Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Go Back   Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community > Main Forums > The Off Topic Forum
Register Forum Rules FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 07-15-2010, 10:10 AM   #681
Stimpy
Lifetime Suspension
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zuluking View Post
Having read the whole dang Muir-Russel report and being underwhelmed by its scope and astonished on the leaps in logic and rational to reach its conclusions, this article summed up all of these "inquiries" the best.
Interesting thread. I think the column you link through is weak and the first comment is pretty well on the mark. For those that don't wish to follow the link to read a simple reader comment, here it is. I hope this is not against copyright rules.

This is misleading and out of touch with reality. The proof that the planet is warming to dangerous levels because of the amount of greenhouse gases that humans are pumping into the atmosphere is overwhelming.

"Climate-gate" and other so-called investigations have been pushed forward by the denialosphere: a hodge-podge of industry front groups, fake scientists, conservative activists, deniers, and cranky, contrarian journalists who've decided to set reason aside and go on constant attack mode despite the facts.

Yes, there are probably a couple mistakes in the thousands upon thousands of pages of scientific reports. No, not a single one of them undermines the research. Hell, the phone book has more typos than the IPCC report.

Here's the big green truth: our addiction to fossil fuels is destroying our planet and wrecking our economies. The BP oil disaster is the most visible evidence of why we need to transition to a clean energy economy. The 21st century will be lead by the nations and industries that embrace a low-carbon future.

It would be great to see the Atlantic feature more articles that cover these exciting developments that could get our country going again, rather than giving a soapbox to deniers who want to continue to chain us to the dirty energy and toxic politics of the past.
Stimpy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2010, 11:22 AM   #682
MelBridgeman
Lifetime Suspension
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stimpy View Post
This is misleading and out of touch with reality. The proof that the planet is warming to dangerous levels because of the amount of greenhouse gases that humans are pumping into the atmosphere is overwhelming.

"Climate-gate" and other so-called investigations have been pushed forward by the denialosphere: a hodge-podge of industry front groups, fake scientists, conservative activists, deniers, and cranky, contrarian journalists who've decided to set reason aside and go on constant attack mode despite the facts.

Yes, there are probably a couple mistakes in the thousands upon thousands of pages of scientific reports. No, not a single one of them undermines the research. Hell, the phone book has more typos than the IPCC report.

Here's the big green truth: our addiction to fossil fuels is destroying our planet and wrecking our economies. The BP oil disaster is the most visible evidence of why we need to transition to a clean energy economy. The 21st century will be lead by the nations and industries that embrace a low-carbon future.

It would be great to see the Atlantic feature more articles that cover these exciting developments that could get our country going again, rather than giving a soapbox to deniers who want to continue to chain us to the dirty energy and toxic politics of the past.
Reads like some eco-boy with a huge agenda
MelBridgeman is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to MelBridgeman For This Useful Post:
Old 07-15-2010, 12:43 PM   #683
zuluking
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stimpy View Post
Interesting thread. I think the column you link through is weak and the first comment is pretty well on the mark. For those that don't wish to follow the link to read a simple reader comment, here it is. I hope this is not against copyright rules.

This is misleading and out of touch with reality. The proof that the planet is warming to dangerous levels because of the amount of greenhouse gases that humans are pumping into the atmosphere is overwhelming.

"Climate-gate" and other so-called investigations have been pushed forward by the denialosphere: a hodge-podge of industry front groups, fake scientists, conservative activists, deniers, and cranky, contrarian journalists who've decided to set reason aside and go on constant attack mode despite the facts.

Yes, there are probably a couple mistakes in the thousands upon thousands of pages of scientific reports. No, not a single one of them undermines the research. Hell, the phone book has more typos than the IPCC report.

Here's the big green truth: our addiction to fossil fuels is destroying our planet and wrecking our economies. The BP oil disaster is the most visible evidence of why we need to transition to a clean energy economy. The 21st century will be lead by the nations and industries that embrace a low-carbon future.

It would be great to see the Atlantic feature more articles that cover these exciting developments that could get our country going again, rather than giving a soapbox to deniers who want to continue to chain us to the dirty energy and toxic politics of the past.
You think the column is weak, but that comment is not?!?!?

I'll say it again: I've read the report and the column I linked sums it up fairly well. What does that comment have to do with the inquiries? Nothing.
__________________
zk
zuluking is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2010, 05:02 PM   #684
HOZ
Lifetime Suspension
 
HOZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos View Post
Seriously?

