| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Do hacked e-mails show global-warming fraud? |
| Yes |
|
43% |
[ 19 ] |
| No |
|
56% |
[ 25 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 44 |
|
| Author |
Message |
BoneKracker
Veteran
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1271
Location: U.S.A.
|
 Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 2:34 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| drizek wrote: | | I prefer looking at that graph with the breakdown according to region. He is only unpopular in the areas that didn't vote for him in the first place, it is just that those people turned the crazy up to 11 in the past few months. Most other Americans are still on board. |
Most Americans are still "on board"? Really?
| Quote: | WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama's job approval rating has dropped below 50 percent in a second major poll in an indication he is suffering from the long healthcare debate and weakness in the economy, Gallup said on Friday.
Gallup said 49 percent of Americans approved of Obama's job performance. A survey by Quinnipiac University on Wednesday had a similar finding, putting him at 48 percent support.
It was the first time he had fallen below majority support in those two polls. He had been polling in the low 50s for months after taking office in January with an approval rating just under 70 percent. |
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE5AJ53220091120
I'd say your claim is debatable. His RCP average of the major polls has slipped to 50.3% (and falling). More notably, his approval ratings are terrible (in the 30% and 40% range) on his handling of important issues, even according to biased-ass CNN. They say the majority of Americans disapprove of Obama's handling of almost every important issue facing the country. Their explanation for his miraculous retention of what they portray as a slight majority overall approval rating seems to point to his charisma, rather than his actual deeds, and that's wearing thin rather quickly, as you can see from the overall RCP graph.
| Quote: | The survey suggests that the president's approval rating remains over 50 percent even though most Americans disapprove of how Obama is handling the economy, health care, Afghanistan, Iraq, unemployment, illegal immigration and the federal budget deficit.
How does he do it?
"By retaining a reservoir of goodwill left over from his election to the White House a year ago. Six in 10 say Obama inspires confidence in them; six in 10 also call him a strong leader who is honest and trustworthy. Sixty-three percent say he is not a typical politician. More than half give Obama a thumbs-up on 11 of the 12 personal characteristics tested," adds Holland. Only 45 percent say he has a clear plan for solving the country's problems -- the only item on which a majority has a negative view of him.
It's a different story when it comes to issues. More than half have a positive view on Obama on only three of the 14 issues noted in the survey. |
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/03/obama.poll/index.html
And that's coming from CNN. The pictures painted by WSJ, Gallup, Rasmussen, and others are not nearly so rosy.
Also, contrary to your statement, a growing number of people who voted for him disapprove of his overall job performance (from CBS, today):
| Quote: | A recent CBS News Poll suggests there may be some cracks in support among a group that was instrumental in bringing Barack Obama to the White House – independents.
According to a CBS News Poll conducted November 13-16, a declining percentage of independents now approve of the way Mr. Obama is handling his overall job as president as well as some key policy areas compared to last month.
Even though more independents continue to approve (45 percent) than disapprove (40 percent) of the president's overall job performance, the percentage that approves is down 7 points from last month, and the number that disapproves is up 5 points. |
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/24/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5761791.shtml
In summary, I think your claim that "most Americans are on board" is a bit shaky. I think he has actually crossed the threshold to where that is no longer true. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
shash
Apprentice
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 220
Location: India
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 2:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Chopinzee wrote: |
| Quote: | | “This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?” |
 Really trustworthy |
Actually, very trustworthy.
This refers to a controversy that happened with Climate Research. It was a peer reviewed journal, where a "paper" was published by Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas in 2003. It wasn't even original research, it was a literature review, which should never have been allowed anywhere near a decent journal. Apparently, an editor sympathetic to that paper subverted the peer review process and got the paper published. Lots of people protested, some of the editors of Climate Research resigned (including the chief editor), and finally, the publisher of the journal himself came out and said that there was something wrong in this case.
Read more about it here
_________________
The only difference between martyrdom and suicide is press coverage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shash
Apprentice
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 220
Location: India
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 2:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| BoneKracker wrote: | | shash wrote: | | I believe this refers to one aberrant dataset, which didn't show warming while the others did. They weren't able to correlate that dataset, so they decided not to use it. |
| shash wrote: | | Really, there's nothing "alarming" in this. If it's a nail in any coffin, it's in the coffin of denialism. |
Those statements sound like bullshit to me.
