posted
(From a recent blog posting of mine on the AverageFreethinkingAmerican blog):
"ClimateGate and What Science Is Not":
"ClimateGate" refers to the supposed hacking of the Climatic Research Unit in the UK, a primary center espousing man-made global warming claims, producing e-mails and documents from scientists showing several alarming things (see this web page for a good clearing-house of analysis points):
1. Their climate models are based on profoundly sloppy and undocumented computer code, poorly-kept guesswork-analyzed datasets, and only a rudimentary understanding of the chemistry and general workings of the Earth, the variability of the sun, and so on. For example, those dealing with the models often have no idea what assorted rows of numbers mean for historical data, and their globe modeling is exceedingly primitive and flawed on its best day. (Hurricane-oriented weather modeling is decades beyond their global warming climatology models, and yet even the newest hurricane models can have errors of hundreds of miles even over a timespan of days.) Worse, much of the data used as input is cherry-picked to suit the desired result, not to mention hard-coded fakery and input synthesized unnecessarily from other input data (e.g. not using real weather info from the 20th Century but only predicted weather for that time period based on prior years), and model output usually features enormous variances compared to the claimed tenth-of-a-degree accuracy of their predictions.
Almost pure guesswork is used when pondering effect and concentration of pollutants and particulates, often oversimplifying or ignoring the matter (as had already been noted elsewhere, such as recently in the journal Science). And, of course, the sun is usually discounted, despite its known cycles and their effects (see "Maunder Minimum", "Little Ice Age") and its current variance (see "Modern Maximum").
2. The scientific method is based on the idea that you develop a hypothesis and test it. The results of the test are supposed to be reproducible by other scientists. In the case of models, reality is the test. Man-made global warming predictions have almost invariably failed both in the short term and over the decades since the beginning of the claims (once they got past the global cooling claims of the 70s). Nevertheless, one way to at least allow other scientists -- including those skeptical of your claims -- to understand the claims would be to share the details of how you arrived at your conclusions.
Man-made global warming proponents, however, jealously guard their raw data, their model code (see #1), and their methods (see #3), so as to avoid critique by those skeptical of their view (see #4). Even when the government-funded data is requested via Freedom of Information Act requests (the UK has one as well), information was removed from the data to render it unusable and an unabashed conspiracy to delete correspondence about the research was engaged in.
3. When the model outputs do not correspond to preconceptions, the models are run again and tweaked by applying specialized numerical transformations or simply factoring in previously-unfactored bits of other datasets (see #1). The methodology is quite ad hoc. "Trick"s are used to "hide the decline" where needed, and evidence-based events like the Medieval Warm Period for which man-made global warming folks have no man-based explanation are intentionally "contain"ed . . . minimized in their models. This is done in the hopes their existence and claims regarding it by skeptics (who correctly note the lack of SUVs and coal power plants in Medieval times) can be thwarted early by making it seem small compared to what is claimed for the 20th Century.
4. A concerted effort is in play by prominent global warming scientists to keep skeptical scientists out of the peer-reviewed literature, and then promote publication in peer-review literature as being indicative of truth value and/or scientific acceptance. (Publication is the first step in acceptance, not the last!)
The effort to control peer review involves attempts at character assassination of opponents, campaigns for the firing of research journal editors who are 'soft' on skeptics, and other forms of pressure. The absence of significant skeptic presence in peer-reviewed literature is then used as 'proof' that skeptics are dealing in poor science.
****************************
None of the above is meant to suggest that global warming is an evil conspiracy. It is, however, proof that there are a bunch of like-minded idiots (plus a few plain old badguys) pushing the claims. That the claims could be politicized so long ago by the likes of new carbon-credit billionaire Al Gore ('the science is settled; the debate is over') and made to play into international anti-capitalist agendas and mixed with the modern secular religion of ignorant environmentalism is just proof of the capacity for self-deception of a gaggle of like-minded idiots operating en masse.
