OT - Propaganda Games

Eric Stevens:
Social pressure cannot be unde- rated. Just look what happens to
people who don't toe the official line re global warming.

Davoud:
It's not an official line except in the sense that a spherical Earth
and a heliocentric Solar System are "official lines." It's
peer-reviewed science that is backed by an enormous quantity of
research and that is accepted by ~97% of independent scientists who are
qualified in the climate science.

Eric Stevens:
Let's not argue about the details. Just look at the way that people
(including scientists) who disagree with any part of the dogma are
treated.

Global climate change is not a dogma; it's a scientific theory, subject
to constant review and subject to modification or even rejection if new
evidence shows it to be partially or completely wrong. That's not
likely; the only theories in science that have been scrutinized more
than global climate change are Darwinian evolution and General
Relativity. Like the theory of climate change, those theories continue
to pass muster.

Imagine what would happen if people with disadent views on
any aspects of politics could be identified and efficiently
discriminated against by the central governing authorities.

I don't have to imagine that. I lived in non-democratic countries in
the Middle East, East Africa, and Southeast Asia for nearly 32 years.

Davoud:
In the U.S. the government doesn't dictate hiring by universities or by
research facilities that are not owned by the U.S. Government.

Eric Stevens:
But just imagine what it would be like if they did, if they controlled
where you could get housing, how much you could earn etc.

I already know, but I don't dwell on it. Not applicable in the Western
democracies, *except* to the extent that economic systems may be
designed in such a way to ensure that the overwhelming majority of the
national wealth is in a few pockets and there is a large, and growing,
underclass. Whether that can continue indefinitely is subject to
debate.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 20:33:52 -0500, Davoud wrote:

Eric Stevens:
Social pressure cannot be unde- rated. Just look what happens to
people who don't toe the official line re global warming.

Davoud:
It's not an official line except in the sense that a spherical Earth
and a heliocentric Solar System are "official lines." It's
peer-reviewed science that is backed by an enormous quantity of
research and that is accepted by ~97% of independent scientists who are
qualified in the climate science.

Eric Stevens:
Let's not argue about the details. Just look at the way that people
(including scientists) who disagree with any part of the dogma are
treated.

Global climate change is not a dogma; it's a scientific theory, subject
to constant review and subject to modification or even rejection if new
evidence shows it to be partially or completely wrong. That's not
likely; the only theories in science that have been scrutinized more
than global climate change are Darwinian evolution and General
Relativity. Like the theory of climate change, those theories continue
to pass muster.

Do you trust NOAA's latest data re global temperature rise?

Imagine what would happen if people with disadent views on
any aspects of politics could be identified and efficiently
discriminated against by the central governing authorities.

I don't have to imagine that. I lived in non-democratic countries in
the Middle East, East Africa, and Southeast Asia for nearly 32 years.

Davoud:
In the U.S. the government doesn't dictate hiring by universities or by
research facilities that are not owned by the U.S. Government.

Eric Stevens:
But just imagine what it would be like if they did, if they controlled
where you could get housing, how much you could earn etc.

I already know, but I don't dwell on it. Not applicable in the Western
democracies, *except* to the extent that economic systems may be
designed in such a way to ensure that the overwhelming majority of the
national wealth is in a few pockets and there is a large, and growing,
underclass. Whether that can continue indefinitely is subject to
debate.

Do you approve of it? Do you think the world would be improved if the
ruling powers concerned had better access to better data about their
citizens?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Eric Stevens:
Let's not argue about the details. Just look at the way that people
(including scientists) who disagree with any part of the dogma are
treated.

Davoud:
Global climate change is not a dogma; it's a scientific theory, subject
to constant review and subject to modification or even rejection if new
evidence shows it to be partially or completely wrong. That's not
likely; the only theories in science that have been scrutinized more
than global climate change are Darwinian evolution and General
Relativity. Like the theory of climate change, those theories continue
to pass muster.

Eric Stevens:
Do you trust NOAA's latest data re global temperature rise?

Yes, until better data is available. The "latest data" is not dogma;
it's the best available at the moment. Because it's real science, it's
subject to change.

Eric Stevens:
But just imagine what it would be like if they did, if they controlled
where you could get housing, how much you could earn etc.

Davoud:
I already know, but I don't dwell on it. Not applicable in the Western
democracies, *except* to the extent that economic systems may be
designed in such a way to ensure that the overwhelming majority of the
national wealth is in a few pockets and there is a large, and growing,
underclass. Whether that can continue indefinitely is subject to
debate.

Eric Stevens:
Do you approve of it? Do you think the world would be improved if the
ruling powers concerned had better access to better data about their
citizens?

Which ruling powers and what kind of data?

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 22:25:09 -0500, Davoud wrote:

Eric Stevens:
Let's not argue about the details. Just look at the way that people
(including scientists) who disagree with any part of the dogma are
treated.