Really, you sound much more like an ideologue intent on minimizing his personal cognitive dissonance than someone interesting in the truth. I see no basis for the first claim, and the second is pure hyperbole. |
I make those statements after spending practically a whole weekend looking through what happened, including responses from both sides. Not just HuffPo and the Telegraph, but the people actually involved.
Can you say that you've done anything similar? Or is all your "science" in this case from science "reporters" who are incapable of reporting science in the first place?
_________________
The only difference between martyrdom and suicide is press coverage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BoneKracker
Veteran
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1271
Location: U.S.A.
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 2:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| warpasaurusREX wrote: | | rtomek wrote: | | warpasaurusREX wrote: | | If the hysteria goes away, so does the money. Everyone in academia knows this. Prolonging the climate change debate is money in the bank, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. |
Anyone who really thinks that way should be fired for ethical violations. If you're a PhD researcher, you should have the ability to do research in many different fields, not be forced to your one place. If you are stuck in one field, then hope for tenure or expect to have a hard time finding another job. Research moves where the money is, yes, but they don't keep the money there with bullshit publications in some huge collaborative effort. |
I'm going to have to stop you right there. This entire thread started with evidence contradicting exactly what you just said. The green movement is a multi-billion dollar per year industry, and there's no way in hell it will go away quietly.
| rtomek wrote: | | Yes, you can make statistics say anything if you go on a fishing trip, but at that point, you lose all your statistical backing because your p-value will rocket sky-high. If you attempt two or three different things on your data and find statistical significance, it's good stuff. If you ignore the fact that you went on a fishing trip to find something with a p-value barely under .05 well then you need to find a new field... I think the tobacco companies are hiring |
You'd be surprised. You can get really low p-values even when you look at something absurd, like temperatures affecting the length of day in Alaska. As temperatures go down, the day shortens, and when temperatures go up, the day lengthens. Absurd? Obviously, but your p-value is probably still statistically significant. You can pat yourself on the back all you want about how low your p-value is, but that doesn't mean your theory isn't garbage. |
That's correct. The p-value has it's use, but it is just one of many tools. Just having a low p-value is, in itself, meaningless. Read about the Jeffreys-Lindley paradox.
As I have harped on many times, proper cause-and-effect analysis is required. When you start talking about something as complex as climate, this is infeasible due to a combinatorial explosion of interdependencies. That does not mean we can't continuously improve our understanding, eventually to a useful level, as we have with meteorology for example. It just means that our present models are woefully inadequate and claims of any sort of certainty should be immediately suspect, particularly as it pertains to actual isolation of causes, which is what the whole anthropogenic warming debate is about. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BoneKracker
Veteran
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1271
Location: U.S.A.
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 3:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| shash wrote: | | BoneKracker wrote: | | shash wrote: | | I believe this refers to one aberrant dataset, which didn't show warming while the others did. They weren't able to correlate that dataset, so they decided not to use it. |
| shash wrote: | | Really, there's nothing "alarming" in this. If it's a nail in any coffin, it's in the coffin of denialism. |
Those statements sound like bullshit to me.
Really, you sound much more like an ideologue intent on minimizing his personal cognitive dissonance than someone interesting in the truth. I see no basis for the first claim, and the second is pure hyperbole. |
I make those statements after spending practically a whole weekend looking through what happened, including responses from both sides. Not just HuffPo and the Telegraph, but the people actually involved.
Can you say that you've done anything similar? Or is all your "science" in this case from science "reporters" who are incapable of reporting science in the first place? |
I don't have an opinion on those emails. I'm just saying that you set off my bullshit detector.
Prove me wrong:
a) What is "denialism"? Are you sure that's not just somebody's bogeyman? Is everybody who does not agree 100% with everything everybody else says about climate change a "denialist"? So who are the "denialists"? How much room is there for informed dissent and rational skepticism before one is branded a "denialist"? To me, it seems that what cries out for an "-ism" here is irrational defense of clearly unethical and unscientific behavior. It seems that climate change has become a religious cause for many relatively uninformed people who have little comprehension of the uncertainties at play.
b) On the second point, what is the basis for your claim that this simply refers to one aberrant dataset. That doesn't seem consistent with the actions highlighted by dmitchell above, including what appears to be rampant alteration of data.