Nevertheless, Al Gore will continue to sleep at night in sweatshop-created, inefficiently-shipped pajamas in his extreme-carbon-footprint mansion. Global Warming alarmists will try to pretend that, yes, the sky is still falling, so we still have to sign treaties that condemn the economy of the United States and EU and require taxation to give to developing countries, because somehow that will correct the environmental injustice of our pollution (though China doesn't have to, because . . . er . . . well, because).
The fact is, humans can have an impact on the environment. But all the energy of man pales in comparison to the energy of the Earth, and all the industrial smokestacks, cattle farts, and SUV tailpipes in the world can't hope to compete with the incredible balance of this massively huge volume of atmosphere across the planet. LED lightbulbs and hydrogen cars and nuclear fusion and nanomaterials are worthwhile goals for a lot of reasons . . . there is no need to make false and bogus claims of imminent fiery death (or ocean-level-rise drowning) in order to get them.
******************************
So how best for science to respond? Well, first, get the bums out, and then have everything these lying dirtbags have touched redone to confirm or deny their claims.
What global warming people shouldn't do is try to ignore or get even more arrogant over the matter.
Note these comments from a claimed scientist in response to the controversy for an example of the worst possible response:
"Science is not a democratic process. Nor is it something akin to the french revolution. What exactly are you going to do with that data? Nothing but hurl criticism based on ignorance. Having to defend ourselves from that shit increases our already monumental stress levels.
You lack the training or intellectual capacity to see anything but a string of numbers you cannot understand and your eyes glaze over. {...} We do what we do because we are (for the most part) one of the few groups of people on this planet which has the ability and willingness to{.}"
"Scientists do not serve you directly, and the data we obtain is beyond your capacity to analyze."
The point that science is not a democratic process is actually quite true, and ironic from this person given that he's supporting the same folks who claim a consensus of scientists dictates reality. It does not. Reality exists, and would do so even if all the people of Earth failed to recognize it and instead believed the contrary.
But beyond that, all we have is elitism and undeserved arrogance.
The global warming guys were liars and scoundrels perpetrating a falsehood upon the whole world, and they suffered from the same sort of undeserved arrogance. So afraid were they to be criticized, they finally got to the point . . . no doubt bit by bit . . . where they would cross almost any line. They weren't breaking kneecaps yet, but given that one of these wannabe scientists claimed he was going to be very tempted to punch a particular opponent when next they met, it seems it was only a matter of time.
In politics, science, and so much more, we must always be diligent against those who would unleash the worst traits of humanity.
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
posted
Interesting point, somewhat muddled by the fact that the blogger is incredibly right-leaning, and presents himself as stereotypical far righter, not a "free thinking" American.
Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
posted
I wasn't aware Freethinking suggested a leftward lean. In my case, I simply re-used an old screen name of mine from a creationism vs. evolution website forum. And I daresay the exact same reasoning that leads me to fight creationist nonsense is the same reasoning that leads me to fight this AGW nonsense, because the scientific flaws in the two strike me as awfully similar.
BTW, ignore the pansy in the link. ;-)
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
posted
Al Gore is a billionaire now? I think not. I see your crazyland article and raise you a common-sense version:
quote:Sarah Palin's anti-science showdown The politics of hacked e-mails, says the former Alaskan governor, prove humans aren't causing climate change By Andrew Leonard "The president should boycott Copenhagen," declares Sarah Palin in an Op-Ed in today's Washington Post. The linchpin of her argument: The ClimateGate e-mails expose mainstream climate science as "agenda driven."
If anything could make the scientists at the Climate Research Unit of East Anglia University feel worse than they already do about their irresponsible and dumb e-mailing, it would have to be handing the likes of Sarah Palin a bully pulpit from which to posture. But one has to snort at Palin's characterization of these scientists as "a highly politicized scientific circle." I'm as upset as anyone at the evidence of scientists attempting to avoid Freedom of Information Act requests, but let's not forget the larger context here. For decades climate researchers have been assaulted by political attacks funded by the energy industry and right-wing think tanks who care nothing at all about the science -- their sole goal has been to shield "free" markets from the consequences of their actions. If you or I faced this kind of daily barrage, we'd probably do stupid things too.
