Setting up the Global Warming lies to come

[birdog1960]

The motivation is securing grant money to keep your job, prestige, and lab going. Prestige gets you speaking engagements which brings in more money. Sadly governments don't fund for good science that proves something doesn't work, they fund positive results. The ego of scientists get in the way when they form a hypothesis and need it proven to keep the grant $ coming. I don't trust anything Michael Mann does. The fact that he is willing to snipe Pat Sajak's twitter declaration says everything about him as a scientist. I haven't delved into every link of this source and it's not my expertise so I can't say how much of the assertions are true but read it, especially towards the bottom. I've done research in drug discovery and currently cardiology and I've seen scientists manipulate their data akin to what is asserted here about Mann:

 

http://a-sceptical-m...he-hockey-stick

 

totally true what they say about the peer review process also. The peer review doesn't delve into the raw data, it simply looks for holes and inconsistencies in what the paper is trying to assert. Labs fall into conflicting hypotheses and theories then people choose sides. If you happen to be on the opposite side of a reviewer you will get a bad review. If you're not on the right side of some cliques you won't get your work published in certain journals no matter how good it is. Don't get me wrong, there are many upstanding high-character scientists but there are also many who are willing to tweak data because they're convinced the answer they seek is in there but there's too much noise.

I hope you'll agree that your link (the source of which i can't see) is a one sided account. here's another account with a quite different flavor: http://en.wikipedia....ick_controversy. i'm certain to be chided for it being wiki but it's significantly more extensively referenced than the one you championed. numerous other accounts in print and media have relayed the history similarly. the fact that such extensive scrutiny has been cast on mann's original thesis argues against your point. this was one of the most peer reviewed papers in the history of science. and "nature" is kind of a big deal in the scientific community. it's not made up of a small clique of inbred climate scientists.

 

you don't honestly believe that the personal calculus for scientists like mann favors the few "perks" enjoyed by the tiny minority in the field over the public harrassment by a well organized and funded lynch mob inclusive of a congressman and a state attorney general and gubernatorial candidate, do you? do you think mann ever imagined or relished fighting in court against the attacks of "national review" or cuccinelli? winning both cases was likely small consolation.

Edited May 22, 2014 by birdog1960

[3rdnlng]

The motivation is securing grant money to keep your job, prestige, and lab going. Prestige gets you speaking engagements which brings in more money. Sadly governments don't fund for good science that proves something doesn't work, they fund positive results. The ego of scientists get in the way when they form a hypothesis and need it proven to keep the grant $ coming. I don't trust anything Michael Mann does. The fact that he is willing to snipe Pat Sajak's twitter declaration says everything about him as a scientist. I haven't delved into every link of this source and it's not my expertise so I can't say how much of the assertions are true but read it, especially towards the bottom. I've done research in drug discovery and currently cardiology and I've seen scientists manipulate their data akin to what is asserted here about Mann:

 

http://a-sceptical-m...he-hockey-stick

 

totally true what they say about the peer review process also. The peer review doesn't delve into the raw data, it simply looks for holes and inconsistencies in what the paper is trying to assert. Labs fall into conflicting hypotheses and theories then people choose sides. If you happen to be on the opposite side of a reviewer you will get a bad review. If you're not on the right side of some cliques you won't get your work published in certain journals no matter how good it is. Don't get me wrong, there are many upstanding high-character scientists but there are also many who are willing to tweak data because they're convinced the answer they seek is in there but there's too much noise.

 

Your link was a very good read. Thank you.

