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

Climategate - Page 8

post #281 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Absolutely I have concerns as to how this will effect people.

Why do you assume that 50 people would be without a car due to a millionaire offsetting their CO2 et al. use. The reality would be that the extra credits due to offsetting from those that can afford to at a higher rate, would effectively subsidise the credits for low income earners. It's a bit like the rich paying more taxes, they pay more so that others can pay less. If they paid the same rate as the poor then the poor's rate would have to go up as the rich rate came down to amass the same amount of collected taxes. In other words 50 people would be driving vehicles that would not have otherwise been able to afford to.

So what you are saying is that these credits will be used like a giant piggy bank for people to borrow from to get newer and more efficient vehicles and appliances?

It's either that or the actual payment of money somehow just magically offsets the carbon footprint and nobody has to make any changes. The intent is enough to make the change... \

Which one is 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 #282 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

You tell me.

I believe it is called probable cause. The possibility that a crime has been committed that is documented. Or they can search, if they believe that evidence is being destroyed, without a warrant.

Quote:
A search warrant is a judge signed order that permits the police to search for specific items at a specific place at a specific time. Typically, a search warrant is ordered to search people and private property in order to seize suspected contraband and/or criminal evidence. The fourth amendment of the constitution addresses the issue of search warrant rights and was designed to protect the rights of private citizens from unlawful search and seizure. As a result of fourth amendment legal interpretations, the laws governing search warrant requirements are constantly in flux. Search warrant laws indicate when a warrant is and is not required to search a person or property, how a search warrant is obtained, and the process by which a lawful search is conducted.

A search warrant is typically necessary when it intrudes on a person's privacy or private property. A place or person is considered private when that privacy is reasonably expected and socially acceptable. A search warrant is required in any situation where artificial or high-tech search methods would otherwise be employed to gain the information sought. A search warrant gives the police the right to search a particular place, at a particular time, for particular items as approved by a judge. In the following cases police may extend a search beyond the terms of a warrant: to ensure safety, to prevent the destruction of evidence, to discover more about obtained evidence, and when contraband or evidence is in plain view.

There are a number of circumstances where it is not necessary for police to obtain a search warrant. No search warrant is necessary when the owner of a property grants police permission to search a space. Cars that have been stopped lawfully can be searched without a search warrant with proper cause. A search warrant is not necessary when a search accompanies an arrest, when the search is carried out necessarily to protect the public or prevent eminent destruction of evidence, or during hot pursuit of a criminal.

When a search warrant is required to search a property, the police must present the judge with probable cause for the search in question. Probable cause is established in numerous ways. When the judge deems a search warrant appropriate, they will validate the search of a specific place, at a certain time, for certain items. As long as the police act in good faith in the supervening search, the evidence and contraband seized will be held admissible in a court of law.
When the police fail to act in good faith or in compliance with search warrant terms, any resulting evidence will not be held admissible in a court of law, as established by the federal "exclusionary rule" doctrine. The federal "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine states that when an illegal search produces evidence that leads to other evidence, all evidence obtained is inadmissible. There are situations where unlawfully obtained evidence may still be held admissible in a court of law.

Sorry about the bolds, they came in with the paste and it is way too much work to remove them all.
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 #283 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

So what you are saying is that these credits will be used like a giant piggy bank for people to borrow from to get newer and more efficient vehicles and appliances?

It's either that or the actual payment of money somehow just magically offsets the carbon footprint and nobody has to make any changes. The intent is enough to make the change... \

Which one is it?

No, it wouldn't act anything like a bank. You would be able to offset your extra usage by paying money. Say you offset a $1,000 by providing money towards clean energy to a village in Africa or organic locally grown fruits and vegetables to communities across the US. Everything that can be used as an offset will have strict rules attached so you can't claim one thing and do another. For instance you buy up forest to offset against your trip to Europe, that company that you offset to that in effect sold you say 5 trees, can't then go and chop them down until the end of whatever you paid is up.

The system obviously isn't in place yet for citizens, but that's roughly how it will probably work. No systems going to be perfect but it will make a huge difference. It's the best way to encourage you to keep an eye on your CO2 et al. footprint.
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #284 of 3039
Thread Starter 
Climate change data dumped

Quote:
SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU’s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data.

