| 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 |
sugar
Guru
Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Posts: 579
Location: Morrinsville, New Zealand
|
 Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2009 11:26 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
*removed*
_________________
Sensory Sugar
A call for full employment is a call for war!
New Zealand: Out gay-ing the rest of the planet since 2012. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
BoneKracker
Veteran
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1271
Location: U.S.A.
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 1:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
You are not allowed to talk about modeling until you can spell it. 
And, no, they are not open about the uncertainties. If they were open about the uncertainties, they wouldn't feel the need to alter data, quash dissent, and delete emails (all for "the cause").
They are behaving more like Byzantine clerics than modern scientists. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sugar
Guru
Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Posts: 579
Location: Morrinsville, New Zealand
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 2:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| BoneKracker wrote: | You are not allowed to talk about modeling until you can spell it.
And, no, they are not open about the uncertainties. If they were open about the uncertainties, they wouldn't feel the need to alter data, quash dissent, and delete emails (all for "the cause").
They are behaving more like Byzantine clerics than modern scientists. |
78 page evaluation of various climate models, as published in the last IPCC working report. Page 600 caught my eye, where 58 different models were compared to the actual temperature data from the last century. The average and the actual results confer quite nicely, at least within the 90% confidence interval.
Some variables that are unknown are the effects of areosols, clouds, and the melting of the greenland icesheet.
_________________
Sensory Sugar
A call for full employment is a call for war!
New Zealand: Out gay-ing the rest of the planet since 2012. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
drizek
n00b
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 32
Location: Believe in America
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 3:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well of course the IPCC would publish such a graph. They are pushing the hippie/socialist/gay agenda.
Don't you get it? Climate scientists in Denmark have devoted the last two decades of their lives conspiring and falsifying data and climate models in order to provide a smoke screen for Barack Obama so he can raise taxes and spend it on abortion subsidies!
_________________
Stand With Mittens |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
drizek
n00b
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 32
Location: Believe in America
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 3:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well of course the IPCC would publish such a graph. They are pushing the hippie/socialist/gay agenda.
Don't you get it? Climate scientists in Denmark have devoted the last two decades of their lives conspiring and falsifying data and climate models in order to allow Barack Obama to raise taxes!
_________________
Stand With Mittens |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dmitchell
Veteran
Joined: 17 May 2003
Posts: 1139
Location: Austin, Texas
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 4:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
I see you still haven't figured out that darned Submit button, drizek.
_________________
I have gained this by philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
drizek
n00b
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 32
Location: Believe in America
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 4:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| dmitchell wrote: | | I see you still haven't figured out that darned Submit button, drizek. |
I was busy subverting the free market by pirating socialist propaganda, and there was a network hiccup.
Edit: the really weird thing is that the first one posted was actually the edited version of the post. The second one is what it was before I started changing things mid-submit.
Im on break from college now so I am dealing with some internet/computer issues at home. I make a lot of typos on my netbook and the internets arent all that reliable.
_________________
Stand With Mittens |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
richk449
Guru
Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 345
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 4:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| drizek wrote: | | dmitchell wrote: | | I see you still haven't figured out that darned Submit button, drizek. |
I was busy subverting the free market by pirating socialist propaganda, and there was a network hiccup.
Edit: the really weird thing is that the first one posted was actually the edited version of the post. The second one is what it was before I started changing things mid-submit.
Im on break from college now so I am dealing with some internet/computer issues at home. I make a lot of typos on my netbook and the internets arent all that reliable. |
I like the first one better. The abortion bit really brings it home. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
drizek
n00b
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 32
Location: Believe in America
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 4:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| richk449 wrote: | | drizek wrote: | | dmitchell wrote: | | I see you still haven't figured out that darned Submit button, drizek. |
I was busy subverting the free market by pirating socialist propaganda, and there was a network hiccup.
Edit: the really weird thing is that the first one posted was actually the edited version of the post. The second one is what it was before I started changing things mid-submit.
