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

Climategate - Page 9

post #321 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

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.

May be evidence? Where's the proof?

Some of that? Some of what?

Trust? What trust?

As of yet, no one has shown a direct linkage between these emails/codes and something that was a product of these emails/codes that has appeared in the well respected peer reviewed climate science literature.

Peer review in only one part of the scientific method, by now the science stands on it's own, the sheer number of peer reviewed articles that suggest that AGW is all too real, is overwhelming.

Global warming is very real, sea level rise is very real, melting glaciers are very real, rise in CO2 and other GHG's are very real, increased use of fossil fuels is very real, population growth is very real.

As of yet, there is no better explanation for these concurrent events than that humans are indeed playing a fundamental part in causing these events.

You either accept these facts or you don't, regardless of however many emails/codes you can point to and say "but hey look at these".

These emails have no bearing whatsoever with respect to the scientific method.
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 #322 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

May be evidence? Where's the proof?

Some of that? Some of what?

Trust? What trust?

As of yet, no one has shown a direct linkage between these emails/codes and something that was a product of these emails/codes that has appeared in the well respected peer reviewed climate science literature.

Peer review in only one part of the scientific method, by now the science stands on it's own, the sheer number of peer reviewed articles that suggest that AGW is all too real, is overwhelming.

Global warming is very real, sea level rise is very real, melting glaciers are very real, rise in CO2 and other GHG's are very real, increased use of fossil fuels is very real, population growth is very real.

As of yet, there is no better explanation for these concurrent events than that humans are indeed playing a fundamental part in causing these events.

You either accept these facts or you don't, regardless of however many emails/codes you can point to and say "but hey look at these".

These emails have no bearing whatsoever with respect to the scientific method.

It's truly entertaining watching you (and Mumbo) flail your arms around, side step, misdirect and generally trying to be apologists for this mess.
post #323 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

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.

Drive by?

If? Where's your proof?

Poorly witten papers (those lacking significant scientific basis) seldom make it through the peer review process in the "hard" sciences.

The Denialers are well funded, yet they refuse to do their own independent scientific research and present such research to the peer review process.

If the underlying scientific methodologies are sound, their works would appear in the well respected peer reviewed climate science literature.

Since very few of the Denialers "scientific" papers are even submitted to peer review, and very few Denialers papers have ever made it through the peer review prosess, strongly suggests that their methodologies are not sound and can not be reconciled with the scientific method.

What's up with that?
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 #324 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

It's truly entertaining watching you (and Mumbo) flail your arms around, side step, misdirect and generally trying to be apologists for this mess.

I'd suggest that your POV is a bit skewed to begin with.

You argue about emails/codes, while I have argued for the published well respected peer reviewed climate science literature.

My arguments are based on the scientific facts, while all your arguments are based on "but hey look at all these stolen personal emails/codes" none of which, by the way, have ever been presented to the well respected peer reviewed climate science literature process.

What's up with that?
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 #325 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

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.

So, in summary, you'll always advocate the Birther method, while I'll always advocate the scientific method.

This reply was way too easy.
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 #326 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

I'd suggest that your POV is a bit skewed to begin with.

You argue about emails/codes, while I have argued for the published well respected peer reviewed climate science literature.

My arguments are based on the scientific facts, while all your arguments are based on "but hey look at all these stolen personal emails/codes" none of which, by the way, have ever been presented to the well respected peer reviewed climate science literature process.

What's up with that?

Flail flail flail. Side step. Misdirect. Throw up smoke screens. Blah blah blah.
post #327 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

So, in summary, you'll always advocate the Birther method, while I'll always advocate the scientific method.

This reply was way too easy.

Not sure what your reply has to do with my post but... \ Enjoy.
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 #328 of 3039
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

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

Indeed.

I'd say you're a waste of my time if you weren't so darn entertaining.

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 #329 of 3039
Thread Starter 

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

Follow the money:

Phil Jones has collected a staggering $22.6 million in grants

Cue: blanket dismissal of this because frank doesn't like the source.

\

Assume no actual engagement of the claims.
post #331 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

Cue: blanket dismissal of this because frank doesn't like the source.

\

Assume no actual engagement of the claims.

