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

Climategate - Page 5

post #161 of 3039
Yes the truth is the press releases from the organizations who are now trying to explain why their actions are completely contrary to those press releases.

Isn't it amazing how they need all the money of all those "wingnutians" to make their utopian visions come to pass?

If you'd rather ad-hom than address that is your perogative but don't be shocked when people slap your hand away from their wallet when your high and mighty attitude fails to convince them to hand it over.

"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 #162 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

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?

Go handle the topic in the appropriate thread. Take your sinking ship to the appropriate ocean bottom.

"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 #163 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

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?"

Ironic? You should be happy, right?

Well "on the off chance you are right", I am already doing what needs to be done for my family. I am just not doing it for the reasons you wish I would. So...
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 #164 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

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

They sure can - they can rationalize taking from others to serve their pet obsessions like, oh, creating a "cap and trade" program for wealth redistribution, call it "fighting global warming", then tax the shit out of folks to accomplish their misdirected obsession.

Ever notice how you don't hear how much all the efforts put together will accomplish? I mean, hell, they're all about counting the dead, the level the sea would rise, the number of poor polar bears and shit, but where's the stats ... all the wonderful numbers they love to cook ... on how much would be accomplished by doing all the crap they want to do?

What's it going to buy if we go to cap and trade? What are the actual results?

The reason you don't hear those things is because the world temps rise due to natural causes, and the human contribution at best speeds that process along in tenths of a single digit percentage per year.

"The warmest 5 years in recorded history have happened in the last 10 years" is a natural result of the process of climate glaciation moving towards interglaciation. It's not the end of the world, and it's not a huge deal ... unless you want to use fear and uncertainty to promote an agenda, anyway.

You'll convince the weak minded and idiots to run around like chickens with their heads cut off, but one person's CO2 footprint has as much affect on the earths climate as they would be able to contribute to the perturbation of earths orbit if they jumped up and down.
post #165 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

"The warmest 5 years in recorded history have happened in the last 10 years" is a natural result of the process of climate glaciation moving towards interglaciation. It's not the end of the world, and it's not a huge deal ... unless you want to use fear and uncertainty to promote an agenda, anyway.
.





Levels of Carbon Dioxide are higher today than at anytime in past 650,000 years.







Your house is on fire.

You want to talk about about cap and trade?

Go and call the fire brigade. Your house is on fire.
post #166 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Go handle the topic in the appropriate thread. Take your sinking ship to the appropriate ocean bottom.



What an... 'ambiguous' answer.

But OK. If that's what you want, I'll be happy to.

post #167 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Yes the truth is the press releases from the organizations who are now trying to explain why their actions are completely contrary to those press releases.

Isn't it amazing how they need all the money of all those "wingnutians" to make their utopian visions come to pass?

If you'd rather ad-hom than address that is your perogative but don't be shocked when people slap your hand away from their wallet when your high and mighty attitude fails to convince them to hand it over.

The press releases are the press releases.

I've posted them here, and since there weren't any replies from PO's right wingnutians, I guess they stand.

The last paragraph is utter right wingnutian jibberish, as usual.

You haven't made one single contribution to this thread, no make that, you have not contributed one useful word to this discussion.

Just blind assertions and cherry picking and hasty generalizations.
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 #168 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

but one person's CO2 footprint has as much affect on the earths climate as they would be able to contribute to the perturbation of earths orbit if they jumped up and down.

Aaah Taskiss, but imagine if 9 billion people jumped up and down (and really hard and all at the same time) then pending on the Australians jumping at the right time also, ie in intervals to us, the world could possibly even spin the wrong way, maybe even cause time to go backwards. Maybe that's how we'll solve the crisis. We could even burn up trees to make the planet weigh less (and vegetation- heck we could ship rocks to the moon too) so we can get it spinning faster. That's a lot to think about I know, but we need REAL solutions!
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #169 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

They sure can - they can rationalize taking from others to serve their pet obsessions like, oh, creating a "cap and trade" program for wealth redistribution, call it "fighting global warming", then tax the shit out of folks to accomplish their misdirected obsession.

Ever notice how you don't hear how much all the efforts put together will accomplish? I mean, hell, they're all about counting the dead, the level the sea would rise, the number of poor polar bears and shit, but where's the stats ... all the wonderful numbers they love to cook ... on how much would be accomplished by doing all the crap they want to do?

What's it going to buy if we go to cap and trade? What are the actual results?

The reason you don't hear those things is because the world temps rise due to natural causes, and the human contribution at best speeds that process along in tenths of a single digit percentage per year.

"The warmest 5 years in recorded history have happened in the last 10 years" is a natural result of the process of climate glaciation moving towards interglaciation. It's not the end of the world, and it's not a huge deal ... unless you want to use fear and uncertainty to promote an agenda, anyway.

You'll convince the weak minded and idiots to run around like chickens with their heads cut off, but one person's CO2 footprint has as much affect on the earths climate as they would be able to contribute to the perturbation of earths orbit if they jumped up and down.


Sorry, but there are at least ten thousand well respected peer reviewed climate science journal articles that totally disagree with the blind assertions made above.

Stop making up specious nonsense from very thin air, no make that stop making up specious nonsense from that vacuum between ...

PO has never been a good place to argue science of any kind, given the right wingnutian base that exists here.
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 #170 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

The press releases are the press releases.

I've posted them here, and since there weren't any replies from PO's right wingnutians, I guess they stand.

The last paragraph is utter right wingnutian jibberish, as usual.

You haven't made one single contribution to this thread, no make that, you have not contributed one useful word to this discussion.

