PDA

View Full Version : Environment GlobalWarmisists Threw the data away...surprised?


HonestChieffan
11-30-2009, 01:26 PM
So when the Big O goes to Copenhagen, would we expect him to perhaps say we need to deliberate and study like he was deliberative on a war, or will he bring up the fact the GW's have sort of crapped on the family dinner table with the exposure of the lies they are telling....or will he grin and say heres a couple billion and ignore the ClimateGate issue?


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

From The Sunday Times November 29, 2009

Climate change data dumped
Jonathan Leake, Environment Editor

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU’s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data.

In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

The CRU is the world’s leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible.

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.

Jones was not in charge of the CRU when the data were thrown away in the 1980s, a time when climate change was seen as a less pressing issue. The lost material was used to build the databases that have been his life’s work, showing how the world has warmed by 0.8C over the past 157 years.

He and his colleagues say this temperature rise is “unequivocally” linked to greenhouse gas emissions generated by humans. Their findings are one of the main pieces of evidence used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which says global warming is a threat to humanity.

mlyonsd
11-30-2009, 01:35 PM
Oops. Someone check Al Gore's computer.

Chief Henry
11-30-2009, 01:38 PM
Why would they throw away the PROOF, unless it wasn't PROOF at all ?

Its a scam that would make Bernie Madoff blush !

BucEyedPea
11-30-2009, 01:48 PM
The debate is OVAH!

ChiefaRoo
11-30-2009, 08:24 PM
It's always been a huge smokescreen for various whack job ideologies and their bizarre social engineering experiments and agendas of which Cap and Trade is one of. Those scientists have set back true science on this subject by 20 years. Now people have no idea what to think.

Anthropogenic Global warming is now a joke.

TipTap can go back now and re-read my posts on this subject over TWO years ago where he said it was settled science. Good Gawd man!

Cjanz
11-30-2009, 08:35 PM
Now to disincentivize all those "green" opportunities and reestablish sensibility. Who knows, maybe the allocated funds have potential to relieve some of the economic stress.

I bet automakers are pissed; all that hard work developing a low-emissions product flushed down the drain by some hack[er].

Chiefspants
11-30-2009, 08:36 PM
Now to disincentivize all those "green" opportunities and reestablish sensibility. Who knows, maybe the allocated funds have potential to relieve some of the economic stress.

I bet automakers are pissed; all that hard work developing a low-emissions product flushed down the drain by some hack[er].

Definitely, GM already had a tough enough sell trying to get the electric car on the streets.

cdcox
11-30-2009, 08:55 PM
Either the earth is warming or it isn't. That has nothing to do with whether the original data was thrown away or not. If someone threw away the moon rocks, does that prove the moon landing skeptics are correct that the moon landing is a fraud? Everyone who has posted on this tread so far is making that argument.

The data should have been kept. The lack of ability to go back and work with the raw data is certainly a loss. However, the loss of the data does not change reality. By itself, the loss of original data will not change one iota of policy.

Chiefspants
11-30-2009, 09:00 PM
The problem is that there were no "Moon Rocks" in the first place. We may have seen some alarm some reports of warming acceleration, but this has been no where close to setting this in stone.

Until I see a year warmer than the El Nino year of 1998 I am still going to stay unconvinced that this is a legitimate threat to the Worlds soil.

Chiefshrink
11-30-2009, 09:17 PM
It's always been a huge smokescreen for various whack job ideologies and their bizarre social engineering experiments and agendas of which Cap and Trade is one of. Those scientists have set back true science on this subject by 20 years. Now people have no idea what to think.

Anthropogenic Global warming is now a joke.

TipTap can go back now and re-read my posts on this subject over TWO years ago where he said it was settled science. Good Gawd man!

AMEN!!!!!!:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

Chiefshrink
11-30-2009, 09:23 PM
Either the earth is warming or it isn't. That has nothing to do with whether the original data was thrown away or not. If someone threw away the moon rocks, does that prove the moon landing skeptics are correct that the moon landing is a fraud? Everyone who has posted on this tread so far is making that argument.

The data should have been kept. The lack of ability to go back and work with the raw data is certainly a loss. However, the loss of the data does not change reality. By itself, the loss of original data will not change one iota of policy.

However, dishonesty will and will create more dishonesty to cover up the original dishonesty. You know, one lie to cover up another lie. Just sit back and watch the show of FRAUD get even bigger because there is just waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay to much $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ to be gained by the RADICAL LEFTIST F**KTARDS(in both the political and corporate realms) at the end of this fraudelent rainbow to be abandoned.

WHO is really GREEDY NOW????

cdcox
11-30-2009, 09:34 PM
The very top global warming scientists make something in the neighborhood of $250K per year. That's a good salary, but not even touching was similar levels of effort and training could land you in fields like medicine, law, business, etc. I'm not saying that $ doesn't have any influence on scientists. I'm saying that $ is not the prime motivator of any scientist because there are much easier ways to make a good living.

If green policies are implemented, smart businesses lead largely by conservatives will fill the need and make a huge profits. And that is okay. Nothing wrong with making a profit.

kcfanXIII
11-30-2009, 09:37 PM
Either the earth is warming or it isn't. That has nothing to do with whether the original data was thrown away or not. If someone threw away the moon rocks, does that prove the moon landing skeptics are correct that the moon landing is a fraud? Everyone who has posted on this tread so far is making that argument.

The data should have been kept. The lack of ability to go back and work with the raw data is certainly a loss. However, the loss of the data does not change reality. By itself, the loss of original data will not change one iota of policy.

so you are saying the emails that admit these "scientists" changed data and discussed how to do it to obtain results that "proved" global warming don't prove anything? green is the new .com, hope you all lose your ass in that too.

cdcox
11-30-2009, 10:00 PM
so you are saying the emails that admit these "scientists" changed data and discussed how to do it to obtain results that "proved" global warming don't prove anything? green is the new .com, hope you all lose your ass in that too.

