Hahaha. Of course you didn't. Instead, you have a statistically significant group of climate scientist friends and you trust them completely.
I've spent my whole professional life in scientific endeavor. I wouldn't claim to have technical expertise in climate change, I don't (other than what I see with my eyes, which is a lot and was predicted by friends many years ago). However, I know many, many scientists. Indeed I know enough to categorically state that your allegations, in addition to being unfounded, are almost certainly incorrect.
My important articles, your important friends!
Not important, just the ones whose work is under scrutiny. And yes, that does give me some special insight.
Also, you just know in your heart of hearts that the peer review process is infallible, and no one group of scientists can wield enough power over the rest to keep dissenting viewpoints out of the academic and governmental literature. (Even though, Lord knows, they try!) Excellent points, all.
I have personally overturned results thought to be dogmatic and found in textbooks.
Plus, you bring up a scientist, that naughty rascal, who falsified data and was found to have committed fraud. Then he lost his job! Sweet! The process works!
Yes, it does. Scientists found to have falsified data are ineligible for funding, and their work is unlikely to be accepted. We only have each other's word that what we publish is true. Loose that trust, and there is nothing left.
Of course, the climate scientist's findings and allegations aren't exactly reproducible, now are they, Steingar? Saying, for example, "I cloned a bald eagle" is different than saying, "In an indeterminate number of years from now, bad things will happen unless you do exactly as I say."
Actually, they are. In each you use data to test a hypothesis, and make predictions based on your conclusions. For example, if you cloned a bald eagle, the data would be the biometrics to say that the animal was indeed cloned. Your prediction would be that the eagle would be developmentally identical to its genetic donor except where environmental conditions affected its developmental program. If your prediction didn't come true (which is hasn't for cloned animals) you would use your observations to develop novel hypotheses about how the cloning process affects development.
Climate scientists have done little else. They've used their observations to make predictions, the bulk of which have come true.
See, the former is a directly testable claim, while the latter is a prediction or theory based on statistics.
All interpretation is based on statistics. And indeed, the climatologists have made very testable claims, many of which have been right.
The prediction has no merit whatsoever until proven.
What level of proof? At what point do you say, "O.K., the climate scientists have proven their point."
Climate science in it's present, invasive form is crap because their area of inquiry is too huge and has far too many variables, not too mention data collection techniques that have serious problems. (Maybe I'm not qualified, what with my lack of super sweet and all-knowing plus trustworthy friends who are scientists, to make that claim.)
If you can specify which variables are not being accounted for and which data collection methods are specious, you might have something. However, keep in mind that there are always unknown variables in any kind of research. If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research anyway.
So what we have are a group of dodgy scientists with nothing to lose from crappy predictions (because their predictions are set far enough out that it doesn't matter) and an imperative to trust them.
You trust away, sir. I think they're totally full of malarkey.
You are fully entitled to your opinion, and I hold no one in the slightest bit less regard because of it. But you made very specific allegations of scientific misconduct against an entire branch of scientific endeavor. I asked you for the basis for these accusations, and the best you can do is some E-mails. You don't understand the nature of their data acquisition, the nature of its dissemination, or the sociology of scientists as a group. There is no conspiracy. No one is forced to make conclusions that go one way or another. Data simply is.
All I can do is vote.
