Climategate Lies - Page 13 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-08-2010, 11:28 AM   #181
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 04:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
So your source is a Telegraph blog writer?

This is a clear exoneration of the scientists that goes against the allegations that they manipulated climate science data. But as usual you're ignoring the important facts of the matter and inflating a sideshow to distract from your fraudulent claims being exposed.

If there's an article of faith its your belief that global warming is a hoax - you're utterly unpersuadable to reasonable evidence.
What reasonable evidence? The science wasn't exonerated. The science wasn't even checked according to the review. I just posted a damning letter from Mann and Co. where they plainly show they don't want to respond to freedom of information requests and are trying to manipulate the review to go even farther to change it's conclusion. The fact that this doesn't bother you makes me glad I didn't join any university faculty because I would be forced to be corrupt in order to keep my position. BTW the blog writer makes sense. Just because he's a blog writer doesn't automatically mean he can't join the debate. We are talking about public funds. All public institutions have to go through this process because taxpayers want accountability for their social programs just like they want accounting accountability with corporations. Why should you guys be exempt? If you used to be a rightist then now you are a technocrat authoritarian.
__________________

__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2010, 11:38 AM   #182
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,685
Local Time: 05:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post


Read your own post. What does it have to do with skeptical scientists unless you believe all the skeptics aren't scientists?
You're missing my point.

You're yelling "CONSPIRACY" and claiming real scientist are being blocked from journals only if they have dissenting views and it's just not true.

YOU wouldn't consider an economic paper from a true blue communist to be a valid economic paper to be published in an economic journal.

Most wouldn't consider certain churches to be valid churches.

It's not a conspiracy, most dissenting science is just not good science and that's why it's not being taken serious by the scientific community.
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2010, 12:06 PM   #183
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 04:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
You're missing my point.

You're yelling "CONSPIRACY" and claiming real scientist are being blocked from journals only if they have dissenting views and it's just not true.

YOU wouldn't consider an economic paper from a true blue communist to be a valid economic paper to be published in an economic journal.

Most wouldn't consider certain churches to be valid churches.

It's not a conspiracy, most dissenting science is just not good science and that's why it's not being taken serious by the scientific community.
I wouldn't consider a communist economic paper true because of its content. I don't have to worry about communist economists because they lose in debates and have for so long. They are free to write magazines and post on the internet. Their problem is that they don't convince people because communism in practice is totalitarianism. They are also beholden to stakeholders in democracies because people can vote or not vote for them.

When it comes to churches are you going to say that certain Churches should be considered valid or non-valid? I would disagree with many churches for content reasons. They are still allowed to assemble as long as they are not committing crimes.

When it comes to the conspiracy I already posted what has happened to "peer-review" and skeptics aren't going away. For those guys who are making so called "good" science having fall back arguments of precautionary principle doesn't sound convincing at all. The recent IPCC missteps have shown that the skeptics should in fact increase in value and the failed predictions for the past 10 years would make AGW lose value.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2010, 12:16 PM   #184
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,685
Local Time: 05:29 PM
Meh, you missed my point again(purposely or not, doesn't matter anymore)...

__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2010, 08:50 PM   #185
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 09:29 AM
Here is the letter from the group of scientists scientists (including Michael Mann) to Muir Russell. The content highlights the misrepresentations that denialists like Purpleoscar frequently engage in (for instance implying this letter is an example of unethical behaviour)
Quote:
496373.01
Dear Sir Muir,

After reading the submissions posted on the Independent Climate Change Email Review’s website – and seeing some of our own submissions delayed or redacted – we are writing to express some serious concerns, and to provide specific suggestions. We recognize the complexity and difficulty of the task you have undertaken, and offer these views in the hope that you will find them helpful.

Although the ICCER has not yet issued any substantive findings, many submissions to the Review panel questioned its competence, impartiality and integrity. Stephen McIntyre’s submission, for example, attacks the ICCER’s statement of Issues for Examination as displaying a “frequent and almost embarrassing tendency to miss the point”, dismisses the ICCER’s work plan as “totally unsatisfactory” (mainly for not interviewing either McIntyre or his collaborator Ross McKitrick), asserts that two current ICCER members should be disqualified from service, and accuses ICCER members of making “misleading or untrue statements” and “misrepresentations”.