[birdog1960]

i think it's also worth noting that wegman has had a quite controversial career in his own right: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Wegman

[Tiberius]

The motivation is securing grant money to keep your job, prestige, and lab going. Prestige gets you speaking engagements which brings in more money. Sadly governments don't fund for good science that proves something doesn't work, they fund positive results. The ego of scientists get in the way when they form a hypothesis and need it proven to keep the grant $ coming. I don't trust anything Michael Mann does. The fact that he is willing to snipe Pat Sajak's twitter declaration says everything about him as a scientist. I haven't delved into every link of this source and it's not my expertise so I can't say how much of the assertions are true but read it, especially towards the bottom. I've done research in drug discovery and currently cardiology and I've seen scientists manipulate their data akin to what is asserted here about Mann:

 

http://a-sceptical-m...he-hockey-stick

 

totally true what they say about the peer review process also. The peer review doesn't delve into the raw data, it simply looks for holes and inconsistencies in what the paper is trying to assert. Labs fall into conflicting hypotheses and theories then people choose sides. If you happen to be on the opposite side of a reviewer you will get a bad review. If you're not on the right side of some cliques you won't get your work published in certain journals no matter how good it is. Don't get me wrong, there are many upstanding high-character scientists but there are also many who are willing to tweak data because they're convinced the answer they seek is in there but there's too much noise.

And what's the motivation for the global warming deniers? Even more money! Your theory of motivation also presupposes a conspiracy among the scientists to promote this thing, doesn't it?

[birdog1960]

the more i read about barton's congressional hearings (he's from texas isn't he - wonder if he has any dogs in this hunt?), the more i'm reminded of the mccarthy hearings. thugishness just seems an accepted characteristic to way too many on the right. mean spritedmness seems a prerequisite for office in far too many far right districts. fortunately, virginians had the good sense to not reward cuccinelli's ugly behavior.

Edited May 22, 2014 by birdog1960

[DC Tom]

the more i read about barton's congressional hearings (he's from texas isn't he - wonder if he has any dogs in this hunt?), the more i'm reminded of the mccarthy hearings. thugishness just seems an accepted characteristic to way too many on the right. mean spritedmness seems a prerequisite for office in far too many far right districts. fortunately, virginians had the good sense to not reward cuccinelli's ugly behavior.

 

 

Clean your own house first. Start with Pelosi and Reid.

[birdog1960]

 

Clean your own house first. Start with Pelosi and Reid.

different argument but worth having somewhere else. the point is that barton's hearing weren't primarily about finding the truth and using them to bash climate science is at best unconvincing.

[birdog1960]

anyone questioning barton's motives should read this: http://content.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1997963,00.html. embarrassing even to me but funny in a perverse way.

[keepthefaith]

And what's the motivation for the global warming deniers? Even more money! Your theory of motivation also presupposes a conspiracy among the scientists to promote this thing, doesn't it?

 

There has been a conspiracy or two. When it was reported a couple years ago that scientists fudged the data to better support their GW view, a conspiracy occurred. When media outlets that typically make supportive reports on man-made GW chose not to report that the science was bunk, another conspiracy occurred.

[OCinBuffalo]

No, true scientists are the same as everyone else. They have to eat and provide for themselves and their family, and when the money's short their way of dealing with it depends on their character which is no different from anyone else. Which is why attention-seeking scientists are hard to take seriously.

Heh..hehehehe. Um(what to say? I know....)

 

Welcome to PPP!

 

 

 

Uhhh, yes, I am aware. If you search this thread, you'll literally find me saying things like "scientists have grocery bills, and mortgages, just like everybody else". You'll also find something along the lines of "what scientist doesn't jump at the chance to ride in first class for the first time in their life?" as well. Which...is basically WTF we are talking about: obscure climate scientist rags....to Big Time, "The guy who gives us the vehicle we need", Democratic Party riches.

 

My last post was...sarcastic. Just a little bit. Hint: My last wasn't really targeted at you. Instead, I used your post to bust the mincy little balls of other posters here. Specifically, a phony, self-congratulating physician and an engineer, who struggles with basic engineering concepts. Both of whom are losing credibility on this subject by the word, to the point that I'm starting to doubt whether either are what they say they are.

 

Anyway, welcome again to PPP, rookie. This is the very last time I explain it to you.

[OCinBuffalo]

I hope you'll agree that your link (the source of which i can't see) is a one sided account. here's another account with a quite different flavor: http://en.wikipedia....ick_controversy. i'm certain to be chided for it being wiki but it's significantly more extensively referenced than the one you championed. numerous other accounts in print and media have relayed the history similarly. the fact that such extensive scrutiny has been cast on mann's original thesis argues against your point. this was one of the most peer reviewed papers in the history of science. and "nature" is kind of a big deal in the scientific community. it's not made up of a small clique of inbred climate scientists.