The work performed by the scientists who wrote these emails is going to come under intense scrutiny in the coming months. If the work is found to be compromised, the journals will retract the papers, the scientists who cooked the data will lose their careers, and improved policies will be put in place to avoid a repeat. This is going to take some time to play out, but if it is found that they cooked the data, the scientific community will deal with them ruthlessly.

The scientists know that they are going to be facing this scrutiny. So far they don't look to be sweating it. Whether they cooked the data or not remains to be seen.

The temperature data is only one of many lines of evidence that point to climate change. Others include documented glacier shrinkage, measured rising sea levels, shortening of the freezing season in the northern hemisphere.

Climate change is not a political issue. It is a scientific one.

Iowanian
11-30-2009, 10:24 PM
He'll grin with the shit they've been feeding him on GW still stuck in his teeth.

KCWolfman
11-30-2009, 11:16 PM
Expect a dissertation from tiptap explaining how the flux capacitor did not read the discombulator accurately due to fluctuations in the masteranindionius which caused large discrepancies in the flowentavoter easily explaining how the emails disappeared.
Posted via Mobile Device

KCWolfman
11-30-2009, 11:19 PM
Climate change is not a political issue. It is a scientific one.

Agreed, however,

Whether is it man made and can be controlled by man is solely political as long as they are taking taxpayer money.
Posted via Mobile Device

Joe Seahawk
12-01-2009, 01:43 AM
There is "virtually no possibility" of a few scientists biasing the advice given to governments by the UN's top global warming body, its chair said today.

Rajendra Pachauri defended the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in the wake of apparent suggestions in emails between climate scientists at the University of East Anglia that they had prevented work they did not agree with from being included in the panel's fourth assessment report, which was published in 2007.
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/11/29/1259514039866/Rajendra-Pachauri-chairma-001.jpg

This guy looks familiar..?..

KCWolfman
12-01-2009, 03:11 AM
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/11/29/1259514039866/Rajendra-Pachauri-chairma-001.jpg

This guy looks familiar..?..

Is that Ringo Starr after a week at Keith Richard's pad?
Posted via Mobile Device

kcfanXIII
12-01-2009, 03:57 AM
Climate change is not a political issue. It is a scientific one.

i'm pretty sure i didn't make it a political issue. i only made a statement referencing emails between scientists that admitted fudging data to gain the results wanted, to a: please the green nazis, and b: keep funding coming to their university. if global warming, or climate change as you greentards are calling it these days due to a lack of evidence of actual warming, was actually caused by humans, results wouldn't have to be altered to prove that theory. i don't think anyone can argue the climate is changing, but the argument that its man made just took a major blow. i imagine more stories like this will be uncovered, hopefully soon enough to prevent obummer from signing any treaties.

Radar Chief
12-01-2009, 07:16 AM
Either the earth is warming or it isn't. That has nothing to do with whether the original data was thrown away or not. If someone threw away the moon rocks, does that prove the moon landing skeptics are correct that the moon landing is a fraud? Everyone who has posted on this tread so far is making that argument.

The data should have been kept. The lack of ability to go back and work with the raw data is certainly a loss. However, the loss of the data does not change reality. By itself, the loss of original data will not change one iota of policy.

I’m sorry but “throwing away” source data is huge.
Why on earth would they do that knowing their work would be peer reviewed?

mlyonsd
12-01-2009, 07:23 AM
I’m sorry but “throwing away” source data is huge.
Why on earth would they do that knowing their work would be peer reviewed?

Trust them. After all, they are scientists and are all smart and stuff.

Radar Chief
12-01-2009, 07:54 AM
Trust them. After all, they are scientists and are all smart and stuff.

Yup, the only conclusion I can come up with is they didn’t expect their work to be scrutinized, which brings up the bigger question why didn’t they?

tiptap
12-01-2009, 08:00 AM
SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years. The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.



The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU’s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data.

In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

Just one little problem with this latest tempest in a teapot — no data was destroyed. And the article at The Times, oddly enough, just happens to leave out that part of Phil Jones’ explanation.

According to CRU’s Web site, “Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data.”

Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit, said that the vast majority of the station data was not altered at all, and the small amount that was changed was adjusted for consistency.

The research unit has deleted less than 5 percent of its original station data from its database because the stations had several discontinuities or were affected by urbanization trends, Jones said.

“When you’re looking at climate data, you don’t want stations that are showing urban warming trends,” Jones said, “so we’ve taken them out.” Most of the stations for which data was removed are located in areas where there were already dense monitoring networks, he added. “We rarely removed a station in a data-sparse region of the world.”

Refuting CEI’s claims of data-destruction, Jones said, “We haven’t destroyed anything. The data is still there — you can still get these stations from the [NOAA] National Climatic Data Center.”

By the way, here’s some information on the group spreading the “destroyed data” claim: Competitive Enterprise Institute.

CEI is a think tank funded by donations from individuals, foundations and corporations. CEI does not accept government funding. Past and present funders include the Scaife Foundations, Exxon Mobil, the Ford Motor Company Fund, Pfizer, and the Earhart Foundation[5][6]. …

CEI is also active in the legal aspects of antitrust and government regulation. As part of its “Control Abuse of Power” (CAP) project, CEI launched lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the 1998 tobacco Master Settlement Agreement and the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB), respectively.

Again, the connection to energy industries and big tobacco. Almost every one of the main anti-AGW front groups is connected to either big energy or big tobacco, and often both.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/35233_Did_Climate_Scientists_Destroy_Data_A-_No

wild1
12-01-2009, 08:11 AM
Climate change is not a political issue. It is a scientific one.

It's an issue where there is an enormous amount of money, trillions of dollars, resting on these "scientists" being able to prove their claims by hook or by crook.

People seem to think scientists operate in a vacuum and are totally above reproach, the highest order of anything who would never deceive or even make a mistake.

These people have huge financial interests in massaging or outright faking the data. The "green" industry has even more to gain by convincing people that trillions upon trillions need to be taxed/spent on this "problem".

