ClimateGate Rebunked

Life, the universe, and everything.
Forum rules
- No personal attacks against players or staff members - please be civil!
- No posting of mature images/links, keep content SFW. If it's NSFW, don't post it on these forums.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

ClimateGate Rebunked

Postby teflor the ranger » Mon Dec 14, 2009 5:15 am

Sorry, those e-mails really were leaked, and really did show the extreme bias and emotional chagrin of some of "Global Warming's" most important scientists as they attempted to silence others in the scientific community and rake in the money for themselves.

How will you help hide the decline?

Will you.... delete documents to avoid making them public?

Hide your e-mails?

Use statistical tricks to make trends appear that otherwise wouldn't?

Try to silence a journal because one of the editors is a critic?

Good luck!
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: ClimateGate Rebunked

Postby kiryan » Mon Dec 14, 2009 3:57 pm

E) all the above and justify it morally by pointing to the consensus of group think climate scientists around the world. I'm trying to save the fricken world here.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: ClimateGate Rebunked

Postby Sarvis » Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:11 pm

Just remember that if one person says something without any actual proof it must be taken as fact.

And dammit Kiryan, stop it with the sexual advances already.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: ClimateGate Rebunked

Postby kiryan » Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:29 pm

penis
avak
Sojourner
Posts: 672
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:01 am

Re: ClimateGate Rebunked

Postby avak » Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:52 pm

Group think? If we want to talk about brainwashed robots, we should all attend the vast majority of mainstream churches. Check your sources! An imaginary man told me this was true.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: ClimateGate Rebunked

Postby kiryan » Mon Dec 14, 2009 5:10 pm

I don't deny that churches indoctrinate their followers who choose to go to church.

But we are talking about scientists and supposed science which is supposed to be above the politics and independently verify their own science through peer review. Its like the republican who gets caught banging some ho, its far more outrageous when the conservative right does it. and we're talking climate change that they are trying to impose on us, not a church theology you choose to be a part of.
avak
Sojourner
Posts: 672
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:01 am

Re: ClimateGate Rebunked

Postby avak » Mon Dec 14, 2009 5:53 pm

Yeah, I was being ridiculous...but also, I wish I could choose not to be part of the religion. This country does not have the religious freedom it pretends to.

But anyway, you're absolutely right about the perceived damage...it has been a massive blow to the credibility of climate change science regardless of the end result of the inquiries.

I just happen to trust the peer review system. The fame and glory to someone that could legitimately 'debunk' climate change projections would be unfathomable.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: ClimateGate Rebunked

Postby kiryan » Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:54 pm

Have you read the stuff on the solar radiation? This current decline in temperature coincides with weaker solar output. They suggest the past 20 years seem to have been a period of increased solar radiation.

Also, there are criticisms that argue the temperature increases are triple or more what they should be. So doubling carbon in the atmosphere would result in only a .4 or .7 increase instead of the 3 degree change in the official figures.

Then theres the people who try and reconstruct the geological history and come up with different conclusions about historical temperatures and fluctuations.
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: ClimateGate Rebunked

Postby Ragorn » Tue Dec 15, 2009 7:42 am

ClimateGate can be as bunk as you want it to be, teffie.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: ClimateGate Rebunked

Postby kiryan » Wed Dec 16, 2009 12:42 am

Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: ClimateGate Rebunked

Postby Ragorn » Wed Dec 16, 2009 6:00 pm

I really wish Al Gore would just shut his pie hole.

