Purdue woke on climate change?

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • wtburnette

    WT(aF)
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    44   0   0
    Nov 11, 2013
    26,859
    113
    SW side of Indy
    My problem is how they're pushing this garbage, similar to all the crap in the scamdemic. Biden canceled a key pipeline and is doing everything he can to stop us using fossil fuels because of this quasi-religion. Go back and listen to predictions from the 70's 80's and 90's and see how much these idiots get wrong. We are not all going to die in 11 years or whatever ridiculous prediction AOC and other Leftists have stated. I've researched this heavily listening to scientists on both sides of the argument and the FUD around this issue is absolutely not needed. Yes, humans may be contributing, in some part, to the issue. No I don't think it's a crisis. As stated earlier in the thread, I think we need to be cognizant of things that may be causing harm and do what we can to reduce that harm as much as possible, in a way that makes sense and doesn't cause harm to the economy or the safety of our citizens. Biden is a complete piece of :poop: and he is threatening the economy and our national security by making us dependent upon foreign oil for our energy needs, especially when Trump proved that we could be completely energy independent. I think alternative energy should continue to be researched, but it absolutely shouldn't be pushed over current energy sources, at least until they are viable alternatives. You cannot run our country on wind, solar or hydro at this time. It's not possible. The government needs to step away and let the market figure this stuff out without any interference. Of course that won't happen because there are too many people making bank on this scam.
     

    JEBland

    INGO's least subtle Alphabet agency taskforce spy
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Oct 24, 2020
    1,976
    113
    South of you
    No issue with your other stuff, but I do want to nitpick the idea that somehow academics as a group are less prone to money-influence. I've heard variations of this argument before; "If we were motivated by money, we'd go to private industry and make _real_ bucks, but since we chose a less-lucrative occupation, we shouldn't be suspected of that motivation."

    Different people are good at different things, and can be content with differing amounts of money. But within their chosen field, everybody wants more. No monetary class of worker isn't capable of tailoring their output to get more of it. A panhandler may lack the skills or temperament to be a derivatives trader, but he still knows he does better at panhandling when he "looks the part."

    It appears to me that if you love doing research, you want more money so you can do more of what you love...and at some level, every researcher understands that high p-values isn't going to get you more of what you love.
    Agreed. That's why we see professors just ship an move to another university for more money/flexibility/influence (<- yes, influence like building a specialty within a university is part of the equation for well known researchers). There are professors at Purdue who cross 300k/yr, but they're world-famous within their field for their research. I don't think there's much evidence to suggest that entire fields have been corrupted by outside money. Cultural corruption is a much more likely and I think dangerous culprit. We can put people on trial for bribery and such, but we can't for just saying that they believe something and use social pressure to convert others.

    As to the general topic, when it comes to climate science, I believe the climate is changing, but I'm not terribly impressed by fields which consist of comparing data sets, seeing a difference, then apportioning that difference to different causes without the ability to run experiments at different levels or replicate results...then expect the rest of the world to change large-scale policy affecting how people live their lives, as a result. That type of "science" needs to pass a pretty high bar to forcibly change how I live my life, and for me, "consensus" is not good enough. I can't run "my own experiment" to challenge those results with "my own data," because what we're talking about isn't based on experiment to begin with. It's looking at the same set of data, with different assumptions and analytical tools, and coming up with different results. Pretty soon, the thinking person starts to get the idea that what you're really dealing with is "opinions," and like certain body parts, everybody has one.
    There are some issues with attempting to duplicate an entire field's work at home. One is that if we're talking about say global temperature changing (warming), it's not useful to use datapoints from a single location, by definition it's local and not global. They do emphasize keeping records of the data for re-analysis for people wanting to look over it to be sure. A second thing is that there's only so much we can really do in a controlled experiment. We can't create a second Earth to run as a control against our own, and the more we try to incorporate from nature, the harder it is to simulate. The computational aspect of weather & climate is a very difficult problem and they're improved drastically in the last 20 years. That said, the people interpreting these models do have biased viewpoints, and again, we need more checking as a guiding philosophy.

    Scientific "facts" are opinions, but the opinions are (supposed to be) empirically based and quantitatively justified, and that's (supposed to be) what makes then accepted by the consensus. I can't claim that I've gone over all of the claims like "the number of storms have increased," to which others have replied, 'well, not much,' then the volley back "but the number of serious storms has increased!" Maybe, but I don't recall seeing the data for that. The basic fact that temperature and precipitation patterns have changes isn't in dispute (averaged over a window in time to smooth the data, we see changes). There's the issue of sorting out patterns in the data, limitations on ability of old data to be described in new context/language (IMO we're here), and then actually making some high-precision predictions. How much our actions have contributed and what to do next are harder questions. It's not my area, so I'm not going to try to argue the details of the field.

