[tkadm30 (OP)]

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?

   

[Kryptid]

Not that I'm aware of.

[tkadm30 (OP)]

Not that I'm aware of.

How about we start our investigation here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

[tkadm30 (OP)]

Another in-depth article about climategate: http://davidpratt.info/climategate.htm

[tkadm30 (OP)]

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.

[Kryptid]

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.

[tkadm30 (OP)]

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?

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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?

[tkadm30 (OP)]

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.

[Kryptid]

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?

[tkadm30 (OP)]

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?

[tkadm30 (OP)]

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? 

[Kryptid]

Suppose I was testing you.

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

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.

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[tkadm30 (OP)]

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.

[Colin2B]

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

[tkadm30 (OP)]

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

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.

[Colin2B]

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. It’s all there for public debate, and it isn’t radiative forcing as you were claiming.

[Kryptid]

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

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.