Just blind assertions and cherry picking and hasty generalizations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Sorry, but there are at least ten thousand well respected peer reviewed climate science journal articles that totally disagree with the blind assertions made above.

Stop making up specious nonsense from very thin air, no make that stop making up specious nonsense from that vacuum between ...

PO has never been a good place to argue science of any kind, given the right wingnutian base that exists here.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

"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 #171 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

Your house is on fire. Go and call the fire brigade. Your house is on fire.

Is the only currency you have to deal in hysteria and hyperbole? I mean really? Is it? Because that's how it looks from where I sit.
post #172 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

Is the only currency you have to deal in hysteria and hyperbole? I mean really? Is it? Because that's how it looks from where I sit.

Why are you addressing me?

You've made it clear you don't have the courage to actually debate me.

If you want to talk, we'll do that. But if you just want to snipe and make what trumptman lovingly calls 'ad homs' then go away.

While you're deciding what to do, go and look at the pretty graphs. Go and do and some research. Ask yourself what a responsible person would do if NASA, and the Pentagon, and the IPCC, and the OOCC, and the British Foreign Office, and GLOSS, and the IOC, and the ten thousand independent papers published in Nature and whatnot might be correct.

If you have the balls, we'll address the subject of the thread. If you don't, break out the Ayn Rand. Go to the park and throw stones at the poor. Whatever you do to relax.

post #173 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


oh look trumptmans fingers slipped again and he accidentally posted a mocking image that attacked the poster rather than addressing the content of his post sort of like in latin what they might have called an 'ad hominem' but it must be a mistake because trumptmen are allergic to ad hominem posts so perhaps someone hacked his account
post #174 of 3039
The case for attributing the recent global warming to ape-like hominid activities rests on the following undisputed scientific facts:
  • Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a greenhouse gas that warms the atmosphere.
  • Since pre-industrial times, atmospheric CO2 concentrations have increased from about 280 parts per million (ppm) to over 380 ppm. Current concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gases are unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years, based on records from gas bubbles trapped in polar ice.
  • Independent measurements demonstrate that the increased CO2 in the atmosphere comes from burning fossil fuels and forests. The isotopic composition of carbon from these sources contains a unique “fingerprint.”
  • Since pre-industrial times, global average temperatures have increased by about 0.7ºC, with about half of the warming occurring over the past few decades.
  • The only quantitative and internally consistent explanation for the recent global warming includes the intensified greenhouse effect caused by the increase in CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
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 #175 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

Why are you addressing me?

Because it's fun.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

You've made it clear you don't have the courage to actually debate me.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

But if you just want to snipe and make what trumptman lovingly calls 'ad homs' then go away.

You need a refresher in the definition of ad hominem. My comment was in regard to the actual content of your post, which contained hyperbolic and hysterical proclamations.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

...you don't have the courage...Ask yourself what a responsible person would do...If you have the balls...If you don't, break out the Ayn Rand. Go to the park and throw stones at the poor.

You on the other hand cannot help but attempt snide little character insults. Like these above and that one earlier where you told me I could "become a responsible human being tomorrow."

post #176 of 3039
I've got one!

"Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat
the crap out of him. Very tempted."

UC theese so-called syentest are EVIL! They are diseesed by EVIL MUNSTERS FROM HELLL (UN) AND GOD WIL BERN THEM IN HELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL LLLLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #177 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

I've got one!

"Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, Ill be tempted to beat
the crap out of him. Very tempted."

UC theese so-called syentest are EVIL! They are diseesed by EVIL MUNSTERS FROM HELLL (UN) AND GOD WIL BERN THEM IN HELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL LLLLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

YES. Exactly. YES.

Hell is a real place. And it is full of SCIENTISTS.

And it is full of doctors, and nurses, and airline pilots, and engineers, and the guy who comes to fix your cable TV, and the guy who comes to fix your gas, too.

They are all in HELL.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saGE-6cpeko
post #178 of 3039
Quote:
Mass budget calculations, validated with satellite gravity observations [from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellites], enable us to quantify the individual components of recent Greenland mass loss. The total 2000-2008 mass loss of ~1500 gigatons, equivalent to 0.46 millimeters per year of global sea level rise, is equally split between surface processes (runoff and precipitation) and ice dynamics. Without the moderating effects of increased snowfall and refreezing, post-1996 Greenland ice sheet mass losses would have been 100% higher. Since 2006, high summer melt rates have increased Greenland ice sheet mass loss to 273 gigatons per year (0.75 millimeters per year of equivalent sea level rise). The seasonal cycle in surface mass balance fully accounts for detrended GRACE mass variations, confirming insignificant subannual variation in ice sheet discharge.

Planet Earth to ape-like hominids;
[CENTER]I'm melting![/CENTER]
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 #179 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

YES. Exactly. YES.

Hell is a real place. And it is full of SCIENTISTS.

And it is full of doctors, and nurses, and airline pilots, and engineers, and the guy who comes to fix your cable TV, and the guy who comes to fix your gas, too.

They are all in HELL.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saGE-6cpeko

Yes Exactly! God nose a thing or too about globle worming and ALLLLLL THE WURLDS SYEENTEST (and evryone ellse) ARE GOING TO GO TO HIS SPESHALL PLANIT!! YAY!!!!!!!!!!!!

HEARS PROOOF (scenery by Apple) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dul_hYde0nk
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #180 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

Do you want to talk about these emails?

I do.

Go ahead. As I said before, I'm not stopping you.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

I'll just keep building my case that you're not really brave or bright enough to do the debatey stuff.

