Scientists are " politically motivated "

Anything that does not fit elsewhere can be discussed here.

Moderators: DJKeefy, 4u Network

Post Reply
newcastle
Egyptian God
Egyptian God
Posts: 8695
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 11:49 am
Has thanked: 1548 times
Been thanked: 5127 times
Contact:
Egypt

Scientists are " politically motivated "

Post by newcastle »

President Donald Trump appeared to push back on Sunday night against the notion that climate change is man-made, suggesting that climate scientists have “political agendas.” Appearing on CBS’ 60 Minutes, the president acknowledged that the climate is changing, but said “it’ll change back.” He has previously said the phenomenon is a hoax, but said he no longer believes that. “But I don't know that it's manmade,” Trump added. “I will say this. I don't want to give trillions and trillions of dollars. I don't want to lose millions and millions of jobs.” Trump was asked specifically about the destruction from recent hurricanes in the southern part of the country. “I'm not denying climate change,” Trump said. “But it could very well go back.”

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-sug ... cal-agenda

The notion that Trump thinks scientists ( the vast majority [95%+] of whom think climate change is real and caused by human activity) have a "political agenda" is possibly his most worrying utterance to date......and that's against tough opposition.

Of course the scientists' recommendations for countering it could have an enormous impact on costs and jobs. Their considered conclusion and advice is that the cost of ignoring it would be immeasurably greater.

But Trump operates in the here and now.....and the remainder of his presidential term. He doesn't seem too bothered about the long term fate of the planet.


User avatar
Zooropa
Royal V.I.P
Royal V.I.P
Posts: 2509
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 6:11 pm
Location: Leicester
Has thanked: 775 times
Been thanked: 976 times
Gender:
Contact:
United Kingdom

Re: Scientists are " politically motivated "

Post by Zooropa »

"95%+ of scientists"

Have 100% of the worlds scientists gone on the record?

And as new data is coming in all the time potentially altering opinions has it taken place in the last 6/12 months?

I am skeptical of any report/poll that claims to have canvassed 100% of the world's anything as numerous and widespread as science/scientists.

I would imagine that somebody, somewhere on a daily bases becomes qualified to have their opinion canvassed so the exercise would be like the painting of the firth of forth bridge - could you ever claim with any real certainty that you have captured everybody?

Such an undertaking would take a lot of time & effort not to mention a huge outlay of money, but still, there is plenty of it sloshing around for this kind of research i guess.

Citations please.

There are skeptics who's credentials are, setting aside the climate debate which has inevitably tarnished them, worthy of having a place in the debate.

The better brother in the Corbyn family to name just one.

Why is it that it seems the majority of average people are unaware that the scientists warnings are based on predictions based on projections?

If there are no political/financial agendas, even to a small degree then why are skeptics "gone after" with such zeal in a way that flat earther's and UFO believers never are?

In too many areas globing warming has morphed from a scientific pursuit into a religious one using religious tactics to silence/discredit skeptics.

What i find troubling is the fact that if you merely seek to ask questions you are immediately transported back to the 16/17th century.

The priests have changed to scientists/devout believers, the book they are holding is no longer the bible but a "research report", the accusation though, remains the same,

blasphemer!

Getting back to "agendas" what was the motivation behind the University Of East Anglia's plot to deliberately mislead and falsify data to make the situation appear worse than it was if it was not political/financial?

And why was it swept under the carpet so easily with the guilty ones not so much as being sacked as a result?

If they are the holders of the truth then why were they lying?

In a court of law, if you are caught lying then how much weight and confidence is given to any previous/future testimony?


"Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.

Regarding scientific transparency, a defining characteristic of science is the open sharing of scientific data, theories and procedures so that independent parties, and especially skeptics of a particular theory or hypothesis, can replicate and validate asserted experiments or observations. Emails between Climategate scientists, however, show a concerted effort to hide rather than disseminate underlying evidence and procedures.


“I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process,”writes Phil Jones, a scientist working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in a newly released email.

“Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden,” Jones writes in another newly released email. “I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”

The original Climategate emails contained similar evidence of destroying information and data that the public would naturally assume would be available according to freedom of information principles. “Mike, can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4 [UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 4th Assessment]?” Jones wrote to Penn State University scientist Michael Mann in an email released in Climategate 1.0. “Keith will do likewise. ... We will be getting Caspar [Ammann] to do likewise. I see that CA [the Climate Audit Web site] claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!”

The new emails also reveal the scientists’ attempts to politicize the debate and advance predetermined outcomes.

“The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out” of IPCC reports, writes Jonathan Overpeck, coordinating lead author for the IPCC’s most recent climate assessment.

