Climategate

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

And there folks is what a liberal does when confronted with uncomfortable facts: He/she makes themselves out to be a victim.

(A) Those were not "facts" any more than this page is full of "facts":
http://www.allaboutcreation.org/evid...lution-faq.htm
(B) I don't debate people who call people names. I don't like name calling of anyone of any political stripe.

But if global warming has been so disproved, why do NASA, National Geographic, Science Magazine, not taken down their links?

NASA -
http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global...worldbook.html

National Geographic -
http://environment.nationalgeographi...-overview.html

Science Magazine
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../306/5702/1686

I just don't think that John Daly stands up to the National Academy of Science.

http://dels.nas.edu/climatechange/

I think there is far more science on the global warming side than against. And I would have posted that save for not wanting to debate people that resort to insulting those on the other side of the debate.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

(A) Those were not "facts" any more than this page is full of "facts":
http://www.allaboutcreation.org/evid...lution-faq.htm
(B) I don't debate people who call people names. I don't like name calling of anyone of any political stripe.

But if global warming has been so disproved, why do NASA, National Geographic, Science Magazine, not taken down their links?

NASA -
http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global...worldbook.html

National Geographic -
http://environment.nationalgeographi...-overview.html

Science Magazine
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../306/5702/1686

I just don't think that John Daly stands up to the National Academy of Science.

http://dels.nas.edu/climatechange/

I think there is far more science on the global warming side than against. And I would have posted that save for not wanting to debate people that resort to insulting those on the other side of the debate.

It has been quite obvious for some time that the Scientists are chasing the money. There is millions of dollars at stake and the ones that are getting the research grants are the global warming crowd.

[puckhog]

Originally Posted by flip

So I guess all that ice melting in the arctic is bogus too? With the current data available the NW passage will likely be open in the next 10-15 years.

Sorry, but this post is just absurd. Current data shows nothing about what will happen in 10-15 years, it is entirely limited to telling us what the arctic ice extent is at the present time. Anything beyond right now is a forecast. Now, when a forecast is made, it is necessarily based on a set of assumptions. When the time-frame of a forecast grows, the probability of it being inaccurate greatly increases, because the assumptions that the forecast is based upon are more likely to be wrong.

Since we're on a hockey board, I will illustrate with a hockey example: at the start of the season Ovechkin scored 9 points in 3 games. Based upon this data, it would have been possible to forecast that he would end the season with 246 points - the available data (at the time) does nothing to show that this forecast is invalid. However, we all know that it would have been silly to expect Ovechkin to do this, because the assumptions that it is based upon are highly unlikely (i.e. no injuries or slumps, or that his production through the first 3 games was not an anomaly).

Back to the discussion about these leaked files, some of them would indicate that the assumptions made both in treating the existing data and producing forecasts were done in a way that would produce the desired results. To anyone with any scientific background (including performing a lab or two in junior high) this is simply unacceptable. The scientific process is all about trying to disprove a given hypothesis, if the hypothesis stands up through test after test, then it is considered a theory or law. Many of the scientists involved with 'proving' global warming seem to have forgotten this.

[TheU]

Originally Posted by puckhog

Sorry, but this post is just absurd. Current data shows nothing about what will happen in 10-15 years, it is entirely limited to telling us what the arctic ice extent is at the present time. Anything beyond right now is a forecast. Now, when a forecast is made, it is necessarily based on a set of assumptions. When the time-frame of a forecast grows, the probability of it being inaccurate greatly increases, because the assumptions that the forecast is based upon are more likely to be wrong.

Since we're on a hockey board, I will illustrate with a hockey example: at the start of the season Ovechkin scored 9 points in 3 games. Based upon this data, it would have been possible to forecast that he would end the season with 246 points - the available data (at the time) does nothing to show that this forecast is invalid. However, we all know that it would have been silly to expect Ovechkin to do this, because the assumptions that it is based upon are highly unlikely (i.e. no injuries or slumps, or that his production through the first 3 games was not an anomaly).

Back to the discussion about these leaked files, some of them would indicate that the assumptions made both in treating the existing data and producing forecasts were done in a way that would produce the desired results. To anyone with any scientific background (including performing a lab or two in junior high) this is simply unacceptable. The scientific process is all about trying to disprove a given hypothesis, if the hypothesis stands up through test after test, then it is considered a theory or law. Many of the scientists involved with 'proving' global warming seem to have forgotten this.

