"NOAAgate: how ‘ocean acidification’ could turn out to be the biggest con since Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick"

[rushmc 18]

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/12/23/noaagate-how-ocean-acidification-could-turn-out-to-be-the-biggest-con-since-michael-manns-hockey-stick/


More fraud it seems

Quote

A 2004 paper by two of PMEL’s senior oceanographers – Dr Richard Feely and Dr Christopher Sabine – is often cited in support of “ocean acidification” theory and is reproduced, in simplified form, at NOAA’s website. It also formed part of testimony that Feely gave to Congress in 2010, again to the effect that increasing atmospheric CO2 is causing a reduction in seawater pH.

It warns:

“The impacts of ocean acidification on shelled organisms and other animals could negatively affect marine food webs, and, when combined with other climatic changes, could substantially alter the number, variety, and health of ocean wildlife. As humans continue to send more and more carbon dioxide into the oceans, the impacts on marine ecosystems will be direct and profound.”

and:

“The message is clear: excessive carbon dioxide poses a threat to the health of our oceans.”

However, it now seems that the paper’s certainty is at best misplaced, at worst outright dishonest. Not unlike Michael Mann’s discredited Hockey Stick graph it appears to depend on cherry-picked data and misleading projections in defiance of real-world evidence.

The alleged fraud was uncovered by Mike Wallace, a hydrologist with nearly 30 years’ experience now working towards his PhD at the University of New Mexico. While studying a chart produced by Feely and Sabine, apparently showing a strong correlation between rising atmospheric CO2 levels and falling oceanic pH levels, Wallace noticed that some key information had been omitted.

Mysteriously, the chart only began in 1988. But Wallace knew for a fact that there were oceanic pH measurements dating back to at least 100 years earlier and was puzzled that this solid data had been ignored, in favour of computer modelled projections.



When Wallace emailed his query to Feely and Sabine, however, he found them less than helpful.

Sabine replied that it was inappropriate for Wallace to impugn the “motives or quality of our science” and warned that if he continued in this manner “you will not last long in your career.” Having provided Wallace with a few links – all of which turned out to be useless – he concluded his email by saying “I hope you will refrain from contacting me again.”

This response, again, calls to mind the behaviour of Michael Mann in response to queries from Steve McIntyre about where to find the raw data for his Hockey Stick. Mann was similarly obfuscatory, rude and dismissive.

Undeterred, Wallace eventually got hold of the instrumental records which Feely and Sabine had chosen to exclude from their graph of doom and plotted a time series chart of his own, covering the period from 1910 to the present.

His results were surprising. What they suggest is that global acidification is a figment of Feely’s and Sabine’s imagination: there has been NO reduction in oceanic pH levels in the last century.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,621]

rushmc

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/12/23/noaagate-how-ocean-acidification-could-turn-out-to-be-the-biggest-con-since-michael-manns-hockey-stick/


More fraud it seems

Quote

A 2004 paper by two of PMEL’s senior oceanographers – Dr Richard Feely and Dr Christopher Sabine – is often cited in support of “ocean acidification” theory and is reproduced, in simplified form, at NOAA’s website. It also formed part of testimony that Feely gave to Congress in 2010, again to the effect that increasing atmospheric CO2 is causing a reduction in seawater pH.

It warns:

“The impacts of ocean acidification on shelled organisms and other animals could negatively affect marine food webs, and, when combined with other climatic changes, could substantially alter the number, variety, and health of ocean wildlife. As humans continue to send more and more carbon dioxide into the oceans, the impacts on marine ecosystems will be direct and profound.”

and:

“The message is clear: excessive carbon dioxide poses a threat to the health of our oceans.”

However, it now seems that the paper’s certainty is at best misplaced, at worst outright dishonest. Not unlike Michael Mann’s discredited Hockey Stick graph it appears to depend on cherry-picked data and misleading projections in defiance of real-world evidence.

The alleged fraud was uncovered by Mike Wallace, a hydrologist with nearly 30 years’ experience now working towards his PhD at the University of New Mexico. While studying a chart produced by Feely and Sabine, apparently showing a strong correlation between rising atmospheric CO2 levels and falling oceanic pH levels, Wallace noticed that some key information had been omitted.