In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

But I'm sure it's standard scientific practice to throw away much of the raw data after you get the results you want.

Right?

Oh wait, I'm sure the results were "peer reviewed" (by other "scientists" with the same agenda) so it's okay.

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 #285 of 3039
This is the only relevant statement that needs addressing as the majority of this post is filled with tangential rhetoric and dodgy logic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

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.

The emails, are, of course, taken fully out-of-context.

The emails have noting to do with the actual well respected peer review climate science literature, in and of the emails themselves.

There is the matter of civility in any open peer review process between professionals that does not necessarily exist in any private and/or confidential communications. That should be all too obviously to anyone who has ever written anonymously versus using their true identity.

Personal emails of whatever kind are never done?

Personnal communications, that you don't ever expect the whole entire world to ever see are never done?

My, how PC of you.
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 #286 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

This is a thread about honesty; you impugned the honesty of those who are bringing this to your attention; what exactly would you call that?

The honesty of those who are bringing this to your attention?

WTF does that even mean in a forum where everyone is anonymous? Honest my AZZ!
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 #287 of 3039
Again mostly tangential rhetoric and dodgy logic, except to call into question the following opinion;

Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

One of the BIG issues the Kuhn, and Polanyi address is that, inside a closed system -- of "normal science" -- truly ground shaking/paradigm breaking evidences are initially rejected, since they don't fit into how scientists believe the "world really works." The evidence has no way of fitting into the current understanding -- so it is literally useless. This has been repeated throughout scientific history.

Quote:
The book triggered diverse reactions. Most "hard" scientists shrugged and went about their business. But many in the soft, or social, sciences "loved" the book, Kuhn says, perhaps because it offered hope that they could attain the same level of legitimacy (or illegitimacy) as physicists or chemists. "Some of them even said, 'Wow, now all we have to do is figure what our paradigm is and enforce it,'" Kuhn explains.

So now I can somewhat understand your tangential rhetoric and dodgy logic in the context of "soft" or social sciences.

Climate science is not a "soft" or social science.

Economics != "hard" science.
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 #288 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

That sounds like overwrought reaching, and an attempt at moral equivalency.

You clearly and plainly asserted that I and others here are liars. Since this is not the case, I'm left to wonder where the source of this assertion comes from, and am left with nothing but to conclude that this is something that you are comfortable engaging in, and are projecting this motive as an attempt at moral equivalency.

There is no other explanation of how an imaginary "support of lying" has any place in a discussion of these emails -- other than a "yeah, but you guys do it too" gibe.


You need to use the term liar more carefully and should be prepared to take responsibility when you do use that term.

An attempt at moral equivalency?

That was tha exact thing that you did earlier in this thread when you tried, out of despicable desperation I might add, to equate science with religion.

This is understandable, as an opinion I might add, since you have Beliefs that cloud truly objective analyses.

Yet still not a single word on the scientific method itself, which I've now mentioned in passing for a 3rd time, I wonder why?

Finally, how would we ever know people are not lying, because you said so, in an anonymous forum?
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 #289 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

And the implosion has begun:

UN scientists turn on each other: UN Scientist Declares Climategate colleagues Mann, Jones and Rahmstorf 'should be barred from the IPCC process' -- They are 'not credible any more'

Other pro-AGW "scientists" are trying to cover their own sorry rear ends by attacking their own.

Meanwhile, pro-AGW zealots are denying there is even a problem.

How ironic that the pro-AGWers are now the deniers.

An implosion of one?
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 #290 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

I think this will go a lot faster if you just admit you're wrong.

Wrong about what, exactly?
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 #291 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

No, it wouldn't act anything like a bank. You would be able to offset your extra usage by paying money. Say you offset a $1,000 by providing money towards clean energy to a village in Africa or organic locally grown fruits and vegetables to communities across the US. Everything that can be used as an offset will have strict rules attached so you can't claim one thing and do another. For instance you buy up forest to offset against your trip to Europe, that company that you offset to that in effect sold you say 5 trees, can't then go and chop them down until the end of whatever you paid is up.