Last edited by BoneKracker on Wed Nov 25, 2009 3:12 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rtomek
Apprentice
Joined: 05 Jan 2007
Posts: 209
Location: Chicago
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 3:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| warpasaurusREX wrote: | | rtomek wrote: | | warpasaurusREX wrote: | | If the hysteria goes away, so does the money. Everyone in academia knows this. Prolonging the climate change debate is money in the bank, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. |
Anyone who really thinks that way should be fired for ethical violations. If you're a PhD researcher, you should have the ability to do research in many different fields, not be forced to your one place. If you are stuck in one field, then hope for tenure or expect to have a hard time finding another job. Research moves where the money is, yes, but they don't keep the money there with bullshit publications in some huge collaborative effort. |
I'm going to have to stop you right there. This entire thread started with evidence contradicting exactly what you just said. The green movement is a multi-billion dollar per year industry, and there's no way in hell it will go away quietly.
| rtomek wrote: | | Yes, you can make statistics say anything if you go on a fishing trip, but at that point, you lose all your statistical backing because your p-value will rocket sky-high. If you attempt two or three different things on your data and find statistical significance, it's good stuff. If you ignore the fact that you went on a fishing trip to find something with a p-value barely under .05 well then you need to find a new field... I think the tobacco companies are hiring |
You'd be surprised. You can get really low p-values even when you look at something absurd, like temperatures affecting the length of day in Alaska. As temperatures go down, the day shortens, and when temperatures go up, the day lengthens. Absurd? Obviously, but your p-value is probably still statistically significant. You can pat yourself on the back all you want about how low your p-value is, but that doesn't mean your theory isn't garbage. |
No, it wasn't contrary. I'm not saying that there aren't bullshit papers published every month with a small collaborative effort with 3 people at one institution. I'm saying that there's not a collaborative effort with every institution in the world to keep publishing this bullshit for economic gain without a single paper with decent statistical evidence saying otherwise (and I know there are people who do try to find it).
In your second paragraph, you use a p-value to say that the two things have a correlation. You're right correlation does not equal causation. You find a correlation and you strengthen your hypothisis of the causation and make an attempt find other correlations that either defend or deny your hypothesis. You used the term 'theory' very poorly, a theory by definition has a large amount of proof to back it up. You make some kind of assumption when you immediately pinpoint the causation in your example, that is still a hypothesis that requires further testing.
Greenhouse gases in our atmosphere being a causation was not one single test. It is a theory based on data from many different scientific fields. You should know this since you say you are in a research field. Theories do change over time as we gather more information. However, throwing out a few papers on the topic is not going to reverse the causation theories that have been developed by many other scientific studies.
Last edited by rtomek on Wed Nov 25, 2009 3:16 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shash
Apprentice
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 220
Location: India
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 3:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| BoneKracker wrote: | | I don't have an opinion on those emails. I'm just saying that you set off my bullshit detector. |
OK, fair enough - I was responding to others setting off my bullshit detector, so I wasn't trying to be rigorous there.
| Quote: | Prove me wrong:
a) What is "denialism"? Are you sure that's not just somebody's bogeyman? Is everybody who does not agree 100% with everything everybody else says about climate change a "denialist"? So who are the "denialists"? How much dissent is allowed before one becomes a "denialist"? |
Obviously not anyone who disagrees with me.
Right now, I'd put it this way: That the world is warming is no longer in any doubt. That anthropogenic causes may be significant is in debate, but I for one believe that the evidence is pretty strong there. You may believe differently, but that's a scientific problem to work out.
The "denialists" I refer to are the ones who will never accept either a) the world is warming, or b) that the warming is affected by human activity. They're the ones who've made up their minds without looking at the evidence, because it would be difficult for them - the "I wunna ride my SUV, durnit" attitude, whether from the man on the street or the man in the CEO's office (or the President's office for that matter). I don't say that any of you here are among them - otherwise, I wouldn't be arguing in the first place.
| Quote: | | b) On the second point, what is the basis for your claim that this simply refers to one aberrant dataset. That doesn't seem consistent with the actions highlighted by dmitchell above, including what appears to be rampant alteration of data. |
Not a problem, since there wasn't any real alteration of data. Let me get back home and I'll show you...
