Climategate

[Pastiche]

Originally Posted by HOOT

Finally finished the thread, or I guess caught up, and the things being said are hilarious!

Personally I think the world is just going through a natural cycle like it has for millions of years and it just happened to be when man was creating the most pollution so it is an easy target. I have no proof, no links, no nothing besides my opinion. Could it be wrong? Probably. But I would rather live in my magical world and convince myself my V6-300HP car isn't really that bad.

Definition of ignorance right here.

Which is why I hope to heck that our policies aren't designed and considered by people like you when the stakes are so high. Enjoy that Chevy though. I bet it's really sweet.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by ernie

It would be great if review teams and editor boards were these lofty perfectly balanced individuals with no biases who only want the data to shine through. But as much as they may try to do that it simply doesn't happen 100% of the time and perfectly good science and explanation can go ignored for years because it got buried in some sub-par journal (or not published at all). It does take significant cajones to go against the flow because you think the data is explained in a better way because there is a very good chance that you won't get published in significant journals and as a result you will lose funding. And if you lose funding it is not easy to get it back again.

Agreed but it's worth mentioning there is always the option of asking for certain individuals not to be part of the review (e.g competitors).

But that's not what's been happening here. Nothing of significance HAS been produced by the skeptics except literature reviews that gets published as bad science in bad journals. They then rant about woo hoo we've got a peer reviewed study, hold a media event and announce it like it's a Nature headline story.

Paper then gets absolutely ripped to shreds but they could care less as they've had their air time and blog space. Minimal effort is made to analyze the freely available global and historical data despite it being accessible at the click of a button.

The debate here is not unlike the creationist/evolution one where a creationist having zero ground to stand on pumps all his energy into disproving evolution rather than proving his own belief.

When I say "not unlike" FTR I'm not suggesting that the skeptics have zero to go on nor is the argument for as strong as the argument for evolution. Just an analogy of the behaviour.

It's also worth mentioning that it doesn't take as much cajones to go against the flow here as in mainstream science as a lot of the funding on one side isn't as dependant on or publication based but more PR based.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Bagor

The debate here is not unlike the creationist/evolution one where a creationist having zero ground to stand on pumps all his energy into disproving evolution rather than proving his own belief.

Thats close to sig material..

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by Pastiche

Definition of ignorance right here.

Which is why I hope to heck that our policies aren't designed and considered by people like you when the stakes are so high. Enjoy that Chevy though. I bet it's really sweet.

Ewww American brand cars!

At least I can admit I know nothing about the subject and am just living my life how I want to. It could be worse...right?

I understand my 'theory' makes very little sense because of the small amount of time things have changed but whatever besides my car and leaving my computer on 24/7 I am actually very earth friendly with always turning off the lights, TVs, radios, unplugging useless stuff, use blankets instead of heat (being in Victoria it can work), etc.

However I also don't think there is a way to reverse the damage already caused by us as humans unless we make huge changes which just aren't going to happen on a global scale no matter how many scientists tell us otherwise. Humans will become extinct before the world.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

It's pathetic how many of you are trying to twist this story to make it about the big bad sceptics. Fraud has been committed. A conspiracy to silence opposition to the man made global warming theory has been uncovered. These scientists exist on the public dole and should be accountable for their actions. Get a grip!

Of course. IF fraud has been committed then the people responsible should be reprimanded/fired/whatever.

However I think that would require a full investigation. These emails could have been doctored. Most of the emails I've seen the AGW deniers pull out have been taken out of context and manipulated, an investigation would put them in the correct context. People froth when the word "trick" is used, however if one bothered to look into it they'd find out that it has a specific meaning, and that meaning is NOT to intend to deceive.

However even if they investigate and they found these guys cooked the data, lied, cheated, killed small animals, that does nothing to the scientific consensus out there, all it does is call one set of data into question (and there are multiple sets of data).

As to how scientists behave and try to tear each others' papers apart, well of course, that HELPS science. Here's a good read:

http://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=886

[TheU]

The debate here is not unlike the creationist/evolution one where a creationist having zero ground to stand on pumps all his energy into disproving evolution rather than proving his own belief.

ugh. what an intellectually dishonest statement. ignoring the mountain of data suggesting the sun and clouds have far more impact than your minivan, even scientists that are hardened climate change believers admit they cant explain why the world has cooled. and this is despite our resident expert here who claims its old news (lol).

[T@T]

Originally Posted by photon

Of course. IF fraud has been committed then the people responsible should be reprimanded/fired/whatever.

However I think that would require a full investigation. These emails could have been doctored. Most of the emails I've seen the AGW deniers pull out have been taken out of context and manipulated, an investigation would put them in the correct context. People froth when the word "trick" is used, however if one bothered to look into it they'd find out that it has a specific meaning, and that meaning is NOT to intend to deceive.

However even if they investigate and they found these guys cooked the data, lied, cheated, killed small animals, that does nothing to the scientific consensus out there, all it does is call one set of data into question (and there are multiple sets of data).

