2014 hottest year on record

Can't blame the lass. Sorry, when some one calls you a liar and a cheat it really doesn't foster a climate of calm equanimous discussion. Those of you claiming all climatologists are just a bunch of liars fabricating data to whore off grant money are basically doing just that. The mistrust of the scientific community is just breathtaking. This is a frightening development in America, since the folks looking at this are likely in the upper echelons of the socioeconomic ladder. I hesitate to think what's going on around the lower rungs.



A society that mistrusts science and technology will not be blessed with such. A dangerous turn for a society that's made its living from technological development.


There's also mistrust of politicians, mistrust of police, and mistrust of lots of other folk.

This type of mistrust doesn't stem or start from nothing. The scientists, politicians, police, etc... all need to clean house of their own charlatans and misbehaving members and show a continuous willingness to do so. In fact the groups need to be much harder on themselves than any outsider for it to seem genuine.

Each group has their own "thin blue line" in many ways, to use the police analogy. The expectation of the public is to be lied to by all, at this point. Seeing any particular insular community blast one of their own, isn't necessarily nice, but it is what's going to be required to regain the public trust.

Leadership in public servant positions includes calling out the bad apples and voting them off the island, if you're asking the public to pay for your life. It's really REALLY rare to see it, though.

And yeah, my industry is absolutely chock full of the same horse crap. Trust us, we'll build software and systems that will save or make you money... But they'll be so buggy you'll have to pay us to buy next year's version on installments, starting now. I totally see that. IT is awful. I'm willing to point it out when I see it, and say those people and products aren't worth spending any money or time on them. Sadly, the entire industry has gone to the model that you don't own software, and it's never ever a finished product. I'm somewhat ashamed to be involved in it.

I see little shame mentioned by most government groups about their wayward spending, non-existent goals, and lack of interest in tossing the dead weight overboard.

And there's certainly at least a couple of very high profile folk in the climate change debates that need to be tossed overboard by the scientific community in order to regain the public trust. Just like there's cops who need to be tossed, politicians who need to be tossed, and a whole lot of unnecessary spending that needs to be stopped.
 
There is mistrust of all 'them' groups, we have not yet accepted that all that is left is 'us', we failed to evolve out that competitiveness after homosapiens killed off all the rest of the parallel development hominids. We are all now of a unified DNA profile in the major matters and see the same basic set of variants across the spectrum of races that now make up mankind, yet we still are rooted in an US v THEM mentality.

Internet groups are a study of mankind in a microcosm, and we can see what thoughts and actions make them thrive and which ones make them wither and die.
 
I asked a simple, pointed, question, please answer.

LOL, nope, not going to answer, I might consider answering if you adequately explain the relevance of your "pointed, question" to the statement of mine that you quoted, otherwise forget it.
 
Can't blame the lass. Sorry, when some one calls you a liar and a cheat it really doesn't foster a climate of calm equanimous discussion. Those of you claiming all climatologists are just a bunch of liars fabricating data to whore off grant money are basically doing just that. The mistrust of the scientific community is just breathtaking. This is a frightening development in America, since the folks looking at this are likely in the upper echelons of the socioeconomic ladder. I hesitate to think what's going on around the lower rungs.

A society that mistrusts science and technology will not be blessed with such. A dangerous turn for a society that's made its living from technological development.

And therein lies the problem....we're NOT calling ALL climatologists liars. But when you see attempts to gag or marginalize climatologists who don't buy into "The Consensus" it makes one wonder. Any mistrust of science today falls largely at the feet of the Michael Mann's and his cadre of alarmists who've been caught red-handed in some of their shenanigans but won't acknowledge it.
 
LOL, nope, not going to answer, I might consider answering if you adequately explain the relevance of your "pointed, question" to the statement of mine that you quoted, otherwise forget it.

The relevance of the question is if you believe the report issued by NOAA is false. If you believe that is false, there is no hope for the survival of humanity.
 