The system obviously isn't in place yet for citizens, but that's roughly how it will probably work. No systems going to be perfect but it will make a huge difference. It's the best way to encourage you to keep an eye on your CO2 et al. footprint.

It will make a difference on somebodies bottom line, but I do not see it making any discernible difference in CO2 output. I also see this as being another example of intent over results. \
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 #292 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

We, the believing lairs or lying believers (I can't really tell) don't have a right to get to the bottom of the CRUtape letters.

That would be emails not letters.

There is no bottom to get to, what with a bunch of "random" emails subsequently taken out-of-context, that wiill never be able to be put into a correct context, except the context of fantasy or make believe.
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 #293 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

It will make a difference on somebodies bottom line, but I do not see it making any discernible difference in CO2 output. I also see this as being another example of intent over results. \

It all depends. First of all it has to be mandatory for everyone and secondly the amounts people are allotted and how much it would cost to go over those allotted amounts would make all the difference between success and failure.
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #294 of 3039
Damn, that had to be PO's most tangential rhetoric and dodgy logic in a long while;

Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

And this is why all this talk about AGW or health care reform or financial reform is utter idiocy -- Nothing Is Going To Change, it is the lifeblood and air that keeps Western society functioning.

There you go, deconstructionism at it's best. Really funny shit you posted, I might add.
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 #295 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

That would be emails not letters.

There is no bottom to get to, what with a bunch of "random" emails subsequently taken out-of-context, that wiill never be able to be put into a correct context, except the context of fantasy or make believe.

franksargent, jazzguru in a recent post posted an interesting link about 'much' of the CRU data being trashed. Have you read it? I think it's important because so long as people think there's been a fraud, they can pin at least some of that to something that can't be proved to be false by science. What's your take on it?
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #296 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

Even the NYT can't ignore or defend this:



And, brilliantly, Gavin A. Schmidt uses this thing as justifcation to avoid releasing more information:




And the folks at CRU are merely concerned with prosecuting the whistle blower(s):




And the Telegraph: Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation

Yes, most of the MSM has mentioned the stolen emails, etceteras.

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

Christopher Booker

Quote:
Via his long-running column in the UK's Sunday Telegraph, Booker has claimed that man-made global warming was "disproved" in 2008, that white asbestos is "chemically identical to talcum powder" and poses a "non-existent risk" to human health, that "scientific evidence to support [the] belief that inhaling other people's smoke causes cancer simply does not exist" and that there is "no proof that BSE causes CJD in humans". He has also defended the theory of Intelligent Design, maintaining that Darwinians "rest their case on nothing more than blind faith and unexamined a priori assumptions".

I'll have some of whatever this dude Booker is smoking.
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 #297 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

But it is which handful that's turning out to be important. From the Telegraph:

Ditto.

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.

Christopher Booker

Quote:
Via his long-running column in the UK's Sunday Telegraph, Booker has claimed that man-made global warming was "disproved" in 2008, that white asbestos is "chemically identical to talcum powder" and poses a "non-existent risk" to human health, that "scientific evidence to support [the] belief that inhaling other people's smoke causes cancer simply does not exist" and that there is "no proof that BSE causes CJD in humans". He has also defended the theory of Intelligent Design, maintaining that Darwinians "rest their case on nothing more than blind faith and unexamined a priori assumptions".

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

It all depends. First of all it has to be mandatory for everyone and secondly the amounts people are allotted and how much it would cost to go over those allotted amounts would make all the difference between success and failure.

Well, I see this program as being a money grab by a few well connected groups who will do the minimum possible to with the money given them. This would involve billions of dollars a year and it will likely not have the results you want to see. But it will contain all the appropriate platitudes and buzzwords, and also send money to the appropriate causes and projects so it will be good.

But what will it actually change? I would be better with the giant piggy bank for upgrading peoples vehicles and applicance that need it so there is a direct benefit to the American public than I would with this pie in the sky program.

You could eliminate very old appliances, energy hungry heaters and air conditioners with newer more efficient models, insulate older houses and more. Perhaps it could also be used to upgrade infrastructure or to build new, more efficient power plants which would then bring down the cost of electricity to the end user.