 

you don't honestly believe that the personal calculus for scientists like mann favors the few "perks" enjoyed by the tiny minority in the field over the public harrassment by a well organized and funded lynch mob inclusive of a congressman and a state attorney general and gubernatorial candidate, do you? do you think mann ever imagined or relished fighting in court against the attacks of "national review" or cuccinelli? winning both cases was likely small consolation.

(Gotta love it when they set the table for me.)

 

See, GaryPinC? Your own life, which you perceive to be real, tangible, etc., is merely a "one-sided account", according to birdog. You aren't capable of perceiving your own life properly, so birdog needs to do that for you.

 

Now do you get my sarcasm(which, is being rapidly transmuted into irony by birdog)? Now do you see why this birdog kid is a phony? You are "championing"....your own life, according to birdog, and therefore, you are living an exaggeration.

 

It's hilarious when birdog, etc. meet, and even surpass, my characterization. Now he doesn't even understand calculation, never mind calculus.

 

The Global Warming Scientists have been living high off the hog in grant money sure, but that pales in comparision to their:

SPEAKING FEES(Exhibit 1: http://mediatrackers...000-speaker-fee),

CONSULTING FEES(Exhibit 2: Basically ALGORE's entire organization was spreading propaganda and fund-rasing, then channeling $ to guys like Mann, provided they kept the "data" train running, which provided more material for the propaganda...which led to more fund-raising),

and what I would call MARKET RESEARCH/AWARENESS CAMPAIGN FEES(need I go on?), that the Democratic party has been arranging for them for the last 15 years.

 

Yeah, how terrible for them. They make all this $, nearly anonymously, and those that aren't anonymous, are in the protected class of "scientist seeking truth", so how dare you question them? Please. These guys have been talking schit on a global scale, and getting big pay days every time they leave the house. Hence the qoute from the East Anglia hacked emails, which references the fact that observations haven't tracked with their models = "These guys(the leftists, both in the USA and Europe) are going to kill us".

 

Never mind First Class, "these guys" have been flying Global Warming scientists around in their private Jets.

 

But? No more. Which is why, via IPCC, we've conveniently moved from trying to stop Global Warming, to trying to adapt to Global Warming.

 

After all, these scientists still have mortgages and grocery bills, and who better to now lead the "adaptation research"...that we have to do...or else?

Edited May 23, 2014 by OCinBuffalo

[GaryPinC]

I hope you'll agree that your link (the source of which i can't see) is a one sided account. here's another account with a quite different flavor: http://en.wikipedia....ick_controversy. i'm certain to be chided for it being wiki but it's significantly more extensively referenced than the one you championed. numerous other accounts in print and media have relayed the history similarly. the fact that such extensive scrutiny has been cast on mann's original thesis argues against your point. this was one of the most peer reviewed papers in the history of science. and "nature" is kind of a big deal in the scientific community. it's not made up of a small clique of inbred climate scientists.

 

you don't honestly believe that the personal calculus for scientists like mann favors the few "perks" enjoyed by the tiny minority in the field over the public harrassment by a well organized and funded lynch mob inclusive of a congressman and a state attorney general and gubernatorial candidate, do you? do you think mann ever imagined or relished fighting in court against the attacks of "national review" or cuccinelli? winning both cases was likely small consolation.

 

I do agree with you, you do realize the wiki link, while discussing the much greater picture in this debate, has it's own slant? WRT the perks in the field, it's not a tiny minority. I'm sorry, you really don't understand the world of academic research. There's not a lot of money in science and any funded PI being able to go out and give talks (beyond presenting at scientific meetings) is an important component to getting their name out there, collaborative efforts, and extra income. WRT Mann, I don't think he anticipated as much criticism as he deservedly got, so it's irrelevant to his actions. But I do think he enjoys the attention.

