on AGW. So I'm merely trying to negate your own appeal to yourself as an authority without simply saying "You're appealing to your own authority".

But anyway, it is doubtful, in my humble opinion, that we can trust your epistemology on the matter given your proclivity to reject the overwhelming evidence for darwinian evolution based on your "being a scientist". So your and Gut's appeals to your expertise prove wanting...as do your arguments such as the one regarding chaos theory when the progenitor of chaos theory basically begat climate research.

BoatShoes;1502145 wrote:^^^You're appealing to your authority....exactly what you claim I do when I point out that there are thousands of people who are just as smart as you and just as experienced who believe the exact and total opposite of you.

Appealing to your own authority vs. that of others is not remotely the same. To imply such is laughable.

BoatShoes;1502145 wrote:^^^You're appealing to your authority....exactly what you claim I do when I point out that there are thousands of people who are just as smart as you and just as experienced who believe the exact and total opposite of you.

You asked what makes me think something, I gave an answer, I didn't say what I thought was fact and here's why. THAT would be appealing to authority. I gave an opinion and stated why I thought that. I did not say my opinion was fact or correct.

So no, you failed at a logical failure once again.

BoatShoes;1502164 wrote:The point is that yourself and now Gut have appealed to your own authority on all scientific matters, including anthropogenic global warming. Ironic of course because you accuse me of "appealing to authority" when I merely point out that the number of authorities who are just as smart and talented as yourself and disagree with you outnumber you something like 97:1. Your fellow engineers in the National Academy of Engineering disagree with you in their published positions on AGW. So I'm merely trying to negate your own appeal to yourself as an authority without simply saying "You're appealing to your own authority".

But anyway, it is doubtful, in my humble opinion, that we can trust your epistemology on the matter given your proclivity to reject the overwhelming evidence for darwinian evolution based on your "being a scientist". So your and Gut's appeals to your expertise prove wanting...as do your arguments such as the one regarding chaos theory when the progenitor of chaos theory basically begat climate research.

1. Again, find a connection, until then your posts are meaningless.
2. I have NEVER said that I believe in creation because "I am a scientist". So once again, you failed. I have said numerous times that I once believed in evolution and then spent years studying both sides scientifically and came to my own belief. I have never said "I am right because I am a scientist". You are either lying outright or obscuring the facts of what I have said in an attempt to make me look bad. So again, your logical failures keep piling on.
3. So, in your opinion, my thinking is invalid on AGW because of something I happen to believe that has NOTHING to do with AGW? If that made sense then I could say because you believe in Keynesian economic theory, you are wrong on AGW. Do you see how stupid that statement is?

BoatShoes;1502142 wrote:Let's accept your assumed proposition that I'm stupid.

I don't think he referred to you as stupid, although one might surmise as much given the apparent belief in the man-made climate change hoax; however, there are many supposedly learned people who have fallen prey to the hoax, or who advance it due to profit, power, and/or political gain; many of them are probably not stupid.

BoatShoes;1502164 wrote: outnumber you something like 97:1. .

That's not accurate.
The 97% number comes from a study of published climate change papers that say one way or another if man is the main cause. 97% say man, 3% say not man.

That is NOT a percentage of scientists in general that are skeptical of AGW (fyi, I have not once said that I believe 0% is man made as Quaker is saying, I fully believe there is a small percentage of affect that man has, but I would fall into the skeptical category of fully AGW).

I could post link after link of percentage of scientists, but here's a few.

http://www.nas.org/articles/Estimated_40_Percent_of_Scientists_Doubt_Manmade_Global_Warming
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/

jmog;1502305 wrote:1. Again, find a connection, until then your posts are meaningless.
2. I have NEVER said that I believe in creation because "I am a scientist". So once again, you failed. I have said numerous times that I once believed in evolution and then spent years studying both sides scientifically and came to my own belief. I have never said "I am right because I am a scientist". You are either lying outright or obscuring the facts of what I have said in an attempt to make me look bad. So again, your logical failures keep piling on.
3. So, in your opinion, my thinking is invalid on AGW because of something I happen to believe that has NOTHING to do with AGW? If that made sense then I could say because you believe in Keynesian economic theory, you are wrong on AGW. Do you see how stupid that statement is?

1. The connection is your epistemology. You have a demonstrated history of rejecting overwhelming empirical evidence.
2. I couldn't find the thread where you talking about yourself being a scientist w/ regard to evolution but here are some samplings of your doing so with regard to AGW.

I did exaggerate, probably due to my "disgust" in the way science is really done today...as a scientist myself.

^^^http://www.ohiochatter.com/forum/showthread.php?5183-Leading-Global-Warming-scientist-says-we-are-heading-for-30-years-of-cooling!&highlight=scientist

The ones who are GW activist flying in private jets and arriving in limos, me, the scientist who calls man made GW hogwash drives and economy car...PRICELESS.

^^^http://www.ohiochatter.com/forum/showthread.php?1257-Global-Warming-research-facility-hacked-condemning-data-taken-Al-Gore-Cancelling-Speaking-Dates/page3&highlight=scientist

No, as a scientist not motivated by power and greed, I can actually do the math.