Perhaps he would like to pick through the news links that abound out there on this?

http://news.google.com/news?q=Phil%2...N&hl=en&tab=wn
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 #332 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

Cue: blanket dismissal of this because frank doesn't like the source.

\

Assume no actual engagement of the claims.

Of corse not, it wasn't published in one of his favorite magazines..
post #333 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Follow the money:

Phil Jones has collected a staggering $22.6 million in grants

How utterly, utterly, utterly corrupt and evil can this unfolding, king of all scandals get? Staggering, so staggeringly staggering!! The BASTARDS deserve the electric chair, all of them for making my life and everybody's lives on this planet intolerable for even suggesting that GW even exists. KILL THEM ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLNNNNNNNN NNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"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 #334 of 3039
CSMonitor has a page where they are aggregating much of what is going on in the news on this...

http://features.csmonitor.com/enviro...%93-whats-new/
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 #335 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

How utterly, utterly, utterly corrupt and evil can this unfolding, king of all scandals get? Staggering, so staggeringly staggering!! The BASTARDS deserve the electric chair, all of them for making my life and everybody's lives on this planet intolerable for even suggesting that GW even exists. KILL THEM ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLNNNNNNNN NNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Don't you mean "the electric car"?
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 #336 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Coming from PO's bastion of logic and intellect , I'll take that as a compliment.

Yes, as expected. An ad-hominem argument/attack.

Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

I'd suggest that your POV is a bit skewed to begin with.

You argue about emails/codes, while I have argued for the published well respected peer reviewed climate science literature.

My arguments are based on the scientific facts, while all your arguments are based on "but hey look at all these stolen personal emails/codes" none of which, by the way, have ever been presented to the well respected peer reviewed climate science literature process.

What's up with that?

Way to obfuscate, frank. In the context of this thread's original topic, the point is that the peer-review process was highly flawed...even corrupt. The e-mails that are referenced demonstrate this clearly and unequivocally. Do you need examples and specific quotes? Or, are you questioning the veracity of the e-mails themselves?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #337 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

Don't you mean "the electric car"?

HA HA I'd rather the electric chair than a friggin poxy little piece of plastic JAP CRAP electric car any day too. HA HA
"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 #338 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

CSMonitor has a page where they are aggregating much of what is going on in the news on this...

http://features.csmonitor.com/enviro...%93-whats-new/

Canada's Small Dead Animals blog is doing a great job as well.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #339 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

How utterly, utterly, utterly corrupt and evil can this unfolding, king of all scandals get? Staggering, so staggeringly staggering!! The BASTARDS deserve the electric chair, all of them for making my life and everybody's lives on this planet intolerable for even suggesting that GW even exists. KILL THEM ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLNNNNNNNN NNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hands you can mock if you like. But here's the thing, we've been told repeatedly that a) these folks aren't in it for the money (presumably like those greedy folks of industry) but simply for the pursuit of pure scientific discovery, and b) the "denialers" are all motived by money, greed and self interest.

We're starting to see that money is rather a large factor indeed and that, perhaps, what with these scientists being human and all that, maybe they are operating out of their own self interest too. And maybe, just maybe, their self interest might cause them to do questionable things to further their self interest.
post #340 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

Hands you can mock if you like. But here's the thing, we've been told repeatedly that a) these folks aren't in it for the money (presumably like those greedy folks of industry) but simply for the pursuit of pure scientific discovery, and b) the "denialers" are all motived by money, greed and self interest.

We're starting to see that money is rather a large factor indeed and that, perhaps, what with these scientists being human and all that, maybe they are operating out of their own self interest too. And maybe, just maybe, their self interest might cause them to do questionable things to further their self interest.

And I hope as many of the repubs and libertarians think the scientists are involved in a scam as possible. The effect will be that the Dems will benefit from votes as the less cranky repubs join them in seriously tackling CC.
"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 #341 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

And I hope as many of the repubs and libertarians think the scientists are involved in a scam as possible. The effect will be that the Dems will benefit from votes as the less cranky repubs join them in seriously tackling CC.

So you are not seriously concerned about the truth here because you have arrived at what you think is the correct conclusion and simply assume that anyone that hasn't arrived at the same conclusion is an idiot and you simply hope this will lead to political gains.

