|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Jun 23, 2017 8:43:58 GMT
Dr. Richard Muller is a professor of physics at UC Berkeley. In 2003 he was one of the most notable of the "climate change skeptic" crowd. This led to him being contracted by the superbillionaires, Charles and David Koch, to lead a team of scientists to disprove manmade climate change. That's right, it was the skeptics who were attempting gangster science. So, after Muller and his team conducted their own investigation into the data on climate change, he said this:
"Call me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause." (New York Times, July 30, 2012)
This was only a short time after he wrote an op-ed printed in the Wall Street Journal explaining the work of The Berkeley Project, a non-profit which was set up by Muller and his daughter, Elizabeth, for the express purpose of addressing the concerns and questions of climate change skeptics. Muller stated:
"When we began our study, we felt that skeptics had raised legitimate issues, and we didn't know what we'd find. Our results turned out to be close to those published by prior groups. We think that means that those groups had truly been very careful in their work, despite their inability to convince some skeptics of that. They managed to avoid bias in their data selection, homogenization and other corrections."
The scientific method and peer review - they work as intended no matter how many uneducated, drunk Ginger Avengers dream up ridiculous conspiracy theories involving "Nazi-thought control".
I'm sure someone will decide, without evidence, that all this really means is that Muller was bought off. Somebody outbid the Koch brothers.
|
|
|
Post by scienceisgod on Jun 23, 2017 9:10:29 GMT
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Jun 23, 2017 9:13:33 GMT
There you go trying to think again. It's never going to work out for you. Hire someone to do your thinking for you.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jun 23, 2017 15:19:09 GMT
I'm sure someone will decide, without evidence, that all this really means is that Muller was bought off. Somebody outbid the Koch brothers. If you decide without evidence that this is how all science works, then there's nothing stopping you from believing it in this case. It's a self-perpetuating loop.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 23, 2017 16:14:32 GMT
Of course, they work. And as long as the funding holds out and the majority of people keep believing it, they will continue to work as intended, but unfortunately the days of real science are over. Unusual for you to start a thread anymore, but you thought this one appropriate. Not a complaint. Just a scientific observation.
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Jun 23, 2017 16:18:20 GMT
"Gangster science" as used on this forum, generally refers to any commonly accepted scientific model.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 23, 2017 16:21:40 GMT
"Gangster science" as used on this forum, generally refers to any commonly accepted scientific model. Interesting. If a scientific model is commonly accepted, does that make it true?
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Jun 23, 2017 16:32:06 GMT
Testability, repeatability, and predictability inform a model's reliability.
Something something chain something rattled your thought police.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 23, 2017 16:34:24 GMT
Testability, repeatability, and predictability inform a model's reliability. Something something chain something rattled your thought police. The testing can be rigged in order to yield predictable results, yes?
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Jun 23, 2017 16:39:17 GMT
That's why claims are held up to testability by parties outside the publisher.
See: any number of perpetual motion machines.
In the case of the flat-earth circus, it's an issue that can be verified one's self. This is probably why they catch so much hell - of all the conspiracy theories, it's the one you have to deliberately avoid doing even the most basic testing in order to cling to.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jun 23, 2017 16:56:19 GMT
Testability, repeatability, and predictability inform a model's reliability. Something something chain something rattled your thought police. The testing can be rigged in order to yield predictable results, yes? As Cinemachinery said, scientific claims are typically peer reviewed. If the study isn't legit or the results are rather scientifically lacking, the claim typically gets rejected by the science community. The Piltdown Man hoax is a good example of this.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 23, 2017 17:04:55 GMT
The testing can be rigged in order to yield predictable results, yes? As Cinemachinery said, scientific claims are typically peer reviewed. If the study isn't legit or the results are rather scientifically lacking, the claim typically gets rejected by the science community. The Piltdown Man hoax is a good example of this. Yes, I know about Piltdown Man. Too bad the scientific community can't do the same with the manmade global warming hoax, but times are different now.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Jun 23, 2017 17:06:36 GMT
The testing can be rigged in order to yield predictable results, yes? As Cinemachinery said, scientific claims are typically peer reviewed. If the study isn't legit or the results are rather scientifically lacking, the claim typically gets rejected by the science community. The Piltdown Man hoax is a good example of this. The cold fusion experiment in 1989 is another.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jun 23, 2017 17:10:14 GMT
As Cinemachinery said, scientific claims are typically peer reviewed. If the study isn't legit or the results are rather scientifically lacking, the claim typically gets rejected by the science community. The Piltdown Man hoax is a good example of this. Yes, I know about Piltdown Man. Too bad the scientific community can't do the same with the manmade global warming hoax, but times are different now. ''but times are different now."