Mysteriously, the chart only began in 1988. But Wallace knew for a fact that there were oceanic pH measurements dating back to at least 100 years earlier and was puzzled that this solid data had been ignored, in favour of computer modelled projections.



When Wallace emailed his query to Feely and Sabine, however, he found them less than helpful.

Sabine replied that it was inappropriate for Wallace to impugn the “motives or quality of our science” and warned that if he continued in this manner “you will not last long in your career.” Having provided Wallace with a few links – all of which turned out to be useless – he concluded his email by saying “I hope you will refrain from contacting me again.”

This response, again, calls to mind the behaviour of Michael Mann in response to queries from Steve McIntyre about where to find the raw data for his Hockey Stick. Mann was similarly obfuscatory, rude and dismissive.

Undeterred, Wallace eventually got hold of the instrumental records which Feely and Sabine had chosen to exclude from their graph of doom and plotted a time series chart of his own, covering the period from 1910 to the present.

His results were surprising. What they suggest is that global acidification is a figment of Feely’s and Sabine’s imagination: there has been NO reduction in oceanic pH levels in the last century.

How about posting a link to Wallace's original peer reviewed article instead of Breitbart's spin on it?

Then it might have some credibility.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[cengland 0]

Global Warming / Climate Change Research is big business. It's in the researchers' best interest not to question their research/theories/findings for fear of the financial tap being shut off.

[kallend 1,621]

cengland

Global Warming / Climate Change Research is big business. It's in the researchers' best interest not to question their research/theories/findings for fear of the financial tap being shut off.

Big tobacco used to say that about research on smoking and health.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[quade 3]

cengland

It's in the researchers' best interest not to question their research/theories/findings for fear of the financial tap being shut off.

Nonsense.

That's like saying it's in an astronomer's best interest to not publish he's found an alien civilization.

IF somebody could credibly PROVE global climate change was absolutely not in any way happening, then that would be a game changing and Nobel Prize winning paper.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rushmc 18]

kallend

***Global Warming / Climate Change Research is big business. It's in the researchers' best interest not to question their research/theories/findings for fear of the financial tap being shut off.

Big tobacco used to say that about research on smoking and health.

2, count them, 2!!!! of the main misdirects and cop outs in less than 5 minutes!!!

It may be a record

Riddle me this John
If a so called scientists puts out a claim (like the ph fraudsters seem to have do)

Do you not expect other to look at your work and either verify, duplicate it, or disprove it?
Or, just because you are a climate alarmist, you get to threaten anyone who may question your work and look to see of the proper data is used as well as how the data is looked at???

30 years in the field working on his PhD
Some kind of dumby huh John

But thanks for the laugh
Someone will have to check and see if you have record

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Looks like money is involved here too

Quote

Those of you who have not read the original article might find it interesting that Feely was awarded $100,000 from the Heinz Foundation (Founded by John Kerry’s wife) for the research in question. Things that make you go hmmm.

Opps

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,621]

rushmc

30 years in the field working on his PhD
Some kind of dumby huh John

Yes, it does seem that he's rather extremely SLOW, even by New Mexico standards.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,621]

rushmc

Looks like money is involved here too

Quote

Those of you who have not read the original article might find it interesting that Feely was awarded $100,000 from the Heinz Foundation (Founded by John Kerry’s wife) for the research in question. Things that make you go hmmm.

Opps

$100,000? Exxon-Mobil profits 2013: $32,580,000,000.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

kallend

***Global Warming / Climate Change Research is big business. It's in the researchers' best interest not to question their research/theories/findings for fear of the financial tap being shut off.

Big tobacco used to say that about research on smoking and health.

Big physics used to say that about the Big Bang. Big religion also told people to shut the fuck up when observations got in the way of dogma.
Come to think of it, any established power proves itself to be resistant to challenge.

So long as science includes scientists, human foible will remain.

As it stands, we've got a whole lot of policy being based upon what is turning out to be in the "not-what-they-said-it-would-be" department. I read something that I thought was quite well stated that goes to my other thread: are we proposing putting a tourniquet around our necks to stop a nosebleed?