Al, you're not helping, buddy.
dem
Sojourner
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 8:49 pm

Re: ClimateGate Rebunked

Postby dem » Thu Dec 17, 2009 3:01 pm

You don't have to be a scientist to see that the temperature is rising. The perm frost up in my mountains are melting away. The glaciers on the mountains are half the size they where 10 years ago. The ice on the lake outside my house melts 2 weeks earlier then it did 10 years ago. Cold water fish (arctic char) has disappeared from 10 of the streams and are now replaced by other spieces that likes warmer water. The trees are in full bloom when the kids gets their summe leave from school when they used to be the size of mouse ears.....I don't need scientists to tell me that the temperatures are rising. I just need to go outside... It really is important to me that they figure out why this is happening.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: ClimateGate Rebunked

Postby kiryan » Thu Dec 17, 2009 4:27 pm

You don't have to be a scientist to tell that the average temperature is rising in a specific location. You do need to be a scientist (or a fraud) to declare that the temperature rising in London means the entire earth is warming, going to raise the sea level by 3 feet and also lead to the death of hundreds of millions of people.

And in further rebuttal. we have had some record low temperatures all across the United States this year and last (and probably some record high ones too). It snowed earlier and harder where I live than it has for 20 years, which of course proves global warming is happening (even though their models didn't predict it until it started happening and they tweaked their models).

Also, in Oregon when I was a kid there was a good snow every couple of years. Then we went on to 20 some years of Indian Summers, dry long and hot summers. One scientist in Oregon studying the climate predicted 20 years of Indian summers it based on historical trends in the farmers almanac about 1-2 years before it started. I've been waiting 25 years to see if he was right or just lucky. I'd say he predicted it pretty well. Today however, I'm sure it would be attributed to global warming.

The Earth and sun obviously have cycles. There are obviously multiple mechanisms that maintain the environment. I'd be very surprised if we understand as much about the environment and the actual temperature now and in the past as they try and tell us they do.
dem
Sojourner
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 8:49 pm

Re: ClimateGate Rebunked

Postby dem » Thu Dec 17, 2009 10:42 pm

Ok I can see that it's useless to try to convince u otherwise so i rest my case.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: ClimateGate Rebunked

Postby kiryan » Fri Dec 18, 2009 7:04 pm

I'm on the fence of climate change. It may or may not be mainly caused by man, but I don't see enough rebuttal of the alternative explanations to jump on board. In particular the solar affects.

How many scientits have been proven wrong because something totally unexpected occured that stepped in to change the results of an experiment. Climate doomsdayism is based on our understanding of environmental mechanisms. They may assume that trees absorb carbon at a predetermined rate, but find out that when theres more carbon in the air trees become more efficient. They may find that co2 absorption by the oceans is limited by a different process that removes the carbon...

They have a lot of temperature data points, but they are by no means comprehensive and they have thus far been completely unable to predict anything with much accuracy. The polar caps melting decades faster than they anticipated does not necessarily mean global warming is worse than we thought and that we were too conservative in our guesses... it does mean they don't udnerstand what is happening... and we are blindly accepting doomsday theories as fact.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Re: ClimateGate Rebunked

Postby teflor the ranger » Sun Dec 20, 2009 6:45 am

The climate of the Earth is dynamic - it changes frequently and a lot. There is also definitely a major human component in climate change.

Believing that there is one cause to blame and that we can do something specific about it without scientific evidence or a working model that can accurately predict the trends in global temperatures is due to fear and ignorance.

Can anyone point to a model that accurately predicted that decline? Can anyone point to scientific evidence that shows what percentage of climate change effects are due directly to carbon dioxide levels?

You cannot.

Good luck pushing the fear mongering.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: ClimateGate Rebunked

Postby kiryan » Sun Dec 20, 2009 10:15 pm

You take that back, only republicans engage in fear mongering.

The earth is dieing is climate science, not fear mongering.

We're going to go bankrupt unless we implement so called healthcare reform is needed change, not fear mongering.
Disoputlip
Sojourner
Posts: 956
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Copenhagen

Re: ClimateGate Rebunked

Postby Disoputlip » Sun Dec 20, 2009 11:59 pm

You can easily prove it with statistics:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... nglish.jpg

This chart shows how pirates, not the Somali ones, but real pirates with eyepatches, are linked to global warming.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: ClimateGate Rebunked

Postby kiryan » Mon Dec 21, 2009 12:23 am

This is about all I have to say about pirates.

teflor the ranger wrote:Can anyone point to a model that accurately predicted that decline? Can anyone point to scientific evidence that shows what percentage of climate change effects are due directly to carbon dioxide levels?