As climate scientists, we are, regrettably, all too familiar with these tactics. The unfortunate reality is that, to research climate issues today – at least if one’s research findings tend to support human-caused climate change – means to live and work in an environment of constant accusations of fraud, calls for investigations (or for criminal prosecutions), demands for access to every draft, every intermediate calculation, and every email exchanged with colleagues, daily hate mail and threats, and attempts to pressure the institutions that employ us and fund our research. Through experience, we have learned that there is no review of climate scientists’ work that isn’t deemed a “whitewash” by climate change contrarians; there is no casual remark that can’t be seized upon, blown out of proportion and distorted; and there is no person whose character can’t be assassinated, no matter how careful and honest their research. Our concern here is that these tactics are highly successful in the court of public opinion.

One submission urged you to consider the fate of a paper on the health hazards of tobacco as “highly relevant” to your inquiry. The history of tobacco research is indeed relevant. It shows that, by manufacturing controversy (or the appearance of controversy), and by harassing, discrediting, and distracting scientists, it is possible to cloud scientific knowledge and forestall scientific progress for decades. The same strategy is now being used by many of the same players to attack climate science and climate scientists. This has been well documented in such recent books as Doubt Is Their Product, Merchants of Doubt, and Climate Cover-Up, as well as in recent hearings before the U.S. House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. These disinformation tactics contribute to the public’s increasing confusion regarding the causes of climate change. Two months ago, for example, a Gallup poll found that only 52% of Americans accept that “most scientists believe that global warming is occurring”, down from 65% in 2008.

Similar tactics have now been brought to bear on the ICCER. Philip Campbell (whose qualifications should be beyond doubt) resigned from the ICCER to ensure that there would be “nothing that calls into question the ability of the independent Review to complete [its] task”. Dr. Campbell’s resignation has only led climate-change contrarians to level more charges against other members of the ICCER.

Under these circumstances, we respectfully offer the following comments and
suggestions:

1. In formulating recommendations to ensure that scientific data are appropriately disclosed (while at the same time protecting scientists and enabling them to carry out their research), it may be useful to take account of experience in the U.S., and to seek international consistency in this area. The ICCER’s remit includes “mak[ing] recommendations as to the appropriate management, governance, and security structures for CRU and the … release of data that it holds”. In developing recommendations on how CRU should release data, you might find it helpful to consider some experience from across the Atlantic. In particular, there is much that is instructive in the history of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) regulations under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act. These regulations pertain to disclosure of information relating to federally funded research. OMB issued the regulations in response to a 1998 law known as the Shelby Amendment, which directed OMB to write new standards requiring that all data produced under federal grants be available to the public under FOIA procedures.

The Shelby Amendment provoked an uproar in the scientific community. There was widespread concern that if it were interpreted too broadly, the law would interfere with scientists’ ability to carry out their research. Such concerns were expressed in Congressional testimony by Dr. Bruce Alberts, (who was at the time the President of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences). Dr. Alberts warned that, unless the new standards were appropriately limited, they would have a “chilling effect” on scientific collaboration, and would “be used by various special interest groups to harass researchers doing research that these interest groups would like to stop”. The American Association for the Advancement of Science voiced similar concerns to OMB, and noted that overly broad disclosure requirements would have “serious unintended consequences for scientists, their institutions, federal funding agencies, and the wider public”.

Ultimately, after receiving more than 12,000 comments, OMB issued guidelines (reported at 65 Fed. Reg. 14406) that balance the public’s interest in disclosure against scientists’ need for confidentiality and protection from harassment. Under the guidelines, when federally funded, published research is used in developing agency action that has the force and effect of law, “research data” relating to the published findings are available under FOIA. “Research data” is defined as “the recorded factual material commonly accepted in the scientific community as necessary to validate research findings …”. Expressly excluded from the definition of “research data”, however – and therefore protected from disclosure – are “preliminary analyses, drafts of scientific papers, plans for future research, peer reviews, or communications with colleagues”. (Emphasis added.)

We strongly believe that CRU and other research institutions should operate under similar guidelines, and hope that the ICCER will be able to make such a recommendation. Specifically, when CRU publishes research, the “research data” (see above for definition) should be made available. Other information, however – including preliminary analyses, drafts of scientific papers, plans for future research, peer reviews, or communications with colleagues – should be expressly protected from disclosure. These procedures would allow anyone who wished to test published research findings to do so, while affording some measure of badly needed protection from harassment to scientists. They would also avoid placing burdens on scientists at CRU (and elsewhere in the U.K.) that their colleagues in the U.S. Federal Government do not have to bear.

