Naked Science Forum

Life Sciences => The Environment => Topic started by: tkadm30 on 04/02/2018 09:43:53

Title: Can scientific misconduct deter geoengineering research?
Post by: tkadm30 on 04/02/2018 09:43:53
I would like to know if scientific misconduct in geoengineering and climatic research may contribute to the negative public perception of this emerging field.

What do you think?

   
Title: Re: Can scientific misconduct deter geoengineering research?
Post by: Kryptid on 04/02/2018 23:10:02
Not that I'm aware of.
Title: Re: Can scientific misconduct deter geoengineering research?
Post by: tkadm30 on 05/02/2018 09:35:55
Not that I'm aware of.

How about we start our investigation here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy
Title: Re: Can scientific misconduct deter geoengineering research?
Post by: tkadm30 on 05/02/2018 09:48:07
Another in-depth article about climategate: http://davidpratt.info/climategate.htm
Title: Re: Can scientific misconduct deter geoengineering research?
Post by: tkadm30 on 05/02/2018 11:50:43
For thoses interested, here's my experimental theory on climategate and the reason geoengineering is a clandestine and rogue activity controlled by the elites:

Geoengineering is a deliberate and erroneous attempt to control and reduce the emissions of atmospheric CO2 by injecting synthetic aerosols in the troposphere in order to use artificial clouds for reflecting solar radiation. This process is known as radiative forcing: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70334.0

However, the existence of a clandestine geoengineering program is still controversial and poorly understood by the scientific community. I believe this negative perception of geoengineering is caused by the profound and organized disinformation surrounding the climategate controversy:

1. First, it appears unlikely that the IPCC is incorrectly modeling long-term climatic models, unless they correctly includes real-time geoengineering data in the measurement of cloud composition and atmospheric CO2 levels.
2. The science of geoengineering must be disclosed publicly to ensure scientific integrity in the research and development workflow of this emerging scientific field.
3. A consensus should be made on the effects of geoengineering on human health.

To be clear, solar geoengineering is a rogue and clandestine activity unless it become publicly disclosed and reviewed by the scientific community. The disclosure of geoengineering activity is the real reason the Paris agreement is doomed to fail.
Title: Re: Can scientific misconduct deter geoengineering research?
Post by: Kryptid on 05/02/2018 23:00:00
How about we start our investigation here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

From that very article: "Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct."

Whether or not climate change is some kind of conspiracy is a separate question entirely from whether or not secret geoengineering programs exist. I have yet to see you provide any good evidence for such programs.
Title: Re: Can scientific misconduct deter geoengineering research?
Post by: tkadm30 on 06/02/2018 21:46:54
From that very article: "Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct."

Cool, but how can you trust Wikipedia without verifying the information on independent web sites?

Do you really think Wikipedia holds absolute control over the validity of a scientific theory?
Title: Re: Can scientific misconduct deter geoengineering research?
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/02/2018 22:11:11
This process is known as radiative forcing
No it isn't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing

But then again, nobody is expecting you to get stuff right.
I believe this negative perception of geoengineering is caused by the profound and organized disinformation surrounding the climategate controversy:
No.
It is cause by the scientific community being influenced by evidence, rather than by conspiracy mumbo jumbo.
A consensus should be made on the effects of geoengineering on human health.
Well, such an investigation would be important, if they were planning to do any geoengineering.
Otherwise it's like looking at the effect of  unicorn droppings on human health.
Title: Re: Can scientific misconduct deter geoengineering research?
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/02/2018 22:15:31
Cool, but how can you trust Wikipedia without verifying the information on independent web sites?
So, you trust WIKI well enough to post it as a source when you think it agrees with you, but you don't trust it when it reports the fact (fairly easily checked by looking at the other sources) that 8 cttees looked into this  story and found nothing.
It's not WIKI that "found nothing", it's those 8 groups. Here's a list
 The eight major investigations covered by secondary sources include: House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (UK); Independent Climate Change Review (UK); International Science Assessment Panel Archived 9 May 2013 at the Wayback Machine. (UK); Pennsylvania State University first panel Archived 25 September 2010 at the Wayback Machine. and second panel Archived 30 January 2012 at the Wayback Machine. (US); United States Environmental Protection Agency (US); Department of Commerce (US); National Science Foundation (US)