You cannot.

Good luck pushing the fear mongering.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: ClimateGate Rebunked

Postby Corth » Tue Dec 22, 2009 6:46 pm

Curious what you guys think about the following article:

http://www.associatedcontent.com/articl ... tml?cat=15

The article depicts a propsal by a formal technology officer at Microsoft to pump sulfer into the stratosphere (similar to a volcano) to decrease the amount of sun that gets into the atmosphere, and counteract global warming. Remember how Mt. Pinatubo errupted some 10 years or so ago and there was a short term dramatic cooling trend? In theory, it would be similar to that.

What is interesting about it to me is that it does an end run around the debate of whether global warming is man made or not. With this plan, the cause of the global warming is irrelevent. We are simply going to use technology to come up with a way to cool the earth enough to counteract the warming trend - regardless of the reason for the warming.

Let's assume that the idea is feasible. I.E. a scientific consensus emerges that a) it will indeed work as intended, and b) there will be no unintended harmful consequences. Is there any reason why we wouldn't want to do this for a few hundred million dollars rather than spend trillions on various ways to curb industry?
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: ClimateGate Rebunked

Postby Sarvis » Tue Dec 22, 2009 7:26 pm

Corth wrote:Is there any reason why we wouldn't want to do this for a few hundred million dollars


Because taxes are theft? :P
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: ClimateGate Rebunked

Postby kiryan » Tue Dec 22, 2009 7:50 pm

In principle, it seems like a reasonable idea and the attractiveness of short circuiting the debate on whether global warming is real and moving straight towards climate engineering would probably produce more tangible results sooner.

The philosophical problems I have are...

1. Does not address the acidification of the ocean
2. Does not address the free market issue of pollution having no price

The operational issues I forsee are...

1. Setting the "appropriate" temperature. If we lowered the tempurature 10 or 15 degrees world wide, maybe Africa and China would be worth something.
2. Questions about the effects of putting all that particulate matter in the stratosphere... the impact on respiratory conditions... on the "fallout".
3. The effect on glaciers... apparently soot lands on glaciers which causes melting because it reflects less sunlight (absorbs more energy).
4. The longevity of the particles, it would have to be something that could be controlled in a finite period of time. If we have to shoot a new rocket every month, thats good, if we shoot it and its stuck up there for 10 years, not so good.
ssar
Sojourner
Posts: 1446
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Contact:

Re: ClimateGate Rebunked

Postby ssar » Tue Dec 22, 2009 11:08 pm

Significant global climate change, as well as environmental degradation & pollution detrimental to various ecosystems around the planet is happening - I am convinced in no small part due to a range of human activities over the past century.

Many in power around the world should have introduced a range of policies & procedures to minimize this decades ago.

Unfortunately, too many said people in power (both public & private sectors) are far more proactive in feathering thier own nests and sipping the cocktails in thier limos instead.

The Copenhagen 2009 summit, sadly, seems to be pretty much a waste of money & resources itself, with little practical positive effects.
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: ClimateGate Rebunked

Postby Ragorn » Wed Dec 23, 2009 5:04 am

Corth wrote:Curious what you guys think about the following article:

http://www.associatedcontent.com/articl ... tml?cat=15

Other than that haunting feeling that my descendants are going to look back on us and go "WHAT THE FUCK WERE YOU THINKING," I'd be for it.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: ClimateGate Rebunked

Postby Corth » Wed Dec 23, 2009 6:06 am

Yeah I kind of get that feeling myself. :)

But we're assuming the scientists agree it's safe. And scientists can't be wrong!
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: ClimateGate Rebunked

Postby kiryan » Wed Jan 20, 2010 4:12 pm

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/01/ ... nContent.5

(AP) A U.N. warning that Himalayan glaciers were melting faster than any other place in the world and may be gone by 2035 was not backed up by science, U.N. climate experts said Wednesday - an admission that could energize climate change critics.