2. We believe that it is important to state unequivocally in your findings (and any summary of your findings) that nothing that you have seen calls into question the scientific consensus on human-caused climate change. The ICCER has stated that its remit “does not involve re-evaluation of the scientific conclusions of the CRU work, still less a reappraisal of the scientific debate about the existence and suggested causes of global warming”. But several questions in your statement of Issues for Examination address the merit of CRU’s research outcomes, as well as the importance of “the assertion of ‘unprecedented late 20th century warming’ in the argument for anthropogenic forcing of climate”. As you are well aware, contrarians will seize on anything – from a snow storm in Washington D.C. to any minor error in a thousand-page IPCC report – as “proof” that the entire body of scientific knowledge on climate change is a hoax. To ensure that your findings do not fuel dangerous misconceptions, we feel it should be made absolutely clear – as every serious review of the stolen emails has already confirmed – that nothing in the emails calls into question the scientific consensus on human-caused climate change.

3. Not all the evidence submitted to the ICCER comes from parties with genuine interest in furthering scientific understanding. We hope that this can be taken into account in evaluating the credibility of submitted evidence.

The ICCER has received submissions from parties who seem to have no good-faith interest in furthering scientific understanding. We hope that every allegation, summary, timeline, purported scientific criticism, or other statement can be carefully examined for veracity. As we are sure you are aware, there are many examples where such statements have been subsequently exposed as factually flawed. To cite just one recent example, a May 9, 2010 “Special Investigation” in the Daily Mail by David Rose presented a badly distorted account of facts and analysis. This is explained in two recent posts about Mr. Rose’s article.

4. We hope you are able to acknowledge and take into account the prolonged and intense campaign of harassment that has been directed at CRU and other climate scientists.


Any fair evaluation of CRU scientists’ conduct must take into account the conditions under which they have been forced to work. Sharing information to promote good-faith scientific debate is one thing. Laboring under constant, intrusive oversight by hostile groups who harass scientists and interfere with their ability to carry out their research is another matter entirely. If CRU scientists felt besieged, it’s because they were – including, we now know, illegal spying on their private communications. Their emails and actions must be considered in this light.

Finally, we note that several of our own submissions to the ICCER were held up or redacted out of concern that someone might claim that something in them was defamatory. It does not appear that a similar filter was applied to the numerous submissions that falsely accuse legitimate climate scientists of dishonesty and misconduct. We hope you are able to remedy this inconsistency.

We appreciate each ICCER member’s willingness to step into the controversy surrounding the stolen CRU emails, and we hope that you will be able to take the above comments and suggestions into account in preparing your findings.

Signed by:

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS
RAY BRADLEY
Distinguished Professor
Director, Climate System Research Center
Department of Geosciences

UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA
MALCOLM K. HUGHES
Regents Professor
Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research

THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY
MICHAEL E. MANN
Professor
Director of Earth System Science Center
Department of Meteorology

PRINCETON UNIVERSITY
MICHAEL OPPENHEIMER
Albert G. Milbank Professor of Geosciences
and International Affairs

LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL
LABORATORY
BENJAMIN SANTER
Research Scientist
Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and
Intercomparison

NASA GODDARD INSTITUTE FOR SPACE
STUDIES, NEW YORK
GAVIN SCHMID
Climate Scientist

WOODS INSTITUTE FOR THE
ENVIRONMENT
STEPHEN H. SCHNEIDER
Professor
Melvin and Joan Lane Professor for
Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies
Department of Biology and Senior Fellow

THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR
ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH
KEVIN E. TRENBERTH
Senior Scientist
Section Head
Climate Analysis Section

THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR
ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH
TOM M. L. WIGLEY
Senior Research Associate
[former Director of the Climatic Research
Unit, 1978 to 1993]
http://www.cce-review.org/evidence/L...s_26%20May.pdf

The letter was posted on the website of the independent climate change review. This is not what happens to conspiratorial e-mails.

These are professional scientists who are concerned about the standards and procedures of the review. They recognise the nature of their opponents and want to ensure that they are treated fairly. Only you could read this letter as a stand-over tactic by Michael Mann (especially given the case he wasn't the only signer).
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2010, 09:00 PM   #186
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 09:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
When it comes to the conspiracy I already posted what has happened to "peer-review" and skeptics aren't going away. For those guys who are making so called "good" science having fall back arguments of precautionary principle doesn't sound convincing at all.
If scientists raise serious concerns and warn the public then they are alarmist. If scientists take a moderate line and suggest a precautionary approach pending greater understanding of the risks then it's an unconvincing fallback.

The only scientists that you respect are ones that tell you what you want to hear. That would be that CO2 emissions are if anything good for the planet. Climate change is a Marxist fraud. Ocean acidification isn't fully understood and therefore nothing to worry about etc.

You mock and snipe at the concept of having qualified scientists critique the work of their peers as if this is just a racket for keeping research grants. You don't consider that academia is competitive

You accuse me of being an authoritarian liar and imply that my willingness to acknowledge when I don't know is evidence of me being stupid. How the hell does that work? What kind of authoritarian liars first response to a question about a field they readily acknowledge they aren't an expert in is "I don't know"?

