The War On Science

[sonofdaxjones]

Let's take climate change.   When you have publically funded entities with scientists who are helping to shape national policy, and there is a mindset of:  If the data doesn't match the agenda, then keep adjusting the data until it does.   

Then that absolutely needs to be questioned, and investigated.   The issue is, anyone who seeks to find out what is actually going on in this important arena is immediately labeled as "anti-science" or a "denier".    I can't think of anything more "anti-science" than that.

[steve dave]

dax, what if I told you that there are a lot of scientists with a lot of different funding sources in a lot of different countries studying climate change? 

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

"The War on Science"

 

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

The more interesting war is the "War on Actual Observed Data"

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

The more interesting war is the "War on Actual Observed Data"

I don't understand what you mean. Scientists would never go back and fiddle with recorded temperture data to create the appearance of subsequent warming. Never.

[renocat]

God someday will roast these heathen scientists.  How can you use just 140 years of weather data to make wildass predictions.  If everyone in the US faced west and farted at the same time we could blow China off the face of the earth with a brown toxic wind, at least scientifically possible

[0.42]

God someday will roast these heathen scientists.  How can you use just 140 years of weather data to make wildass predictions.  If everyone in the US faced west and farted at the same time we could blow China off the face of the earth with a brown toxic wind, at least scientifically possible

Chingon really does a great job at sock mad libs

[brandochav]

Hmmm, never pegged old libtard dave as an earther. I wish I could say I was surprised. Sad.....really

Earther? Holy eff, what a tuck eff of a term. 

[0.42]

I like the earth

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

The more interesting war is the "War on Actual Observed Data"

I don't understand what you mean. Scientists would never go back and fiddle with recorded temperture data to create the appearance of subsequent warming. Never.

Scientists and climate experts skeptical of man-made global warming have become increasingly critical of temperature adjustments made by government climate agencies like NASA and NOAA. Skeptics charge that agencies like NOAA have been tampering with past temperatures to make the warming trend look much more severe than is shown in the raw data.

“It is important to recognize that the central issue of human-caused climate change is not a question of whether it is warming or not, but rather a question of how much,” they wrote. “And to this relevant question, the answer has been, and remains, that the warming is taking place at a much slower rate than is being projected.”

Georgia Tech climate scientist Judith Curry also chimed in, arguing that NOAA excluded extremely accurate sea buoy data in order to erase the hiatus in warming. Curry wrote that it “seems rather ironic, since this is the period where there is the greatest coverage of data with the highest quality of measurements — ARGO buoys and satellites don’t show a warming trend.”

“Nevertheless, the NOAA team finds a substantial increase in the ocean surface temperature anomaly trend since 1998,” she wrote. “This short paper in Science is not adequate to explain and explore the very large changes that have been made to the NOAA data set. The global surface temperature datasets are clearly a moving target. So while I’m sure this latest analysis from NOAA will be regarded as politically useful for the Obama administration, I don’t regard it as a particularly useful contribution to our scientific understanding of what is going on.”

[sonofdaxjones]

dax, what if I told you that there are a lot of scientists with a lot of different funding sources in a lot of different countries studying climate change? 

Okay, that doesn't really mean anything, but okay.

[renocat]

Like daddy Dugger - no sock, just the real screwed up, demented and warped frustrated far too shy to run for Presiden guy. The oder from Yoder. Long live different.

[Asteriskhead]

Like daddy Dugger - no sock, just the real screwed up, demented and warped frustrated far too shy to run for Presiden guy. The oder from Yoder. Long live different.

what the eff did you just try to convey?

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

The left has politicized the issue into oblivian. Instead of taking a realistic and rationale approach, they tried to obliterate fossil fuels (and the American economy) by telling everyone we are about to drown in the ocean. They are rough ridin' psychopaths

[star seed 7]

 

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

The "war" on Science

 

[star seed 7]

 

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

:chicken clucking:

[Asteriskhead]

:gobdance:

[Jabeez]

The problem is,  there is great research on warming,  there is also bias in research.  Majority of scientists have their conclusions before doing research, and often times try to make their data fit their conclusion.  This is a problem in almost all research.  However, peer review is made just to stop this issue. 
Check out Sci Fri podcast from a few weeks ago, they do a great job of explaining this. 

Basically, deniers are still idiots. They have a legitimate point about bias in observations,  but their bias makes them believe all observed science is wrong, all while disregarding peer review.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

The problem is,  there is great research on warming,  there is also bias in research.  Majority of scientists have their conclusions before doing research, and often times try to make their data fit their conclusion.  This is a problem in almost all research.  However, peer review is made just to stop this issue. 
Check out Sci Fri podcast from a few weeks ago, they do a great job of explaining this. 

Basically, deniers are still idiots. They have a legitimate point about bias in observations,  but their bias makes them believe all observed science is wrong, all while disregarding peer review.

Wrong, the problem isn't the scientific observations, it's the contortion of those observations into a national crisis aimed at destroying the fossil fuel bogeyman to prop up uneconomic and unsustainable "sustainable" "green" energy. 

The idiots are the people that think we can control the weather.

[Asteriskhead]

:lindsaydance:

[steve dave]

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

War on the collection of scientific data