or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Climategate
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Climategate - Page 4

post #121 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

(Europe will eventually I'm sure be a democracy again, but only once it has consolidated it's power)

With all due respect, that strikes me as a remarkably naive assumption. First that once power is consolidated any of it will be returned to the people in the form of democracy. Second that becoming a democracy is a worthy objective.

You previously had mentioned that where you live in Europe people aren't even able to vote for their political leaders. Not sure what that meant or if you can elaborate (at the risk of derailing this thread...or maybe in a PM).
post #122 of 3039
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

trumpt if your out there waiting on a reply from me, don't, because I haven't read your reply and haven't read much of them at all for a while. I almost always skim over them, only very occasionally bothering to read more than the first sentence.

If this is the same approach you've taken to the e-mails in question, that explains a lot.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #123 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

Then why the big concern? If things are already progressing, why the gigantic panic attack?

AGW.

Here's how NYT puts some of it- http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009...yoto.html?_r=1
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #124 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

AGW.

Here's how NYT puts some of it- http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009...yoto.html?_r=1

You have to convince me of a few assumptions for this to become an alarm.

First assumption, what we have done has caused this. (I don't see anything that makes me believe it.)

Second assumption, there is something we can do to stop or reverse it. (Short of stopping all life as we know it and actively reducing the existing air pollution I see this as not helping.)

Third assumption, any amount of legislation or treaties will actually result in the changes you are looking for. (China is not likely to change their path at this point. The US has an interest in changing, but not for the reasons you wish they would. And I cannot speak for any other nations.)

I do what I can in my sphere of influence for my own reasons, actions that add up to results that you are looking for. I do so for my own reasons. What my reasons are should not matter to you once again if the results are the same.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #125 of 3039
Double posted. deleted.
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #126 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

With all due respect, that strikes me as a remarkably naive assumption. First that once power is consolidated any of it will be returned to the people in the form of democracy. Second that becoming a democracy is a worthy objective.

You previously had mentioned that where you live in Europe people aren't even able to vote for their political leaders. Not sure what that meant or if you can elaborate (at the risk of derailing this thread...or maybe in a PM).

Europe's power comes from the Council of The European Union (unelected). They are the law makers and the Parliament (elected by citizens) can only make recommendations to the Council that the Council has full control over whether to allow or not, in any laws it chooses to do so with.
~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council...European_Union

Currently the Council, although it is unquestionably powerful within the EU, has only limited powers over nation states affairs. That is changing. Before long the Council will have greatly increased powers, notably in gaining control over a European army. Given the transformation of this already powerful body there will, in my opinion, have to be a process in the future for electing the Council by citizens. The Council has been in it's early stages basically. Now though, it's becoming more mature and there are very real reasons for the citizens of the EU and elected officials to consider the Council's role as significant. The EU can't and won't have substantial or full control over an EU army and other aspects of EU power without the consent of the nation states and that would require at minimum an elected Council. It's certainly possible though that the Council will forge power whilst it's an unelected body, but without setting itself up as an elected body it will not get the power it seeks.

*At present, of course, citizens of the EU vote in their own countries elections and for their Euro MP's.
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #127 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

The US has an interest in changing, but not for the reasons you wish they would. And I cannot speak for any other nations.)

Please elaborate.
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #128 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Please elaborate.

This is my opinion:

From what I can see talking to people around me, to my family, friends, and acquaintances; they are all behind renewable, reusable, and "greener" (though they generally dislike that term). They do it because of the benefits they see from it. For example:

Recycling, good for many reasons, but there are definitely selfish benefits. You can recycle for money (cans, bottles, metal, etc...) and of you recycle with your trash company you can put out more trash for the same garbage bill. The difference is you separate out the recycling and basically you get 2 cans of trash for the price of one.

Planting trees, good for shade for their homes. Nice additions to their landscaping. Various other benefits... One place I used to live in Yacolt, WA we had 10 acres and planted over 30 Evergreens. The previous owners had logged the property and had left behind mostly cottonwood trees. The evergreens were nicer to look at and dropped far fewer leaves. They were donated by the forest service as seedlings to anyone who would plant them.