In a 2007 report, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said the Himalayan glaciers are very likely to disappear within three decades if the present melting rate continues. But a statement from the panel now says there is not enough scientific evidence to back up those claim.

So another lie from the above all reproach scientific community and the UN? Technically I suppose its not a lie if it happens, but its a pretty big slam to the integrity of climate change science.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Re: ClimateGate Rebunked

Postby teflor the ranger » Mon Jan 25, 2010 9:57 pm

I read that the data pointed to the glaciers being gone by 2350, which, if true, sounds like an inaccuracy (read as: magnified, unchecked typo) fed by politically motivated scientists, which is more forgivable than an outright lie.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: ClimateGate Rebunked

Postby kiryan » Tue Jan 26, 2010 3:47 am

Where did you read about it being a typo. I read a couple of articles and both pretty much said it was basically completely made up.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: ClimateGate Rebunked

Postby kiryan » Thu Jan 28, 2010 4:59 pm

So the head of the UEA research center broke the law. You're above reproach "scientists" not only parted with scientific standards, but also outright broke and conspired with others to break the law in an area extremely germaine to their professions. But you should go ahead and continue to put blind faith in "scientists" because you know they are scientists not political hacks... or are they?

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/01/ ... latestnews

The university at the center of the climate change scandal over stolen e-mails broke the law by refusing to hand over its raw data for public scrutiny.
...
The Information Commissioner's Office decided that UEA failed in its duties under the act
...
The stolen e-mails, revealed on the eve of the Copenhagen summit, showed how the university's Climatic Research Unit attempted to thwart requests for scientific data and other information, and suggest that senior figures at the university were involved in decisions to refuse the requests. It is not known who stole the e-mails.
Daz
Sojourner
Posts: 1942
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 5:01 am
Location: newark, delaware
Contact:

Re: ClimateGate Rebunked

Postby Daz » Thu Jan 28, 2010 7:33 pm

Maurice Strong, is the 'father' of the whole carbon-trading UN sceme, a canadian oil commodities trader who lives in China and is friends with Al Gore and happens to run a company that specializes in a $592 trillion dollar industry that depends upon the fear of global warming...then we discover that data in this field that would ultimately monetize this man to the point he could hire Bill Gates to clean his pool is being altered to meet expectations he created, and destroyed or lost when it doesn't suit his goal...I mean, grammatically I just made no sense, but the words combined to give you an idea of what I mean, right?
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: ClimateGate Rebunked

Postby kiryan » Fri Jan 29, 2010 8:01 pm

I think I posted it before, but basically the UN wants more control of the world period. Right now they have no teeth.

If they get the right to control economies through regulation of green house gases, they get closer to being an actual world government. Something like 80% of the thousands of UN resolutions are against Israel... So obviously the UN has no power.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Re: ClimateGate Rebunked

Postby teflor the ranger » Fri Jan 29, 2010 11:27 pm

So, the UN is hiding their decline like the climate scientists are hiding theirs?
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: ClimateGate Rebunked

Postby kiryan » Sat Jan 30, 2010 9:15 pm

Nice, according to fox... they knew about the glacier melting error 2 months ago, well before the copenhagen summit.

Now why didn't they bother to announce that there was at least one completely made up claim in the official, beyond any doubt or debate, report.

so now do I have your permission to question every thing the UN scientists say about irrefutable climate change? Or do they still deserve all you sheeple's blind unconditinoal faith in their incontrivertible science? its for the planet man

--

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/01/ ... iTech%2529

The chairman of the leading climate change watchdog was informed that claims about melting Himalayan glaciers were false before the Copenhagen summit, the Times of London reports.

Rajendra Pachauri was told that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment that the glaciers would disappear by 2035 was wrong, but he waited two months to correct it. He failed to act despite learning that the claim had been refuted by several leading glaciologists.

The IPCC’s report underpinned the proposals at Copenhagen for drastic cuts in global emissions.

