Climategate

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Bagor

Hmmm ... thousands of scientists? What do I win?

Science is not a democracy. Like I said...ask the Pope.

As for what you won....I'll give you first prize for being extremely immature.

[photon]

Originally Posted by HOZ

That data from the CRU has shown that Phil Jones(about to be investigated) and Michael Mann(under investigation) and those that work for them have, at best, been very incompetent, dishonest and unethical. At worst, they have committed fraud, fixed data to torque the results to get huge grants (95 billion!). When you lose Monbiot as a booster for the 2 biggest proponents of the AGW theory.....and saying what I have just typed. What do you have left?

That you have judged them guilty before the investigation has even been started shows your bias.

Rather than innocent until proven guilty, you're just thrilled that it appears to you that there's something to support your pre-conceived bias.

For a third time you can throw everything from this university out and the consensus would remain the same.

Originally Posted by HOZ

AGW theory has to be considered very suspect. Until more and better evidence is presented showing something to the contrary, the Earth has warmed due to natural phenomena and committing trillions to to combating AGW is idiotic.

So you accept the planet is warming now? I thought you were just discounting all the science?

The melting glaciers and moving crops and migrating animals and humans who have evolved in a 2 degree range don't care if the warming is due to people or not, the end result is still the same.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it's why the earth isn't a frozen ball devoid of most life. There's more CO2 in the atmosphere now than there was for the last million years or more. That CO2 has been proven to be from fossil fuels with isotope ratio analysis.

[JustAnotherGuy]

I am completely lost with what is being talked about in this thread. But don't we all agree that we should take better care of our planet? Can we all agree on that?

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by photon

That you have judged them guilty before the investigation has even been started shows your bias.

Rather than innocent until proven guilty, you're just thrilled that it appears to you that there's something to support your pre-conceived bias.

For a third time you can throw everything from this university out and the consensus would remain the same.



So you accept the planet is warming now? I thought you were just discounting all the science?

The melting glaciers and moving crops and migrating animals and humans who have evolved in a 2 degree range don't care if the warming is due to people or not, the end result is still the same.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it's why the earth isn't a frozen ball devoid of most life. There's more CO2 in the atmosphere now than there was for the last million years or more. That CO2 has been proven to be from fossil fuels with isotope ratio analysis.

What made you think that I didn't think the Earth WAS warming? This is the whole crux of the matter.

I am a skeptic of AGW (Man(n)-made global Warming) Theory and it's accompanying Big Oil Money Goliath pounding the poor Greenie David's conspiracy theory.

So obviously this means I believe in polluting, killing puppies and the earth has not warmed up NATURALLY.

Try taking the blinders off. Phil Jones and Michael Mann the two MAIN scientists behind the AGW theory have been cooking the data for grants and conspiring to kneecap any and all criticism.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Science is not a democracy.

Science needs no "friends".

[photon]

Originally Posted by HOZ

I am a skeptic of AGW (Man(n)-made global Warming) Theory and it's accompanying Big Oil Money Goliath pounding the poor Greenie David's conspiracy theory.

So what's your alternative? To overcome a scientific consensus you have to present an alternative explanation for the warming. Otherwise the creationist parallel is very apt. "You are wrong, I can't provide an alternative, but I know you are wrong."

As I said, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, this cannot be denied. The only reason the earth is habitable is because we have CO2 in the atmosphere at all. There's more now than in the last million years. The stuff that's in the atmosphere is demonstrably increasingly from man made sources.

Originally Posted by HOZ

Try taking the blinders off. Phil Jones and Michael Mann the two MAIN scientists behind the AGW theory have been cooking the data for grants and conspiring to kneecap any and all criticism.

They MUST be (despite the lack of evidence and despite the similar results from completely independent sources), otherwise the conspiracy doesn't work! Damn all those glaciers and ice and animals and crops that are in on it too.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by photon

So what's your alternative? To overcome a scientific consensus you have to present an alternative explanation for the warming. Otherwise the creationist parallel is very apt. "You are wrong, I can't provide an alternative, but I know you are wrong."

An alternative has been given. It is a natural cyclical phenomenon. We neither can help it or stop it

Originally Posted by photon

As I said, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, this cannot be denied. The only reason the earth is habitable is because we have CO2 in the atmosphere at all. There's more now than in the last million years. The stuff that's in the atmosphere is demonstrably increasingly from man made sources.

