PDA

View Full Version : Global Warming Issues



Deeman3
11-30-2009, 03:02 PM
"We will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

That statement was taken from an email written by Phil Jones, the director of the East Anglia climate center, to climate scientist Michael Mann of Penn State University. Jones's email was one of over a many stolen from the server of one of the world's leading climate change think tanks, the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University in the U.K.

The scientific community is buzzing over thousands of emails and documents -- posted on the Internet last week after being hacked from a prominent climate-change research center -- that some say raise ethical questions about a group of scientists who contend humans are responsible for global warming.
The correspondence between dozens of climate-change researchers, including many in the U.S., illustrates bitter feelings among those who believe human activities cause global warming toward rivals who argue that the link between humans and climate change remains uncertain.

"The files were posted on a Russian file-sharing server late Thursday, and university officials confirmed over the weekend that their computer had been attacked and said the documents appeared to be genuine."

The university issued a predictable statement about the theft, "The selective publication of some stolen emails and other papers taken out of context is mischievous and cannot be considered a genuine attempt to engage with this issue in a responsible way."

Ironic...because the emails document how those believing man-made global warming is a disaster beyond proportions avoid at all costs "engaging with this issue in a responsible way."

The emails (example below) discuss ways to shut out the opposition, "take efforts to make sure that reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations group that monitors climate science, include their own views and exclude others", and show that climate scientists "declined to make their data available to scientists whose views they disagreed with."

Science is supposed to be objective, rigorous, constantly changing and always improving. Global warming changes the game; scientists get research money based on how they feel on the issue. A group-think has developed forming a "consensus only" faction.

Not only that, but we learned over the weekend that the original data that the CRU has used to arrive at their conclusions has been discarded.

Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, discovered data had been lost when he asked for original records. “The CRU is basically saying, ‘Trust us’. So much for settling questions and resolving debates with science,” he said.

As Michael Crichton once said,

"The work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus."

cushioncrawler
11-30-2009, 03:16 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">....."We will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!".......

......The university issued a predictable statement about the theft, "The selective publication of some stolen emails and other papers taken out of context is mischievous and cannot be considered a genuine attempt to engage with this issue in a responsible way." .....</div></div>Deeman -- I agree with the uni. If the "them" woz detailed, then i/we kood say much more.
Az far az i know not one kook haz ever had a peer-reviewed article -- so i karnt see why climateologists shood hav any worryz.
Or, to put it another way -- the only peers that a kook can hav iz other kooks.
If the "them" iz kooks then all iz well with the emails.
I havnt ever heard of any climateologist being an anti -- which iz a pity -- and i havnt heard of any kook being a climateologist.
What the anti shood do iz find a climateologist that iz anti -- hmmmm -- i would try the Cathlick universitys.
madMac.

pooltchr
11-30-2009, 03:22 PM
Global warming has nothing to do with science...only with money and politics.

Steve

cushioncrawler
11-30-2009, 03:24 PM
".........Not only that, but we learned over the weekend that the original data that the CRU has used to arrive at their conclusions has been discarded.

Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, discovered data had been lost when he asked for original records. “The CRU is basically saying, ‘Trust us’. So much for settling questions and resolving debates with science,” he said........."

This iz bullshit -- and shows the stupidity and ignorance of the person(s) saying this.
The data iz never lost -- the data kumz from lots of institutions around the world that measure things and provide the data -- it iz their data to looz, no one elses.
madMac.

cushioncrawler
11-30-2009, 03:35 PM
"......The emails (example below) discuss ways to shut out the opposition, "take efforts to make sure that reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations group that monitors climate science, include their own views and exclude others", and show that climate scientists "declined to make their data available to scientists whose views they disagreed with........"

This iz bullshit -- it iz well known that climate scientists (and all scientists) are loathe to make their data available to any and all and every scientists -- especially to scientists whose views agree, koz they are kompetitors -- so this little gem iz dezigned az a little lie -- i can see the purpurtraitor giggling az he'she writes it.
Naturally data iz made available after a time.
But, like i sayd, in climateology, it aint real data -- it iz at best data that haz been digested in some new way -- real data iz available to all, anytime, from where it iz stored, ie lots of places around the world.
Kooks havnt the time nor the brains to deal with real data -- u havta know what u are doing -- but it iz a lot of work mainly -- u wont see kooks touching it.
madMac.