The sheer amount of psychological projection that you're engaged in is something to behold. You are a credulous and agenda-driven person and you ought to reflect on your motivations.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2010, 09:51 PM   #187
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 04:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
If scientists raise serious concerns and warn the public then they are alarmist. If scientists take a moderate line and suggest a precautionary approach pending greater understanding of the risks then it's an unconvincing fallback.
It's a fallback because you guys still want worldwide cap and trade. If it's only a concern (I mean all special interest groups have a concern) then you get treated the same as every other lobby group "LINE UP!" You guys made alarming predictions that you knew where false (that's a lie I think), marginalized and mocked other scientists (that hurts their careers right?) and now you're the victims? Don't make me laugh!

BTW scientists weren't raising serious concerns they were doing more than that to the point of galvanating a slobbering U.N. to create a world government.

Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
The only scientists that you respect are ones that tell you what you want to hear. That would be that CO2 emissions are if anything good for the planet. Climate change is a Marxist fraud. Ocean acidification isn't fully understood and therefore nothing to worry about etc.
No I respect people who call you guys out for fucking up. All taxpayers should BE ANGRY. We wasted millions on this research and there was no intent on being transparent and even now with Mann & Co. in this letter they are openly corrupt. They believe they are entitled to not have transparency and entitled to tell reviewers what to do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
You mock and snipe at the concept of having qualified scientists critique the work of their peers as if this is just a racket for keeping research grants. You don't consider that academia is competitive
When you have interested parties with no skeptics involved and actually have these guys go out and tell journals not to publish other scientists who disagree then I definitely think the peer-review system has been gamed. We know who doesn't like competition.

Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
You accuse me of being an authoritarian liar and imply that my willingness to acknowledge when I don't know is evidence of me being stupid. How the hell does that work? What kind of authoritarian liars first response to a question about a field they readily acknowledge they aren't an expert in is "I don't know"?
I don't care about your comment "I don't know". I know you don't know. The problem is you so glibly shrug changes in the past year off as if it doesn't matter and continue on with videos saying "1 metre increase in sea level", "there is a debate over degree but we should use a precautionary principle." You can't have your cake and eat it too. The point of the alarmism was so the public would get afraid and push all other social spending on the back burner and focus on aggressive cap and trade which would make sure Africa doesn't develop cheap energy (are they supposed to have handouts forever?) and we deindustrialize. It's absolutely mad.

Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
The sheer amount of psychological projection that you're engaged in is something to behold. You are a credulous and agenda-driven person and you ought to reflect on your motivations.
The facts are your "exonorated" guys are a clique who screwed up but circle the wagons because universities can't admit faults (or why would people be students there?) and hammering an appeal to authority is just a desperate attempt to get noticed again.

I would like to take this quote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
The sheer amount of psychological projection that you're engaged in is something to behold. You are a credulous and agenda-driven person and you ought to reflect on your motivations.
and point it at you. Look in the mirror pal! I don't work for a government or university. I can say what I want to that's why I'm free to ignore appeal to authority tactics. I want to see you guys actually reasonably predict weather like you actually understand it. Unfortunately that means you have to study other factors like the sun and water vapour and not estimate for it. Because obviously if the last 10 years were supposed to be warming and you guys can estimate natural variables you would get it right.

BTW taxpayers have precautionary principles to. Avoid a bankrupt country.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2010, 09:54 PM   #188
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 04:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
Here is the letter from the group of scientists scientists (including Michael Mann) to Muir Russell. The content highlights the misrepresentations that denialists like Purpleoscar frequently engage in (for instance implying this letter is an example of unethical behaviour)http://www.cce-review.org/evidence/L...s_26%20May.pdf

The letter was posted on the website of the independent climate change review. This is not what happens to conspiratorial e-mails.

These are professional scientists who are concerned about the standards and procedures of the review. They recognise the nature of their opponents and want to ensure that they are treated fairly. Only you could read this letter as a stand-over tactic by Michael Mann (especially given the case he wasn't the only signer).
Good I want everyone to read the letter. You can see they are balking at following freedom of information requests which this review slapped them on the wrist for. The fact that you read this letter and find no problem says everything. If Enron could tell auditors where to go the left on this board would be up in arms. How can a review be independent if they can actually tell the reviewer what their findings are on the "consensus" should be?
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2010, 10:17 PM   #189
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 09:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
It's a fallback because you guys still want worldwide cap and trade. If it's only a concern (I mean all special interest groups have a concern) then you get treated the same as every other lobby group "LINE UP!" You guys made alarming predictions that you knew where false (that's a lie I think), marginalized and mocked other scientists (that hurts their careers right?) and now you're the victims? Don't make me laugh!
Yes "Big Science" is a massive lobby isn't it. All those scientists driving around in Mercedes and conning the common man.