Im on break from college now so I am dealing with some internet/computer issues at home. I make a lot of typos on my netbook and the internets arent all that reliable. |
I like the first one better. The abortion bit really brings it home. |
I know!
Thats why I edited the abortion bit in, but for some reason the edited version came out first and the unfinished one posted second.
_________________
Stand With Mittens |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dmitchell
Veteran
Joined: 17 May 2003
Posts: 1139
Location: Austin, Texas
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 6:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Something more for sugar to pull apart.
| Quote: | The Abused Insurance Analogy for Climate Change
It is amusing to watch advocates of rapid, aggressive carbon dioxide emissions reduction, when confronted with the plain facts of the consensus scientific projections for climate change and its associated damages, move from “science says we must do this or die” to “well, actually, the science is pretty uncertain, so it’s possible that we might die,” and then proceed to some restatement of Pascal’s Wager.
Tom Friedman’s recent New York Times column is a perfect illustration of this logic. I’ll quote him at length, before demonstrating that his emission-cuts-as-insurance analogy breaks down once you plug in actual numbers. |
_________________
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: Fri Dec 18, 2009 7:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Holy shit, people are still banging on about those fucking emails? When are these ignorant douchebags going to stfu and move on to something they have a clue about?
_________________
| drizek wrote: | | Here in America, we are like a bunch of shit-slinging monkeys. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bigun
Veteran
Joined: 21 Sep 2003
Posts: 1805
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 8:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| AidanJT wrote: | | Holy shit, people are still banging on about those fucking emails? When are these ignorant douchebags going to stfu and move on to something they have a clue about? |
I'd say about the time people stop blaming Bush for the current financial climate.
_________________
Sadhu Sundar Singh - responding to Darwinian Evolution - "...but I am more interested in Divine Selection and survival of the unfit" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sugar
Guru
Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Posts: 579
Location: Morrinsville, New Zealand
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 8:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dmitchell wrote: | Something more for sugar to pull apart.
| Quote: | The Abused Insurance Analogy for Climate Change
It is amusing to watch advocates of rapid, aggressive carbon dioxide emissions reduction, when confronted with the plain facts of the consensus scientific projections for climate change and its associated damages, move from “science says we must do this or die” to “well, actually, the science is pretty uncertain, so it’s possible that we might die,” and then proceed to some restatement of Pascal’s Wager.
Tom Friedman’s recent New York Times column is a perfect illustration of this logic. I’ll quote him at length, before demonstrating that his emission-cuts-as-insurance analogy breaks down once you plug in actual numbers. |
|
You know, he assumes that the cuts in carbon emissions will cause some kind of negative impact to the economy, which initially will be true, in some cases. In the long term, I don't see the economic impact because of a cap and trade system to be that severe, and the cap and trade system is merely a way to hasten the development of renewable energy sources.
With USA having so much spare agricultural capacity, and beginning to invest so much into renewables, it shouldn't be such a big issue. There's been some nice develpments in solar as well as celluloistic derived ethanol, as well as development of battery capacity. New Zealand is only small, and we're able to generate over 60% from renewables, and we're barely trying (like, 30 years ago, we used to generate almost all from renewables), with more large scale geothermal/wind power projects in the pipeline. If you lump nuclear power into the renewables camp, the economic impact LONG TERM, I expect will be a positive.
_________________
Sensory Sugar
A call for full employment is a call for war!
New Zealand: Out gay-ing the rest of the planet since 2012. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dmitchell
Veteran
Joined: 17 May 2003
Posts: 1139
Location: Austin, Texas
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 9:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I suggest watching this discussion with Jim Manzi, the author of the above (about 25 minutes).