\
post #342 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

So you are not seriously concerned about the truth here because you have arrived at what you think is the correct conclusion and simply assume that anyone that hasn't arrived at the same conclusion is an idiot and you simply hope this will lead to political gains.

\

I'm only human

The truth doesn't feed this conspiracy theory, it never has and it never will. There's mountains of evidence for that and mountains of evidence supporting AGW.
"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 #343 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

I'm only human

The truth doesn't feed this conspiracy theory, it never has and it never will. There's mountains of evidence for that and mountains of evidence supporting AGW.

So, let me get this straight:
  • Pro-AGW scientists are not motivated by self-interest and are immune to corruption.
  • Anti-AGW people, from all walks of life, are motivated by self-interest. They are also ignorant.
  • We can ignore all evidence that calls AGW into question.
  • We can ignore that the Earth is actually not warming.
  • We can ignore thousands of e-mails showing that scientists are, in fact, suceptible to self-interest and corruption.
  • We can pretend that the IPCC is not a political organization.

Hands, here is the truth:
  • Thousands of scientists dispute the theory of AGW.
  • The Earth is cooling, and has been much warmer even within the past 500 years than it is now.
  • There is no evidence showing that CO2 levels are tied to global temperature.
  • Some of the warmest periods in Earth history took place long before industrial revolution.
  • Man contributes about 3% of the world's greenhouse gases.
  • Even a 50% reduction in emissions would not mitigate "global warming," if it existed.

Now, here is an opinion: The biggest question about the issue is "why would there be a global warming conspiracy to begin with?" The answer is clear: It's a grand scheme to redistribute wealth on an international/global level. It is the ultimate socialist experiment, one primarily targeted at the United States. The UN has never been known to be pro-America, and this is no exception. These are the same people that let Libya run the Human Rights Council. They're not exactly in our corner. What better way to punish America for excesses than to limit the scope of its economy. Meanwhile, new green taxes will flow to those nations seeking "economic and social justice." Of course, there are true believers, who also happen to be giant hypocrites (see: Al Gore). If these Green Crusaders really thought we were destroying the planet and that their predictions of catastrophe would come true, why would they fly around in 30 year old, inefficient private jets? Is it that they don't believe it, or that they don't care? Perhaps they just think they are special.

Finally, I do find it amusing reading through the thread, watching all the Doomsdayers defend, dismiss and ignore the clear evidence of fraud recently discovered.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #344 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

I'm only human

The truth doesn't feed this conspiracy theory, it never has and it never will. There's mountains of evidence for that and mountains of evidence supporting AGW.

The truth does not seem to matter from reading your posts. Just any argument that forces people to jump on the CC bandwagon. \
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 #345 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

The truth does not seem to matter from reading your posts. Just any argument that forces people to jump on the CC bandwagon. \

The 'cc bandwagon'.

Bandwagon.

Water is made from hydrogen and oxygen. I'm on the molecular bandwagon.

The Nazis killed 6,000,000 Jewish people and millions of gypsies and gay people. I'm on the Holocaust bandwagon.

North American Indians and Greenlanders share specific genetic markers. I'm on the human populations bandwagon.

Saudi and Egyptian religious fundamentalists flew planes into a New York landmark. I'm on the 9/11 bandwagon.

Human beings have walked on the moon. I'm on the space exploration bandwagon.

Princess Diana died because her chauffeur was drunk and I'm on the accident bandwagon.

Colossal, unprecedented quantities of C02 produced by human industry are altering our climate.
And those of us who want to stop it can fuck off.
post #346 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

IThere's mountains of evidence for that and mountains of evidence supporting AGW.

This is true.

There is a mountain of evidence.

There is a mountain of evidence from dozens of different sources.

There is a mountain of evidence from dozens of different scientific disciplines.

There are predictive models that match the mountain of evidence.

There are a bunch of extremely right wing American people with broadband access.

Human beings landed on the moon, the holocaust happened, religious, politically militant dickholes hijacked planes in 2001, human beings are altering the climate and tough fucking shit.
post #347 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

The 'cc bandwagon'.

Bandwagon.

Water is made from hydrogen and oxygen. I'm on the molecular bandwagon.