The heart of Sarah Palin's argument isn't really about the science.
But while we recognize the occurrence of these natural, cyclical environmental trends, we can't say with assurance that man's activities cause weather changes. We can say, however, that any potential benefits of proposed emissions reduction policies are far outweighed by their economic costs.
Continue Reading Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are at their highest point in 15 million years. According to the World Meteorological Organization, the current decade is the warmest on record, and the current year is the fifth warmest ever -- observations that are supported by data collected by multiple climate research centers. Evidence of global warming comes from many reinforcing points -- melting polar ice, rising sea levels, changes in plant and animal ecology across the globe. Palin's assertion that we can't "say with assurance that man's activities cause weather changes" is far more highly politicized than anything that comes out of the Climate Research Unit. It is fundamentally anti-science.
Sarah Palin and James Inhofe and the Competitive Enterprise Institute and Exxon and all the rest can hold their breath and turn blue in the face and argue as long as they want that the hacked e-mails from East Anglia undermine and refute the work done by thousands of scientists across the world for decades. And in all likelihood, they and their allies will probably succeed in postponing and delaying any prudent action that might have a chance at ameliorating the effects of hotter temperatures in our lifetimes. The problem is hard. Coordinating the actions of governments across the globe on such a complex challenge is near impossible.
I don't think future generations will remember the Inhofes and Palins fondly, but the great thing about science is that it will continue marching on, whatever they do. If there was significant manipulation of data at the Climate Research Unit -- and the evidence of real smoking guns proving fraud is mighty thin -- hardworking scientists will correct it and move forward. That's how science works. That's how we've unlocked the mysteries of the atom and the human genome. That's how we've built computers and space ships and cancer drugs.
The great irony and tragedy of ClimateGate is that decades of anti-science pressure from special interests pushed some scientists over the edge and made them act in ways that are not very scientific. But whether or not that imbroglio scuppers an agreement at Copenhagen or prevents a climate change bill from passing during the current administration, we will continue to accumulate more data and understand better what is happening to our planet as time goes on. And Sarah Palin's malign and conscious stupidity will only grow more historically transcendent.
UPDATE: Mark Ambinder blasts away at Palin's Op-Ed in the Atlantic.
More Andrew Leonard
Did some small number of scientists behave unethicly? Quite possibly- which is a hilarious accuzation from people that stole their e-mails- but it's hardly some smoking gun that the THOUSANDS of scientists WORLDWIDE that study climate are somehow complicit.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Gore denies he's en route to becoming a carbon billionaire, but he has a company that already sells its indulgences to all of us original carbon sinners and he is otherwise positioned to profit immensely.
I have no problem with Gore being a capitalist who strategically invests . . . more power to him in that regard . . . but considering he's trying to create the market he's primed for by, for instance, going off the same discredited hockey stick which we now know was the result of a concerted effort to "contain the putative MWP" (e.g. hide the ever so unhelpful Medieval Warm Period that outshone recent temperatures tremendously, per some ice core data) and using all sorts of other dubious claims in his quest to politicize the science, I do call him out for being a dishonest twat. (Even if he doesn't care because he's already laughing his way to the bank.) Hell, he didn't even trouble himself to become familiar with ClimateGate before trying to dismiss it.
As to the main point and your peculiar strawman regarding a worldwide conspiracy, I already made the point that it was not so. What it is, however, is very bad science.
And the problem is compounded by the way CRU and their buddies handled things. For instance, global temperature records could have meaning for a wide variety of researchers. Michael (hockey stick) Mann's efforts to hide the MWP could throw off actual researchers in a wide variety of fields. Underhanded tactics like getting editors sacked and otherwise bullying the peer review process could cause others to misdirect themselves rather than go against prevailing wisdom on the temperature record. AGW alarmist selections of specific helpful tree ring cores over others can misdirect locally. And, of course, it was all done with a wink and a nod as they held their data and methods close to their chest. As Jones told one guy who wanted to review the data, "Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”
Compare AGW theories with Darwinism. The latter elegantly tied together existing observations from geology and biology, continuing evidence supported it, and later it became highly refined thanks to genetic research and such. There were predictions that panned out. Folks show data freely.