Davoud:
Global climate change is not a dogma; it's a scientific theory, subject
to constant review and subject to modification or even rejection if new
evidence shows it to be partially or completely wrong. That's not
likely; the only theories in science that have been scrutinized more
than global climate change are Darwinian evolution and General
Relativity. Like the theory of climate change, those theories continue
to pass muster.

Eric Stevens:
Do you trust NOAA's latest data re global temperature rise?

Yes, until better data is available. The "latest data" is not dogma;
it's the best available at the moment. Because it's real science, it's
subject to change.

It's dubious, at best. It relies principally on ground stations the
accuracy of most of which have been compromised by the encroachment of
buildings, concrete slapbs, air conditioning ducts and you wouldn't
believe what else. Unquestioning belief in the reliability of NOAA's
data is practicing dogma. Questioning it and possibly rejecting it is
not the mark of an unbeliever but of someone practising science.

Eric Stevens:
But just imagine what it would be like if they did, if they controlled
where you could get housing, how much you could earn etc.

Davoud:
I already know, but I don't dwell on it. Not applicable in the Western
democracies, *except* to the extent that economic systems may be
designed in such a way to ensure that the overwhelming majority of the
national wealth is in a few pockets and there is a large, and growing,
underclass. Whether that can continue indefinitely is subject to
debate.

Eric Stevens:
Do you approve of it? Do you think the world would be improved if the
ruling powers concerned had better access to better data about their
citizens?

Which ruling powers and what kind of data?

You didn't read the article at the end of the link?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Dec 21, 2015, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):

On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 22:25:09 -0500, wrote:

Eric Stevens:
Let's not argue about the details. Just look at the way that people
(including scientists) who disagree with any part of the dogma are
treated.

Davoud:
Global climate change is not a dogma; it's a scientific theory, subject
to constant review and subject to modification or even rejection if new
evidence shows it to be partially or completely wrong. That's not
likely; the only theories in science that have been scrutinized more
than global climate change are Darwinian evolution and General
Relativity. Like the theory of climate change, those theories continue
to pass muster.

Eric Stevens:
Do you trust NOAA's latest data re global temperature rise?

Yes, until better data is available. The "latest data" is not dogma;
it's the best available at the moment. Because it's real science, it's
subject to change.

It's dubious, at best. It relies principally on ground stations the
accuracy of most of which have been compromised by the encroachment of
buildings, concrete slapbs, air conditioning ducts and you wouldn't
believe what else. Unquestioning belief in the reliability of NOAA's
data is practicing dogma. Questioning it and possibly rejecting it is
not the mark of an unbeliever but of someone practising science.

I would have believed that you more than many others here, would be aware
that there is more to NOAA’s data collection than relying “principally on
ground stations, the accuracy of most of which have been compromised by the
encroachment of buildings, concrete slapbs, air conditioning duct and you
wouldn’t believe what else [sic].�

A glance at the number and distribution of NOAAs offshore buoys, snd th
frequency of data collected should put that thought to rest.
http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov

You claim that unquestioning belief in the reliability of NOAA’s data is
practicing dogma, and that questioning it and possibly rejecting it is he
mark of someone practicing science. However, you fail to present other data,
collected in a scientific manner, to support your doubt, which seems to be
far from someone practicing science, just plain vanilla, unscientific doubt.



--

Regards,
Savageduck

Davoud:
Yes, until better data is available. The "latest data" is not dogma;
it's the best available at the moment. Because it's real science, it's
subject to change.

Eric Stevens:
Unquestioning belief in the reliability of NOAA's
data is practicing dogma. Questioning it and possibly rejecting it is
not the mark of an unbeliever but of someone practising science.

Which is a rephrasing of what I said. "I'll believe it no matter what"
would be dogmatic. "...until better data is available" is not dogmatic
belief.

Eric Stevens:
Do you approve of it? Do you think the world would be improved if the
ruling powers concerned had better access to better data about their
citizens?

Davoud:
Which ruling powers and what kind of data?

You didn't read the article at the end of the link?

Apparently not very carefully. The U.S. Constitution requires that the
government collect a considerable amount of information about each
resident every 10 years--a census. This is in accordance with the
mandate that the Federal Government provide for the General Welfare of
the people.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 20:15:15 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On Dec 21, 2015, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):

On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 22:25:09 -0500, wrote:

Eric Stevens:
Let's not argue about the details. Just look at the way that people
(including scientists) who disagree with any part of the dogma are
treated.

Davoud:
Global climate change is not a dogma; it's a scientific theory, subject
to constant review and subject to modification or even rejection if new
evidence shows it to be partially or completely wrong. That's not
likely; the only theories in science that have been scrutinized more
than global climate change are Darwinian evolution and General
Relativity. Like the theory of climate change, those theories continue
to pass muster.