No, there has been more before.
Professor Plimer said climate change was caused by natural events such as volcanic eruptions, the shifting of the Earth’s orbit and cosmic radiation. He said: “Carbon dioxide levels have been up to 1,000 times higher in the past. CO2 cannot be driving global warming now.

Originally Posted by photon

They MUST be (despite the lack of evidence and despite the similar results from completely independent sources), otherwise the conspiracy doesn't work! Damn all those glaciers and ice and animals and crops that are in on it too.

Read the links I provided previously. They have been regurgitating their own turds. Different papers written by the same people using the same data(sources of unknown or very shaky quality) but with the names in different order.
Financial Post, very apt due to the amount of money involved!

Interesting event....
Danes caught with their hands in the Carbon Trading cookie jar. Thanks to a former ENRON exec, Ken Lay.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by HOZ

An alternative has been given. It is a natural cyclical phenomenon. We neither can help it or stop it.

Just two questions, how many years is this "natural cyclical phenomenon" supposed to take? And how long did the former events take in the past?

[HOZ]

John Steward
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tu...l-warming-data

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by photon

That you have judged them guilty before the investigation has even been started shows your bias.

Rather than innocent until proven guilty, you're just thrilled that it appears to you that there's something to support your pre-conceived bias.

You are showing yourself to be a hypocrite. If you cared about science like you pretend to you would be greatly offended by what's in those e-mails. Instead you defend them to the end. These guys behaved
in a manner that betrayed the trust given them. They conspired to keep opposing scientist's work from being published in journals and to have sympathetic Peers review their own work. They were paid millions to gather historical data on the earths temperature from all over the world and harmonized it to be used by other scientists as benchmarks to compare to what is going on today. They somehow got their work reviewed and published without providing the raw data upon which their conclusions were drawn. Yes the raw data still exists but, the process of regathering it from all over the world would be timely and costly. It would take at least a few years. They not only "accidentally" deleted the raw data but, also conspired to delete any e-mails that might show the methodology("tricks") they used to come to their conclusions; E-mails which were requested under the Freedom of information act.

Originally Posted by photon

For a third time you can throw everything from this university out and the consensus would remain the same.

Sure the consensus would be the same. But consensus based on what? Based on who is paying for your research. Based on your blind trust of Scientists such as the ones who wrote those e-mails? The fact is this University is responsible for the long part of that famous hockey stick. They're the guys who harmonized the data from all over the world looking at historical temperature measurements. It's them that the UN relied on and everyone else who wished to compare historical norms with what we are seeing today globally.

Don't minimize the importance of this. The UN is looking for billions from nations such as Canada and the USA as just start up money to deal with global warming issues in the future. China(the world's fastest growing economy) in a brilliant political move promised to reduce emissions by 42%. The move is brilliant because unlike the western world all we will have is their word to rely on for whether they're being faithful. Now the pressure is squarely on nations like ours to reduce emissions which will mean a reduced economy and reduced wealth.

This is your child's future at stake. If global warming is man caused and if our sacrifice will meaningfully change things it might be worth the price being asked. But until at least some of their climate change models are able to correctly predict what happens in the short term I'm not willingly going to let my country give my children's future away on the gamble they're right long term.

[photon]

Originally Posted by HOZ

An alternative has been given. It is a natural cyclical phenomenon. We neither can help it or stop it

Please cite the papers where this is put forward and the evidence related to it.

Originally Posted by HOZ

No, there has been more before.
Professor Plimer said climate change was caused by natural events such as volcanic eruptions, the shifting of the Earth’s orbit and cosmic radiation. He said: “Carbon dioxide levels have been up to 1,000 times higher in the past. CO2 cannot be driving global warming now.

There was a time in the past when there was no oxygen in the atmosphere too, that doesn't mean that that's a good thing.

When was the CO2 levels been 1000 times current levels, with evidence? A book isn't science.

Originally Posted by HOZ

Read the links I provided previously. They have been regurgitating their own turds. Different papers written by the same people using the same data(sources of unknown or very shaky quality) but with the names in different order.