AGW, on the other hand, has made no functional predictions that have panned out, and it's really shocking just how much of their data is fantasy-based. Instead of tying together existing knowledge, it requires that one ignore vast amounts of it (e.g. the MWP). Instead of free flow of data, you just get conclusions and name-calling or worse if you question them. The proof is not how it corresponds to reality, but whether or not "consensus" can be claimed, as if the atmosphere gives a damn what we think. And so on.
AGW reminds me a lot more of creationism than science, and that's sad. Worse is that they both rely on religion ... creationism is driven by its adherents' belief in a creator, and global warming by believers in the new secular religion of environmentalism. In both cases the resulting flaws are the same.
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
posted
Forgetv "CRU and their buddies" and Al Gore and Cap & trade and all that political shit and look at all the thousands of research papers and investigations into global warming -not the least of which was conducted in secret by the Bush administration and only released after Obama became President.
If the Bush administration, which fought so hard against there being any connection between man's activities and global warming came to the same conclusion as all those outher- independant- reasearchers, that should tell you it's not just a few people fudging data or trying to capitalize on public beliefs.
This was funny:
quote: A congressional hearing that was supposed to be a routine recap of global-warming science Wednesday turned into a fracas involving e-mails stolen from some prominent climate scientists. The e-mails were stolen from the University of East Anglia in Britain, from one of the three labs in the world that constructs global temperature records. The private exchanges have become a goldmine for skeptics who argue that global warming is a plot rather than a real man-made problem. At Wednesday's hearing before a House select committee, Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) called for an investigation of the e-mails. He said at best, official reports about global warming will now need to be reviewed. "At worst, it's junk science and it's part of a massive international scientific fraud," he said. And not just fraud: "There's increasing evidence of scientific fascism that's going on. And I think, as policymakers who are making decisions about the state of the American economy for the next several generations, we ought to have accurate science." President Obama's top science adviser, John Holdren, agreed that the e-mails should be thoroughly investigated. At issue is whether they provide evidence of scientific malfeasance, or just bad manners. "Scientists are human, and from time to time they display defensiveness and bias and even misbehavior of some kinds," Holdren said. "They're like any other group of human beings. They're subject to human frailties. I think the facts are not in on this particular case." Holdren agreed that if the e-mails reveal inappropriate data manipulation, and that ended up in official reports, obviously those reports would need to be corrected. "However this particular controversy comes out, the result will not call into question the bulk of our understanding of how the climate works or how humans are affecting it," he added. Evidence from many different sources shows that the air and oceans are warming as a result of greenhouse gases humans are putting into the atmosphere. Jane Lubchenco, a scientist who heads the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, gave a tabletop demonstration at the hearing to show how increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is also making the oceans more acidic. Those explanations didn't reassure some Republican members of the committee. In response, Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA) said he was stunned by their skepticism. He said if global warming is a fraud, it must be perpetrated by a conspiracy of scientists from all around the world. "I just wanted to ask you if you're part of that massive international conspiracy," he said to the witnesses, adding with a note of sarcasm, "Are either one of your members of the Trilateral Commission, SPECTRE or KAOS? I just need an answer." Holdren replied: "Congressman Inslee, I am not a member of any of those organizations, and I don't believe there's an international conspiracy. That would be an amazing thing indeed." Holdren pointed out that national academies of science from all around the world accept the reality of human-induced global warming, as do other leading science organizations and the United Nations. Inslee then noted that nobody else in the room had any other plausible way to explain why carbon dioxide is building up in the air and in the oceans. "And yet people are trying to gin up this controversy. You know why? It's not that they aren't intelligent. It's that they are afraid that we can't solve this problem." He argued that we can solve the problem, but the challenge is that most of the public — including members of Congress — struggle to understand even the basic science. And now, the leaked e-mails raise doubts about some of the climate scientists, too.