The issue has been fogged. "The doctors will all tell you you have a nosebleed. In excess of 97% of experts will tell you that there is a problem."
"I just don't see this as a big deal."
"Denier! If your bleed continues without being stopped you'll bleed to death! This is just the start. Put this tourniquet around your neck.
Urgent action must be taken NOW to avoid catastrophe."
Wait 20 minutes...
"It stopped bleeding 15 minutes ago."
"Not according to my models it didn't."
"Look. I don't think it's a big deal. I hit my nose. It bled. It stopped."
"My models say you are still bleeding. In fact, our confidence is at 95% that your bleeding has gotten worse."
"Look. I'm not bleeding."
"Wrong. You just are a denier and don't know how this works. The bleed is in your brain. You must put this ligature around your neck and apply pressure to stop it."
"In my brain? Where's your evidence?"
"Here's a paper we just wrote. It says the bleed is in your brain. Models project it."
"But a CT didn't show anything."
"That's why we need more money. To study this. And we have a limited time to save your life. I'm going to put this around your neck.."

The alarmists have done a remarkable job in turning being adverse to large-scale changes in energy production and use as being in denial of the underlying science itself. Just what politicians do.

Think Patriot Act. Don't support it? Then you are in denial of the threat of terrorism and unpatriotic to boot.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 1,621]

lawrocket

******Global Warming / Climate Change Research is big business. It's in the researchers' best interest not to question their research/theories/findings for fear of the financial tap being shut off.

Big tobacco used to say that about research on smoking and health.

Big physics used to say that about the Big Bang.

Incorrect to the point of absurdity. No-one criticized the "Big Bang" on the grounds that a financial tap would be turned off.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

kallend

*********Global Warming / Climate Change Research is big business. It's in the researchers' best interest not to question their research/theories/findings for fear of the financial tap being shut off.

Big tobacco used to say that about research on smoking and health.

Big physics used to say that about the Big Bang.

Incorrect to the point of absurdity. No-one criticized the "Big Bang" on the grounds that a financial tap would be turned off.

Correct. Hoyle was in no danger of losing his radio celebrity. Hoyle as in no danger of being wrong, for he didn't put himself out on a limb defending his steady-state theory. He didn't jokingly refer to the primeval atom as a "Big Bang" on his PR rounds.

No. The ridicule that LeMaitre was exposed to was the result of groupthink and a result of the personalities of people who staked their careers on it. Hence the reason why Hoyle went to his death not wanting to believe

I understand that Hoyle was only a sciency scientist doing only what scientists do and being objective and fact-centered in his approach and putting out other things to sway the public to his viewpoint while the evidence accumulated. "Hey, Fred, we're thinking of spending some money to build a telescope to detect cosmic background microwave radiation." Think Hoyle would have said, "do it! It may prove me wwrong?" Hell no.

He had the power. He controlled the dogma. And he was wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

Think climate scientists are infallible? I don't. Show me the data. Show me your analysis. And for chrissake, don't bury uncertainty. "Sea level will rise between 1 and 4 feet by 2100." Wow. Thanks for the 400% margin of error. We can sure make solid cost-benefit analyses on that.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 1,621]

lawrocket

************Global Warming / Climate Change Research is big business. It's in the researchers' best interest not to question their research/theories/findings for fear of the financial tap being shut off.

Big tobacco used to say that about research on smoking and health.

Big physics used to say that about the Big Bang.

Incorrect to the point of absurdity. No-one criticized the "Big Bang" on the grounds that a financial tap would be turned off.

Correct. Hoyle was in no danger of losing his radio celebrity. Hoyle as in no danger of being wrong, for he didn't put himself out on a limb defending his steady-state theory. He didn't jokingly refer to the primeval atom as a "Big Bang" on his PR rounds.

No. The ridicule that LeMaitre was exposed to was the result of groupthink and a result of the personalities of people who staked their careers on it. Hence the reason why Hoyle went to his death not wanting to believe

I understand that Hoyle was only a sciency scientist doing only what scientists do and being objective and fact-centered in his approach and putting out other things to sway the public to his viewpoint while the evidence accumulated. "Hey, Fred, we're thinking of spending some money to build a telescope to detect cosmic background microwave radiation." Think Hoyle would have said, "do it! It may prove me wwrong?" Hell no.

He had the power. He controlled the dogma. And he was wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

Think climate scientists are infallible? I don't. Show me the data. Show me your analysis. And for chrissake, don't bury uncertainty. "Sea level will rise between 1 and 4 feet by 2100." Wow. Thanks for the 400% margin of error. We can sure make solid cost-benefit analyses on that.

