PDA

View Full Version : Environment Climategate: it's all unravelling now


Pages : [1] 2

Taco John
12-04-2009, 04:32 AM
Here's a great overview of the things that are happening in response to the stories developing around this event.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100018556/climategate-its-all-unravelling-now/

Taco John
12-04-2009, 04:32 AM
This Climategate is turning out to be a game changer - and that's without the major networks in America reporting on it. The political fallout from this scandal is already global. We're looking at a unique event in history here.

T-post Tom
12-04-2009, 05:16 AM
o⋅ver⋅state  /ˌoʊvərˈsteɪt/ [oh-ver-steyt]

–verb (used with object), -stat⋅ed, -stat⋅ing. to state too strongly; exaggerate: to overstate one's position in a controversy.


Might want to mix in a little NPR with your Hannity and Limbaugh. :)

Mile High Mania
12-04-2009, 05:19 AM
This is why CNN shows nothing about this issue...

http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2009/planet.in.peril/

They've got a huge focus on global warming and the ultimate doom.

orange
12-04-2009, 05:31 AM
Funny. That article is from Dec. 2. But on the side there's already a link to his Dec. 3 entry.

Some people still don’t get Climategate.

The main lesson – according to today’s Guardian – is that ‘climate scientists’ have done nothing actually wrong but that in future they should improve their cover-up skills just in case:

But like politicians before them, climate scientists are learning the hard way that sticking to the rules is not enough – they must also to be seen to be sticking to them.

And the other lesson, apparently, is that ‘deniers’ who write stories about such things are just stupid, ignorant scuzzballs:

For one thing, as well as the proper scepticism of the inquisitive mind, which all scientists face, they must tackle the talk-show brand of bastardised scepticism that is borne [sic] of wilful ignorance.

*more whimpering about the general lack of anyone giving a damn about climate-gate*

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100018696/climategate-which-part-of-over-dont-these-people-understand/

Doesn't sound like the game changed much at all. :doh!:

the talk-show brand of bastardised scepticism that is borne of willful ignorance - that's good. I'll have to remember that one.

HonestChieffan
12-04-2009, 07:27 AM
My My My.....even Nasa?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/03/researcher-says-nasa-hiding-climate-data/

KCWolfman
12-04-2009, 08:25 AM
My My My.....even Nasa?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/03/researcher-says-nasa-hiding-climate-data/

No way!!! I am sure the source is bad, or the complainant is a kook, or the data is being misrepresented, or.....

HonestChieffan
12-04-2009, 08:28 AM
Tell this guy its gettin warm....http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_3QqO8EXd-II/SxdmjSy0g7I/AAAAAAAAuF0/gOUAX4kHs7E/s400/ice.jpg

wild1
12-04-2009, 08:30 AM
The fact that the left has pushed global warming as their gospel for so long erodes the people's confidence in them universally, not just on this issue.

HonestChieffan
12-04-2009, 08:40 AM
The fact that the left has pushed global warming as their gospel for so long erodes the people's confidence in them universally, not just on this issue.

Be fun to build a list of current events that the left can take encouragement from.

wild1
12-04-2009, 08:42 AM
Be fun to build a list of current events that the left can take encouragement from.

Not much under the tree for them this year, that's for sure.

Mile High Mania
12-04-2009, 08:46 AM
Interesting.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/O70oiUCmVa0&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/O70oiUCmVa0&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Mile High Mania
12-04-2009, 08:50 AM
Other interests in pushing GW?

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/WbLK4RZDdzI&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/WbLK4RZDdzI&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Mile High Mania
12-04-2009, 08:53 AM
<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/aNzBRiAyn8o&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/aNzBRiAyn8o&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

HonestChieffan
12-04-2009, 09:05 AM
OHHHH Dammmmmit Carl!!!!


AlGore has to be peeved. Not doing a $1200/ticket Book saleathon is serious opportunity cost.

Fo shame, and at the holidays too.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/12/03/al-gore-cancels-1-200-handshake-event-copenhagen

banyon
12-04-2009, 09:32 AM
You guys sure are spiking the football pretty hard on this one. A couple of scientists in England jerked around with figures for a couple of recent years and now the worldwide conspiracy about hundreds of years of data is proven.

Pretty convenient huh.

Brock
12-04-2009, 09:33 AM
Maybe this will finally be the end of Earthchurch.

Radar Chief
12-04-2009, 09:37 AM
You guys sure are spiking the football pretty hard on this one. A couple of scientists in England jerked around with figures for a couple of recent years and now the worldwide conspiracy about hundreds of years of data is proven.

Pretty convenient huh.

Dude, it's being linked back to NASA now.
This isn't just a couple of Brit "scientists".

HonestChieffan
12-04-2009, 09:41 AM
You guys sure are spiking the football pretty hard on this one. A couple of scientists in England jerked around with figures for a couple of recent years and now the worldwide conspiracy about hundreds of years of data is proven.

Pretty convenient huh.

One witness can screw the whole trial.

donkhater
12-04-2009, 09:46 AM
You guys sure are spiking the football pretty hard on this one. A couple of scientists in England jerked around with figures for a couple of recent years and now the worldwide conspiracy about hundreds of years of data is proven.

Pretty convenient huh.

Forget for the moment on wether or not man-made global warming is true or not. As a scientist myself, this story is appalling for a different reason.

Scientists, by their nature, should be skeptical. The basis for scientific discovery is forming a hypothesis and attempting to disprove it. One can never prove a theory, only offer evidence in support of it. Sometimes the evidence is very strong; strong enough that conventional thinking transforms it into fact. Sometimes the evidence leads to alternate hypothesis, which then are challenged by experiments and data collection.

Perhaps the most disgusting part about this whole topic is that people have claimed 'the debate is over' when the data only suggests certain conclusions. It is by no means proof of anything. If all climatologists think in way those did writing these e-mails, they should have their PhDs stripped from them yesterday.

NewChief
12-04-2009, 09:57 AM
Forget for the moment on wether or not man-made global warming is true or not. As a scientist myself, this story is appalling for a different reason.

Scientists, by their nature, should be skeptical. The basis for scientific discovery is forming a hypothesis and attempting to disprove it. One can never prove a theory, only offer evidence in support of it. Sometimes the evidence is very strong; strong enough that conventional thinking transforms it into fact. Sometimes the evidence leads to alternate hypothesis, which then are challenged by experiments and data collection.

Perhaps the most disgusting part about this whole topic is that people have claimed 'the debate is over' when the data only suggests certain conclusions. It is by no means proof of anything. If all climatologists think in way those did writing these e-mails, they should have their PhDs stripped from them yesterday.

As Stokely Carmichael said: Everything's political. There was a time when, I honestly believe, scientists actually had an interest in finding out the truth. Now, it's all about assembling "data" to back up your agenda.

steelyeyed57
12-04-2009, 10:14 AM
As Stokely Carmichael said: Everything's political. There was a time when, I honestly believe, scientists actually had an interest in finding out the truth. Now, it's all about assembling "data" to back up your agenda.

and their agenda usually falls along the lines of "whatever will keep funding our research."

KCWolfman
12-04-2009, 10:16 AM
and their agenda usually falls along the lines of "whatever will keep funding our research."

Ding ding ding....

We have a winner!!!!

Donger
12-04-2009, 10:17 AM
My My My.....even Nasa?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/03/researcher-says-nasa-hiding-climate-data/

"Several thousand scientists have come to the conclusion that climate change is happening. I don't think that's anything that is, quite frankly, among most people, in dispute anymore," press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters this week.

The time for talk is OVER!

Taco John
12-04-2009, 10:24 AM
I think that the warmies aren't giving this event the credit that it deserves. Regardless of their own personal feelings about this event, it's setting back the clock on this debate by decades. The public perception on this is going nowhere but south right now around the world, and it gets worse as the major networks continue to ignore the story.

There's not many black swan events that I'd consider game changers, but I honestly think that this is one. The empowerement that this is giving those who oppose big government solutions is showing to be significant already in just the early days of this. Eventually, the networks will HAVE to jump in and cover the many story lines that are developing out of this. There's just no avoiding it.

A lot of these global initiatives are going to die a quick death. Global cap and trade is probably a lost cause - at least for the next decade. Maybe even two or three decades. That's what I mean by game changer. I think people are delusional if they think that it's going to be business as usual.

KC native
12-04-2009, 10:25 AM
You guys sure are spiking the football pretty hard on this one. A couple of scientists in England jerked around with figures for a couple of recent years and now the worldwide conspiracy about hundreds of years of data is proven.

Pretty convenient huh.

Don't interrupt the frenetic circle jerks. They're amusing in a clueless, deranged BEP style. :evil:

Donger
12-04-2009, 10:30 AM
You guys sure are spiking the football pretty hard on this one. A couple of scientists in England jerked around with figures for a couple of recent years and now the worldwide conspiracy about hundreds of years of data is proven.

Pretty convenient huh.

I haven't followed this story very closely, but I thought that these Brits actually have data that show that temperatures are actually declining (which seems to be opposite of 'global warming') and that it what they attempted to hide.

Is that not correct?

BucEyedPea
12-04-2009, 10:31 AM
Wow! This issue gets hotter n' hotter all the time.

Taco John
12-04-2009, 10:32 AM
Hahaha! Even the motion picture academy is getting in on the action...

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/12/al-gore-oscar-global-warming.html

The backlash on this is only in its infancy, and if the tea parties are any indication, there's plenty more to come.

It turns out that falsifying science in order to shape public opinion isn't such a great idea. This thing is much bigger than you warmies are giving credit for.

Taco John
12-04-2009, 10:36 AM
I haven't followed this story very closely, but I thought that these Brits actually have data that show that temperatures are actually declining (which seems to be opposite of 'global warming') and that it what they attempted to hide.

Is that not correct?


This is correct. Not only that, but their emails were clear about the reason they were doing this, and their urgency in making the data present the picture that they wanted to present. This thing is tremendously damaging to the warmie movement. It impacts the credibility of their cause significantly. They're probably back to pre-1990 on this. Much of the legislation surrounding this is dead in the water. Can you imagine what would happen if Obama tried to sign a world climate treaty any time soon? If Kyoto wasn't dead before, it's dead now.

Taco John
12-04-2009, 10:40 AM
You guys sure are spiking the football pretty hard on this one. A couple of scientists in England jerked around with figures for a couple of recent years and now the worldwide conspiracy about hundreds of years of data is proven.

Pretty convenient huh.



You're right about one thing though... People are definitely spiking the football pretty hard on this. I know I am. From a libertarian perspective, the good guys may have just won a major battle, if not the entire war on this thing. It was looking pretty bleak for awhile there, but this event represents a major victory snatched from the jaws of defeat. I can understand why you guys aren't seeing it yet. The state media outlets aren't really reporting on it yet. But eventually they're going to have to. Of course, they'll put their big government spin on it. There's a lot invested in this whole thing. But the nature of the game is changing here. In time, I think that you'll see what I mean.

Garcia Bronco
12-04-2009, 10:45 AM
Funny. That article is from Dec. 2. But on the side there's already a link to his Dec. 3 entry.
Some people still don’t get Climategate.

The main lesson – according to today’s Guardian – is that ‘climate scientists’ have done nothing actually wrong but that in future they should improve their cover-up skills just in case:
But like politicians before them, climate scientists are learning the hard way that sticking to the rules is not enough – they must also to be seen to be sticking to them.
And the other lesson, apparently, is that ‘deniers’ who write stories about such things are just stupid, ignorant scuzzballs:


For one thing, as well as the proper scepticism of the inquisitive mind, which all scientists face, they must tackle the talk-show brand of bastardised scepticism that is borne [sic] of wilful ignorance.


*more whimpering about the general lack of anyone giving a damn about climate-gate*

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100018696/climategate-which-part-of-over-dont-these-people-understand/
Doesn't sound like the game changed much at all. :doh!:

the talk-show brand of bastardised scepticism that is borne of willful ignorance - that's good. I'll have to remember that one.



Legal actions ahoy! Over the next few weeks, one thing we can be absolutely certain of is concerted efforts by the rich, powerful and influential AGW lobby to squash the Climategate story. We’ve seen this already in the “nothing to see here” response (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/29/ipcc-climate-change-leaked-emails) of Dr Rajendra Pachauri, the jet-setting, troll-impersonating railway engineer who runs the IPCC and wants to stop ice being served with water in restaurants. This is why those of us who oppose his scheme to carbon-tax the global economy back to the dark ages must do everything in our power to bring the scandal to a wider audience. One way to do this is law suits.
At Ian Plimer’s lunch talk yesterday, Viscount Monckton talked of at least two in the offing – both by scientists, one British, one Canadian, who intend to pursue the CRU for criminal fraud. Their case, quite simply, is that the scientists implicated in Climategate have gained funding and career advancement by twisting data, hiding evidence, and shutting out dissenters by corrupting the peer-review process. More news on this, as I hear it.
Lord Monckton has written an indispensible summary (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/01/lord-moncktons-summary-of-climategate-and-its-issues/) of the Climategate revelations so far.

Donger
12-04-2009, 10:46 AM
This is correct. Not only that, but their emails were clear about the reason they were doing this, and their urgency in making the data present the picture that they wanted to present. This thing is tremendously damaging to the warmie movement. It impacts the credibility of their cause significantly. They're probably back to pre-1990 on this. Much of the legislation surrounding this is dead in the water. Can you imagine what would happen if Obama tried to sign a world climate treaty any time soon? If Kyoto wasn't dead before, it's dead now.

In that case, it really is a two-part scandal. And, while the scientific fraud is grotesque, the fact that the data show the precise opposite of what they are trying to prove should give everyone reason for pause.