    Again, most of these issues are people being ****ty humans - a couple of examples of criticism of this "trust the consensus" doctrine from some lefty scientists:





    Physics is also not immune to the "trust the consensus" fallacy, but I don't want to derail this thread (especially since my work is comfortably within the norm).
     

    Ingomike

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    May 26, 2018
    28,154
    113
    North Central
    If the argument is that all science is junk, I don't think I have time to personally debunk all of that for every person.
    I would say you need to spend some time researching how the scientific community is broken as is the peer review system. Then you would understand why folks believe that virtually everything they produce is tainted at best.

    The religious fervor cult are those that perverted the scientific method and peer review…
     

    Ingomike

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    May 26, 2018
    28,154
    113
    North Central
    Depends on the scientist, right? Some are in academia, some in industry, some in nationally funded labs. For that guy mentioned in that article, pretty much all his money comes from the university. The Purdue Exponent publishes professor salaries yearly - public university, salary is public information (including mine :nailbite:). Professors are more motivated by a love of the field/philosophy than some backdoor salary, there's more money to be made in industry. Industry has their own motivations for the results, and there is also a feedback problem in philosophy/training - like drinking 8 cups of water /day, which is something I just don't believe (I'm a pretty hard skeptic of nutrition studies, not gonna lie).
    Then you need to research how research, even at public institutions research gets paid for. They certainly are not virginally uninterested.
     

    JEBland

    INGO's least subtle Alphabet agency taskforce spy
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Oct 24, 2020
    1,976
    113
    South of you
    I would say you need to spend some time researching how the scientific community is broken as is the peer review system. Then you would understand why folks believe that virtually everything they produce is tainted at best.
    Lol. I live in it.
    The religious fervor cult are those that perverted the scientific method and peer review…
    This is completely disconnected from reality and history. Social pressures and abuses of power have always existed within science. It turns out that scientists are human, and sometimes individuals are ****ty, but that doesn't invalidate scientific results on their face.

    Then you need to research how research, even at public institutions research gets paid for. They certainly are not virginally uninterested.
    Your mask is covering your eyes…


    You make a bunch of claims, without presenting evidence, about how the entire structure of the scientific community is being built on baseless claims. The irony is palatable.

    dO sOmE rEsEaRcH, SHEEP! [Nailed it]
     

    BugI02

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 4, 2013
    31,886
    149
    Columbus, OH
    I mean, I'm not a climate scientist, but if we want to challenge their science as junk science, it basically has to be from a scientific perspective.
    Has 'climate science' issued an unambiguous, short term forecast that has been correct and can serve as a test of their 'modeling'

    When we backtest their models they do not correctly predict what has happened in the past, for which data is known. The response from the 'climate scientists' is not to re-evaluate their models but to try and tweak the model to produce the past result, which doesn't work well and still doesn't produce any meaningfully testable predictions

    Then, we are browbeaten to accept these predictions and take actions to avert them that have real world economic consequences for our people while the same 'scientists' who can't predict how conditions in any specific locality will change even next year assure us that the actions they advocate will stave off catastrophe 30 years from now and confidently predict that the economic effects will not themselves be a catastrophe even though they have no expertise in the area of economics and economics is a 'science' that also has a poor history of accurate prediction - all while virtually ignoring that China creates over 50% of the worlds CO2 emissions, and combined with other 'developing' countries accounts for 2/3 of those emissions but will not commit to even slowing the rate of increase of its emissions until 2030, with beginning to decrease them slated for 2060, I believe

    The entire thing is junk science. One does not have to be a scientist to predict temperatures will increase when one also goes back and 'corrects' the data sets from the past, to show warming in the present, because that past data 'wasn't accurate enough'


    I am not a solar scientist, but I will predict that solar activity and sunspot numbers will increase during the next 11 years


    Give me my grant money now and lets also cripple our economy to prevent 'solar disaster' at the solar maximum, or something
     
    Last edited:

    JEBland

    INGO's least subtle Alphabet agency taskforce spy
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Oct 24, 2020
    1,976
    113
    South of you
    Has 'climate science' issued an unambiguous, short term forecast that has been correct and can serve as a test of their 'modeling'
    Short term on what time scale? The whole point is that weather (what's outside your window) is different from climate (trends in a region smoothed over a time scale).

    When we backtest their models they do not correctly predict what has happened in the past, for which data is known. The response from the 'climate scientists' is not to re-evaluate their models but to try and tweak the model to produce the past result, which doesn't work well and still doesn't produce any meaningfully testable predictions
    Back projecting a chaotic system is basically always going to fail. The models are just that, models. They're not the ground truth reality. The entire thing is people who don't study complex system complaining that modeling complex systems is difficult... that's why it's an academic venture.