wolfdancer
11-30-2009, 03:40 PM
Not having any expertise in the field, and being surrounded here by such a distinguished panel of climatologists, I can only look at the photos of a lone polar bear, "sailing" off into the sunset, for parts unknown....on some ice island that has broken free,... and think....maybe,just maybe, there just might be something to this GW theory, something that might back up the reason why the Nobel Prize panel, wasn't just playing "spin the wheel" when they awarded VP Al Gore his Prize, as opposed to awarding it to someone here?
However, then I am brought back to reality by the learned postings here of the board's elite, armed with all their empirical data, from the GWB Institute of higher learning.
Dumb as I am though....it's my contention that nobody here....has the definitive answer.

cushioncrawler
11-30-2009, 03:45 PM
"........Ironic...because the emails document how those believing man-made global warming is a disaster beyond proportions avoid at all costs "engaging with this issue in a responsible way........"

Avoid engaging with who ??????????????????????????
What iz the issue ?????????????
Responsible way ????????????

The issue iz that man'made global warming might be true and might do much harm -- something our children etc might havta suffer but might not be able to fix -- and there are things we (the criminals) can do to help right now.
madMac.

cushioncrawler
11-30-2009, 03:53 PM
"......The scientific community is buzzing over thousands of emails and documents -- posted on the Internet last week after being hacked from a prominent climate-change research center -- that some say raise ethical questions about a group of scientists who contend humans are responsible for global warming......."

No, there aint no scientists buzzing !!!!!!
"Some say" -- who are these some ?????

This iz the uzual cheap bullshit stuff u get from the anti crowd -- no real effort to establish any facts etc -- just cheap words.
madMac.

Deeman3
11-30-2009, 04:27 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Not having any expertise in the field, and being surrounded here by such a distinguished panel of climatologists, I can only look at the photos of a lone polar bear, "sailing" off into the sunset, for parts unknown....on some ice island that has broken free,... and think....maybe,just maybe, there just might be something to this GW theory, something that might back up the reason why the Nobel Prize panel, wasn't just playing "spin the wheel" when they awarded VP Al Gore his Prize, as opposed to awarding it to someone here?
However, then I am brought back to reality by the learned postings here of the board's elite, armed with all their empirical data, from the GWB Institute of higher learning.
Dumb as I am though....it's my contention that nobody here....has the definitive answer. </div></div>


<span style="color: #FF0000"> Jack,

You are correct that noone here, especially me, has the answer. It just seemed strage that someone would eliminate data to support their theory. I think that is odd, in any science. If they only threw out data that did not confirm what they believe, is that not the very oppostite of science. Listen, if the global warmers are right, we have reached the tipping point and with only a small fraction and the already lowest poluters even considering doing anything about it, we are screwed, no matter how many grants we give the scientists.

Why are they afraid to let the data be reviewed? They can explain how the data that does not support their assertions is really supporeting their theory and how the increase in polar bear populations is really a sign of globals warming but at least they need to discuss it openly.

If there is man made global warming and cap and trade will really ward it off, tell us the whole story not just ask for funding for their research. </span>

wolfdancer
11-30-2009, 04:42 PM
I think the issue is still open to debate, but as a safeguard we should try to do something to limit the greenhouse gases....
Not sure if we have the truth behind those leaks...as any scientist worth his due, would not try to limit opposing data

Chopstick
11-30-2009, 05:11 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"......The scientific community is buzzing over thousands of emails and documents -- posted on the Internet last week after being hacked from a prominent climate-change research center -- that some say raise ethical questions about a group of scientists who contend humans are responsible for global warming......."

No, there aint no scientists buzzing !!!!!!
"Some say" -- who are these some ?????

This iz the uzual cheap bullshit stuff u get from the anti crowd -- no real effort to establish any facts etc -- just cheap words.
madMac. </div></div>

I lump this crowd in with the krapppynomisists. They don't fricken know what's up. Everything that is happening has happened before and it will happen again. Nature always has a way to balance itself and it always will. It's all just jibber-jabber. I hope it does warm up. This planet is too damn cold for me now.

pooltchr
11-30-2009, 06:01 PM
For arguement's sake, lets say the earth has been around for only a million years. How can we take data that we have only been collecting for less that the last 1% of the earth's history, and draw any conclusion about long term trends. Hell, in the big picture, we can't even say what is "normal" for the earth.

This earth was here long before man came along, and I expect it will out live all of us just fine on it's own.

