Climategate

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Global warming debate COMPLETELY aside, I think that would be great. I don't think that it is right that we have so much while toilet paper is considered a luxury is so many places. If a trillion dollars would keep kids from starving to death, so be it....

I don't know why "wealth redistribution" is considered such an evil thing....

Because the money never goes to those in greatest need. And the UN has shown that its either grossly incompetant or outright corrupt when it comes to situations like that.

I also have trouble with the concept of wealth re-distribution for global warming if China and India as an example are repeating economic benefits from it.

At some point Canada does have to look at the balance point between Global Warming and our own economic interests. A pact like this can't be a suicide pack.

Governments across the world have all shown their own internal interests when it comes to Global Warming. You don't think that dollars that are suppossed to help India or china upgrade their energy production technology is actually going to go to those areas do you. I think its going to go to producing cheaper products that they can flood the Western Markets with. Or its going to go to the factory that produces the latest T-90 tank.

If your going to successfully fight things like carbon emissions or toxic wastes then you have to create a body that just focuses on global cleanup, holds onto the money and has the power to force nations to replace coal burning generators and clean up mass emission factories.

It has to be uncorruptable, and above national self interests and it can't be a debating club.

[zuluking]

Apparently, the UAE believes that what the UAE CRU did was actually wrong! The adminstrative loophole may save their skins, but there can be no further defence of their actions.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle7004936.ece

[zuluking]

Really cool write-up describing the real problems surrounding atolls (versus the fabricated ones):

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/2...ds/#more-15762

[HOZ]

Those darn Glaciers again ......


UN climate change panel based claims on student dissertation and magazine article

[HOZ]

Dem Rainforest Claims.................


UN climate panel shamed by bogus rainforest claim

[HOZ]

I NOW KNOW I BELIEVE THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED



There is no "SETTLE"

AGW is a complete n total...............unsubstantiated THEORY

[Pastiche]

Looks like there is no intellectual backing to Climategate:

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2518632

An academic inquiry into the so-called "climategate" email scandal has concluded that a well-known U.S. scientist did not directly or indirectly falsify data in his research.

[CaptainCrunch]

I think that email gate right now is fairly minor compared to the above posted articles that are coming out.

There is a credibility argument growing

[Pastiche]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I think that email gate right now is fairly minor compared to the above posted articles that are coming out.

There is a credibility argument growing

What's the credibility issue again? Glaciers were said to melt faster? One prediction in a 2000 page tome is wrong? What about the other 1999 pages, are they now scientifically unsound?

Science is not something that is credible. Either the observations support the conclusion or they do not. Uncredible science is rooted out. The Glaciers is one example. Where are the others?

[troutman]

Where is the credibility of the "Friends of Science"?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by troutman

Where is the credibility of the "Friends of Science"?

Barry Cooper is a strange but wonderful professor of political philosophy.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Pastiche

What's the credibility issue again?

I just love the counter arguments to the skeptics... It wasn't peer reviewed! It wasn't peer reviewed!.. and now it comes out that reports used in this report weren't peer reviewed either!

Until all of the available data, and not just the data cherry picked, is evaluated, no conclusions can be made. Of course re-evaluating the specifically chosen data is going to come out with the same results... does it still hold when the data NOT chosen is also incorporated?

I'm on the fence.

[automaton 3]

Originally Posted by Pastiche

Looks like there is no intellectual backing to Climategate:

[font=Arial][size=2]http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2518632


[/left]

IMO outright falseification was not the issue. It was and is efforts to suppress critics; holding back of raw data and the methods of what they call "homonogization"; possible cherry-picking of data; holding back of their statistical formulas and methods; subversion of the peer review process and overall political activism covered in a thin veneer of science.

Whatever happened to the basic principal of correlation does not imply causation? This seems to have been thrown out the window in climate science.

Canadian climateologist Andrew Weaver recently came out and said that the IPCC has crossed the line into political advocacy:

http://www.calgaryherald.com/technol...264/story.html

[CaptainCrunch]

Even in science credibility is king, and climate change science is taking severe hits to its credibility right now. You can't get anyone to make massive changes and spend huge bucks if the science of your cause has gone from science to sounding like evangilical preaching, it kicks the legs out from the justification.

Its similar to the vaccine issues that are happening now.

[zuluking]

Ah, finally, the money trail...

You had to know it existed and now here it is (the first of many I suspect):

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6999975.ece

[CaptainCrunch]

Hopefully there's some accounting for that money, I'd like to know what it was spent on.

It'd better be bicycles.

[zuluking]

First the atolls and now the Netherlands. What'd that climate guy say? Something like overstating things to influence policy makers? http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

[Pinner]

Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html#ixzz0fXFb8zzS

[Billy Tallent]

Originally Posted by Pinner

Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz0fXFb8zzS

What a joke. Way to take a quote out of context. You are aware that the Daily Mail, or Daily Fail, as it is known amongst the literate in the UK, is viewed as a bit of a joke, right? It is as biased and and agenda-driven as any major paper in the UK.

At least find the original BBC article to which it refers.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8511701.stm

[Flame Of Liberty]

Yup, nothing to see here, move along, science is sound, everything is peer reviewed, data is not cherry picked...



Oh yeah and keep the funding coming.