Pachauri, who played a leading role at the summit, corrected the error last week after coming under media pressure. He told the Times on January 22 that he had only known about the error for a few days. He said: “I became aware of this when it was reported in the media about ten days ago. Before that, it was really not made known. Nobody brought it to my attention. There were statements, but we never looked at this 2035 number.”

Asked whether he had deliberately kept silent about the error to avoid embarrassment at Copenhagen, he said: “That’s ridiculous. It never came to my attention before the Copenhagen summit. It wasn’t in the public sphere.”
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: ClimateGate Rebunked

Postby kiryan » Mon Feb 01, 2010 4:02 pm

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/ ... latestnews

speculation that the hackers were spies. I had the same thought when it broke and again when the google hack thing broke.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: ClimateGate Rebunked

Postby kiryan » Mon Feb 01, 2010 8:09 pm

Assuming the below is true, and they found YET ANOTHER unsubstantiated / completely misapplied claim to support global climate change, from the OFFICIAL IPCC documents that declared itself beyond all reproach because of the SCIENCE and PEER REVIEW process... are you ready to concede that we need to replace all these pandering politically driven scientists, especially at the UN?

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/01/ ... ped-facts/

In the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), issued in 2007 by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), scientists wrote that 40 percent of the Amazon rainforest in South America was endangered by global warming.

The IPCC report states that "up to 40 percent of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation" -- highlighting the threat climate change poses to the Earth. The report goes on to say that "it is more probable that forests will be replaced by ecosystems ... such as tropical savannas."

But it has now been revealed that the claim was based on a WWF study titled "Global Review of Forest Fires," a paper barely related to the Amazon rainforest that was written "to secure essential policy reform at national and international level to provide a legislative and economic base for controlling harmful anthropogenic forest fires."

"If it is true that IPCC has indeed faked numbers regarding the Amazon, or used unsubstantiated facts, then it is the third nail in the IPCC coffin in less than three months," Andrew Wheeler, former staff director for the U.S. Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee, told FoxNews.com. "For years, we have been told that the IPCC peer review process is the gold standard in scientific review. It now appears it is more of a fool's gold process."
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Re: ClimateGate Rebunked

Postby teflor the ranger » Mon Feb 01, 2010 10:12 pm

Kiryan, Kiryan, Kiryan,

They extrapolated a projection without experimental data, without quality historic data, and without consistency between what data sets they did use.

But the scientist said it was ok, so it should be just fine, dummy.

Sincerely,

Teflor.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: ClimateGate Rebunked

Postby kiryan » Fri Feb 05, 2010 7:20 pm

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/ ... te-report/

Yet another incorrect statement in the IPCC report, the report you are not allowed to question because Duh, its science.

What a cluster. The UN can't even put out a document that is accurate after hundreds of thousands of dollar and all their controls and review process. This latest mistake was "on the agenda several times" but had never actually happened.

Well come on liberals. Defend your report. Defend the process, defend the UN and their proclamation that global warming is proven.
avak
Sojourner
Posts: 672
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:01 am

Re: ClimateGate Rebunked

Postby avak » Sat Feb 06, 2010 2:54 am

Well come on liberals. Defend your report. Defend the process, defend the UN and their proclamation that global warming is proven.

First, an IPCC partner challenged the report. That is the process. The fact that you are linking this story shows that the process works to some degree. Second, it is a stretch to call it a factual inaccuracy. ""They should have been clearer," Vallaart pointed out, adding that the Dutch office for environmental planning, an IPCC partner, had the exact figures." Sounds drastic.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: ClimateGate Rebunked

Postby kiryan » Sat Feb 06, 2010 3:35 am

And the other 2? The made up claim about the himalayas? The amazon rain forest claim that was taken out of context and based off a push paper by a rain forest activist (not a scientist)?
avak
Sojourner
Posts: 672
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:01 am

Re: ClimateGate Rebunked

Postby avak » Sat Feb 06, 2010 5:52 pm

It seems like basic scientific process stuff to me. Peer review means that one person or group puts out work and then other people and groups review it. The process itself is slow. I am still having papers published from work that was done seven or more years ago...on climate change actually.