Do you realise how dumb that looks?
Title: Re: Can scientific misconduct deter geoengineering research?
Post by: tkadm30 on 06/02/2018 23:50:36
So, you trust WIKI well enough to post it as a source when you think it agrees with you, but you don't trust it when it reports the fact (fairly easily checked by looking at the other sources) that 8 cttees looked into this  story and found nothing.
It's not WIKI that "found nothing", it's those 8 groups. Here's a list
 The eight major investigations covered by secondary sources include: House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (UK); Independent Climate Change Review (UK); International Science Assessment Panel Archived 9 May 2013 at the Wayback Machine. (UK); Pennsylvania State University first panel Archived 25 September 2010 at the Wayback Machine. and second panel Archived 30 January 2012 at the Wayback Machine. (US); United States Environmental Protection Agency (US); Department of Commerce (US); National Science Foundation (US)



Do you realise how dumb that looks?

Do you realise how dumb it is to trust Wikipedia editors without explicit knowledge on their corporate/governmental affiliations?

If you trust Wikipedia as a holy source of information, that's fine. I am here to help you realise why solar geoengineering is more than an actual conspiracy theory.
Title: Re: Can scientific misconduct deter geoengineering research?
Post by: Kryptid on 06/02/2018 23:56:17
Cool, but how can you trust Wikipedia without verifying the information on independent web sites?

Do you really think Wikipedia holds absolute control over the validity of a scientific theory?

Um... you realize that you are the one who posted the link to Wikipedia, right? Why post a link that you don't trust?
Title: Re: Can scientific misconduct deter geoengineering research?
Post by: tkadm30 on 07/02/2018 09:09:02
Um... you realize that you are the one who posted the link to Wikipedia, right? Why post a link that you don't trust?

Suppose I was testing you.

How would you react if you learned that Wikipedia is being regulated by a semi-autonomous autocratic entity?
Title: Re: Can scientific misconduct deter geoengineering research?
Post by: tkadm30 on 07/02/2018 10:03:14
Is it fair to ask if the climategate controversy may implicate bad/incorrect calculations of positive and negative radiative factors (RF) ?

Why is the public disclosure of geoengineering activity still not understood by the scientific community? 
Title: Re: Can scientific misconduct deter geoengineering research?
Post by: Kryptid on 07/02/2018 16:14:59
Suppose I was testing you.

Yeah, right. Like I'm going to believe that...

Quote
How would you react if you learned that Wikipedia is being regulated by a semi-autonomous autocratic entity?

It wouldn't matter as long as they cite reputable sources.

Quote
Why is the public disclosure of geoengineering activity still not understood by the scientific community?

Because there's no good evidence that such geoengineering activity even exists.
Title: Re: Can scientific misconduct deter geoengineering research?
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/02/2018 20:29:08
If you trust Wikipedia as a holy source of information,
No.
I just pointed out that you seemed not to know if you trusted it or not.
Suppose I was testing you.
I suppose you screwed up.

How would you react if you learned that Wikipedia is being regulated by a semi-autonomous autocratic entity?
How do you think I'd react?
I'm a scientist.
So I would check.
I'd see if I could still edit WIKI (spoiler alert- I can).
And so I'd know that, at least part of it is under the control of me.
Since I'm not "a semi-autonomous autocratic entity"
I'd know that you were wrong- as usual.
Title: Re: Can scientific misconduct deter geoengineering research?
Post by: tkadm30 on 08/02/2018 09:54:04
Because there's no good evidence that such geoengineering activity even exists.

This is the general misconception that the scientific community must absolutely resolve. The science of solar geoengineering will not go away simply because very few peoples understand how it actually works.
Title: Re: Can scientific misconduct deter geoengineering research?
Post by: Colin2B on 08/02/2018 10:06:51
The science of solar geoengineering will not go away simply because very few peoples understand how it actually works.
Because solar geoengineering doesnt exist it is impossible for it to go anywhere or for anyone to understand how it works.
Understanding how it doesnt work is a different matter and we can all see that clearly
Title: Re: Can scientific misconduct deter geoengineering research?
Post by: tkadm30 on 08/02/2018 10:21:23
Because solar geoengineering doesnt exist it is impossible for it to go anywhere or for anyone to understand how it works.