"Readers of both earlier reports need to know that both institutions receive tens of millions in federal global warming research funding (which can be confirmed by perusing the grant histories of Messrs. Jones or Mann, compiled from public sources, that are available online at freerepublic.com). Any admission of substantial scientific misbehavior would likely result in a significant loss of funding."

Pretty weak.

Pastiche uses the fossil fuel link to attack on a guys argument. That is ad hominem. An attack on a persons character to attack their argument.

Pat Michaels uses the funding link as circumstantial evidence as to why they are covering their butts. If you follow Zulu's link you get this nice quote.
Moving on, the report then says, in effect, that Mann is a distinguished scholar, a successful raiser of research funding, a man admired by his peers -- so any allegation of academic impropriety must be false.

That article has a direct quote from the investigation. So it seems funding does play a strong role. Hardly Ad hominem.

Last edited by HOZ; 07-15-2010 at 05:03 PM. Reason: correction
HOZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2010, 05:05 PM   #685
Stimpy
Lifetime Suspension
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MelBridgeman View Post
Reads like some eco-boy with a huge agenda
I won't disagree that is a possibility. Another possibility is someone who views issues with a broader perspective and has observed the cost of petroleum beyond the price at the pump. In the last decade the United States has engaged in a war with a country that now looks like nothing more than an effort to control over a region where the most oil in the world is produced. They have also experienced two of the most devastating coastal events that has released raw crude into the ocean and caused numerous dead zones because of it. Pragmatically it makes sense to start moving away from reliance on petroleum products.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zuluking View Post
You think the column is weak, but that comment is not?!?!?

I'll say it again: I've read the report and the column I linked sums it up fairly well. What does that comment have to do with the inquiries? Nothing.
The comment is about the column, not the inquiries. I said the column was weak, and I stand by that comment. Some demands for investigation are superfluous and not worthy of the effort or expense to conduct. Without being privy to the details of the request for the original investigation it is impossible to say was handled inappropriately or not. Since the original emails released were very selective in nature, and obtained through illegal means in their own right, I would say that condemning any review or inquiry without being privy to all details is, as I called the column, weak.
Stimpy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2010, 10:37 PM   #686
HOZ
Lifetime Suspension
 
HOZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Exp:
Default

If anybody is still interested. Climate debate run by the Guardian in London with video and audio.

Monbot was the chair
McIntyre and Keenan vs Watson, Davies and Pearce
HOZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2010, 08:27 AM   #687
zuluking
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stimpy View Post
I won't disagree that is a possibility. Another possibility is someone who views issues with a broader perspective and has observed the cost of petroleum beyond the price at the pump. In the last decade the United States has engaged in a war with a country that now looks like nothing more than an effort to control over a region where the most oil in the world is produced. They have also experienced two of the most devastating coastal events that has released raw crude into the ocean and caused numerous dead zones because of it. Pragmatically it makes sense to start moving away from reliance on petroleum products.



The comment is about the column, not the inquiries. I said the column was weak, and I stand by that comment. Some demands for investigation are superfluous and not worthy of the effort or expense to conduct. Without being privy to the details of the request for the original investigation it is impossible to say was handled inappropriately or not. Since the original emails released were very selective in nature, and obtained through illegal means in their own right, I would say that condemning any review or inquiry without being privy to all details is, as I called the column, weak.
Stimpy, you're missing the point. The column is critical about the inquiries and I can at least vouch for some of the points as they pertain to the Muir-Russel report. If you read the report, which you haven't, the details of the scope of inquiry are clearly stated within the document, so to suggest the columnist isn't privy to those details is blatantly incorrect. Sure, you stand by your comment, but you don't back it up with anything. It's a baseless opinion. The comment you've chosed to back up your opinion has nothing to do with the column at all - it's a typical eco-soap-box rant about so-called irrefutable science and the opposing force of big oil money. What does that have to do with a commentary on the inquiries into Climategate (emails only, by the way.)
__________________
zk
zuluking is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2011, 12:47 PM   #688
zuluking
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Exp:
Default

Climategate Redux: Settling the Science When Science Won't Settle Itself

The folks that brought us Climategate (FOIA.zip) have released another pile of internal communications at UAE (FOIA2011.zip). This link seems to have a pretty good comprehensive list of excerpts:

http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/...1-has-arrived/
__________________
zk
zuluking is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2011, 08:13 PM   #689
zuluking
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Exp:
Default

And for those that want the real unadulterated content...

http://dump.kurthbemis.com/climategate2/FOIA/
__________________
zk
zuluking is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2011, 05:21 PM   #690
HOZ
Lifetime Suspension
 
HOZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Exp:
Default

SHUSH! zuluking!
Stages of warmists grief...
Stage 1: they aren’t real emails
Stage 2: they are real emails but they aren’t in context
Stage 3: they are in context, but that’s how scientists work
Stage 4: ok, this isn’t really science, but you guys stole the emails!
Stage 5: this is old stuff
Stage 6: this is nothing
Stage 7: look everyone! Winter storm! See, we have proof of our theories now.
Repeat as needed
HOZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2011, 09:17 AM   #691
Thor
God of Hating Twitter
 
Thor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Exp:
Default

So when this is fully and completely debunked like the climategate emails you will finally admit your wrong? Oh wait...
__________________
Allskonar fyrir Aumingja!!
Thor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2011, 10:25 AM   #692
troutman
Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer
 
troutman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Crowsnest Pass
Exp:
Default

Arctic sea ice in longest decline seen over past 1,450 years: study

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle2246787/

“When we look at our reconstruction, we can see that the decline that has occurred in the last 50 years or so seems to be unprecedented for the last 1,450 years,” Christian Zdanowicz of the Geological Survey of Canada said Wednesday.

“It's difficult not to come up with the conclusion that greenhouse gases must have something to do with this,” added Mr. Zdanowicz, one of the co-authors of the report in Nature.

“We cannot account for this decline by processes that are ‘natural.’”

Mr. Zdanowicz and his team combined 69 different data sources to determine the extent of sea ice for every decade going back about 1,000 years and every 25 years beyond that.

The team examined tree rings, ice cores from glaciers and lake and ocean sediments. To check the validity of their approach, scientists compared their calculations for the last couple of centuries with real-world observations from satellites, ship logs and other historical accounts.

They found that by the mid-1990s sea ice had fallen even further than in previous lows such as the so-called Medieval Warm Period between 800 and 1300.
troutman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2011, 10:26 AM   #693
Tinordi
Lifetime Suspension
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Exp:
Default

Meet the new Climategate, lamer than the old Climategate.
Tinordi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2011, 12:21 PM   #694
zuluking
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thor View Post
So when this is fully and completely debunked like the climategate emails you will finally admit your wrong? Oh wait...
The climategate emails were not "debunked"; they were marginalized and excused.
__________________
zk
zuluking is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2011, 12:38 PM   #695
zuluking
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by troutman View Post
Arctic sea ice in longest decline seen over past 1,450 years: study

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle2246787/

“When we look at our reconstruction, we can see that the decline that has occurred in the last 50 years or so seems to be unprecedented for the last 1,450 years,” Christian Zdanowicz of the Geological Survey of Canada said Wednesday.

“It's difficult not to come up with the conclusion that greenhouse gases must have something to do with this,” added Mr. Zdanowicz, one of the co-authors of the report in Nature.

“We cannot account for this decline by processes that are ‘natural.’”

Mr. Zdanowicz and his team combined 69 different data sources to determine the extent of sea ice for every decade going back about 1,000 years and every 25 years beyond that.

The team examined tree rings, ice cores from glaciers and lake and ocean sediments. To check the validity of their approach, scientists compared their calculations for the last couple of centuries with real-world observations from satellites, ship logs and other historical accounts.

They found that by the mid-1990s sea ice had fallen even further than in previous lows such as the so-called Medieval Warm Period between 800 and 1300.
Science: measuring Arctic sea ice using "tree rings, ice cores from glaciers and lake and ocean sediments."

I know I haven't read the whole study and I'm no scientist (as you'd all vehemently agree), but these types of newspaper articles and leaps of logic are getting ridiculous, in that by merely publishing or posting, the uneducated masses are meant to just accept it. "Nothing more to see here, move along."

Yet, when we have a glimpse inside the staid, steady and irreproachable "science" behind so many of these studies, and we see politics, gamesmanship, bullying, and secrecy, those are dismissed offhandedly, like Tinordi, or "officially" like the Muir-Russel report on the original Climategate. "Nothing more to see here, move along."
__________________
zk
zuluking is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2011, 01:22 PM   #696
troutman
Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer
 
troutman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Crowsnest Pass
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zuluking View Post
Science: measuring Arctic sea ice using "tree rings, ice cores from glaciers and lake and ocean sediments."

I know I haven't read the whole study and I'm no scientist (as you'd all vehemently agree), but these types of newspaper articles and leaps of logic are getting ridiculous, in that by merely publishing or posting, the uneducated masses are meant to just accept it. "Nothing more to see here, move along."