    Then, we are browbeaten to accept these predictions and take actions to avert them that have real world economic consequences for our people while the same 'scientists' who can't predict how conditions in any specific locality will change even next year assure us that the actions they advocate will stave off catastrophe 30 years from now and confidently predict that the economic effects will not themselves be a catastrophe even though they have no expertise in the area of economics and economics is a 'science' that also has a poor history of accurate prediction - all while virtually ignoring that China creates over 50% of the worlds CO2 emissions, and combined with other 'developing' countries accounts for 2/3 of those emissions but will not commit to even slowing the rate of increase of its emissions until 2030, with beginning to decrease them slated for 2060, I believe
    I don't lump social "sciences" into actual science, mostly because there are no actual experiments these days (and we stopped that for good reasons). I agree that those double standards on policy are glaring issues with the global agreements and have gotten into several arguments with other physics people over it. But that's a policy problem, not a scientific problem. Again, be angry at terrible administrative decisions, but that's not a foundational issue within science.

    The entire thing is junk science. One does not have to be a scientist to predict temperatures will increase when one also goes back and 'corrects' the data sets from the past to show arming in the present because that past data 'wasn't accurate enough'
    So... you're angry that models, which are not the ground truth, are being refined with additional information?

    I am not a solar scientist, but I will predict that solar activity and sunspot numbers will increase during the next 11 years
    Reasoning? Explanation as to why?

    Give me my grant money now and lets also cripple our economy to prevent 'solar disaster' at the solar maximum, or something
    Funding scientific research and policy decisions are two different things, pick a lane.
     

    BugI02

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 4, 2013
    31,886
    149
    Columbus, OH
    Short term on what time scale? The whole point is that weather (what's outside your window) is different from climate (trends in a region smoothed over a time scale).
    Predict one year from today what will be the warmest temperature recorded in some small geographic area, within a meaningfully small confidence window and on what day it will happen, or predict when the highest sea level on those about to be inundated islands we keep hearing about will be recorded and what the delta will be, again within a meaningfully tight confidence range
    Back projecting a chaotic system is basically always going to fail. The models are just that, models. They're not the ground truth reality. The entire thing is people who don't study complex system complaining that modeling complex systems is difficult... that's why it's an academic venture.
    NO, actually the complaint is that, as you are admitting, there is no way to quantify the accuracy of the models at any meaningful level of granularity - as well as adjustments being made to historic data in order to make recent model predictions seem more accurate as well as alarming. And despite no reliable level of predictive capability going forward or demonstrable accuracy at explaining historic data (which I would consider a stand-in for evidence that 'climate scientists' understand all the variables they are including in the models) we are expected to use the model output to make consequential decisions about behavior going forward
    I don't lump social "sciences" into actual science, mostly because there are no actual experiments these days (and we stopped that for good reasons). I agree that those double standards on policy are glaring issues with the global agreements and have gotten into several arguments with other physics people over it. But that's a policy problem, not a scientific problem. Again, be angry at terrible administrative decisions, but that's not a foundational issue within science.


    So... you're angry that models, which are not the ground truth, are being refined with additional information?
    No, as I explained, I am angry that the decision has been to tweak the data to fit the models among individuals who consider themselves fit to be called scientists
    Reasoning? Explanation as to why?
    We have passed solar minimum and the sunspot/solar activity cycle is ~22 years. Thus the next maximum will occur about 11 years after the minimum with rising sunspot and flare activity as we move through this part of the cycle. It is surprising to me that, as the earth has warmed an cooled many times, there seems little interest in investigating whether there is an underlying cycle or cycles that drive that oscillation between extremes. Instead 'the science' has locked onto a single input (CO2 levels) extrapolated from a time that coincides with a warm earth and then simply assumed that a replication of said levels will result in a certain temperature effect despite admitting that the system is chaotic and unpredictable
    Funding scientific research and policy decisions are two different things, pick a lane.
    Conducting scientific research and making policy decisions are two different things, pick a lane
     

    Shadow01

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 8, 2011
    3,239
    119
    WCIn
    Until money is removed from research, what scientists say should be taken as lies until they are able to give 4 levels of proof they are telling the truth. Sorry but the community failed to police the few that has tainted the many. The bed has been made…
     

    JEBland

    INGO's least subtle Alphabet agency taskforce spy
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Oct 24, 2020
    1,976
    113
    South of you
    Predict one year from today what will be the warmest temperature recorded in some small geographic area, within a meaningfully small confidence window and on what day it will happen, or predict when the highest sea level on those about to be inundated islands we keep hearing about will be recorded and what the delta will be, again within a meaningfully tight confidence range
    Easy to say, but you haven't defined what meaningfully small window means for the temperature and day. Even then, climate change isn't about peak temperatures or precipitation, it's about changes in the statistical patterns of weather.