_________________
I have gained this by philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dmitchell
Veteran
Joined: 17 May 2003
Posts: 1139
Location: Austin, Texas
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 10:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sugar wrote: | | Anyway, I might just stick to discussing this will dmitchell. |
Unfortunately for you, I don't have very much to say about climate change. I'm predisposed to be skeptical of aggressive cap and trade or carbon tax schemes, and I try to remember rules of thumb like "the people closest to the problem tend to overreact" (climatologists, in this case), and "the people making the most dire predictions are usually wrong." But even though I don't consider myself qualified to make climate change prognostications, I can still be of service by helping to steer the discussion away from this place:
| drizek wrote: | | Lawl. More shit from the denialist camp. |
| AidanJT wrote: | | Holy shit, people are still banging on about those fucking emails? When are these ignorant douchebags going to stfu and move on to something they have a clue about? |
to some place more thoughtful and reasonable, like these articles and video discussions I linked to.
_________________
I have gained this by philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BoneKracker
Veteran
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1271
Location: U.S.A.
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 19, 2009 2:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sugar wrote: | | BoneKracker wrote: | You are not allowed to talk about modeling until you can spell it.
And, no, they are not open about the uncertainties. If they were open about the uncertainties, they wouldn't feel the need to alter data, quash dissent, and delete emails (all for "the cause").
They are behaving more like Byzantine clerics than modern scientists. |
78 page evaluation of various climate models, as published in the last IPCC working report. Page 600 caught my eye, where 58 different models were compared to the actual temperature data from the last century. The average and the actual results confer quite nicely, at least within the 90% confidence interval. |
Thank for provide a case in point of what I was referring to. Real scientists don't compute confidence intervals based on faked historical temperature data (or weren't you aware that many missing temperature data were simply faked?).
Missing data are missing data. There are appropriate ways of handling missing data, and there are inappropriate ways of handing missing data. Faking the missing temperature data is what we call an inappropriate way. Once you do that, you can no longer perform valid statistical tests (for example, claiming your results are accurate within a particular confidence interval). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dmitchell
Veteran
Joined: 17 May 2003
Posts: 1139
Location: Austin, Texas
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 19, 2009 2:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sugar wrote: | You know, he assumes that the cuts in carbon emissions will cause some kind of negative impact to the economy, which initially will be true, in some cases. In the long term, I don't see the economic impact because of a cap and trade system to be that severe, and the cap and trade system is merely a way to hasten the development of renewable energy sources.
With USA having so much spare agricultural capacity, and beginning to invest so much into renewables, it shouldn't be such a big issue. There's been some nice develpments in solar as well as celluloistic derived ethanol, as well as development of battery capacity. New Zealand is only small, and we're able to generate over 60% from renewables, and we're barely trying (like, 30 years ago, we used to generate almost all from renewables), with more large scale geothermal/wind power projects in the pipeline. If you lump nuclear power into the renewables camp, the economic impact LONG TERM, I expect will be a positive. |
I want to make two points.
1. At least in the short term, aggressive cuts in carbon emissions will definitely have a significant negative impact on the economy. We'll be replacing cheap sources of energy with expensive ones. There is no free lunch; that cost must be paid.
2. In the long term, you don't need laws to make people do what is already in their self-interest. For example, you don't need laws to make me weatherize my house. Weatherizing my house is a big cost in the short term, but I'll choose to pay it because I expect to save money in the long term. In the same way, if moving to renewable energy will ultimately save people money, then you don't need laws to make them do it, because they'll choose to do it anyway. This simple observation isn't dispositive, but I think you need to be careful not to undermine your own case when you say things like the long term economic impact will be positive.
_________________
I have gained this by philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sugar
Guru
Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Posts: 579
Location: Morrinsville, New Zealand
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 19, 2009 3:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| BoneKracker wrote: | | sugar wrote: | | BoneKracker wrote: | You are not allowed to talk about modeling until you can spell it.
And, no, they are not open about the uncertainties. If they were open about the uncertainties, they wouldn't feel the need to alter data, quash dissent, and delete emails (all for "the cause").