The Nazis killed 6,000,000 Jewish people and millions of gypsies and gay people. I'm on the Holocaust bandwagon.

North American Indians and Greenlanders share specific genetic markers. I'm on the human populations bandwagon.

Saudi and Egyptian religious fundamentalists flew planes into a New York landmark. I'm on the 9/11 bandwagon.

Human beings have walked on the moon. I'm on the space exploration bandwagon.

Princess Diana died because her chauffeur was drunk and I'm on the accident bandwagon.

Colossal, unprecedented quantities of C02 produced by human industry are altering our climate.
And those of us who want to stop it can fuck off.

It's all or nothing with you isn't it? You are also apparently on the strawman bandwagon...
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 #348 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

So, let me get this straight:

Hands, here is the truth:
  • Thousands of scientists dispute the theory of AGW.
  • The Earth is cooling, and has been much warmer even within the past 500 years than it is now.
  • There is no evidence showing that CO2 levels are tied to global temperature.
  • Some of the warmest periods in Earth history took place long before industrial revolution.
  • Man contributes about 3% of the world's greenhouse gases.
  • Even a 50% reduction in emissions would not mitigate "global warming," if it existed.

[Citation Required]
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 #349 of 3039
Guess what, ladies and gents, we don't argue about the distance between the Earth and the Sun, or acceleration due to gravity at sea level.

There's a reason for that.

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 #350 of 3039
And Lo, and Behold -- Heretic Lindzen has a piece in today's WSJ:

Quote:
Our perceptions of nature are similarly dragged back centuries so that the normal occasional occurrences of open water in summer over the North Pole, droughts, floods, hurricanes, sea-level variations, etc. are all taken as omens, portending doom due to our sinful ways (as epitomized by our carbon footprint). All of these phenomena depend on the confluence of multiple factors as well.

Consider the following example. Suppose that I leave a box on the floor, and my wife trips on it, falling against my son, who is carrying a carton of eggs, which then fall and break. Our present approach to emissions would be analogous to deciding that the best way to prevent the breakage of eggs would be to outlaw leaving boxes on the floor. The chief difference is that in the case of atmospheric CO2 and climate catastrophe, the chain of inference is longer and less plausible than in my example.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...917025400.html

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

It's all or nothing with you isn't it? You are also apparently on the strawman bandwagon...

'Strawman' has become another way of saying "I would rather not address the substance of your post." It is deeply irritating.

My comparisons are absolutely valid.

There is no "controversy" over the fact of the Holocaust. It is only called a "controversy" on extremely right wing sites where people have blinded themselves to the appalling evidence that it is true.

There is no "controversy" and no "debate" over the identities of the people who hijacked passenger jets and flew them over New York. It is only called that on extremely stupid websites where people have blinded themselves to the mountain of evidence that it is true.

There is no "controversy" over the fact that human beings (some not all) have walked on the moon. There is no "controversy" that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, or that The Titanic hit an iceberg (and at the time, oh, there was plenty.)

There are only people who chosen to blind themselves. Some of them are posting here.
post #352 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

:
Finally, I do find it amusing reading through the thread, watching all the Doomsdayers defend, dismiss and ignore the clear evidence of fraud recently discovered.

I will give you 500 by PayPal if you can show me where, in those emails, there is any evidence that the data has been fraudulently manipulated to give a false picture that anthropogenic climate change is real.

Come on.
post #353 of 3039
I think these guys at CRU can now stop calling themselves scientists. THEY THREW OUT THE RAW DATA FOR 150 YEARS OF TEMPERATURE READINGS! Some of the most important data they can collect and they threw it away?


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 UEAs 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.


...

Easily the most important data they could collect in their careers and they tossed it. If they tossed in the trash that tells me they thought the data was garbage.
post #354 of 3039
Lies and slander and logical fallacies. Throwing out the originals back in the 1980s doesn't mean there's a sign that they thought the data was garbage. And check out the university's response to the claims from earlier in the month.

http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/...news/CRUupdate

 

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

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #355 of 3039
Oh of course it does. I work with researchers. They think all their old data is gold. Even when they don't remember how it was collected and the details of the measurements. Seems like the university has conflicting statements.

Major blunder.

Quote:
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.
post #356 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

My comparisons are absolutely valid.

