| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/07/2009 12:38:29 PM · #301 |
| In 1980, geologists were worried that Mt. St. Helens was going to erupt. Some concerned friends and I just knew this was our fault somehow and we climbed to the top, drinking massive quantities of beer along the way, then pissed all over the mountaintop. Damn thing blew up anyway, but it still made us feel good. |
|
|
|
08/09/2009 07:16:51 PM · #302 |
|
|
|
09/09/2009 08:51:10 PM · #303 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
No more peeing in the ocean... |
Maybe we can taint it enough so the fat kid from Willy Wonka will drink it all... Problem solved!
|
|
|
|
10/29/2009 03:55:39 PM · #304 |
Meat
"If the way we raise animals for food isn't the most important problem in the world right now, it's arguably the No. 1 cause of global warming: The United Nations reports the livestock business generates more greenhouse gas emissions than all forms of transportation combined. "
Dictate what I can drive and what I can eat.
Soon it will be the size of my house (as too big wastes energy), where I can vacation (as too far wastes energy), how many children I can have (as too many consume too much food and waste energy), how many people can be in a community/state/country...
Reads to me like a good case for more war. Higher death rate = fewer mouths to feed = lower green house gas = address Global Warming. Why didn't Gore just say that. Bush was ahead of the curve... |
|
|
|
10/29/2009 04:24:06 PM · #305 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Reads to me like a good case for more war. Higher death rate = fewer mouths to feed = lower green house gas = address Global Warming. Why didn't Gore just say that. Bush was ahead of the curve... |
By your logic I think Jonathan Swift was a couple of centuries "ahead of the curve" ... |
|
|
|
11/24/2009 10:40:31 AM · #306 |
Discuss this
I know many political activist scientists, it fits so well. |
|
|
|
11/24/2009 11:09:01 AM · #307 |
| Response from those involved. The short answer: "Oh, puh-lease!" |
|
|
|
11/24/2009 11:22:09 AM · #308 |
Good article, Shannon. Thanks for the link. |
|
|
|
11/24/2009 12:33:31 PM · #309 |
Imagine that. Caught with the hand in the cookie jar and they deny it. SHOCKING!
From what I read on what was found in the hacked data, they conspired to adjust numbers to show what they thought it should be, conspired to delete data they didn't want people to see and the conspired to silence the voice of opposition. Bad science any way you look at it. They are letting assumed conclusions sway the results. They are working to achieve a predetermined conclusion.
I'm an Engineer for an aircraft manufacturer. If I conspired to "fix" data to get the results I wanted, asked people to delete emails containing data I didn't want made public, or conspired to silence my objectors I'd be fired and you would not want to fly in my planes. |
|
|
|
11/24/2009 12:35:01 PM · #310 |
Global Warming is a Hoax! As I have said many times, it is based on politics,not science.
//blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/
Message edited by author 2009-11-24 12:35:19. |
|
|
|
11/24/2009 12:39:52 PM · #311 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
From what I read on what was found in the hacked data, they conspired to adjust numbers to show what they thought it should be, conspired to delete data they didn't want people to see and the conspired to silence the voice of opposition. |
You misread (also shocking). |
|
|
|
11/24/2009 12:41:25 PM · #312 |
Is this a joke or cluelessness? |
|
|
|
11/24/2009 01:13:31 PM · #313 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
From what I read on what was found in the hacked data, they conspired to adjust numbers to show what they thought it should be, conspired to delete data they didn't want people to see and the conspired to silence the voice of opposition. |
You misread (also shocking). |
Please tell me how I misread. If I typed any of these emails Iâd be fired.
Originally posted by Hacked Data:
Iâve just completed Mikeâs Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keithâs to hide the decline.
|
If I used a trick to hide the decline in anything (fatigue strength?) Iâd be fired and you would not want to fly on my plane.
Originally posted by Hacked Data:
The fact is that we canât account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we canât. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.
|
If reality showed different then my prediction and I called it a âtravestyâ that I canât show my prediction true, clearly I am not looking for an answer, Iâm trying to prove a predetermined conclusion.
Originally posted by Hacked Data:
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. Heâs not in at the moment â minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I donât have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
|
Originally posted by Hacked Data:
I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!
|
Obviously I deal with stuff that Iâm not allow to release to the public (stuff our competitors would like), but if I deleted things and told others to delete things Iâd be fired.
Originally posted by Hacked Data:
âThis was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the âpeer-reviewed literatureâ. Obviously, they found a solution to thatâtake over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering âClimate Researchâ as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial boardâ¦What do others think?â
âI will be emailing the journal to tell them Iâm having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.ââIt results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. Iâve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !â
|
If I conspired to silence people that disagreed with me, would you want to put your kids on my airplane? This is the most disturbing of everything Iâve seen. If you can prove your objectors wrong, why would you need to silence them? Who ever wrote this email has no business researching anything.
|
|
|
|
11/24/2009 01:33:14 PM · #314 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Please tell me how I misread. |
Those were explained in the link I posted earlier.
Originally posted by LoudDog:
If I conspired to silence people that disagreed with me, would you want to put your kids on my airplane? This is the most disturbing of everything Iâve seen. |
That should be the LEAST disturbing of the bunch. The scientific community depends upon peer review and editorial integrity for objective credibility. If Scientific American or the New England Journal of Medicine were bought out by the National Enquirer or hired a crackpot editor and began publishing stories on maneating unicorns or the health effects of fairy dust, it would be perfectly reasonable (and expected) for scientists to boycott those publications as a legitimate news platform. |
|
|
|
11/24/2009 01:58:29 PM · #315 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Please tell me how I misread. |
Those were explained in the link I posted earlier.