Keep up with the ad homs, eventually you'll get banned.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

I'll even give you a tip.

'', 'Because it's fun' and 'Good for you' are not... very clever responses.

Thanks for your opinion.
post #181 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

Go ahead. As I said before, I'm not stopping you.

Keep up with the ad homs, eventually you'll get banned.

Great. I'll choose another email then, and we can debate it together, and you can prove me wrong.

Let's start with the very first one. Let's be thorough.

Quote:
Dear Keith, March 6, 1996

I and Eugene received your E-mail of 04.03.1996. This day I talked
over the telephone with Eugene and he asked me to send an answer from
both of us.
Thank you for the information concerning proposals to the
INCO/COPERNICUS. We agree with your strategy used and we hope
that this proposal will not be rejected.
The results of INTAS-RFBR proposal will be known at the beginning
of May. We know that they received many proposals and a competition
is high (only 1 in 10 proposals might get money). Of course, you
included in as a participant. Fritz is a coordinator from the INTAS
countries.
This year our laboratory received two small grants (approximately
8,000-10,000 USD per year) from the Russian Foundation of Basic
Researches (RFBR) for the next three years: the first one for
developing the Yamal supra-long chronology and the second one for
developing tree-ring chronologies from living trees growing at the
polar timberline in Siberia (together with Vaganov's laboratory).
These money are very important for us as they will allow to maintain
the staff of our laboratories.
I and Valery Mazepa were in Krasnoyarsk during one month and
together with E.Vaganov wrote the manuscript of book "Dendroclimatic
Studies in the Ural-Siberian Subarctic". The problem now is to find
money for its publication. If we find enough money soon (20 million
roubles), the book will be published this autumn. We analysed 61 mean
ring-width and 6 cell chronologies which we intend to publish in form
of tables in the Appendix. We can send to you all raw measurements
which were used for developing these chronologies.
Of course, we are in need of additional money, especially for
collecting wood samples at high latitudes and in remote regions.
The cost of field works in these areas is increased many times
during the last some years. That is why it is important for us
to get money from additional sources, in particular from the ADVANCE
and INTAS ones. Also, it is important for us if you can transfer
the ADVANCE money on the personal accounts which we gave you earlier
and the sum for one occasion transfer (for example, during one day)
will not be more than 10,000 USD. Only in this case we can avoid
big taxes and use money for our work as much as possible. Please,
inform us what kind of documents and financial reports we must
represent you and your administration for these money.
I and Eugene have a possibility to participate in the Cambridge
meeteng in July, but we need extra many and special invitations.
If you do not have enough money to invite both of us, Eugene does
not insist upon this visit.
The best wishes to you and Phil.

Yours sincerely Stepan Shiyatov

I have read this email. I cannot see anything that suggests that the data has been altered in any way that should throw doubt on the mountain of evidence concerning climate change.

Can you?

Here's your opportunity to engage in a debate with me. Let's talk about it.
post #182 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

Great. I'll choose another email then, and we can debate it together, and you can prove me wrong.

Let's start with the very first one. Let's be thorough.



I have read this email. I cannot see anything that suggests that the data has been altered in any way

I do not. However, we do not appear to have the full context of this discussion as indicated by the line:

Quote:
We agree with your strategy used and we hope that this proposal will not be rejected.

I do not know what "strategy" is being discussed there. The only other thing I see evidence of in this email is the fairly strong need for money (and the string competition to get it) and the lengths (attempted tax evasion) the parties will go to for that money.

So, to answer directly (as I did above) I do not see any direct evidence that the data has been altered in any way, but I don't have the full context (don't know what "strategy" they are agreeing to) and we see their willingness to lie and hide things to avoid taxes (in order to keep more of the money they seem to desperately need).
post #183 of 3039
Firstly, thanks for your response.

Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

I do not.

Great. Well, then, we should move on to another email. This thread's called 'Climategate' and not 'A bunch of British scientists seem to be a bit dodgy-gate'.

Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

The only other thing I see evidence of in this email is the fairly strong need for money (and the string competition to get it) and the lengths (attempted tax evasion) the parties will go to for that money.
.

Of course they need money. Everyone engaged in research, or in the arts, wants to squeeze as much as they can out of every funding body there is. That's just the way it is. Research generally isn't motivated by profit. I know most of the funding officers in my corner of [my career] by their first name.

it isn't really 'tax evasion'. As anyone who's ever applied for a grant knows (I have applied for several) it's important to make your applications at the right time and deposit them in the right time and in the right place so that... yeah, you can use more of the money for work. Yes, it's ugly. But it's totally legal. Your accountant will advise you to do it.

But... involuntary_'taxes are communism'_serf, you should be applauding them. Taxes are eeeevil, no? They are the devil. They might be used so that poor people can get medical treatment, or go to school.

Evil. You see? Evil. You should be applauding their Randian efforts to stick it to society.

Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

So, to answer directly (as I did above) I do not see any direct evidence that the data has been altered in any way, but I don't have the full context (don't know what "strategy" they are agreeing to) and we see their willingness to lie and hide things to avoid taxes (in order to keep more of the money they seem to desperately need)

The 'strategy' looks to me like a use of time, or facilities, or a decision to approach funding body x with proposal type y asking for grant type z. There's absolutely no reason to think for a second it's anything untoward.

If there's anything you take issue with here, we'll discuss it further if you like. Otherwise, we can go to the second email on the list since nothing here is evidence that any data were manipulated to give a false impression that human-provoked climate change is occurring.
post #184 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

This thread's called 'Climategate' and not 'A bunch of British scientists seem to be a bit dodgy-gate'.