Scientists have the duty to properly educate the general public about science, not the opposite: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_radiation_management#Stratospheric_aerosols

Quote
Injecting reflective aerosols into the stratosphere is the proposed solar radiation management method that has received the most sustained attention. This technique could give much more than 3.7 W/m2 of globally averaged negative forcing,[35] which is sufficient to entirely offset the warming caused by a doubling of CO2, which is a common benchmark for assessing future climate scenarios. Sulfates are the most commonly proposed aerosols for climate engineering, since there is a good natural analogue with (and evidence from) volcanic eruptions. Explosive volcanic eruptions inject large amounts of sulfur dioxide gas into the stratosphere, which form sulfate aerosol and cool the planet. Alternative materials such as using photophoretic particles, titaniun dioxide, and diamond have been proposed.[36][37][38] Delivery could be achieved using artillery, aircraft (such as the high-flying F15-C) or balloons.[39][40][41] Broadly speaking, stratospheric aerosol injection is seen as a relatively more credible climate engineering technique[by whom?], although one with potential major risks and challenges for its implementation. Risks include changes in precipitation and, in the case of sulfur, possible ozone depletion.
Title: Re: Can scientific misconduct deter geoengineering research?
Post by: Colin2B on 08/02/2018 15:22:31
Scientists have the duty to properly educate the general public about science, not the opposite: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_radiation_management#Stratospheric_aerosols
This is not clandestine and it is not currently happening. Itís all there for public debate, and it isnít radiative forcing as you were claiming.
Title: Re: Can scientific misconduct deter geoengineering research?
Post by: Kryptid on 08/02/2018 16:41:23
This is the general misconception that the scientific community must absolutely resolve. The science of solar geoengineering will not go away simply because very few peoples understand how it actually works.

Merely calling it a misconception doesn't make it so. There is no good evidence that some secret geoengineering program exists.

Scientists have the duty to properly educate the general public about science, not the opposite: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_radiation_management#Stratospheric_aerosols

Quote
Injecting reflective aerosols into the stratosphere is the proposed solar radiation management method that has received the most sustained attention. This technique could give much more than 3.7 W/m2 of globally averaged negative forcing,[35] which is sufficient to entirely offset the warming caused by a doubling of CO2, which is a common benchmark for assessing future climate scenarios. Sulfates are the most commonly proposed aerosols for climate engineering, since there is a good natural analogue with (and evidence from) volcanic eruptions. Explosive volcanic eruptions inject large amounts of sulfur dioxide gas into the stratosphere, which form sulfate aerosol and cool the planet. Alternative materials such as using photophoretic particles, titaniun dioxide, and diamond have been proposed.[36][37][38] Delivery could be achieved using artillery, aircraft (such as the high-flying F15-C) or balloons.[39][40][41] Broadly speaking, stratospheric aerosol injection is seen as a relatively more credible climate engineering technique[by whom?], although one with potential major risks and challenges for its implementation. Risks include changes in precipitation and, in the case of sulfur, possible ozone depletion.

There you go using Wikipedia as a source again. I thought you said that it can't be trusted?

Also, just because geoengineering concepts have been proposed does not mean that they are actually being done in secret. That would be like arguing that the fact that giant interstellar spacecraft were explored conceptually is evidence that they have actually been constructed and sent to other stars in secret.
Title: Re: Can scientific misconduct deter geoengineering research?
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/02/2018 20:03:13
Because there's no good evidence that such geoengineering activity even exists.

This is the general misconception that the scientific community must absolutely resolve. The science of solar geoengineering will not go away simply because very few peoples understand how it actually works.
How did you come to the conclusion that you are right and the whole scientific community is wrong?

Just how weirdly deludeed do you have to be to think that way?
Title: Re: Can scientific misconduct deter geoengineering research?
Post by: Ophiolite on 09/02/2018 06:24:16
I would like to know if scientific misconduct in geoengineering and climatic research may contribute to the negative public perception of this emerging field.

What do you think?

   
I think the honest thing would have been to open the thread with what became your fourth post. Concealing an agenda is discourteous, foolish and somewhat obvious.

Meanwhile back at the ranch, I see a lot of assertions, but no evidence. Do you have any evidence, or should we just take your word for it?
Title: Re: Can scientific misconduct deter geoengineering research?
Post by: tkadm30 on 11/02/2018 21:42:50
Seriously, it is a shame that very few scientists are willing to recognize the science of solar geoengineering. I'm guessing science in America has become a swamp of corrupted scientists.
Title: Re: Can scientific misconduct deter geoengineering research?
Post by: Kryptid on 12/02/2018 01:15:56
Seriously, it is a shame that very few scientists are willing to recognize the science of solar geoengineering. I'm guessing science in America has become a swamp of corrupted scientists.