It won't, of course, because the goal really isn't to stop 'global warming.'

Chief Henry
12-04-2009, 10:48 AM
and their agenda usually falls along the lines of "whatever will keep funding our research."

Bingo :clap:

fan4ever
12-04-2009, 10:49 AM
My My My.....even Nasa?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/03/researcher-says-nasa-hiding-climate-data/

Nasa needs money too; everyone's for sale as long as the line up behind this travesty. And the carbon footprint they leave everytime they launch? It will be fun watching them try and get the shuttles to space using a giant slingshot.

Garcia Bronco
12-04-2009, 10:51 AM
I haven't followed this story very closely, but I thought that these Brits actually have data that show that temperatures are actually declining (which seems to be opposite of 'global warming') and that it what they attempted to hide.

Is that not correct?

that is correct.

Donger
12-04-2009, 10:55 AM
that is correct.

Okay, so how can any global warming proponent not look at those facts and say, "Whoa. Maybe we should rethink our position"?

Taco John
12-04-2009, 10:56 AM
Climategate goes uber-viral, Gore flees leaving evil henchmen to defend crumbling citadel

By James Delingpole Politics Last updated: December 4th, 2009

Due to unforeseen circumstances, Al Gore has had to cancel a Copenhagen speaking event (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/03/gore-cancels-on-copenhagen-lecture-leaves-ticketholders-in-a-lurch/) at which he had hoped to charge starry-eyed believers in his ManBearPig religion $1200 a piece for the privilege of shaking his hand, breathing in his CO2 and having his latest book inflicted on them.

Could those unforeseen circumstances have anything to do with Climategate?

I think so. Climategate is now huge. Way, way bigger than the Mainstream Media (MSM) is admitting it is – as Richard North demonstrates in this fascinating analysis (http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/12/tiger-woods-index.html). Using what he calls a Tiger Woods Index (TWI), he compares the amount of interest being shown by internet users (as shown by the number of general web pages on Google) and compares it with the number of news reports recorded. The ratio indicates what people are really interested in, as opposed to what the MSM thinks they ought to be interested in.

North explains:

Tiger Woods delivered 22,500,000 web and 46,025 news pages, giving ratio of 489. That is the “Tiger Woods Index” (TWI) against which I chose to measure a raft of other issues.

Here are the rankings:

1. Climategate: 28,400,000 – 2,930 = 9693
2. Afghanistan: 143,000,000 – 154,145 = 928
3. Obama: 202,000,000 – 252,583 = 800
4. Tiger Woods: 22,500,000 – 46,025 = 489
5. Gordon Brown: 12,300,000 – 37,021 = 332
6. Climate change: 22,200,000 – 68,419 = 324
7. Sally Bercow: 25,000 – 86 = 290
8. David Cameron: 545,000 – 4837 = 113
9. Meredith Kercher: 261,000 – 3,471 = 75
10. Chilcot Inquiry: 125,000 – 4,350 = 29
And lest anyone doubt how big this story is, now Sarah Palin has weighed in. On her Facebook page she urges President Obama to boycott Copenhagen. She totally gets it:

The president’s decision to attend the international climate conference in Copenhagen needs to be reconsidered in light of the unfolding Climategate scandal. The leaked e-mails involved in Climategate expose the unscientific behavior of leading climate scientists who deliberately destroyed records to block information requests, manipulated data to “hide the decline” in global temperatures, and conspired to silence the critics of man-made global warming. I support Senator James Inhofe’s call for a full investigation into this scandal. Because it involves many of the same personalities and entities behind the Copenhagen conference, Climategate calls into question many of the proposals being pushed there, including anything that would lead to a cap and tax plan.

She concludes (and if she goes on like this, we really ought to start thinking her of a serious candidate for next president: way to go, Sarah!)

Policy decisions require real science and real solutions, not junk science and doomsday scare tactics pushed by an environmental priesthood that capitalizes on the public’s worry and makes them feel that owning an SUV is a “sin” against the planet. In his inaugural address, President Obama declared his intention to “restore science to its rightful place.” Boycotting Copenhagen while this scandal is thoroughly investigated would send a strong message that the United States government will not be a party to fraudulent scientific practices. Saying no to Copenhagen and cap and tax are first steps in “restoring science to its rightful place.”

Yep. From your mouth to God’s ear, let us hope.

Meanwhile in the libtard-controlled MSM (apparently this is also dating ad code for “Men who have sex with Men” – sorry about that), the BBC is slowly, grudgingly acknowledging that Climategate might be more than just a little local difficulty at some obscure redbrick university department.

On this morning’s BBC Radio 4 Today programme, it gave it a full 12 minutes. Needless to say, it stacked the odds heavily against the one man – climatologist Professor Philip Stott – brave enough to stick up for scientific integrity and rationalism and against Climate Change Hysteria. Not only was the debate sandwiched between reports by two of the BBC’s in-house greens Roger Harrabin and Richard Black trying to play the story down (the Climategate emails offer not a smoking gun but a “confused and half-baked picture” claimed Black), but we then had to put up with presenter John Humphrys ganging up with badger-bottomed climate-fear-promoter the Hon Sir Jonathon Porritt against Stott.

“Bit of a coincidence having these glaciers melting when there’s all this extra CO2 in the air,” interrupted Humphrys sarkily, while Stott was trying to make an intelligent point about the AGW industry being an ‘inverted pyramid’ with an awful lot of policy being based on the claims of a very tiny number of scientists.

Yes, Humphrys. Coincidence. NOT CAUSATION.

Finally, my debate with George Monbiot on “Saying the unsayable: is climate scepticism the new Holocaust denial?”. I dunno what others thought – it’ll be up on Youtube at some stage so you can decide for yourselves – but I’d say it was a draw. Neither of us was at all interested in taking it ad hominem (I didn’t use the word ‘Moonbat’ once) and the gently donnish George didn’t try to make out that I was an evil fascist. Indeed, if he weren’t so utterly inexcusably wrong about pretty much everything I think I’d rather like the dear chap. The audience was split 50/50 between sceptics and deep greens (very few in the middle), so I doubt either of us said anything that would have shaken anyone’s unshakable position.

What was abundantly clear is that despite his apology soon after the scandal broke

‘I apologise. I was too trusting of some of those who provided the evidence I championed. I would have been a better journalist if I had investigated their claims more closely.’

and despite his initial shocked admission that

“The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging,”

Monbiot’s position on Climategate is now rapidly returning to the status quo ante. During the debate he kept stressing how very few scientists were implicated (”three or four”, he said) and how while, of course, scientific integrity is terribly important the vast majority of evidence is still behind AGW and the scientists suggesting otherwise are a bunch of fruitcakes whom we can safely ignore.

Expect to see a lot more of this happening. The Saudis may claim that Climategate is going to derail Copenhagen; the IPCC may just have announced it is launching an official whitewash – “inquiry” – into the affair; we sceptics may point till we’re blue in the face that Climategate is a game-changer because the implicated self-selecting, parti-pris cabal of data-raping scientists are at the very heart of the so-called consensus.

But still the AGW wagon train will trundle on, regardless. And true believers like Monbiot and Porritt will be defending it to their dying breath.


http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100018847/climategate-goes-uber-viral-gore-flees-leaving-evil-henchmen-to-defend-crumbling-citadel/

Taco John
12-04-2009, 10:57 AM
Okay, so how can any global warming proponent not look at those facts and say, "Whoa. Maybe we should rethink our position"?

Because it's a religion, and they're interested in that aspect of it. The "science" was just a cover for the religion.

Taco John
12-04-2009, 11:01 AM
Cap and tax went from being a near sure thing to being virtually dead on arrival. I don't see how anybody couldn't consider this event a game changer. I really dont.

Radar Chief
12-04-2009, 11:03 AM
Because it's a religion, and they're interested in that aspect of it. The "science" was just a cover for the religion.

Indeed. And "deniers" = "infidels".

jjjayb
12-04-2009, 11:07 AM
Cap and tax went from being a near sure thing to being virtually dead on arrival. I don't see how anybody couldn't consider this event a game changer. I really dont.

They'll just keep following the handbook. Keep ridiculing anyone who disagrees. Keep ignoring climategate. Eventually it will go away. So far the liberal media (I refuse to call them the "mainstream media" because they are anything but mainstream) is doing a great job of not covering this, hoping it goes away.

Donger
12-04-2009, 11:11 AM
They'll just keep following the handbook. Keep ridiculing anyone who disagrees. Keep ignoring climategate. Eventually it will go away. So far the liberal media (I refuse to call them the "mainstream media" because they are anything but mainstream) is doing a great job of not covering this, hoping it goes away.

It's on CNN.com, albeit under the 'Tech' section:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/12/02/climate.stolen.emails/index.html

jjjayb
12-04-2009, 11:24 AM
It's on CNN.com, albeit under the 'Tech' section:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/12/02/climate.stolen.emails/index.html

Everything will get reported. The question is how often it gets reported. Things like this that hurt the liberal agenda will get a quick mention and dissappear. If a scandal broke on Palin, it would be reported on every 10 minutes for days on end.

Taco John
12-04-2009, 11:26 AM
This article is a good summary of why I think this event is a game-changer.


WSJ: Climategate: Science Is Dying

Surely there must have been serious men and women in the hard sciences who at some point worried that their colleagues in the global warming movement were putting at risk the credibility of everyone in science. The nature of that risk has been twofold: First, that the claims of the climate scientists might buckle beneath the weight of their breathtaking complexity. Second, that the crudeness of modern politics, once in motion, would trample the traditions and culture of science to achieve its own policy goals. With the scandal at the East Anglia Climate Research Unit, both have happened at once.

I don't think most scientists appreciate what has hit them. This isn't only about the credibility of global warming. For years, global warming and its advocates have been the public face of hard science. Most people could not name three other subjects they would associate with the work of serious scientists. This was it. The public was told repeatedly that something called "the scientific community" had affirmed the science beneath this inquiry.

Global warming enlisted the collective reputation of science. Because "science" said so, all the world was about to undertake a vast reordering of human behavior at almost unimaginable financial cost. Not every day does the work of scientists lead to galactic events simply called Kyoto or Copenhagen. At least not since the Manhattan Project.

What is happening at East Anglia is an epochal event. As the hard sciences—physics, biology, chemistry, electrical engineering—came to dominate intellectual life in the last century, some academics in the humanities devised the theory of postmodernism, which liberated them from their colleagues in the sciences. Postmodernism, a self-consciously "unprovable" theory, replaced formal structures with subjectivity. With the revelations of East Anglia, this slippery and variable intellectual world has crossed into the hard sciences.

This has harsh implications for the credibility of science generally. Hard science, alongside medicine, was one of the few things left accorded automatic stature and respect by most untrained lay persons. But the average person reading accounts of the East Anglia emails will conclude that hard science has become just another faction, as politicized and "messy" as, say, gender studies.

The East Anglians' mistreatment of scientists who challenged global warming's claims—plotting to shut them up and shut down their ability to publish—evokes the attempt to silence Galileo. The exchanges between Penn State's Michael Mann and East Anglia CRU director Phil Jones sound like Father Firenzuola, the Commissary-General of the Inquisition.

For three centuries Galileo has symbolized dissent in science. In our time, most scientists outside this circle have kept silent as their climatologist fellows, helped by the cardinals of the press, mocked and ostracized scientists who questioned this grand theory of global doom.

Beneath this dispute is a relatively new, very postmodern environmental idea known as "the precautionary principle." As defined by one official version: "When an activity raises threats of harm to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically." The global-warming establishment says we know "enough" to impose new rules on the world's use of carbon fuels. The dissenters say this demotes science's traditional standards of evidence.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's dramatic Endangerment Finding in April that greenhouse gas emissions qualify as an air pollutant—with implications for a vast new regulatory regime—used what the agency called a precautionary approach. The EPA admitted "varying degrees of uncertainty across many of these scientific issues." Again, this puts hard science in the new position of saying, close enough is good enough. One hopes civil engineers never build bridges under this theory.

If the new ethos is that "close-enough" science is now sufficient to achieve political goals, serious scientists should be under no illusion that politicians will press-gang them into service for future agendas. Everyone working in science, no matter their politics, has an stake in cleaning up the mess revealed by the East Anglia emails. Science is on the credibility bubble. If it pops, centuries of what we understand to be the role of science go with it.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB40001424052748704107104574572091993737848.html

Donger
12-04-2009, 11:29 AM
Heh. And Houston is "bracing" for two inches of snow!

donkhater
12-04-2009, 11:30 AM
and their agenda usually falls along the lines of "whatever will keep funding our research."

You know, I don't even have much of an issue with this--as long as the data isn't falsified.

That's the whole point that is being glossed over here. Data can be interrpreted in many different ways. Multiple conclusions can be reached.

The whole point of a peer-reviewed process is to give the opportunity to offer a different conclusion to the data presented. Then the skeptics can collect data or run experiments to support their hypotheses.

Shutting down this process on a study to explain as mysterious and complex phenomena such as the Earth's climate is scandalous.

On top of that, when you add U.S. and world government policies being driven by weak-ass science such as this....it goes from scandalous to evil.

Taco John
12-04-2009, 11:34 AM
Also, I think the main stream media's handling of this event is significant in itself... (http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner~y2009m12d4-Big-three-networks-highlight-own-irrelevance-by-ignoring-Climategate-email-scandal)

This thing is turning into a major New Media vs. Old Media war. I think the fallout in this arena is going to be significant as well. I don't know what that means at this point. But it means *something*.

wild1
12-04-2009, 11:36 AM
Cap and tax went from being a near sure thing to being virtually dead on arrival. I don't see how anybody couldn't consider this event a game changer. I really dont.