Yeah, the same guys have written the thousands and thousands of papers. Busy guys, their arms must be tired. And of course that doesn't say anything about the validity of the papers either, but they must be bad papers because they're all written by the same guys, and the guys write bad papers.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

You are showing yourself to be a hypocrite. If you cared about science like you pretend to you would be greatly offended by what's in those e-mails. Instead you defend them to the end.

No, that's just you seeing what you want to see. Please point out where I've "defended" them. The only thing I've done is provide some real information to offset the misinformation and ignorance about the emails.

I support an investigation.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

These guys behaved in a manner that betrayed the trust given them. They conspired to keep opposing scientist's work from being published in journals and to have sympathetic Peers review their own work.

Which emails show this?

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

They somehow got their work reviewed and published without providing the raw data upon which their conclusions were drawn.

The data has been available for years, except a small portion which could not be provided because of licensing. Anyone who wanted to refute their work could have done so.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Yes the raw data still exists but, the process of regathering it from all over the world would be timely and costly.

95% of it is freely downloadable over the Internet.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

also conspired to delete any e-mails that might show the methodology("tricks") they used to come to their conclusions; E-mails which were requested under the Freedom of information act.

"Tricks" doesn't refer to anything of concequence, at least not in the email that I've read it from. Which email are you talking about?

If they hid from FOI requests then yes that's serious and an investigation should (and is going to) be held.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Sure the consensus would be the same. But consensus based on what? Based on who is paying for your research.

Consensus based on data. I know you think science is flawed and conclusions are made on desire rather than evidence, because you must think it's flawed in order to fit with your worldview. That makes your judgment flawed, as long as science comes up with conclusions you do not like (evolution, old earth, etc), you will continue to discount it.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Based on your blind trust of Scientists such as the ones who wrote those e-mails? The fact is this University is responsible for the long part of that famous hockey stick. They're the guys who harmonized the data from all over the world looking at historical temperature measurements. It's them that the UN relied on and everyone else who wished to compare historical norms with what we are seeing today globally.

Based on a scientific consensus across multiple disciplines, not just temperatures. They're not the only ones, there's other sources of data completely independent by other teams that have similar results.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

This is your child's future at stake. If global warming is man caused and if our sacrifice will meaningfully change things it might be worth the price being asked. But until at least some of their climate change models are able to correctly predict what happens in the short term I'm not willingly going to let my country give my children's future away on the gamble they're right long term.

Appeal to emotions aren't science.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by photon

There was a time in the past when there was no oxygen in the atmosphere too, that doesn't mean that that's a good thing.

When was the CO2 levels been 1000 times current levels, with evidence? A book isn't science.

Probably when there were anerobic life only or very early in the earth's history. Sort of unsubstantiated figure that you could throw into a debate and walk away from before someone gets the chance to ask you "did it support multi-cellular aerobic life"?

I face-palmed when the poster that continually rants on about fraud and bad science quoted the individual (Ian Pilmer) in question.

Monbiot (amongst others) completely thrashed his book "Heaven and Earth"

Seldom has a book been more cleanly murdered by scientists than Ian Plimer's Ian Plimer's Heaven and Earth, which purports to show that manmade climate change is nonsense. Since its publication in Australia it has been ridiculed for a hilarious series of schoolboy errors, and its fudging and manipulation of the data. Here is what the reviews have said.
Professor Kurt Lambeck, earth scientist and President of the Australian Academy of Science:

"If this had been written by an honours student, I would have failed it with the comment: You have obviously trawled through a lot of material but the critical analysis is missing. Supporting arguments and unsupported arguments in the literature are not distinguished or properly referenced, and you have left the impression that you have not developed an understanding of the processes involved. Rewrite!"

More at .... http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/jul/09/george-monbiot-ian-plimer

Plimer then challenged Monbiot to a debate, Monbiot accepted, Plimer stood down.

Monbiot then published a list of questions for him to answer re. some of his claims (sea ice expanded, using the same graphs as the great global warming swindle (which were later retracted), and heard nothing since.

and this particular oft touted gem.

10. You state that:

"Volcanoes produce more CO2 than the world's cars and industries combined." (p413)

This is similar to the claim in The Great Global Warming Swindle, whose narrator maintained that:

"Volcanoes produce more CO2 each year than all the factories and cars and planes and other sources of man-made carbon dioxide put together."