More efficient vehicles: better gas economy makes it cheaper to run your car. They do not buy them saying, "Man, I have to get off of foreign oil!"

Fluorescent bulbs, same deal as the efficient cars, saves money in the long run, and the 4-5 years between bulb changes is a nice bonus. But if like in the beginning those bulbs are not bright enough or take too long to warm up, they usually got replaced with incandescent until a better CF could be found. Of course, now you have to recycle the bulbs and there is next to no places that are easy to find that you can recycle them at.

More efficient flat-panel TV's, well, they just look better, are cheaper to run for power and they are larger. (I still don't have one of these myself, want one though.)

I don't have anyone that comes up to me spouting about going green to save the polar ice caps. They tell me how they bought this thing that saves them money, or time, or is cool because it generates electricity they don't have to pay for... With Americans, it is very much about what can they get out of it. Some will pay simply for the right reasons, but generally they are looking for the personal benefit. Even the "environmentally conscious" ones can be found looking for self promotion of how good they are.

The reasons may not be the ones you are looking for, but so long as the net effect is the same, why is that so bad?

My reasons are similar to some above and different for others, but generally, if there is a cost that does not bring a benefit, I will not be standing in line to do it and will likely resist it until it is either forced on me, or the benefit is explained.

The above is all my opinion, if you have a different opinion I would be interested to hear it.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #129 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

This is my opinion:

From what I can see talking to people around me, to my family, friends, and acquaintances; they are all behind renewable, reusable, and "greener" (though they generally dislike that term). They do it because of the benefits they see from it. For example:

Recycling, good for many reasons, but there are definitely selfish benefits. You can recycle for money (cans, bottles, metal, etc...) and of you recycle with your trash company you can put out more trash for the same garbage bill. The difference is you separate out the recycling and basically you get 2 cans of trash for the price of one.

Planting trees, good for shade for their homes. Nice additions to their landscaping. Various other benefits... One place I used to live in Yacolt, WA we had 10 acres and planted over 30 Evergreens. The previous owners had logged the property and had left behind mostly cottonwood trees. The evergreens were nicer to look at and dropped far fewer leaves. They were donated by the forest service as seedlings to anyone who would plant them.

More efficient vehicles: better gas economy makes it cheaper to run your car. They do not buy them saying, "Man, I have to get off of foreign oil!"

Fluorescent bulbs, same deal as the efficient cars, saves money in the long run, and the 4-5 years between bulb changes is a nice bonus. But if like in the beginning those bulbs are not bright enough or take too long to warm up, they usually got replaced with incandescent until a better CF could be found. Of course, now you have to recycle the bulbs and there is next to no places that are easy to find that you can recycle them at.

More efficient flat-panel TV's, well, they just look better, are cheaper to run for power and they are larger. (I still don't have one of these myself, want one though.)

I don't have anyone that comes up to me spouting about going green to save the polar ice caps. They tell me how they bought this thing that saves them money, or time, or is cool because it generates electricity they don't have to pay for... With Americans, it is very much about what can they get out of it. Some will pay simply for the right reasons, but generally they are looking for the personal benefit. Even the "environmentally conscious" ones can be found looking for self promotion of how good they are.

The reasons may not be the ones you are looking for, but so long as the net effect is the same, why is that so bad?

My reasons are similar to some above and different for others, but generally, if there is a cost that does not bring a benefit, I will not be standing in line to do it and will likely resist it until it is either forced on me, or the benefit is explained.

The above is all my opinion, if you have a different opinion I would be interested to hear it.

I see, you were talking about regular people not the government as I had thought.