It's a political issue indeed. A lot of politicians stand to gain from it. So do a lot of scientists and a lot of big businesses and a lot of lobbyists for those big businesses.

Now that they've lost the veil of infalliability they had draped over themselves, we'll see how things work out. But it was always political, and it was always about money.

tiptap
12-01-2009, 08:13 AM
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/#Climate_data_raw

(Go to site for the web connection for the data sets. Raw data and all. Most of this has always been available just not easily.)

This page is a catalogue that will be kept up to date pointing to selected sources of code and data related to climate science. Please keep us informed of any things we might have missed, or any updates to the links that are needed.

* Climate data (raw)
* Climate data (processed)
* Paleo-data
* Paleo Reconstructions (including code)
* Large-scale model (Reanalysis) output
* Large-scale model (GCM) output
* Model codes (GCMs)
* Model codes (other)
* Data Visualisation and Analysis
* Master Repositories of climate and other Earth Science data

Climate data (raw)

* GHCN v.2 (Global Historical Climate Network: weather station records from around the world, temperature and precipitation)
* USHCN US. Historical Climate Network (v.1 and v.2)
* Antarctic weather stations
* European weather stations (ECA)
* Satellite feeds (AMSU, SORCE (Solar irradiance), NASA A-train)
* Tide Gauges (Proudman Oceanographic Lab)
* World Glacier Monitoring Service
* Argo float data
* International Comprehensive Ocean/Atmosphere Data Set (ICOADS) (Oceanic in situ observations)
* AERONET Aerosol information

Climate data (processed)

* Surface temperature anomalies (GISTEMP, HadCRU, NOAA NCDC, JMA)
* Satellite temperatures (MSU) (UAH, RSS)
* Sea surface temperatures (Reynolds et al, OI)
* Stratospheric temperature
* Sea ice (Cryosphere Today, NSIDC, JAXA, Bremen, Arctic-Roos, DMI)
* Radiosondes (RAOBCORE, HadAT, U. Wyoming, RATPAC, IUK, Sterin (CDIAC), Angell (CDIAC) )
* Cloud and radiation products (ISCCP, CERES-ERBE)
* Sea level (U. Colorado)
* Aerosols (AEROCOM, GACP)
* Greenhouse Gases (AGGI at NOAA, CO2 Mauna Loa, World Data Center for Greenhouse Gases)
* AHVRR data as used in Steig et al (2009)
* Snow Cover (Rutgers)
* GLIMS glacier database
* Ocean Heat Content (NODC)
* GCOS Essential Climate Variables Index

Paleo-data

* NOAA Paleoclimate
* Pangaea
* GRIP/NGRIP Ice cores (Denmark)
* GISP2 (note that the age model has been updated)
* National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC)

Paleo Reconstructions (including code)

* Reconstructions index and data (NOAA)
* Mann et al (2008) (also here, Mann et al (2009))
* Kaufmann et al (2009)
* Wahl and Ammann (2006)
* Mann et al (1998/1999)

Large-scale model (Reanalysis) output

These are weather models which have the real world observations assimilated into the solution to provide a ‘best guess’ of the evolution of weather over time (although pre-satellite era estimates (before 1979) are less accurate).

* ERA40 (1957-2001, from ECMWF)
* ERA-Interim (1989 – present, ECMWF’s latest project)
* NCEP (1948-present, NOAA), NCEP-2
* MERRA NASA GSFC
* JRA-25 (1979-2004, Japanese Met. Agency)
* North American Regional Reanalysis (NARR)

Large-scale model (GCM) output

These is output from the large scale global models used to assess climate change in the past, and make projections for the future. Some of this output is also available via the Data Visualisation tools linked below.

* CMIP3 output (~20 models, as used by IPCC AR4) at PCMDI
* GISS ModelE output (includes AR4 output as well as more specific experiments)
* GFDL Model output

Model codes (GCMs)

Downloadable codes for some of the GCMs.

* GISS ModelE (AR4 version, current snapshot)
* NCAR CCSM(Version 3.0, CCM3 (older vintage))
* EdGCM Windows based version of an older GISS model.
* Uni. Hamburg (SAM, PUMA and PLASIM)
* NEMO Ocean Model
* GFDL Models
* MIT GCM

Model codes (other)

This category include links to analysis tools, simpler models or models focussed on more specific issues.

* Rahmstorf (2007) Sea Level Rise Code
* ModTran (atmospheric radiation calculations and visualisations)
* Various climate-related online models (David Archer)
* Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) (FUND, FAIR, DICE, RICE)
* CliMT a Python-based software component toolkit
* Pyclimate Python tools for climate analysis
* CDAT Tools for analysing climate data in netcdf format (PCMDI)
* RegEM (Tapio Schneider)
* Time series analysis (MTM-SVD, SSA-MTM toolkit, Mann and Lees (1996))

Data Visualisation and Analysis

These sites include some of the above data (as well as other sources) in an easier to handle form.

* ClimateExplorer (KNMI)
* Dapper (PMEL, NOAA)
* Ingrid (IRI/LDEO Climate data library)
* Giovanni (GSFC)
* Wood for Trees: Interactive graphics (temperatures)
* IPCC Data Visualisations

Master Repositories of Climate Data

Much bigger indexes of data sources:

* Global Change Master Directory (GSFC)
* PAGES data portal
* NCDC (National Climate Data Center)
* IPCC Data
* Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Lab: Atmospheric trace gas concentrations, historical carbon emissions, and more
* CRU Data holdings
* Hadley Centre Observational holdings

HonestChieffan
12-01-2009, 08:23 AM
Fun to see how suddenly the label "deniers" has fit those who were using it to denigrate anyone who believed the other side.

Faced with mounting evidence they dig in deeper and deeper.

wild1
12-01-2009, 09:20 AM
Fun to see how suddenly the label "deniers" has fit those who were using it to denigrate anyone who believed the other side.

