3 of 17
3
Leaked E-mails Reveal How Heated Global Warming Debate Is
Posted: 30 November 2009 07:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5508
Joined  2006-10-22

Jackson, I agree with your assesment of the difference, however, I got the feeling that the ones the thread was referring to were those who argued against human caused global warming, not just asking for more documentation.

Occam

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 November 2009 09:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  339
Joined  2008-02-27

jump in the pit

Didn’t Al Gore just win a Nobel Prize re: his work in climate change?  The problem with the movie is that the science was good “at the time” but now we know it’s not.  Gore made some crazy predictions like using Hurricane Katrina as an example of increasing intensity and frquency of hurricanes due to global warming.  We also know that his conclusions were reached based on Mann’s hockey stick model which was based on cooked numbers.  I would call some of the arguments in the movie (like the Hurricane argument) little more than scare tactics. 

That movie had a big impact and in spite of the fact that the science was flawed, no one seems to want to hold Gore accountable for this.  The NY Times just reported on how rich Gore is getting super rich on green investments and products.  While he tells us how we have to sacrifice, Gore continues to live in a 20,000 sq ft mansion flying around the world getting richer and richer.  Gore refuses to debate anyone on climate change just as the CRU has refused to release the data it has used to reach it’s conclusions. 

I’m surprised you aren’t more concerned that East Anglia destroyed the original data leaving only value added data.  This means CRU’s conclusions can’t be re-constructed.  That’s a big problem for scientifically based conclusions.  Replication has long been the accepted mode of proving a hypothesis. 

If this were just an academic debate, it would be mildly amusing to see these guys embarrassment over the airing of their dirty laundry.  However, it’s a lot more than that.  Congress was posed to pass the cap and trade tax here and do a whole lot of other things such as the EPA classifying CO2 as a pollutant.  Those taxes and regulations would have a major impact on our economy.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 December 2009 03:50 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2422
Joined  2007-09-03
Occam - 30 November 2009 07:39 PM

Jackson, I agree with your assesment of the difference, however, I got the feeling that the ones the thread was referring to were those who argued against human caused global warming, not just asking for more documentation.

Occam

I haven’t followed the story that closely—I think I basically agree with you—-

part of science is nit-picking the details of people’s arguments so the common understanding is as rigorous as possible. In this sense any adjusting of climate data to better support the “human-warming” position is open to dispute.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 December 2009 11:43 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  189
Joined  2009-01-01

Ouch!

If you would know the paranoid’s truth in this matter, the Chinese have decided that moving forward with the global warming/global taxation idea would not be in their best long-term interest.  Further explanations for this statement would resemble much like what Otto Bismark said about making laws and sausages, it is better not to see them being made.  As I earlier qualified, it’s paranoid and therefore unreasonable thought, even if it is the truth.

On a somewhat related note:

Brazil has progressed as the world’s leader in the use of ethanol fuel, a renewable resource.  This is deemed very good, however,
Brazil has in the process also cut down millions of acres of tropical rain forest in order to plant sugar cane with which to make ethanol for fuel.  This is deemed very bad by some ecologists and many other scientists including medical researchers, but at least it’s probably carbon neutral (pull up a plant, plant a plant) and shouldn’t alarm the global warming crowd too much.

[ Edited: 01 December 2009 12:11 PM by gray1 ]
 Signature 

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful. - Seneca (ca. 4 BC –AD 65)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 December 2009 12:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  189
Joined  2009-01-01

BTW, the fact that the “hockey stick” graph of the rising temperatures as seen in an earlier posting has some serious technical problems has long been noted by any number of actual, live and breathing, highly qualified scientists who happen to be on “the other side” of this particular debate.  At least that much of it is just old news that someone finally decided was ripe to report to the general population - or should I say electorate?