I think what you say is very true generally and not at all a bad thing. There are often financial incentives driving the purchase of a smaller car etc like you say. Companies are offering more products all the time that are greener in one way or another than their predecessors, which makes financial sense for them and the consumer. Carbon labeling (and other pollutants), ie a label on the purchased item with it's carbon footprint given for the expected life/use of the product are not far off. Before that long IMO everything you buy will have to have such a label and looking further ahead still, you will be allotted certain limits, which if you exceed you will have to buy carbon credits to offset your use, not unlike the system being set-up for businesses. What this will mean is your going to prioritize quite carefully what you buy and what you use. Add into that equation that the meter in your house will keep tabs on your energy use, not just your overall consumption, but the amount you have used for an individual appliance. RFID chips will be in the products you buy and will send the amount of energy you are consuming to the government. Should you say go over your limit and not buy enough carbon offset, you may very well find your TV and hair drier don't work but your fridge and heating, for one room only, do. Your heating may function even in that one room at half or less of the power that you might like to have it at normally too. Obviously here I'm just giving my opinion of how things are going and I may be proved wrong, but that is certainly what the technology will be capable of and it strikes me as a very effective way of keeping people within their allotted usage so that they don't find themselves inconvenienced. I'm sure the same will apply to any vehicles people have. Go over your use and don't be surprised if you can't fill up with gas or electricity.

Obviously this is still a ways away, but I can see such systems being fully in place within the next 10-15 years. Just how much this effects people will depend on many factors. But one thing it's sure to do is make a lot of people more carbon neutral.
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #130 of 3039
Quote:
It is more than three years since the drafting of text was completed for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). In the meantime, many hundreds of papers have been published on a suite of topics related to human-induced climate change.


This report covers the range of topics evaluated by Working Group I of the IPCC, namely the Physical Science Basis. This includes:
  • an analysis of greenhouse gas emissions and their atmospheric concentrations, as well as the global carbon cycle;
  • coverage of the atmosphere, the land-surface, the oceans, and all of the major components of the cryosphere (land-ice, glaciers, ice shelves, sea-ice and permafrost);
  • paleoclimate, extreme events, sea level, future projections, abrupt change and tipping points;
  • separate boxes devoted to explaining some of the common misconceptions surrounding climate change science.

Quote:
The new evidence to have emerged includes:
  • Satellite and direct measurements now demonstrate that both the Greenland and Antarctic ice-sheets are losing mass and contributing to sea level rise at an increasing rate.
  • Arctic sea-ice has melted far beyond the expectations of climate models. For example, the area of summer sea-ice melt during 2007-2009 was about 40% greater than the average projection from the 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.
  • Sea level has risen more than 5 centimeters over the past 15 years, about 80% higher than IPCC projections from 2001. Accounting for ice-sheets and glaciers, global sea-level rise may exceed 1 meter by 2100, with a rise of up to 2 meters considered an upper limit by this time. This is much higher than previously projected by the IPCC. Furthermore, beyond 2100, sea level rise of several meters must be expected over the next few centuries.
  • In 2008 carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels were ~40% higher than those in 1990. Even if emissions do not grow beyond today’s levels, within just 20 years the world will have used up the allowable emissions to have a reasonable chance of limiting warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius.

The Copenhagen Diagnosis
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #131 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

You have to convince me of a few assumptions for this to become an alarm.

First assumption, what we have done has caused this. (I don't see anything that makes me believe it.)

Second assumption, there is something we can do to stop or reverse it. (Short of stopping all life as we know it and actively reducing the existing air pollution I see this as not helping.)

Third assumption, any amount of legislation or treaties will actually result in the changes you are looking for. (China is not likely to change their path at this point. The US has an interest in changing, but not for the reasons you wish they would. And I cannot speak for any other nations.)

I do what I can in my sphere of influence for my own reasons, actions that add up to results that you are looking for. I do so for my own reasons. What my reasons are should not matter to you once again if the results are the same.

I always find it somewhat ironic when a religious person holds something to a very high standard of proof. You are correct in needing to be convinced of those assumptions. I think there's enough evidence out there to partially satisfy them all. Should I join you in the irony and throw back the classic religious "well, on the off chance I'm right, might as well believe?"

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #132 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

The Copenhagen Diagnosis

There are now a such a huge amount of data from so many diverse independent and state-funded sources that climate change is occurring and human beings are responsible.

It takes effort to deny it. Youve really got to work.

And I have no idea why. Whats in it for anyone to deny the truth of this FUCKING URGENT THREAT that touches the life of every single person on the planet? Whats the point?