Ummm - NO.

Remember that I am old enough to have been at Cambridge when all this was going on. Stephen Hawking was a contemporary of mine - I knew him in college to give you some idea of my vintage. I had tutorials at the Cambridge radio astronomy site by an astronomer involved in measuring the CMB in Ryle's research group. They had no difficulty in getting funded and there is no indication that Hoyle tried to interfere with their activities. None.

Einstein praised LeMaitre. Hoyle had no argument with Lemaitre over the expansion of the unverse. Lemaitre became fellow of the Belgian Academy and pontifical fellow- so much for your "ridicule".

You are simply wrong. There was no financial tap associated with the big bang/steady state debate. Only the prestige of being proved correct. No mega-corporations had a stake in the outcome, and no corporations funded "researchers" dedicated to denying one side or the other in the way that, say, the Oregon Institute has been funded.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[turtlespeed 212]

kallend

***************Global Warming / Climate Change Research is big business. It's in the researchers' best interest not to question their research/theories/findings for fear of the financial tap being shut off.

Big tobacco used to say that about research on smoking and health.

Big physics used to say that about the Big Bang.

Incorrect to the point of absurdity. No-one criticized the "Big Bang" on the grounds that a financial tap would be turned off.

Correct. Hoyle was in no danger of losing his radio celebrity. Hoyle as in no danger of being wrong, for he didn't put himself out on a limb defending his steady-state theory. He didn't jokingly refer to the primeval atom as a "Big Bang" on his PR rounds.

No. The ridicule that LeMaitre was exposed to was the result of groupthink and a result of the personalities of people who staked their careers on it. Hence the reason why Hoyle went to his death not wanting to believe

I understand that Hoyle was only a sciency scientist doing only what scientists do and being objective and fact-centered in his approach and putting out other things to sway the public to his viewpoint while the evidence accumulated. "Hey, Fred, we're thinking of spending some money to build a telescope to detect cosmic background microwave radiation." Think Hoyle would have said, "do it! It may prove me wwrong?" Hell no.

He had the power. He controlled the dogma. And he was wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

Think climate scientists are infallible? I don't. Show me the data. Show me your analysis. And for chrissake, don't bury uncertainty. "Sea level will rise between 1 and 4 feet by 2100." Wow. Thanks for the 400% margin of error. We can sure make solid cost-benefit analyses on that.

Ummm - NO.

Remember that I am old enough to have been at Cambridge when all this was going on. Stephen Hawking was a contemporary of mine - I knew him in college to give you some idea of my vintage. I had tutorials at the Cambridge radio astronomy site by an astronomer involved in measuring the CMB in Ryle's research group. They had no difficulty in getting funded and there is no indication that Hoyle tried to interfere with their activities. None.

Einstein praised LeMaitre. Hoyle had no argument with Lemaitre over the expansion of the unverse. Lemaitre became fellow of the Belgian Academy and pontifical fellow- so much for your "ridicule".

You are simply wrong. There was no financial tap associated with the big bang/steady state debate. Only the prestige of being proved correct. No mega-corporations had a stake in the outcome, and no corporations funded "researchers" dedicated to denying one side or the other in the way that, say, the Oregon Institute has been funded.

. . . That you are aware of.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[lawrocket 3]

kallend

Remember that I am old enough to have been at Cambridge when all this was going on. Stephen Hawking was a contemporary of mine - I knew him in college to give you some idea of my vintage. I had tutorials at the Cambridge radio astronomy site by an astronomer involved in measuring the CMB in Ryle's research group. They had no difficulty in getting funded and there is no indication that Hoyle tried to interfere with their activities. None.

Einstein praised LeMaitre. Hoyle had no argument with Lemaitre over the expansion of the unverse. Lemaitre became fellow of the Belgian Academy and pontifical fellow- so much for your "ridicule".

Einstein tol LeMaitre that his physics were abominable. Not until Hubble's findings did Einstein begin to come around. Hoyle's atheism itself influenced his inability to come to accept the evidence.

I am not implicating a financial tap. I am demonstrating that scientists are human. Scientists groupthink. And scientists will view evidence through subjective bias.