Uh huh. Someone lies about one thing, it raises general questions about their truthfulness. And when the lie is to protect the money they so badly need, it wouldn't surprise me to find them lying about other things to get the money in the first place. Bu that's conjecture at this point.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

Research generally isn't motivated by profit.

I suspect you have a very narrow definition of "profit".


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

it isn't really 'tax evasion'. As anyone who's ever applied for a grant knows (I have applied for several) it's important to make your applications at the right time and deposit them in the right time and in the right place so that... yeah, you can use more of the money for work. Yes, it's ugly. But it's totally legal. Your accountant will advise you to do it.

Uh huh.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

But... involuntary_'taxes are communism'_serf, you should be applauding them. Taxes are eeeevil, no? They are the devil.

They are. But I still don't lie or cheat on them.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

The 'strategy' looks to me like a use of time, or facilities, or a decision to approach funding body x with proposal type y asking for grant type z.

Thanks for your guess about what it is.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

There's absolutely no reason to think for a second it's anything untoward.

Thanks for your opinion.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

If there's anything you take issue with here, we'll discuss it further if you like.

We don't have the entire context for this email, so it stays until we do.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

Otherwise, we can go to the second email on the list since nothing here is evidence that any data were manipulated to give a false impression that human-provoked climate change is occurring.

Go ahead. In the mean time, these might also keep you busy:

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emai...1255523796.txt

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climate...he-real-story/
post #185 of 3039
Scientific American Magazine - October 28, 2009

Novel Analysis Confirms Climate "Hockey Stick" Graph
A new analysis creates a better look at rising temperatures

By David Appell

The "hockey stick" graph has been both a linchpin and target in the climate change debate. As a plot of average Northern Hemisphere temperature from two millennia ago to the present, it stays relatively flat until the 20th century, when it rises up sharply, like the blade of an upturned hockey stick. Warming skeptics have long decried how the temperatures were inferred, but a new reconstruction of the past 600 years, using an entirely different method, finds similar results and may help remove lingering doubts.

The hockey stick came to life in 1998 thanks to the work of Michael Mann, now at Pennsylvania State University, and his colleagues (and many other climate scientists who subsequently refined the graph). Reconstructing historical temperatures is difficult: investigators must combine information from tree rings, coral drilling, pinecones, ice cores and other natural records and then convert them to temperatures at specific times and places in the past. Such proxies for temperature can be sparse or incomplete, both geographically and through time. Mann’s method used the overlap, where it exists, of recent proxy data and instrument data (such as from thermometers) to estimate relations between them. It calculates earlier temperatures using a mathematical extrapolation technique [see "Behind the Hockey Stick," by David Appell, Insights; Scientific American, March 2005].

Martin Tingley of Harvard University calls his approach "much easier to handle and to propagate uncertainties"—that is, to calculate how the inherent limitations of the data affect the temperature calculated at any given time. The method can easily be modified to answer other questions in climate science, such as about precipitation and drought, and can even make projections into the future given rates of buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Written with his thesis adviser Peter Huybers, his paper was submitted to the Journal of Climate.

Tingley and Huybers’s new method, which Mann describes as "promising," makes the assumption that nearby proxies can be simply related, or "chained," either to data from nearby places or to data from the same place taken a few years before or after. For example, temperatures at neighboring places as measured in the last century seem correlated in a way that drops off approximately exponentially, with a "half-distance" (akin to the concept of half-life) of about 4,000 kilometers.

Tingley assumes a simple, linear relation between the proxy data values and the true temperature. This relation is then determined from proxy data and (where they exist) instrument data, using a methodology known as Bayesian statistics. Huybers explains that with Bayesian descriptions, "we attempt to estimate how probable certain temperatures were in the past given the sets of observations available to us."

The sheer amount of computation, however, is daunting, involving heavy matrix algebra. Initial values for proxies and temperatures (where they have a known overlap) are input, and the methodology works backward to refine the relations at other times. To determine past temperatures, Tingley typically had to manipulate about one million matrices, each consisting of 1,296 columns and 1,296 rows.

Focusing on the past 600 years of proxy data between 45 and 85 degrees north latitude, Tingley’s initial results, presented at a conference earlier this year, find that the 1990s were the warmest decade of the period and that 1995 was the warmest year. (The El Niño year 1998 was the warmest year for North America and Greenland but not for northern Eurasia.) He also found that the 20th century had the largest rate of warming of any century and that the 1600s had the largest rate of change overall (and larger than previous reconstructions), albeit in the cooling direction thanks to the so-called Little Ice Age.

Qualitatively, Tingley’s result resembles the same basic hockey-stick shape as previous reconstructions, except that it has more variability in the past. Perhaps more important, his analysis suggests that a similar treatment of all available proxy data in the Northern Hemisphere in the past two millennia should produce a statistically superior hockey-stick result. Tingley, now a postdoctoral student at the Statistical and Applied Mathematical Sciences Institute in Research Triangle Park, N.C., plans to extend his method to examine the history of droughts in the southwestern U.S., as well as temperatures over wider areas and times.

Note: This article was originally printed with the title, "Still Hotter Than Ever."
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 #186 of 3039
INTERVIEW-Climate science untarnished by hacked emails-IPCC

Thu Nov 26, 2009 1:38pm EST
* UN climate panel report "in no way" tarnished

* Review process makes bias impossible

By Gerard Wynn

LONDON, Nov 26 (Reuters) - The head of the U.N.'s panel of climate experts rejected accusations of bias on Thursday, saying a "Climategate" row in no way undermined evidence that humans are to blame for global warming.