Steve

wolfdancer
11-30-2009, 06:20 PM
For arguments sake...I believe that core drilling has revealed data that Scientists base their findings on....and besides the earth has only been around some 6 thousand years now....according to my Bible.

cushioncrawler
11-30-2009, 07:47 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">For arguement's sake, lets say the earth has been around for only a million years. How can we take data that we have only been collecting for less that the last 1% of the earth's history, and draw any conclusion about long term trends. Hell, in the big picture, we can't even say what is "normal" for the earth. This earth was here long before man came along, and I expect it will out live all of us just fine on it's own. Steve</div></div>Steve -- The earth haz cold times and hot times. The trouble at prezent iz that......
(1)....... the hot time iz kumming very fast, too fast for nature to handle well.
(2)....... the pink'arsed'apes hav driven nature out of most areas, ie nature iz hurting allready, before adding the warming.
madMac.

sack316
11-30-2009, 11:43 PM
Dee,

If a company CFO or Wall Street feller deleted data, hides something, doesn't disclose 100% accurate information etc., you know they'd be given the benefit of the doubt too. Right?

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Sack

LWW
12-01-2009, 03:57 AM
Beyond that ... we CAN take measurements through proxy going back many, many, many eons. When that is done, and matched against solar output, we find that solar output provides a mirror image of climate change.

OTOH ... CO2 has risen while temps have fallen, it has fallen when temps have rose, and is no more of an accurate climate predictor than using the amount of high seas pirates and/or McDonald's franchises.

The Goremon priesthood has used the naivete' of the average citizen in a very artful bit of charlatanism. These science deniers have been, for immense profit, been pimping the twin idiocies that coincidence proves causation and consensus is science.

Fortunately for humanity there are still more thinking people than Obamatrons.

LWW

Qtec
12-01-2009, 05:27 AM
Real (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/24/ed-begley-jr-flips-out-on_n_370022.html)

link (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/04/090406-sea-ice-younger.html)
Q

Deeman3
12-01-2009, 07:34 AM
Well, it is nice to know we can have a nice discussion on here, on occasion, still, without hating each other and saying hurtful stuff about each other.

I don't think any of us really knows all the answers to this. Scientists and politicians all have money riding on this so it is very difficult to get the full information in an unvarnished way. It does bother me that the largest future poluters, by far, have rejected doing anything. I don't really believe that allowed or forcing wealth to flow from us to them will make the situation any better.

Chopstick
12-01-2009, 08:07 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Dee,

If a company CFO or Wall Street feller deleted data, hides something, doesn't disclose 100% accurate information etc., you know they'd be given the benefit of the doubt too. Right?

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Sack </div></div>

Sure we can cut them some slack for that. It's not like they walked out of a secure facility with classified documents stuffed down their pants.

Deeman3
12-01-2009, 08:49 AM
/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Chopstick,

You are killing me here. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif It's not like he forgot to pay taxes and was appointed to the highest tax position in the United States Government or something.... /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Qtec
12-01-2009, 09:22 AM
Do you really think that you can pollute the air for 200 years on a massive scale without their being consequences?

Q

Gayle in MD
12-01-2009, 09:49 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Chopstick</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Dee,

If a company CFO or Wall Street feller deleted data, hides something, doesn't disclose 100% accurate information etc., you know they'd be given the benefit of the doubt too. Right?

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Sack </div></div>

Sure we can cut them some slack for that. It's not like they walked out of a secure facility with classified documents stuffed down their pants. </div></div>


He? Pants? Gee, I thought Oliver North had his secretary stuff them into her panty hose.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif

Gayle in MD
12-01-2009, 09:54 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do you really think that you can pollute the air for 200 years on a massive scale without their being consequences?

Q

</div></div>

<span style="color: #000066">LMAO! Yep, he does. But then, he also thought launching a war in Iraq, would distract al Qaeda, (Actually, terrorist attack increased all over the world after the Iraq invasion) and he also voted twice for George Bush, even after the evidence showed that he lied us into a war, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people, all for nothing, while totally forgetting about bin Laden....

"Mr. President, where do you think bin Laden is now?"

"I don't know where he is, he's hiding. I don't think about him."</span> /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Deeman3
12-01-2009, 10:25 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do you really think that you can pollute the air for 200 years on a massive scale without their being consequences?

Q

</div></div>

<span style="color: #FF0000"> Never said there were no consequences, just how much is consequences and how much are consequences caused by naturally asiprated gasses in nature, volcanos, cow farts and every other contributor. Listen, I am not saying I know how we impact the earth. It would be nice to have someone not aiming for a $20,000,000 grant study this without having to fudge the data.

To say they corrected the data to reflect how they felt the data was mis-recorded and always falling on the side of the global warming is a little like Barney Frank falling on the side of major banks, it may have been paid for. </span>