“I gave up on [Georgia Institute of Technology climate professor] Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she thinks she’s doing, but its not helping the cause,” wrote Mann in another newly released email.

“I have been talking w/ folks in the states about finding an investigative journalist to investigate and expose” skeptical scientist Steve McIntyre, Mann writes in another newly released email.

These new emails add weight to Climategate 1.0 emails revealing efforts to politicize the scientific debate. For example, Tom Wigley, a scientist at the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, authored a Climategate 1.0 email asserting that his fellow Climategate scientists “must get rid of” the editor for a peer-reviewed science journal because he published some papers contradicting assertions of a global warming crisis.

More than revealing misconduct and improper motives, the newly released emails additionally reveal frank admissions of the scientific shortcomings of global warming assertions.

“Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary,” writes Peter Thorne of the UK Met Office.

“I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run,” Thorne adds.

“Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive ... there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC,” Wigley acknowledges.

More damaging emails will likely be uncovered during the next few days as observers pour through the 5,000 emails. What is already clear, however, is the need for more objective research and ethical conduct by the scientists at the heart of the IPCC and the global warming discussion".


Source: James M Taylor - Forbes Magazine

James M. Taylor is senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute and managing editor of Environment & Climate News.
newcastle
Egyptian God
Egyptian God
Posts: 8695
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 11:49 am
Has thanked: 1548 times
Been thanked: 5127 times
Contact:
Egypt

Re: Scientists are " politically motivated "

Post by newcastle »

Aaah...James M Taylor, that well known climate denier and Trump sycophant. Best known for misrepresentations of peer reviewed scientific papers. A total charlatan working for.....

The Heartland Institute, according to the Institute's web site, is a nonprofit "think tank" that questions the reality and import of climate change, second-hand smoke health hazards, and a host of other issues that might seem to require government regulation. Heartland Institute is an "associate member" of the State Policy Network, a web of right-wing “think tanks” and tax-exempt organizations in 49 states, Puerto Rico, Washington, D.C., Canada, and the United Kingdom.

A July 2011 Nature editorial points out the group's lack of credibility:

"Despite criticizing climate scientists for being overconfident about their data, models and theories, the Heartland Institute proclaims a conspicuous confidence in single studies and grand interpretations....makes many bold assertions that are often questionable or misleading.... Many climate sceptics seem to review scientific data and studies not as scientists but as attorneys, magnifying doubts and treating incomplete explanations as falsehoods rather than signs of progress towards the truth. ... The Heartland Institute and its ilk are not trying to build a theory of anything. They have set the bar much lower, and are happy muddying the waters.

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/H ... _Institute
User avatar
Zooropa
Royal V.I.P
Royal V.I.P
Posts: 2509
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 6:11 pm
Location: Leicester
Has thanked: 775 times
Been thanked: 976 times
Gender:
Contact:
United Kingdom

Re: Scientists are " politically motivated "

Post by Zooropa »

And that's all you have got in reply?

"Discredit critics"

Point proven.

Just love that: "overconfident" he wasn't lying and being dishonest m'lord, he was being overconfident.

The only reasonable "overconfidence" here seems to be in their belief/hope that these damning emails would not emerge.

Does not alter the content of the uncovered emails or even begin to address the other points made.

Not to mention that the original post is yet another clear case of TDS, 95%+ of me is confident about that.
newcastle
Egyptian God
Egyptian God
Posts: 8695
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 11:49 am
Has thanked: 1548 times
Been thanked: 5127 times
Contact:
Egypt

Re: Scientists are " politically motivated "

Post by newcastle »

Zooropa wrote:And that's all you have got in reply?

"Discredit critics"

Point proven.

Just love that: "overconfident" he wasn't lying and being dishonest m'lord, he was being overconfident.

The only reasonable "overconfidence" here seems to be in their belief/hope that these damning emails would not emerge.

Does not alter the content of the uncovered emails or even begin to address the other points made.

Not to mention that the original post is yet another clear case of TDS, 95%+ of me is confident about that.
I see no point whatsoever in debating science with someone whose knowledge of science is limited to being an alumni of Spencefield Secondary School.

Find someone else to pester.
Last edited by newcastle on Wed Oct 17, 2018 3:06 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Zooropa
Royal V.I.P
Royal V.I.P
Posts: 2509
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 6:11 pm
Location: Leicester
Has thanked: 775 times
Been thanked: 976 times
Gender:
Contact:
United Kingdom

Re: Scientists are " politically motivated "

Post by Zooropa »

So good it demands duplication - i agree!
User avatar
Zooropa
Royal V.I.P
Royal V.I.P
Posts: 2509
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 6:11 pm
Location: Leicester
Has thanked: 775 times
Been thanked: 976 times
Gender:
Contact:
United Kingdom

Re: Scientists are " politically motivated "

Post by Zooropa »

newcastle wrote:
Zooropa wrote:And that's all you have got in reply?