Climate change sceptics have seized on a series of e-mails written by specialists in the field, accusing them of colluding to suppress data which might have undermined their arguments.

The e-mails, some written as long as 13 years ago, were stolen from a British university by unknown hackers and spread rapidly across the Internet.

But Rajendra Pachauri, who chairs the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), stood by his panel's 2007 findings, called the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). "This private communication in no way damages the credibility of the AR4 findings," he told Reuters in an email exchange.

This report helped to underpin a global climate response which included this week carbon emissions targets proposed by the United States and China, and won the IPCC a share of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.

The e-mails hacked from Britain's University of East Anglia last week showed scientists made snide comments about climate sceptics, and revealed exchanges about how to present the data to make the global warming argument look convincing.

In one e-mail, confirmed by the university as genuine, a scientist jokingly referred to ways of ensuring papers which doubted established climate science did not appear in the AR4.

Pachauri said a laborious selection process, using only articles approved by other scientists, called peer review, and then subsequently approving these by committee had prevented distortion.

"The entire report writing process of the IPCC is subjected to extensive and repeated review by experts as well as governments," he added in a written statement to Reuters.

"There is, therefore, no possibility of exclusion of any contrarian views, if they have been published in established journals or other publications which are peer reviewed."

"This thoroughness and the duration of the process followed in every assessment ensure the elimination of any possibility of omissions or distortions, intentional or accidental."

In another e-mail, according to news accounts, Kevin Trenberth, a climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, wrote: "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 revelation of the e-mails was more embarrassing than serious fodder for doubts about the causes of, or basis for climate change, scientists responded this week.

"It is unfortunate that an illegal act of accessing private email communications between scientists who have been involved as authors in IPCC assessments in the past has led to several questions and concerns," said Pachauri. (Editing by David Stamp) ((gerard.wynn@thomsonreuters.com; +44 207 542 2302; Reuters Messaging: rm://gerard.wynn.reuters.com@reuters.net))

((For a TAKE A LOOK about the Road to Copenhagen, click on [ID:nLL527527]. For an overview of climate change stories, click [nCLIMATE])) (For an Interactive factbox on the Climate Change conference in Copenhagen please click here) (For Reuters latest environment blogs click on: blogs.reuters.com/environment/)
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 #187 of 3039
Observations - November 24, 2009

Climate change cover-up? You better believe it

By David Biello

Was Sen. James Inhofe right when he declared 2009 the year of the climate contrarian? A slew of emails stolen from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit highlight definite character flaws among some climate scientists—including an embarrassing attempt to delete emails that discussed the most recent report from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—while also exposing what looks like a failure of scientists to acknowledge a halt to global warming in the past decade.

Sadly for the potential fate of human civilization, rumors of the demise of climate change have been much exaggerated. The past decade recorded nine of the warmest years in recent history as well as the rapid dwindling of Arctic sea ice, surely the result of imminent global cooling if climate change contrarians are to be believed. After all, one of the most "damaging" emails in question from Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., is actually mourning the paucity of Earth observation systems and data in the past decade, such as satellites (gutted by a lack of funding and launch miscues in recent years) to monitor climate change in the midst of natural variability.

The "Copenhagen Diagnosis" released today reveals that by any objective measure—melting ice sheets, greenhouse gas concentrations, sea level rise—the climate is warming faster than anticipated. And when the natural variability induced by massive climate systems such as oscillations over decades in ocean temperatures, currents and even sunspots reverts to the mean, the roughly three warming watts per square meter added by greenhouse gases will still be there to drive climate change.

You can judge the emails for yourself at this wonderful searchable database. While the revelations about pressuring the peer review process and apparent slowness in responding to an avalanche of requests for information unveil something below impressive scientific and personal behavior, they can also be seen as the frustrated responses of people working on complex data under deadline while being harassed by political opponents.

Note the adjective there. Political, not scientific, opponents. Because the opposition here is not grounded in any robust scientific theory or alternative hypotheses (all of those, in their time, have been shot down and nothing new has been offered in years) but a hysterical reaction to the possibly of what? One-world government? The return of communism? If that's the fear, perhaps someone can explain why the preferred solution to climate change offered by former proponents of inaction is nuclear power. Has there ever been a nuclear reactor built anywhere in the world that didn't rely on government to get it done? Sounds like socialism, doesn't it? Hello France? USSR? USA?

The problem is not the behavior of climate scientists or their results. The problem is fear of the actions required to actually deal with the findings of climate science, and it has turned the field into a contact sport as Stephen Schneider of Stanford University puts it in the title of his new book. For example, we might decide to start cutting emissions of greenhouse gases, perhaps by restraining our burning of fossil fuel, or at least capturing and storing the carbon dioxide emitted in that process. It would appear, in fact, that the Obama administration will actually bring to the climate conference in Copenhagen some kind of a proposal to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.

That's not something some folks want to see, primarily those working in the fossil fuel extraction and/or burning business.

There is, in fact, a climate conspiracy. It just happens to be one launched by the fossil fuel industry to obscure the truth about climate change and delay any action. And this release of emails right before the Copenhagen conference is just another salvo—and a highly effective one—in that public relations battle, redolent with the scent of the same flaks and hacks who brought you "smoking isn't dangerous."