Yet, when we have a glimpse inside the staid, steady and irreproachable "science" behind so many of these studies, and we see politics, gamesmanship, bullying, and secrecy, those are dismissed offhandedly, like Tinordi, or "officially" like the Muir-Russel report on the original Climategate. "Nothing more to see here, move along."
Here is the abstract, no nasty newspaper ($32 for the full article):

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture10581.html

Here we use a network of high-resolution terrestrial proxies from the circum-Arctic region to reconstruct past extents of summer sea ice, and show that—although extensive uncertainties remain, especially before the sixteenth century—both the duration and magnitude of the current decline in sea ice seem to be unprecedented for the past 1,450 years. Enhanced advection of warm Atlantic water to the Arctic6 seems to be the main factor driving the decline of sea ice extent on multidecadal timescales, and may result from nonlinear feedbacks between sea ice and the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation. These results reinforce the assertion that sea ice is an active component of Arctic climate variability and that the recent decrease in summer Arctic sea ice is consistent with anthropogenically forced warming.

Last edited by troutman; 11-24-2011 at 01:28 PM.
troutman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2011, 02:08 PM   #697
zuluking
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by troutman View Post
Here is the abstract, no nasty newspaper ($32 for the full article):

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture10581.html

Here we use a network of high-resolution terrestrial proxies from the circum-Arctic region to reconstruct past extents of summer sea ice, and show that—although extensive uncertainties remain, especially before the sixteenth century—both the duration and magnitude of the current decline in sea ice seem to be unprecedented for the past 1,450 years. Enhanced advection of warm Atlantic water to the Arctic6 seems to be the main factor driving the decline of sea ice extent on multidecadal timescales, and may result from nonlinear feedbacks between sea ice and the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation. These results reinforce the assertion that sea ice is an active component of Arctic climate variability and that the recent decrease in summer Arctic sea ice is consistent with anthropogenically forced warming.
Thanks. I do note that "seem" and "may" become "is" by the conclusion (and in the article, too.) This bothers me in that they postulate a theory, but present it as fact. And then nasty newspaper articles aggrandize it.
__________________
zk
zuluking is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2011, 02:22 PM   #698
photon
The new goggles also do nothing.
 
photon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zuluking View Post
The climategate emails were not "debunked"; they were marginalized and excused.
No, they were investigated SIX times by completely different bodies with nothing coming out of it.

Of course the conspiracy loon would say that that proves that all six bodies are in on the conspiracy...

Heck even the guy in the video who misrepresented (lied) about what the emails said and was funded by the denial machine to go out and do a completely separate analysis came up with a data set that completely supports the other 3 supposedly corrupted data sets.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zuluking View Post
Thanks. I do note that "seem" and "may" become "is" by the conclusion (and in the article, too.) This bothers me in that they postulate a theory, but present it as fact. And then nasty newspaper articles aggrandize it.
Only if you don't read it closely. The "seem" and "may" are around their observations or explanations, and the "is" is part of the actual hypothesis they're trying to disprove.

Your hypothesis can't have a "may" in it, since the hypothesis needs to either be supported or contradicted.

Your observations always have error bars and conclusions are always based on a set of assumptions (previous observations, etc), so there's always room for error.

As for arctic ice:

__________________
Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
photon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2011, 02:36 PM   #699
kirant
Franchise Player
 
kirant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Exp:
Default

Fun stuff with your graph photon:
In cooler months (the least amount of deviation), there is a spread of about 2.5 standard deviations. If we take 2.5 standard deviations out, the chances of one not being the other are about 2.5% aka 97.5% confidence that one isn't equal to the other. I think the general cut offs are at 95% or 90% though...

My point? None really. Just applying stuff I rarely get to use to kind of explain that graph a bit better. Though I have to stress that from that data alone, all you can state is that one isn't the other. The original data could have been from icier years or the new ones an aberation in data.
__________________
kirant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2011, 02:37 PM   #700
Bagor
Franchise Player
 
Bagor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Spartanville
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HOZ View Post
James Delingpole? Seriously?

Stages of skeptics tactics.

1. Rant, post blogs, etc that you aren't really sure about.
2. Avoid all questioning of rationale.
3. Go to 1. Rinse and repeat.

Case in point. Your behaviour here and his in the below video. Note the similarity between his behaviour to being asked a question with yours in this thread.

3:12 mark.



Squirm, squirm, squirm, deflect, squirm a bit more, and then try and manipulate the conversation back to where he can talk more with question avoidance.
__________________


Bagor is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Bagor For This Useful Post:
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:54 PM.

Calgary Flames
2024-25




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2021 | See Our Privacy Policy