Of course they're not.
post #357 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

Of course they're not.

They absolutely are.

Anthropogenic climate change is every bit as much of a fact as the Holocaust, the moon landings, the sinking of The Titanic and the identities of the 9/11 highjackers.

The 'controversy' exists amongst people who have made themselves blind. If you deny that climate change is occurring and we're responsible, you're one of them too.
post #358 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

They absolutely are.

Anthropogenic climate change is every bit as much of a fact as the Holocaust, the moon landings, the sinking of The Titanic and the identities of the 9/11 highjackers.

The 'controversy' exists amongst people who have made themselves blind. If you deny that climate change is occurring and we're responsible, you're one of them too.

Agree. The amount of evidence is so overwhelming that you would have to be an idiot or in willful denial or have ulterior motives to deny it.

What should be under debate now is not whether man-made global warming exists, but to what extent is does, how far we should go to rein in the effects, and at what cost can we afford to do so, as well as what the minimum we can do is to avoid a near-future calamity (near-future being the next 500 years).
post #359 of 3039
The complicated history of simple scientific facts

Every now and then, the public gets a glimpse at what goes into the making of scientific consensus on an important question. No, we're not talking about the infamous climate change emailswe're talking about how science really comes to its conclusions, a process that involves a few hundred years of work.

By Chris Lee | Last updated November 30, 2009 11:30 PM

Sometimes, even as a person pisses you off, they make a point that you can't ignore. In a recent forum discussion that I was involved in, scientists were accused of making pronouncements from on high. The argument was that scientists jump to a conclusion that seems desirable to them, and then treat it as an infallible truth.

Of course, my initial reaction was to pronounce that I, as a practicing scientist, never make pronouncements. But, looking at my articles from the perspective of someone who really knows absolutely nothing about scienceas a practice or as a body of knowledgeI can see how one could see little beyond a list of assertions. The truth is more complicated, of course, but it's a truth that science writers find challenging to convey. Science is impossibly broad, and the leading edge sits, precariously balanced, on a huge, solid, and above all, old body of knowledge. To illustrate this problem, I am going to tell you the story about how the speed of light came to be the ultimate speed limit for the entire universe.

What I want you to remember from this story is that any new fact or change in our understanding sits upon generations of accumulated knowledge. Most of that knowledge is now trusted as "mostly correct," though some of it still lies in the "probably not too badly wrong" category. Sitting beneath that is a body of work stretching back some 6,000 years, some of which is still highly relevant.

My overall point is that, even if I were to extend each of my peer-reviewed articles by some 3,000 wordsI already get complaints about the length of some of my articlesI still would not have covered the science of an entire subject. By choosing a starting point for the knowledge described in an article, I really am pronouncing from on high that everything beyond that point is established, trusted knowledge, while everything after that point will be explained to some extent.

So, how do we measure stuff anyway?

My arbitrary beginning for this storyand make no mistake, it is a story that leaves out any number of complicationsis Galileo. Apart from being a telescope builder extraordinaire, Galileo also had an important insight into the process of measurement. He saw that if he was on a moving boat and fired a cannon forward, he could measure the speed of the cannon ball and come up with a number. But, the poor guy on the receiving end of the cannon ballgiving up his life in the name of sciencewould, when making the same measurement, come up with a different answer.

Needless to say, a violent disagreement might ensue (provided the target survived the cannonball) over whose measurement was correct. Galileo saw that the difference between the two measurements was the speed of the boat. That is, the person receiving the cannon ball sees that it is moving a bit faster than Galileo because the target sees that the cannon that fired the ball was also moving. Once this extra speed is taken into account, agreement could be reached between different measurements, and Galileo could return to upsetting other people.

The key point that Galileo made clear was that measurements are always relative to some benchmark. We measure the speed of a car relative to the ground, and we measure the speed of stars relative to each other (including the Sun). This principle underlies a lot of modern physics, and it's so fundamental that we don't even give it a name when we teach it anymore.

But it turns out that this principle is, in fact, wrong sometimes. Showing how we know it's wrong and why we found out that it is wrong is what this story is really all about.