Yes, you are right, times are different now in that technology and scientific methods have greatly improved. That's rather the reason Piltown Man wasn't confirmed to be a hoax for a considerable time. A forged fossil today would quickly be disproven.
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Jun 23, 2017 19:35:36 GMT
As Cinemachinery said, scientific claims are typically peer reviewed. If the study isn't legit or the results are rather scientifically lacking, the claim typically gets rejected by the science community. The Piltdown Man hoax is a good example of this. Yes, I know about Piltdown Man. Too bad the scientific community can't do the same with the manmade global warming hoax, but times are different now. I am not at all surprised that you missed the point of the OP completely. That's okay, I won't waste time trying to cure you of your delusional conspiratorial fantasies. If you didn't have ridiculous bullshit you would be so far outside your comfort zone that you would be permanently lost.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jun 23, 2017 21:32:44 GMT
As Cinemachinery said, scientific claims are typically peer reviewed. If the study isn't legit or the results are rather scientifically lacking, the claim typically gets rejected by the science community. The Piltdown Man hoax is a good example of this. Too bad the scientific community can't do the same with the manmade global warming hoax You seemed to have missed the point of the OP. If manmade global warming was a result of "gangster science" like you claim, then why is it that the Koch brothers, who wanted manmade global warming disproved, paid for a study to be done by one of the most outspoken climate change skeptic scientists, and even HE came to the conclusion that manmade global warming was real? If you're theory was right, this shouldn't have happened. Here you have a blatant example of a study being paid for to produce a certain result, and the result wasn't obtained, and the result even changed the mind of those doing the study.
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Jun 23, 2017 21:37:44 GMT
Too bad the scientific community can't do the same with the manmade global warming hoax You seemed to have missed the point of the OP. If manmade global warming was a result of "gangster science" like you claim, then why is it that the Koch brothers, who wanted manmade global warming disproved, paid for a study to be done by one of the most outspoken climate change skeptic scientists, and even HE came to the conclusion that manmade global warming was real? If you're theory was right, this shouldn't have happened. Here you have a blatant example of a study being paid for to produce a certain result, and the result wasn't obtained, and the result even changed the mind of those doing the study. Dude, don't you know those evil science cabals have more money than the Koch brothers?
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jun 23, 2017 21:50:27 GMT
You seemed to have missed the point of the OP. If manmade global warming was a result of "gangster science" like you claim, then why is it that the Koch brothers, who wanted manmade global warming disproved, paid for a study to be done by one of the most outspoken climate change skeptic scientists, and even HE came to the conclusion that manmade global warming was real? If you're theory was right, this shouldn't have happened. Here you have a blatant example of a study being paid for to produce a certain result, and the result wasn't obtained, and the result even changed the mind of those doing the study. Dude, don't you know those evil science cabals have more money than the Koch brothers? Is there a way someone can join said evil cabals? Like, is there a secret handshake you have to learn and a bizarre password you say (New England Clam Chowder?) to the guy behind the door with a sliding peephole?
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Jun 23, 2017 22:09:33 GMT
Dude, don't you know those evil science cabals have more money than the Koch brothers? Is there a way someone can join said evil cabals? Like, is there a secret handshake you have to learn and a bizarre password you say (New England Clam Chowder?) to the guy behind the door with a sliding peephole? There's actually a test to see how much crazy shit you've been indoctrinated to believe or can reasonably fake believing. If you either believe or can fake believing at least eight of the following ten hoaxes then you're in: 1) Non-Avian dinosaurs went extinct approximately 65 million years before humans evolved. 2) There is actual evidence to support humans sharing common ancestors with every living thing on the planet. 3) The Grand Canyon was carved out by millions of years of the Colorado River cutting through rock and not formed in just a few months by some great worldwide deluge. 4) The earth is an oblate spheroid that revolves around the sun. 5) Classifying Pluto as a minor planet was not yet another step in some great scientific conspiracy but just part of a normal reclassification system. 6) A drunk with a protractor may not be the best authority on astronomical phenomena. 7) The laws of probability do not apply to events that have already happened. If X has already happened then the probability of X is 100% regardless of what the probability may have been before X happened. 8) There is no evidence that "gangster science" is hiding the existence of Sasquatch, the Loch Ness Monster or the Chupacabra. 9) There is no such thing as a chemtrail unless the "chem" for chemical refers to the compound known as water in vapor form. 10) Ancient folklore is not equal or superior to actual scientific research when discussing a scientific topic.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jun 23, 2017 22:17:18 GMT
^ Damn, I actually believe in all 10! Sign me up and let the sweet pay-off money flow like wine! (Seems like there should be something on the list about Stanley Kubrick NOT having staged the moon landing, though)
|
|