As physicist and climate historian Spencer Weart told The Washington Post: "It's a symptom of something entirely new in the history of science: Aside from crackpots who complain that a conspiracy is suppressing their personal discoveries, we've never before seen a set of people accuse an entire community of scientists of deliberate deception and other professional malfeasance. Even the tobacco companies never tried to slander legitimate cancer researchers." Well, probably they did, but point taken.
Image: University of East Anglia
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 #188 of 3039
For those of you that insist the graphs showing the temperatures since 1998 show a decline in temperatures, here's a 'dumbed down' chart (the 3rd one down) that uses simple cubes and colors so you can see what you've been missing- http://www.joabbess.com/2009/11/25/r...ore-your-eyes/
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #189 of 3039
Trot out the hockey stick again, claim no smoking gun in cover-up e-mail, claim victory when challenged yet refuse to allow your claims to be analyzed, and regurgitate articles filled with foolish prattle like "the same flaks and hacks who brought you "smoking isn't dangerous.", from the same hacks and flacks like those who brought you global cooling in the '70's.

Fooled by charlatans and happy for the experience, I guess they want company when they lemming-like jump off a cliff.

Yet, not a single iota of evidence to cast light on what the benefits of all the proposed spending will achieve. "The sky is falling" they claim, yet their solutions seem to consist of sending hard working taxpayers money to Africa, Nigeria and so forth.

Idiots, I swear.
post #190 of 3039
Quote:
Scientific American - November 22, 2009

East Antarctic ice began to melt faster in 2006: study

East Antarctica's ice started to melt faster from 2006, which could cause s...

By Nina Chestney

LONDON (Reuters) - East Antarctica's ice started to melt faster from 2006, which could cause sea levels to rise sooner than anticipated, according to a study by scientists at the University of Texas.

In the study published in Nature's Geoscience journal, scientists estimated that East Antarctica has been losing ice mass at an average rate of 5 to 109 gigatonnes per year from April 2002 to January 2009, but the rate speeded up from 2006.

The melt rate after 2006 could be even higher, the scientists said.

"The key result is that appear to start seeing a large amount of ice loss in East Antarctica, mostly in the long coastal regions (in Wilkes Land and Victoria Land), since 2006," Jianli Chen at the university's center for space research and one of the study's authors, told Reuters.

"This, if confirmed, could indicate a state change of East Antarctica, which could pose a large impact on global sea levels in the future," Chen said.

Previous estimates for East Antarctica projected anywhere between a 4 gigatonne per year loss and a 22 gigatonne per year gain, according to the report.

The full study is available at Accelerated Antarctic ice loss from satellite gravity measurements.
Climate change is turning Antarctica's ice into the one of the biggest risks for coming centuries. Even slight melting could drive up sea levels and could affect world's cities.

Rising temperatures are thought to be the main cause of melting ice, and world leaders are under pressure to agree on a new climate treaty at an upcoming U.N. summit in Copenhagen to curb global warming.

MELTDOWN

The scientists used satellite observations of gravity change over the period April 2002 to January 2009 to calculate the rate of the ice loss in East Antarctica's coastal regions.

The ice sheet's mass has long been difficult to estimate.

"At various times, estimates have disagreed on the sign of the mass balance, as well as its magnitude," the report said.

The whole Antarctic region could be losing ice at a rate of 113-267 gigatonnes a year, with 106-158 gigatonnes coming from West Antarctica, the scientists estimate.

A separate study on Thursday found that melting ice from Greenland and Antarctica will lead to a much sharper rise in sea levels than previously thought.

Climate change will cause a rise of at least 1 meter in sea levels by the end of this century, according to a review of scientific data by environmental group Clean Air-Cool Planet.

The projection is in sharp contrast to a 2007 study by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which said world sea levels could increase 18-59 centimeters by 2100.

(Reporting by Nina Chestney; Editing by Angus MacSwan)

Planet Earth to the real idiotic ape-like hominids;

[CENTER]I'm melting even faster![/CENTER]
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 #191 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

Trot out the hockey stick again, claim no smoking gun in cover-up e-mail, claim victory when challenged yet refuse to allow your claims to be analyzed, and regurgitate articles filled with foolish prattle like "the same flaks and hacks who brought you "smoking isn't dangerous.", from the same hacks and flacks like those who brought you global cooling in the '70's.

Fooled by charlatans and happy for the experience, I guess they want company when they lemming-like jump off a cliff.

Yet, not a single iota of evidence to cast light on what the benefits of all the proposed spending will achieve. "The sky is falling" they claim, yet their solutions seem to consist of sending hard working taxpayers money to Africa, Nigeria and so forth.

Idiots, I swear.

Brilliant commentary there dude, no facts, no peer reviewed links, absolutely nothing but your own extremely biased Denialers POV.

But please, continue posting made up stuff from Denialers blogs, because that's all you have, made up stuff from Denialers blogs, I'll just keep on posting real stuff from the well respected peer reviewed climate science literature.

W-h-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a ...
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 #192 of 3039
Quote:
Captured on camera: 50 years of climate change in the Himalayas


Felicity Carus
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 4 June 2009 17.00 BST

Series of before and after panoramas of Imja glacier taken five decades apart highlights dramatic reduction of Himalayan ice




A very deep layer of ice covered the Imja glacier in the 1950s (top photo). Over the next 50 years, small meltwater ponds continued to grow and merge, and by the mid 1970s had formed the Imja lake. By 2007, the lake had grown to around 1km long. Photograph: Erwin Schneider/Alton Byers/The Mountain Institute

When Fritz Müller and Erwin Schneider battled ice storms, altitude sickness and snow blindness in the 1950s to map, measure and photograph the Imja glacier in the Himalayas, they could never have foreseen that the gigantic tongue of millennia-old glacial ice would be reduced to a lake within 50 years.