As to how scientists behave and try to tear each others' papers apart, well of course, that HELPS science. Here's a good read:

http://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=886

Peter Watts is awesome, great fiction writer (I believe he was a marine biologist by trade). His point of view is quite funny but yet very real.
He usually sounds off on Canadian politics or is busy writing storys for video games but that a great read...thanks for the link.

P.S - where do you find this stuff? amazing

Just remembered the name of a book of his I read. I loned it out and couldn't remember it's name, Fairly certain its called "Blindsound" it's about alien contact...great read if you see it somewhere.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by TheU

ugh. what an intellectually dishonest statement. ignoring the mountain of data suggesting the sun and clouds have far more impact than your minivan, even scientists that are hardened climate change believers admit they cant explain why the world has cooled. and this is despite our resident expert here who claims its old news (lol).

I must be drunk..this responce made zero sense to me.

Side-note, why won't multi-quote work?

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by TheU

climate change believers admit they cant explain why the world has cooled.

No they don't. But you keep telling yourself that it it helps you sleep.

Yeah and Sabres fans are mystified why their offence has failed to score 10 goals a game since they played the Oilers last year. Clearly they are cooling down. Iginla didn't score last night, clearly he's in a slump.

Here ...... multiple repeats of the same thing so it can sink in.

The year 2005 was the warmest year in over a century, according to NASA scientists studying temperature data from around the world.

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/env...5_warmest.html (A 2006 report).

Each of the last 12 years (1997-2008) was one of the warmest on record.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempera...ord_since_1880

The year 2008 tied with 2001 as the eighth warmest year on record for the Earth, based on the combined average of worldwide land and ocean surface temperatures through December, according to a preliminary analysis by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. For December alone, the month also ranked as the eighth warmest globally, for the combined land and ocean surface temperature. The assessment is based on records dating back to 1880.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0116163206.htm

Nevertheless global cooling has not occurred even over the past ten years, contrary to claims promoted by lobby groups and picked up in some media. In the NASA global temperature data, the past ten 10-year trends (i.e. 1990-1999, 1991-2000 and so on) have all been between 0.17 and 0.34 °C warming per decade, close to or above the expected anthropogenic trend, with the most recent one (1999-2008) equal to 0.19°C per decade. The Hadley Center data most recently show smaller warming trends (0.11 °C per decade for 1999-2008) primarily due to the fact that this data set is not fully global but leaves out the Arctic, which has warmed particularly strongly in recent years.

It is perhaps noteworthy that despite the extremely low brightness of the sun over the past three years (see next page); temperature records have been broken during this time (see NOAA, State of the Climate, 2009). For example, March 2008 saw the warmest global land temperature of any March ever measured in the instrumental record. June and August 2009 saw the warmest land and ocean temperatures in the Southern Hemisphere ever recorded for those months. The global ocean surface temperatures in 2009 broke all previous records for three consecutive months: June, July and August. The years 2007, 2008 and 2009 had the lowest summer Arctic sea ice cover ever recorded, and in 2008 for the first time in living memory the Northwest Passage and the Northeast Passage were simultaneously ice-free. This feat was repeated in 2009. Every single year of this century (2001-2008) has been among the top ten warmest years since instrumental records began.

http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.org/ (p15) Released two days ago.
And look .. they talk about the sun.

And so on and on and on and on ............

Now ...... I've given you numerous quotes stating that the last 10 years were the warmest on record and all you've got is yeah but it's cooling.

From what? 2005? The warmest year in a century? That's it?

Feel free to continue to rant on about it but don't expect a reply about it.

[T@T]

So the topic is somewhat about "warming"

Is it just me but is this the warmest November ever in Calgary? 15 yesterday,14 today. It's 1am it it shows it's +3 right now

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Bagor

Now ...... I've given you numerous quotes stating that the last 10 years were the warmest on record and all you've got is yeah but it's cooling.

From what? 2005? The warmest year in a century? That's it?

Feel free to continue to rant on about it but don't expect a reply about it.

People see what they want to see man,common sense means nothing. You could crap on their livingroom floor and they wouldn't notice, they'd just clean it up and call it nature.

[HOZ]

OOOOOOHHHHH Warmed Down Under....12 Libs RESIGN over BS...errr errors

Climate tax going down , Down Under!!!!

Senators Nick Minchin and Eric Abetz and high-profile MP Tony Abbott were the most senior among the 12 Liberals to quit.
They claimed the deal with the Government on emissions trading has sparked a huge backlash among the party's rank and file

McLeans
That said, what is coming out of the East Anglia email archives seems pretty damning, and suggests a drunk-on-Kool-Aid level of intellectual paranoia and moral self-righteousness that goes far beyond what you’d experience at the typical faculty meeting. Assuming that these scientists did not set out, at the beginning of their careers, to blacklist their colleagues, deliberately squelch the search for truth, and engage in egregious professional dishonesty, it invites the question of how things got to this point. Again (I’m thinking in pairs this morning), I can think of two main reasons.

I can think of only two reasons that AGW believers are still fighting.

1) Dogma is hard to disenfranchise yourself from. There is no longer doubt about the torquing of data. NONE WHATSOEVER. Man(n)-made Global warming can now only be considered a fantasy of zealots or a THEORY that need a whole lot of more research before we conclude that trillions of dollars need to be spent on GREENTECH

2) Pride before the fall...... Scientific reputations (worth more than zillionz and trillions and gazillions of dollars if you knew anything about academic types) are at stake.