_________________
The only difference between martyrdom and suicide is press coverage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BoneKracker
Veteran
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1271
Location: U.S.A.
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 3:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| shash wrote: | | BoneKracker wrote: | | I don't have an opinion on those emails. I'm just saying that you set off my bullshit detector. |
OK, fair enough - I was responding to others setting off my bullshit detector, so I wasn't trying to be rigorous there.
| Quote: | Prove me wrong:
a) What is "denialism"? Are you sure that's not just somebody's bogeyman? Is everybody who does not agree 100% with everything everybody else says about climate change a "denialist"? So who are the "denialists"? How much dissent is allowed before one becomes a "denialist"? |
Obviously not anyone who disagrees with me.
Right now, I'd put it this way: That the world is warming is no longer in any doubt. That anthropogenic causes may be significant is in debate, but I for one believe that the evidence is pretty strong there. You may believe differently, but that's a scientific problem to work out.
The "denialists" I refer to are the ones who will never accept either a) the world is warming, or b) that the warming is affected by human activity. They're the ones who've made up their minds without looking at the evidence, because it would be difficult for them - the "I wunna ride my SUV, durnit" attitude, whether from the man on the street or the man in the CEO's office (or the President's office for that matter). I don't say that any of you here are among them - otherwise, I wouldn't be arguing in the first place. |
Fair enough. That's my opinion as well. However, I think there are an equal number of "denialists" who have made up their mind (without understanding the facts) that the warming is definitely caused by man and that anybody who thinks otherwise is evil. Also, what to do about it is another question. For one thing, we're only so certain. Decision-makers must have an accurate appreciation of the uncertainties, and it may well be that they are being suppressed. Secondly, there's the big picture: for all we know, we're on the precipice of a new period of glaciation. We could wreck the global economy and drive half of humanity into abject poverty for a hundred years (and a billion into starvation) in an aggressive effort to reduce warming, only to discover in twenty years that it's over, that it wasn't man-made, and that the new threat is that our societies will be ground to dust beneath mile-thick glaciers (hopefully not exacerbated by engineering marvels such as clouds of carbon misguidedly scattered in irreversible fashion into the ionosphere to reflect sunlight away from Earth and carbon-absorbing chemicals dumped in the ocean).
| shash wrote: | | Quote: | | b) On the second point, what is the basis for your claim that this simply refers to one aberrant dataset. That doesn't seem consistent with the actions highlighted by dmitchell above, including what appears to be rampant alteration of data. |
Not a problem, since there wasn't any real alteration of data. Let me get back home and I'll show you... |
Okay. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
warpasaurusREX
Apprentice
Joined: 17 Nov 2003
Posts: 215
Location: Midwest, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 3:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| rtomek wrote: | | No, it wasn't contrary. I'm not saying that there aren't bullshit papers published every month with a small collaborative effort with 3 people at one institution. I'm saying that there's not a collaborative effort with every institution in the world to keep publishing this bullshit for economic gain without a single paper with decent statistical evidence saying otherwise (and I know there are people who do try to find it). |
You're sort of putting words in my mouth. My point is simply that, since there is a lot of money in the green movement, it provides a large incentive to prolong the debate.
It's like when some study comes out that disagrees with climate change, the stereotypical assumption is that 'big oil' funded the study - as if the opposing side had nothing but good intentions.
_________________
Help the unanswered
Please add [solved] to the subject line if your problem is solved.
www.warpasaurusrex.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Muso
l33t
Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 654
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 3:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| warpasaurusREX wrote: | | It's like when some study comes out that disagrees with climate change, the stereotypical assumption is that 'big oil' funded the study - as if the opposing side had nothing but good intentions. |
Also, something everyone seems to forget is that "Big Oil" is actually "Big Energy". Much of the "green" technology is being funded by BO and BO will be the ones profiting from the windmills and photovoltaic cells that so many people are rushing towards. Mind you, I like the idea of small turbines placed on people's roofs... along with photovoltaic cells. It will minimize the stress that the grid feels because of the ecojihadists preventing the growth of Nuclear power and off shore drilling to increase our national energy supply.