Another arbitrary beginning: the story of light

Galileo was not the only person into optics and telescopes. Newton and Huygens both made huge contributions to our understanding of lightNewton demonstrated that white light contained all the colors of the rainbow, while Huygens created a model that explained the structure of the patterns light created after it had passed by a sharp edge.

But these two giants of science disagreed about what light actually was. Newton thought that light was a particle, while Huygens thought that light was a wave. Critically, all observed phenomena could be explained by both models, so both had their adherents and critics. Note, though, that this dispute happened a bit before 1700, but this issue remained unresolved until the middle of the 19th century.

That is not to say that no one cared or did anything about it. On the contrary, evidence for the wave theory of light accumulated and the particle theory of light had to be modified to accommodate the new findings; as it became more complicated, the number of people who supported it shrunk.

The straw that broke the camel's back when it came to support for light as a particle was Young's experiment that demonstrated that light, like water waves and sound waves, could be made to interfereone of the reasons this took so long is that Young needed a relatively modern light source to make his observations. In the meantime, an important question remained unanswered: if light was a wave, what was doing the waving?

Yet another arbitrary beginning: the story of electricity

Off in a disregarded corner, people with names like Faraday and Gauss had begun to get interested in why, after you had rubbed a cat with a bit of amber, bits of paper would stick to both the cat and the amber, but not to each other. Equally interesting was why compass needles pointed north. Although these phenomena had been known for a long long time, no one had really investigated themor if they had, their findings had been lost. In any case, scientists got interested in static electricity and magnetism.
They discovered that some materials conducted electricity, that magnets could cause an electric current to flow, and that currents could be used to create magnets. The two were linked, but no one really knew how. Empirical laws were derived that allowed electricity and magnetism to be exploiteddynamos, electric motors, and alternators were all in the process of revolutionizing life, though their effects would take a while to percolate through society. But, despite the applications, the underlying principles remained obscurewe had laws, but no theory.

There were two problems with the laws developed for electricity and magnetism: first, they didn't shed any light on what electricity or magnetism were or why they were linkedthe concept of charge had been introduced, but no one knew what a charge might be. Second, they weren't predictive: that is, whenever anyone found a new magnetic or electrical phenomena, a new law was required.

That's where things stood until the late 19th century, when Maxwell decided to use some new-fangled math to describe electricity and magnetism. He found a common set of equations that described both phenomena and how they were linked to each other.

Maxwell's work didn't win instant acceptance. In the first place, it didn't do anything about the first problemMaxwell's equations offer no insight into the origin of electricity or magnetism, beyond the charge concept, anyway. Meanwhile, there were other theories floating around that were purely mechanisticthey solved the first problem, but failed to be predictive (or at least, accurately predictive). In addition, Maxwell's work introduced a series of new problems.

The strands come together and cause headaches

One of the first things that Maxwell noticed was that if he combined his equations in a particular way, he got what is called a wave equationthat is, a particular form of mathematics that describe the movement of a wave. Essentially, he found that a collapsing magnetic field will create an electric field. Once the magnetic field had completely collapsed, the electric field could no longer grow and would begin to collapse. But the collapsing electric field would then generate a new magnetic field and the whole shebang would move.

These things looked pretty much like certain types of sound waves in a solid, but no one had seen them. Maxwell's genius was to see that this might be what light was. A few calculations showed that the speed of oscillation meant that we could never directly detect themand, for the record, we still can't.

A second problem was a little more subtle. A moving charge was known to create a magnetic field, while a static charge only had an electric field. But, as Galileo had worked out, movement had to be measured relative to something. That meant that while one observer might see a moving chargeand a corresponding magnetic fielda second observer might see only a static charge and no magnetic field.

There was no known way to get the two observers to agree. Although this problem was present before Maxwell had done his work, his work linked electricity and magnetism in such a way that scientists could no longer avoid dealing with it.

Confusion reigns

These problems confused and upset a number of scientists. Maxwell had used new math, developed by Hamilton, that most scientists weren't familiar with. This made it hard for them to trust the results, and many felt that although it was a cute mathematical description, it couldn't be right. Others felt that it might be right, but it certainly couldn't be complete. A final group took a look at the implications and began to think about how they might change our view of the world.