 

But you do realize his "wins" mean there is still a temperature rise, though not as great as he originally published, the guy replaced tree ring temperature data with satellite temperature data conveniently at the exact point where the tree ring data diverged (stayed static or showed cooling) from the satellite data and never mentioned it in his publication? This is shady science at it's best. There were assumptions and parameters that either sides in this debate can manipulate to their convenience. Who's right? Well, why discuss because everything's "settled"? That polarizes mentalities and only inflames things. When I have time I'll dig more into the wiki links.

 

Heh..hehehehe. Um(what to say? I know....)

 

Welcome to PPP!

 

 

 

Uhhh, yes, I am aware. If you search this thread, you'll literally find me saying things like "scientists have grocery bills, and mortgages, just like everybody else". You'll also find something along the lines of "what scientist doesn't jump at the chance to ride in first class for the first time in their life?" as well. Which...is basically WTF we are talking about: obscure climate scientist rags....to Big Time, "The guy who gives us the vehicle we need", Democratic Party riches.

 

My last post was...sarcastic. Just a little bit. Hint: My last wasn't really targeted at you. Instead, I used your post to bust the mincy little balls of other posters here. Specifically, a phony, self-congratulating physician and an engineer, who struggles with basic engineering concepts. Both of whom are losing credibility on this subject by the word, to the point that I'm starting to doubt whether either are what they say they are.

 

Anyway, welcome again to PPP, rookie. This is the very last time I explain it to you.

 

No worries, sarcasm is difficult to pick up over the internet but you're probably the best at it I've seen. I read this thread because there can be some great references here but I really don't have the time or desire to engage in pissing matches.

Edited May 23, 2014 by GaryPinC

[birdog1960]

(Gotta love it when they set the table for me.)

 

See, GaryPinC? Your own life, which you perceive to be real, tangible, etc., is merely a "one-sided account", according to birdog. You aren't capable of perceiving your own life properly, so birdog needs to do that for you.

 

Now do you get my sarcasm(which, is being rapidly transmuted into irony by birdog)? Now do you see why this birdog kid is a phony? You are "championing"....your own life, according to birdog, and therefore, you are living an exaggeration.

 

It's hilarious when birdog, etc. meet, and even surpass, my characterization. Now he doesn't even understand calculation, never mind calculus.

 

The Global Warming Scientists have been living high off the hog in grant money sure, but that pales in comparision to their:

SPEAKING FEES(Exhibit 1: http://mediatrackers...000-speaker-fee),

CONSULTING FEES(Exhibit 2: Basically ALGORE's entire organization was spreading propaganda and fund-rasing, then channeling $ to guys like Mann, provided they kept the "data" train running, which provided more material for the propaganda...which led to more fund-raising),

and what I would call MARKET RESEARCH/AWARENESS CAMPAIGN FEES(need I go on?), that the Democratic party has been arranging for them for the last 15 years.

 

Yeah, how terrible for them. They make all this $, nearly anonymously, and those that aren't anonymous, are in the protected class of "scientist seeking truth", so how dare you question them? Please. These guys have been talking schit on a global scale, and getting big pay days every time they leave the house. Hence the qoute from the East Anglia hacked emails, which references the fact that observations haven't tracked with their models = "These guys(the leftists, both in the USA and Europe) are going to kill us".

 

Never mind First Class, "these guys" have been flying Global Warming scientists around in their private Jets.

 

But? No more. Which is why, via IPCC, we've conveniently moved from trying to stop Global Warming, to trying to adapt to Global Warming.

 

After all, these scientists still have mortgages and grocery bills, and who better to now lead the "adaptation research"...that we have to do...or else?

all those words and not a single one of meaningful rebuttal. you link shows that one of the world leaders in the field stands to make "hundreds of thousands of dollars". probably enough to cover legal expenses defending himself from his attackers. and what of his colleagues? how much do they get for speaking? most get nothing. how do his speaker fees compare to those at the pinnacle of other professions? you know, like bankers and athletes and lobbyists and retired politician and hedge fund guru's... this is where science is different. people rarely go into it for the money cuz it isn't there for most. when you think of einstein or watson or crick, do you think of wealthy men?

[TH3]

Heh..hehehehe. Um(what to say? I know....)