The manipulation here is actually standard partisanship language games. Kiryan, you are the one loading the argument with provocative claims like: "the report you are not allowed to question because Duh, its science" and "Or do they still deserve all you sheeple's blind unconditinoal faith in their incontrivertible science" and "above reproach "scientists" etc etc.

Just like our legal system, science has to establish a sort of probable cause...of course you will find holes and missteps in the work of hundreds or thousands of independent scientists.

Are you suggesting that we wait until there is proof beyond any reproach before taking action? In this issue or any other? The logical problem there is pretty fn evident because you'll be waiting until after the fact...that is the only time you can truly know something will happen.

That raises a funny side dilemma concerning how many of you on this board probably do stuff every single day based on speculative claims...especially around health and diet. That is impacting your very existence...the one thing that really actually matters.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: ClimateGate Rebunked

Postby kiryan » Sat Feb 06, 2010 6:24 pm

I admit I politicize it greatly and use loaded statements to attemt to spread discredit. I do it for a lot of reasons, but the one thing that makes me the angriest in this world is when someone tries to force me to do something I don't want to do.

global climate change is being shoved down my throat. it is being peddled by a bunch of self serving interests who used to admit they didn't know enough, but somehow gelled into 100% certainity and that you're a pinhead if you still disagree with them. They want to force us to spend billions and trillions of dollars to avert catastrophe that many question whether will and others question if we can stop it. This is in a very real sense a huge boon doggle for academic world and the tree hugging hippies that have infiltrated it after spending their whole life from the 60s trying to make the rest of the world accept their mother earth beliefs.

so yea, I'm a little unreasonable when it comes to this stuff. I get very unreasonable when supposed trusted sources like the UN like the East Anglica facility in their rush to push an agenda trampled all over good science's name. A fucking activist's push paper was included in this global climate change holy grail report. How am I supposed to trust shit like that whether its true or not? If this was so important, they should've done it right. I take every mistake to be further proof that this is a case of group think not product of actual research.

And that doesn't even get me started on the whole set of counter theories to global climate change being man made. You know what I liken this to, the "holy men" of ancient times who calculated eclipses and achieved god like status for being able to do some astronomy (science). The science was legit, the identification of the reason "god gave me power or insight" was political. global climate change on some scale is always happening, its a natural process. The science is probably 99% legit and we understand much more about how things work today than we did 10 years ago, but the conclusions are self serving and ambitious given the lack of observation time, the lack of experience seeing the process through, the lack of data. This is like throwing some baking soda into a cup with vinegar and after 1 seconds using all your measurements to predict the reaction is increasing exponentially and will consume the earth in a violent eruption of baking soda bubbles. In reality, after 10 seconds, the show is over and you would've know that if you would've actually understood the nature of the mechanics, not just measured the size and expansion rate of the bubbles.

I would've felt a lot better about the predictions of global warming, if they could've predicted the decline. I would feel a lot better about global climate change theory if they didn't have to tweak their models to fit tree ring data and actual temperature records. I'd feel a lot better about their predictions if they didn't actively stonewall critical theories and make wild false allegations in their reports.
avak
Sojourner
Posts: 672
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:01 am

Re: ClimateGate Rebunked

Postby avak » Sat Feb 06, 2010 9:12 pm

The current estimated cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars is nearly $1 trillion...4400 killed American soldiers and 31k wounded.

Maybe you're barking up the wrong tree.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Re: ClimateGate Rebunked

Postby teflor the ranger » Sat Feb 06, 2010 9:33 pm

avak wrote:The current estimated cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars is nearly $1 trillion...4400 killed American soldiers and 31k wounded.

Maybe you're barking up the wrong tree.


