This is why science is corrupted by govt, among about a billion other examples

They don't even frame the argument against catastrophic climate change correctly, NO, let me repeat this, NO serious climate skeptic denies that carbon traps heat and raises temp.

The argument centers over the feedback loops and how much that amplifies the rise.

Skeptics claim the feedback loops are over exaggerated, and Im inclined to agree seeing as how rises in temp have been lower than predicted

I was under the assumption that if reality contradicts your theory you modify the theory

You do realize the Govt, mainly the military, burns more CO2 than a lot of countries right?

Do you actually have a solution that resolves the issue and doesn't involve the death of probably millions of people if you just cut off fossil fuels?

Eh, using a percentage in this case is misleading for the public, who don't understand margin of error in the first place. 

This is much better. Rather disengenuous to claim 2014 was the warmest year on record according to this, without any caveats. Although, it's not like they hid their research...I assume.

This might be more the fault of the media than anyone else. 

This is worded really weird. It makes it sound like it's supposed to be damning for scientists to "admit" that there was a margin of error. Well, no shiiittt. That is inherent in all scientific research involving any quantitative analysis whatsoever. If the writer thought this was some sort of silver bullet against NASA, then he's either ignorant or just plain dishonest.

The key here would be how large the margin of error was.

Berkeley seems to sum it up pretty well.

And if you raise the minimum wage, won't all these people consume more and drive more? Why not? So you would force them to use more expensive energy?

 http://www.sott.net/article/276813-Peer-reviewed-paper-says-its-OK-to-manipulate-data-exaggerate-climate-claims Paper telling Global warming scientists to manipulate data. In other words...it's OK to fudge the numbers if it meets the prescribed agenda....

Sigh....jesus christ.

Did anyone bother to even read the actual paper? Or even just the actual abstract?

     Jesus Christ, Suzuki the climate fascist wants people who dissent from his point of view regarding global warming to be prosecuted ?  What a fucking prick.   

Honestly, I immediately wiki'd David Suzuki, discovered that his field was zoology and genetics and wasn't interested in the video after that. Regardless of the outcome, I don't care to watch a climate change debate between one individual that doesn't have expertise in relevant fields and other individuals that also don't have any expertise in any relevant fields, especially if it's an on-the-fly verbal lashing with virtually no informative explanations being given by either side. It's pointless and has absolutely no bearing on actual scientific research and peer review that is occurring every day.

But, I watched it anyways, but only made it about halfway through the video. Suzuki's responses to Stewart Franks pissed me off. He dodged his first question about whether "it was possible" that the IPCC exaggerated at least some of their numbers. Perhaps he was afraid of "harming" his cause or something along those lines, but imo, nothing will hurt more than being intellectually disengenuous. His answer has to be "yes," of course it is possible. Then, Suzuki resorted to an implicit ad hominem, stating that climate skeptics are usually receiving bribes from the fossil fuel industry. Even if this is true, this type of response generally does not sit well with an intelligent audience, especially one that is sitting on the fence. It's even worse when you consider that Stewart Franks is one of only a handful of actual scientists in relevant fields that could be considered global warming skeptics, and he seems to only be rejecting catastrophic man-made global warming specifically.

Suzuki's response to the first person wasn't that great either. Overall, it seems like he was not prepared at all, which is really a shame. Even if this is not his field, as someone who's essentially traveling the world as an activist for governments to act on man-made global warming, he should have done enough homework to have answers prepared for all the questions that are the most likely to come up, and it is obvious that common criticisms of the IPCC's research would be some of the first topics to come up. 

Now, for this article. 

First of all, if there really was an article that urged all scientists to fudge their numbers, they would immediately be torn apart in the peer review process. Stupid internet blogs like this one certainly wouldn't need to pile on top, assuming they had anything constructive to say at all. Also, there's something weirdly inconsistent about global warming conspiracy theorists even criticizing a scientific paper in this manner. If scientists are really all conspiring to hide the truth, then why would they post an article telling all scientists to lie about their research findings on a fully public website, accessible by anyone?

Anyways, here is what sott.net quoted.

Now, here is the actual abstract.

I suppose I won't accuse them of quote mining since they have the actual abstract on the same page, but let's see what they left out, without using any ellipsis. 

