The Donald vs Big Tech

[astfgyl]

There are two main problems I see with placing any trust in data that points to a rise in global temperature over the last century.
Firstly all the historical data was decided a number of years ago to be regarded as "raw" data and was "adjusted", In fact in many regions the raw data pointed to a cooling over the last century, others recorded no change. following the "adjustments" general warming emerged.
The "science" behind these adjustments is laughable.
Secondly there are three differing methods of calculating current average global temp., "climate anomaly method", "reference station method", and "first difference method" carried out by the three major climate centres, all producing differing results.

You might have an interest in that study I posted above it shows a lot of this. It's fairly long but it shows why nobody should be taking this stuff like a religion or expecting everyone else to convert to it so that they can attempt to prove their theory.

Imagine if I tried converting the same lads to religion and yet this is treated as the same truth as that is. The obvious answer to me is that people can believe what they want to believe as long as they don't try force it on me at the same time.

Like those old theocratic societies that the Shepherd is so fond of and yet here am I playing the part of his Heretic. Unreal. Then again, I used to be an altar boy myself so I should be more understanding of people's beliefs I suppose

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

And you think the climate doom crowd are doing it out of some sense of justice for all humanity? You think they're not being paid? You know they are

The only "they" I'm referring to are "doing it" out of a sense of scientific discovery and prediction (a practice which is not wholly immune to human foibles, of course) and they get paid about as much as my own bosses in research do. Which is to say, not very much. That's also why I, unlike you, don't put that much weight on my own direct observations of change, much less what I personally might conjecture them to result from. I know my father-in-law, who's been a farmer in northern Spain for 60 years, has observed plenty of climate change in recent years which has been detrimental to his harvest yields. Doubt doesn't even come into it for him or his farmer amigos. But they wouldn't be able to empirically judge for themselves any better than I could as to what the cause of those changes may be.

I really don't know why you refuse tooth and nail to make a distinction between the science and what is done with the science.

[son of the Morrigan]

There are two main problems I see with placing any trust in data that points to a rise in global temperature over the last century.
Firstly all the historical data was decided a number of years ago to be regarded as "raw" data and was "adjusted", In fact in many regions the raw data pointed to a cooling over the last century, others recorded no change. following the "adjustments" general warming emerged.
The "science" behind these adjustments is laughable.
Secondly there are three differing methods of calculating current average global temp., "climate anomaly method", "reference station method", and "first difference method" carried out by the three major climate centres, all producing differing results.

You might have an interest in that study I posted above it shows a lot of this. It's fairly long but it shows why nobody should be taking this stuff like a religion or expecting everyone else to convert to it so that they can attempt to prove their theory.

Imagine if I tried converting the same lads to religion and yet this is treated as the same truth as that is. The obvious answer to me is that people can believe what they want to believe as long as they don't try force it on me at the same time.

Like those old theocratic societies that the Shepherd is so fond of and yet here am I playing the part of his Heretic. Unreal. Then again, I used to be an altar boy myself so I should be more understanding of people's beliefs I suppose

Sound man, I'll have a gander.

[astfgyl]

And you think the climate doom crowd are doing it out of some sense of justice for all humanity? You think they're not being paid? You know they are

The only "they" I'm referring to are "doing it" out of a sense of scientific discovery and prediction (a practice which is not wholly immune to human foibles, of course) and they get paid about as much as my own bosses in research do. Which is to say, not very much. That's also why I, unlike you, don't put that much weight on my own direct observations of change, much less what I personally might conjecture them to result from. I know my father-in-law, who's been a farmer in northern Spain for 60 years, has observed plenty of climate change in recent years which has been detrimental to his harvest yields. Doubt doesn't even come into it for him or his farmer amigos. But they wouldn't be able to empirically judge for themselves any better than I could as to what the cause of those changes may be.

I really don't know why you refuse tooth and nail to make a distinction between the science and what is done with the science.

Yes I meet a lot of farmers and some years are worse than others like last year was shit for spuds for example. Sometimes that happens for more than a year too like the climate changes to varying degrees over time and nobody disputes that. If science is the pleasure of finding things out that's great but the proof would have to be a lot more definitive before I go buying into impoverishment for the cause. I don't think anyone disputes climate change but the root cause is not set in stone so I remain skeptical.