Perhaps one should take a look at what global support of terrorism cost us 09/11/2001. It's not exactly fair to point at the expense as if it were a new one.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: ClimateGate Rebunked

Postby kiryan » Sat Feb 06, 2010 9:35 pm

hopefully wars don't go on forever. the costs are concerning.

if they manage to sell climate change, rich countries, principally the US, will be forever paying off the rest of the world. Its a welfare system in practice as much as a save the planet movement in theory.

additionally, it will permanently fund the tree hugger movement by creating millions of permanent forest ranger and climate scientist jobs. I went through this in Oregon when they cut back on logging. They cut back on logging and were supposed to put them back to work in the forests as rangers and forest fighters ect... instead, tree huggers got the jobs and you can't even get into a forest in oregon, let alone take a piss in one. The UN is paying the indingent forest people in Brazil to "manage" the forests (basically a stipend for each person in a village). They live there and report anyone doing anything. da fuk
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: ClimateGate Rebunked

Postby kiryan » Sat Feb 06, 2010 9:39 pm

good point teflor. think about how much business was lost after 9/11. How the major financial players in the world re-evaluated their presence in NY, in the US. there was a huge economic hit that we may still not fully appreciate.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Re: ClimateGate Rebunked

Postby teflor the ranger » Sat Feb 06, 2010 9:43 pm

kiryan wrote:good point teflor. think about how much business was lost after 9/11. How the major financial players in the world re-evaluated their presence in NY, in the US. there was a huge economic hit that we may still not fully appreciate.

There is an even greater human cost, beyond the victims and their families, beyond American businesses, but a deep social psychological scar that have spurned a new interest in global security and involvement by the United States - many across the world continue to pay the price of global support for terrorism.
avak
Sojourner
Posts: 672
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:01 am

Re: ClimateGate Rebunked

Postby avak » Sat Feb 06, 2010 10:36 pm

I love how it's all about the cold, hard science until it's about emotion.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Re: ClimateGate Rebunked

Postby teflor the ranger » Mon Feb 08, 2010 5:49 am

Sorry Avak, that was not related to the thread. I was just responding to your post on the cost of combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: ClimateGate Rebunked

Postby kiryan » Mon Feb 08, 2010 6:58 am

ok. so now we have the UN climate chief demonzing critics as being in the pockets of big business, with no proof, and being a douche bag on top of it saying that deniers should inflict self harm. apparently we put people with the maturity of 2nd graders in charge of UN bodies.

The 2nd quote talks about the report being "riddled with citations to data furnished by activist groups, non-scientific journals and material that was never peer-reviewed". I don't know what constitues being riddled, probably a fox news embellishment related to the rain forest claims. I sure hope there is a lot more so that the world can see the hack job our politicians and scientists have perpetrated on us.

its undeniable, its science. f*king douche bags.


http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/ ... -asbestos/

The U.N.'s climate chief dismissed "nefarious" global warming skeptics this week by insinuating that they are deep in the pockets of big business -- and suggested that they go rub their faces in cancer-causing asbestos.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: ClimateGate Rebunked

Postby kiryan » Mon Feb 08, 2010 5:46 pm

It just keeps getting better. Now theres a claim about African crop yields which a UN scientist with the group responsible for the report, can find no evidence to support. When Bush reportedly makes shit up, you persecute him; when the UN makes shit up you say but global climate change is REALLY HAPPENING.

More lies from the UN scientists. More lies from politicized global warming activists (also scientists). More lies from Democrats like Al Gore.

--

The U.N.'s controversial climate report is coming under fire -- again -- this time by one of its own scientists, who admits he can't find any evidence to support a warning about a climate-caused North African food shortage.

This sort of claim should be based on hard evidence, said Robert Watson, chief scientist at Defra, the U.K.'s department for environment food and rural affairs, who chaired the IPCC from 1997 to 2002.

"Any such projection should be based on peer-reviewed literature from computer modelling of how agricultural yields would respond to climate change. I can see no such data supporting the IPCC report," he said.



http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/ ... latestnews

Return to “T2 General Discussion Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests