Climategate Lies - Page 11 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-06-2010, 11:18 PM   #151
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 01:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
That's a non-answer.

I suspect that you would continue with coal plants as long as they generate cheaper electricity.
No it's not. If the budget doesn't allow for something bankruptcy is not an option. I have no problem with coal if it's cheaper and gradually including nuclear (some plants exist already) and pursuing clean coal as well. There are also large amounts of natural gas in the U.S. that can be tapped. We can do what we can where it's feasible but I wouldn't pursue nuclear 100% and ignore fossil fuels. Nuclear is still not cheap enough to go it alone. If we gradually increase nuclear power plants in the next 30 years hopefully nuclear fusion will be good enough to move beyond prototype stage so it can develop more energy than fission. Of course if octane can be created in large quantities from CO2 per Craig Venter then that would be another option. Though that is a big if at this stage.
__________________

__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2010, 11:28 PM   #152
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 06:27 PM
I think the topic of this thread which investigated "climategate" and showed it to be a beat-up makes peer review even more important these days. The media (particularly the Murdoch press) ran with a story of partial leaks that obscured the reality and the truth only came out after a proper investigation.

You do not think like a scientist ought to. You are unable to change your mind on the important issues and take claims which support your political position as automatically true. You only pick out scientists who support your position but don't acknowledge the interlocking of other forms of evidence (for instance the divergence of tree rings over the last few decades is a worrying anomaly precisely because they fit other proxies so well before that - it's not a cause for celebration that climate change is somehow discredited).

I don't know if catastrophic climate change is imminent (I suspect regular resource depletion and environmental degradation will do more damage over the next few decades) but I think there are enough warning signs that need to be acknowledged (temperature trends, changing breeding seasons, changing animal body sizes, diseases like malaria spreading into new areas). There are enough serious unknowns (such as permafrost and methane clathrates) which should make sensible people more cautious.

You just repost hackwork from sites created by the oil industry and interviews from contrarian scientists. You don't care that knowledge claims should be scrutinised by experts during peer review (the fact they are in competition keeps them more honest, not less).

You wave your animosity towards the scientific method in very populist terms and continue to muddy the waters throwing out a million new graphs and critiques which you expect others to waste their time rebutting.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2010, 06:59 AM   #153
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 02:27 AM
Excellent post
__________________
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2010, 10:41 AM   #154
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 01:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
I think the topic of this thread which investigated "climategate" and showed it to be a beat-up makes peer review even more important these days. The media (particularly the Murdoch press) ran with a story of partial leaks that obscured the reality and the truth only came out after a proper investigation.
People aren't stupid They can read those emails and understand bullying since it's in most office environments already. A whitewash internal investigation can't hide what is in plain day. Computer experts have already looked at the computer models and can see manipulation of the data to create alarmist results. You don't like Exxon giving money to scientists but it's okay to have biased investigations and manipulated data to achieve your political ends. It's also par for the course to you that government funding is always neutral.

At least some people are actually trying to improve their understanding of CO2.

Max Planck Society - Press Release

Quote:
Climate researchers must now examine how the new findings affect the predictions for the carbon dioxide balance and climate change. "It is still not possible to predict whether this attenuates the positive feedback between carbon dioxide concentration and temperature," says Markus Reichstein. "The study shows very clearly that we do not yet have a good understanding of the global biogeochemichal cycles and their importance for long-term developments."
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
You do not think like a scientist ought to. You are unable to change your mind on the important issues and take claims which support your political position as automatically true. You only pick out scientists who support your position but don't acknowledge the interlocking of other forms of evidence (for instance the divergence of tree rings over the last few decades is a worrying anomaly precisely because they fit other proxies so well before that - it's not a cause for celebration that climate change is somehow discredited).
I'm not the one making claims about CO2. You are. CO2 hasn't been proven to be the main climate driver. This is why most scientists are moving on and trying to improve their understanding of the natural environment so they can make better understanding of what is man made and what is natural.

Michael Mann says hockey stick should not have become 'climate change icon' - Telegraph

Quote:
However, speaking to the BBC recently, Prof Mann, a climatologist at Pennsylvania State University, said he had always made clear there were "uncertainties" in his work.

"I always thought it was somewhat misplaced to make it a central icon of the climate change debate,"
I wish Mann was LOUDER when the hockey stick graph was pushed in my anthropology class as a smoking gun evidence and then a cap and trade video presented afterwards. My teacher was a fucking PhD and she did this. Yet she also admitted she liked Karl Marx so there you go.

Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
I don't know if catastrophic climate change is imminent (I suspect regular resource depletion and environmental degradation will do more damage over the next few decades) but I think there are enough warning signs that need to be acknowledged (temperature trends, changing breeding seasons, changing animal body sizes, diseases like malaria spreading into new areas). There are enough serious unknowns (such as permafrost and methane clathrates) which should make sensible people more cautious.
Oh here's another fall back position, biodiversity. Observing animal changes (as if it didn't happen in the past) and blaming CO2 from warming gets nipped in the bud when CO2 can't be shown as the main climate driver. You guys keep moving and moving and pushing end of the world dates back you remind me of radical Christians moving forward dates of when Jesus Christ will return. Why make predictions (as if you know) and then make more of them when they turn false. Your own video admits you don't know but just are "concerned". How much of temperature changes = man made? You don't know. Since animals always change when climate changes how would it make sense to blow trillions on something that might be a natural problem? We already have natural earthquakes, hurricanes, volcanos. Where are we going to get the money to pay for "I'm concerned scenarios" when people want health-care, education, defense, disaster relief, international aid?

Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
You just repost hackwork from sites created by the oil industry and interviews from contrarian scientists. You don't care that knowledge claims should be scrutinised by experts during peer review (the fact they are in competition keeps them more honest, not less).
It means that the science skeptics produce do not get peer-reviewed by the AGW proponents so we have a dualistic result that doesn't convince people. You unfortunately have to prove to the naysayers that you're right (since you're making the claims) but you don't have the evidence because real world results don't confirm the studies. You also need to peer-review skeptic studies so the skeptics can in turn see if the review was fair. This would create a real debate instead of a stand off. Right now it's a battle of appeal to authority. Since the public has to make descisions about their money (because it's a democracy) your buddies will have to get much more strong evidence before your favorite special interest group gets the money. I actually don't see the "competition". That's like saying a trade barrier is economic competition.

Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
You wave your animosity towards the scientific method in very populist terms and continue to muddy the waters throwing out a million new graphs and critiques which you expect others to waste their time rebutting.
I actually don't believe the scientific method is being used otherwise we would get more caveats instead of alarmist predictions. And if you don't agree with the alarmists you should be stopping them from taking your favorite studies and distorting them as Michael Mann pretends to do now. Instead you go hand in hand with them and when they change their target (ocean acidification, biodiversity) you move onto the next catastrophic scenario. The problem with using the same playbook is that skepticism will increase not decrease.

What people want from science is not "I'm concerned". What they want is "this will happen and the effects are happening as predicted." Until you have that certainty people aren't going to radically impoverish themselves on "I'm concerned".
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2010, 11:24 AM   #155
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 02:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
I actually don't believe the scientific method is being used otherwise we would get more caveats instead of alarmist predictions.
This sadly sums up your fingers in your ears approach to this whole issue, and why it's pointless to argue with you. You don't understand the scientific approach, you cling to the editorials(of both sides). Is the "science" you present using the scientific method?

I'm curious. Do you even believe in science? Is the scientific method only used when it renders the results you like? Or are you just throwing this junk out there just to take up our time?

Honestly, I don't think you even believe the science you post here.
__________________
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2010, 05:04 PM   #156
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 01:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
This sadly sums up your fingers in your ears approach to this whole issue, and why it's pointless to argue with you. You don't understand the scientific approach, you cling to the editorials(of both sides). Is the "science" you present using the scientific method?

I'm curious. Do you even believe in science? Is the scientific method only used when it renders the results you like? Or are you just throwing this junk out there just to take up our time?

Honestly, I don't think you even believe the science you post here.
Yeah the skeptics don't practice science.

http://climateaudit.org/2010/07/07/l...l-of-holyrood/

We are not amused.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2010, 06:53 PM   #157
Refugee
 
Bluer White's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Maine
Posts: 1,885
Local Time: 03:27 AM
More politics and science intertwined:

Quote:
NASA Administrator Charles Bolden said in a recent interview that his "foremost" mission as the head of America's space exploration agency is to improve relations with the Muslim world.

Though international diplomacy would seem well outside NASA's orbit, Bolden said in an interview with Al Jazeera that strengthening those ties was among the top tasks President Obama assigned him. He said better interaction with the Muslim world would ultimately advance space travel.