Do I want new taxes, no. But if they are instituted I want to see a benefit that is more than the long term puppies and rainbows effect...
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 #299 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Climate change data dumped



But I'm sure it's standard scientific practice to throw away much of the raw data after you get the results you want.

Right?

Oh wait, I'm sure the results were "peer reviewed" (by other "scientists" with the same agenda) so it's okay.

The actual press release;

Quote:
CRU climate data already ‘over 95%’ available (28 November)

Over 95% of the CRU climate data set concerning land surface temperatures has been accessible to climate researchers, sceptics and the public for several years the University of East Anglia has confirmed.

“It is well known within the scientific community and particularly those who are sceptical of climate change that over 95% of the raw station data has been accessible through the Global Historical Climatology Network for several years. We are quite clearly not hiding information which seems to be the speculation on some blogs and by some media commentators,” commented the University’s Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Research Enterprise and Engagement Professor Trevor Davies.

The University will make all the data accessible as soon as they are released from a range of non-publication agreements. Publication will be carried out in collaboration with the Met Office Hadley Centre.

The procedure for releasing these data, which are mainly owned by National Meteorological Services (NMSs) around the globe, is by direct contact between the permanent representatives of NMSs (in the UK the Met Office).

“We are grateful for the necessary support of the Met Office in requesting the permissions for releasing the information but understand that responses may take several months and that some countries may refuse permission due to the economic value of the data,” continued Professor Davies.

The remaining data, to be published when permissions are given, generally cover areas of the world where there are fewer data collection stations.

“CRU’s full data will be published in the interests of research transparency when we have the necessary agreements. It is worth reiterating that our conclusions correlate well to those of other scientists based on the separate data sets held by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS),” concluded Professor Davies.

Note also, that the original meteorological data has never been destroyed, just the copies that CRU had acquired over the years.

Where is the original data you ask?

Where it's always been, scattered throughout the world, at each nations' NWS/NMS, etceteras.
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 #300 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

Well, I see this program as being a money grab by a few well connected groups who will do the minimum possible to with the money given them. This would involve billions of dollars a year and it will likely not have the results you want to see. But it will contain all the appropriate platitudes and buzzwords, and also send money to the appropriate causes and projects so it will be good.

But what will it actually change? I would be better with the giant piggy bank for upgrading peoples vehicles and applicance that need it so there is a direct benefit to the American public than I would with this pie in the sky program.

You could eliminate very old appliances, energy hungry heaters and air conditioners with newer more efficient models, insulate older houses and more. Perhaps it could also be used to upgrade infrastructure or to build new, more efficient power plants which would then bring down the cost of electricity to the end user.

Do I want new taxes, no. But if they are instituted I want to see a benefit that is more than the long term puppies and rainbows effect...

I'm sure you'll be pleased with the Obama admin then for doing the "Cash for home appliances" program- http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/...821_304909.htm

The government will have to initiate major policy changes and initiate major new programs, not including what we're talking about.
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #301 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

franksargent, jazzguru in a recent post posted an interesting link about 'much' of the CRU data being trashed. Have you read it? I think it's important because so long as people think there's been a fraud, they can pin at least some of that to something that can't be proved to be false by science. What's your take on it?

Oops, sorry didn't see your reply until I posted a reply to jazzguru's nonsense above.

If any of the original data from the original sources in each country/territory has been lost, it's because it was lost in the country/territory of origin, but absent that, all original data exists, it's just not all in one place in the public domain as of today.

Regardless, none of this will affect the current surface temperature reconstructions, as they exist today, or as they will exist in the future.

EDIT: See this link dated October 14, 2009 3. CLIMATE: Scientists return fire at skeptics in 'destroyed data' dispute

Quote:
The Competitive Enterprise Institute, ...

Competitive Enterprise Institute

Quote:
The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) is a non-profit libertarian think tank founded in 1984 by Fred L. Smith, Jr and based in Washington, D.C., USA. CEI's stated belief is that humans are best helped not by government regulation of commercial interests, but by humans being allowed to make their own choices in a free marketplace. CEI states that it promotes libertarian ideals through analysis, education, coalition-building, advocacy, and regulation.

... Past and present funders include the Scaife Foundations, Exxon Mobil the Ford Motor Company Fund, Pfizer, and the Earhart Foundation.