Deus Ex Hackera

mlyonsd
12-04-2009, 11:43 AM
Because it's a religion, and they're interested in that aspect of it. The "science" was just a cover for the religion.

This.

FishingRod
12-04-2009, 11:45 AM
I'm probably one of the very few people that while skeptical, have tried to keep an open mind. I admit that my natural inclination is to poo poo any claims of impending doom from pocket protector wearing eggheads, but I fully admit that if I had an area of expertise, climatology would be no closer to it than quantum physics. I think part of the problem I have getting on the band- wagon is that it just seems so similar to the current flavor of the day crisis that we have seen so many time in the past. In the 70s we were afraid of a coming Ice age. Then Fluorocarbons breaking the sky, California falling into the ocean, the medical students in Grenada being dangerously close to graduating and so forth. Every natural disaster be it drought, floods, hurricanes, tornados is linked by some jackass to global warming and every cold day, pleasant breeze lack of tornado or hurricane is also because of global warming.
Obviously logic dictates that being more efficient and less polluting is a good thing but, the chicken little attitude just rubs me the wrong way. In my opinion there has been a smarmy attitude (not too dissimilar from that which many Atheists have toward religious folks) with the Global warming crowd towards deniers or even those that pose questions. An attitude of intellectual superiority of " can you believe that some people still don't believe in global warming?" like they were looking at a person that believed the world was flat or small trolls lived in their cupboards. I always believed that we were indeed in a period of warming but, questioned the percentage that was caused by man and what is just part of the natural heating and cooling of the planet that has being going on since long before mankind's existence. If indeed it turns out that this is one of the biggest scams ever attempted, there will be many that will get more than a little satisfaction that the intellectual superiors of us were so quickly and easily taken in. If it turns out to be true, most of the measures proposed will in reality be little more than feel good ideas that have little to no impact on the situation until an actual viable replacement for crude oil becomes available. There is a great deal of money to be found in a crisis and when it appears that scientists may be "cooking" the books to make the answer fit the hypothesis it only makes since that questions should be asked and heads should roll.

Garcia Bronco
12-04-2009, 11:49 AM
Okay, so how can any global warming proponent not look at those facts and say, "Whoa. Maybe we should rethink our position"?

the same way a Bronco Fan reasons that the Broncos can win in Arrowhead in December....blind faith.

Reaper16
12-04-2009, 11:55 AM
But the average person reading accounts of the East Anglia emails will conclude that hard science has become just another faction, as politicized and "messy" as, say, gender studies.

wut?

Calcountry
12-04-2009, 12:00 PM
Maybe this will finally be the end of Earthchurch.This.

Taco John
12-04-2009, 12:01 PM
wut?

He wasn't talking about TruBelievers.

Calcountry
12-04-2009, 12:02 PM
Heh. And Houston is "bracing" for two inches of snow!Hey, I seen 2012, so I know the truth. If the sun takes a fart, there is nothing we can do anyway.

I have been saying that for some time now. Glad to see that the Hollywood idiots get it.

Merry Christmas everyone! :):)

Reaper16
12-04-2009, 12:02 PM
He wasn't talking about TruBelievers.
I was just curious as to whether there was some Gendergate scandal or something that I missed.

irishjayhawk
12-04-2009, 12:02 PM
I haven't followed this story very closely, but I thought that these Brits actually have data that show that temperatures are actually declining (which seems to be opposite of 'global warming') and that it what they attempted to hide.

Is that not correct?

I also haven't followed this story very closely but I came to a different conclusion with respect to the emails.

The emails indicate they were trying to present the data in a different way. Not fabricating or eliminating data. Essentially, it was the presentation of the data not the data itself. Of course, that's equally as unethical and regretable.

The problem is the emails aren't the touchdown the anti-GW crowd thinks they are. At least it wasn't a week ago. I'm not sure what's changed since then.

Real Climate had a pretty comprehensive response (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/) to the emails and the response since then. Nate Silver weighed in (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/11/i-read-through-160000000-bytes-of.html) and reached the same conclusion.

I still don't see how one incident negates all previously recorded data.

Reaper16
12-04-2009, 12:07 PM
I still don't see how one incident negates all previously recorded data.
I don't see it either. Which doesn't mean that I won't or can't if the picture becomes more clear.

And post #31 is a good example of why I have difficulties trying to think through issues from a Libertarian perspective. I would rather be kicked repeatedly in the groin by vindictive ex-girlfriends than talk as douchy as that.

KC native
12-04-2009, 12:07 PM
I also haven't followed this story very closely but I came to a different conclusion with respect to the emails.

The emails indicate they were trying to present the data in a different way. Not fabricating or eliminating data. Essentially, it was the presentation of the data not the data itself. Of course, that's equally as unethical and regretable.

The problem is the emails aren't the touchdown the anti-GW crowd thinks they are. At least it wasn't a week ago. I'm not sure what's changed since then.

Real Climate had a pretty comprehensive response (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/) to the emails and the response since then. Nate Silver weighed in (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/11/i-read-through-160000000-bytes-of.html) and reached the same conclusion.

I still don't see how one incident negates all previously recorded data.

Quit interrupting the circle jerk. Like I said earlier, it's amusing in a demented way.

Taco John
12-04-2009, 12:12 PM
I was just curious as to whether there was some Gendergate scandal or something that I missed.

I think you misinterpreted what he was saying then.

Taco John
12-04-2009, 12:15 PM
I also haven't followed this story very closely but I came to a different conclusion with respect to the emails.

I absolutely love it when people reveal that they are willing to rationalize the situation before they actually learn anything about it. The human is a marvellous creature!

Taco John
12-04-2009, 12:16 PM
I don't see it either. Which doesn't mean that I won't or can't if the picture becomes more clear.

And post #31 is a good example of why I have difficulties trying to think through issues from a Libertarian perspective. I would rather be kicked repeatedly in the groin by vindictive ex-girlfriends than talk as douchy as that.


Wut?

irishjayhawk
12-04-2009, 12:16 PM
I absolutely love it when people reveal that they are willing to rationalize the situation before they actually learn anything about it. The human is a marvellous creature!

I've learned plenty about it. Hence, why I backed it up.

Can you please enlighten me as to what's changed since this first broke?

irishjayhawk
12-04-2009, 12:19 PM
I absolutely love it when people jump on one instance to point out errors when there's a mountain of evidence yet to be dismantled. The human is a marvellous creature!

FYP

Donger
12-04-2009, 12:21 PM
I also haven't followed this story very closely but I came to a different conclusion with respect to the emails.

The emails indicate they were trying to present the data in a different way. Not fabricating or eliminating data. Essentially, it was the presentation of the data not the data itself. Of course, that's equally as unethical and regretable.

The problem is the emails aren't the touchdown the anti-GW crowd thinks they are. At least it wasn't a week ago. I'm not sure what's changed since then.

Real Climate had a pretty comprehensive response (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/) to the emails and the response since then. Nate Silver weighed in (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/11/i-read-through-160000000-bytes-of.html) and reached the same conclusion.

I still don't see how one incident negates all previously recorded data.

That's why I asked if the emails showed that these Brits had data showing that there has, in fact, been a global decline in temperatures.

irishjayhawk
12-04-2009, 12:22 PM
That's why I asked if the emails showed that these Brits had data showing that there has, in fact, been a global decline in temperatures.

Right, which I got the impression the answer is no. It does not show that.

Bad Astronomer (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/11/30/the-global-warming-emails-non-event/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BadAstronomyBlog+%28Bad+Astronomy%29), Phil Plait weighed in too.

Garcia Bronco
12-04-2009, 12:24 PM
That's why I asked if the emails showed that these Brits had data showing that there has, in fact, been a global decline in temperatures.

It does despite increased levels of CO2, which the warmists think equte to surface temps. Well despite the increase, temps have gone down and Phil Jones and his group conspired to hide that decline and submitted their results to the IPCC.

Donger
12-04-2009, 12:26 PM
Right, which I got the impression the answer is no. It does not show that.

Bad Astronomer (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/11/30/the-global-warming-emails-non-event/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BadAstronomyBlog+%28Bad+Astronomy%29), Phil Plait weighed in too.

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: ray bradley <rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx


Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim's got a diagram here we'll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. Mike's series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.

Cheers
Phil



Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK


What decline is he referring to?

Reaper16
12-04-2009, 12:26 PM
Wut?
I wish I could find some non-douchbag libertarians is all. Someone who writes in such a way that their position isn't obscured by rhetoric that irritates me.

irishjayhawk
12-04-2009, 12:27 PM
FWIW, I agree with this comment over at Bad Astronomy:

You know, I hate to say this, but for me, the AGW deniers have won.
I mean, don’t get me wrong, I’m firmly convinced that a) global warming is happening, and b) humans are the principle cause, but it’s clear that, despite all the evidence, the tide is turning in favour of the denialists.
Between the CRU hack, this “it’s been cooling for the last ten years” BS, and god knows what else, the anti-AGW folks are clearly winning the public relations battle, by simple virtue of a) yelling louder than anyone else, and b) having a nice, appealing conspiracy theory that people can turn to as an excuse to stop worry about AGW.
And so it is that they’ve won. They haven’t won on the science, since the facts don’t run in their favour, but they have won in the eyes of the public, and in the end, that’s all that really counts. And I predict the consequence will be a public policy that’s set back decades, resulting in humans delaying action until it’s simply too late to do anything substantive that could chance the course we’re heading down (assuming we haven’t already reached that point).
So, Phil, good luck to you and your colleagues in your unending, sisyphean task of fighting for science literacy and *true* skeptical thinking, on this and many other topics. But I’m out. It just isn’t worth the trouble anymore.

irishjayhawk
12-04-2009, 12:29 PM
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: ray bradley <rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx


Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim's got a diagram here we'll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. Mike's series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.

Cheers
Phil



Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK


What decline is he referring to?

I'll let Real Climate explain.

As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.

Taco John
12-04-2009, 12:32 PM
I've learned plenty about it. Hence, why I backed it up.

Can you please enlighten me as to what's changed since this first broke?

The thing that is changing is public opinion on the topic, and the way legislatures will react to that change in public opinion. Before this event, legislation like cap and trade looked inevitable. They were on the fast track. Jump in the Google-news stream, and you can observe how this is changing. The entire thing is under an intense microscope right now. Especially the actual legislation.

Ooooh... And if they actually catch this guy who did the hack! He's going to be a global hero villain! This is the virtual Watergate of our day! This thing isn't something that's just going to go away. We're in for a ride!

Taco John
12-04-2009, 12:33 PM
I wish I could find some non-douchbag libertarians is all. Someone who writes in such a way that their position isn't obscured by rhetoric that irritates me.

Read Ron Paul then. I mean, if you're really interested in that.

Donger
12-04-2009, 12:33 PM
I'll let Real Climate explain.

So because these tree rings show a decline, they ignore them?

irishjayhawk
12-04-2009, 12:33 PM
The thing that is changing is public opinion on the topic, and the way legislatures will react to that change in public opinion. Before this event, legislation like cap and trade looked inevitable. They were on the fast track. Jump in the Google-news stream, and you can observe how this is changing. The entire thing is under an intense microscope right now. Especially the actual legislation.

Ooooh... And if they actually catch this guy who did the hack! He's going to be a global hero villain! This is the virtual Watergate of our day! This thing isn't something that's just going to go away. We're in for a ride!

So, in essence, you're just spiking the football on the PR side rather than the science side (arguably the "facts" side).

Sounds like you would agree with that comment I posted.

irishjayhawk
12-04-2009, 12:35 PM
So because these tree rings show a decline, they ignore them?

It does sound that way, but since I haven't read the underlying papers (I don't think they're publicly available.) I have to rely on the scientists I read who would answer no to that question.

Reaper16
12-04-2009, 12:35 PM
Read Ron Paul then. I mean, if you're really interested in that.
He's kinda douchy to me.

Donger
12-04-2009, 12:37 PM
It does sound that way, but since I haven't read the underlying papers (I don't think they're publicly available.) I have to rely on the scientists I read who would answer no to that question.

Which scientists are those?

irishjayhawk
12-04-2009, 12:40 PM
Which scientists are those?

I've linked to them already. I guess you haven't read my links.

Real Climate is a group of scientists. Phil Plait is a scientist. Chris Mooney is another, though I'd consider him the weakest as I've disagreed with him in the past - though in an unrelated matter.

irishjayhawk
12-04-2009, 12:41 PM
He's kinda douchy to me.

There's those people who called Obama elitist during the last election. And, yet, then there's people who talk like that.
:shake:

Taco John
12-04-2009, 12:43 PM
He's kinda douchy to me.

I'm certain that you haven't read The Revolution, or End the Fed. But if you ever get the intellectual curiosity to do so, I'd be interested in learning specific examples that you found to be as such.

Donger
12-04-2009, 12:51 PM
I've linked to them already. I guess you haven't read my links.

Real Climate is a group of scientists. Phil Plait is a scientist. Chris Mooney is another, though I'd consider him the weakest as I've disagreed with him in the past - though in an unrelated matter.

I did read your links, and I didn't read anything that explains why they would leave that data out/ignore it.

irishjayhawk
12-04-2009, 12:53 PM
I did read your links, and I didn't read anything that explains why they would leave that data out/ignore it.

Well, feel free to check out (if you can) the underlying papers which purportedly explain this.

Taco John
12-04-2009, 12:54 PM
So, in essence, you're just spiking the football on the PR side rather than the science side (arguably the "facts" side).