"Discredit critics"

Point proven.

Just love that: "overconfident" he wasn't lying and being dishonest m'lord, he was being overconfident.

The only reasonable "overconfidence" here seems to be in their belief/hope that these damning emails would not emerge.

Does not alter the content of the uncovered emails or even begin to address the other points made.

Not to mention that the original post is yet another clear case of TDS, 95%+ of me is confident about that.
I see no point whatsoever in debating science with someone whose knowledge of science is limited to being an alumni of Spencefield Secondary School.

Find someone else to pester.
Especially when they ask questions that you can't answer.

Grow up you pompous identity politicking bigot.
User avatar
Dusak
Egyptian Pharaoh
Egyptian Pharaoh
Posts: 6190
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 2:29 pm
Location: LUXOR
Has thanked: 3241 times
Been thanked: 3812 times
Gender:
Thailand

Re: Scientists are " politically motivated "

Post by Dusak »

Well, all I can say to this is that I don't understand much about science in general, but what I do believe is, if there was zero pollution, the worlds, and peoples health, would be near perfect. But we would be back to living in roundhouses. To my mind the greatest pollutant on the face of the planet is greed, and that is something that can never be controlled or removed.
Life is your's to do with as you wish- do not let other's try to control it for you. Count Dusak- 1345.
FarleyFlavors
Member
Member
Posts: 228
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 8:33 am
Has thanked: 201 times
Been thanked: 115 times

Re: Scientists are " politically motivated "

Post by FarleyFlavors »

Go on then, I'll bite.
Zooropa wrote:I would imagine that somebody, somewhere on a daily bases becomes qualified to have their opinion canvassed so the exercise would be like the painting of the firth of forth bridge - could you ever claim with any real certainty that you have captured everybody?
You don't need to "capture everybody". The vast majority of climate scientists, using a variety of measurements, have concluded that there is a growing human contribution to global warming. It's pretty much irrelevant that a few deniers disagree. That's how "scientific consensus" works. It doesn't have to be unanimous.
Zooropa wrote:Getting back to "agendas" what was the motivation behind the University Of East Anglia's plot to deliberately mislead and falsify data to make the situation appear worse than it was if it was not political/financial?

And why was it swept under the carpet so easily with the guilty ones not so much as being sacked as a result?

If they are the holders of the truth then why were they lying?

In a court of law, if you are caught lying then how much weight and confidence is given to any previous/future testimony?
You should maybe have done a little research before dragging up Climategate - relying on a nine-year old and thoroughly debunked controversy does smack a little of desperation. Quotes from the leaked emails were cherry-picked and taken completely out of context. There was no lying involved.

There were three UK investigations and two in the US into the content of the emails, all of which absolved the scientists involved of malpractice. The largest scale investigation took six months:

"Sir Muir Russell, the senior civil servant who led a six-month inquiry into the affair, said the "rigour and honesty" of the scientists at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) were not in doubt. His investigation concluded they did not subvert the peer review process to censor criticism and that key data was freely available and could be used by any "competent" researcher."

"He hoped the review would 'finally lay to rest conspiracy theories, untruths and misunderstandings' that had been circulating, and that the 'wilder assertions' about the climate science community would now stop."

Shame that didn't happen, eh?

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... te-science

The worst criticism of the scientists was that they could have been more open with respect to requests for information.

As for being "politically motivated", it's the sceptics who are guilty on that front. The first tranch of hacked emails was released a few weeks before a major UN climate change summit; the second was released a few days before a meeting to discuss a replacement for the Kyoto protocol.
User avatar
Zooropa
Royal V.I.P
Royal V.I.P
Posts: 2509
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 6:11 pm
Location: Leicester
Has thanked: 775 times
Been thanked: 976 times
Gender:
Contact:
United Kingdom

Re: Scientists are " politically motivated "

Post by Zooropa »

FarleyFlavors wrote:Go on then, I'll bite.
Zooropa wrote:I would imagine that somebody, somewhere on a daily bases becomes qualified to have their opinion canvassed so the exercise would be like the painting of the firth of forth bridge - could you ever claim with any real certainty that you have captured everybody?
You don't need to "capture everybody". The vast majority of climate scientists, using a variety of measurements, have concluded that there is a growing human contribution to global warming. It's pretty much irrelevant that a few deniers disagree. That's how "scientific consensus" works. It doesn't have to be unanimous.