That depends very much on what you mean by "recognize". Of course most scientists recognize that it is possible, in theory, to modify the climate using particular techniques. That is a very different form of recognition than thinking that climate modification is currently taking place in secret.
Title: Re: Can scientific misconduct deter geoengineering research?
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/02/2018 18:46:22
Seriously, it is a shame that very few scientists are willing to recognize the science of solar geoengineering.

No.
It's good news that scientists are no willing to recognise  things for which there is no evidence.
If they did that they wouldn't be scientists.
It's a different matter entirely to speculate about how e might geoengineer the planet.
There are scientists who do that. It's a difficult subject simply because the science shows that we accidentally geoengineered the planet and we don't want to risk making the same mistake twice.
Title: Re: Can scientific misconduct deter geoengineering research?
Post by: tkadm30 on 13/02/2018 22:20:02
No.
It's good news that scientists are no willing to recognise  things for which there is no evidence.
If they did that they wouldn't be scientists.
It's a different matter entirely to speculate about how e might geoengineer the planet.
There are scientists who do that. It's a difficult subject simply because the science shows that we accidentally geoengineered the planet and we don't want to risk making the same mistake twice.

Good answer @Bored chemist

congratulations. :)

but please tell me now however whom you fighting for.





Title: Re: Can scientific misconduct deter geoengineering research?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/02/2018 09:14:38
but please tell me now however who you fighting for.
I'm "fighting" on behalf of the people who come to a science web page expecting to find evidence based science rather than conspiracy nonsense.

Why are you not on the same side?

(BTW, it should be "whom are you fighting for?", but I guess that's a lost cause).
Title: Re: Can scientific misconduct deter geoengineering research?
Post by: tkadm30 on 14/02/2018 09:41:26
I'm "fighting" on behalf of the people who come to a science web page expecting to find evidence based science rather than conspiracy nonsense.

Why are you not on the same side?

(BTW, it should be "whom are you fighting for?", but I guess that's a lost cause).

Sorry, my english is sometimes buggy and error-prone... :)

Clandestine solar geoengineering is no conspiracy nonsense. You have to really consider what others people are telling you and stop acting like an elite covering up this rogue activity. If you're fighting for science, then you must investigate and think without influence from any political positions...
 
 
Title: Re: Can scientific misconduct deter geoengineering research?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/02/2018 10:39:49
Clandestine solar geoengineering is no conspiracy nonsense.
For the umpteenth time; prove it, or shut up about it.
Title: Re: Can scientific misconduct deter geoengineering research?
Post by: Kryptid on 14/02/2018 16:37:01
Clandestine solar geoengineering is no conspiracy nonsense.
A claim yet to be supported.

Quote
You have to really consider what others people are telling you
Which would be irrational if the people who are telling us this cannot support their assertions with evidence.

Quote
and stop acting like an elite covering up this rogue activity.
If being rational makes one an "elite" then we should all strive to be one.

Quote
If you're fighting for science, then you must investigate and think without influence from any political positions...
It's not politics, but rather rationality, that has driven us to our conclusions on this matter.
Title: Re: Can scientific misconduct deter geoengineering research?
Post by: tkadm30 on 14/02/2018 19:49:22
I guess my next question should be "How deep does science has really sunken in America" ?
Title: Re: Can scientific misconduct deter geoengineering research?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/02/2018 20:47:01
I guess my next question should be "How deep does science has really sunken in America" ?
Don't worry, most of the world isn't in America, the other 96% of us are doing OK.
A better question would be "why does Tkadm30 keep posting stuff as if it's a fact , even though there's no evidence for it?"

What evidence do you think you have that clandestine geoengineering (on any meaningful scale) actually exists?
Title: Re: Can scientific misconduct deter geoengineering research?
Post by: tkadm30 on 14/02/2018 20:59:35
What evidence do you think you have that clandestine geoengineering (on any meaningful scale) actually exists?

Your obsession to fight this is evidence of a large-scale disinformation/cognitive infiltration system operating to cover up rogue geoengineering activity.
Title: Re: Can scientific misconduct deter geoengineering research?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/02/2018 21:13:18
What evidence do you think you have that clandestine geoengineering (on any meaningful scale) actually exists?

Your obsession to fight this is evidence of a large-scale disinformation/cognitive infiltration system operating to cover up rogue geoengineering activity.
I'm not fighting it.
I'm asking for evidence.

Since I am offering you an opportunity to point out the evidence I am not fighting against you proving your point.

I'm still waiting for you to provide the evidence.
Why don't you do so?