 Signature 

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful. - Seneca (ca. 4 BC –AD 65)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 December 2009 07:21 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2422
Joined  2007-09-03

Two ‘skeptic’ articles in the news today,  US Today and WSJ

[ US Today “GroupThink in Climate Studies”]

[ WSJ: “The Climate Science Isn’t Settled” by MIT prof of meteorology Richard Lindzen”]

The main statement publicized after the last IPCC Scientific Assessment two years ago was that it was likely that most of the warming since 1957 (a point of anomalous cold) was due to man. This claim was based on the weak argument that the current models used by the IPCC couldn’t reproduce the warming from about 1978 to 1998 without some forcing, and that the only forcing that they could think of was man.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 December 2009 09:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  262
Joined  2008-06-13

Reading some of the comments excerpted from the emails demonstrates a painful truth:  scientists can be idiots too.
Why would you PUT IN WRITING that you are manipulating data to reach your desired conclusion.
That’s not science.  That’s fraud.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 December 2009 10:45 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  189
Joined  2009-01-01
Jackson - 01 December 2009 07:21 PM

Two ‘skeptic’ articles in the news today,  US Today and WSJ

[ US Today “GroupThink in Climate Studies”]

[ WSJ: “The Climate Science Isn’t Settled” by MIT prof of meteorology Richard Lindzen”]


Thanks for the links.  The first is an excellently written, highly recommended article.  You “Fraud deniers” please also note the excellent qualifications of the second article’s author.  This is no lightweight talking here. 

As a geologist, I have also attended two talks concerning how the various factors evident on the really long term studies (on the geologic timescale) do not support the taking of any alarmist position as to the global warming issue because of on what’s evident (either way you want to look at it) with recent data.  The cap and trade proposals on CO2 on a worldwide basis looks like nothing more than a grab for money and power. 

Ok, was this with the e-mails a leak or a hack?  We don’t seem to be very clear on this.

[ Edited: 01 December 2009 10:47 PM by gray1 ]
 Signature 

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful. - Seneca (ca. 4 BC –AD 65)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 December 2009 03:56 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2422
Joined  2007-09-03

John Rennie at Scientific American Online:

[“Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense”]

This article generated 250-300 comments.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 December 2009 10:10 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  189
Joined  2009-01-01
Jackson - 02 December 2009 03:56 AM

John Rennie at Scientific American Online:

[“Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense”]

This article generated 250-300 comments.

Yes, and those comments read at least as interesting as the article, perhaps moreso.  It’s kind of a upscale chat room but that also seems somewhat familiar.  The article’s style is what I’d term “pabular science”, being well written but with an obvious bias evident even as to the title of same and as one comment pointed out, it was meant to be “inflammatory” such as (those stupid) deniers rightly deserve.

This is what happens when one’s work amounts to good writing as far as entertainment playing to a particular audience is concerned but truly lacks a serious (unbiased) scientific mindset.  It is unfortunate to find such a mode of editoralizing passing itself off as the reporting of science within a magazine/website which calls itself “Scientific American” but we must suppose it fits right in with the current general state of science at large in “America”, a word which I find increasingly refers to a particular state of mind rather than any union of states.  I also noted that Shell (yes, the oil giant) had an advertisement on the page which was very “green” in a “we’re not bad guys” sort of way.  LOL!  What a bunch of weenies.

Time tells all… I just hope the United Nations (also involved here) isn’t collecting trillions of dollars in “air we breath” taxes before it’s all over.  Need we bring up the history of corruption involved with that collection of jokers?  The U.S. should have kicked those self-serving children of unwed mothers out of NYC a long time ago, but I digress.

 Signature 

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful. - Seneca (ca. 4 BC –AD 65)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 December 2009 10:29 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 41 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  472
Joined  2007-06-08

“ClimateGate: The 7 Biggest Lies About The Supposed ‘Global Warming Hoax’”:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/02/climategate-the-7-biggest_n_371223.html

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 December 2009 10:34 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 42 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  189
Joined  2009-01-01

As long as we’re sharing articles, here’s one that mixes in some politics:  http://news.yahoo.com/s/uc/20091202/cm_uc_crmmax/op_1912169

Now, if we only can find a religious side…  oh, this appears to be science as religion, sorry.