 

Welcome to PPP!

 

 

 

Uhhh, yes, I am aware. If you search this thread, you'll literally find me saying things like "scientists have grocery bills, and mortgages, just like everybody else". You'll also find something along the lines of "what scientist doesn't jump at the chance to ride in first class for the first time in their life?" as well. Which...is basically WTF we are talking about: obscure climate scientist rags....to Big Time, "The guy who gives us the vehicle we need", Democratic Party riches.

 

My last post was...sarcastic. Just a little bit. Hint: My last wasn't really targeted at you. Instead, I used your post to bust the mincy little balls of other posters here. Specifically, a phony, self-congratulating physician and an engineer, who struggles with basic engineering concepts. Both of whom are losing credibility on this subject by the word, to the point that I'm starting to doubt whether either are what they say they are.

 

Anyway, welcome again to PPP, rookie. This is the very last time I explain it to you.

 

Dude - the ONLY place you have credibility with your fellow tin foil hat circle jerkers is here - you have become incredibly well versed in propping each other up in your little world of cognitive dissonance.

 

I would feel frightened if I had credibility with people who don't follow science but rather conspiracies, can't admit Cliven Bundy was a complete whiff of a subject, latch on the Benghazi with great temerity because Obama - while giving the complete conspiracy of waging two wars on fabricated evidence a free pass.....

 

"Clean up your own house" - what a hypocritical joke you guys are.....

 

Works for you!

Edited May 23, 2014 by baskin

[birdog1960]

I do agree with you, you do realize the wiki link, while discussing the much greater picture in this debate, has it's own slant? WRT the perks in the field, it's not a tiny minority. I'm sorry, you really don't understand the world of academic research. There's not a lot of money in science and any funded PI being able to go out and give talks (beyond presenting at scientific meetings) is an important component to getting their name out there, collaborative efforts, and extra income. WRT Mann, I don't think he anticipated as much criticism as he deservedly got, so it's irrelevant to his actions. But I do think he enjoys the attention.

 

But you do realize his "wins" mean there is still a temperature rise, though not as great as he originally published, the guy replaced tree ring temperature data with satellite temperature data conveniently at the exact point where the tree ring data diverged (stayed static or showed cooling) from the satellite data and never mentioned it in his publication? This is shady science at it's best. There were assumptions and parameters that either sides in this debate can manipulate to their convenience. Who's right? Well, why discuss because everything's "settled"? That polarizes mentalities and only inflames things. When I have time I'll dig more into the wiki links.

 

 

 

sounds like your work brings you in contact with many scientists. so how many do you know that remind you of the guy from the cadillac ad with the beautiful contemporary house, designer kitchen and hugo boss suit? those are the guys that are rabidly attacking mann, "n'est pas"? the membership rolls of the most exclusive clubs aren't heavily populated with academics.

 

http://www.marketmenot.com/cadillac-why-do-we-work-so-hard-commercial/

Edited May 23, 2014 by birdog1960

[birdog1960]

Dude - the ONLY place you have credibility with your fellow tin foil hat circle jerkers is here - you have become incredibly well versed in propping each other up in your little world of cognitive dissonance.

 

I would feel frightened if I had credibility with people who don't follow science but rather conspiracies, can't admit Cliven Bundy was a complete whiff of a subject, latch on the Benghazi with great temerity because Obama - while giving the complete conspiracy of waging two wars on fabricated evidence a free pass.....

 

"Clean up your own house" - what a hypocritical joke you guys are.....

 

Works for you!

it's true. it's like a cartoon show of right wing extremist views. i often wonder if it is just an affectation but i really don't think so.

[keepthefaith]

it's true. it's like a cartoon show of right wing extremist views. i often wonder if it is just an affectation but i really don't think so.

 

What are right wing extremest views? Name a few.

[TakeYouToTasker]

What are right wing extremest views? Name a few.

Anything at all that's the narrowest shade to the right of strict Leninism.

[birdog1960]

What are right wing extremest views? Name a few.

baskin just did. do you need more?

[keepthefaith]

baskin just did. do you need more?

 

How about a top 10 list? Educate us.