But half a century later, American mountain geographer Alton Byers returned to the precise locations of the original pictures and replicated 40 panoramas taken by explorers Müller and Schneider. Placed together, the juxtaposed images are not only visually stunning but also of significant scientific value.

The photos have now been united for the first time in an exhibition organised by the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (Icimod) and are printed here for the first time in Britain.

The Himalaya Changing Landscapes exhibition opened in Bonn this week as delegates gathered ifor the next round of UN talks aimed at delivering a global deal on tackling global warming. The series of pictures tell a story not only about the dramatic reductions in glacial ice in the Himalayas, but also the effects of climate change on the people who live there.

"Only five decades have passed between the old and the new photographs and the changes are dramatic," says Byers. "Many small glaciers at low altitudes have disappeared entirely and many larger ones have lost around half of their volume. Some have formed huge glacial lakes at the foot of the glacier, threatening downstream communities in case of an outburst."

His scientific results were published in the Himalayan Journal of Sciences and he is now in the Cordillera Blanca mountains in Peru where he will replicate Schneider's 1930 photos of glaciers.

"Much remains uncertain about the melting of glaciers and future water supplies," he said. "But what is certain is that by promoting the conservation and restoration of mountain watersheds we can counter many of the impacts of warming trends, by creating cooler environments, saving biodiversity and protecting water supplies."

The effects of climate change are dramatically illustrated at the world's "third pole", so-called because the mountain range locks away the highest volume of frozen water after the north and south poles.

The 1956 photograph of the Imja glacier, then one of the largest glaciers at an altitude of around 5,000m, shows a layer of thick ice with small meltwater ponds. But by the time Byers took his shot in 2007, much of the glacier had melted into a vast but stunning blue lake. Today, the Imja glacier, which is just 6km from Everest, continues to recede at a rate of 74m a year - the fastest rate of all the Himayalan glaciers.

Nepal's average temperature has increased by 1.5C since 1975 . A major UN Environment Programme report last year warned that at current rates of global warming, the Himalayan glaciers could shrink from 500,000 square kilometres to 100,000 square kilometres by the 2030s - a prediction supported by the rate of retreat seen in Byers' pictures.

Imja is one of 27 glacial lakes in Nepal classified as potentially dangerous. If the moraines which dam the lake are breached, thousands of lives in the most densely populated Sherpa valley in Nepal are at risk from flooding and landslides.

Himalayan glaciers also feed into major Asian river systems including the Ganges, Indus, Mekong and Yangtze. If glacial meltwaters turn to a trickle, widespread droughts will threaten the 1.3 billion people that depend on water flowing in those rivers .

Andreas Schild, the director general of Icimod, said the photographs reveal just "the tip of the iceberg".

"Scientific evidence shows that the effects of globalisation and climate change are being felt in even the most remote Himalayan environments," he said. "While climate change is mostly caused by the highly industrialised parts of the world, the effects are taking their toll in the sensitive mountain areas. The signs are visible, but the in-depth knowledge and data from the Himalayan region is largely missing. What happens in this remote mountain region is a serious concern for the whole world."

A very deep layer of ice covered the Imja glacier in the 1950s (top photo). Over the next 50 years, small meltwater ponds continued to grow and merge, and by the mid 1970s had formed the Imja lake. By 2007, the lake had grown to around 1km long. Photograph: Erwin Schneider/Alton Byers/The Mountain Institute

Planet Earth to the most idiotic of the ape-like hominids;

[CENTER]I'm melting even faster than before![/CENTER]
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 #193 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

SPAM Photo

Oooh! Hey, I can do that too!

You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
post #194 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

Uh huh. Someone lies about one thing, it raises general questions about their truthfulness. And when the lie is to protect the money they so badly need, it wouldn't surprise me to find them lying about other things to get the money in the first place. Bu that's conjecture at this point.

No one has lied in this email. It contains no lies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

I suspect you have a very narrow definition of "profit".

You do not go into this kind of research to make millions. It is a fact that this kind of research is not funded by itself.

Next.

Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

Thanks for your guess about what it is.

The entire email is about funding, for fuck's sake. I've sent emails like this myself. There's no more reason to assume that 'strategy' is about manipulating data than it is about a game of Risk. Think for a minute.

And your guess, your speculation, your opinion is far less likely, politically-motivated, and utterly ignorant of the boring day-to-day stuff that scientists have to do in order to make their work happen.

We're in the realm of birther and truther here, though, I suspect. 'See! See!' The actual facts, which are very boring, don't suit you and I rather expect you'll prefer your own weird, exciting ones that have nothing to do with the truth. This is my opinion and I'd be delighted to be proved wrong.


Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post


http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climate...he-real-story/

Do you look at the graphs? Do you read the analyses posted? Did you read the press release?

Really, honestly?

Do you have the courage to consider that they might be correct and that the world might be suffering the effects of the billions and billions of humans burning stuff to move and heat their homes and make stuff?

It takes so much effort to deny that terrorists flew planes into the Twin Towers, or that Nazis killed millions of Jews, or that the President was born in Hawaii, or that the planet is older than 6,000 years. TAKE STOCK. Sometimes stuff we don't want to be true IS TRUE. Sometimes we can do something to stop it.
post #195 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

No one has lied in this email. It contains no lies.

If the point about taxes is done in attempt to evade (not simple tax avoidance) then it does implicate the writer in a future lie that he will be making to the taxing autorities.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

You do not go into this kind of research to make millions.

You claimed that these people are not in it for profit. I simply pointed out that you appear to have a rather narrow definition of profit.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

The entire email is about funding, for fuck's sake. I've sent emails like this myself. There's no more reason to assume that 'strategy' is about manipulating data than it is about a game of Risk. Think for a minute.