According to Wikipedia:
quote: The Sunlight Foundation pointed out that among the 435 members of the U.S. House of Representatives, Sensenbrenner has the fourth-highest amount of investment in oil stocks.
But wait! Prior to this so-caled "Climategate", Sensenbrenner's position was that the US should do nothing to forciblylimit carbon emissions because China has not guarenteed to match those limits. http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/06/sensenbrenner.html
So, it went from being a real problem, that we should do nothing about, to being all a vast conspiracy of "scientific fascism". A new low in newspeak.
Keep cashing those oil dividends, Jim.
Certainly not everyone that doubts global warming's cause (or even it's existance, despite the evidence) is some oil company investor or lackey- but a lot of the most vocal people chiming in on this certainly are.
Personally, I think any elected official with a financial investment in a topic should recuse themselves from depate on that topic- be it global warming or healthcare or whatever- if they have a personal, financial gain in the failure or passage of legslation, their opinion is suspect, at best.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
You just asked me to forget all the political shit like Al Gore standing to profit via his sales of carbon credits and investments in green junk, then you attacked this Sensenbrenner fellow ("Keep cashing those oil dividends, Jim.") on the grounds of his investments in oil stock.
And then you use the tired old crap about opponents all being oil investors or lackeys. Of course, CRU also went for your Evil Big Oil Money(tm), so I hardly find that a convincing line of character assassination . . . would it were so that ad hominem attacks even had any standing to start with in determining truth value.
Besides which, of all the people you might want to personally attack, you chose some random US Representative? Seriously? Do you have any idea how lame your argument sounds? Not only did you go straight to ad hominems, but you attacked the frickin' janitor with them.
Anyway, if you review the real data and real claims you'll find that even a modicum of scientific scrutiny pays big dividends in cutting through the crap. But since I'm not seeing much evidence of you having any interest in the science itself or the devastating effect ClimateGate has on the credibility of that science, I'll just leave you to your opinion.
Thanks!
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
posted
Everybody at the Copenhagen shindig who is not a researcher or protester is not interested in looking at any of the data or analysis unless it is in a very simlpified fashion. They are politicially minded and are a)wanting to do something about a percived problem and b)trying to win votes.
"ClimateGate" as the Sun has no doubt dubed it is a nonsense. It is a case of scientists dumbing down to get their point across. Data manipulation, as it has been refered to, was because trends did not follow in one piece of research where they do in others. OK, this is poor science, and it reflects badly on the researchers and their department heads. Nobody else.
To suggest that "ClimateGate" is a reflection of all scientists involved in climate research, or even the scientific community as a whole is simply wrong and offensive. To suggest that because of one groups irresponsible behaviour (and let's make it clear that the goal was not to mislead, but to simplify for a non scientific audience) all climate research is a missleading lie is silly, and frankly irresponsible. It allows years of good research and good scientific conclusions to be rejected by those who do not care to do the research for themselves.
-------------------- I have plenty of experience in biology. I bought a Tamagotchi in 1998... And... it's still alive.
Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
posted
1. No one is suggesting that the behavior seen in ClimateGate is normal for the scientific community, except of course for AGW researcher apologist site RealClimate and a few other similar pro-AGW locales. While that's funny, I certainly don't presume that any climate researcher or real scientist behaves in such unethical ways as a matter of course, and neither should you.
2. Their goal was to mislead, and their publications in journals were not exactly for a non-scientific audience.
If the concern was with their political allies and they wanted to make sure the UN's IPCC people understood something, they could've simply called them, since they were in such close communication as seen in the ClimateGate e-mails.
3. Given that this was a major source of AGW data, and that the papers of those involved are considered some of the better bits of data in the science (both for modern and paleo needs), yes there is a lot of science that has been damaged. I don't know where your idea of someone saying "all climate research is a misleading lie" is coming from, but it should be needless to say that a great deal of research should now be reviewed, most especially what emerged from CRU but also that which used AGW-alarmist researcher publications as reference sources.
To put it in a localized perspective, Starships and Technology posts at Flare might feature links to points raised in other S&T threads, and arguments about some bit of minutiae might turn on the claims from those older threads.