Quote

You are simply wrong. There was no financial tap associated with the big bang/steady state debate. Only the prestige of being proved correct.

I have always said that prestige and reputation are vital in science. Think Gavin Schmidt is at all interested in his models coming up off? Think that has anything to do with post-hoc excuses for things not coming out as projected?

It is a powerful thing. So long as science is done by scientists it will be fallible.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[quade 3]

"So long as science anything is done by scientists humans it will be fallible."

That said, I'd rather have a surgeon holding the knife and a random nitwit with simply an "opinion" or salesman who'd rather sell snake oil.

I'd rather have a pilot sitting in the front of the plane than a guy who once saw "Top Gun" and whose only experience is flying Dumbo at Disneyland.

I'd rather have a lawyer defending me than my weird aunt Sally.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rushmc 18]

quade

"So long as science anything is done by scientists humans it will be fallible."

That said, I'd rather have a surgeon holding the knife and a random nitwit with simply an "opinion" or salesman who'd rather sell snake oil.

I'd rather have a pilot sitting in the front of the plane than a guy who once saw "Top Gun" and whose only experience is flying Dumbo at Disneyland.

I'd rather have a lawyer defending me than my weird aunt Sally.

All that said
I would rather that surgeon uses ALL the data when preparing and then NOT have him argue if someone wants to check his work out

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

From the link

Quote

The alleged fraud was uncovered by Mike Wallace, a hydrologist with nearly 30 years’ experience now working towards his PhD at the University of New Mexico. While studying a chart produced by Feely and Sabine, apparently showing a strong correlation between rising atmospheric CO2 levels and falling oceanic pH levels, Wallace noticed that some key information had been omitted.

Mysteriously, the chart only began in 1988. But Wallace knew for a fact that there were oceanic pH measurements dating back to at least 100 years earlier and was puzzled that this solid data had been ignored, in favour of computer modelled projections.



When Wallace emailed his query to Feely and Sabine, however, he found them less than helpful.

Sabine replied that it was inappropriate for Wallace to impugn the “motives or quality of our science” and warned that if he continued in this manner “you will not last long in your career.” Having provided Wallace with a few links – all of which turned out to be useless – he concluded his email by saying “I hope you will refrain from contacting me again.”

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

quade

That said, I'd rather have a surgeon holding the knife and a random nitwit with simply an "opinion" or salesman who'd rather sell snake oil.

Of course. And while I would trust the surgeon to do a competent job of making my penis bigger I would also like to have some input into whether I need the procedure and to have my questions and concerns answered honestly prior to committing.

Quote

I'd rather have a pilot sitting in the front of the plane than a guy who once saw "Top Gun" and whose only experience is flying Dumbo at Disneyland.

As would I. I would not like a pilot telling me that I flying is the only responsible choice. Maybe I want a train.

Quote

I'd rather have a lawyer defending me than my weird aunt Sally.

Understandably.

Point being that I do want the pros dealing with problems. But look at a surgeon - one might not be the best for explaining the benefits of non-surgical options. Cutters cut.

I'd rather have generals running a war than a video gamer. Sure. But maybe that video gamer has some compelling alternatives to war that the generals may not really appreciate.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[turtlespeed 212]

lawrocket

***

That said, I'd rather have a surgeon holding the knife and a random nitwit with simply an "opinion" or salesman who'd rather sell snake oil.

Of course. And while I would trust the surgeon to do a competent job of making my penis bigger I would also like to have some input into whether I need the procedure and to have my questions and concerns answered honestly prior to committing.

Quote

I'd rather have a pilot sitting in the front of the plane than a guy who once saw "Top Gun" and whose only experience is flying Dumbo at Disneyland.

As would I. I would not like a pilot telling me that I flying is the only responsible choice. Maybe I want a train.

Quote

I'd rather have a lawyer defending me than my weird aunt Sally.

Understandably.

Point being that I do want the pros dealing with problems. But look at a surgeon - one might not be the best for explaining the benefits of non-surgical options. Cutters cut.

I'd rather have generals running a war than a video gamer. Sure. But maybe that video gamer has some compelling alternatives to war that the generals may not really appreciate.

