Slashdot Mirror

How about a little bit of intellectual honesty...

The truth is, that those who politicized Global Warming are the #1 reason it is questions.

1. Scientific Consensus - dumbest claim, there has been a consensus about nearly every wrong belief in science. Until it was disproved. A claim of consensus is NOT a scientific argument.

2. Scientific studies - the track record of many, if not most, scientific studies is very poor.

> The amount of financially influenced studies.
> Incorrect studies.
> Out-and-out fraudulent studies

All lead to skepticism. Remember, this is the generation in which every dietary instruction of the 80's all derived from so-called scientific studies, have no essentially been disproven.

Furthermore, the science of studying studies has some interesting results. The fact that bad studies often are more influencing. The fact that most studies, even those purported to use proper techniques, cannot be reproduced. And it's not just limited to psychology studies.

http://www.economist.com/news/...

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

https://www.jove.com/blog/2012...

3. Bad and untrustworthy science. The big problem that GW has is that they burned a lot of credibility. They did this by seeking a desired result and bending data to their expectations - that's bad science.

a. Most of the climate science involved taking multiple divergent data sets (satellite records, mercury records, tree ring records, ice records, etc) and merge them into one large pan-historic set. The problem is, there really is NO WAY to truly do that. And a certain part of that requires guesswork.

Rather than be honest about the guess work, they erred by choosing what best fit their goals. When you're debating an increase in a degree or two, yet are dealing with that much variability. The guesswork often exceeds the statistical data.

b) There has been criticism of the "recording centers" and strong, scientific based observation that many of those record keeping centers have been compromised.

c) Statements made directly contradicted with historical evidence. While they later made adjustments to correct, it wasn't until they were pressed hard publicly and politically.

d) Scientific models used for predictions, but fail to correlate. When ALL the models used fail to properly predict, it is clear that the models are not accurate. I believe the Russian model which was far less extreme was the only one that came close to being on track.

e) Media claims. Weather NOT Climate. Dumb BS. How many times have I been told weather isn't climate. And I am told this, in debates discussing weather being used to claim climatic warming. *facepalm*

Recently, there was a report that a spring was hottest on record. I laughed, because we had one of the coldest springs and I joked that the media would still claim it was the hottest on record. I said that as a joke, not expecting it to be true. Okay, so it was....and my thought was regional vs continental vs global. I expected the data to show that my region was cooler than average, but that the continent overall was warmer, and so was the globe. But then I looked at the temperature index maps. And my region was listed as above average temps for the spring. Okay, gotta call BS....when we're having one of the coldest springs, everyone is wondering if summer is even going to come, and I've lost a ton of crops due to extremely late frosts. And you are trying to tell me that I had an above average temperature spring. Bullshit. And that is the crap pe

Or as low as 10% in published studies. The storied, btw, seem to have gotten significantly worse over the last few weeks. What's going on?

73% of all statistics are made up.

Or as low as 10% in published studies. The storied, btw, seem to have gotten significantly worse over the last few weeks. What's going on?

You know, I've often wondered why we don't join some of our existing technologies together and get on with things. I know it may not be as simple as it sounds, but we have this tech already:

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/54170/title/Let_there_be_light
(Allows for manipulation of neurons with light)

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/nl051811%2B
http://nanotechweb.org/cws/article/tech/41146
(Nanoscale OLED displays)

http://www.egmrs.org/EJS/PDF/vo281/1.pdf
http://www.azonano.com/news.asp?newsID=6802
(Nanoscale light detectors)

http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.2108/zsj.22.535?journalCode=jzoo
http://www.jove.com/index/details.stp?ID=2081
(And we can stain cells with dyes that fluoresce when the cells experience activity now)

We have peanut butter, jelly and bread. Why can't we get this all together to make a sandwich? Or is this currently in the works?
Or am I missing something subtle, that someone who actually knows about this research can enlighten us about?

The Journal of Visualized Experiments has been in operation for a while and is awesome. There are several Science YouTube sites. I want want one that is geared toward organic synthesis and materials synthesis.

You might like watching this video of nuclear transfer in mouse oocytes. http://www.jove.com/Details.htm?ID=116&VID=132 Pretty groovy, I think. On a side note, I take the findings of most stem cell scientists with a grain of salt. There is just too much hype and unlike molecular level sciences, it can be very hard to reproduce experiments.