Sounds like you would agree with that comment I posted.


I'm a PR man by trade. Natural born. You seem to think that science is a brain that thinks for us. I'm here to tell you that it's a tool that works for whoever is paying for it. It's been absolutely corrupted by government, and we just got a chance to see the tip of the iceberg. Government has gotten involved and science has been politicized. It's the same thing that happened to religion so many years ago - and the entire reason for the seperation between Church and State.

This whole thing is like Enron meets Watergate. It's absolutely big. And even better, it's global.

But with regards to the science, there is science that counters the warmie narrative. The entire thing is going to start being examined more rigourously, and any government plans to take more power are going to be put on hold. I find that as a reason to celebrate. I don't believe government cap and tax schemes are worthwhile solutions, and I believe that as more people come to examine these schemes more closely, they're going to agree.

At the end, we should be pushing towards a seperation between Science and State. I hope that America is a leader in this drive.

Donger
12-04-2009, 12:55 PM
Well, feel free to check out (if you can) the underlying papers which purportedly explain this.

Didn't you just say that these papers are not in the public domain?

SNR
12-04-2009, 12:55 PM
He's kinda douchy to me.What is it about Ron Paul's rhetoric that's "douchey" to you? He at least outlines his arguments in a clear way and doesn't mask anything with Sarah Palin-ish cliches like, "We're gonna shake up Washington!" or "there are crooks on Wall Street taking money from hard workers on main street". THAT shit gets way more annoying for me.

Obama is a giant douchebag compared to Ron Paul. He uses that garbage all the time.

Taco John
12-04-2009, 12:56 PM
What is it about Ron Paul's rhetoric that's "douchey" to you? He at least outlines his arguments in a clear way and doesn't mask anything with Sarah Palin-ish cliches like, "We're gonna shake up Washington!" or "there are crooks on Wall Street taking money from hard workers on main street". THAT shit gets way more annoying for me.

Obama is a giant douchebag compared to Ron Paul. He uses that garbage all the time.

Ron Paul doesn't wear very cool sneakers.

irishjayhawk
12-04-2009, 12:58 PM
I'm a PR man by trade. Natural born. You seem to think that science is a brain that thinks for us. I'm here to tell you that it's a tool that works for whoever is paying for it. It's been absolutely corrupted by government, and we just got a chance to see the tip of the iceberg.

This whole thing is like Enron meets Watergate. It's absolutely big. And even better, it's global.

But with regards to the science, there is science that counters the warmie narrative. The entire thing is going to start being examined more rigourously, and any government plans to take more power are going to be put on hold. I find that as a reason to celebrate. I don't believe government cap and tax schemes are worthwhile solutions, and I believe that as more people come to examine these schemes more closely, they're going to agree.

So, really, this has more to do with the failing of Cap and Trade (which really is a retarded solution anyway) than it does the "wrongness" of the evidence behind GW?

And, no, I don't see this as Enron meets Watergate. I think that's been covered in this thread: overstated.

Didn't you just say that these papers are not in the public domain?

Doesn't mean you couldn't or I couldn't acquire them. I'm just saying it's not as simple as linking to them like I have other people's analysis of those papers.

KC Dan
12-04-2009, 01:05 PM
The real reason that Obama and all the believers are going to Copenhagen:

<!--ASKCRAWL--><!-- Entries --><!-- Reporter --><!-- Entry -->"Prostitutes Offer Free Climate Summit Sex In Copenhagen (http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,665182,00.html)"







http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,665182,00.html

Taco John
12-04-2009, 01:06 PM
So, really, this has more to do with the failing of Cap and Trade (which really is a retarded solution anyway) than it does the "wrongness" of the evidence behind GW?

There's no single answer for what "it really has to do with." It has to do with an entire array. An entire paradigm is shifting, and its happening globally just before a major treaty is being put up for discussion in Copenhagen.


And, no, I don't see this as Enron meets Watergate. I think that's been covered in this thread: overstated.

Then I'm sorry to say that you're a fool and I'll be forced to ask you to remember what a fool you were when this story is still impacting legislation a year from now or more. This story isn't just 'blowing over.' You posted it yourself in that quote from Bad Astronomy:

Bad Astronomy:
You know, I hate to say this, but for me, the AGW deniers have won.
I mean, don’t get me wrong, I’m firmly convinced that a) global warming is happening, and b) humans are the principle cause, but it’s clear that, despite all the evidence, the tide is turning in favour of the denialists.
Between the CRU hack, this “it’s been cooling for the last ten years” BS, and god knows what else, the anti-AGW folks are clearly winning the public relations battle, by simple virtue of a) yelling louder than anyone else, and b) having a nice, appealing conspiracy theory that people can turn to as an excuse to stop worry about AGW.
And so it is that they’ve won. They haven’t won on the science, since the facts don’t run in their favour, but they have won in the eyes of the public, and in the end, that’s all that really counts. And I predict the consequence will be a public policy that’s set back decades, resulting in humans delaying action until it’s simply too late to do anything substantive that could chance the course we’re heading down (assuming we haven’t already reached that point).
So, Phil, good luck to you and your colleagues in your unending, sisyphean task of fighting for science literacy and *true* skeptical thinking, on this and many other topics. But I’m out. It just isn’t worth the trouble anymore.

irishjayhawk
12-04-2009, 01:13 PM
There's no single answer for what "it really has to do with." It has to do with an entire array. An entire paradigm is shifting, and its happening globally just before a major treaty is being put up for discussion in Copenhagen.




Then I'm sorry to say that you're a fool and I'll be forced to ask you to remember what a fool you were when this story is still impacting legislation a year from now or more. This story isn't just 'blowing over.' You posted it yourself in that quote from Bad Astronomy:

Bad Astronomy:
You know, I hate to say this, but for me, the AGW deniers have won.
I mean, don’t get me wrong, I’m firmly convinced that a) global warming is happening, and b) humans are the principle cause, but it’s clear that, despite all the evidence, the tide is turning in favour of the denialists.
Between the CRU hack, this “it’s been cooling for the last ten years” BS, and god knows what else, the anti-AGW folks are clearly winning the public relations battle, by simple virtue of a) yelling louder than anyone else, and b) having a nice, appealing conspiracy theory that people can turn to as an excuse to stop worry about AGW.
And so it is that they’ve won. They haven’t won on the science, since the facts don’t run in their favour, but they have won in the eyes of the public, and in the end, that’s all that really counts. And I predict the consequence will be a public policy that’s set back decades, resulting in humans delaying action until it’s simply too late to do anything substantive that could chance the course we’re heading down (assuming we haven’t already reached that point).
So, Phil, good luck to you and your colleagues in your unending, sisyphean task of fighting for science literacy and *true* skeptical thinking, on this and many other topics. But I’m out. It just isn’t worth the trouble anymore.

Yeah, I agree with that comment, even though, as the writer notes, AGWers are still overlooking the evidence.

From a PR standpoint, I guess it's like Enron meets Watergate. From a fraud standpoint, which is what I thought you were making the connection to/with, it isn't close to either of those.

Taco John
12-04-2009, 01:38 PM
I think you are underestimating the fraud that is taking place. In any case, this whole event feels like a huge relief to me right now. It was looking like we were running headlong into legislative insanity, and the brakes on that are most welcome.

KCWolfman
12-04-2009, 01:52 PM
I think you are underestimating the fraud that is taking place. In any case, this whole event feels like a huge relief to me right now. It was looking like we were running headlong into legislative insanity, and the brakes on that are most welcome.

Even more importantly, this is causing a HUGE panic with the world wide community. Why else would the UN feel compelled to investigate? Doesn't GB have a confident and recognized legitimate legal system?

Mr. Kotter
12-04-2009, 01:54 PM
Well, feel free to check out (if you can) the underlying papers which purportedly explain this.

Can you give us the Sparks notes version....for those of us with real lives.... :shrug:

irishjayhawk
12-04-2009, 01:55 PM
Phil Plait weighed in another time today. Bit more info.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/12/04/global-warming-emails-followup/

Another perspective:

http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2009/11/stolen_emails_climate_change_a.php

Taco John
12-04-2009, 02:02 PM
Even more importantly, this is causing a HUGE panic with the world wide community. Why else would the UN feel compelled to investigate? Doesn't GB have a confident and recognized legitimate legal system?

This story has so many facets. It's really a remarkable event taking place here.

Taco John
12-04-2009, 02:04 PM
Phil Plait weighed in another time today. Bit more info.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/12/04/global-warming-emails-followup/



He hits the nail on the head when he says that this whole thing is a manufactured drama. The scope of his vision on this statement, however, is a lot narrower than it should be.

Garcia Bronco
12-04-2009, 02:11 PM
I did read your links, and I didn't read anything that explains why they would leave that data out/ignore it.

It's simple. It didn't fit their conclusions. It's Laughable. This but the surface. Many of these folks have being lying and skewing data to prove their hypothesis. This isn't science. This is not proper research methods. This is not empirical. Ergo, it ain't science. There are only four sciences. The word people mean to use is research. And it's not even research. And just because some jackass calls himself a scientist....it does not mean he's a researcher.

irishjayhawk
12-04-2009, 02:16 PM
It's simple. It didn't fit their conclusions. It's Laughable. This but the surface. Many of these folks have being lying and skewing data to prove their hypothesis. This isn't science. This is not proper research methods. This is not empirical. Ergo, it ain't science. There are only four sciences. The word people mean to use is research. And it's not even research. And just because some jackass calls himself a scientist....it does not mean he's a researcher.

That attitude is exactly why science always has an uphill battle.

Inspector
12-04-2009, 02:26 PM
I'm predicting some global warming in the midwest come next June, July and August.

Mark my words!

Taco John
12-04-2009, 02:43 PM
That attitude is exactly why science always has an uphill battle.

Science is SUPPOSED to be an uphill battle. It's SUPPOSED to be rigorous. You sound like a religious person trying to address the salvation of people's souls if they would just believe in the word "science."

irishjayhawk
12-04-2009, 02:46 PM
Science is SUPPOSED to be an uphill battle. It's SUPPOSED to be rigorous. You sound like a religious person trying to address the salvation of people's souls if they would just believe in the word "science."

Sorry, I meant an uphill PR battle.

One can have all the evidence in the world but still lose a PR battle.

Mr. Kotter
12-04-2009, 02:49 PM
It's simple. It didn't fit their conclusions. It's Laughable. This but the surface. Many of these folks have being lying and skewing data to prove their hypothesis. This isn't science. This is not proper research methods. This is not empirical. Ergo, it ain't science. There are only four sciences. The word people mean to use is research. And it's not even research. And just because some jackass calls himself a scientist....it does not mean he's a researcher.

Yep. Yet people like IJH bow before such "research" as their God--while simultaneously castigating others they believe to be guilty of the same thing.

Empirical research and science reports facts without regard to political fall-out or agendas; if these reports coming out are any indication, the whole GW theory has just had a huge cloud descend upon it.

Taco John
12-04-2009, 02:52 PM
Sorry, I meant an uphill PR battle.

One can have all the evidence in the world but still lose a PR battle.


Not typically. Water always runs downhill.

As a PR guy I can tell you that when something develops a PR problem, it's usually because that something has fundamental issues. About 99% of the time, the PR problem is a symptom, not the core issue.

irishjayhawk
12-04-2009, 02:52 PM
Yep. Yet people like IJH bow before such "research" as their God--while simultaneously castigating others they believe to be guilty of the same thing.

Empirical research and science reports facts without regard to political fall-out or agendas; if these reports coming out are any indication, the whole GW theory has just had a huge cloud descend upon it.

If only you had any evidence to back up your claims...

KCWolfman
12-04-2009, 02:53 PM
I'm predicting some global warming in the midwest come next June, July and August.

Mark my words!

Tell your local congressman, they should get you a grant to study it

Garcia Bronco
12-04-2009, 02:53 PM
That attitude is exactly why science always has an uphill battle.

What do you mean exactly?

mlyonsd
12-04-2009, 02:55 PM
Sorry, I meant an uphill PR battle.

One can have all the evidence in the world but still lose a PR battle.

GW has had a very very easy ride so far.

irishjayhawk
12-04-2009, 02:56 PM
Not typically. Water always runs downhill.

As a PR guy I can tell you that when something develops a PR problem, it's usually because that something has fundamental issues. About 99% of the time, the PR problem is a symptom, not the core issue.

Perhaps. Yet, the evolution side has the same PR problem. I don't think that means evolution has a fundamental issue.

What do you mean exactly?

I mean what I've been talking with TJ about. If you lose the PR battle, you've often lost regardless of the evidence that may be on your side.

You can have all the evidence in the world for a position and still lose the PR battle, which can cost you the public.

Your statements mirror that loss of PR.

irishjayhawk
12-04-2009, 02:57 PM
GW has had a very very easy ride so far.

Really?

All I ever hear is from the "denier" side.

Garcia Bronco
12-04-2009, 02:57 PM
Science has an "Uphill PR" battle? Replace the word science with "AGW Research"

IJH....answer this:

Name the four Sciences and put them in order.

mlyonsd
12-04-2009, 02:57 PM
Really?

All I ever hear is from the "denier" side.

Not from the MSM you don't.

Garcia Bronco
12-04-2009, 02:58 PM
I mean what I've been talking with TJ about. If you lose the PR battle, you've often lost regardless of the evidence that may be on your side.

You can have all the evidence in the world for a position and still lose the PR battle, which can cost you the public.