"When I became the NASA administrator -- or before I became the NASA administrator -- he charged me with three things. One was he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math, he wanted me to expand our international relationships, and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science ... and math and engineering," Bolden said in the interview.
FOXNews.com - NASA Chief: Next Frontier Better Relations With Muslim World
__________________
Bluer White is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2010, 07:01 PM   #158
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 02:27 AM
What else is he suppose to do in an interview with Al Jazeera?
__________________
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2010, 08:15 PM   #159
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 06:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
People aren't stupid They can read those emails and understand bullying since it's in most office environments already. A whitewash internal investigation can't hide what is in plain day. Computer experts have already looked at the computer models and can see manipulation of the data to create alarmist results. You don't like Exxon giving money to scientists but it's okay to have biased investigations and manipulated data to achieve your political ends. It's also par for the course to you that government funding is always neutral.
You're making a pretty big accusation against those universities (that they are engaged in a whitewash) and then backup your claims with an appeal to "computer experts". That isn't a strong argument especially given the triumphalist noise that the right produced over the e-mails in the first place without realising they were being played like a fiddle by other parties (or perhaps you enjoy being manipulated when it's for more corporate interests). There is no evidence that the data has been manipulated to create a climate scare and it's dishonest of you to continue to parrot that line given the results of these investigations.
Quote:
At least some people are actually trying to improve their understanding of CO2.

Max Planck Society - Press Release
How very condescending of you: what exactly do you think other climatologists have been doing with their time?
Quote:
I'm not the one making claims about CO2. You are.
You're claiming that CO2 either doesn't effect the climate, is not the main driving force for climate (probably true but that doesn't mean it's insignificant), was greater in the past ergo it's fine in the future, helps trees grow better and will be good for the environment, doesn't have any impact on ocean acidity etc.

I'm claiming that the Greenhouse effect is an established scientific fact which is open to revision on the basis of new evidence. That human emissions have an impact on global climate, and we ought to take a precautionary approach rather than aim to use every last bit of hydrocarbon in the earths crust.

I think I'm being more reasonable.
Quote:
CO2 hasn't been proven to be the main climate driver.
In the sense that getting energy from the sun is more important than CO2 to the climate? The rise in CO2 tracks with climate fluctuations over the last few thousand years in ways that Milankovich cycles and solar activity cannot account for by themselves.

Quote:
This is why most scientists are moving on and trying to improve their understanding of the natural environment so they can make better understanding of what is man made and what is natural.
This doesn't follow from your last point. If CO2 hasn't been proven to be the main climate driver (and proof is a very conditional statement in science) that doesn't mean that CO2 is not the main climate driver. Science is all about understanding the natural world and the process of investigation which you describe is exactly what scientists have been doing and it's exactly what's pointing towards climate change. But you consistently ignore any evidence that goes against the right-wing narrative you embrace.Given the campaign by the denialist movement that Mann has had to defend himself against for years maybe it's reasonable to wish his graph wasn't used. But not all of climate science rests on Mann's hockey stick graph. How would his presentation of data discredit other data sets and all the other papers written on climate change?
Quote:
I wish Mann was LOUDER when the hockey stick graph was pushed in my anthropology class as a smoking gun evidence and then a cap and trade video presented afterwards. My teacher was a fucking PhD and she did this. Yet she also admitted she liked Karl Marx so there you go.
You're so open minded. You've been complaining that you had a Marxist lecturer or tutor for the last four years without giving any substantive criticism of their teaching. It highlights your attitude towards opinions that you disagree with - complain that there's a conspiracy against your views and ignore their statements.
Quote:
Oh here's another fall back position, biodiversity. Observing animal changes (as if it didn't happen in the past) and blaming CO2 from warming gets nipped in the bud when CO2 can't be shown as the main climate driver.
Extinction is always going on but the rate of extinction changes over time. Sometimes the rate is so high that a large proportion of species go extinct quite rapidly (thousands to a few million years) and this is called a mass extinction. This isn't too hard to grasp but you seem to think the presence of background extinction is the same as extinction happening at an accelerated rate. You have no idea how science works if you think the greenhouse effect is fraudulent and the evidence against it is being suppressed; or you are being willfully dishonest by conflating uncertainty in science (which is ever presence by the very nature of scientific inquiry) with complete ignorance.
Quote:
You guys keep moving and moving and pushing end of the world dates back you remind me of radical Christians moving forward dates of when Jesus Christ will return. Why make predictions (as if you know) and then make more of them when they turn false. Your own video admits you don't know but just are "concerned". How much of temperature changes = man made? You don't know.
It seems to me that economics is more like a religion than climate science; you take a faith based position that the market solves all and follow from there. I started with your position but when I did relevant courses at a university level that involved looking at data sets and land use change it swayed me. I can honestly say that when I thought climate change was a hoax I was seeing the world through a right wing lens and I didn't think
about the issue objectively. Even though I'm not completely objective now (who can ever be?) I feel I'm being more open minded by being open to evidence.