If you truly believe in the hogwash of man made GW, then please explain to me how every planet in our solar system that we can measure the temperatures of, has also been warming over the same period of time as our own planet?

I believe my 3 science degrees trumps your math/science background (but I'm willing to be wrong on that), so please don't try the "2+2=6" BS.

The difference between you and I is that you just believe what you are told by the media, the GW scientists with an agenda, and Al Gore, while I actually know how to do the calcs and understand the science behind it to question their assertations.

Someone who understands the Scientific Method and where the burden of proof lies.

If only our politicians could understand this.

Oh, I forgot to mention that I've also worked in Research and Development with industrial combustion emission gases, closing working with the EPA on several projects for the last 5 years.

^^^^http://www.ohiochatter.com/forum/showthread.php?1257-Global-Warming-research-facility-hacked-condemning-data-taken-Al-Gore-Cancelling-Speaking-Dates/page4&highlight=scientist

3. My acceptance of keynesian economics is relevant. The question is what does the empirical evidence support. For example...do you think tax cuts w/o offsetting spending cuts will grow the economy because keynesian evidence from JFK, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush support that conclusion...or do you think that because of your gut feelings. It's about epistemology.

QuakerOats;1502306 wrote:I don't think he referred to you as stupid, although one might surmise as much given the apparent belief in the man-made climate change hoax; however, there are many supposedly learned people who have fallen prey to the hoax, or who advance it due to profit, power, and/or political gain; many of them are probably not stupid.

He has conveyed his thoughts on that matter several times.

jmog;1502300 wrote:You asked what makes me think something, I gave an answer, I didn't say what I thought was fact and here's why. THAT would be appealing to authority. I gave an opinion and stated why I thought that. I did not say my opinion was fact or correct.

So no, you failed at a logical failure once again.

Please see the long list of posts of you calling yourself a scientist that I provided.

queencitybuckeye;1502297 wrote:Appealing to your own authority vs. that of others is not remotely the same. To imply such is laughable.

Suppose that I am a dentist and I provide verification of these credentials. I begin to argue that dental research is politicized and that sugar does not really contribute to cavities or what have you.

It is not unreasonable for educated, rational individuals on here such as yourself to say "well boatshoes...you yourself may be a dentist however, look at the overwhelming number of dentists who disagree with these claims."

jmog;1502320 wrote:That's not accurate.
The 97% number comes from a study of published climate change papers that say one way or another if man is the main cause. 97% say man, 3% say not man.

That is NOT a percentage of scientists in general that are skeptical of AGW (fyi, I have not once said that I believe 0% is man made as Quaker is saying, I fully believe there is a small percentage of affect that man has, but I would fall into the skeptical category of fully AGW).

I could post link after link of percentage of scientists, but here's a few.

http://www.nas.org/articles/Estimated_40_Percent_of_Scientists_Doubt_Manmade_Global_Warming
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/

This has already been covered at length. The number of scientists who agree with AGW is overwhelming in comparison to the number that do not...despite the best estimates of the global warming skeptic in the link you provided. Like I said in the previous debates...there are skeptics and deniers but they are heavily outnumbered. No sense in going over this again.

The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is more than 90% certain that humans are causing most of it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels. In addition, it is likely that some potential further greenhouse gas warming has been offset by increased aerosols.[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][4][/SUP] This scientific consensus is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change

BoatShoes;1502401 wrote:Please see the long list of posts of you calling yourself a scientist that I provided.

Again, I called myself a scientist when someone attacked my posible knowledge of atmospheric sciences. YOU said that I said that I believe in creationism "because I am a scientist". You have now moved the goalposts to a different subject once again.

The "hogwash" is the those saying we have irrefutible proof that GW is mostly Anthropogenic.

Keep the goalposts where you left them, show proof that I have said "I believe in creation because I am a scientist".

Don't switch it to me talking about doing actual research IN THIS FIELD (emission and EPA, not directly climage change) and therefore being skeptical about the man made affects in GW.

Once again, you failed because you can't keep your story straight.

BoatShoes;1502409 wrote:This has already been covered at length. The number of scientists who agree with AGW is overwhelming in comparison to the number that do not...despite the best estimates of the global warming skeptic in the link you provided. Like I said in the previous debates...there are skeptics and deniers but they are heavily outnumbered. No sense in going over this again.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change

You do realize that the wiki article you just posted is someone saying that THEY are 90% confident GW is Anthropogenic, they did NOT say that 90% of scientists believe this.

FYI, 90% confidence level in statistics is crap, in case you wanted to know.

Fail again.

BoatShoes;1502404 wrote:Suppose that I am a dentist and I provide verification of these credentials. I begin to argue that dental research is politicized and that sugar does not really contribute to cavities or what have you.

It is not unreasonable for educated, rational individuals on here such as yourself to say "well boatshoes...you yourself may be a dentist however, look at the overwhelming number of dentists who disagree with these claims."

In that case, I would not pretend that my layman's reading of the literature has more validity than your professional expertise.