... CEI is an outspoken opponent of global warming constituting a problem, and of government action that would require limits on greenhouse gas emissions. It favors free-market environmentalism, stating that market institutions are more effective in protecting the environment than is government.
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 #302 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Oops, sorry didn't see your reply until I posted a reply to jazzguru's nonsense abovew.

If any of the original data from the original sources in each country/territory has been lost, it's because it was lost in the country/territory of origin, but absent that, all original data exists, it's just not all in one place in the public domain as of today.

Regardless, none of this will affect the current surface temperature reconstructions, as they exist today, or as they will exist in the future.

So it's likely that much of the original raw data still exists and therefore it could, if scientists can gain access to it, be used to see whether that data matches the CRU reconstructions, thereby being able to prove that there hasn't been any fraud yet again?
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #303 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

I'm sure you'll be pleased with the Obama admin then for doing the "Cash for home appliances" program- http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/...821_304909.htm

The government will have to initiate major policy changes and initiate major new programs, not including what we're talking about.

That all depends where the money is coming from. If they are simply borrowing more to pay for it then the program is not setting itself up for success. The net results could be good for some consumers, but time will tell how effective it really is. It is similar to what I spoke of above, but it is not exactly the same thing.
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 #304 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

So it's likely that much of the original raw data still exists and therefore it could, if scientists can gain access to it, be used to see whether that data matches the CRU reconstructions, thereby being able to prove that there hasn't been any fraud yet again?

See link (dated October 14, 2009) in my edited post above.

AFAIK, all original data exists, the excluded data is redundant in that it is in areas where there are multiple met stations (e. g. high areal density of raw data), those data that have been excluded appear to suffer from UHI effects, or some such, thus their exclusion.
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 #305 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

See link (dated October 14, 2009) in my edited post above.

AFAIK, all original data exists, the excluded data is redundant in that it is in areas where there are multiple met stations (e. g. high areal density of raw data), those data that have been excluded appear to suffer from UHI effects, or some such, thus their exclusion.

Thank you, that's extremely clear.

It's absolutely astonishing how the vested interests will try to spin things to sway public opinion.
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #306 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Thank you, that's extremely clear.

It's absolutely astonishing how the vested interests will try to spin things to sway public opinion.

Yes it is... On both sides...
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 #307 of 3039
It's good to see that frank is still hanging his hat on ad hominem fallacies.
post #308 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

Yes it is... On both sides...

Got specifics you'd share about the IPCC or others?
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #309 of 3039
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Got specifics you'd share about the IPCC or others?

Would you believe "specifics" if they were presented to you?

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 #310 of 3039
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 #311 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

It's good to see that frank is still hanging his hat on ad hominem fallacies.

You betcha!

Which is truly ironic, since this thread's very existance is filled with ad hominems with respect to the people who wrote these emails.

You are not arguing against the actual science, you are arguing against the individuals doing the science.

So basically, the Denialers, incapable it seems, of doing their own science, continue to look for excuses for not doing their own science.

It's not like the fossil fuel club lacks the financials to support the Denialers in their own original research, it's because the climate science is, in fact, incontrovertible.

Oh, last I checked we are not in a debate club.

If you have a problem with, post elsewhere.

If you think attribution and MO are mutually exclusive and can be completely ignored, I've got news for you, you're wrong.
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 #312 of 3039
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

If you think attribution and MO are mutually exclusive and can be completely ignored, I've got news for you, your wrong.

What's the news you've got for his wrong?

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 #313 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

Yes it is... On both sides...

OK, I'll bite.

This thread is about climate scientists private emails.

Care to expose thousands of emails from the Denialers?

Or, better yet, show us all some examples of bad behavior on the part of the Denialers.

As of yet we have very much less than half the true story, until an equal number of compromised and unflattering emails surface from the Denialers, that will forever be the case.

Do the Denialers have emails?

I don't even know what your "On both sides..." comment even means, in what context are you referring to?
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 #314 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

What's the news you've got for his wrong?

Drive by?

Please phrase your sentence so that we all know whatever it is that you are trying to state.
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 #315 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Would you believe "specifics" if they were presented to you?