You ignore research into animal body size, glacial retreat, and sea level rise because it doesn't fit your worldview.
Quote:
BTW scientists weren't raising serious concerns they were doing more than that to the point of galvanating a slobbering U.N. to create a world government.
I think the term you want is galvanising. This is a very unhinged position for somebody to take. I personally don't want to see the U.N. involved in any carbon trading scheme and I'm averse to world government. You are creating a straw-scientist to burn down.
Quote:
No I respect people who call you guys out for fucking up. All taxpayers should BE ANGRY. We wasted millions on this research and there was no intent on being transparent and even now with Mann & Co. in this letter they are openly corrupt. They believe they are entitled to not have transparency and entitled to tell reviewers what to do.
When somebody labels research a waste of money when it doesn't produce the results they expect I question their commitment to free inquiry. The fact you cannot distinguish between a palaeontologist and a climatologist also raises some concerns about your scientific literacy.
Quote:
When you have interested parties with no skeptics involved and actually have these guys go out and tell journals not to publish other scientists who disagree then I definitely think the peer-review system has been gamed. We know who doesn't like competition.
The sceptics are the scientists who want priority and funding. This gives them a reason to be very critical of their peers. Climate "sceptics" are nothing of the sort because they willfully ignore the evidence. I could repost the article by Michael Shermer where he outlines the sceptical approach which he took (he went from doubtful to accepting on the basis of evidence) but I don't think it would have any more impact on you a second time.
Quote:
I don't care about your comment "I don't know". I know you don't know.

Quote:
The problem is you so glibly shrug changes in the past year off as if it doesn't matter and continue on with videos saying "1 metre increase in sea level", "there is a debate over degree but we should use a precautionary principle." You can't have your cake and eat it too. The point of the alarmism was so the public would get afraid and push all other social spending on the back burner and focus on aggressive cap and trade which would make sure Africa doesn't develop cheap energy (are they supposed to have handouts forever?) and we deindustrialize. It's absolutely mad.
I don't support deindustrialisaton but the rising resource consumption of a rising third world is dangerous. Forget global warming the Earth cannot support 9 billion people living at first world standards. I would support policies to foster gradual depopulation to a sustainable level.


Quote:
The facts are your "exonorated" guys are a clique who screwed up but circle the wagons because universities can't admit faults (or why would people be students there?) and hammering an appeal to authority is just a desperate attempt to get noticed again.
People wouldn't go to institutions that fail to carry out inquiry and hold their researchers to high standards. You cannot be persuaded at all. If they didn't hold an inquiry then you would accuse them of being corrupt. If they hold an inquiry you accuse them of being corrupt.
Quote:
and point it at you. Look in the mirror pal! I don't work for a government or university. I can say what I want to that's why I'm free to ignore appeal to authority tactics. I want to see you guys actually reasonably predict weather like you actually understand it. Unfortunately that means you have to study other factors like the sun and water vapour and not estimate for it. Because obviously if the last 10 years were supposed to be warming and you guys can estimate natural variables you would get it right.
What leads you to believe that the impacts of water vapour and solar activity aren't areas of active investigation?

I wonder why do you support the study of those factors but seem quite able to ignore the impacts on carbon sinks.
Quote:
BTW taxpayers have precautionary principles to. Avoid a bankrupt country.
And completely ruin the country in the long run.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2010, 10:54 AM   #190
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 04:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
Yes "Big Science" is a massive lobby isn't it. All those scientists driving around in Mercedes and conning the common man.
Scientists + U.N. The U.N. wants to increase their power and scientists want a steady flow of cash for their research.

Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
You ignore research into animal body size, glacial retreat, and sea level rise because it doesn't fit your worldview.I think the term you want is galvanising. This is a very unhinged position for somebody to take. I personally don't want to see the U.N. involved in any carbon trading scheme and I'm averse to world government. You are creating a straw-scientist to burn down.When somebody labels research a waste of money when it doesn't produce the results they expect I question their commitment to free inquiry. The fact you cannot distinguish between a palaeontologist and a climatologist also raises some concerns about your scientific literacy.The sceptics are the scientists who want priority and funding. This gives them a reason to be very critical of their peers. Climate "sceptics" are nothing of the sort because they willfully ignore the evidence. I could repost the article by Michael Shermer where he outlines the sceptical approach which he took (he went from doubtful to accepting on the basis of evidence) but I don't think it would have any more impact on you a second time.
Please don't repost that because it didn't "convert" me and it most definitely won't now. The arctic ice has been increasing since 2007 which is also shown in your own videos. Winds had a lot to do with the prior melting. When it comes to animal body sizes I don't know how you can connect CO2 warming with it when it's cooled since 1998. Even this El Nino which is producing warmer weather in some regions is not as warm as 1998.