Eric Stevens:
Do you trust NOAA's latest data re global temperature rise?

Yes, until better data is available. The "latest data" is not dogma;
it's the best available at the moment. Because it's real science, it's
subject to change.

It's dubious, at best. It relies principally on ground stations the
accuracy of most of which have been compromised by the encroachment of
buildings, concrete slapbs, air conditioning ducts and you wouldn't
believe what else. Unquestioning belief in the reliability of NOAA's
data is practicing dogma. Questioning it and possibly rejecting it is
not the mark of an unbeliever but of someone practising science.

I would have believed that you more than many others here, would be aware
that there is more to NOAA’s data collection than relying “principally on
ground stations, the accuracy of most of which have been compromised by the
encroachment of buildings, concrete slapbs, air conditioning duct and you
wouldn’t believe what else [sic].”

A glance at the number and distribution of NOAAs offshore buoys, snd th
frequency of data collected should put that thought to rest.
http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov

You claim that unquestioning belief in the reliability of NOAA’s data is
practicing dogma, and that questioning it and possibly rejecting it is he
mark of someone practicing science. However, you fail to present other data,
collected in a scientific manner, to support your doubt, which seems to be
far from someone practicing science, just plain vanilla, unscientific doubt.

See http://tinyurl.com/zzyzdhg for a start. Then try
https://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordp...1/07/r-367.pdf

Most people who rely on NOAA's public conclusions have never examined
their basis but, as I said, accept them as a matter of dogma. Other
people who examine and criticise the basis for NOAA's conclusions are
labeled with the term 'sceptic' (used pejoratively) and put to one
side, even though such people should have a role in science. I know
that from experience that the social pressures on 'sceptics' can be
considerable and I would hate to think of what could happen if
something like the propaganda games were implemented.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Dec 22, 2015, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):

On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 20:15:15 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On Dec 21, 2015, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):

On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 22:25:09 -0500, wrote:

Eric Stevens:
Let's not argue about the details. Just look at the way that
people
(including scientists) who disagree with any part of the dogma
are
treated.

Davoud:
Global climate change is not a dogma; it's a scientific theory,
subject
to constant review and subject to modification or even rejection if
new
evidence shows it to be partially or completely wrong. That's not
likely; the only theories in science that have been scrutinized
more
than global climate change are Darwinian evolution and General
Relativity. Like the theory of climate change, those theories
continue
to pass muster.

Eric Stevens:
Do you trust NOAA's latest data re global temperature rise?

Yes, until better data is available. The "latest data" is not dogma;
it's the best available at the moment. Because it's real science, it's
subject to change.

It's dubious, at best. It relies principally on ground stations the
accuracy of most of which have been compromised by the encroachment of
buildings, concrete slapbs, air conditioning ducts and you wouldn't
believe what else. Unquestioning belief in the reliability of NOAA's
data is practicing dogma. Questioning it and possibly rejecting it is
not the mark of an unbeliever but of someone practising science.

I would have believed that you more than many others here, would be aware
that there is more to NOAA’s data collection than relying “principally
on
ground stations, the accuracy of most of which have been compromised by the
encroachment of buildings, concrete slapbs, air conditioning duct and you
wouldn’t believe what else [sic].�

A glance at the number and distribution of NOAAs offshore buoys, snd th
frequency of data collected should put that thought to rest.
http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov

You claim that unquestioning belief in the reliability of NOAA’s data is
practicing dogma, and that questioning it and possibly rejecting it is he
mark of someone practicing science. However, you fail to present other
data,
collected in a scientific manner, to support your doubt, which seems to be
far from someone practicing science, just plain vanilla, unscientific
doubt.

See http://tinyurl.com/zzyzdhg for a start.

....and they are using NOAA data from a subset of 410 stations they have
deemed as “unperturbed�.
In the key findings the had this to say:
"1. Comprehensive and detailed evaluation of station metadata, on-site
station photography, satellite and aerial imaging, street level Google Earth
imagery, and curator interviews have yielded a well-distributed 410 station
subset of the 1218 station USHCN network that is unperturbed by Time of
Observation changes, station moves, or rating changes, and a complete or
mostly complete 30-year dataset. It must be emphasized that the perturbed
stations dropped from the USHCN set show significantly lower trends than
those retained in the sample, both for well and poorly sited station sets.�

That seems to indicate the dropped the“perturbed� station data from the
sample.

Then try
https://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordp...1/07/r-367.pdf

Much of those conclusions don’t seem to have taken into account what was
reported above, and discounts the omitted “perturbed� station data.

That data is limited to continental North American terrestrial data. The same
argument cannot be used for oceanic or atmospheric data obtained from
offshore buoys and weather balloons.