And back on topic, if any of these climate change deniers here want to discuss these scandalous smoking gun emails that are supposed to be the subject of the thread, Im still here and willing to go through them one by one. Come on. If theyre the best evidence you have lets go through them.
post #133 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

And I have no idea why. What’s in it for anyone to deny the truth of this FUCKING URGENT THREAT that touches the life of every single person on the planet? What’s the point?

I think it's a combination of factors. Obviously some have a financial motive taking into account their short term interests only. Then there's the wider group of people who don't like to think that they are responsible to anybody other than themselves and "guess what", they think to themselves, "it cold as hell outside and everything looks normal to me, therefore fuck global warming". Beyond that it's just playing politics.
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #134 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Given your level of engagement and "discussion", it isn't surprising no one wants to waste their time with you. Who wants to put forth their effort to have you dismiss it with deep reasoning like "dickheads" and "fucking urgent threat."

Go play on the freeway.

I've reported this blatant ad hom, which has nothing to do with the thread.
post #135 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Given your level of engagement and "discussion", it isn't surprising no one wants to waste their time with you. Who wants to put forth their effort to have you dismiss it with deep reasoning like "dickheads" and "fucking urgent threat."

Go play on the freeway.

The irony trumpt. Your contribution....well, enough said.
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #136 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

I think it's a combination of factors. Obviously some have a financial motive taking into account their short term interests only. Then there's the wider group of people who don't like to think that they are responsible to anybody other than themselves and "guess what", they think to themselves, "it cold as hell outside and everything looks normal to me, therefore fuck global warming". Beyond that it's just playing politics.

Oh yeah, that's clear. Human beings can be selfish fuckers.

But I really don't understand how people can believe that there's any short term political advantage that outweighs the benefits of preventing the total shit storm that's heading our way.

Why are people OK with the science that led to safe treatments for renal cancer and accurate air navigation, but incensed by the eeevil science when it comes to the mountain of incontrovertible evidence regarding climate change?

What's suddenly different?
post #137 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

Oh yeah, that's clear. Human beings can be selfish fuckers.

But I really don't understand how people can believe that there's any short term political advantage that outweighs the benefits of preventing the total shit storm that's heading our way.

Why are people OK with the science that led to safe treatments for renal cancer and air navigation, but incensed by the eeevil science when it comes to the mountain of incontrovertible evidence regarding climate change?

What's suddenly different?

When CC is discussed on TV, there's been a policy in place by the MSM to allow, more often than not, a contrarian view expressed whether it be a politician, journalist or even a scientist, who is invariably backed by big oil and or other vested interests. That's radically changed the debate from reality to questioning the validity of the science repeatedly day in and day out. Mix that in with sending the message that it's the left predominately pushing AGW and even though John McCain expressed his view that AGW is real (Sarah Palin sent the opposing signals for the most part) you have people taking sides along political lines, especially when they see it as government control and UN policies etc.
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #138 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

I've reported this blatant ad hom, which has nothing to do with the thread.

Go learn what an ad-hom is please.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

The irony trumpt. Your contribution....well, enough said.

Is this another non-reply that I wasn't waiting for or is this a reply about the contributions you claimed to have not read.

All the non-replying replies and commentary about contributions you haven't read gets a bit confusing to me.

Given the tone of though it reminds me of this piece here from the Telegraph.uk

Quote:
If the argument isn’t going your way, close it down. This was ever the way of liberal-left. Criticize the European Socialist Superstate and you’re a “Little Englander”; object to wind farms spoiling your view and you’re a “NIMBY”; demand curbs on immigration and you’re “a racist”; desire better education for your kids and you’re “elitist”; question the current majority scientific view on AGW and you’re a “Denier” who deserves only to be scorned, vilified and preferably silenced.

I think a few parties in this thread have engaged in the actions noted in that paragraph as well.

Andrew Bolt sums up the problems with the emails better than I could and very concisely as well.


Quote:
So the 1079 emails and 72 documents seem indeed evidence of a scandal involving most of the most prominent scientists pushing the man-made warming theory - a scandal that is one of the greatest in modern science. I’ve been adding some of the most astonishing in updates below - emails suggesting conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more. If it is as it now seems, never again will “peer review” be used to shout down sceptics.