This part: "by using a modified International Environmental Agreement (IEA) model with asymmetric information."

And this part: "From the ex ante perspective, however, the impact that manipulating information has on the level of participation in an IEA and on welfare is ambiguous."

I find the second quote to be more interesting, so let's tackle that one first. Watts asserts that these two scientists are urging people to manipulate data and exaggerate claims about global warming to make people believe it. I assume he is showing this part of the abstract as evidence, "We find that the information manipulation has an instrumental value, as it ex post induces more countries to participate in an IEA, which will eventually enhance global welfare." Watts implication here is that since data manipulation makes global warming look worse, it makes more people act on global warming, which will help to fight global warming. Hence, instrumental value; hence, global welfare. But, then why do they also have this part. "From the ex ante perspective, however, the impact that manipulating information has on the level of participation in an IEA and on welfare is ambiguous."

Let's take a look at the actual paper.

In other words, if we look at this topic ex post, as in retrospectively, as in what has already happened, it seems that data manipulation can increase participation in efforts to curb global warming. However, if people realize that data manipulation is occurring, they will lose trust in information providers even when the data is completely honest. Ergo, ex ante, as in before the event, as in looking to the future, it is unclear (read: ambiguous) whether data manipulation would increase participation in efforts to curb global warming overall. 

That pretty much says it all right there. I rather doubt that the main purpose of these two scientists was to tell all scientists to manipulate data on global warming when their main conclusion is that they're unsure as to whether data manipulation would lead to more participation in global warming activism. 

Now that we have established that much, let's look at the first quote from before with fresh eyes.

"by using a modified International Environmental Agreement (IEA) model with asymmetric information."

By only quoting the part that says, "This article provides a rationale for this tendency," Watts makes it sound like the scientists are forming an argument defending data manipulation. But, it seems to me, especially if we include the part that was left out (ditto), that these scientists are merely using a model, statistics, and some game theory to attempt to quantity the effect of data manipulation on global warming participation, certainly without any comment on the moral duty of society to do so. Why? Because unlike the tards that are misrepresenting legitimate research for their own agenda, these people are actually scientists. Hell, like half of their article is functions and Riemann sums. Much of the rest of their article reads more like a criticism of the media, Al Gore, and the IPCC than anything else. Perhaps Watts can't comprehend the real purpose of these two scientists because he can't comprehend this level of objectivity. 

Now, Burnedout, this took a while, and I don't have an infinite amount of free time. So, if you decide to just spam like 10 more links, it's highly unlikely that I, or anyone else here for that matter, would respond to them extensively like I just did. Hence, if nothing I've said stuck, I'm sure you could just post more of your "sources," then declare victory. But, instead of that, I hope you take the time to research the views you hold and look at all opinions with a skeptical mindset, especially our own. 

This isn't a debate.

As for the use of the word agenda...

Are you speaking in the sense of this discussion between the people who use this forum or the political nature of climate control and how politicians and big business have a hidden motive?

By moving past my previous post and going back to establishing worldviews, I'm assuming you're either trying to find some common ground between us or trying to avoid responding to my post or maybe a combination of both. Maybe you don't have the time or care to respond; that's okay, I suppose......as long as you did read it. However, you still have not quite established common ground. I agree, in some sense, with part of what you said, but completely disagree with the rest.  

Being skeptical of authority is a very good thing. Obviously, I agree with that. In fact, no one here is going to say that we should just accept whatever we are told. That, by itself, is a rather trivial point. However, that is not the same as saying that the scientific fields are just as corrupt as many large scale religions. That is a different assertion that has to be justified.  

Here is my counter-attempt to establish common ground. Using reason and evidence is an effective method of establishing reality, and the scientific method is a reliable way of establishing reality in that it is THE formalization of the process by which we use reason and evidence. Ergo, to the extent that we humans correctly apply the scientific method on any topic, we stand the best chance of having the best model of reality. If we define a scientific field as the study of a topic using the scientific method, then that "field" stands a better chance of determining reality than any religous commentary on that topic. Because by definition, religions are based on faith and contain a pre-set list of beliefs which are beyond the scope of reason and science. 