The video of pentagon officials planning for realistic scenarios and having contingent plans for worst case scenarios shows how much of an alternative reality you are living in. There were climate sceptic generals who changed their mind when tasked with investigating the evidence in an honest way. When you "investigate" it's a case of starting with the conclusion (climate change is a marxist hoax to steal money from the first world) and shaping the evidence to satisfy it.
Quote:
Since animals always change when climate changes how would it make sense to blow trillions on something that might be a natural problem? We already have natural earthquakes, hurricanes, volcanos. Where are we going to get the money to pay for "I'm concerned scenarios" when people want health-care, education, defense, disaster relief, international aid?
Because some of the animals it effects are humans and it costs us money in the future to deal with the consequences.

During your stellar education did you learn about the precautionary principle and weighing costs of action versus inaction?
Quote:
It means that the science skeptics produce do not get peer-reviewed by the AGW proponents so we have a dualistic result that doesn't convince people.
Could it be that they just aren't doing the original research in the first place and the entire point of the media campaign by the denialist machine is to keep people unconvinced? You posted an article about citations which says nothing about credible scientists being blocked from publication.
Quote:
You unfortunately have to prove to the naysayers that you're right (since you're making the claims) but you don't have the evidence because real world results don't confirm the studies.
Obviously not the world you live in, but for the rest of us there are neat resources like Climate Change: Evidence which demonstrate the impact on the natural world.
Quote:
You also need to peer-review skeptic studies so the skeptics can in turn see if the review was fair.
Why should this privilege only extend to climate change? Can't we have evolution sceptics judge the fairness of biology articles, stork theory advocates judge human reproduction, or homeopaths judge medical journals?

The extraordinary claim is that climate sceptics are a beleaguered minority who are protecting the truth from a nefarious cult of globalists led by Al Gore who control all the other scientists by abusing peer-review systems and that real sceptics need special privileges to get their ideas out there.
Quote:
This would create a real debate instead of a stand off. Right now it's a battle of appeal to authority. Since the public has to make descisions about their money (because it's a democracy) your buddies will have to get much more strong evidence before your favorite special interest group gets the money. I actually don't see the "competition". That's like saying a trade barrier is economic competition.
A free-market solution to the marketplace of ideas. People should just buy what they like and let the market decide the truth. If people don't want climate change then we can vote and decide that it's not real simple as that.
Quote:
I actually don't believe the scientific method is being used otherwise we would get more caveats instead of alarmist predictions. And if you don't agree with the alarmists you should be stopping them from taking your favorite studies and distorting them as Michael Mann pretends to do now. Instead you go hand in hand with them and when they change their target (ocean acidification, biodiversity) you move onto the next catastrophic scenario. The problem with using the same playbook is that skepticism will increase not decrease.

What people want from science is not "I'm concerned". What they want is "this will happen and the effects are happening as predicted." Until you have that certainty people aren't going to radically impoverish themselves on "I'm concerned".
What people want from science? I think this sums up your attitude that science should be about telling people what they want to hear
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2010, 08:47 PM   #160
Refugee
 
Bluer White's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Maine
Posts: 1,885
Local Time: 03:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
That human emissions have an impact on global climate, and we ought to take a precautionary approach rather than aim to use every last bit of hydrocarbon in the earths crust.
It's reasonable that human emissions have an impact on the global climate. What are your policy proposals to address this?

What is the world investment, in billions or trillions denominated in USD?

How many degrees Fahrenheit should we expect to manipulate in 100 years time?
__________________
Bluer White is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2010, 09:05 PM   #161
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 06:27 PM
I don't know.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2010, 09:13 PM   #162
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 01:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
I don't know.
I was going to rebut all that CRAP but I think this is more economical.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2010, 09:21 PM   #163
Refugee
 
Bluer White's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Maine
Posts: 1,885
Local Time: 03:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
I was going to rebut all that CRAP but I think this is more economical.
It's not crap at all. But it's all theoretical.

Most of us aren't scientists. I'd like to see it in dollars and degrees, or something close.
__________________
Bluer White is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2010, 09:25 PM   #164
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 01:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluer White View Post
It's not crap at all. But it's all theoretical.

Most of us aren't scientists. I'd like to see it in dollars and degrees, or something close.
You can't have it both ways. When alarmists make false predictions, ostracize dissent and want to spend trillions people have a right to be mad as hell. Tribalism isn't peer review. After the way skeptics are treated I don't shed a tear for Phil Jones and Michael Mann.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2010, 09:31 PM   #165
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 02:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
You can't have it both ways.
Yet, this is exactly how you approach the subject.

You reject the science that changes your status quo.

And then you gather up any opposing science, even if it contradicts each other, throw against a wall and see if any of it sticks.

Then when you can't argue science you attack all scientists that have results that support climate change and call them socialist and say they are all in cahoots with some world wide conspiracy theory.
__________________

__________________
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

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

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:27 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com