But you have had no specifics to discuss.

Oh look, here's another biased link I found about those so very bad climate scientists.

The warping of fragile little minds is the sum total of all those links though.

That seems to be the basic theme running amuck in this thread.
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 #316 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

You betcha!

Which is truly ironic, since this thread's very existance is filled with ad hominems with respect to the people who wrote these emails.

You are not arguing against the actual science, you are arguing against the individuals doing the science.

Untrue.

The arguments being made about these emails and source code comments is that they may be evidence that these people may have engaged in data "massaging" and general tactics to hide, manipulate data not to mention to actively exclude contrary viewpoints, papers, etc.

That is the central point about these emails.

That's not an ad hominem. An ad hominem is when you attack the person rather than the argument. That's not at all what's happening in this case. What's happening is people are now questioning what we've been told because of what these emails suggest that these people may have been doing with the data, the peer review process, the inclusion or exclusion of contrary views, etc.

We've been told to trust the "peer reviewed" papers and journals and to "trust the data" and it now looks like there might be reason to not have trusted some of that because some people might have been manipulating it.
post #317 of 3039
It's hard to have a good look at all the data and have a critical review if "consensus" scientists are blackballing authors and journals.
post #318 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

OK, I'll bite.

This thread is about climate scientists private emails.

Care to expose thousands of emails from the Denialers?

Or, better yet, show us all some examples of bad behavior on the part of the Denialers.

As of yet we have very much less than half the true story, until an equal number of compromised and unflattering emails surface from the Denialers, that will forever be the case.

Do the Denialers have emails?

I don't even know what your "On both sides..." comment even means, in what context are you referring to?

There is examples of this behavior from all corners of American society. To pretend that any one side is clean of these tactics is denial by any side. In many respects when it comes to science there is a certain level of GIGO. You have the "safety net" of peer review which should catch the garbage and only allow the information deemed accurate through. What is being claimed here is that that process was being intentionally subverted so that a specific portion of the data is let through. Anyone who is not in the least bit concerned is basically a "denialer" (who comes up with these stupid terms anyhow? ).

I don't have to show emails from the "denialers" showing bad behavior to know that said behavior exists. As if being a scientist makes you somehow above human nature any more than being a Christian, or a Mormon, or a Buddhist does. People will do what they feel is right or justified to further a view or position. Even subvert processes, break laws, or lie cheat and steal.

Do I know for sure that this is what happened? No, not any more than you can say for sure it did not. Post away, have a ball. Both sides have their fair share of lies and deceit in this process. To pretend that it is any other way is turning a blind eye to human nature. What we appear to have here is probable cause. There should be a full investigation to determine if there is a smoking gun. If none is found then this will be dropped. The conspiracy theorist's of the world will never drop it and some day it may be found to be more that was originally thought or not... The only way to ensure that this is seen for what they claim this is, a non issue, is for there to be full disclosure of the context of the emails as soon as possible. Since this is only about science and nothing nefarious I am sure that would not be a big issue. If they are concerned about privacy they can redact any specifics that are not relevant to the general context.

The best way to sway public opinion right now is to be as open and honest as possible about what those emails were about. Hopefully this is what they are doing. Time will tell. Anything less will be seen as a betrayal of trust.

I am mostly just watching and reading, however the surety of some posting int his thread is ringing very hollow considering they do not have the full context of the emails in question. Unless they were actually first hand contributors, they really don't have any more of a leg to stand on than those who they are arguing against.
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 #319 of 3039
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Drive by?

Please phrase your sentence so that we all know whatever it is that you are trying to state.

"If you think attribution and MO are mutually exclusive and can be completely ignored, I've got news for you, your wrong."

Since your intellect is far superior to mine, and you are evidently incapable of error, I assumed you meant to write "your" instead of "you're". I was merely trying to understand what you meant.

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 #320 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

"If you think attribution and MO are mutually exclusive and can be completely ignored, I've got news for you, your wrong."

Since your intellect is far superior to mine, and you are evidently incapable of error, I assumed you meant to write "your" instead of "you're". I was merely trying to understand what you meant.

My intellect is far superior to yours. However, to err is human. \
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