The waves themselves created their own issues. The wave equation gave a speed for light. But, as we discussed earlier, speed is always relative to something, and, on that front, the wave equation was silent. This led to a lot wild speculation about what the speed of light might be relative to.

In the end, there were only a few choices. The speed of light could be relative to the medium through which it traveled, relative to the emitter, relative to the receiver, or relative to some absolute reference frame.

Each of these was tested. It turned out that, yes, the speed of light does change, depending on the medium, but not on the speed with which the medium was movingor at least, not in the way that Galileo would have expected. The speed of light was found to be independent of the speed of the emitter or the receiver, and attempts to find the absolute reference frame failed. The speed of light appeared to be constant, no matter what.

Physics with consequences

Enter Einstein at the beginning of the 20th century. It should be pointed out that Einstein was well aware of the problems posed by Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism, but he was blissfully unaware of much of the experimental work being done. Instead, he played "let's pretend"say the speed of light is constant for all observers, what are the consequences? In particular, he wanted to know how Galileo's rules for getting observers to agree changed.

He found that getting observers to explain why they disagreed with each otherand, therefore, perform mathematical operations that would obtain agreementrequired giving up any notion of an absolute reference frame. As if that weren't confusing enough, a constant speed of light implied that time and space were somewhat interchangeable, and that energy and mass were two sides of the same coin.

Interestingly, as an object sped up, it observed time to pass more slowly. More importantly, if you extrapolated backwards, all objects had a rest mass, which was the minimum amount of mass it could have. Finally, and most important for this story, an object with a non-zero rest mass required an infinite amount of energy to get to a speed greater than that of light.

Accepting the unpalatable

We may be good with it now, but no one really liked the idea that nothing could go faster than the speed of light. What sold Einstein's theory of relativity was that it explained how to obtain agreement between two observers looking at charges. That is, Einstein's theory, combined with Maxwell's theory, allowed one observer to see a magnetic field, one to see an electric field, and both to have a process by which they could reach agreement.

By itself, this might not have been enough to win over the scientific community, but, in the meantime, Hertz had both generated and detected waves predicted by Maxwell. Combined with the pure utility of Maxwell's formulation, scientists accepted the new theories relatively quicklyand the new math associated with it.

Accepting Maxwell's theory meant that Galileo's version of relativity had to be modified. Why did scientists choose Einstein's approach to doing so? For two reasons: first, there was now a large body of evidence that suggested that the speed of light was a constantno matter how you felt about Einstein's theory, Galileo's was certainly wrong. Second, it strengthened Maxwell's theory. Later on, a lot of experimental evidence placed it on the firmest of ground possible. We now treat it as a fact, and write science articles assuming that it is one.

A full history, or pronouncements from on high?

As you can see, an explanation for why scientists accept a particular statement can involve a story that spans several hundred years and is almost never simple. You'll notice that the statement "nothing can go faster than the speed of light" fits this description exactly. The establishment of this statement as accepted fact involved at least three disparate fields of physics and relied upon several technical innovations, without which there would have been no experimental evidence to push our understanding forward.

Changes in theories are never overnight revolutions, nor do theories remain unaltered for long. Instead, acceptance of a theory is a matter of consensus, achieved over many years of work. No matter how ugly a theory, no matter how unpalatable its consequences, experimental and observational evidence is the final arbiter. This, in the end, is why we do experiments.

Terry Pratchet, in his Science of the Discworld series, used the phrase "lies for children" to describe how we use simplifications to gently approach underlying scientific principles. In the case of "nothing can go faster than light," you are looking at another lie for children. There is an entire cottage industry of physicists who write papers that are devoted to using ideas developed by Einstein to circumvent Einstein's own conclusions. So, the latest conclusion from on high is something along the lines of "nothing in normal space can go faster than light, but if you can do funny things to space, you can go faster than light." A story 350 years in the making summed up in twenty-odd words.
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 #360 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

Flail flail flail. Side step. Misdirect. Throw up smoke screens. Blah blah blah.

So you don't want to talk to the actual science behind climate change, do you?

You'd rather stick your head in the sand, stick your fingers in your ears, completely ignore the vast body of actual scientific evidence that supports HIGW.

Is that a correct reading of your entire opinion on the matter of the actual climate 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
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Climategate