The relevance of the question is if you believe the report issued by NOAA is false. If you believe that is false, there is no hope for the survival of humanity.


Hmmmmm..

Let's see.... NOAA is a dept of the U.S govenrment

So is the IRS.. and they NEVER lie....:no:

So is the Justice Dept.... and they NEVER lie...:no:

So is the EPA.... And they NEVER lie...:no:

Etc,etc etc.....

Ya see where I am going with Mr Rocket Scientist...:dunno::dunno:,,

Ps... Let me guess,, your half baked idea of Hydrogen saving the world will be the magic bullet......:rolleyes2::rolleyes2::rolleyes2:
 
The relevance of the question is if you believe the report issued by NOAA is false. If you believe that is false, there is no hope for the survival of humanity.

Why? I assign low reliability to anything on any site with a .gov TLD. Even dismissing the possibility of politically-motivated shenanigans, why should I assume that people writing official reports on behalf of the government are any more competent than the people pushing papers at the DMV?

Also, I have come across enough "official" government opinions that were just plain wrong -- even regarding thoroughly non-controversial issues -- to not give much weight to any document bearing a government imprimatur. I simply no longer believe the government to be a reliable source of information.

Rich
 
Last edited:
The relevance of the question is if you believe the report issued by NOAA is false. If you believe that is false, there is no hope for the survival of humanity.

Whether I think that report is false or not has absolutely no bearing on my original statement, are you trying to mess with me? Because you are not doing a very good job at it if you are.
 
I simply no longer believe the government to be a reliable source of information.

Rich

It is sad you feel that way, although I certainly do understand why you have that opinion. Government is made up of people, and they all have their bias, faults and make mistakes. Add to that the political spin, and it is not surprising (IMHO) that "facts" get distorted. All that being said, I'd still venture that they get more things right than wrong. We hold government to a pretty high bar (as we should), sometimes it just can't be reached.

Did see an interesting statistic, the source was the Economist, but can't find the article. Seems a pretty big proportion of the Federal government workforce are veterans. Something like 1/2 of the civilian workforce in the DoD were vets, 1/3 of the DOT and 1/4 at the DOE and Justice. Hadn't realized the level was that high.

Gary
 
The relevance of the question is if you believe the report issued by NOAA is false. If you believe that is false, there is no hope for the survival of humanity.

Professor Henning,

Do you truly think the human race is worthy of survival?
 
Whether I think that report is false or not has absolutely no bearing on my original statement, are you trying to mess with me? Because you are not doing a very good job at it if you are.

I can't mess with you, it would be like throwing mud in a swamp.
 
Did see an interesting statistic, the source was the Economist, but can't find the article. Seems a pretty big proportion of the Federal government workforce are veterans. Something like 1/2 of the civilian workforce in the DoD were vets, 1/3 of the DOT and 1/4 at the DOE and Justice. Hadn't realized the level was that high.

Gary
Veterans get preferential Federal hiring. Created a whole new class of royalty, do twenty in the service take your pension and go do another easy 20 with the Federal government retire with possibly 40 more years to live having two pensions and gold plated bennies. No problem the empire can afford it.
 
It is sad you feel that way, although I certainly do understand why you have that opinion. Government is made up of people, and they all have their bias, faults and make mistakes.

I work for the government and I don't trust a lot of what is published. Way too much political agenda and ulterior motives distorting things. Doesn't mean it is all junk, but you have to really know who you can trust and do a lot of your own research on everything else.
 
I work for the government and I don't trust a lot of what is published. Way too much political agenda and ulterior motives distorting things. Doesn't mean it is all junk, but you have to really know who you can trust and do a lot of your own research on everything else.

So do you believe that NOAA is lying about measured temperatures given in the report I cited?
 
So do you believe that NOAA is lying about measured temperatures given in the report I cited?
Of course they are. But lying is so harsh and some of it much more *honestly* manipulated such as moving temperature sensors from fields to parking lots.
 