The problematic parts are laid out in that link as well. Of course now someone will have to come along and ad-hom the link and likely the messenger as well because only the delusional could dismiss the words themselves.

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming ? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low.
...........

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.***



It goes on... and on... and on.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #139 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Go learn what an ad-hom is please.

Your post was removed by the moderator for a reason.

It was an attack on an individual. It did not address the content of my post in any meaningful way. It was designed to be provocative.

Go away.
post #140 of 3039
Oh but if I do that, who will post links to all the emails, and bring forth all the points from them that are troublesome that you keep asking for and then dismiss?

Look there happen to be a few more up above that you haven't address yet, not that you addressed the first one either.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #141 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Oh but if I do that, who will post links to all the emails, and bring forth all the points from them that are troublesome that you keep asking for and then dismiss?

Look there happen to be a few more up above that you haven't address yet, not that you addressed the first one either.

I addressed it perfectly well. I'm waiting for someone to respond to my points.

Not you.

I'm not engaging in a discussion with you. There's no point.

You once tried to argue over two pages of a thread that conservatives did not celebrate when Barack Obama's pitch to the IOC was rejected. I showed you video, and gave you links to audio, and transcripts. And nothing, not even a camera recording the events you said didn't happen, was good enough.

So I'm not arguing this with you. Facts are involved, so there's no point.
post #142 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

I addressed it perfectly well. I'm waiting for someone to respond to my points.

Not you.

I'm not engaging in a discussion with you. There's no point.

You once tried to argue over two pages of a thread that conservatives did not celebrate when Barack Obama's pitch to the IOC was rejected. I showed you video, and gave you links to audio, and transcripts. And nothing, not even a camera recording the events you said didn't happen, was good enough.

So I'm not arguing this with you. Facts are involved, so there's no point.

You're waiting for someone to respond to your point that the bad actions don't count because the people are "dickheads."

Keep waiting.

Anyone who has read those two pages understands the same reasoning that you occurred there and here. Being a "dickhead" isn't a fact and declaring it stridently doesn't make it a fact nor does it make one right. Those are the types of "facts" you complain the others just don't get. That is the type of "proof" you offer. Cartoons of elephants and declarations about dickheads. Someone needs to be enlightened as to what the nature of a fact happens to be.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #143 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

Whats in it for anyone to deny the truth of this FUCKING URGENT THREAT that touches the life of every single person on the planet?

Get hysterical and hyperbolic much?

post #144 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


Anyone who has read those two pages understands the same reasoning that you occurred there and here.

So you still believe that conservatives did not celebrate when Barack Obama's pitch to the IOC was rejected?

Shall we restart that thread?

And please stop attacking me. I'll just keep on reporting you.
post #145 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

The problematic parts are laid out in that link as well. Of course now someone will have to come along and ad-hom the link and likely the messenger as well because only the delusional could dismiss the words themselves.

Ive just completed Mikes Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keiths to hide the decline.

[
It goes on... and on... and on.

You go on and on not responding to the replies you get regarding the quotes you mention. Which part of this scientists response do you disagree with or don't you want to respond to it, just like every single one of those slamming AGW as a fraud in this thread, even if they started the thread?

This is what has already been linked to regarding the much beloved "hide the decline"

"No doubt, instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded gotcha phrases will be pulled out of context. One example is worth mentioning quickly. Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that Ive just completed Mikes Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keiths to hide the decline. The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the trick is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term trick to refer to a a good way to deal with a problem, rather than something that is secret, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the decline, it is well known that Keith Briffas maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the divergence problemsee e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while hiding is probably a poor choice of words (since it is hidden in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens."
~ http://www.realclimate.org/index.php.../the-cru-hack/
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #146 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

Get hysterical and hyperbolic much?


Climate change is an urgent threat that will affect us all.

I've tried to discuss this with you. You asked me for my thoughts on an email that trumptman posted, and I did. You chose not to discuss this with me.

I would love to discuss these emails with you. Shall we start again?

You choose one.
post #147 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

Climate change is an urgent threat that will affect us all.



blah blah blah blah

Repeating your hysterical, hyperbolic proclamations don't make them any more true.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

I've tried to discuss this with you. You asked me for my thoughts on an email that trumptman posted, and I did. You chose not to discuss this with me.