Couldn't have said it better myself. There is literally billions of dollars at stake, and bad science is happening. Some important facts

• Global average temperature hasn't gone up in 10 years
• The world has been hotter than this before, and much cooler
• The data does NOT match with the theory of man made global warming. The increase in carbon and raise in temparature are not aligned, and most important
• Ice core data from al gore's own movie demonstrates the relationship between carbon and raise in temperature are reverse.

That's right folks, the temperature goes up first, then, between 25-150 years later, carbon goes up after. Do yourself a favour and look at the data yourself, don't take my word for it. This global warming fraud is starting to catch up to reality, and in 5 years everyone will be wondering how such a great lie was allowed to go on for so long. Hint... take liberal tree hugging bleeding hearts and team them up with evil scientists who take a result and fit the theory to match it. These greedy climate change scientists who are reading results and running projections in such a way to get scary predictions are literally raping science. Jail time should be in order as far am I'm concerned

[monkeyman]

To start, i don't believe we have enough long-term information regarding "man made" global warming to prove or disprove it. I do however think that there are natural cycles that have a far greater effect on global temperature than man ever will have. I also believe that once we exceed the earth's capacity to maintain us we will suffer a massive die off. Nature always balances out in one way or another. So irrespective of man made global warming, it is in still in our best interest to conserve, and protect nature.
I find it funny how people still refer to others who follow blindly as "lemmings". Only because it's based on a false premise perpetuated by movies made in the 60's. Does anyone else see the irony in that?

[TheyCallMeBruce]

Here are the emails if anyone's interested.

http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/index.php

[flip]

Originally Posted by puckhog

Sorry, but this post is just absurd. Current data shows nothing about what will happen in 10-15 years, it is entirely limited to telling us what the arctic ice extent is at the present time. Anything beyond right now is a forecast. Now, when a forecast is made, it is necessarily based on a set of assumptions. When the time-frame of a forecast grows, the probability of it being inaccurate greatly increases, because the assumptions that the forecast is based upon are more likely to be wrong.

Since we're on a hockey board, I will illustrate with a hockey example: at the start of the season Ovechkin scored 9 points in 3 games. Based upon this data, it would have been possible to forecast that he would end the season with 246 points - the available data (at the time) does nothing to show that this forecast is invalid. However, we all know that it would have been silly to expect Ovechkin to do this, because the assumptions that it is based upon are highly unlikely (i.e. no injuries or slumps, or that his production through the first 3 games was not an anomaly).

Back to the discussion about these leaked files, some of them would indicate that the assumptions made both in treating the existing data and producing forecasts were done in a way that would produce the desired results. To anyone with any scientific background (including performing a lab or two in junior high) this is simply unacceptable. The scientific process is all about trying to disprove a given hypothesis, if the hypothesis stands up through test after test, then it is considered a theory or law. Many of the scientists involved with 'proving' global warming seem to have forgotten this.

I really don't want to sound pompous or condescending but you have no idea what the hell you are talking about so please don't try and argue with this.

No where in my post did I say I was either for or against the whole "global warming" debate.

All I meant is that countries are literally spending billions and billions of dollars in anticipation of the arctic being relatively clear of ice and that the NW passage and arctic oil and gas are almost inevitable right now.


If you don't believe me go read some academic literature about UNCLOS (specifically article 76), any arctic nations spending (and many non-arctic nations like China) on R & D in the arctic and ice melting in the arctic. Even private companies are spending billions in anticipation of the possibility of oil and gas and the potential debate and disagreements over the NW passage being declared an international strait.

Regardless of whether or not global warming is real or not it is a FACT that the ice in the arctic is receding at a pace faster than all current models have anticipated.

I simply asked TheU to explain why that is happening. He believes that it is because of a cycle and clearly you don't either.

Stating predictions of the worlds leading experts on the arctic, like I did, is hardly absurd.

If you are serious about trying to learn about this so that you don't come off like a total condescending poster I can PM you literally dozens and dozens of academic articles on the predictions for the future of the arctic. I can even tell you classes to take at the U of C so that you can learn about this, even people you might actually be able to talk to, most of whom are widely considered the leading arctic experts in the WORLD. I'm dead serious too.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by puckhog

Sorry, but this post is just absurd. Current data shows nothing about what will happen in 10-15 years, it is entirely limited to telling us what the arctic ice extent is at the present time.