Faced with mounting evidence they dig in deeper and deeper.

"deniers" was clearly intended to lump people skeptical of the green lobby's motives in with holocaust deniers. It was an attempt to draw on that by likening it to something that is settled history.

Glad to see that label is going to the junk heap.

Royal Fanatic
12-01-2009, 09:50 AM
"deniers" was clearly intended to lump people skeptical of the green lobby's motives in with holocaust deniers. It was an attempt to draw on that by likening it to something that is settled history.

Glad to see that label is going to the junk heap.
A much better label would be global warming SKEPTIC. Global Warming Skeptics don't DENY global warming, and we don't DENY that man is the cause. However, we don't blindly ACCEPT either of those propositions, and we'd like to see all of the evidence on both sides of the argument before we start paying megabucks to the industries that profit from the Green movement.

I used to get extremely frustrated with conservatives who tried to push Intelligent Design into our public schools, because they started with an opinion based upon faith and they refused to consider evidence that conflicted with their pre-conceived opinion.

Unfortunately for us all, the Global Warming crowd is guilty of exactly the same thing. They've bought the whole AGW theory hook, line, and sinker. Now their minds are closed as tight as a drum. They state over and over that AGW is a proven fact and that there is a consensus in the scientific community supporting that, even though it's NOT a proven fact and there is plenty of disagreement in the scientific community about it.

It wouldn't be so bad if they didn't use their dogmatic position to push monstrosities like the Cap and Trade Bill on the rest of us. But now they want all Americans to pay and pay and pay, just to line the pockets of those who benefit from all of this Green crapola.

Tiptap, are you listening?

tiptap
12-01-2009, 02:12 PM
Of course I listen and answer questions. But you are wrong about Green House gases. Fourier, Tyndall and Arrhenius (if you were a Chemist these would be a big names in electrochemistry and activity coefficients related to Chemical Thermodynamics) proposed the in succession the notion of Green House Gases some hundred years ago. It is a fact that the amount of energy from the Sun is insufficient to put the Earth's temperature as warm as it is. Using Black Body assumptions of radiative electromagnetic light is earth's heat source, the temperature on earth should only average around 0 degrees Celsius. Not the 15 degrees we see as the world's average. The difference is the re radiative properties of some gases in the atmosphere. That has been a fact of Earth/Solar science for quite some time.

The list of those gases are known as fact by just doing a Absorption spectra of the substances. Absorption spectras are known and are used to remotely identify such things as water or CO 2 or methane or even non Green House gases like Nitrogen or Oxygen. It just the interaction of the GreenHouse Gases is in the spectral range of infrared radiation (heat).

So you can use Absorption to even determine the concentration of materials. That is because when you add more more is absorbed (roughly). It can get tricky if there is saturation of absorption. And one can make a (weak) case that Water vapor already absorbs most of the radiation already.

And this is the argument which I am open too. You want to discuss the sensitivity of the atmospheric system to increases in GreenHouse Gases than I am willing to listen to that. But to deny that the linear effect of increasing Greenhouse gases in the absence of any countering effect is to deny pretty basic physics and chemistry.

And with all the physical evidence of decreasing Polar Ice, Greenland and other Glacial Ice, earlier growing seasons, migration of plants toward the poles and higher in elevation, then the question is more than just academic when much of the effect is at long order.

That is the science.

Garcia Bronco
12-01-2009, 10:34 PM
You don't get it. They threw out the raw data. It's over. They no longer have the research to claim anything.

The work performed by the scientists who wrote these emails is going to come under intense scrutiny in the coming months. If the work is found to be compromised, the journals will retract the papers, the scientists who cooked the data will lose their careers, and improved policies will be put in place to avoid a repeat. This is going to take some time to play out, but if it is found that they cooked the data, the scientific community will deal with them ruthlessly.

The scientists know that they are going to be facing this scrutiny. So far they don't look to be sweating it. Whether they cooked the data or not remains to be seen.

The temperature data is only one of many lines of evidence that point to climate change. Others include documented glacier shrinkage, measured rising sea levels, shortening of the freezing season in the northern hemisphere.

Climate change is not a political issue. It is a scientific one.

Taco John
12-01-2009, 10:51 PM
Climate change is not a political issue. It is a scientific one.


It seems to be a financial issue where hoaxsters try to fool people into legislating money into their pocket under the guise of science, and dopes use anti-capitalist rhetoric to say that anyone against this racket is anti-science.

Taco John
12-01-2009, 10:52 PM
Warmies are squirming.

Mr. Kotter
12-01-2009, 10:53 PM
Like anyone should really be SURPRISED by this??? :spock:

LMAO

BigChiefFan
12-01-2009, 10:57 PM
Taxing the world based on falsified documents is criminal and should be treated a such. Criminal investigations should take place and then charges sought. Wake up. This is a tax on every facet of life.

Mr. Kotter
12-01-2009, 10:57 PM
Trust them. After all, they are scientists and are all smart and stuff.

This. Yo. :harumph:


LMAO

cdcox
12-01-2009, 10:58 PM
You don't get it. They threw out the raw data. It's over. They no longer have the research to claim anything.

Read post 24 carefully.

The data actually filtered out is less than 5% of the total. The data filtered out because of urbanization. Cities are hotter than rural areas. If you spread concrete and asphalt over rural land, it makes an area warmer. If they wanted to mislead, they would have left that data in the data set. By taking it out, they removed an artifact.

Furthermore:

"We haven’t destroyed anything. The data is still there — you can still get these stations from the [NOAA] National Climatic Data Center."

There is already an investigation underway. The full picture will come out. Why rush to judgement?

Taco John
12-01-2009, 11:08 PM
There is already an investigation underway. The full picture will come out. Why rush to judgement?


For the same reason that the warmies want to rush. There's money at stake. I understand that there are a lot of good people with good intentions. But they're being driven by the people who want to profit through legislation under the guise of saving the world.

