Whistle blowing on Global Warming

[MORAY37]

and moray.......just an FYI, which i think you already know.........you have kept perfectly civil, and polite throughout this thread....and that is part of why i htink it's still open.

 thanks for that. this is one of the more interesting threads, and it would suck for it to get locked.

I only treat people how they treat me. You've treated me with respect, and I feel that warrants the exact same back.  

That being said,  since rejoining this thread, I've been banned twice.  I've been warned that the next one is permanent.  <shrug> I've watched as multiple people were allowed to get dig after dig in on me, personally, and not get the same.  I sometimes have a temper(played Juniors in ice hockey... so go figure), and really dislike being disrespected...I can type faster than I can say "stop" to myself...(I guess I might grow out of this someday)

 I worked my tail off with 19 and 20 hour days with 2 jobs to get through school, paying my own way(no student loans, only scholarships), to finally get where I want to be....to watch some people who have no idea what they are talking about, crap all over my profession while it barely supports me with a Master's/PhD... it really peeves me.

 I've also watched as my posts have been deleted, while I specifically wrote the same thing that someone else called me which didn't get edited (even after I reported it), much to the laughter of some friends/squaddies following this thread.  

I have enjoyed our personal discussion, though CAP.  I'm sure I probably overstepped something in this post too.....   But, I'm going to bed now, I have to be up at 5am to spend a day in the field "wasting" more grant money, 35 feet down in 1 foot of visibility. 



Not a picture from my project, but that's about what I deal with, visibility wise.

[CAP1]

I only treat people how they treat me. You've treated me with respect, and I feel that warrants the exact same back.  

That being said,  since rejoining this thread, I've been banned twice.  I've been warned that the next one is permanent.  <shrug> I've watched as multiple people were allowed to get dig after dig in on me, personally, and not get the same.  I sometimes have a temper(played Juniors in ice hockey... so go figure), and really dislike being disrespected...I can type faster than I can say "stop" to myself...(I guess I might grow out of this someday)

 I worked my tail off with 19 and 20 hour days with 2 jobs to get through school, paying my own way(no student loans, only scholarships), to finally get where I want to be....to watch some people who have no idea what they are talking about, crap all over my profession while it barely supports me with a Master's/PhD... it really peeves me.

 I've also watched as my posts have been deleted, while I specifically wrote the same thing that someone else called me which didn't get edited (even after I reported it), much to the laughter of some friends/squaddies following this thread.  

I have enjoyed our personal discussion, though CAP.  I'm sure I probably overstepped something in this post too.....   But, I'm going to bed now, I have to be up at 5am to spend a day in the field "wasting" more grant money, 35 feet down in 1 foot of visibility. 

(Image removed from quote.)

Not a picture from my project, but that's about what I deal with, visibility wise.

aaww mannnnn............now i'm gonna hafta go back through 84 pages? i don't recall seeing you or anyone type anything in here that should be banned. some hit borderline, but i didn't think anything crossed the line to the point it deserved that.

[Sundowner]

 

As for Sundowner's post....
One year (actually, one WINTER) doesn't negate the previous 120.  I also removed winter 2006 as an outlier in the baseline graph.  Winter 2006 was the warmest on record in the continental United States, and I felt that it could skew the base trend up.

I don't care for your accusation sir.  

Perhaps you wish to explain to me how you would statistically analyze the data so that it isn't manipulated by extremes?  

Sorry that came across as an accusation, sir.

I fired off the post in a hurry right before work without proper introspect and reflection.

The removal of extremes in statistics is a valid method.
I stand corrected.
My apologies.

Regards,
Sun

PS....good thread guys...

[RTHolmes]

Everyone knows several military personnel, and everyone knows a few cops. How many know that many scientists? Show of hands?

ask the same question in a forum dedicated to string theory...

"sample bias"

[Anaxogoras]

ask the same question in a forum dedicated to string theory...

(Image removed from quote.) "sample bias"

In fact, the only time I ever met an out of uniform cop was when one visited my high school 15 years ago.  I know a number of military personnel, and I currently know a research psychologist because her daughter and my son are enrolled in the same toddler program.

[CptTrips]

This guys seems to be getting it:

The impact of global warming has been exaggerated by some scientists and there is an urgent need for more honest disclosure of the uncertainty of predictions about the rate of climate change, according to the Government’s chief scientific adviser.

John Beddington was speaking to The Times in the wake of an admission by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that it grossly overstated the rate at which Himalayan glaciers were receding.

Professor Beddington said that climate scientists should be less hostile to sceptics who questioned man-made global warming. He condemned scientists who refused to publish the data underpinning their reports.

He said that public confidence in climate science would be improved if there were more openness about its uncertainties, even if that meant admitting that sceptics had been right on some hotly-disputed issues.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7003622.ece#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=2015164


A much more reasonable point of view of the issue compared to Global-Warming-Taliban like Phil Jones:

“We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”

IMHO,
Wab

[Widewing]

Prove otherwise.  Unless their is a secret ratio of active duty military/police officers: scientists that I don't know about.  There are currently 6.2 million teachers in the United States.... does that have anything at all to do with the number of scientists either??

Your argument posts no relevance to the premise you make, and has no logic behind it.

Well Bud, lets look at a chart from the same document you quoted, Okay?



I think it is self-explanatory.

But hey, lets stop quibbling over silly things. These kind of arguments serve no useful purpose. No one really cares one way or the other anyway. I think we can both find more useful things to discuss. Agree?

Let's talks Marine Biology, a topic of which I am largely ignorant. Ignorant, but not disinterested.

Do you recognize this gentleman?