So do you believe that NOAA is lying about measured temperatures given in the report I cited?

It isn't about lying. It is about what data you release and what you withhold. I have seen way too many people in the federal govt throw out data because it didn't help the case they were trying to prove. Without personally examining all of the data obtained and comparing it to what is released, I can't really assess the credibility of the report.

That doesn't mean all science is bad, but you can't label yourself a 'scientist' and then expect to have unquestionable credibility because of it. That would be as absurd as me expecting no one to question my integrity and character simply because I am a military officer.
 
It isn't about lying. It is about what data you release and what you withhold. I have seen way too many people in the federal govt throw out data because it didn't help the case they were trying to prove. Without personally examining all of the data obtained and comparing it to what is released, I can't really assess the credibility of the report.

That doesn't mean all science is bad, but you can't label yourself a 'scientist' and then expect to have unquestionable credibility because of it. That would be as absurd as me expecting no one to question my integrity and character simply because I am a military officer.

It is all about lying. If you don't trust them (government) not to lie to you, why are working for them?

So again I ask, do you deny the veracity of the numbers generated in that NOAA report?
 
It is all about lying. If you don't trust them (government) not to lie to you, why are working for them?



So again I ask, do you deny the veracity of the numbers generated in that NOAA report?

Because the govt is no different than private industry. You either accept it as the way things are done and do your best to do the right thing or you take your family into the mountains or an abandoned missile silo.
 
Because the govt is no different than private industry. You either accept it as the way things are done and do your best to do the right thing or you take your family into the mountains or an abandoned missile silo.

No, those aren't the only choices, there is also changing what is not right.

Again I ask, do you deny the measured temperatures in the NOAA report are accurate?
 
No, those aren't the only choices, there is also changing what is not right.

Again I ask, do you deny the measured temperatures in the NOAA report are accurate?

What does that even mean? "do you deny the measured temperatures ...... blah blah blah."
 
What does that even mean? "do you deny the measured temperatures ...... blah blah blah."

They wrote numbers on a piece of paper. Do you deny the accuracy of the numbers? If you can't figure that question out, how can you analyze something as complex as the climate?:dunno:
 
They wrote numbers on a piece of paper. Do you deny the accuracy of the numbers? If you can't figure that question out, how can you analyze something as complex as the climate?:dunno:

Whatever, why do you just get on with it and write what you are itching to write.
 
Too Little CO2 To End Life On Earth
Submitted by Doug L. Hoffman on Sun, 06/14/2009 - 12:48 to http://theresilientearth.com/

It is no surprise to anyone who has studied the history of our planet and the life it harbors that CO2 levels have been falling for billions of years. Despite all the hoopla over rising CO2 levels, eventually Earth will have lost so much carbon dioxide from its atmosphere that plants and trees will suffocate, signaling an end to life as we know it. Now, a team of scientists from the California Institute of Technology, led by physicist King-Fai Li, have proposed a way to avert disaster—get rid of much of the atmosphere.
 
Whatever, why do you just get on with it and write what you are itching to write.

If you can't believe data over dogma as is apparent in an ever increasing portion of the population, then we are headed for a dark ages at best. This isn't the first time in human development where brute stupidity cost mankind 1000 years of development and the resources wasted in the process.
 
It is no surprise to anyone who has studied the history of our planet and the life it harbors that CO2 levels have been falling for billions of years.

Are you saying that atmospheric and oceanic CO2 concentrations are currently falling? If so, I think there would be quite of few people who would be surprised.
 
If you can't believe data over dogma as is apparent in an ever increasing portion of the population, then we are headed for a dark ages at best. This isn't the first time in human development where brute stupidity cost mankind 1000 years of development and the resources wasted in the process.

I agree except the dogma and stupidity is not exclusive to one side, science is as guilty as creationist rednecks. We're all going to hell together.
 