Mr. Kotter
12-01-2009, 11:11 PM
For the same reason that the warmies want to rush. There's money at stake. I understand that there are a lot of good people with good intentions. But they're being driven by the people who want to profit through legislation under the guise of saving the world.

Yeppers....


Did I just agree with Isaac??? :eek:

cdcox
12-01-2009, 11:22 PM
For the same reason that the warmies want to rush. There's money at stake. I understand that there are a lot of good people with good intentions. But they're being driven by the people who want to profit through legislation under the guise of saving the world.

I understand that you are saying the hell with the facts and this is all about the short term $ gain by one side or another.

I disagree with that pov 100%.

Most of the public discourse on climate change (and other scientific issues) does not take place on a scientific level. That will bite us in the ass. Nature is a bitch and she can't be bought. Math, physics, chemistry and biology don't give a damn about money. They are what they are. As a society, we make the most progress when we recognize that.

Taco John
12-01-2009, 11:24 PM
So let it be.

Economics will work it all out in the end. Even mother nature is guided by economics. That's right.

SNR
12-01-2009, 11:44 PM
If you've got 18 minutes, this guy talks a lot of sense, even if his political views are out there a bit.

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/bn5IskCSWp0&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/bn5IskCSWp0&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

Taco John
12-02-2009, 12:00 AM
"Science is only second in philosophy in the value that it brings to the world."


I love this man. What a brilliant statement.

SNR
12-02-2009, 12:24 AM
"Science is only second in philosophy in the value that it brings to the world."


I love this man. What a brilliant statement.I really dig his videos. There are times where he gets long-winded in his arguments and begins to repeat himself, and then there are also times where his philosophy goes over my head, and in those particular spots I almost need to take notes and review his premises before moving on.

But reasoning from first principles? Developing philosophy as a basis of knowledge and how you view the world? What a concept!

Taco John
12-02-2009, 01:31 AM
I really dig his videos. There are times where he gets long-winded in his arguments and begins to repeat himself, and then there are also times where his philosophy goes over my head, and in those particular spots I almost need to take notes and review his premises before moving on.

But reasoning from first principles? Developing philosophy as a basis of knowledge and how you view the world? What a concept!


Some people don't see philosophy as pragmatic. It's much easier to be ruled by the emotions of the day reacting to the crisis of the moment than to ride the ups and downs of the waves of life on the surfboard of a guiding philosophy.

Jenson71
12-02-2009, 01:58 AM
For the same reason that the warmies want to rush. There's money at stake. I understand that there are a lot of good people with good intentions. But they're being driven by the people who want to profit through legislation under the guise of saving the world.

Do you think there are any people who have money at stake in there not being a climate crisis?

Some people don't see philosophy as pragmatic. It's much easier to be ruled by the emotions of the day reacting to the crisis of the moment than to ride the ups and downs of the waves of life on the surfboard of a guiding philosophy.

Let me unnecessarily defend cdcox for a moment here. I say unnecessarily because honestly, I think an objective reading of his post history can do tenfold for his defense than a thousand of my own well-reasoned posts. cdcox has been nothing but an objective, honest poster here, in this thread and all other threads I've ever seen him take part in. He is without a doubt a model for integrity in political discourse and patience. Any attack of him being without a guiding philosophy is unjustified and ridiculous.

Now, a guiding philosophy can often be confused with dogmatic narrow-mindedness. If you want philosophy, then be in love with wisdom. If you want dogmatic narrow-mindedness, then either talk to a Marxist or an Austrian Economist. They are worth about the same. They have found their Truth and they jam like hell all squares into their Truth Circles.

HonestChieffan
12-02-2009, 06:44 AM
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_3QqO8EXd-II/SxZIYmHsP8I/AAAAAAAAuEk/Gz5hUe5m9A0/s400/clippy.jpg

tiptap
12-02-2009, 07:17 AM
So let it be.

Economics will work it all out in the end. Even mother nature is guided by economics. That's right.

I think you'd find most scientists think economics fails to show adherence to conservation laws in any consistent way. And in this case an incomplete representation of the true costs distorts the economics relative to the physical question. And this question is about understanding the physical conservation of energy and matter balance in the Atmospheric Oceanic climate system. The usual biological response to mismatch of survival tactics and physical systems is extinction, either individually or in larger arrays.

wild1
12-02-2009, 07:21 AM
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_3QqO8EXd-II/SxZIYmHsP8I/AAAAAAAAuEk/Gz5hUe5m9A0/s400/clippy.jpg

:D

Radar Chief
12-02-2009, 07:26 AM
Read post 24 carefully.

The data actually filtered out is less than 5% of the total. The data filtered out because of urbanization. Cities are hotter than rural areas. If you spread concrete and asphalt over rural land, it makes an area warmer. If they wanted to mislead, they would have left that data in the data set. By taking it out, they removed an artifact.

Furthermore:

"We haven’t destroyed anything. The data is still there — you can still get these stations from the [NOAA] National Climatic Data Center."

There is already an investigation underway. The full picture will come out. Why rush to judgement?

So they claim, but yea someone will now have to back track and reconstruct their work.
But lets not act like this isn’t fishy. At least for the lab I work in my peers, managers, expect to see raw data attached to every report I submit, but maybe the research and development lab for a small electronics manufacturer operates differently than a government funded climate research lab whose results will set policy. :rolleyes:

HonestChieffan
12-02-2009, 07:35 AM
I think you'd find most scientists fail to show adherence to conservation laws in any consistent way as demonstrated by the large number of scientists who hunt game out of season and hunt from trucks on rural roads.

This of course is an incomplete representation of the true impact on game population due to an unanticipated outcome caused in part by the darth of real observed data and lack of satelite imagry.

And this question is about understanding the physical conservation of energy and matter balance in the Atmospheric Oceanic climate system. E=MC squared. That is key. As well as remebering the value of pi at the holiday season.

Can we discuss?

Garcia Bronco
12-02-2009, 07:42 AM
Read post 24 carefully.