So? As I said, I was interested in hearing your apologetics on the subject. This does not obligate me to engage in a full discussion or debate with you.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

I would love to discuss these emails with you. Shall we start again?

You choose one.

Go ahead. Please feel free to grant us your wisdom on these emails and documents. I'm not stopping you.
post #148 of 3039
post #149 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post


.

Well that showed me. You posted the blue shaky-head smilie.

The information is everywhere. You could google it in two minutes, read it in ten, think about it overnight, and realise it is urgent, and the threat is real, and become a responsible human being tomorrow.

I dont care if youre rude to me, because I read things, and think about them, and I know its 99% certain that Im right and youre wrong, and thats good enough for me.

And If you dont want to discuss anything with me, just dont address me. Its simple.
post #150 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

...and become a responsible human being tomorrow.

Nice.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

because I read things, and think about them, and I know its 99% certain that Im right and youre wrong, and thats good enough for me.

Good for you.
post #151 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

So you still believe that conservatives did not celebrate when Barack Obama's pitch to the IOC was rejected?

Shall we restart that thread?

And please stop attacking me. I'll just keep on reporting you.

Do whatever you want. No one need put up with your petty threats because you attack them via strawmen and then complain that they won't acquiesce to the distortion. Go play in that thread as much as you want and post it as often as you desire. As I've noted, people can note your little games. They note them here as well. You don't quote people. You caricature them. You don't address, you dismiss via phrases like dickhead. You've not addressed one email here so why keep begging for more?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

You go on and on not responding to the replies you get regarding the quotes you mention. Which part of this scientists response do you disagree with or don't you want to respond to it, just like every single one of those slamming AGW as a fraud in this thread, even if they started the thread?

This is what has already been linked to regarding the much beloved "hide the decline"

"No doubt, instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded gotcha phrases will be pulled out of context. One example is worth mentioning quickly. Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that Ive just completed Mikes Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keiths to hide the decline. The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the trick is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term trick to refer to a a good way to deal with a problem, rather than something that is secret, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the decline, it is well known that Keith Briffas maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the divergence problemsee e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while hiding is probably a poor choice of words (since it is hidden in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens."
~ http://www.realclimate.org/index.php.../the-cru-hack/

People have read the rationalization. They just don't buy it. I didn't highlight trick because I can buy that word usage. Tossing out data because it doesn't fit the theory can never be rationalized though. Something doesn't demonstrate uniformity until the data doesn't fit your conclusion and so you invent a reason for it to no longer have to be included. This is also the problem with the proxies. They become proof until they aren't and then... well we know some other data somewhere else can work. If the tree rings were too large due to increased quantities of carbon dioxide and the temperatures do not follow the increase that the tree rings are supposed to reflect, then the rings are a bad proxy. Hiding this fact is bad science and not justifiable.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #152 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

Nice.
.

You could.

Go and do some research. Come and take the piss out of me when you've read the mountain of research that says I'm right and taken it seriously, just for a second.

Come to the light. It's nice here.
post #153 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

You could.

Go and do some research. Come and take the piss out of me when you've read the mountain of research that says I'm right and taken it seriously, just for a second.

Come to the light. It's nice here.

I have no interest in "discussion" with someone who arrogantly and smugly says I can "...become a responsible human being tomorrow."
post #154 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Do whatever you want. No one need put up with your petty threats because you attack them via str]

snip: ad homs.

.

I have addressed an email.

No-one had the balls to discuss my comments. That's not my problem. Not my fault.

Off topic, trumptman, do I understand you correctly that you believe that conservatives did not celebrate when Barack Obama's pitch to the IOC was rejected?
post #155 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Do whatever you want. No one need put up with your petty threats because you attack them via strawmen and then complain that they won't acquiesce to the distortion. Go play in that thread as much as you want and post it as often as you desire. As I've noted, people can note your little games. They note them here as well. You don't quote people. You caricature them. You don't address, you dismiss via phrases like dickhead. You've not addressed one email here so why keep begging for more?