Most people who rely on NOAA's public conclusions have never examined
their basis but, as I said, accept them as a matter of dogma.

“dogma� is in the context of this thread, your term to undermine the NOAA
data and conclusions. Unfortunately, we are faced with undeniable climate
change and the industrial nations bear a heavy share of responsibility for
that change.

Other
people who examine and criticise the basis for NOAA's conclusions are
labeled with the term 'sceptic' (used pejoratively) and put to one
side, even though such people should have a role in science. I know
that from experience that the social pressures on 'sceptics' can be
considerable and I would hate to think of what could happen if
something like the propaganda games were implemented.

Agreed. However, there is a big difference between scientific skepticism and
loss of faith and doubt in supporting totalitarian and theocratic regimes.
One need think only of the Inquisition, "The Terror" in revolutionary France,
Stalin’s paranoid purges, Nazi Germany, Mao’s Red Army, Pol Pot and the
Khmer Rouge, and the current Middle East issues.




--

Regards,
Savageduck

"Davoud" wrote in message
...
Davoud:
Yes, until better data is available. The "latest data" is not dogma;
it's the best available at the moment. Because it's real science,
it's
subject to change.

Eric Stevens:
Unquestioning belief in the reliability of NOAA's
data is practicing dogma. Questioning it and possibly rejecting it is
not the mark of an unbeliever but of someone practising science.

Which is a rephrasing of what I said. "I'll believe it no matter what"
would be dogmatic. "...until better data is available" is not dogmatic
belief.

Eric Stevens:
Do you approve of it? Do you think the world would be improved if
the
ruling powers concerned had better access to better data about
their
citizens?

Davoud:
Which ruling powers and what kind of data?

You didn't read the article at the end of the link?

Apparently not very carefully. The U.S. Constitution requires that the
government collect a considerable amount of information about each
resident every 10 years--a census. This is in accordance with the
mandate that the Federal Government provide for the General Welfare of
the people.

What degree of data collection is acceptable? The requirement to
collect the data does not indicate to what degree it should be. Have
you ever received the census long form to complete? One can argue that
this degree of data collection is not what was intended nor is the claim
that a citizen must provide that data under penalty of law.

On Dec 22, 2015, J. Clarke wrote
(in ):

In news.com,
says...

On Dec 21, 2015, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):

On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 22:25:09 -0500, wrote:

Eric Stevens:
Let's not argue about the details. Just look at the way that
people
(including scientists) who disagree with any part of the dogma
are
treated.

Davoud:
Global climate change is not a dogma; it's a scientific theory,
subject
to constant review and subject to modification or even rejection if
new
evidence shows it to be partially or completely wrong. That's not
likely; the only theories in science that have been scrutinized
more
than global climate change are Darwinian evolution and General
Relativity. Like the theory of climate change, those theories
continue
to pass muster.

Eric Stevens:
Do you trust NOAA's latest data re global temperature rise?

Yes, until better data is available. The "latest data" is not dogma;
it's the best available at the moment. Because it's real science, it's
subject to change.

It's dubious, at best. It relies principally on ground stations the
accuracy of most of which have been compromised by the encroachment of
buildings, concrete slapbs, air conditioning ducts and you wouldn't
believe what else. Unquestioning belief in the reliability of NOAA's
data is practicing dogma. Questioning it and possibly rejecting it is
not the mark of an unbeliever but of someone practising science.

I would have believed that you more than many others here, would be aware
that there is more to NOAA?s data collection than relying ?principally on
ground stations, the accuracy of most of which have been compromised by the
encroachment of buildings, concrete slapbs, air conditioning duct and you
wouldn?t believe what else [sic].?

A glance at the number and distribution of NOAAs offshore buoys, snd th
frequency of data collected should put that thought to rest.
http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov

Which give us about 30 years of data subsequent to a change in
measurement technique that has some known biases and may have some
unknown ones as well.

....and that makes the data collected bad?

You claim that unquestioning belief in the reliability of NOAA?s data is
practicing dogma, and that questioning it and possibly rejecting it is he
mark of someone practicing science. However, you fail to present other
data,
collected in a scientific manner, to support your doubt, which seems to be
far from someone practicing science, just plain vanilla, unscientific
doubt.

One of the key elements of the scientific process is independent
replication of results. Where is the independent replication of NOAA
results? Who else has the resources to conduct data collection on a
similar scale?

So, because there is no other large source of data, we should discount and
doubt what we have accumulated?

Unfortunately we have to work with, and analyze the best data available at
now. It is that, or to live in denial because it doesn’t suit us to
consider human impact on the environment.

For now this is the only canary we have in this mine, and it seems there have
been no alternative scientific methods proposed, other than to take the
approach of doubt.

--

Regards,
Savageduck