The data actually filtered out is less than 5% of the total. The data filtered out because of urbanization. Cities are hotter than rural areas. If you spread concrete and asphalt over rural land, it makes an area warmer. If they wanted to mislead, they would have left that data in the data set. By taking it out, they removed an artifact.

Furthermore:

"We haven’t destroyed anything. The data is still there — you can still get these stations from the [NOAA] National Climatic Data Center."

There is already an investigation underway. The full picture will come out. Why rush to judgement?

it doesn't matter. If one Is a liar then they all lied from an IPCC perspective. Even a 150 year representation on a civilization that's 20,000 years old is too small a sample to draw a conclusion. It's all confounded to begin with. This is just the proverbal icing on the cake.

KCWolfman
12-02-2009, 08:58 AM
Well in defense of the indefensible, I am sure that Phil Jones is stepping down as Director from the University of East Anglia is just a coincidence.

Mr. Kotter
12-02-2009, 09:39 AM
Well in defense of the indefensible, I am sure that Phil Jones is stepping down as Director from the University of East Anglia is just a coincidence.


Very nice.... LMAO

SNR
12-02-2009, 09:48 AM
Let me unnecessarily defend cdcox for a moment here. I say unnecessarily because honestly, I think an objective reading of his post history can do tenfold for his defense than a thousand of my own well-reasoned posts. cdcox has been nothing but an objective, honest poster here, in this thread and all other threads I've ever seen him take part in. He is without a doubt a model for integrity in political discourse and patience. Any attack of him being without a guiding philosophy is unjustified and ridiculous.

Now, a guiding philosophy can often be confused with dogmatic narrow-mindedness. If you want philosophy, then be in love with wisdom. If you want dogmatic narrow-mindedness, then either talk to a Marxist or an Austrian Economist. They are worth about the same. They have found their Truth and they jam like hell all squares into their Truth Circles.
Taco's not talking about political beliefs as philosophy. That's like saying Lutheranism is a philosophy, when in actuality, you determine an understanding for how the world works and then Lutheranism/any sect/religion becomes the products of that philosophy. It's not a philosophy to say, "the government should control all property from all individuals and dole it out equally" because you haven't reasoned anything. Knowledge can not be obtained from that.

I don't know if you watched the video or not, but if you did, you'll notice how keen he was about philosophy. Watch his other videos. Stefan is a true philosopher more than a guy with an internet radio show talking about anarchism. He reasons everything out, starting from first definitions and moving from there. For things of a political nature, he uses ethics as the basis for every thing.

Just because he said "I interpret philosophy as the greatest value brought to the world" doesn't mean non-philosophers like cdcox are irrational and reactionary to their emotions. And I should clarify: I don't know if cdcox is really into philosophy or not. Maybe he is. I'm just going off the impression you gave of him in your post, which was fair.

BigChiefFan
12-02-2009, 10:37 AM
Any more news on an investigation? Time to take our country back and it starts with serving some justice pie to those that are criminally fraudulent and who falsified documents for profit. Enough of the bullshit lies that leads to draining our wallets.

KCWolfman
12-02-2009, 12:07 PM
Any more news on an investigation? Time to take our country back and it starts with serving some justice pie to those that are criminally fraudulent and who falsified documents for profit. Enough of the bullshit lies that leads to draining our wallets.

Yup, the director stepped down while the investigation continues

BigChiefFan
12-02-2009, 12:30 PM
Yup, the director stepped down while the investigation continues
I knew Inhofe was calling for a criminal investigation, but has he started? What's the skinny?

Taco John
12-02-2009, 02:15 PM
Any attack of him being without a guiding philosophy is unjustified and ridiculous.


I wasn't actually talking about him. I was talking generally about people who spout socialist solutions and then get upset when people call them socialists. Or people who call themselves socialist sympathizers, but then get upset when people call them socialists.

I haven't seen cdcox do that. But I've seen plenty of others around here doing it.

Taco John
12-02-2009, 02:36 PM
Taco's not talking about political beliefs as philosophy. That's like saying Lutheranism is a philosophy, when in actuality, you determine an understanding for how the world works and then Lutheranism/any sect/religion becomes the products of that philosophy. It's not a philosophy to say, "the government should control all property from all individuals and dole it out equally" because you haven't reasoned anything. Knowledge can not be obtained from that.

I don't know if you watched the video or not, but if you did, you'll notice how keen he was about philosophy. Watch his other videos. Stefan is a true philosopher more than a guy with an internet radio show talking about anarchism. He reasons everything out, starting from first definitions and moving from there. For things of a political nature, he uses ethics as the basis for every thing.

Just because he said "I interpret philosophy as the greatest value brought to the world" doesn't mean non-philosophers like cdcox are irrational and reactionary to their emotions. And I should clarify: I don't know if cdcox is really into philosophy or not. Maybe he is. I'm just going off the impression you gave of him in your post, which was fair.


That's a better way to put it.

Austrian Economics is not a philosophy. Libertarianism is. Austrian Economics examines the world from the perspective that says humans will act according to their own desires, and that these desires and the human action taken around them is what really defines the economy, not some central planning board fudging numbers in a marble building.

I also believe in the philosophy of "republicanism." Though I can't say that I believe in the party who claims this mantle. They believe in the same thing that socialists believe in: consolidating power to shape public opinion and ultimately human action.

Austrian economics isn't a philosophy. It's merely a looking glass to understand what makes an economy act how it acts.

Jenson71
12-02-2009, 02:55 PM
I wasn't actually talking about him. I was talking generally about people who spout socialist solutions and then get upset when people call them socialists. Or people who call themselves socialist sympathizers, but then get upset when people call them socialists.

I haven't seen cdcox do that. But I've seen plenty of others around here doing it.