They are behaving more like Byzantine clerics than modern scientists. |
78 page evaluation of various climate models, as published in the last IPCC working report. Page 600 caught my eye, where 58 different models were compared to the actual temperature data from the last century. The average and the actual results confer quite nicely, at least within the 90% confidence interval. |
Thank for provide a case in point of what I was referring to. Real scientists don't compute confidence intervals based on faked historical temperature data (or weren't you aware that many missing temperature data were simply faked?).
Missing data are missing data. There are appropriate ways of handling missing data, and there are inappropriate ways of handing missing data. Faking the missing temperature data is what we call an inappropriate way. Once you do that, you can no longer perform valid statistical tests (for example, claiming your results are accurate within a particular confidence interval). |
there were 58 different models generated, and published, by 58 different groups, with a descriptions of their analysis in the papers. To say that ALL that data had been fudged to fit the predictions is unfathomably ignorant.
_________________
Sensory Sugar
A call for full employment is a call for war!
New Zealand: Out gay-ing the rest of the planet since 2012. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BoneKracker
Veteran
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1271
Location: U.S.A.
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 19, 2009 4:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sugar wrote: | | BoneKracker wrote: | | sugar wrote: | | BoneKracker wrote: | You are not allowed to talk about modeling until you can spell it.
And, no, they are not open about the uncertainties. If they were open about the uncertainties, they wouldn't feel the need to alter data, quash dissent, and delete emails (all for "the cause").
They are behaving more like Byzantine clerics than modern scientists. |
78 page evaluation of various climate models, as published in the last IPCC working report. Page 600 caught my eye, where 58 different models were compared to the actual temperature data from the last century. The average and the actual results confer quite nicely, at least within the 90% confidence interval. |
Thank for provide a case in point of what I was referring to. Real scientists don't compute confidence intervals based on faked historical temperature data (or weren't you aware that many missing temperature data were simply faked?).
Missing data are missing data. There are appropriate ways of handling missing data, and there are inappropriate ways of handing missing data. Faking the missing temperature data is what we call an inappropriate way. Once you do that, you can no longer perform valid statistical tests (for example, claiming your results are accurate within a particular confidence interval). |
there were 58 different models generated, and published, by 58 different groups, with a descriptions of their analysis in the papers. To say that ALL that data had been fudged to fit the predictions is unfathomably ignorant. |
What's unfathomably ignorant is your failure to recognize that a 90% CI drawn on a comparison of these models to a single set of tainted IPCC temperature data (which is not merely what the models are being compared to, but what they were based upon) is bogus.
Furthermore, you can't model climate change by basing it on observed temperatures, because we've only been observing and recording temperatures for a blink of an eye on the time scale on which climate change occurs. That's why they have to use proxies. (But then we get into their fudging of the tree-ring data to make it fit.)
Moreover, only the ignorant refer to a 90% confidence interval as though it is "precise". You will almost never see a study that tries to draw a conclusion based on a 90% confidence interval, because that is generally an inadequate level of precision for serious decision-making. Typically, you will see 98% or 99% confidence intervals. A 90% confidence interval is practically guesswork. (Keep in mind also that a 50% CI, where a value is as likely as not to fall within the predicted range, (not 0%) is absolute uncertainty.) That's without even considering the fact that, given their obvious predilection for exaggeration, what we're really talking about here is probably more like an 80% CI. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sugar
Guru
Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Posts: 579
Location: Morrinsville, New Zealand
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 19, 2009 4:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| dmitchell wrote: | | 2. In the long term, you don't need laws to make people do what is already in their self-interest. For example, you don't need laws to make me weatherize my house. Weatherizing my house is a big cost in the short term, but I'll choose to pay it because I expect to save money in the long term. |
thats not much different to the cap and trade systems that have been proposed. You can either pay for the emissions that you generate now, or invest in sustainable options. I also beleive, as a whole, most citizens are happy for their governments to regulate to bring about a coherant system of accountability. We take a small financial hit now, and be better off economically in the long run.