You do if you are going to stupidly claim 95%+ as that was the claim made not the "vast majority" as you have unlike rent a family did.

"It's pretty much irrelevant that a few deniers disagree. That's how "scientific consensus" works. It doesn't have to be unanimous."

Of course thats the way consensus works that does not make it immune to challenge or indefinatly correct as proved by the few who eventually proved that ulcers were caused by bacteria rather than "stress" as the consensus claimed. Its not the only time the "consensus" were wrong. And they are not deniers they are people that disagree. See what i mean about it being almost a religion.

Zooropa wrote:Getting back to "agendas" what was the motivation behind the University Of East Anglia's plot to deliberately mislead and falsify data to make the situation appear worse than it was if it was not political/financial?

And why was it swept under the carpet so easily with the guilty ones not so much as being sacked as a result?

If they are the holders of the truth then why were they lying?

In a court of law, if you are caught lying then how much weight and confidence is given to any previous/future testimony?
You should maybe have done a little research before dragging up Climategate - relying on a nine-year old and thoroughly debunked controversy does smack a little of desperation. Quotes from the leaked emails were cherry-picked and taken completely out of context. There was no lying involved.

There were three UK investigations and two in the US into the content of the emails, all of which absolved the scientists involved of malpractice. The largest scale investigation took six months:

"Sir Muir Russell, the senior civil servant who led a six-month inquiry into the affair, said the "rigour and honesty" of the scientists at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) were not in doubt. His investigation concluded they did not subvert the peer review process to censor criticism and that key data was freely available and could be used by any "competent" researcher."

"He hoped the review would 'finally lay to rest conspiracy theories, untruths and misunderstandings' that had been circulating, and that the 'wilder assertions' about the climate science community would now stop."

Shame that didn't happen, eh?

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... te-science

The worst criticism of the scientists was that they could have been more open with respect to requests for information.

As for being "politically motivated", it's the sceptics who are guilty on that front. The first tranch of hacked emails was released a few weeks before a major UN climate change summit; the second was released a few days before a meeting to discuss a replacement for the Kyoto protocol.
I'm well aware of both "cliamategate" and of its subsequent rebuttals. In my opinion they did not adequately explain it away - and why be restrictive on FOI when they are trying to win hearts and minds and hold the complete truth? "UK investigations, mmm, yes very good, remind me again how many "official" UK investigations were there into the Hillsborough disaster before the truth emerged? Our governments have repeatedly been dishonest, oops i mean "over confident" to us on a great many issues so the "investigation" into Climategate deserves skepticism in my opinion.

Still, i thank you for contributing and replying to my comments with respectful observations of your own rather than creepily looking me up on Facebook and throwing a 4 year snapshot of my educational history in my face rather than debate the points made. You have my respect and thanks for that.
newcastle
Egyptian God
Egyptian God
Posts: 8695
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 11:49 am
Has thanked: 1548 times
Been thanked: 5127 times
Contact:
Egypt

Re: Scientists are " politically motivated "

Post by newcastle »

Only a supreme nit-picker would argue over 95%+.....and subsequently lie in stating that this was not given as an adjunct to "vast majority".

It appears Zooropa is not only careless with research, but unable to read plain English.....carried away, no doubt, by his desire to make an argument more about the author of the post rather than its contents.

There are numerous reports discussing the claim, and the methodology supporting it. You can find them via google. And Zooropa probably will now....and find sources that dispute 95%, suggesting 80-90% is better. I've seen 97% quoted - famously by Obama.

Oops ....there's another target fof a spot of diversionary argument :lol:

Zooropa, along with anyone else, is free to disagree with scientific opinion. It is not reasonable to give much credit to such views if they are from someone with no scientific background or training.
FarleyFlavors
Member
Member
Posts: 228
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 8:33 am
Has thanked: 201 times
Been thanked: 115 times

Re: Scientists are " politically motivated "

Post by FarleyFlavors »

Zooropa wrote: I'm well aware of both "cliamategate" and of its subsequent rebuttals. In my opinion they did not adequately explain it away
Since you haven't read the emails yourself and you're going to disbelieve the results of five independent investigations (not to mention the conclusions reached by several investigative journalists), you've entered the realm of the nutter conspiracy theorist.
Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post
  • Egyptian scientists develop insect-repellent clothing
    by DJKeefy » » in Know Egypt
    5 Replies
    373 Views
    Last post by Hafiz