Oh, you were talking about me -- that I do not have a guiding philosophy, I just go with the waves.

cdcox
12-02-2009, 08:32 PM
So they claim, but yea someone will now have to back track and reconstruct their work.
But lets not act like this isn’t fishy. At least for the lab I work in my peers, managers, expect to see raw data attached to every report I submit, but maybe the research and development lab for a small electronics manufacturer operates differently than a government funded climate research lab whose results will set policy. :rolleyes:

I have yet to see any strong evidence of unethical cover up. That may yet emerge, but I haven't seen it yet. Therefore, I wouldn't use the word "fishy". "Unfortunate" yes, but "fishy" no.

A bigger ethical concern than the data being missing is that apparently they have not disclosed that the data has been missing when asked for it.

The data was lost in the mid-80's, if I remember the date correctly from what I read earlier in the week. It would be exceedingly difficult to successfully perpetuate a fabrication of this magnitude for 25 year in modern science.

Yes, they should have the original data. But the fact that it was lost doesn't indicate wrong doing.

cdcox
12-02-2009, 08:36 PM
I knew Inhofe was calling for a criminal investigation, but has he started? What's the skinny?

Jones runs a lab in the UK. This is not a criminal investigation. It is an investigation of scientific integrity. This is the correct action at this time.

Taco John
12-02-2009, 08:40 PM
Oh, you were talking about me -- that I do not have a guiding philosophy, I just go with the waves.


You're one of the rare ones around here who admit your a socialist at least half the time.

cdcox
12-02-2009, 08:43 PM
So let it be.

Economics will work it all out in the end. Even mother nature is guided by economics. That's right.

Economics is a social science. It doesn't exist without beings that make decisions. Physics does. Here I'm using "physics" to represent the underlying laws that describe the behavior of matter and energy in the universe, not the human study of those laws. Or are you mocking another poster?

Taco John
12-02-2009, 08:48 PM
Economics is a social science. It doesn't exist without beings that make decisions. Physics does. Here I'm using "physics" to represent the underlying laws that describe the behavior of matter and energy in the universe, not the human study of those laws. Or are you mocking another poster?

Economics is physics. Physics is economics. They are part and parcell with eachother. Economics doesn't exist because of observation. It just is. Economics isn't about money. It's about action and reaction. It's about cause and effect.

Indeed, the observation of economics is a social science. But that observation isn't what makes up economics. Economics doesn't exist for the fact that it's observable. It's the other way around. It's observable because it exists.

Even the one cell amoeba is guided by economy.

dirk digler
12-02-2009, 08:54 PM
I hardly ever weigh in on global warming topics but I am surprised so many rational and thoughtful people don't think global warming exists or all the pollutants and junk that we put in our air and water is not harming our environment.

The evidence is everywhere especially when you look at the glaciers and the polar caps melting and coral reefs dying.

Now I am not saying that it is on the same level as Gore predicts but I just can't believe people don't think that all shit we put out has no effect on the environment, the atmosphere or our oceans.

Maybe someone can explain this to me to help me understand where some of you are coming from.

Taco John
12-02-2009, 09:01 PM
I hardly ever weigh in on global warming topics but I am surprised so many rational and thoughtful people don't think global warming exists or all the pollutants and junk that we put in our air and water is not harming our environment.

I'm not suprised that you think that this is what the situation is. I'm definitely amused at your simplistic interpretation. It's humorous. You remind me of the folks buying the snake oil back in the day. Sure, you have rhemetoid arthritis, and I believe that it's painful. But buying the snake oil isn't going to help you, really it isn't. Even if it makes you feel better just for the fact that you're doing *something* to treat it.

I just don't want that snake oil that you're convinced about shoved down my throat because YOU believe in the crap. Leave me alone, and get your grubby hands out of my pocket. Don't ask me to subsidize your pie in the sky beliefs about how great the stuff works.

dirk digler
12-02-2009, 09:07 PM
I'm not suprised that you think that this is what the situation is. I'm definitely amused at your simplistic interpretation. It's humorous. You remind me of the folks buying the snake oil back in the day. Sure, you have rhemetoid arthritis, and I believe that it's painful. But buying the snake oil isn't going to help you, really it isn't. Even if it makes you feel better just for the fact that you're doing *something* to treat it.

I just don't want that snake oil that you're convinced about shoved down my throat because YOU believe in the crap. Leave me alone, and get your grubby hands out of my pocket. Don't ask me to subsidize your pie in the sky beliefs about how great the stuff works.

TJ I agree it is probably a little simplistic and I am honestly not asking you or anyone else to subsidize anything.

I understand that it is a potentially huge business opportunity for alot of people and I also understand people don't like the idea of cap and trade but that is not what I am asking about.

I am just trying to understand or get to the core of what people believe about global warming.

keg in kc
12-02-2009, 09:09 PM
I hardly ever weigh in on global warming topics but I am surprised so many rational and thoughtful people don't think global warming exists or all the pollutants and junk that we put in our air and water is not harming our environment.That's always been my thing. To me whether or not global warming is real and or influenced one way or the other by man is basically irrelevant. I've always thought it was kind of a silly bait and switch that hides the more important environmental question in my mind, that being whether or not it's a good thing to poison the air that we breathe, the water that we drink and/or the food that we eat. It seems like a common sense issue, a matter of protecting ourselves as much as or more than the planet.

Taco John
12-02-2009, 09:14 PM
TJ I agree it is probably a little simplistic and I am honestly not asking you or anyone else to subsidize anything.

I understand that it is a potentially huge business opportunity for alot of people and I also understand people don't like the idea of cap and trade but that is not what I am asking about.

I am just trying to understand or get to the core of what people believe about global warming.


What legislation do you think would have stopped the ice age this planet experienced?

As far as I'm concerned, no one has the right to pollute, but government, it turns out, gives them that right. And the solution tends to be to give government more power. Sooooo...

dirk digler
12-02-2009, 09:14 PM
That's always been my thing. To me whether or not global warming is real and or influenced one way or the other by man is basically irrelevant. I've always thought it was kind of a silly bait and switch that hides the more important environmental question in my mind, that being whether or not it's a good thing to poison the air that we breathe, the water that we drink and/or the food that we eat. It seems like a common sense issue, a matter of protecting ourselves as much as or more than the planet.