Your statements mirror that loss of PR.

not true...the problem is there isn't enough evidence either way. We don't have enough directly observed temps over a long enough period of time to draw a conclusion.

irishjayhawk
12-04-2009, 03:02 PM
Not from the MSM you don't.

Yeah, liberal bias and what not. It gets tiring.

Though, admittedly, you hear more about evolution denying camps than you do GW denying camps. Which is kinda weird.

not true...the problem is there isn't enough evidence either way. We don't have enough directly observed temps over a long enough period of time to draw a conclusion.

I might grant you that; the period of time. But there is a clear trend.

Where you're wrong is in the assertion that there isn't enough evidence either way. There is plenty of evidence on the side of GW.

Taco John
12-04-2009, 03:03 PM
Perhaps. Yet, the evolution side has the same PR problem. I don't think that means evolution has a fundamental issue.

That's because you're a TruBeliever. Religious zealots never think that their religion has fundamental issues, even in the face of fundamental issues.

irishjayhawk
12-04-2009, 03:05 PM
That's because you're a TruBeliever. Religious zealots never think that their religion has fundamental issues, even in the face of fundamental issues.

You think evolution has a fundamental issue?

Please explain.

I also don't get this "everything is a religion" stuff. It seems to me that you'd be a TruBeliever of libertarianism and Ron Paul. I don't think you'd view that as an insult yet you throw it around like it is one.

Garcia Bronco
12-04-2009, 03:08 PM
Yeah, liberal bias and what not. It gets tiring.

Though, admittedly, you hear more about evolution denying camps than you do GW denying camps. Which is kinda weird.



I might grant you that; the period of time. But there is a clear trend.

Where you're wrong is in the assertion that there isn't enough evidence either way. There is plenty of evidence on the side of GW.

No there isn't and this is why....The globe might be warming...but we don't know if it's a natural cycle of not. We haven't been keeping track long enough to know one way or another...so no one on this earth, in their right mind, can claim this is man made. We don't fucking know...and destroying our global economy to find out isn't worth it. We would need thousands of years if not millions of directly observable data. Not guesses from a geologist on what the weather and temps were a million years ago.

Inspector
12-04-2009, 03:09 PM
Tell your local congressman, they should get you a grant to study it

True. And if my findings don't look like what I want, I'll just tell the other researchers to delete a few emails and stuff.

:)

irishjayhawk
12-04-2009, 03:11 PM
No there isn't and this is why....The globe might be warming...but we don't know if it's a natural cycle of not. We haven't been keeping track long enough to know one way or another...so no one on this earth, in their right mind, can claim this is man made. We don't ****ing know...and destroying our global economy to find out isn't worth it. We would need thousands of years if not millions of directly observable data. Not guesses from a geologist on what the weather and temps were a million years ago.

Except that the concepts underlying the whole notion of global warming are commonsensical.

When you put that together with the data we DO have, it's pretty overwhelming.

irishjayhawk
12-04-2009, 03:11 PM
True. And if my findings don't look like what I want, I'll just tell the other researchers to delete a few emails and stuff.

:)

It's okay. I'll delete your post for you. :)

mlyonsd
12-04-2009, 03:16 PM
Yeah, liberal bias and what not. It gets tiring.



I know.

Taco John
12-04-2009, 03:16 PM
Except that the concepts underlying the whole notion of global warming are commonsensical.

When you put that together with the data we DO have, it's pretty overwhelming.


Here we observe the leap of faith. He'll be talking in tongues in no time.

Radar Chief
12-04-2009, 03:17 PM
You think evolution has a fundamental issue?

Please explain.

Sure it does. There are still missing steps, missing links, between early man types and modern man.
All things being equal evolution is the most likely conclusion but it is still just a theory.

irishjayhawk
12-04-2009, 03:17 PM
Here we observe the leap of faith. He'll be talking in tongues in no time.

Leap of faith? How so?

irishjayhawk
12-04-2009, 03:18 PM
Sure it does. There are still missing steps, missing links, between early man types and modern man.
All things being equal evolution is the most likely conclusion but it is still just a theory.

:rolleyes:

Another "its just a theory" argument. Sheesh.

No wonder the scientific community has a PR problem.

Taco John
12-04-2009, 03:19 PM
Leap of faith? How so?

Just look at your position on evolution. You regard it as a complete science when there is still a lot of work to be done. God bless you, you've come to a conclusion that you're comfortable with - but that's not science. That's belief. It might as well be religion.

Radar Chief
12-04-2009, 03:20 PM
:rolleyes:

Another "its just a theory" argument. Sheesh.

No wonder the scientific community has a PR problem.

Anthropologists at the heart of piecing together the chain of events called “evolution” would readily agree with me. What is it you think you know that they don’t?

Taco John
12-04-2009, 03:21 PM
:rolleyes:

Another "its just a theory" argument. Sheesh.

No wonder the scientific community has a PR problem.


I don't think that the scientific community has a PR problem. I think the global warming alarmists have a PR problem.

irishjayhawk
12-04-2009, 03:21 PM
Just look at your position on evolution. You regard it as a complete science when there is still a lot of work to be done. God bless you, you've come to a conclusion that you're comfortable with - but that's not science. That's belief. It might as well be religion.

I didn't say it was a complete science. Nor did I say there is a lot of work to be done.

For someone who gets upset about people putting words in your mouth, you seem to do it quite often.

Again, please point out some fundamental flaws with evolution.

irishjayhawk
12-04-2009, 03:22 PM
I don't think that the scientific community has a PR problem. I think the global warming alarmists have a PR problem.

They clearly do when people trot out the "theory" excuse. Scientific Theory ≠ theory (laymen's terms)

Anthropologists at the heart of piecing together the chain of events called “evolution” would readily agree with me. What is it you think you know that they don’t?

Umm, aside from the fact that the fossil record is and never will be 100% complete, there are an overwhelming amount of transitional fossils and evidence.

Radar Chief
12-04-2009, 03:23 PM
Just look at your position on evolution. You regard it as a complete science when there is still a lot of work to be done. God bless you, you've come to a conclusion that you're comfortable with - but that's not science. That's belief. It might as well be religion.

Exactly. What is the problem with acknowledging that “evolution” is still a theory? I don’t get it, unless IJH is placing some stigma to the word “theory” that doesn’t necessarily belong. :shrug:

Taco John
12-04-2009, 03:24 PM
Again, please point out some fundamental flaws with evolution.


If you're as scientifically rigorous as you'd like anyone to believe, why in the world would I have to? This is fundamental stuff here.

I have no intention on being derailed into an evolution discussion. I too believe in evolution, but I recognize the problems that face scientists as they try to piece it all together.

mlyonsd
12-04-2009, 03:25 PM
I believe in evolution.

But no-one can sufficiently explain where the materials that created planets, stars, and life came from. I mean initially. Something had to put it there.

If the galaxies didn't exist what would physically be in their place?

Radar Chief
12-04-2009, 03:26 PM
Umm, aside from the fact that the fossil record is and never will be 100% complete, there are an overwhelming amount of transitional fossils and evidence.

Probably right, there will more than likely always be gaps. It’s still the most likely conclusion. What’s the problem with acknowledging that?

irishjayhawk
12-04-2009, 03:34 PM
Probably right, there will more than likely always be gaps. It’s still the most likely conclusion. What’s the problem with acknowledging that?

Acknowledging that there are gaps in the fossil record is a far cry from purporting that there are fundamental issues with evolution as a Theory.

Jenson71
12-04-2009, 03:35 PM
Probably right, there will more than likely always be gaps. It’s still the most likely conclusion. What’s the problem with acknowledging that?

The problem is in delivery. Instead of saying "it's just a theory" it would be more responsible, not to mention more accurate, to say "It's a concept that uses scientific laws and empirical data!"

irishjayhawk
12-04-2009, 03:37 PM
Exactly. What is the problem with acknowledging that “evolution” is still a theory? I don’t get it, unless IJH is placing some stigma to the word “theory” that doesn’t necessarily belong. :shrug:

No, its because theory in laymen's terms isn't what Theory means in scientific terms.

That's one PR battle science has and probably will never win.


If you're as scientifically rigorous as you'd like anyone to believe, why in the world would I have to? This is fundamental stuff here.

That's what you have? Really?

Well, if you're so edumacated, you'd already know it?


I have no intention on being derailed into an evolution discussion. I too believe in evolution, but I recognize the problems that face scientists as they try to piece it all together.

As do I. I wasn't the one who said they had fundamental issues with evolution.

I believe in evolution.

But no-one can sufficiently explain where the materials that created planets, stars, and life came from. I mean initially. Something had to put it there.

If the galaxies didn't exist what would physically be in their place?

For starters, evolution doesn't attempt to explain that.

Radar Chief
12-04-2009, 03:42 PM
No, its because theory in laymen's terms isn't what Theory means in scientific terms.

That's one PR battle science has and probably will never win.

Maybe it would help if you explained what difference you think you’re seeing between theory and theory.

mlyonsd
12-04-2009, 03:44 PM
For starters, evolution doesn't attempt to explain that.

Do you think the argument of evolution boils down to whether or not there is a God?

That's what I've always considered it to be...the basic fundamental argument. That's just me, I've never paid attention to evolution threads here because they don't interest me.

Radar Chief
12-04-2009, 03:45 PM
The problem is in delivery. Instead of saying "it's just a theory" it would be more responsible, not to mention more accurate, to say "It's a concept that uses scientific laws and empirical data!"

Actually it sounds like the problem is perception.
Theory apparently means something different to you and IJH than it does to me.
I’m all ears.

Radar Chief
12-04-2009, 03:47 PM
Do you think the argument of evolution boils down to whether or not there is a God?

That's what I've always considered it to be...the basic fundamental argument. That's just me, I've never paid attention to evolution threads here because they don't interest me.

Same here, but I don’t get into the evolution discussions because it always turns into evolution vs. religion and I’m just not a very religious person.

Royal Fanatic
12-04-2009, 03:49 PM
So much for talking about the Global Warming Fraud. This thread has been officially hijacked.

Jenson71
12-04-2009, 03:51 PM
Actually it sounds like the problem is perception.
Theory apparently means something different to you and IJH than it does to me.
I’m all ears.

Has anyone ever said to you: "I have a theory that the world actually doesn't exist and we are figments of someone's imagination." That could be a theory. Or you could have a theory of government like Plato, for one, did. Or as Rawls wrote, a theory of justice.

Theory can mean different things to everyone. When the scientific community uses theory in the sense of applying scientific laws to empirical data, they don't mean the same as Rawl's theory of justice or a theory that the world doesn't exist. For Rawls, he is asking us to think about something abstract. For the world doesn't exist person, that's another abstract thing. And it also doesn't have any evidence to back it up. Now we can see how theory can mean different things.

irishjayhawk
12-04-2009, 03:53 PM
Maybe it would help if you explained what difference you think you’re seeing between theory and theory.

You can start with this one (http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node7.html):

What is the difference between a fact, a theory and a hypothesis?

In popular usage, a theory is just a vague and fuzzy sort of fact and a hypothesis is often used as a fancy synonym to `guess'. But to a scientist a theory is a conceptual framework that explains existing observations and predicts new ones. For instance, suppose you see the Sun rise. This is an existing observation which is explained by the theory of gravity proposed by Newton. This theory, in addition to explaining why we see the Sun move across the sky, also explains many other phenomena such as the path followed by the Sun as it moves (as seen from Earth) across the sky, the phases of the Moon, the phases of Venus, the tides, just to mention a few. You can today make a calculation and predict the position of the Sun, the phases of the Moon and Venus, the hour of maximal tide, all 200 years from now. The same theory is used to guide spacecraft all over the Solar System.

A hypothesis is a working assumption. Typically, a scientist devises a hypothesis and then sees if it ``holds water'' by testing it against available data (obtained from previous experiments and observations). If the hypothesis does hold water, the scientist declares it to be a theory.


http://www.wikihow.com/Explain-the-Difference-Between-Theory,-Law,-and-a-Fact

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_difference_between_a_scientific_theory_and_just_the_common_theory

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

Do you think the argument of evolution boils down to whether or not there is a God?

That's what I've always considered it to be...the basic fundamental argument. That's just me, I've never paid attention to evolution threads here because they don't interest me.

No, but that's what they often degrade into. Evolution is based on the premise that life exists in the first place. It doesn't attempt to answer where it came from.

That's Big Bang stuff.

cdcox
12-04-2009, 03:54 PM
There is a fundamental ignorance of science in the general population. Most Americans are not equipped to participate in the discussion at even the most rudimentary level. In this environment of total lack of knowledge, PR turns out to be much more important than evidence.

To support my claim I'm willing to put together a basic quiz on the most rudimentary aspects of climate science. We'll go with completely non-controversial established facts about the climate. Closed book, no internet. I know that will all the ethical accusations flying around I don't have any fear of people cheating from this most honest and ethical groups people. I need 10 takers to make it worth my while.

orange
12-04-2009, 03:54 PM
So much for talking about the Global Warming Fraud. This thread has been officially hijacked.

And that's pretty much what will become of "climate-gate" in the real world, too.

orange
12-04-2009, 04:00 PM
Has anyone ever said to you: "I have a theory that the world actually doesn't exist and we are figments of someone's imagination." That could be a theory. Or you could have a theory of government like Plato, for one, did. Or as Rawls wrote, a theory of justice.

Theory can mean different things to everyone. When the scientific community uses theory in the sense of applying scientific laws to empirical data, they don't mean the same as Rawl's theory of justice or a theory that the world doesn't exist. For Rawls, he is asking us to think about something abstract. For the world doesn't exist person, that's another abstract thing. And it also doesn't have any evidence to back it up. Now we can see how theory can mean different things.