I assume you agree with me so far. That was the easy part. Now, I'll try for something a lot harder. If you say that "everybody" has some kind of agenda, then you are saying that "you" have an agenda. Since I am literally in-training to be the Navy's version of a meteorologist, which puts me on the periphery of the current institution that you would describe as "about as corrupt as many religions," you would certainly be saying that "I" have an agenda. But, if you say that you are skeptical or, in your words, "a total cynic" of every institution, then you have to be a total cynic of every institution pushing for all the beliefs that you currently hold as well, whether that be global warming skeptics, American Atheists, zeitgeist movement, anarchists, whatever. However, my impression upon looking at the links you posted is that you are NOT a cynic of the links you posted because you presented them with the implication that they somehow debunk the scientific consensus for man-made global warming in an open forum without researching them or really thinking them through, particularly the second link concerning the research paper, which you clearly did not understand, and I doubt you even skimmed through it. Ostensibly, that makes you NOT a total cynic. That makes you a cynic of ideas you already disagree with while being too accepting of ideas you already agree with. 

This is a zero sum line of thought anyways.

We have to start this from a different angle, which is that if you agree that reason and evidence are effective, then the answer is simple; we start from that. So, it is not a question of 'who you believe' or 'what you believe.' It is 'why you believe' or 'how you believe.' It doesn't matter if you're with the majority or the minority or agree/disagree with any corrupt institution or group of people. All that matters is what is really correct based on reason and evidence.

Do I trust Monsanto? Hell no! But, that is a different question than whether we should use GMOs. Do I trust Al Gore? Uh....no. Do I trust the IPCC? Not much. But, that is a different question entirely from the question we should be asking.  

I support birth control. way too many people here.

I also support a solar deflector. It doesn't need to be very big either. A deflector the size of a medium car could lower temperatures 2 degrees on earth.

while some people are about making a profit, those carpet baggers are not a reason to claim global warming is a farce.

#4 and #3 are totally false. The flu is not a cold weather sickness. Also the same could be said if it gets too hot out people will stay indoors thus increasing the need for flu shots.

That's complete bullshit. Every proposed idea I've ever read was substantially larger than a car. Just what we need though, some dumb ass fuckwit building something to deflect the sun and cause immediate and rapid cooling because we are worried that a one degree increase over a century. As if we have any basis to assume that the current climate is in any way ideal. It will be amazing if humans don't wipe themselves out over the next few centuries. 

Statistically, people automatically use more birth control and have less kids when countries become more prosperous. Generally, countries that are having too many kids are super shitty ountries where a ton of the kids will die from malnutrition and disease. In contrast, really nice countries like Germany and Japan (where the population is decreasing) are, arguably, not having enough kids. 

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2054rank.html

I doubt Niger is going to go to the UN, agree to mandatory birth control its country, then succeeed in becoming a first world country anytime soon.

This is why I won't give any money to charities trying to save people in these types of countries. More medicine + more food + more water = more really stupid people, which means you need even more resources to support them. If the focus was on education or birth control or other things that will actually improve the region, I might support that. If there is one thing that Ayn Rand got right, it's that well-intentioned charity doesn't necessarily lead to results. 

It doesn't really matter. Nothing can block out sunlight to Earth without effecting everyone and everything on Earth; unless it is exceptionally massive in size and extremely close in proximity. Anything less then prohibitively massive and close (and thereby too expensive to build and maintain) will cause millions of people to experience negative effects. And the overall effect on Earth is incalculable. It's a bad idea. We're better off with climate change.

Realism and pessimism are often mistaken for each other.

Okay.......wait.....what?

Eh.....can you elaborate on what you mean by magnetic fields as solar deflectors?

lol... he's one of those people I was talking about previously who <facepalm> I mean... talk about profit makers.

No.. seriously. There was a group making small magnetic fields for space stations and for the the people who 'might' go to Mars. They have these small mini-magnetic field generators which deflect solar winds/radiation/whatever. The idea was to have one that was close to the sun in synchronous orbit with the Earth. It would generate a magnetic field and get a majority of its power from the Sun. It's not something they have made yet but their are smaller designs currently in the making for use on in outer space for the space station. Baby steps. I don't expect them to do this over night.

I think there is some confusing of cause and effect in this statement. I believe it is more accurate to say a low birth rate goes hand in hand with a more prosperity. Each one affects the other.

Look what happened in China,, from a 3rd world backwater with massive famines to owning the USA's ass since they started mandatory family planning.