Perhaps the line should be, “Repent now or Hell’s coming!” and more people would fall in line.

 Signature 

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful. - Seneca (ca. 4 BC –AD 65)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 December 2009 12:06 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 43 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  189
Joined  2009-01-01
Pragmatic Naturalist - 02 December 2009 10:29 AM

“ClimateGate: The 7 Biggest Lies About The Supposed ‘Global Warming Hoax’”:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/02/climategate-the-7-biggest_n_371223.html

Obviously I have too much free time today because I keep checking out these links.  The above “Biggest Lie” as to the “Silencing Dissent” article terminates in a “Cont.” type fashon called “what this is ACTUALLY about” with a link to this CSI (yes, the one that’s the offshoot of CFI here) article called “Déjà vu All Over Again”:
http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/deja_vu_all_over_again/

Of course my own sense of déjà vu/can this be real? was highlighted when I noticed the very nice advertisement for Dianetics.org (gotta love those guys, huh?) as follows:

http://landing.dianetics.org/Producer.aspx?sid=4&sky=EIDUJ2ON&pgi=56&pgk=PGOI4TOV&rid=209510&rky=4DWUBIHE&tky=129042535432757500&kw=dianetics+evolution+science&utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_content=Dianetics&utm_campaign=USMAINCONTENT

This feeling related to my earlier amusement that Shell Oil had advertised “green” (like the color of money) as mentioned in my previous post.  To which I can only say, “Gosh Andy, these newfangled website things sure make for some strange bedfellows”.  To their credit, however, CSI did have the Dianetics ad bracketed both above and below with disclaimers of “CSI is not responsible for the content of these advertisements”.  Good move, but can the weaker minded among us resist such an ad?

Looking at the full potential here do you guys with CFI think we “skeptics” can also get some ads placed from the good people at http://www.sbc.net/ or maybe even http://www.islamicity.com/

I’m trying to think of a word that means “strange bedfellows in return for money”.  Help me out here.

[ Edited: 02 December 2009 12:20 PM by gray1 ]
 Signature 

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful. - Seneca (ca. 4 BC –AD 65)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 December 2009 03:20 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 44 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  25
Joined  2008-06-27
Occam - 30 November 2009 11:42 AM

I’m fascinated by how P.O.D. keeps focusing on the word, “deniers”.  While ‘skeptic’ was suggested as a less abrasive choice, I don’t see a problem with the original word.  If someone claims that, say, P.O.D. had sex with Cleopatra, we could expect people to reject that statement strongly.  They could certainly be called deniers, and without any pejorative intent.  Since you use the generic, “scientists”, would you want to call those who disagree with their published results, “anti-scientists”?
Occam

Its a very weak and lazy tactic to attack the person making the comment, rather than to address the comment itself.

Such people have my contempt.  I’m no scientist, and don’t claim to understand everything written on the subject, but I am one of the people who is expected to place my faith in the political bodies who tell me that I’m consuming too much, and that the only way I can redress this is to pay them more in tax.  There are too many contradictions in government policy, too many conflicts of interest, and too little knowledge, for me to accept readily that what they say is anything but the whole truth.  This entire debate is nothing to do with “saving the planet”-as the planet will remain no matter what we do to it-and everything to do with “saving humanity”, or, as some would have it, “saving humanity so that at last we can have the socialist paradise we always sought”.

Asking a person to place their faith in their government when such profound arguments exist is no different to trusting to one’s God in a life or death situation.

[ Edited: 03 December 2009 03:23 AM by Parrot of Doom ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 December 2009 05:56 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 45 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  189
Joined  2009-01-01

Parrot, I wish I could say something so succinctly and so very clever.  Me being only me, however, as to the last statement I’d have to say that life itself is a death situation, unless of course you count on God to bail you out of that as well.  Such an idea is for some reason a very popular notion.

Want a cracker? (sorry, I couldn’t resist)

[ Edited: 03 December 2009 06:03 AM by gray1 ]
 Signature 

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful. - Seneca (ca. 4 BC –AD 65)

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 17
3