Totally agree. It seems to me it is such a common sense issue and that is why I am curious at the core what people truly believe.

dirk digler
12-02-2009, 09:18 PM
What legislation do you think would have stopped the ice age this planet experienced?

As far as I'm concerned, no one has the right to pollute, but government, it turns out, gives them that right. And the solution tends to be to give government more power. Sooooo...

Once again I don't care about any of that.

Do you or do you not believe at the very basic level that pollutants are harmful to us and harmful to the environment which could potentially cause global warming?

Taco John
12-02-2009, 09:21 PM
Once again I don't care about any of that.

Do you or do you not believe at the very basic level that pollutants are harmful to us and harmful to the environment which could potentially cause global warming?


What a dopey question.

Taco John
12-02-2009, 09:23 PM
Let me ask you a question: do you think that caffiene (a pollutant) causes people to stay awake and potentially causes brain tumors?

BucEyedPea
12-02-2009, 09:27 PM
Once again I don't care about any of that.

Do you or do you not believe at the very basic level that pollutants are harmful to us and harmful to the environment which could potentially cause global warming?
It's another "scare" issue for the govt to increase it's control and power. Plain and simple.

dirk digler
12-02-2009, 09:29 PM
What a dopey question.

I don't get why it is a dopey question? It seems pretty straight forward to me a simple yes or no will suffice.

Let me ask you a question: do you think that caffiene (a pollutant) causes people to stay awake and potentially causes brain tumors?

I know it makes me stay awake but I have no idea about causing brain cancer.

Taco John
12-02-2009, 09:29 PM
Once again I don't care about any of that.


Fine. The Weekly Reader answer is that I think pollution is bad, and that nobody should be allowed to pollute the air we breathe or water we drink.

I have doubts that it causes global warming. I think there's adequate science to show that global warming is caused by the sun, and that the science that ties pollution to global warming is more about making money and empowering world government than it is about actually saving the world.

Taco John
12-02-2009, 09:30 PM
I know it makes me stay awake but I have no idea about causing brain cancer.


I know pollution is bad, I don't believe it's the cause of (shriek! scream! panic!) global warming.

Taco John
12-02-2009, 09:33 PM
It was a dopey question because it ties the belief that pollution is bad directly to the conclusion that pollution causes global warming. I think pollution is bad. Nobody should be allowed to pollute the air we breathe or the water we drink.

But that has nothing to do with global warming or the loosey goosey "science" that comprises the ideas of "man made" global warming.

dirk digler
12-02-2009, 09:34 PM
Fine. The Weekly Reader answer is that I think pollution is bad, and that nobody should be allowed to pollute the air we breathe or water we drink.

I have doubts that it causes global warming. I think there's adequate science to show that global warming is caused by the sun, and that the science that ties pollution to global warming is more about making money and empowering world government than it is about actually saving the world.

I know pollution is bad, I don't believe it's the cause of (shriek! scream! panic!) global warming.

Fair enough that is all that I was asking.

dirk digler
12-02-2009, 09:40 PM
It was a dopey question because it ties the belief that pollution is bad directly to the conclusion that pollution causes global warming. I think pollution is bad. Nobody should be allowed to pollute the air we breathe or the water we drink.

But that has nothing to do with global warming or the loosey goosey "science" that comprises the ideas of "man made" global warming.

Ok. I guess from my point of view I look at for example China. They are experiencing their industrial boom right now and are producing a ton of emissions and I just don't believe that all that emission goes up into the atmosphere and magically disappears without having any effect on greenhouse gases.

Taco John
12-02-2009, 09:54 PM
Ok. I guess from my point of view I look at for example China. They are experiencing their industrial boom right now and are producing a ton of emissions and I just don't believe that all that emission goes up into the atmosphere and magically disappears without having any effect on greenhouse gases.


I'm worried about the effect they have on Santa's reindeer myself (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-440049/Greenhouse-effect-myth-say-scientists.html). Which is to say, you worrying about the effect that pollution has on "greenhouse gases" only shows that you're indoctrinated in the myth. You're exactly the type that those trying to capitalize on the panic are hoping to produce through their "education."

I'm worried about the effect pollution has on real things, like people's lungs. I worry when they find traces of rocket fuel in human breast milk. I don't worry about "greenhouse gases."

dirk digler
12-02-2009, 09:59 PM
I'm worried about the effect they have on Santa's reindeer myself (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-440049/Greenhouse-effect-myth-say-scientists.html). Which is to say, you worrying about the effect that pollution has on "greenhouse gases" only shows that you're indoctrinated in the myth. You're exactly the type that those trying to capitalize on the panic are hoping to produce through their "education."

I'm worried about the effect pollution has on real things, like people's lungs. I worry when they find traces of rocket fuel in human breast milk. I don't worry about "greenhouse gases."

To be honest I don't really worry much about this and I am definitely not panicked over it.

I am totally with you on the effect pollution has on people. So what is your solution for this problem?

Taco John
12-02-2009, 10:10 PM
To be honest I don't really worry much about this and I am definitely not panicked over it.

I am totally with you on the effect pollution has on people. So what is your solution for this problem?




http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=219212

alanm
12-02-2009, 10:24 PM
I'm not suprised that you think that this is what the situation is. I'm definitely amused at your simplistic interpretation. It's humorous. You remind me of the folks buying the snake oil back in the day. Sure, you have rhemetoid arthritis, and I believe that it's painful. But buying the snake oil isn't going to help you, really it isn't. Even if it makes you feel better just for the fact that you're doing *something* to treat it.

I just don't want that snake oil that you're convinced about shoved down my throat because YOU believe in the crap. Leave me alone, and get your grubby hands out of my pocket. Don't ask me to subsidize your pie in the sky beliefs about how great the stuff works.Leave it to the Democrats to institute a tax to change the weather.