And like the long paper I quoted, the headlines don't always match up with the data contained therein but somehow that makes me a crank or something. I just don't get it, this fervent belief that the science is correct when the theory hasn't been proved by experiment.

Like I turn on the telly and there's stuff on it, yeah that's good proven science in action right there and there's loads of stuff like that but this climate thing is not it, bar an observation that the climate does indeed change but correlation does not always equal causation. If the fire is lighting whenever I turn on the telly does that have any bearing on what is on the screen?

[ochoill]

If the fire is lighting whenever I turn on the telly does that have any bearing on what is on the screen?

Unrelated and I know it is absolutely not what you meant at all but I have this image of you turning on the telly and the fire lighting up into a full flame in the same motion, but you just going "that's grand" watching it happen

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

I still don't know what this "impoverishment" thing you keep going on about even is, but that seems to be a real stumbling block for you. To the point where it's made you think that every climate scientist on the planet is lying for riches, whereas in fact the vast majority of them are regular joes at a similar level of doing science for standard civil servant wages as I am. Guess what? We all know the difference between correlation and causation. It's pretty much a day 1 of science thing.

[Anvil]

Guess what? We all know the difference between correlation and causation. It's pretty much a day 1 of science thing.

Actually, I do sometimes wonder about that.  I once saw a diabetes charity cite a paper that concluded there was a link to the number of shits you had per day and whether you had diabetes or not.  Not shit sherlock (pun intended) people who eat more, shit more and are more likely to be obese.  (In fairness I never read the paper to see if they actually controlled for weight and or calorie intake but it is pretty much on par with people who think they should ban ice cream because of the positive correlation between its sale and the number of people who drown).

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

But sure you've just explained yourself why the obvious natural correlation between the phenomena of obesity and more frequent shitting is nothing at all like the artifact correlation between the abstracted statistical trends of ice cream sales and numbers of people who drown  Correlations are studied in science all the time. The point isn't that correlations are or should be banished from science but that scientists know the difference between correlation and causation. When climate scientists hypothesize a causal link between increased atmospheric CO2 and temperature increase plus other related phenomena, it's because they have evidence that points beyond mere correlation, not because they're confusing the two.

[astfgyl]

It's just that they haven't put that evidence that points towards more than a correlation to an actual repeatable experiment that proves it. Otherwise the religion is sound enough, right

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

As I explained above, for some experiments the only suitable test tube is a planet and its atmosphere. I'm not even being facetious.

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

There is some experimental evidence though, but there's no way of knowing for 100% certain whether it will translate to planet size without testing it... on a planet:
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.192075

[astfgyl]

As I explained above, for some experiments the only suitable test tube is a planet and its atmosphere. I'm not even being facetious.

Yeah but what if I opt out of the experiment due to my own personal beliefs? Should I have that choice or not?

[astfgyl]

There is some experimental evidence though, but there's no way of knowing for 100% certain whether it will translate to planet size without testing it... on a planet:
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.192075

Not trying to be smart but could it not be shown on any sort of a smaller scale before going all in, and without consent? There must be a way

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

Without consent? LOL! The "without consent" you should really be making noise about is the decades during which the fucking fossil fuel companies covered up this knowledge without consent!

In 2015, investigative journalists discovered internal company memos indicating that Exxon oil company has known since the late 1970s that its fossil fuel products could lead to global warming with "dramatic environmental effects before the year 2050." Additional documents then emerged showing that the US oil and gas industry's largest trade association had likewise known since at least the 1950s, as had the coal industry since at least the 1960s, and electric utilities, Total oil company, and GM and Ford motor companies since at least the 1970s. Scholars and journalists have analyzed the texts contained in these documents, providing qualitative accounts of fossil fuel interests' knowledge of climate science and its implications.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abk0063

And still in 2018, as I showed you above, those companies were giving millions to pricks like Pruitt, hired by Trump to head the EPA, to lie out of their holes about this shit. And every single talking point you come out with here to "doubt" the science is their confusionism, word for fucking word.

[astfgyl]

Yeah but I didn't know about that. Does their being wrong make it right for me to be forced to accept the new religion and the grand experiment? I don't see that it does