What about Atomic Theory? How about the Theory of Relativity? Where do they fit in?

And that's the meaning of "theory" that scientists use when they talk about the Theory of Evolution. Right?

Garcia Bronco
12-04-2009, 04:01 PM
There is a fundamental ignorance of science in the general population. Most Americans are not equipped to participate in the discussion at even the most rudimentary level. In this environment of total lack of knowledge, PR turns out to be much more important than evidence.

To support my claim I'm willing to put together a basic quiz on the most rudimentary aspects of climate science. We'll go with completely non-controversial established facts about the climate. Closed book, no internet. I know that will all the ethical accusations flying around I don't have any fear of people cheating from this most honest and ethical groups people. I need 10 takers to make it worth my while.

there is no such thing as "Climate Science".

there are 4 sciences. Name them and put them in order.

Garcia Bronco
12-04-2009, 04:03 PM
Except that the concepts underlying the whole notion of global warming are commonsensical.

When you put that together with the data we DO have, it's pretty overwhelming.

The question isn't if the globe is warming...the question is why is it warming. Since co2 levels have risen and the warmists think that drives surface temps..why have the global temps stayed the same or gone down?

orange
12-04-2009, 04:04 PM
there is no such thing as "Climate Science".

there are 4 sciences. Name them and put them in order.

You've said that twice. There are 4 sciences - according to who?

Garcia Bronco
12-04-2009, 04:06 PM
You've said that twice. According to who?

According to the actual pillars for what sciences there are relative to our physical universe. There are 4 sciences and they have an order. Name them and put them in order. "Climate Science" as someone put it is a combination of 2 of the four. Recording tempatures is not a science. It's gathering data for research.

Garcia Bronco
12-04-2009, 04:06 PM
Hint: Earth Sciences is not an answer.

You can't google the 4 sciences and get an answer. You are going to have to use your head.

Hydrae
12-04-2009, 04:10 PM
The biggest problem that the Theory of Evolution has is that we have no documented cases that I am aware of off macro evolution. Most people have no issue with micro evolution, we see it around quite often actually. But I am not aware of any case of macro evolution having been observed (creation of a new species from an existing one). That is the fundamental issue evolution faces as a Theory.

Garcia Bronco
12-04-2009, 04:12 PM
hmmm...all these people talking about science and they can't even name the 4 for me. Amazing.

Garcia Bronco
12-04-2009, 04:13 PM
One is called......Physics.

orange
12-04-2009, 04:13 PM
chemistry - biology - geology - physics - astronomy

Ooops, that's five.

Jenson71
12-04-2009, 04:14 PM
hmmm...all these people talking about science and they can't even name the 4 for me. Amazing.

Political Science!

Garcia Bronco
12-04-2009, 04:14 PM
The next is called Chemistry.

Without physics...you can't have chemistry

headsnap
12-04-2009, 04:15 PM
chemistry - biology - geology - physics - astronomy

Ooops, that's five.

he can google!

FishingRod
12-04-2009, 04:16 PM
6 scientology

Garcia Bronco
12-04-2009, 04:18 PM
chemistry - biology - geology - physics - astronomy

Ooops, that's five.

Good attempt

Chemistry is one, and well as biology, and so is physics. You'll never guess the fourth.

In order they go

Physics
Chemistry
Biology - Without Physics and Chemistry...you can't have biology

Astronomy...isn't really a science unless you are refering to chemistry and physics of the stars.

Geology is a combination of physics and chemistry.

the fourth science, very much in it's infancy, is psychology..the study of behavior. Psyco Dynamics(aka freud is not a science) Really a subset of biology, but many count it as a fourth.

orange
12-04-2009, 04:19 PM
he can google!

My google actually came up with

Science - Religion - Art - Philosophy

The Four Pillars of Gnosis.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/7908391/Four-Pillars-of-Gnosis


It also suggests that there is no recognized "four sciences."

[edit] Now that I see Garcia Bronco has added Psychology, I'm VERY sure his list would be controversial. Behavioral sciences? Don't they still give BA's for those*?

* I tease. I'll grant that Psychology has probably moved at least as far as BS. *ahem*

Jenson71
12-04-2009, 04:20 PM
What about Atomic Theory? How about the Theory of Relativity? Where do they fit in?

And that's the meaning of "theory" that scientists use when they talk about the Theory of Evolution. Right?

I think those would be scientific theories, because they are based on scientific law and use empirical data to the best we can attain it. Well, I think Einstein sort of went beyond empirical data and relied more heavily on imagination and creativity stemmed from scientific law, but also altering it. Maybe the theory of relativity would not be considered the same type of theory as the theory of evolution, though.

Jenson71
12-04-2009, 04:22 PM
Good attempt

Chemistry is one, and well as biology, and so is physics. You'll never guess the fourth.

In order they go

Physics
Chemistry
Biology - Without Physics and Chemistry...you can't have biology

Astronomy...isn't really a science unless you are refering to chemistry and physics of the stars.

Geology is a combination of physics and chemistry.

the fourth science, very much in it's infancy, is psychology..the study of behavior. Psyco Dynamics(aka freud is not a science) Really a subset of biology, but many count it as a fourth.

What about Political Science? All my professors are going to be really angry if they find this out.

Garcia Bronco
12-04-2009, 04:23 PM
What about Political Science? All my professors are going to be really angry if they find this out.

Just cause we call it a science...don't make it so. You also don't need to go to class to read the paper. :)

Taco John
12-04-2009, 04:24 PM
That's what you have? Really?

Well, if you're so edumacated, you'd already know it?




I seriously doubt that you've ever exposed yourself to a critique of orthodox darwinism with the air of objectivity. Nor have you probably given much scientific curiosity towards the subject "irreducible complexity."

We've discovered that DNA works the same way with matter that an operating system works with a CPU. It's not random and arbitrary. It's ordered and consistent. 1's and 0's. Code. In my experience with an inert object (my computer), it hasn't once ordered 1's and 0's in a sequence to create itself an operating system, let alone a full suite of programs and widgets.

I believe that there is plenty of scientific merit around the ideas of "irreducible complexity," which would call into question the conventional (darwinist) interpretation of evolution.

Jenson71
12-04-2009, 04:25 PM
Just cause we call it a science...don't make it so. You also don't need to go to class to read the paper. :)

What makes a science . . . a science?

Taco John
12-04-2009, 04:26 PM
What about Political Science? All my professors are going to be really angry if they find this out.

I think that would be a subset of Psycology.

orange
12-04-2009, 04:26 PM
Now everybody - try naming the five tastes - WITHOUT GOOGLE - WIKI - ETC.

I will supply the answer if no one else can.

cdcox
12-04-2009, 04:28 PM
4 sciences physics, physics, physics, and physics.

orange
12-04-2009, 04:29 PM
4 sciences physics, physics, physics, and physics.

You can go farther:

math, math, math, math.

jjjayb
12-04-2009, 04:30 PM
Now everybody - try naming the five tastes - WITHOUT GOOGLE - WIKI - ETC.

I will supply the answer if no one else can.

Sour, sweet, bitter.....That's all I've got.

Jenson71
12-04-2009, 04:34 PM
I think that would be a subset of Psycology.

Hmm, maybe. I think in most colleges, they are both subsets of Social or Behavioral Sciences.

orange
12-04-2009, 04:38 PM
Now everybody - try naming the five tastes - WITHOUT GOOGLE - WIKI - ETC.

I will supply the answer if no one else can.


Okay, I know the five tastes is a toughy.

Here's a simple one.

What ChiefsPlanet milestone am I nearing in less than two dozen more posts?

Jenson71
12-04-2009, 04:41 PM
Okay, I know the five tastes is a toughy.

Here's a simple one.

What ChiefsPlanet milestone am I nearing in less than two dozen more posts?

Oh! Oh! I know this one! Pheidippides ran that number in feet twenty six point two times to tell the Athenians that they beat the Persians.

orange
12-04-2009, 04:46 PM
Oh! Oh! I know this one! Pheidippides ran that number in feet twenty six point two times to tell the Athenians that they beat the Persians.

We have a winner.

Just remember to breathe and rest. We wouldn't want to repeat Pheidippides' fate.

Garcia Bronco
12-04-2009, 05:04 PM
4 sciences physics, physics, physics, and physics.

:)

Garcia Bronco
12-04-2009, 05:06 PM
What makes a science . . . a science?

Anything can techinically be a science, but at the end of the day...it goes back to the main four.

Math is a tool of all the sciences

jjjayb
12-04-2009, 05:12 PM
Okay, I know the five tastes is a toughy.

Here's a simple one.

What ChiefsPlanet milestone am I nearing in less than two dozen more posts?

Being Chiefsplanet's biggest douchebag?

:D

orange
12-04-2009, 05:15 PM
Being Chiefsplanet's biggest douchebag?

:D

No, I'm way down the line on that one.

I don't have much hope of ever seeing the front, let alone getting there. Although the recent bans have certainly helped...

p.s. There's a meeting tomorrow. See ya there.

http://brandihendrix.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/douchebag.jpg

Reaper16
12-04-2009, 05:23 PM
Now everybody - try naming the five tastes - WITHOUT GOOGLE - WIKI - ETC.

I will supply the answer if no one else can.
Sweet, sour, salty, bitter, umami.

EASY.

orange
12-04-2009, 05:27 PM
Sweet, sour, salty, bitter, umami.

EASY.

For me and you, perhaps.

I'll bet most will have to have umami explained to them.

Or as I call it, the Alphabet taste.

Garcia Bronco
12-04-2009, 05:28 PM
Hmm, maybe. I think in most colleges, they are both subsets of Social or Behavioral Sciences.

Which is a subset of psychology.

BucEyedPea
12-04-2009, 06:09 PM
Good attempt

Chemistry is one, and well as biology, and so is physics. You'll never guess the fourth.

In order they go

Physics
Chemistry
Biology - Without Physics and Chemistry...you can't have biology

Astronomy...isn't really a science unless you are refering to chemistry and physics of the stars.

Geology is a combination of physics and chemistry.

the fourth science, very much in it's infancy, is psychology..the study of behavior. Psyco Dynamics(aka freud is not a science) Really a subset of biology, but many count it as a fourth.
Which means the study of the soul. Interesting that's considered a science as there is so much opinion on it. No wonder it's in its infancy.

BucEyedPea
12-04-2009, 06:11 PM
There is a fundamental ignorance of science in the general population. Most Americans are not equipped to participate in the discussion at even the most rudimentary level. In this environment of total lack of knowledge, PR turns out to be much more important than evidence.

Snob! :D

Jenson71
12-04-2009, 06:15 PM
Which means the study of the soul. Interesting that's considered a science as there is so much opinion on it. No wonder it's in its infancy.

You mean about a soul?

Norman Einstein
12-04-2009, 07:13 PM
Should Global Warming/Cooling be a bonafied problem, how many people in the U.S. stand to profit from the situation?

As I understand it the one big winner in the U.S. would be our own Nobel Prize winner Al Gore.

Does that surprise anyone in particular?

Start buying up your carbon credits now while they are merely overpriced. If you wait the price goes up. Al has plenty to sell.

ROYC75
12-04-2009, 07:30 PM
Just the Liberal way, create a crisis and then claim victory for fixing it. Ooops, this one backfired on them.

KCWolfman
12-04-2009, 11:33 PM
Really?

All I ever hear is from the "denier" side.

I would say the millions received from our pockets disagree with your stance.
Posted via Mobile Device

Mizzou_8541
12-04-2009, 11:43 PM
Climategate reminds me of Animal Farm. Just pretend like something didn't happen, tell everyone it didn't happen, and eventually everyone will believe you.

SNR
12-05-2009, 12:00 AM
4 sciences physics, physics, physics, and NFL prediction software.FYP

Taco John
12-05-2009, 12:31 AM
http://images.theweek.com/dir_32/the_week_16083_27.jpg

Mr. Kotter
12-05-2009, 12:34 AM
Climategate reminds me of Animal Farm. Just pretend like something didn't happen, tell everyone it didn't happen, and eventually everyone will believe you.

Or conversely...just pretend like something did happen, tell everyone it did happen, make up "evidence" to support that it happened, and eventually everyone will believe you--or else it will at least make all your friends rich in the process. That should count for something.

Taco John
12-05-2009, 12:46 AM
http://images.theweek.com/dir_32/the_week_16030_27.jpg

Taco John
12-05-2009, 12:51 AM
http://images.theweek.com/dir_31/the_week_15985_27.jpg

Frazod
12-05-2009, 01:08 AM
Has anybody on CNN even uttered a word about this?

Taco John
12-05-2009, 01:10 AM
Has anybody on CNN even uttered a word about this?

I don't know about the channel, but I heard that they finally snuck a story in on this on their technology page online.

Taco John
12-05-2009, 01:11 AM
It doesn't look like they're covering the story at all if their search function is any indication (http://www.cnn.com/search/?query=climategate&primaryType=mixed&sortBy=date&intl=false).

KCWolfman
12-05-2009, 01:55 AM
No story to be told, but a cry for an investigation from our own House of Representatives in a foreign country? A UN movement to investigate an industrialized nation's software and protocols?

Sure, there is nothing to see at all.

Taco John
12-05-2009, 02:28 AM
At least at ABC, they've managed to get five stories in their search engine in the last two weeks (http://abcnews.go.com/search?searchtext=climategate) on this.

MSNBC managed to get three stories in late this week (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/?id=11881780&q=climategate&p=1&st=1&sm=user).

CBS News is the winner with six stories (http://www.cbsnews.com/1770-5_162-0.html?query=climategate&tag=srch&searchtype=cbsSearch)! Congrats to them! Of course, they don't win too many points for the tone of their coverage.