But you do not provide a source for it.
This is what the US Geological Survey says:

"Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes".

a. Please provide a reference for your claim.
b. How do you explain the discrepancy between this claim and the published data?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...nge-scepticism

If this debate is going to be about honesty, transparency and fraud then I think it only fair to point out the credentials of this individual to comment on the subject. Even his friends can't defend him.

Reviewing this book has been an unpleasant experience for me. I have been a friendly colleague of Plimer's for 25 years or more. I admired his support for innovative geological research during his early career as a mineral explorer in industry. I cheered him on when he took on the so-called creation scientists and their bogus nonsense, a crusade that cost him dearly in the end. I have enjoyed his always lively and entertaining lectures. But this time, in my opinion, he has done a disservice to science and to the community at large.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow...09/2586947.htm

Nonetheless he is Exhibit Z for an oft cited (as witnessed here once) mouthpiece for the argument against AGW when in reality when his inaccuracies (being kind) are questioned he disappears. Meanwhile people latch onto his every word. Strange ......

Some dude even wrote 46 pages checking his claims

Who'd thought going after the individual behind the statement could be so much fun?

[photon]

Lol!

[Calgaryborn]

If the majority of scientists in a given field are paid to find evidence for man caused global warming of course anyone who offers up a minority position will get slammed. Guys will do what they have to to protect their careers. There is billions of dollars at stake.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

If the majority of scientists in a given field are paid to find evidence for man caused global warming of course anyone who offers up a minority position will get slammed. Guys will do what they have to to protect their careers. There is billions of dollars at stake.

You just have to have faith in them.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

If the majority of scientists in a given field are paid to find evidence for man caused global warming of course anyone who offers up a minority position will get slammed. Guys will do what they have to to protect their careers. There is billions of dollars at stake.

Coming from you. I find this to be a VERY bizarre post

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

If the majority of scientists in a given field are paid to find evidence for man caused global warming of course anyone who offers up a minority position will get slammed.

That's a hell of an "If".

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Guys will do what they have to to protect their careers. There is billions of dollars at stake.

Guys will do what they have to do to protect their careers. They'll also do whatever they can to prove, if they can find the proof, that humans aren't doing this.

If money is the motivator, as you claim it is, the people who can prove that humans don't have anything to do with climate change are going to get paid and then some. They'll get rich and famous and their name will be in the history books.

There have been a few scientists in history who have gone against the consenting opinion of the day and they've done alright.

[T@T]

If money was a motivator I would make it my life's work to prove to Calgaryborn and others that the bible is a joke and a badly written book...fact is 99% scientists don't ever get rich and rarely get recognition for there work.

[Devils'Advocate]

I'm seeing a no-win situation.

If there isn't a near-consensus that global warming is man-made then we should "wait until all the science is in" to act.

If there is a near-consensus that global warming is man-made then it is a global conspiracy to garner money and thus we should not act.

Therefore the only means of proving that global warming is man-made is if all scientists work for free, get no grant money and thus have no equipment to perform their science with AND they all come to the same conclusion.

Since this is a ridiculous scenario, the anti-GW crowd have set up a no-win situation for those that believe the science. Game. Set. Match. QED

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

That's a hell of an "If".



Guys will do what they have to do to protect their careers. They'll also do whatever they can to prove, if they can find the proof, that humans aren't doing this.

If money is the motivator, as you claim it is, the people who can prove that humans don't have anything to do with climate change are going to get paid and then some. They'll get rich and famous and their name will be in the history books.

There have been a few scientists in history who have gone against the consenting opinion of the day and they've done alright.

The vast money pouring into global warming research has been generated by fear and sensation. Nobody is going to pay millions to better understand long term weather patterns and temperatures for the sake of advancing knowledge. Before the global warming scare there was little money for research. Now it is one of the biggest benefits of government money.

There are scientists who question the association of man to global warming and more importantly the current forecasts for the future. They get immediately dog piled by those scientists with their bellys already full of government grants. You say it is because they are practicing junk science. I say look at the money that is at stake and you will see why any questions regarding the theory of man caused global warming isn't tolerated. I say those e-mails give evidence to my position. Photon and others say that scientists have a special English language where words like "trick" don't mean "trick" and every other troubling thing they said is somehow taken out of context. I'm not buying it.