2)

2)

2)

2) Democracy is NOT a science.....and SCIENCE is NOT a democracy. 25000000000 zillion scientists are wrong if ONE scientist proves them WRONG! Just ask the Pope.

[HOZ]

PJMedia has a solid run down of the Jones and the Manns world view. Conquer!!!

Do read the run down...here is a bit. HIDE THE DECLINE!!!

Here are three things everyone should know about the Climategate Papers. Links are provided so that the full context of every quote can be seen by anyone interested.
First, the scientists discuss manipulating data to get their preferred results. The most prominently featured scientists are paleoclimatologists, who reconstruct historical temperatures and who were responsible for a series of reconstructions that seemed to show a sharp rise in temperatures well above historical variation in recent decades.
In 1999, Phil Jones, the head of CRU, wrote to activist scientist Michael “Mike” Mann that he has just “completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps … to hide the decline”(0942777075). This refers to a decline in temperatures in recent years revealed by the data he had been reconstructing that conflicted with the observed temperature record. The inconvenient data was therefore hidden under a completely different set of data. Some “trick.”

It gets uglier after this quote.....

[photon]

See exactly what I said, things taken completely out of context.

In context there's nothing untoward about what they're talking about, but if one doesn't know it sounds bad. So the people who deny AGW who don't understand it latch onto it as if it supports their position somehow.

There's plenty bad enough in those emails with FOI problems and such without making it up.

[ernie]

Originally Posted by Bagor

Agreed but it's worth mentioning there is always the option of asking for certain individuals not to be part of the review (e.g competitors).

You can ask but you don't always get.

I've seen time and time again that "nothing of significance" has been produced by this group or that group who have a differing opinion only to find out 5 or so years later that in fact they were correct and all that "bad science" in bad journals was in fact accurate.

Again not saying that is happening in this case but I also don't believe that everything coming out of the supporters camp is good science. When you have such a strong AND politically motivated group a detractors good science (and on this topic there are people that are doing good science that go against the flow...not all of course) doesn't get recognized. And on the flip side bad science in the supporters group gets WAY too much credit. It's the way things work in the research world.

I think a lot of people think R&D, especially in the academic environment, is some lofty think tank in pursuit of truth and only truth. And honestly that's what they like to try to portray but all aspects of the academic life is extremely political.

[TheU]

I'm not going to get into a link posting battle. I posted 6 or 7 different articles from various sources all showing the global average temp hasn't gone up in 10 years. not to mention the hacked emails show climate change scientists baffled by that very fact. this isn't worth debating, im not going to change your mind, your not going to change mine, so lets just not go any further with it bagor and t@t

[GreenLantern]

This is what your points add up to..

[troutman]

Have you heard the "Friends of Science" ads on QR77?

I think Science needs a restraining order.

[TheU]

Originally Posted by Bagor

The debate here is not unlike the creationist/evolution one where a creationist having zero ground to stand on pumps all his energy into disproving evolution rather than proving his own belief.

When I say "not unlike" FTR I'm not suggesting that the skeptics have zero to go on nor is the argument for as strong as the argument for evolution. Just an analogy of the behaviour.

Just want to make one more crack at this insane post, and how backwards it is.

Climate change scientists had an idea and theory that global warming was occuring. The data showed this. So then they decided that the culprit was man made co2. Despite the fact that there was zero evidence of this (something edited out of the 1st IPCC report). Then global warming stopped... and they changed the whole mantra to 'climate change'. Even tho no direct peer reviewed evidence exists that man made co2 is to blame, it remains the crux of their theory. They take a conclusion.. then try and prove it, no matter what the data shows. Then, when data doesn't reflect what they want, they manipulate it, as proven by these emails (and long suspected). Science IS NOT taking a solution then jamming the data into it. Science is CRITICAL. It demands the theories be held up after scrutinization. The same way that bible thumpers ignore data and try and prove god at any cost, climate change zealots ignore data that doesn't agree with them and tries to prove their conclusion at all costs.

Science is not: Conclusion > data > data doesn't fit try again > data > data doesn't fit try again

Science is Observe > postulate a theory > test > does it match the data? if no, try a new theory

If science can show with peer reviewed observations that our co2 is driving climate change, and not the sun and clouds, then I'll be happy to do my part and encourage legistlation that will crippled the economy but at least save the Earth for our future generations. This data, however, doesn't exist. The hacked CRU emails and the hockey stick graph show climate change zealots are bypassing the peer review process for their own personal gain, and to ensure their cushy lifestyles funded by government grants.

[photon]

Originally Posted by TheU

So then they decided that the culprit was man made co2. Despite the fact that there was zero evidence of this (something edited out of the 1st IPCC report).

Measurements of the ratios of isotopes of Carbon in atmospheric CO2 demonstrate that the source of that CO2 is from burning fossil fuels, so that's not "zero evidence."

Here's a few links to threads on a forum where there are people who actually are very familiar with the topic:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=160205
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=160054