At least you want the U.N. out of the picture and don't want worldwide cap and trade. Of course this means some countries that pursue cap and trade locally will do so at their own expense by chasing jobs away elsewhere. This also means that cheap energy will be pursued and we won't shutdown all coal plants like James Hansen wanted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
I don't support deindustrialisaton but the rising resource consumption of a rising third world is dangerous. Forget global warming the Earth cannot support 9 billion people living at first world standards. I would support policies to foster gradual depopulation to a sustainable level.
Wealthy countries have reduced the quantity of children naturally all over the world. We just need more wealth so the need for more babies is less. When your poor and you have some basic access to medical care but continue with old fashioned numbers of children (which would be needed for farming) you get a larger population. Wealth has been the best most gradual population control. Also when you add modern contraception (which in many poor countries aren't used enough) then the problem isn't there. You should watch out with predictions that 9 billion people can't be supported. You sound like a Malthusian and will probably be proven wrong just like he did. There are constant increases in food production and efficiencies that you never predict so the number of people on the planet that can be fed is equally hard to predict. I'm also against the government legislating how many kids people should have. China is not going through a good period because of it and it certainly is not gradual. Then there's the little problem of sovreignty and holding back development in 3rd world countries that makes us look like hypocrites because it's easy for the rich to tell the poor to stay poor. I've already had a Business Ethics instructor say as much and it usually makes people nauseous.

Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
People wouldn't go to institutions that fail to carry out inquiry and hold their researchers to high standards. You cannot be persuaded at all. If they didn't hold an inquiry then you would accuse them of being corrupt. If they hold an inquiry you accuse them of being corrupt.What leads you to believe that the impacts of water vapour and solar activity aren't areas of active investigation?
We do want an inquiry. We just want at least one notable skeptic on there along with everyone else including one believer. The inquiry didn't answer the questions skeptics wanted answered. The best way to deal with skeptics is to answer their questions. I don't care for death threats on both sides of the debate and skeptics and believers should both be protected but auditors like Steve McIntyre have plenty of questions and there's no reason to deny him and the inquiry at least mentioned that in regards to freedom of information requests.

Water vapour and solar activity are studied but these climate models only estimated their impact. These areas should be much better understood or else the models will be garbage in, garbage out.

Here's an example of that risk regarding arctic ice:

Arctic's 'canary in a coal mine' - thestar.com

Quote:
"The guys who are running the long-term climate models have a tough problem," Eert says. "They're looking at really long time scales, and as result they can't look at a lot of details for each year.

"In order to get the results before you die, you have to fudge some things. And what they fudge is the small-scale stuff. But it turns out that probably the small-scale stuff is important and fudging it gives you wrong answers."
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
I wonder why do you support the study of those factors but seem quite able to ignore the impacts on carbon sinks.
Everything should be studied. CO2 was considered the target and even a consensus we were told to believe existed. There never was a consensus because that had more to do with the U.N. and trying to eliminate debate by saying the science was over. But you don't like U.N. influence so you probably agree that there's no consensus and certainly there is more to learn.

Here's another example of no consensus:

Lawrence Solomon: Global cooling underway | FP Comment | Financial Post

Study
http://www.probeinternational.org/Qi...%20Cooling.pdf

Quote:
Long-term global cooling began in 2002, according to a just-released study in the Journal of Cosmology, a peer-reviewed publication produced at Harvard-Smithsonian’s Center for Astrophysics. Man-made global warming was real and dangerous, the study finds, but the danger has passed.

The study, authored by Qing-Bin Lu, a rising star at the Department of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Waterloo in Canada, explains why climate models have been so spectacularly wrong in trying to tie the global warming of the last half of the 20th century to CO2 — the climate modelers fingered the wrong culprit when they targeted CO2. The true culprits, Dr. Lu explains, were CFCs, the now banned substances that until the 1990s had been a refrigerant and propellant to products as diverse as air conditioners and hair spray cans.

Fortunately for the globe, environmentalists had CFCs banned because of their role in depleting the ozone layer, not realizing that the ban was simultaneously solving the global warming threat.