If you can't believe data over dogma as is apparent in an ever increasing portion of the population, then we are headed for a dark ages at best. This isn't the first time in human development where brute stupidity cost mankind 1000 years of development and the resources wasted in the process.

The problem is when the data becomes dogma in someone's mind, irrefutable, beyond question. The stupidity is when politicians and internet posters think they are smarter than everyone else and want things done their way when they really don't have any idea what they are talking about. The tragedy happens when these politicians, thinking they are the smartest, start trying to pick winners and losers based on their interpretation of data, billions are wasted and more importantly precious resources are used to solve made up problems, nothing improves and when done to excess, things can get worse.
 
I agree except the dogma and stupidity is not exclusive to one side, science is as guilty as creationist rednecks. We're all going to hell together.

I agree, both are incorrect (at least physicists admit it) because they are incomplete due to denying the other position. Nobody has any credibility, and everybody just wants to win the lottery, because money is the true meaning of life that both parties have derived.
 
The stupidity is when politicians and internet posters think they are smarter than everyone else and want things done their way when they really don't have any idea what they are talking about.

I'd say that describes Jim Inhofe very precisely. He's an insurance salesman who believes that Christian mythology trumps science.
 
I agree except the dogma and stupidity is not exclusive to one side, science is as guilty as creationist rednecks. We're all going to hell together.


Can we build a zip line for the hand basket? That'd be fun.
 
Can we build a zip line for the hand basket? That'd be fun.


I can build one... It will be faster, neater and cheaper then any others...

But.....

It will have a EXPERIMENTAL sticker on the outside...:yes:......;).....:D
 
I work for the government and I don't trust a lot of what is published. Way too much political agenda and ulterior motives distorting things. Doesn't mean it is all junk, but you have to really know who you can trust and do a lot of your own research on everything else.

Exactly. Even in matters that one would think non-controversial, politics rears its head.

Take the USDA dietary guidelines, for example. At some point the government realized that the "Food Pyramid" was a colossal disaster, as evidenced by the epidemic in obesity that has followed in the three decades since its release, so they set forth to change it. But before the revised "My Plate" guidelines that the scientists came up with in 2010 could become official, all the various food industries had to have their say: to the tune of more than $120 Million in lobbying money to make sure that the guidelines didn't adversely affect their profits.

Or take another example: The federal government's insistence that higher-octane gasoline doesn't improve MPG. I don't know if it's politically motivated, but I do know it's wrong -- or at least simplistic. In many cases, higher-octane fuel does, in fact, improve MPG, more because of coincidental higher energy content, but also partly because of the octane rating itself. Higher-octane fuel reduces the need for a car's computer to retard the spark in response to detonation.

None of this means that everything the government publishes is wrong, and I don't believe that to be the case. In fact, most of what government publishes is probably correct. But I don't necessarily assume that it is. I take all information disseminated by the government with a very large grain of salt, knowing that political interests, national security considerations, ass-covering, corporate lobbying, and good old-fashioned incompetence may all have played a part in the final product.

Rich
 
This country needs a wake up call on what is truly important in life, especially for our children, and grand children. Starting with the Baby Boomer generation, I guess things have been too easy for the plethora of those that need to create a meaning for themselves through the fantasy land of MMGW. They need to feel the real wolf's breath. When that happens these fanatasies will subside.

If you want fantasy read the Lord of the Rings, and stay the hell out of my wallet to make your life "feel" meaningful.
 
This country needs a wake up call on what is truly important in life, especially for our children, and grand children. Starting with the Baby Boomer generation, I guess things have been too easy for the plethora of those that need to create a meaning for themselves through the fantasy land of MMGW. They need to feel the real wolf's breath. When that happens these fanatasies will subside.

If you want fantasy read the Lord of the Rings, and stay the hell out of my wallet to make your life "feel" meaningful.

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

If you think anything important to your children and grandchildren's future can be found in your wallet, I feel sorry for your progeny.
 
Back
Top