Satellite imagery and sea ice coverage?
Projections based on observed trends?
Your this is absurd because no one can tell the future doesn't carry much weight.
And no..... Canada, US and other countries aren't watching this closely. I'm not saying it'll happen anytime soon but it's something worth monitoring closely. There's a reason why the US sea ice imagery is "classified".

Originally Posted by puckhog

Back to the discussion about these leaked files, some of them would indicate that the assumptions made both in treating the existing data and producing forecasts were done in a way that would produce the desired results. To anyone with any scientific background (including performing a lab or two in junior high) this is simply unacceptable. The scientific process is all about trying to disprove a given hypothesis, if the hypothesis stands up through test after test, then it is considered a theory or law. Many of the scientists involved with 'proving' global warming seem to have forgotten this.

Huh? You're confusing your high school lab where you form a hypothesis and try and disprove it with 'projections' based on past and present data.= using modelling tools.

And you're contradicting yourself a bit now. All of a sudden current data is useful? As long as it's contained in a lab.

And your Ovechkin example has a serious flaw .... i.e sample size. Wouldn't you agree his projected points totals after say 41 games might be more accurate based on the trend at that time. Of course there are outside variables all carrying different weight but the point is with the more data available then the better chance of making an accurate projection.

I'm not saying that my projection after half a season will be exactly on the money but the increased sample size will lead to it being a lot closer than your flawed example. But then again they'd both be probably wrong so what's the point?

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

It has been quite obvious for some time that the Scientists are chasing the money. There is millions of dollars at stake and the ones that are getting the research grants are the global warming crowd.

I was reading that evolutionary biologists have pledged 10% of their grants towards the climate change agenda.

Woooooooooo ..... They're all ganging up to get you.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

-=-=-=-=-=-

I REALLY have a hard time believing that those with a vested interest in proving global warming have more money to bribe scientists than those with a vested interest in disproving global warming. It took a very long time for science to prove tobacco was harmful because those with a vested interest in proving that it was harmful had less money than those with a vested interest in disproving that it was harmful.

Apparently you have no idea how much money is at stake in the carbon trading industry. It will make every other industry look like peanuts.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by flip

So I guess all that ice melting in the arctic is bogus too? With the current data available the NW passage will likely be open in the next 10-15 years.

Except that has no longer proven to be true. Arctic ice cover has increased in the past few years.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

(A) Those were not "facts" any more than this page is full of "facts":
http://www.allaboutcreation.org/evid...lution-faq.htm
(B) I don't debate people who call people names. I don't like name calling of anyone of any political stripe.

But if global warming has been so disproved, why do NASA, National Geographic, Science Magazine, not taken down their links?

NASA -
http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global...worldbook.html

National Geographic -
http://environment.nationalgeographi...-overview.html

Science Magazine
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../306/5702/1686

I just don't think that John Daly stands up to the National Academy of Science.

http://dels.nas.edu/climatechange/

I think there is far more science on the global warming side than against. And I would have posted that save for not wanting to debate people that resort to insulting those on the other side of the debate.

NASA has alot of skin in the game. Can't speak to the others, but NASA in particular has made alot of statements and their credibility in this particular area is on the line. They'll wait until they have a credible exit strategy, but exit the ultimately will. Proclamations are easy; disclaimers not so much.

[puckhog]

Alright, I guess I'll start with Flip. I actually have a very good idea what I'm talking about, as I've read much of the material you indicated. In your reply you say that arctic ice is melting at a faster rate than models predicted, and I'm not arguing with that at all, but it still says absolutely nothing about what will happen in 10-15 years. Anyone who says with certainty that they know how things will be in 10-15 years, no matter what issue they're discussing, is full of crap, and I don't care how 'qualified' they are.

On to Bagor, my "junior high lab" comment was meant to illustrate that we're all taught at a very early age that in the Scientific Process you form a hypothesis about what will happen, and then objectively obtain results that will either confirm or refute your original hypothesis. Under no circumstances should you cherry pick or treat data in a manner that will prove your hypothesis simply because you want to be right. Also, I never said current data wasn't useful, in fact it's the only thing we can say that we know with 100% certainty. What I said was that current data is limited in what it can tell us about the future. My post wasn't a knock on data that is known, but using that data to make conclusions about future events.