    NO, actually the complaint is that, as you are admitting, there is no way to quantify the accuracy of the models at any meaningful level of granularity - as well as adjustments being made to historic data in order to make recent model predictions seem more accurate as well as alarming. And despite no reliable level of predictive capability going forward or demonstrable accuracy at explaining historic data (which I would consider a stand-in for evidence that 'climate scientists' understand all the variables they are including in the models) we are expected to use the model output to make consequential decisions about behavior going forward
    Are you stating that people are changing historical datasets with the intention of being alarmist?

    No, as I explained, I am angry that the decision has been to tweak the data to fit the models among individuals who consider themselves fit to be called scientists
    We don't tweak data. Now, there could be a secondary set of data with "corrections" based on calculations, but the original raw data has to be preserved. Reference?

    We have passed solar minimum and the sunspot/solar activity cycle is ~22 years. Thus the next maximum will occur about 11 years after the minimum with rising sunspot and flare activity as we move through this part of the cycle. It is surprising to me that, as the earth has warmed an cooled many times, there seems little interest in investigating whether there is an underlying cycle or cycles that drive that oscillation between extremes.
    Your basic argument is that there are cycles on this, and so you can make a prediction on the next year based on that. All of this is known to climate scientists and is incorporated into their model (for those who think it'll be useful). For the underlined bit: There is interest in that and people look at it. If you look at those climate reports, they're what, 3000 pages? Koonin references this in his talk that I linked earlier. You think that these reports are solely focused on CO2?

    Instead 'the science' has locked onto a single input (CO2 levels) extrapolated from a time that coincides with a warm earth and then simply assumed that a replication of said levels will result in a certain temperature effect despite admitting that the system is chaotic and unpredictable
    That's not really true. The actual discussion among climate scientists are far broader than this - my memory isn't good enough to list off the 20+ conversations I've had with climate scientists, but plenty don't just focus on CO2.

    Conducting scientific research and making policy decisions are two different things, pick a lane
    I don't make policy decisions and the people who were scientists and go into policy making no longer directly do research, there's just too much paperwork to actually do both...

    Until money is removed from research, what scientists say should be taken as lies until they are able to give 4 levels of proof they are telling the truth. Sorry but the community failed to police the few that has tainted the many. The bed has been made…
    This is the same as the abolish the police argument. It's a gross oversimplification and denies the difficult reality of creating a new structure that actually prevents any of these issues; for example, the CHAZ/CHOP "police" from Portland. And, even then, what the heck does that mean? You need researchers to conduct research. People have to be paid in order to do work.




    This all smacks more of a lack of experience actually interacting with (climate) scientists than actual knowledge/insight. Around Purdue there are casual research talks open to the public, I'd strongly recommend checking out similar things in the Columbus or your other local area.
     

    mike45

    Marksman
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Sep 25, 2012
    218
    28
    east central
    This is from https://www.climate.gov/.../climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide

    Based on preliminary analysis, the global average atmospheric carbon dioxide in 2020 was 412.5 parts per million (ppm for short), 412/1000000=.0004 or .04%.

    Man’s activities account for only 3% of the earth’s CO2 or .0012% of the atmosphere.

    my thoughts below

    I find it hard to believe .0012% of an inert gas that is mostly made by nature,

    Can destroy a planet that has been around this long.
     

    Ingomike

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    May 26, 2018
    28,154
    113
    North Central
    Lol. I live in it.

    This is completely disconnected from reality and history. Social pressures and abuses of power have always existed within science. It turns out that scientists are human, and sometimes individuals are ****ty, but that doesn't invalidate scientific results on their face.





    You make a bunch of claims, without presenting evidence, about how the entire structure of the scientific community is being built on baseless claims. The irony is palatable.

    dO sOmE rEsEaRcH, SHEEP! [Nailed it]
    I am not here to educate you. You must do that yourself.


    1646255152697.jpeg
     

    Leadeye

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Jan 19, 2009
    36,690
    113
    .
    Years ago when asked about climate change and human participation I asked, how much? I received a stare and then rephrased my question and said "quantify with good accuracy how much people are changing the climate". I got another stare, and said " You are telling Americans that they have to reduce their standard of living, and that's asking a lot. People are going to want that number."

    All I've seen in the passing years has been more like religion than science.
     

    wtburnette

    WT(aF)
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    44   0   0
    Nov 11, 2013
    26,859
    113
    SW side of Indy
    Years ago when asked about climate change and human participation I asked, how much? I received a stare and then rephrased my question and said "quantify with good accuracy how much people are changing the climate". I got another stare, and said " You are telling Americans that they have to reduce their standard of living, and that's asking a lot. People are going to want that number."

    All I've seen in the passing years has been more like religion than science.

    Exactly. My thought is our impact on "climate change" is negligible at best.
     
    Top Bottom