According to Dr. Lu, the phase-out of CFCs will be reversing the global warming effect by ushering in a 50 to 70-year period of global cooling.
These scientists are all over the map and overwhelmed at how much affect there is by different elements and they make all kinds of predictions but until we get a big picture holistic view we are likely to make models that aren't very accurate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
And completely ruin the country in the long run.
Oops certainty of a ruined country crept in again.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2010, 07:52 PM   #191
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 05:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
You are creating a straw-scientist to burn down.
Oh please no, think of the carbon footprint.
__________________
INDY500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2010, 09:23 PM   #192
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 09:29 AM
Quote:
I don't know how you can connect CO2 warming with it when it's cooled since 1998. Even this El Nino which is producing warmer weather in some regions is not as warm as 1998.
Quote:
Climate myths: Global warming stopped in 1998


In fact, the planet as a whole has warmed since 1998, sometimes even in the years when surface temperatures have fallen

Imagine two people standing at the South Pole, one dressed in full Antarctic gear and the other wearing not much at all. Now imagine that you're looking through one of those infrared thermal imagers that show how hot things are. Which person will look warmest - and which will be frozen solid after a few hours?

The answer, of course, is that the near-naked person will appear hotter: but because they are losing heat fast, they will freeze long before the person dressed more appropriately for the weather.

The point is that you have to look beyond the surface to understand how a body's temperature will change over time - and that's as true of planets as it is of warm-blooded bipeds.

Now take a look at the two main compilations (see figures, right) of global surface temperatures, based on monthly records from weather stations around the world.

According to the dataset of the UK Met Office Hadley Centre (see figure), 1998 was the warmest year by far since records began, but since 2003 there has been slight cooling.

But according to the dataset of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (see figure), 2005 was the warmest since records began, with 1998 and 2007 tied in second place.

Tracking the heat

Why the difference? The main reason is that there are no permanent weather stations in the Arctic Ocean, the place on Earth that has been warming fastest. The Hadley record simply excludes this area, whereas the NASA version assumes its surface temperature is the same as that of the nearest land-based stations.

It is possible that the NASA approach underestimates the rate of warming in the Arctic Ocean, but for the sake of argument let's assume that the Hadley record is the most accurate reflection of changes in global surface temperatures. Doesn't it show that the world has cooled since the record warmth of 1998, as many claim?

Not necessarily. The Hadley record is based only on surface temperatures, so it reflects only what's happening to the very thin layer where air meets the land and sea.

In the long term, what matters is how much heat is gained or lost by the entire planet - what climate scientists call the "top of the atmosphere" radiation budget - and falling surface temperatures do not prove that the entire planet is losing heat.

Swaddling gases

Think again about that scantily clad person at the South Pole. If they put on some clothing, they'll appear cooler to a thermal imager, but what's really happening is that they are losing less heat.

Similarly, if you could look at Earth through a thermal imager, it would appear slightly cooler than it did a few decades ago. The reason is that the outer atmosphere, the stratosphere, is cooler because we've added more "clothing" to the lower atmosphere in the form of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide.

As a result, the planet is gaining as much heat from the sun as usual but losing less heat every year as greenhouse gas levels rise (apart from the exceptional periods after major volcanic eruptions, such as El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991).

How do we know? Because the oceans are getting warmer.

Tricky oceans

Water stores an immense amount of heat compared with air. It takes more than 1000 times as much energy to heat a cubic metre of water by 1 degree Celsius as it does the same volume of air. Since the 1960s, over 90% of the excess heat due to higher greenhouse gas levels has gone into the oceans, and just 3% into warming the atmosphere (see figure 5.4 in the IPCC report (PDF)).

Globally, this means that if the oceans soak up a bit more heat energy than normal, surface air temperatures can fall even though the total heat content of the planet is rising. Conversely, if the oceans soak up less heat than usual, surface temperatures will rise rapidly.

In fact, most of the year-to-year variability in surface temperatures is due to heat sloshing back and forth between the oceans and atmosphere, rather than to the planet as a whole gaining or losing heat.

The record warmth of 1998 was not due to a sudden spurt in global warming but to a very strong El Niño (see figure, right). In normal years, trade winds keep hot water piled up on the western side of the tropical Pacific.

During an El Niño, the winds weaken and the hot water spreads out across the Pacific in a shallow layer, which increases heat transfer to the atmosphere. (During a La Niña, by contrast, as occurred during the early part of 2008, the process is reversed and upwelling cold water in the eastern Pacific soaks up heat from the atmosphere.)


A temporary fall in the heat content of the oceans at this time may have been due to the extra strong El Niño.

What next?