We have the advantage of being able to just pop in a DVD to confirm or deny someone's claim if for some reason they didn't provide the evidence via screenshot, but climate research doesn't have a readily accessible canon. They have tree ring proxies and error-ridden surface station logs that they won't share and other crap.
The net result is that a new thread might reference other threads, with no capacity to re-analyze the older thread sources or confirm or deny the findings. And yet an argument in that new thread might turn on what was said before . . . could even be based on it.
And then another thread might come up that references the one that referenced the other one, and so on and so forth. It may be that the original error is filtered out by distance, or it may be that there are whole threads based on the original hoax . . . can't be sure without looking.
If what was said before was shown to be full of it, a review is not evidence of some evil denialist conspiracy . . . it is demanded by scientific ethics. The CRU guys had none. The rest of climate science must now pick up their slack, especially when they know good and well that trillions of dollars and human lives are riding on it.
And y'know, frankly, it seems to me that anyone who denies that simple premise is in danger of being a kool-aid drinker. I'm not poisoning the well here . . . feel free to disagree for a good reason . . . but I'll be damned if we should simply ignore ClimateGate because of its inconvenient truths.
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: You just asked me to forget all the political shit like Al Gore standing to profit via his sales of carbon credits and investments in green junk, then you attacked this Sensenbrenner fellow ("Keep cashing those oil dividends, Jim.") on the grounds of his investments in oil stock.
And then you use the tired old crap about opponents all being oil investors or lackeys. Of course, CRU also went for your Evil Big Oil Money(tm), so I hardly find that a convincing line of character assassination . . . would it were so that ad hominem attacks even had any standing to start with in determining truth value.
Besides which, of all the people you might want to personally attack, you chose some random US Representative? Seriously? Do you have any idea how lame your argument sounds? Not only did you go straight to ad hominems, but you attacked the frickin' janitor with them.
Anyway, if you review the real data and real claims you'll find that even a modicum of scientific scrutiny pays big dividends in cutting through the crap. But since I'm not seeing much evidence of you having any interest in the science itself or the devastating effect ClimateGate has on the credibility of that science, I'll just leave you to your opinion.
Thanks!
You're hysterical- I did not "choose some random US Representative" as you put it- sensenbrenner has blocked or held up every effort at carbon regulation all the while taking campaign contributions from the oil insustry- if you're upset at Al Gore, then surely you're just as upset at Sensenbrenner- as you acuse Gore of profiteering from the science, so too is Sensenbrenner profiting from opposing it.
You're obviously unaware of all those on the Right that are making untold milions selling their services in this manufactured climate debate- you're so focused on Al Gore (which is laughable as he's just a mouhpiece at most)and these supposedly damning e-mails taht you're willing to discount thousands of independent research projects and the judgment of scientific bodies in every major country in the world. In. the. world.
Seriously, you think that it's all a sham or that all these scientists around the planet are linked to this small collection of scientists who's e-mails were supposely stolen?
Not to mention that you're taking the word of anonymous theives that these e-mails have not been tampered with or altered. certainly they have been selectivly edited to present only what the hackers want them to depict, if nothing else. So much for the right's "moral majority".
At a state level, Florida certainly believes the evidence of global warming- as most of the state would suffer dramatic land-loss from even a one foot rise in sealevels (and the loss of Everglades national park as salt water gets in). http://www.environmentflorida.org/issues/global-warming
quote:This summer, Governor Crist signed an executive order that sets a goal of reducing Florida's global warming emissions by 80% by 2050, which is what scientists say we must do to prevent the worst effects of global warming
Good to see some republican take the science seriously at least. Or am i "picking on him"?
quote:Originally posted by Mars Needs Women: Mommy and Daddy, stop fighting!
GO TO YOUR ROOM!
[ December 11, 2009, 09:52 PM: Message edited by: Jason Abbadon ]
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
The correct response to my post would've been to focus on the science, the e-mails and model data and notes, and so on.