Oh...right. Yeah, I agree.

Of course, with that example, there are various other factors in play, but having less mouths to feed clearly improved the quality of life of the average household. 

You're right it is too expensive if government contractors get involved.

Crowdfunding and volunteers could get it done.

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/going-liftport-gets-set-crowdfunded-space-elevator-test-n189561

First step is build space elevator for the moon. It's mainly a complex engineering task. But it can an be designed and simulated on computers by volunteers.

Building a large structure in space is way easier because there is no gravity but mainly because there are no zoning laws(yet).

Space(including cyberspace) is not plaged by the problems of earth that make things so expensive(politics, regulation, overpopulation, corporate privledge, labor unions. etc...)

I'm asking you to clarify.

This typical of the Global warming alarmists :The earth  tiny and fragile when it comes to they question of can I drive an SUV., but iti's so enormous and solid when it comes to buiding a solor deflector. Which is ti?

It's really about using this for back-door marxism. Everyone should consume the same and drive the same kind of car and have the same net income after taxes. Only the communist party leaders would have any privledge to consume more. They need a crisis to push the agenda.

So we see youir agenda, you don't care how many others may die, as long as you survive. So why should anyone listen to you?

Yes, your brand of marxism is different than the Soviet Union, instead of making the rich and upper middle class poor or putting them in gulags, you want them dead. Just kill anyone with more than you and we'll have equality.

The fact remains to agree with you, one most hold contadictory views.

To believe that man-made greenhouse gasses can cause significant temperature rise, one must also believe the earth is tiny and fragile and that the number of peaple in the world is huge. But then to believe that is is impossible to contruct something that would decrease earth's temperature, one must believe that the earth is enormous and stable and that the earth's population is so small that we'd never be able to find enough workers and donors to construct such a device.

You say there are not enough potential rich donors to fund such a project, so the number of wealth people in the world is small. Then in other posts, the answer to plight of the poor is to give them the wealth of the rich, which means one must believe there is an abundance of rich peole with too much money in the world.

So just change your world view to suit your agenda. But I'm the irrational one.

 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html  

Just whistling by.....

The problem with the whole field is that it has lost credibility.  The figures are tainted by falsifying data.  People complain about the Koch Brothers on the right, well, you have people like Tom Steyer on the left who poised to make BIG $$$ by finacially backing it.  I don't buy the figures presented by the people in the science.  That simple. 

Many decades ago my friends would argue about global warming. One guy was a Libertarian. Another a 'Crat. Then a mix of 'Pubs.

They would all go at it about global warming. The right is ignoring the data. The left is hyping the data. There I was in the middle listening when one of them stopped and said that I was being too quiet. Why didn't I have any thing to say.

My reply was then and still is now that while there is a global warming trend who is to say that it is humans. Sure there seems to be circumstancial evidence pointing to us, but it isn't overwhelming. 

Down here in Florida when I was a wee lad, we had a cold spell (a week worth of cold) it was freezing. We had an orchid of citrus and we would turn on the sprinklers to prevent the pipes from bursting and also save the oranges from being ruined. I'd wake up and the 2.5 acres of my parents property would be a winter wonderland of ice. Giant oak trees would be lowering their branches down to the ground because of the weight of the ice. We would go ice skating on the sidewalk because the water would backup and freeze over with 2-3 inches of ice. The ice would last for a few days slowly melting during the day and then forming again because we would have 32 and below temperatures all week long. Today that never happens.

There was a freeze in 1832 which froze parts of the St John's river which has never happened since. In 1894 there was a freeze so bad that Key West had frost the morning after; which has never happened again. In 1983, 85 and 89 we had freezes so bad that entire counties in central Florida had no oranges. The freeze in 1989 was when I was stationed at Camp LeJune and I was lucky enough to get out in time before the blizzard hit. It was the first time since Camp LeJeune opened that they had to close it because of bad weather.

Since 1989 we haven't had a freeze which did any damage or stayed long. In a few days it is supposed to get to 32 here but that is the first time in years that we have experienced a freeze but it also only happens right before the sun comes up rather than drop to 32 before midnight.

So are humans to blame? No. I don't believe so, but there is a warming trend happening and will have a dramatic impact on the world over the next twenty years.