Give it up for Google News (http://news.google.com/news?sourceid=navclient&rlz=1T4GGLL_en&q=climategate&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wn)

Willie Lanier
12-05-2009, 05:30 AM
Cap and tax went from being a near sure thing to being virtually dead on arrival. I don't see how anybody couldn't consider this event a game changer. I really dont.

God damnit man, I hear your argument, but, do you think it will be a changer of games, AND also a game changer??!?

Willie Lanier
12-05-2009, 05:37 AM
This article is a good summary of why I think this event is a game-changer.

40001424052748704107104574572091993737848.html[/url]

.

Willie Lanier
12-05-2009, 05:38 AM
This Climategate is turning out to be a game changer - and that's without the major networks in America reporting on it. The political fallout from this scandal is already global. We're looking at a unique event in history here.

.

Willie Lanier
12-05-2009, 05:40 AM
I think that the warmies aren't giving this event the credit that it deserves. Regardless of their own personal feelings about this event, it's setting back the clock on this debate by decades. The public perception on this is going nowhere but south right now around the world, and it gets worse as the major networks continue to ignore the story.

There's not many black swan events that I'd consider game changers, but I honestly think that this is one. The empowerement that this is giving those who oppose big government solutions is showing to be significant already in just the early days of this. Eventually, the networks will HAVE to jump in and cover the many story lines that are developing out of this. There's just no avoiding it.

A lot of these global initiatives are going to die a quick death. Global cap and trade is probably a lost cause - at least for the next decade. Maybe even two or three decades. That's what I mean by game changer. I think people are delusional if they think that it's going to be business as usual.

.

Willie Lanier
12-05-2009, 05:43 AM
really is intriguing news though... it'll be interesting to see the fallout

cdcox
12-05-2009, 09:54 AM
I did read your links, and I didn't read anything that explains why they would leave that data out/ignore it.

Do you believe OJ should have been found guilty for the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman?

If so, what should have the jury done with the observation that the bloody gloves did not seem fit OJ?

What does "weight of evidence" mean to you?

A vast majority of the evidence in climate change points in one direction. Scientists are working to understand data that doesn't seem to agree with the rest of the trends. The contradictory data is published in the open literature and it's a well known scientific question in that community of researchers. There is no cover up. There is no ignoring of data that doesn't fit the trends.

What is the wrong doing here?

irishjayhawk
12-05-2009, 10:14 AM
Do you believe OJ should have been found guilty for the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman?

If so, what should have the jury done with the observation that the bloody gloves did not seem fit OJ?

What does "weight of evidence" mean to you?

A vast majority of the evidence in climate change points in one direction. Scientists are working to understand data that doesn't seem to agree with the rest of the trends. The contradictory data is published in the open literature and it's a well known scientific question in that community of researchers. There is no cover up. There is no ignoring of data that doesn't fit the trends.

What is the wrong doing here?

Exactly.


Also, interestingly enough, the conservatives that seem to be holding these emails up are the same ones who were against hacked emails before. (both incidents: Sarah Palin's email, GOP strategy emails.)


Oh well, I can tell by this thread alone that this "leak" which is nothing but manufactured drama has officially swayed the public. Sadly.

@Hydrae - Absolutely not true. Macro evolution has even been observed in the laboratory. Also, if you buy microevolution, it's commonsensical that many tiny changes (micro) over lots of time, can lead to big changes (macro). This is an oversimplification but think about it like this.

Add .0001 to itself for 4 billion years. The number will not be .xxxx it will be of a different magnitude.

irishjayhawk
12-05-2009, 10:15 AM
http://images.theweek.com/dir_32/the_week_16030_27.jpg

I like this cartoon because it's so applicable to any political issue.

jjjayb
12-05-2009, 10:28 AM
Do you believe OJ should have been found guilty for the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman?

If so, what should have the jury done with the observation that the bloody gloves did not seem fit OJ?

What does "weight of evidence" mean to you?

A vast majority of the evidence in climate change points in one direction. Scientists are working to understand data that doesn't seem to agree with the rest of the trends. The contradictory data is published in the open literature and it's a well known scientific question in that community of researchers. There is no cover up. There is no ignoring of data that doesn't fit the trends.

What is the wrong doing here?

Really? Back to OJ? I can take any pair of gloves I own and make them appear to not fit by trying to put them on in the manner that OJ did.

The problem is there is plenty of evidence that points against man made global warming but people are ridiculed for pointing it out. The science has become too politicized.

jjjayb
12-05-2009, 10:30 AM
Exactly.


Also, interestingly enough, the conservatives that seem to be holding these emails up are the same ones who were against hacked emails before. (both incidents: Sarah Palin's email, GOP strategy emails.)




Has it been shown that these emails have actually come from a hacker and not an inside source?

irishjayhawk
12-05-2009, 10:36 AM
Has it been shown that these emails have actually come from a hacker and not an inside source?

If they have come from an inside source, it hasn't been reported by anybody. Doesn't mean it couldn't be but everyone - reporters, CRU, the people involved in the emails themselves - have said it was a hacker. (Not surprising for the CRU or those involved to say though.)

So, yes, for now it's a hack job until there's any evidence for an insider.

irishjayhawk
12-05-2009, 10:37 AM
Really? Back to OJ? I can take any pair of gloves I own and make them appear to not fit by trying to put them on in the manner that OJ did.

The problem is there is plenty of evidence that points against man made global warming but people are ridiculed for pointing it out. The science has become too politicized.

Not really. There's plenty of "evidence" against evolution too. That doesn't mean much.

TJ's absurd irreducible complexity argument is one of them. For someone that stands as the bastion of reason, argument, and consistent stances, it's amazing he subscribes to irreducible complexity, which has been debunked more than the the moon landing.

Reaper16
12-05-2009, 10:53 AM
Not really. There's plenty of "evidence" against evolution too. That doesn't mean much.

TJ's absurd irreducible complexity argument is one of them. For someone that stands as the bastion of reason, argument, and consistent stances, it's amazing he subscribes to irreducible complexity, which has been debunked more than the the moon landing.
That's generous.

irishjayhawk
12-05-2009, 11:01 AM
That's generous.

Rephrase. I meant it as "claims to be the..."

Chief Henry
12-05-2009, 11:09 AM
Its a shame we can't trust scientist now. We've known for generations that we can't trust polititcians, but now scientist are chasing money by giving us FALSE information just to keep up the funding....thats very sad and disturbing in so many ways.

Who the hell are we to believe ?

irishjayhawk
12-05-2009, 11:11 AM
Its a shame we can't trust scientist now. We've known for generations that we can't trust polititcians, but now scientist are chasing money by giving us FALSE information just to keep up the funding....thats very sad and disturbing in so many ways.

Who the hell are we to believe ?

Please point out the false info they've given. Be specific.

jjjayb
12-05-2009, 11:21 AM
Please point out the false info they've given. Be specific.

The issue I see is the governing bodies who twist the science for their gain. For example, October 2004 the IPCC holds a press conference to anounce links between global warming and increased hurricanes. However, the hurricane experts they called upon to study this never came to that conclusion. They in fact came to the conclusion there was no link. Yet Keven Trenberth reported this as fact. The media ate it up. It's now "common knowledge" that global warming causes increased hurricane activity. :shake:

cdcox
12-05-2009, 11:34 AM
The issue I see is the governing bodies who twist the science for their gain. For example, October 2004 the IPCC holds a press conference to anounce links between global warming and increased hurricanes. However, the hurricane experts they called upon to study this never came to that conclusion. They in fact came to the conclusion there was no link. Yet Keven Trenberth reported this as fact. The media ate it up. It's now "common knowledge" that global warming causes increased hurricane activity. :shake:

Give me the names of the misquoted hurricane experts. I'll dig into it.

Taco John
12-05-2009, 11:37 AM
What is the wrong doing here?

This is the most amusing reaction that I've seen to the willful distortion and hiding of evidence that doesn't corroborate with the warming theories. They had data that showed temperatures declining, and they hid it and buried the data - and you're having a hard time perceiving the wrong doing?

I don't believe that you're having a hard time perceiving the wrong doing. I think that you're being purposeful here in your ignorance.

Taco John
12-05-2009, 11:43 AM
Not really. There's plenty of "evidence" against evolution too. That doesn't mean much.

ROFL

Please, please, PLEASE quit pretending that you even give a shit about science!


TJ's absurd irreducible complexity argument is one of them. For someone that stands as the bastion of reason, argument, and consistent stances, it's amazing he subscribes to irreducible complexity, which has been debunked more than the the moon landing.

I didn't say that I "subscribed" to irreducible complexity, you dope. I said that the theory merits more research. There are a lot of observations around it that are not easy to sweep under the carpet - well, unless of course, you have an agenda to ignore the questions because you don't like where their conclusions lead. But taking that tact isn't science, but rather politics.

So once again, please quit pretending that you care about science here. You seem to be more interested in politics.

banyon
12-05-2009, 11:51 AM
Forget for the moment on wether or not man-made global warming is true or not. As a scientist myself, this story is appalling for a different reason.

Scientists, by their nature, should be skeptical. The basis for scientific discovery is forming a hypothesis and attempting to disprove it. One can never prove a theory, only offer evidence in support of it. Sometimes the evidence is very strong; strong enough that conventional thinking transforms it into fact. Sometimes the evidence leads to alternate hypothesis, which then are challenged by experiments and data collection.

Perhaps the most disgusting part about this whole topic is that people have claimed 'the debate is over' when the data only suggests certain conclusions. It is by no means proof of anything. If all climatologists think in way those did writing these e-mails, they should have their PhDs stripped from them yesterday.

For my own part, I'm not nearly as much interested in the question of whether AGW is happening as opposed to whether GW is happening and if it will impact us and can we do anything about it. Focusing on the first question to me is like being in a house that is on fire and trying to determine what the origin point is when you might want to be looking for a way out.

cdcox
12-05-2009, 11:52 AM
This is the most amusing reaction that I've seen to the willful distortion and hiding of evidence that doesn't corroborate with the warming theories. They had data that showed temperatures declining, and they hid it and buried the data - and you're having a hard time perceiving the wrong doing?

I don't believe that you're having a hard time perceiving the wrong doing. I think that you're being purposeful here in your ignorance.

1. Exactly what is the data that showed temperatures are declining?

It was tree ring data. Larger tree rings are associated with warmer temperatures. There is a period of recent time that the tree rings were smaller than expected given the actual temperature measurements.

2. Was there more compelling data that suggest temperatures are in increasing?

Yes, there were actual temperature measurements during that time period. The actual temperature measurements are much more accurate than tree ring data.

3. The why do they even collect tree ring data?

Tree ring data is used to construct a temperature record that goes back to hundreds or thousands of years before humans bothered recording temperatures. It is not that useful for current temperature measurements, but it is extremely useful for reconstructing temperature trends in the past.

4. But they still should not have covered it up!

They didn't. It was published in the open literature. Everybody working in the field knew about the anomaly. Research efforts continue to understand the anomaly.

5. Then where is the willful distortion and hiding of evidence?

I don't know. Please show me.

Chief Henry
12-05-2009, 11:53 AM
IJH,

Start with a couple of websites

www.globalwarminglies.com
www.globalwarminghysteria.com

The scientist who has "cooked the books" Phil Jones has even resigned his post albeit temporarily. Phil Jones hid his temps to make global warming look bad.

Houston had how much snow yesterday !!!

irishjayhawk
12-05-2009, 11:54 AM
ROFL

Please, please, PLEASE quit pretending that you even give a shit about science!




I didn't say that I "subscribed" to irreducible complexity, you dope. I said that the theory merits more research. There are a lot of observations around it that are not easy to sweep under the carpet - well, unless of course, you have an agenda to ignore the questions because you don't like where their conclusions lead. But taking that tact isn't science, but rather politics.

So once again, please quit pretending that you care about science here. You seem to be more interested in politics.

Apparently, you are under the impression that any hypothesis/theory is automatically scientific in nature.

I don't disregard irreducible complexity because I've already reached a conclusion. I disregard it because it's a) been debunked thoroughly, b) isn't really that scientific - ie. testable and c) doesn't have much merit in the first place.

I go where the evidence leads. That's science, not politics. I care deeply about science. Unfortunately, science depends on evidence. Something you seem capable of overlooking.

Taco John
12-05-2009, 11:54 AM
For my own part, I'm not nearly as much interested in the question of whether AGW is happening as opposed to whether GW is happening and if it will impact us and can we do anything about it. Focusing on the first question to me is like being in a house that is on fire and trying to determine what the origin point is when you might want to be looking for a way out.

What legislation do you suppose could have stopped the last ice age?

banyon
12-05-2009, 11:55 AM
I haven't followed this story very closely, but I thought that these Brits actually have data that show that temperatures are actually declining (which seems to be opposite of 'global warming') and that it what they attempted to hide.

Is that not correct?

It is correct, but isn't specific. They were attempting to distort some data relating to a very few recent years because they thought that some laypersons would be confused enough to think that somehow a tiny sample size because it was recent would negate the overall trend we should be concerned about.

Heh. And Houston is "bracing" for two inches of snow!

How they came to that conclusion, I'll never know I guess.

Taco John
12-05-2009, 11:55 AM
I go where the evidence leads.

This discussion doesn't bear that.

irishjayhawk
12-05-2009, 11:56 AM
IJH,

Start with a couple of websites

www.globalwarminglies.com
www.globalwarminghysteria.com

The scientist who has "cooked the books" Phil Jones has even resigned his post albeit temporarily. Phil Jones hid his temps to make global warming look bad.

Houston had how much snow yesterday !!!

I said be specific. There has been no attempts to falsify data with respect to the emails.

Jones has naturally stepped aside for the investigation. He'll probably fully resign when it's said and done just from a PR standpoint. This doesn't mean he's guilty of anything.

banyon
12-05-2009, 11:57 AM
What legislation do you suppose could have stopped the last ice age?

At the time, not much.

I don't know if you've noticed this or not, but over the last 100 years, technology has been developing at a dramatically faster rate than any time in human history, particularly at a faster rate than say, the 1600's where your contemplated disanalogy would've taken place.

cdcox
12-05-2009, 11:57 AM
Houston had how much snow yesterday !!!

The Chiefs beat the world champion Pittsburgh Steelers. The Chiefs are a great football team !!!

Calcountry
12-05-2009, 11:58 AM
I don't know about you bitches, but it is COLD here!

jjjayb
12-05-2009, 11:58 AM
Give me the names of the misquoted hurricane experts. I'll dig into it.

Chris Landsea. Here is his resignation letter from the IPCC. Very interesting read. He stepped down due to the politicization of the IPCC.


Dear colleagues,

After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from
participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the
part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become
politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC
leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.

With this open letter to the community, I wish to explain the basis for my
decision and bring awareness to what I view as a problem in the IPCC
process. The IPCC is a group of climate researchers from around the world
that every few years summarize how climate is changing and how it may be
altered in the future due to manmade global warming. I had served both as an
author for the Observations chapter and a Reviewer for the 2nd Assessment
Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, primarily on the topic
of tropical cyclones (hurricanes and typhoons). My work on hurricanes, and
tropical cyclones more generally, has been widely cited by the IPCC. For the
upcoming AR4, I was asked several weeks ago by the Observations chapter Lead
Author---Dr. Kevin Trenberth---to provide the writeup for Atlantic
hurricanes. As I had in the past, I agreed to assist the IPCC in what I
thought was to be an important, and politically-neutral determination of
what is happening with our climate.

Shortly after Dr. Trenberth requested that I draft the Atlantic hurricane
section for the AR4's Observations chapter, Dr. Trenberth participated in a
press conference organized by scientists at Harvard on the topic "Experts to
warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense
hurricane activity" along with other media interviews on the topic. The
result of this media interaction was widespread coverage that directly
connected the very busy 2004 Atlantic hurricane season as being caused by
anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming occurring today. Listening to and
reading transcripts of this press conference and media interviews, it is
apparent that Dr. Trenberth was being accurately quoted and summarized in
such statements and was not being misrepresented in the media. These media
sessions have potential to result in a widespread perception that global
warming has made recent hurricane activity much more severe.

I found it a bit perplexing that the participants in the Harvard press
conference had come to the conclusion that global warming was impacting
hurricane activity today. To my knowledge, none of the participants in that
press conference had performed any research on hurricane variability, nor
were they reporting on any new work in the field. All previous and current
research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable,
long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones,
either in the Atlantic or any other basin. The IPCC assessments in 1995 and
2001 also concluded that there was no global warming signal found in the
hurricane record.

Moreover, the evidence is quite strong and supported by the most recent
credible studies that any impact in the future from global warming upon
hurricane will likely be quite small. The latest results from the
Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (Knutson and Tuleya, Journal of
Climate, 2004) suggest that by around 2080, hurricanes may have winds and
rainfall about 5% more intense than today. It has been proposed that even
this tiny change may be an exaggeration as to what may happen by the end of
the 21st Century (Michaels, Knappenberger, and Landsea, Journal of Climate,
2005, submitted).

It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an
unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global
warming. Given Dr. Trenberth's role as the IPCC's Lead Author responsible
for preparing the text on hurricanes, his public statements so far outside
of current scientific understanding led me to concern that it would be very
difficult for the IPCC process to proceed objectively with regards to the
assessment on hurricane activity. My view is that when people identify
themselves as being associated with the IPCC and then make pronouncements
far outside current scientific understandings that this will harm the
credibility of climate change science and will in the longer term diminish
our role in public policy.

My concerns go beyond the actions of Dr. Trenberth and his colleagues to how
he and other IPCC officials responded to my concerns. I did caution Dr.
Trenberth before the media event and provided him a summary of the current
understanding within the hurricane research community. I was disappointed
when the IPCC leadership dismissed my concerns when I brought up the
misrepresentation of climate science while invoking the authority of the
IPCC. Specifically, the IPCC leadership said that Dr. Trenberth was speaking
as an individual even though he was introduced in the press conference as an
IPCC lead author; I was told that that the media was exaggerating or
misrepresenting his words, even though the audio from the press conference
and interview tells a different story (available on the web directly); and
that Dr. Trenberth was accurately reflecting conclusions from the TAR, even
though it is quite clear that the TAR stated that there was no connection
between global warming and hurricane activity. The IPCC leadership saw
nothing to be concerned with in Dr. Trenberth's unfounded pronouncements to
the media, despite his supposedly impartial important role that he must
undertake as a Lead Author on the upcoming AR4.

It is certainly true that "individual scientists can do what they wish in
their own rights", as one of the folks in the IPCC leadership suggested.
Differing conclusions and robust debates are certainly crucial to progress
in climate science. However, this case is not an honest scientific
discussion conducted at a meeting of climate researchers. Instead, a
scientist with an important role in the IPCC represented himself as a Lead
Author for the IPCC has used that position to promulgate to the media and
general public his own opinion that the busy 2004 hurricane season was
caused by global warming, which is in direct opposition to research written
in the field and is counter to conclusions in the TAR. This becomes
problematic when I am then asked to provide the draft about observed
hurricane activity variations for the AR4 with, ironically, Dr. Trenberth as
the Lead Author for this chapter. Because of Dr. Trenberth's pronouncements,
the IPCC process on our assessment of these crucial extreme events in our
climate system has been subverted and compromised, its neutrality lost.
While no one can "tell" scientists what to say or not say (nor am I
suggesting that), the IPCC did select Dr. Trenberth as a Lead Author and
entrusted to him to carry out this duty in a non-biased, neutral point of
view. When scientists hold press conferences and speak with the media, much
care is needed not to reflect poorly upon the IPCC. It is of more than
passing interest to note that Dr. Trenberth, while eager to share his views
on global warming and hurricanes with the media, declined to do so at the
Climate Variability and Change Conference in January where he made several
presentations. Perhaps he was concerned that such speculation---though
worthy in his mind of public pronouncements---would not stand up to the
scrutiny of fellow climate scientists.

I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I
view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being
scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr.
Trenberth's actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I
have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4.

Sincerely,

Chris Landsea

17 January 2005

banyon
12-05-2009, 11:59 AM
Good attempt

Chemistry is one, and well as biology, and so is physics. You'll never guess the fourth.

In order they go

Physics
Chemistry
Biology - Without Physics and Chemistry...you can't have biology

Astronomy...isn't really a science unless you are refering to chemistry and physics of the stars.

Geology is a combination of physics and chemistry.

the fourth science, very much in it's infancy, is psychology..the study of behavior. Psyco Dynamics(aka freud is not a science) Really a subset of biology, but many count it as a fourth.

What criteria are you using to differentiate primary sets and subsets?

Taco John
12-05-2009, 12:00 PM
It is correct, but isn't specific. They were attempting to distort some data relating to a very few recent years because they thought that some laypersons would be confused enough to think that somehow a tiny sample size because it was recent would negate the overall trend we should be concerned about.


ROFL

I knew this was going to be entertaining... I love how you guys are manipulating words here. They tried to hide the data that showed more recent cooling trends because they were afrain "laypersons" would "be confused" that the cooling trends countered the conclusion that they want us to be concerned about.

'The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the U.K., I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. . . . We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind."

orange
12-05-2009, 12:00 PM
They had data that showed temperatures declining, and they hid it and buried the data - and you're having a hard time perceiving the wrong doing?


None of the data has been hidden at all. It's been out there and debated and redebated and investigated for a decade.

Look up "hockey stick controversy."

The Keith Briffa "trick" referred to in one of the emails was published in Nature in 1998. That's PUBLISHED - as in "spelled out in plain sight."

irishjayhawk
12-05-2009, 12:00 PM
At the time, not much.

I don't know if you've noticed this or not, but over the last 100 years, technology has been developing at a dramatically faster rate than any time in human history, particularly at a faster rate than say, the 1600's where your contemplated disanalogy would've taken place.

That's why I maintain that GW tenants are commonsensical. Cars have exploded. Pollution exploded. Pollution reflects rays back down to earth causing more trapped heat.

It's basic and oversimplified but it makes perfect sense.

The Chiefs beat the world champion Pittsburgh Steelers. The Chiefs are a great football team !!!

I cringe when I hear those lines. I heard it last night from people. :banghead:

cdcox
12-05-2009, 12:01 PM
IJH,

Start with a couple of websites

www.globalwarminglies.com
www.globalwarminghysteria.com

The scientist who has "cooked the books" Phil Jones has even resigned his post albeit temporarily. Phil Jones hid his temps to make global warming look bad.

Houston had how much snow yesterday !!!

And see post 223. If you want to pull out a specific quote, I'll address it.

Wrong doing may eventually be uncovered through the investigation. But it the emails by themselves do not demonstrate wrong doing, let alone provide evidence that climate change is a hoax.

irishjayhawk
12-05-2009, 12:01 PM
ROFL

I knew this was going to be entertaining... I love how you guys are manipulating words here. They tried to hide the data that showed more recent cooling trends because they were afrain "laypersons" would "be confused" that the cooling trends countered the conclusion that they want us to be concerned about.

'The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the U.K., I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. . . . We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind."

Given the Global Cooling fiasco and the fact that the "layperson" has issues with Global Warming and it snowing at the same time or that Global Warming has been changed to Climate change for that exact reason, I'd say it's reasonable to assume the layperson would be confused.

Taco John
12-05-2009, 12:02 PM
At the time, not much.

I don't know if you've noticed this or not, but over the last 100 years, technology has been developing at a dramatically faster rate than any time in human history, particularly at a faster rate than say, the 1600's where your contemplated disanalogy would've taken place.


There is technology available now that could have stopped the ice age?

Caseykid
12-05-2009, 12:02 PM
Exactly.

@Hydrae - Absolutely not true. Macro evolution has even been observed in the laboratory. Also, if you buy microevolution, it's commonsensical that many tiny changes (micro) over lots of time, can lead to big changes (macro). This is an oversimplification but think about it like this.

Add .0001 to itself for 4 billion years. The number will not be .xxxx it will be of a different magnitude.

Just curious, what specifically are you talking about?

Chief Henry
12-05-2009, 12:03 PM
I go where the evidence leads. That's science, not politics. I care deeply about science. Unfortunately, science depends on evidence. Something you seem capable of overlooking.


Unfortunatley Phil Jones and his PHONY, money chasing, grant whoring
scientist have been proved to be the Bernie Madoff off the science world.

How many Billions of Dollars have been spent of this charade called man made global warming.

Now we've got a president getting ready to bend over backwards to the
rest of the world on this charade. How many JOBS will this cost the American people. How many more dollars will be put into Al GOres pocket because of some BS called Carbon Credits ?

Phile Jones of the Climate Research Center had 1,000 emails and 3000
documents opened up to the public.

How much more will it cost up ?

Phil Jones = Bernie Madoff

irishjayhawk
12-05-2009, 12:04 PM
Just curious, what specifically are you talking about?

Well, we've got the fruit flies experiments. Moths, too.

Here's a good article with links to the original papers:

http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/06/21/macro-evolution-observed-in-the-laboratory/

HonestChieffan
12-05-2009, 12:04 PM
Its clear government needs to regulate regardless. Up or Down, if we can regulate it, all will be good forever and ever. That would also eliminate the need to know if or not it, whatever it is, is happening. And save a lot of time trying to find it, identify it and fight over it.

irishjayhawk
12-05-2009, 12:05 PM
Unfortunatley Phil Jones and his PHONY, money chasing, grant whoring
scientist have been proved to be the Bernie Madoff off the science world.

How many Billions of Dollars have been spent of this charade called man made global warming.

Now we've got a president getting ready to bend over backwards to the
rest of the world on this charade. How many JOBS will this cost the American people. How many more dollars will be put into Al GOres pocket because of some BS called Carbon Credits ?

Phile Jones of the Climate Research Center had 1,000 emails and 3000
documents opened up to the public.

How much more will it cost up ?

Phil Jones = Bernie Madoff

You still have yet to produce evidence of fraud or false data.

But thanks for playing.

banyon
12-05-2009, 12:05 PM
The Chiefs beat the world champion Pittsburgh Steelers. The Chiefs are a great football team !!!

ROFL perfect

Probably lost on your audience though.

Chief Henry
12-05-2009, 12:07 PM
[QUOTE=irishjayhawk;6317949 Jones has naturally stepped aside for the investigation. He'll probably fully resign when it's said and done just from a PR standpoint. This doesn't mean he's guilty of anything.[/QUOTE]

ROFL

Calcountry
12-05-2009, 12:09 PM
I have seen the truth, yeah, Lo it come in the form of a movie and it didst dispel the global warming hoax. 2012, an inconvenient truth it did portray, and that be, if the sun taketh a fart, or if the sun piseth, we are all doomed.

irishjayhawk
12-05-2009, 12:09 PM
ROFL

Nice response.

Calcountry
12-05-2009, 12:11 PM
ROFL perfect

Probably lost on your audience though.Banyon is an attorney. Banyon is right about everything.