Instead you continue complaining about Sensenbrenner (I'd never heard of him before), accuse me of bias, continue your "follow the money" ad hominem BS, and appeal to the authority of the so-called consensus, which (a) doesn't exist, (b) is logically invalid as a truth value determination anyway, and (c) is significantly based on major research which you've already learned to be tainted.
You then suggest I am immoral, based on your claim that I'm taking the word of anonymous data thieves. You ignore the fact that UEA has already confirmed the authenticity of the data.
Oh yes, and what the hell is this idea that I'm "so focused on Al Gore"? I brought him up in passing in the original post, but you're the one who keeps bringing him up. See, I'm trying to talk about ideas. You're the one who keeps talking about people.
Finally . . . and, strangely, most annoyingly . . . you attempt to create a straw man of what I've said here yet again, working to suggest that I think climate change research is either all wrong or all lies.
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the false dilemma fallacy . . . or perhaps you're quite aware of it, and intentionally using it to try to create your ridiculous straw man version of me.
Either way, I'm very disappointed in you. Care to discuss ClimateGate itself or would you like to go on attacking me and other people in your next post? Up to you . . . my guess is the latter, since this will best serve your apparent interest in distracting from the issues.
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
posted
You're taking this all personally- no one ever called you immoral- but relying on the word of anonymous hackers is hardly a rock from which to build an unbiased viewpoint.
Awww. you're disapointed in me (chuckles) while falling for this false, and very conviently-timed "scandal". YOu can not discuss your "Climategate" fallacy without talking about the players pushing their own agendas- it's only a scandal (or a media story at all) because people with a financial interest have made it one. Thus I brought up Sensenbrenner- as he's been and remains the most vocal of opponents to any regulation/leglislation of carbon release- and that is what the science is all about, you know.
It's no distraction of the issues to point to the motives behind those issues- be them scientists tweaking data to those that would use said alledged fixing to claim all global warming science is falsified.
So let me ask you a question: Do you believe that, based on the science, the world is getting warmer, causing environmental consequences? Do you believe that it is getting warmer but humans are not involved or not aggrivating the situation? Is it your assertation that "The global warming guys were liars and scoundrels perpetrating a falsehood upon the whole world, and they suffered from the same sort of undeserved arrogance" as in your first post?
Because if you believe that, then you reject all science and the evidence of the global scientific community, as well as every nation in the UN, as well as the National Science Advisors and EPA of both the current and prior administrations. If you believe it's all a "falsehood" you might as well stick your head in the sand and not read any more on the topic.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: [QB] You're taking this all personally- no one ever called you immoral- but relying on the word of anonymous hackers is hardly a rock from which to build an unbiased viewpoint.
The university admits the data is real. What part of that don't you understand?
Your response is the equivalent of someone stealing your driver's license after you've been lying about your age. When said license is publicly shown and you are called out on said lies, you admit that it's your driver's license but then say "why would you believe a thief?"
Do you not comprehend how retarded a response that is?
Skipping your silly defense of the ad hominem, we now move on to your effort to turn this toward me and still away from the science. What the hell, I'll bite:
quote:So let me ask you a question: Do you believe that, based on the science, the world is getting warmer, causing environmental consequences?
Over the past thousands of years and more, temperatures on the planet have been subject to swings all the time, swings that are massive (e.g. glacial/interglacial), tiny, and all points in between. Any temperature change . . . or even a lack thereof . . . can have "environmental consequences".
Is the average temperature of the planet presently on the increase when the data is figured on a monthly basis? Oh, I think there's some warming in some places, and cooling elsewhere. The net effect is probably of warming. But frankly, I don't know beyond a reasonable doubt that we can even say that with certainty at this point. The claims of warming have been wildly overstated by some scientists (CRU's data-fixing, New Zealand, Antarctica, surface station culling, failure to account for UHI and other bad surface station siting(*), et cetera), which muddies the water greatly.
(*)In the US, for instance, only about 10% of surface monitoring stations meet the specs for a good station (i.e. errors of less than a degree Celsius). And worldwide, about half the stations got decommissioned circa 1988-1991, and the remainder showed a much higher average, by weight. Note also the points above about Antarctica and New Zealand.