People have read the rationalization. They just don't buy it. I didn't highlight trick because I can buy that word usage. Tossing out data because it doesn't fit the theory can never be rationalized though. Something doesn't demonstrate uniformity until the data doesn't fit your conclusion and so you invent a reason for it to no longer have to be included. This is also the problem with the proxies. They become proof until they aren't and then... well we know some other data somewhere else can work. If the tree rings were too large due to increased quantities of carbon dioxide and the temperatures do not follow the increase that the tree rings are supposed to reflect, then the rings are a bad proxy. Hiding this fact is bad science and not justifiable.

Did you read the explanation by RealClimate? If you did you've ignored it in your response. The data was not included for legitimate scientific reasons, there was nothing bad going on and yet you just can't except that the worlds top climate scientists new that they should not include the data, because you know better because the email appears, to a novice like yourself, to be incriminating. How many other judgements by these scientists do you know better than, let me guess any that appear by a novice to be incriminating. LOL. You're incriminating yourself!
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #156 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Go learn what an ad-hom is please.



Is this another non-reply that I wasn't waiting for or is this a reply about the contributions you claimed to have not read.

All the non-replying replies and commentary about contributions you haven't read gets a bit confusing to me.

Given the tone of though it reminds me of this piece here from the Telegraph.uk



I think a few parties in this thread have engaged in the actions noted in that paragraph as well.

Andrew Bolt sums up the problems with the emails better than I could and very concisely as well.




The problematic parts are laid out in that link as well. Of course now someone will have to come along and ad-hom the link and likely the messenger as well because only the delusional could dismiss the words themselves.

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming ? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low.
...........

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.***


It goes on... and on... and on.

A blog from The Daily Telegraph;

Quote:
The Daily Telegraph has been politically conservative in modern times. The personal links between the paper's editors and the leadership of the Conservative Party, also known by the term Tories, along with the paper's influence over Conservative activists, has resulted in the paper commonly being referred to, especially in Private Eye, as the Torygraph.[

Quote:
James Delingpole (born 6 August 1965) is a British journalist and novelist. ... He is the author of several novels and two non-fiction books, How to be Right: The Essential Guide to Making Lefty Liberals History, and Welcome to Obamaland: I Have Seen Your Future and It Doesn't Work.[



A blog from the Herald Sun;

Quote:
It is published by The Herald and Weekly Times Ltd, a subsidiary of News Limited and owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation.



Quote:
The columnist Andrew Bolt often takes controversial positions – John Pilger has described Bolt as "the lowest of journalism's low, an extreme right wing and aggressively idiotic member of Murdoch's dominant press group in Australia".



Does anyone wonder that this contrived right wingnutia controversy is being played out almost entirely within the right wingnutia blog-o-smear?

Same as it ever was.

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #157 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

More fun with global warming data "massaging".

WUWT is as much of a right wingnutia joke as Free Republic is a right wingnutia joke.

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #158 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Did you read the explanation by RealClimate? If you did you've ignored it in your response. The data was not included for legitimate scientific reasons, there was nothing bad going on and yet you just can't except that the worlds top climate scientists new that they should not include the data, because you know better because the email appears, to a novice like yourself, to be incriminating. How many other judgements by these scientists do you know better than, let me guess any that appear by a novice to be incriminating. LOL. You're incriminating yourself!

Well it is apt that conservatives make their hasty generalizations, because that's all they have, hasty generalizations.

Par for the course.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #159 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

WUWT is as much of a right wingnutia joke as Free Republic is a right wingnutia joke.


Or, you know, you could address the claims made. But continue with your ad hominem fallacies.
post #160 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

Or, you know, you could address the claims made. But continue with your ad hominem fallacies.

All specious claims have been addressed quite completely from the orginizations in question.

All else is as it ever was, the right wingnutia blog-o-smear.

But please, keep on with your sweeping statements and hasty generalizations.

I get a good laugh from all the right wingnutia knee jerk reactions.

Right wingnutia ignorance is bliss.

Quote:
Oh hey, here's another right wingnutia blog link, that I can only copy and paste, because I refuse to even try to understand the actual science.

- Anonymous (read all) right wingnutian(s)
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Climategate