Yes, it is about obtaining funding. Again, absent additional documentation which lays out the strategy to be employed to obtain the funding, we cannot draw conclusions.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

And your guess, your speculation, your opinion is far less likely, politically-motivated, and utterly ignorant of the boring day-to-day stuff that scientists have to do in order to make their work happen.

Thanks again for your opinion.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

The actual facts, which are very boring, don't suit you

To which facts, exactly, are you referring? Are these the guesses and opinions about which you think the letter is referring outside of what it actually says? Those aren't facts. They are guesses. You could even be right. You could be wrong. But there are no facts, yet, to support your claims.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

Do you look at the graphs? Do you read the analyses posted? Did you read the press release?

Really, honestly?

You're not going to address those other items? I linked to a chain of emails as well as an analysis of one of the source code README files. Are you going to address them?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

Do you have the courage to consider that they might be correct and that the world might be suffering the effects of the billions and billions of humans burning stuff to move and heat their homes and make stuff?

It takes so much effort to deny that terrorists flew planes into the Twin Towers, or that Nazis killed millions of Jews, or that the President was born in Hawaii, or that the planet is older than 6,000 years. TAKE STOCK. Sometimes stuff we don't want to be true IS TRUE. Sometimes we can do something to stop it.

Clever what you're trying to do there.
post #196 of 3039
Rigging a Climate 'Consensus': About those emails and 'peer review.':

Quote:
The response from the defenders of Mr. Mann and his circle has been that even if they did disparage doubters and exclude contrary points of view, theirs is still the best climate science. The proof for this is circular. It's the best, we're told, because it's the most-published and most-citedin that same peer-reviewed literature. The public has every reason to ask why they felt the need to rig the game if their science is as indisputable as they claim.

This is the essence of the circular logic that demands investigation. We've been told "look at the peer reviewed journals and papers!" We've been told "look at the data!" But if, in fact, these have been "massaged" to achieve a predefined outcome, then they are suspect as a valid and legitimate source from which we can draw reliable conclusions.
post #197 of 3039
This thread is so ironic.

Come on, fess up, guys...

How many of you didn't care if Bush was lying about Iraq because you thought attacking them was "the right thing to do"? How many of you supported all the lies of the Bush administration because you agreed with his ideals, and, "every politician lies"?

It's like a police officer who knows someone is guilty planting evidence to secure the conviction.

But when Bush was doing it, you supported it (though you'd never admit that he was lying, having complete faith in plausible deniability).

While I don't support manipulation of data, ever, not by Bush and not by climatologists and other scientists, just because a few scientists my have collaberated to support their agenda, doesn't mean their agenda wasn't the right one. Sometimes the criminals the police plant evidence against are indeed guilty.
post #198 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

This thread is so ironic.

Come on, fess up, guys...

How many of you didn't care if Bush was lying about Iraq because you thought attacking them was "the right thing to do"? How many of you supported all the lies of the Bush administration because you agreed with his ideals, and, "every politician lies"?

It's like a police officer who knows someone is guilty planting evidence to secure the conviction.

But when Bush was doing it, you supported it (though you'd never admit that he was lying, having complete faith in plausible deniability).

While I don't support manipulation of data, ever, not by Bush and not by climatologists and other scientists, just because a few scientists my have collaberated to support their agenda, doesn't mean their agenda wasn't the right one. Sometimes the criminals the police plant evidence against are indeed guilty.

tonton, that post says more about you, and demonstrates that your faith in anthropogenic climate change is primarily political -- than it says about your opponents.

You're attempting to speculate/insinuate that someone like myself and others here would EVER condone lying for a political cause -- and then essentially admitting that you are doing that very thing. Well, if you think lying is alright, that's your choice, but I have to ask that you don't project that in my direction.









You lovely leftists here need to realize that if these emails are representative, these professors have seriously damaged the credibility of the peer-reviewed process. It will take decades to overcome this, and will provide fodder for every crank in the system. This simply isn't done.

But maybe it's all for the best -- maybe we need to relearn the lesson that consensus/herd thinking can be very dangerous. It would be as if, say everyone in the [financial or foreign policy] system convinced themselves with faulty, self-serving "evidence", that they needed to act in a certain way. Their echo chamber said it was okay, all the incentives seemed right, and they went all in.

Only to find out, after the fact, that they were very much mistaken.

Sound familiar? Sound expensive? Maybe we don't learn through experience? Ya think?

If we learned by "experience" Las Vegas wouldn't exist.


Same as it ever was -- but let's not impugn people with motives they didn't have -- the CDO/MBS disaster is one thing, like pre-9/11 thinking, or what got us into Iraq. Most everyone had an excuse. Maybe a greedy excuse, maybe a "the quants said it's safe" excuse, but they had a plausible excuse. But Bernie Madoff and these emails are quite another. Try to be a little more mature in your thinking, and learn to separate the two.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #199 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

maybe we need to relearn the lesson that consensus/herd thinking can be very dangerous

Amen!
post #200 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

t

You lovely leftists here need to realize that if these emails are representative, these professors have seriously damaged the credibility of the peer-reviewed process. It will take decades to overcome this, and will provide fodder for every crank in the system. This simply isn't done.

Fortunately for all of us who take medicine, have operations, use computers and go to university to study, the peer review system will do just fine without the problem in credibility it will suffer in certain circles of very right wing Americans.

You believe the planet is only 6,000 years old. I imagine you're more invested in most in seeing the credibility of the scientific method damaged.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Climategate