I'm done with this subject for a few years now. Until I can see actual causation between humans and the climate (and not in .0000001% of a degree change), I'll be supporting any politicians who will fight against this rush to further control my life. I'll end this post with the best description of the current situation :
| BoneKracker wrote: | | However, I think there are an equal number of "denialists" who have made up their mind (without understanding the facts) that the warming is definitely caused by man and that anybody who thinks otherwise is evil. Also, what to do about it is another question. For one thing, we're only so certain. Decision-makers must have an accurate appreciation of the uncertainties, and it may well be that they are being suppressed. Secondly, there's the big picture: for all we know, we're on the precipice of a new period of glaciation. We could wreck the global economy and drive half of humanity into abject poverty for a hundred years (and a billion into starvation) in an aggressive effort to reduce warming, only to discover in twenty years that it's over, that it wasn't man-made, and that the new threat is that our societies will be ground to dust beneath mile-thick glaciers (hopefully not exacerbated by engineering marvels such as clouds of carbon misguidedly scattered in irreversible fashion into the ionosphere to reflect sunlight away from Earth and carbon-absorbing chemicals dumped in the ocean). |
_________________
| ichbinsisyphos wrote: | | You know, personally I've never been the greatest fan of Negroes |
The Philosophy of Liberty |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BoneKracker
Veteran
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1271
Location: U.S.A.
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 4:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| warpasaurusREX wrote: | | rtomek wrote: | | No, it wasn't contrary. I'm not saying that there aren't bullshit papers published every month with a small collaborative effort with 3 people at one institution. I'm saying that there's not a collaborative effort with every institution in the world to keep publishing this bullshit for economic gain without a single paper with decent statistical evidence saying otherwise (and I know there are people who do try to find it). |
You're sort of putting words in my mouth. My point is simply that, since there is a lot of money in the green movement, it provides a large incentive to prolong the debate.
It's like when some study comes out that disagrees with climate change, the stereotypical assumption is that 'big oil' funded the study - as if the opposing side had nothing but good intentions. |
Not only that, but once science becomes part of a political platform, the government is behind it. Then, it stops becoming science and starts becoming politics. Governments control much of the money that goes into basic research, and they certainly control the governments' interpretation of what comes out. Look at who has been involved in these scenarios. An incident earlier this year, involving a whistle-blower, happened in the U.S. Government's organization that provides program management services for NOAA, if I recall correctly (and I may not). Now here, we've got people involved from NASA, NOAA, and similar governmental entities in other countries. These are government employees, and yet they are referring to some "cause" in emails that sound extremely unprofessional. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cokehabit
Advocate
Joined: 23 Apr 2004
Posts: 3302
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 4:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| warpasaurusREX wrote: | | cokehabit wrote: | | Chopinzee wrote: | Believe whatever you want to believe. With all of the conclusions now in total disarray (check out the utterly unscientific methods here), there is no reason to believe the IPCC at all.
Never trust anyone who wants to put more controls over your life, especially when it has been exposed just how political their "science" really is. |
remember, IPCC meets every 4 years and has no agenda. They don't make money and there is nothing to gain from their reporting. They use data from tens-of-thousands of scientists at thousands of universities and scientific institutions. They report on their findings over the past 4 years. |
The problem isn't necessarily with the IPCC. Currently, the US government pays big bucks for climate research. Coming for a statistical background, it is RIDICULOUSLY easy to manipulate climate data to say pretty much whatever the hell you want. That's why we have morons running around showing how the earth is actually cooling... if you run a linear regression on time series data from 1998/99, which makes absolutely no sense, even though it's true.
But if there wasn't a problem with climate change, then it might be difficult to acquire funding, wouldn't it? In my department, we try to include some sort connection to climate change in nearly every grant application because it's a sure-fire way to actually receive funding, i.e. how the global downturn will reduce greenhouse gases and slow down global climate change, or how greenhouse gases increase medical costs associated with asthmatics. If the hysteria goes away, so does the money. Everyone in academia knows this. Prolonging the climate change debate is money in the bank, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. |
are you saying the whole world is faking it... just for the money? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Muso
l33t
Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 654
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 5:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
My opinion, is that he's saying the same thing lefites say about drug companies, if there's profit involved, be suspect.