On the good side, we have satellite data, but these are calibrated and corrected off of ground sites and radiosondes, which themselves are subject to error and calibration by ground station. So they're really severely weighting things toward the ground stations, of which there are fewer and of which many are of poor quality (i.e. errors of one or more degrees Celsius).
quote:Do you believe that it is getting warmer but humans are not involved or not aggrivating the situation?
This is two questions. The first is answered above, but I presume you mean to ask "if warmer = yes, then is human involvement aggravating the situation?"
Of all the greenhouse gases pumped into the atmosphere, mankind's contribution is about one quarter of one percent. We are claimed to be making 3% extra CO2, which is just 3.6% of the gases.
So yes, we could be said to be aggravating the situation, to the tune of a single-digit handful of percentage points, on the basis of gases alone. I also think that we are aggravating it locally due to our massive concrete jungles and their urban heat islands, which are probably screwing with a bunch of the results in a way that is known to be poorly accounted for.
quote:Is it your assertation that "The global warming guys were liars and scoundrels perpetrating a falsehood upon the whole world, and they suffered from the same sort of undeserved arrogance" as in your first post?
Yes, though I am presuming you're taking that out of the context of it being these CRU and CRU-related guys and their AGW BS.
quote:Because if you believe that, then you reject all science
You're dead wrong. These guys were scientists in name only . . . their methodology and behavior does not reflect either the ideals of science or the behavior of scientists in other disciplines.
There's a good reason so many scientists from other disciplines point and laugh . . . because climate researchers seem to be of the opinion that they can divorce themselves from reality. To borrow from this excellent essay's quote of Feynman:
”In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we guess it. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right. Then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience; compare it directly with observation to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. It’s that simple statement that is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is---if it disagrees with experiment (observation) it is wrong." - Dr. Richard Feynman, “The Character of Natural Law”, the MIT Press, 1965, p. 156.
Similarly, it doesn't make any difference what the consequences of your guess are. If it fails against reality it's dead wrong.
quote:and the evidence of the global scientific community, as well as every nation in the UN, as well as the National Science Advisors and EPA of both the current and prior administrations.
I'm cool with that. There are a lot of people in the world who are wrong. Feel free to list more.
The concept you're falling victim to is truth by consensus. That's not how reality operates. Reality is truth, whether it is recognized or not.
Many of the 'origin stories' of science are based on Galileo, Bruno, and other bold individuals who stood up against religious orthodoxy. Man-made global warming is the latest version of the religion of enviromentalism, and even gives its own Original Sin to the mythos (you dirty CO2-exhalers, you).
Sorry, chief, but I'm not buying into your religious mumbo-jumbo. I don't like religion in my science, whether it's AGW or creationism, so you can take that home and flush it.
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
posted
You're deciding that global warming is a hoax based on what? twelve (maybe) scientists that might have been fixing data? Consider how badly the polluters of greenhouse gases want that to be rue, much less mega-polluters like the United states and China and yet, literally thiousands of independant studies show that man IS a contributing factor.
Even if you were to go with the standby argument that global warminng deniers of animals offgassing as much as cars, that still is man's responsibility because most of those animals are bred by us for food.
you know, the first sign of a weak case is when the debater starts callling names and yuou're down to that- both with regards to the scientists and myself- sad really.
If you have some scientific data showing that the very real, accepted, measured warming of the planet is NOT happening, please present it- Otherwise you'll remain in the frnge minority hopng that one day they'll be proven right. No one has any "religion" in the science- the facts point to the reality of the issue- any belief is from those hoping it's all some massive conspiracy.
The desperate need to equate enviromentalism with religion is an old ploy first used by the coal industry- our nation's (and China's for that matter) biggest polluter- I'm sorta suprised to see you parroting it here.
So, from what I gather from your posts- you think that not only are thousands of scientists wrong, but their governments and the firsthand witnesses to tempature increases as well.
Your solution would be to do nothing and hope for the best?
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