If anything, your refusal to cite any backup to your assertion undermines the idea that it is valid.
Do you not understand that?
Title: Re: Can scientific misconduct deter geoengineering research?
Post by: Kryptid on 14/02/2018 22:13:31
Your obsession to fight this is evidence of a large-scale disinformation/cognitive infiltration system operating to cover up rogue geoengineering activity.
You might as well be saying that:
 
-People who fight David Icke's claims are evidence of a large-scale disinformation/cognitive infiltration system operating to cover up the fact that reptilian shape-shifters are secretly ruling the world.

-People who fight the Flat Earth Society are evidence of a large-scale disinformation/cognitive infiltration system operating to cover up knowledge that the Earth is flat.

-People who fight the creationism movement are evidence of a large-scale disinformation/cognitive infiltration system operating to cover up proof that evolution is wrong and that the Earth is young.
Title: Re: Can scientific misconduct deter geoengineering research?
Post by: tkadm30 on 15/02/2018 09:06:45
Clandestine solar geoengineering is no conspiracy nonsense.
For the umpteenth time; prove it, or shut up about it.

Tell me something i don't know.
Title: Re: Can scientific misconduct deter geoengineering research?
Post by: syhprum on 15/02/2018 16:47:31
If you really wanted to add sulphurous aerosols to the atmosphere the easiest and cheapest way to do it would be to allow shipping to burn low grade diesel fuel contaminated with sulphur.   
Title: Re: Can scientific misconduct deter geoengineering research?
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/02/2018 19:12:04
Clandestine solar geoengineering is no conspiracy nonsense.
For the umpteenth time; prove it, or shut up about it.

Tell me something i don't know.

Apparently, you don't know that you are expected to back up assertions with evidence.
Title: Re: Can scientific misconduct deter geoengineering research?
Post by: tkadm30 on 16/02/2018 09:57:24
A technically correct term to define solar geoengineering activity is aerosol radiative forcing.
Title: Re: Can scientific misconduct deter geoengineering research?
Post by: puppypower on 16/02/2018 13:26:00
Geo-Engineering is not popular with the consensus weather science community, since any solution or perceived solution to the problem of global warming, is not politically or financially, advantageous. Big bucks for the consensus wether science depends on the perception of future climate disasters. If we had a new way to resolve this future, the priorities may change. There is better political mileage hoping for new and improved natural disasters, so you can point the finger, and use that to make a political statement to leverage funds.

For example, the school shooting in Florida, that is in the news, became an opportunity for the left to place gun control on center stage, even ahead of the suffering of the students. It is not a solemn moment but a way to leverage a POV. This is how the left works; take advantage of disasters to promote causes. In terms of climate change and geo-engineering, geo-engineering would theoretically mitigate global warming disasters. This gets in the way of the disasters needed for political purposes.

Those on the right, don't see geo-engineering the same way. They are concerned with public safety, and look for practical solutions.  However, they have not fully bought into the manmade premise. To the right, geo-engineering it is more like someone, setting up a Big Foot trap. This makes full sense if you buy into big foot. But if you do not buy into big foot, it seems like blue sky research than is better funded in times of property. To the right geo-engineering  is not threatening, but we have other priorities. If the private sectors wishes to do this blue sky research, this is OK. If anything it will get under the claw of the left, and mess up their sales doom and gloom pitch.

In terms of atmospheric aerosols, the majority of the aerosols are actually produced naturally. This includes dust in the wind, water droplet in clouds, smoke from forest fires, etc.. Humans contribute about 20% more to this total, based on auto exhaust, factory smoke, and other such things. Geo-engineering is possible, but it would need huge amounts of materials to even make a dent. This is where costs go way up. How do you put mega tons of material in the atmosphere? These high costs, would cut into the manmade climate industries budget, since it counters the fear, at the level of conceptual modeling.

What was interesting is, the cars of old; 1960's and earlier, not only produced carbon as CO2 and CO, but also lots of smoky aerosols. These aerosols helped to counter the impact of the CO2 greenhouse mechanism. It was not until the left tinkered with this balance; smog control, did CO2 gain ascendency over the manmade aerosol balance in cars. The right knows how the left screws things up, to make worse problems, under the guise of doing good.  The right will hesitate to support anything that left comes up with, that leads to new series of disasters used for political purposes. The left screws up nukes, which would have solved the CO2 global problem 30 years ago. If geo-engineering was bad the left would be all over it.