Maybe you should have a mechanical contractor that does residential buildings do your 4M SF industrial complex.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[billvon 2,384]

>Global Warming / Climate Change Research is big business. It's in the researchers' best
>interest not to question their research/theories/findings for fear of the financial tap
>being shut off.

If you could prove that the basics of climate change was incorrect, you would certainly receive a Nobel prize as well as all the money you could ever want to continue your research. Sounds like that would be a pretty big carrot.

It's like the endless perpetual motion/cold fusion etc claims. If you could get a "magnet motor" to work you would certainly become one of the wealthiest people on the planet. People have not done this not because there is no incentive, but because magnet motors do not work, and thus people who claim them cannot back up their claims.

[turtlespeed 212]

billvon

>Global Warming / Climate Change Research is big business. It's in the researchers' best
>interest not to question their research/theories/findings for fear of the financial tap
>being shut off.

If you could prove that the basics of climate change was incorrect, you would certainly receive a Nobel prize as well as all the money you could ever want to continue your research. Sounds like that would be a pretty big carrot.

Negative ghost rider, no matter ho much evidence you presented, it would be debunked and discredited. The closer you come to the anti conclusion of whatever they are calling it these days, the less of a leg you have to stand on. It matters not, if the facts and science is true and accurate, it goes against belief and that is insurmountable.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[billvon 2,384]

>Negative ghost rider, no matter ho much evidence you presented, it would be
>debunked and discredited.

Sorry, that's not how science works. Plenty of scientists have overturned politically popular opinions with sufficient evidence. The reason AGW isn't being overturned is not because of politics - it is because the evidence to overturn it does not exist. It has nothing to do with how politically popular or unpopular the idea is (although the popularity certainly has a lot to do with how the popular media reports it.)

From the website Understanding Science:

==============
Misconceptions about science

Many students have misconceptions about what science is and how it works. This section explains and corrects some of the most common misconceptions that students are likely have trouble with.

. . . .

MISCONCEPTION: Scientific ideas are judged democratically based on popularity.

CORRECTION: When newspapers make statements like, "most scientists agree that human activity is the culprit behind global warming," it's easy to imagine that scientists hold an annual caucus and vote for their favorite hypotheses. But of course, that's not quite how it works. Scientific ideas are judged not by their popularity, but on the basis of the evidence supporting or contradicting them. A hypothesis or theory comes to be accepted by many scientists (usually over the course of several years — or decades!) once it has garnered many lines of supporting evidence and has stood up to the scrutiny of the scientific community. A hypothesis accepted by "most scientists," may not be "liked" or have positive repercussions, but it is one that science has judged likely to be accurate based on the evidence. To learn more about how science judges ideas, visit our series of pages on the topic in our section on how science works.
============

[turtlespeed 212]

billvon

>Negative ghost rider, no matter ho much evidence you presented, it would be
>debunked and discredited.

Sorry, that's not how science works. Plenty of scientists have overturned politically popular opinions with sufficient evidence. The reason AGW isn't being overturned is not because of politics - it is because the evidence to overturn it does not exist. It has nothing to do with how politically popular or unpopular the idea is (although the popularity certainly has a lot to do with how the popular media reports it.)

From the website Understanding Science:

==============
Misconceptions about science

Many students have misconceptions about what science is and how it works. This section explains and corrects some of the most common misconceptions that students are likely have trouble with.

. . . .

MISCONCEPTION: Scientific ideas are judged democratically based on popularity.

CORRECTION: When newspapers make statements like, "most scientists agree that human activity is the culprit behind global warming," it's easy to imagine that scientists hold an annual caucus and vote for their favorite hypotheses. But of course, that's not quite how it works. Scientific ideas are judged not by their popularity, but on the basis of the evidence supporting or contradicting them. A hypothesis or theory comes to be accepted by many scientists (usually over the course of several years — or decades!) once it has garnered many lines of supporting evidence and has stood up to the scrutiny of the scientific community. A hypothesis accepted by "most scientists," may not be "liked" or have positive repercussions, but it is one that science has judged likely to be accurate based on the evidence. To learn more about how science judges ideas, visit our series of pages on the topic in our section on how science works.
============

Ok . . . I was speaking to the nobel prize and all the money toutes as being available.
It simply wouldn't happen.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[lawrocket 3]

[Reply]If you could prove that the basics of climate change was incorrect