His name is Steve Resler. Steve has held various positions related to marine biology. He holds several degrees in Marine science and environmental science. His positions have included Senior Marine Resources Technician, Environmental Analyst, Bay Constable, Harbormaster. Later, he moved up to Deputy Bureau Chief, NY Dept of State - Coastal Management Program. After 35 years, he recently retired and started his own marine field research consulting business, "InnerSpace Scientific Diving". Steve is nationally known and highly respected. He's a guy you may want to know.

Here's his resume on LinkedIn:
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/steven-resler/17/b5/918

Steve and I went to high school together. We've managed to stay in touch over the intervening 40 years. Great guy, great marine researcher. Should you have any interest in connecting with Steve, shoot me a PM and I'll give him a heads-up.


My regards

Widewing

[Penguin]

Hey man, not cool!

We can make a different thread for this, but let's leave the one we have alone.  If this is to be last sound bite, the red herring wasn't that great. 

-Penguin

[CAP1]

Hey man, not cool!

We can make a different thread for this, but let's leave the one we have alone.  If this is to be last sound bite, the red herring wasn't that great. 

-Penguin

i fail to see any problem with widewings post. he was offering advice, and help, and knowledge.

[Widewing]

i fail to see any problem with widewings post. he was offering advice, and help, and knowledge.

Feeling left out, Penguin now accuses me of hijacking my own thread.... I'm sure it must be past his bedtime.


My regards,

Widewing

[bozon]

I think it is self-explanatory.

Yes it is obvious:
The number of S&E employees has jumped since the 1950s and strongly correlates with the increase of global temperatures. We must reduce science emission if we want to save the polar bears!

[Mister Fork]

I'm a green-hearted person.  I support green initiatives, and I for one believe our society is on a consumption path of the worlds natural resources that will destroy our planet in the near future.  I drive cars that are fuel efficient. And I recycle as much as possible (although I think recycling the way we're doing it is complete bunk). I try to have as little impact on our planet as possible.

However, the science of climatology is so incredibly complex, no one, not even climatologist really know how it works.  It's why meteorologists have difficulty predicting the temperature tomorrow to 100% accuracy. They're close, and sometimes they're completely wrong 100%. It's why they call forecast just that - a best guess on the data they have.  And most meteorologists only can only predict the weather with this same accurately up to 2 weeks.  The sun and how it works, the planet, global air and sea currents, and trees and vegetation all play a mix climatology. And yes, it's all about Energy. It's also a very new science - newer than nuclear in fact.

How climatologists can predict a flux in temperature and blame it on pollution is an interesting proposition based on correlation methodologies which is not following proper scientific methodologies.  Science is based on cause-and-effect.  

I.e. - two science methods.  One is physics, the other is climatology.

a.  I push 30 newtons against a block weighting 25kilos. Resistance is 5 newtons. The block moves 5 meters (not exact - but to get to a point). I have a formula that can guess the results within near 100% accuracy every time every time I do this experiment.

b. CO2 levels are at X. Because back in 1200BC when CO2 was X and temperature dropped 2 Celsius, I predict that if CO2 remains at X, temperature will drop 2 Celsius.  

A is science.  Measurable, with formulas that work, and repeatable in all kinds of different situations with similar results with the same formula.
B is not science. It's speculation - like guessing the price of a stock two years from now.  There is no formula or mesaurable results that can be tested (if they ever shared their forumlas to begin with). If there is a formula, no one but the person who did the testing has it.

And people wonder why scientists like myself hate climatologists.

[Anaxogoras]

b. CO2 levels are at X. Because back in 1200BC when CO2 was X and temperature dropped 2 Celsius, I predict that if CO2 remains at X, temperature will drop 2 Celsius.  

B is not science. It's speculation - like guessing the price of a stock two years from now.  There is no formula or mesaurable results that can be tested (if they ever shared their forumlas to begin with). If there is a formula, no one but the person who did the testing has it.

Aren't climate predictions like that also made in conjunction with chemical theories that describe gasses and other theories that describe the propagation of light?

[Mister Fork]

Aren't climate predictions like that also made in conjunction with chemical theories that describe gasses and other theories that describe the propagation of light?

The theories with the propagation of light have various formulas you can actually use. For example on how Planck's law tries to explain electromagnetic radiation - there's an actual formula. Also depends whether or not you view light as a wave or a particle... and that's a whole lotta discussion on a different topic.

The challenge with climate predictions is that there are no 'roaming formula theories' to view and discuss. I.e. if average global temperature is X, CO2 is Y, gulf stream current temperature is Z, global forestation % is W, etc etc.

I'm not discounting that the Earth is warming up.  I'm accusing the climatologists of shoddy science methodologies that does science a disservice to the point that most of their evidence and data is poorly supported and easily disputed.  If they came out with a theory and formula/test results to prove their right and is easily reproducible - HURRAY!  What a day for science and humanity!  

But they don't and it makes me question their scientific integrity as a scientist.  And as long as they continue down this path, the harder it will be for society and countries to change how they interact with our planet.  

As Dr. Evil once said: "Throw me a frickin' bone here!  I'm the boss!  Need the info!"

Without that info, everything they show in graphs and charts is IMHO scientific bunk worthy of a shoddy convenience store toilet.  Which is very sad because they may be right.

[Mister Fork]

“We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”

This quote came from a scientist? Since when do scientists view their work as unapproachable, un-reviewable, and without criticism? No scientist would hold onto his work and data like a 3 year old does with jelly beans.  If this person was a real scientist, he/she would produce their results in Science (journal for the American Association for the Advancement of Science) - along with their formulas, how they collected their data, the results of the data, and the conclusions they're making on the data.  And then the debate can begin!

This kind of anti-scientific bunk makes me