_________________
| ichbinsisyphos wrote: | | You know, personally I've never been the greatest fan of Negroes |
The Philosophy of Liberty |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BoneKracker
Veteran
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1271
Location: U.S.A.
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 5:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cokehabit wrote: | | are you saying the whole world is faking it... just for the money? |
The "whole world"?
What do you mean by "the whole world" here, and what exactly would they fake? Believing what they're told by one or another of the handful of people who purport to know what they're talking about?
I don't think the people who believed everything Al Gore said were "faking it", but that didn't make them right. It just made them lemmings. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
warpasaurusREX
Apprentice
Joined: 17 Nov 2003
Posts: 215
Location: Midwest, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cokehabit wrote: | | ]are you saying the whole world is faking it... just for the money? |
Of course not, I'm simply saying that both sides have an economic incentive to prove that their side of the argument is correct, and to assume otherwise is foolish. Assuming that everyone (or only one side, for that matter) has but the best intentions is naive.
EDIT:
| Chopinzee wrote: | | My opinion, is that he's saying the same thing lefites say about drug companies, if there's profit involved, be suspect. |
Bingo
_________________
Help the unanswered
Please add [solved] to the subject line if your problem is solved.
www.warpasaurusrex.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pigeon768
l33t
Joined: 02 Jan 2006
Posts: 648
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
There are about eight different fucking questions in the question poll. Shame on you.
1) Did one or more of the people who wrote those 160+MB of emails lie? Yes. They did.
2) Does the fact that one or more of the members of the CRU, including the director, prove that the CRU as an organization is not credible? Not necessarily. The rest of the members could have overruled the director.
3) Does the fact that one or more of the members of the CRU, including the director, mean that we ought to discard the findings of the CRU as non-credible? Yes, absolutely.
4) If it were a fact, does the fact that the CRU as an organization is not credible prove that global temperatures are not rising? No, of course not.
5) If it were a fact, does the fact that the CRU as an organization is not credible prove that the increase in global temperatures are not due to factors caused by man? No, of course not.
_________________
My political bias. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Muso
l33t
Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 654
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 7:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
_________________
| ichbinsisyphos wrote: | | You know, personally I've never been the greatest fan of Negroes |
The Philosophy of Liberty |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Old School
Apprentice
Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 230
Location: The Covered Bridge Capital of Oregon
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 3:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Some quotes from Ian Plimer.
Source
| Quote: | | In the geological past, there have been six major ice ages. During five of these six ice ages, the atmospheric carbon dioxide content was higher than at present. It is clear that the colorless, odorless, non-poisonous gas called carbon dioxide did not drive past climates. |
| Quote: | In the 600-year long Roman Warming, it was 4ºC warmer than now. Sea level did not rise and ice sheets did not disappear. The Dark Ages followed, and starvation, disease, and depopulation occurred. The Medieval Warming followed the Dark Ages, and for 400 years it was 5ºC warmer. Sea level did not rise and the ice sheets remained. The Medieval Warming was followed by the Little Ice Age, which finished in 1850. It is absolutely no surprise that temperature increased after a cold period.
Unless I have missed something, I am not aware of heavy industry, coal-fired power stations, or SUVs in the 1,000 years of Roman and Medieval Warmings. These natural warmings are a dreadful nuisance for climate alarmists because they suggest that the warming since 1850 may be natural and may not be related to carbon dioxide emissions. |
| Quote: | Something is seriously wrong. To argue that humans change climate requires abandoning all we know about history, archaeology, geology, astronomy, and solar physics. This is exactly what has been done.
The answer to this enigma was revealed last week. It is fraud. Data were manipulated to show that the Medieval Warming didn’t occur, and that we are not in a period of cooling. Furthermore, the warming of the 20th century was artificially inflated.
This behavior is that of criminals and all the data from the UK Hadley Centre and the US GISS must now be rejected. These crooks perpetrated these crimes at the expense of the British and U.S. taxpayers.
The same crooks control the IPCC and the fraudulent data in IPCC reports. The same crooks meet in Copenhagen next week and want 0.7% of the Western world’s GDP to pass through an unelected UN government, and then on to sticky fingers in the developing world.
You should be angry. Very angry. |
But you folks still clinging to the idea that human activity is causing global warm.... er, climate change, just continue with your fingers in your ears, while you shout , "I don't hear you."