Since 1999, however, the heat content of the oceans has increased (despite claims to the contrary). Global warming has certainly not stopped, even if average surface temperatures really have fallen slightly as the Hadley figures suggest.

In the long term, some of the heat being soaked up by the oceans will inevitably spill back into the atmosphere, raising surface temperatures. Warmer oceans also mean rising sea levels, due to both thermal expansion and the melting of the floating ice shelves that slow down glaciers sliding off land into the sea. The West Antarctic Ice Sheet, which rests on the seabed rather than on land, is also highly vulnerable to rising sea temperatures.

Some climate scientists are predicting that surface temperatures will remain static or even fall slightly over the next few years, before warming resumes. Their predictions are based largely on the idea that changes in long-term fluctuation in ocean surface temperatures known as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation will bring cooler sea surface temperatures.

If these predictions are right - and not all climate scientists think they are - you can expect to hear more claims from climate-change deniers about how global warming has stopped. But unless we see a simultaneous fall in both surface temperatures and ocean-heat content, claims that the "entire planet" is cooling are nonsense.

And while some events such as a big volcanic eruption could indeed trigger genuine cooling for a few years, global warming will resume again once the dust has settled.
Climate myths: Global warming stopped in 1998 - environment - 15 August 2008 - New Scientist

If you hear a talking point enough times it doesn't make it true. The point about animal body size and timing of breeding seasons is that the biosphere is showing the types of reaction that you would expect as the temperature warms.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2010, 09:28 PM   #193
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 09:29 AM
Quote:
You sound like a Malthusian and will probably be proven wrong just like he did.
Malthus' argument is sound and we've seen the results of it not only in 19th Century Britain but also places like Rwanda.

Are you such a consumerist that you support population growth that outstrips resources?
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2010, 11:52 AM   #194
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 04:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
Malthus' argument is sound and we've seen the results of it not only in 19th Century Britain but also places like Rwanda.

Are you such a consumerist that you support population growth that outstrips resources?
No it hasn't! If Malthus was right we would have outstriped our resources already. He would have to be clairvoyant to know that technology wouldn't change:

Malthusian catastrophe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:
Ester Böserup wrote in her book The Conditions of Agricultural Growth: The Economics of Agrarian Change under Population Pressure that population levels determine agricultural methods, rather than agricultural methods determining population (via food supply). A major point of her book is that "necessity is the mother of invention".

Julian Simon was one of many economists who challenged the Malthusian catastrophe, citing (1) the existence of new knowledge, and educated people to take advantage of it, and (2) "economic freedom", that is, the ability of the world to increase production when there is a profitable opportunity to do so.[20]

The economist Henry George argued that Malthus didn't provide any evidence of a natural tendency for a population to overwhelm its ability to provide for itself. George wrote that even the main body of Malthus' work refuted this theory; that examples given show social causes for misery, such as "ignorance and greed... bad government, unjust laws, or war," rather than insufficient food production. [21]
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2010, 12:13 PM   #195
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 04:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
Climate myths: Global warming stopped in 1998 - environment - 15 August 2008 - New Scientist

If you hear a talking point enough times it doesn't make it true. The point about animal body size and timing of breeding seasons is that the biosphere is showing the types of reaction that you would expect as the temperature warms.
The temperature did warm since the little ice age but your post is from 2008 during the alarmist period before Phil Jones admitted otherwise regarding temperatures from 1998 to now. Your link has even old NASA claims that 2005 was the hottest year on record which are false. The 1930s were hotter. 1998 was also downplayed by NASA as the hottest year on record because surface temperature data is being influenced by land use.

Here's an example of manipulated temperture data:

Raising Arizona | Watts Up With That?

Even this El Nino isn't as warm is the 1998 El Nino:

June 2010 UAH Global Temperature Update: +0.44 deg. C � Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

Quote:
The global-average lower tropospheric temperature remains warm, +0.44 deg. C for June, 2010, but it appears the El Nino warmth is waning as a La Nina approaches.

For those keeping track of whether 2010 ends up being a record warm year, 1998 still leads with the daily average for 1 Jan to 30 June being +0.64 C in 1998 compared with +0.56 C for 2010. (John Christy says that the difference is not statistically significant.) As of 30 June 2010, there have been 181 days in the year. From our calibrated daily data, we find that 1998 was warmer than 2010 on 122 (two-thirds) of them.
The arctic is not melting with these temperatures:



In the long run you still have to prove that the warming from the little ice age to now is not natural and wiping out the medieval warming period with hockey stick graphs is not going to do it.

YouTube - The Hockey Stick vs. Ice Core Data
__________________

__________________
purpleoscar 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 06:29 PM.


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