Also, the effect of greenhouse gasses has been known for over 100 years, and even personally, I remember hearing about the "dangers of global warming" 20 years ago.
Anyway, I dont want this to degrade into an economic discussion. The real sticking point for yourself is the whole 'we have to do something now!' argument, right?
_________________
Sensory Sugar
A call for full employment is a call for war!
New Zealand: Out gay-ing the rest of the planet since 2012. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
richk449
Guru
Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 345
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 19, 2009 4:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| dmitchell wrote: | | 1. At least in the short term, aggressive cuts in carbon emissions will definitely have a significant negative impact on the economy. We'll be replacing cheap sources of energy with expensive ones. There is no free lunch; that cost must be paid. |
What about a revenue neutral carbon tax?
| Quote: | | 2. In the long term, you don't need laws to make people do what is already in their self-interest. For example, you don't need laws to make me weatherize my house. Weatherizing my house is a big cost in the short term, but I'll choose to pay it because I expect to save money in the long term. In the same way, if moving to renewable energy will ultimately save people money, then you don't need laws to make them do it, because they'll choose to do it anyway. This simple observation isn't dispositive, but I think you need to be careful not to undermine your own case when you say things like the long term economic impact will be positive. |
I agree that people will only do what is in their self-interest. However, it currently in no-bodys self-interest to limit their CO2 emissions. It may be in their self-interest to take other actions that happen to reduce CO2 emissions, but that is really just coincidence. If you want the free market to solve this problem, you must internalize the cost of CO2 emissions. Otherwise, you have a classic tragedy of the commons. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BoneKracker
Veteran
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1271
Location: U.S.A.
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 19, 2009 4:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Population control.
I still don't hear anybody talking about it, and it's central to the problem and a very necessary part of the solution. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sugar
Guru
Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Posts: 579
Location: Morrinsville, New Zealand
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 19, 2009 5:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| BoneKracker wrote: |
Furthermore, you can't model climate change by basing it on observed temperatures, because we've only been observing and recording temperatures for a blink of an eye on the time scale on which climate change occurs. That's why they have to use proxies. (But then we get into their fudging of the tree-ring data to make it fit.) |
But that's not what YOU want to know. If all very nice for them to talk in century timescales, but people are only interested in the now. YOU wanted this data, so they're trying to get good data for you so YOU can make decisions based on it.
It's nice to see you're actually reading the IPCC report. You would have also have noticed the number of different scenarios that were prop
| Quote: | | Footnote 6 on page 3 of the summary indicate very likely and likely mean "the assessed likelihood, using expert judgment", are over 90% and 66% respectively. |
Lets say for example a large volcano erupts tomorrow, dropping global temperatures for a year or so. Are you going to say that global warming models were wrong?
_________________
Sensory Sugar
A call for full employment is a call for war!
New Zealand: Out gay-ing the rest of the planet since 2012. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sugar
Guru
Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Posts: 579
Location: Morrinsville, New Zealand
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 19, 2009 5:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| BoneKracker wrote: | Population control.
I still don't hear anybody talking about it, and it's central to the problem and a very necessary part of the solution. |
the easy way to have population control is to have socialise medicine. If a hospital system is not working well, more babies/children/young adults will die, leading people to have more babies than they can look after. That's why the west has such low birthrates (because I know my child will probably grow up into an adult).
_________________
Sensory Sugar
A call for full employment is a call for war!
New Zealand: Out gay-ing the rest of the planet since 2012. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
richk449
Guru
Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 345
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 19, 2009 5:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sugar wrote: | | the easy way to have population control is to have socialise medicine. If a hospital system is not working well, more babies/children/young adults will die, leading people to have more babies than they can look after. That's why the west has such low birthrates (because I know my child will probably grow up into an adult). |
I think you stole a base there. |
|
| 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