_________________
I am not young enough to know everything.
- Oscar Wilde |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dmitchell
Veteran
Joined: 17 May 2003
Posts: 1139
Location: Austin, Texas
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 3:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
old school, how many times do I have to tell you that only Neanderthals question the "scientific consensus" of man-made global warming? You don't want to be a Neanderthal, do you?
_________________
I have gained this by philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aidanjt
Veteran
Joined: 20 Feb 2005
Posts: 1096
Location: Rep. of Ireland
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 4:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| old school wrote: | | Quote: | | In the geological past, there have been six major ice ages. During five of these six ice ages, the atmospheric carbon dioxide content was higher than at present. It is clear that the colorless, odorless, non-poisonous gas called carbon dioxide did not drive past climates. |
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercapnia
Ian Plimer is clearly a moron. Try citing an actual climatologist, or at least someone who passed chem 101.
Oh, and he also has *significant* vested interest in peddling fossil fuel (coal), as do many aussie mine owners.
_________________
| drizek wrote: | | Here in America, we are like a bunch of shit-slinging monkeys. |
Last edited by aidanjt on Thu Nov 26, 2009 4:09 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dforsyth
n00b
Joined: 29 Jan 2005
Posts: 26
Location: College Park, Murdaland
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 4:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
This thread is fucking hilarious.
_________________
O
4~ <-- me, fapping to Palin.
/\ `_ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
richk449
Guru
Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 345
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 4:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| shash wrote: | | This refers to a controversy that happened with Climate Research. It was a peer reviewed journal, where a "paper" was published by Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas in 2003. It wasn't even original research, it was a literature review, which should never have been allowed anywhere near a decent journal. Apparently, an editor sympathetic to that paper subverted the peer review process and got the paper published. Lots of people protested, some of the editors of Climate Research resigned (including the chief editor), and finally, the publisher of the journal himself came out and said that there was something wrong in this case. |
(1) Why did you put "paper" in scare quotes? Are you implying that what was published wasn't actually a paper? Was it a crayon drawing or something?
(2) Why shouldn't literature reviews be allowed near decent journals? Have you notified all of the decent journals that they are doing it wrong? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BoneKracker
Veteran
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1271
Location: U.S.A.
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 4:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| dmitchell wrote: | | old school, how many times do I have to tell you that only Neanderthals question the "scientific consensus" of man-made global warming? You don't want to be a Neanderthal, do you? |
I kind of like Neanderthals. I think they may actually have been smarter than modern man, just lacking the same level of herd instinct.
I'm sure that some of man's pollution (namely, greenhouse gases) are adding to the warming.
However, I don't know if that's a bad thing (and I don't know anybody who does), because human civilization emerged in the present interglacial period. When the warming stops, we begin the descent into another glacial period (what most people refer to as an "ice age", even though we are in fact in an ice age now). The patterns of the past two million years or so, drawn from sediment cores, ice cores, and the fossil record, indicate that the present warming spike (which has been going on for 20,000 years) should be ending right about now. Maybe it will go on a few hundred years more due to anthropogenic effects, before we start descending into the frozen Hell that rendered most large land mammals extinct the last time it happened, 120,000 years ago.
Also, I don't know to what extent the warming is man-made (and I don't know anybody who does). The data drawn from sediment cores, ice cores, and the fossil record all show that warming has been going on for 20,000 years. The ups and downs of the past 2,000 years or so are indications that the interglacial period has peaked. We should actually be worried about cooling, and not this short-term, noise-level warming that's going on now (or was going on, up until a decade ago or so).
It may well be that man's addition to the natural greenhouse gases are helping to delay the onset of the next glacial period. In fact, if you look at the data from a big picture perspective, that's what appears to be happening. Look at the graphs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ice_Age_Temperature.png |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Old School
Apprentice
Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 230
Location: The Covered Bridge Capital of Oregon
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 5:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| dmitchell wrote: | | old school, how many times do I have to tell you that only Neanderthals question the "scientific consensus" of man-made global warming? You don't want to be a Neanderthal, do you? |
Can I get back to you later on that one?
_________________
I am not young enough to know everything.
- Oscar Wilde |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
richk449
Guru
Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 345
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
Off the Wall