As for the Ovechkin example, I'm not sure where the confusion is coming from, but allow me to clarify; I'm well aware that a projection such as I indicated is flawed, in fact, that was the whole point of the example. I'll re-word the point I was trying to make: the given data available at any point in time is limited in what it can tell us about future events.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Bagor

I was reading that evolutionary biologists have pledged 10% of their grants towards the climate change agenda.

Woooooooooo ..... They're all ganging up to get you.

So are their pledges like Al Gore saying he buys carbon offsets to call himself carbon-neutral when actually he is investing in the lucrative green companies his propaganda is making rich?

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by zuluking

Except that has no longer proven to be true. Arctic ice cover has increased in the past few years.

Increased from what? Put your post in context with more than the "past few years".

At the end of the Arctic summer, more ice cover remained this year than during the previous record-setting low years of 2007 and 2008. However, sea ice has not recovered to previous levels. September sea ice extent was the third lowest since the start of satellite records in 1979, and the past five years have seen the five lowest ice extents in the satellite record.

http://nsidc.org/news/press/20091005_minimumpr.html

[Pastiche]

LOL internet idiots and conspiracy whack jobs versus an entire canon of academic research.

I love reading some of the pseudo-scientific garbage in an effort to refute peer reviewed research. There's a reason those guys have PhDs and research funding and you are typing on a hockey board on the internet. It's because they know what they're talking about.

[Pastiche]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

It has been quite obvious for some time that the Scientists are chasing the money. There is millions of dollars at stake and the ones that are getting the research grants are the global warming crowd.

What's obvious is the lack of clue you have.

How do you think research funding is given out?

Wanted: One scientician to prove that global warming exists
Bounty: 1 million dollars

Signed, Global liberal elite bent on sticking it to oil profiteers for unknown reasons and written about in the latest Michael Crichton pulp

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by puckhog

Anyone who says with certainty that they know how things will be in 10-15 years, no matter what issue they're discussing, is full of crap, and I don't care how 'qualified' they are.

But that's exactly it.

No-one's saying the models are perfect. They're projections. If they were exact then they'd be all the same.

All they're doing is saying with a best confidence interval that based on historical data and observations and new knowledge on ocean currents, sinks, temperatures and ecology what is projected to happen. Throw in the addition of fresh water to a saline environment and the whole thing gets complicated.

Originally Posted by puckhog

On to Bagor, my "junior high lab" comment was meant to illustrate that we're all taught at a very early age that in the Scientific Process you form a hypothesis about what will happen, and then objectively obtain results that will either confirm or refute your original hypothesis. Under no circumstances should you cherry pick or treat data in a manner that will prove your hypothesis simply because you want to be right. Also, I never said current data wasn't useful, in fact it's the only thing we can say that we know with 100% certainty. What I said was that current data is limited in what it can tell us about the future. My post wasn't a knock on data that is known, but using that data to make conclusions about future events.

As for the Ovechkin example, I'm not sure where the confusion is coming from, but allow me to clarify; I'm well aware that a projection such as I indicated is flawed, in fact, that was the whole point of the example. I'll re-word the point I was trying to make: the given data available at any point in time is limited in what it can tell us about future events.

100% agreed and to be honest your post rubbed me the wrong way, I was being a bit of a smartarse dick in my reply and apologise.

My point is that as the sample size grows (e.g. 41 games), new variables are understood, models are refined then there is a greater likelihood for a more accurate projection. And as has been proven on the FOI section of the board, you can twist stats to make your point.

IMO of course you can treat data, as long as you don't falsify it.

No-one's claiming things as fact, it's just an educated consensus based international best guess.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

So are their pledges like Al Gore saying he buys carbon offsets to call himself carbon-neutral when actually he is investing in the lucrative green companies his propaganda is making rich?

Everyone knows that Al Gore is a descendant of Darwin.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Pastiche

What's obvious is the lack of clue you have.

How do you think research funding is given out?

Wanted: One scientician to prove that global warming exists
Bounty: 1 million dollars

Signed, Global liberal elite bent on sticking it to oil profiteers for unknown reasons and written about in the latest Michael Crichton pulp

Research grants are given out for results. The more positive the results for the groups handing out the money the more likely more money will be thrown the re searcher's way. Negative results and neutral results don't pay well.