Originally posted by LoudDog:
If I conspired to silence people that disagreed with me, would you want to put your kids on my airplane? This is the most disturbing of everything Iâve seen. |
That should be the LEAST disturbing of the bunch. The scientific community depends upon peer review and editorial integrity for objective credibility. If Scientific American or the New England Journal of Medicine were bought out by the National Enquirer or hired a crackpot editor and began publishing stories on maneating unicorns or the health effects of fairy dust, it would be perfectly reasonable (and expected) for scientists to boycott those publications as a legitimate news platform. |
And I can post numerous links saying how damaging the quotes are. Does that prove anything? Your link does not prove to me that these quotes are harmeless or I'm just misreading them. I work in a research industy, I've never seen quotes like these in emaisl around here.
If a science magazine hired a "crackpot" that posted articles about how our planes were unsafe, we'd fight him with data and hard evidence, and prove them wrong until they were laughed out of the industry. It has happened. If I circulated emails saying "we have to shut this guy up" wouldn't you be a little iffy about getting on a plane?
Yeah, things can be taken out of context. But these quotes and others Iâve seen are quite damning on their own. Replace the topic of global warming with fatigue strength of a wing body join in these quotes and do you want to fly on that airplane? Even knowing that they are just snippets and could be taken out of context? I wouldnât!
If the quotes can be explained away, fine, start explaining! What were you deleting and why? Why did you want to hide the data with a trick? Why is it a travisty that global warming has stopped? At the least this should warrant an investigation. It would in my industry. Laws and policy put in place and being considered will have an enormous negative impact on people, industry and society. Jobs, careers, and businesses lost. Higher taxes. The research these scientists are doing has huge ramifications. If these quotes are any inclination of their âunbiasâ research, the window of doubt has just been blown out. |
|
|
|
11/24/2009 02:56:10 PM · #316 |
While I disagree with LoudDog's ultimate conclusion (I feel the case for human induced climate change is strong), I gotta agree with him that the actions of these scientists when they thought nobody was looking are abyssmal. They sound like they are massaging the data to fit preconceived notions. Anybody who has a statistical background knows there are "tricks" to spinning data. Many are pretty obvious to someone educated, but others are more insidious.
My guess is this group firmly believes in climate change and due to the unfortunate politicization of the subject felt compelled to put their best foot forward (and ONLY their best foot forward). That stinks. In the end it does nobody any favors because it hurts their own case as well as derailing the real conversation that should be happening (the evaluation of data), rather than ad homenim attacks (which this is. Instead of looking to see if the data stands on its own merits, we are accusing the presenters of being biased liars and cheats.)
So I agree with you LoudDog. The group should be dismissed. They are doing more harm than good. OTOH, I doubt one group's bad actions is going to totally dismiss what is a large body of evidence collected by many groups over time.
Message edited by author 2009-11-24 14:58:15. |
|
|
|
11/24/2009 05:45:26 PM · #317 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
If the quotes can be explained away, fine, start explaining! What were you deleting and why? Why did you want to hide the data with a trick? Why is it a travisty that global warming has stopped? At the least this should warrant an investigation... |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
My guess is this group... felt compelled to put their best foot forward (and ONLY their best foot forward). |
It's all too evident that neither of you understand the situation. There is no "trick" in the sense of deception, and the "hidden" data is an aberration due to other circumstances that renders it invalid (sort of like you would "hide" admitted troll votes from an analysis of DPC averages). There is absolutely nothing deceptive in these emails other than the conspiracy theorists and skeptics themselves seizing upon such words as "proof" of suspicious activity.
"Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that âIâve just completed Mikeâs Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keithâs to hide the decline.â The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the âtrickâ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term âtrickâ to refer to a âa good way to deal with a problemâ, rather than something that is âsecretâ, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the âdeclineâ, it is well known that Keith Briffaâs maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the âdivergence problemââsee 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 âhidingâ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is âhiddenâ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens." The not-so-alarming-after-all context for several of the other email "issues" is covered here.
Originally posted by LoudDog:
If I circulated emails saying "we have to shut this guy up" wouldn't you be a little iffy about getting on a plane. |
Not if the guy you were referring to was lying or intentionally spreading misleading information about airline safety. On the other hand, if I knew that the technicians working on my plane were inherently skeptical of science (which includes aeronautics), I'd probably be driving. |
|
|
|
11/24/2009 05:58:10 PM · #318 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
It's all too evident that neither of you understand the situation. There is no "trick" in the sense of deception, and the "hidden" data is an aberration due to other circumstances that renders it invalid (sort of like you would "hide" admitted troll votes from an analysis of DPC averages). |
For gawdsake, Shannon, Doc didn't SAY that the "trick" involves deception. No, what he actually *said* is "Anybody who has a statistical background knows there are "tricks" to spinning data. Many are pretty obvious to someone educated, but others are more insidious." And to those of us who DO understand statistics, this is simple fact. I'd always assumed you were in that group, but now I'm wondering. Because, rest assured, ANYBODY with more than a passing familiarity with statistics knows they can be massaged in a gazillion directions, and anybody who looks at that e-mail with an open mind (subsequent protestations by the author notwithstanding) would not think it unreasonable to conclude it represents evidence of massaging data towards a desired end.
R. |
|
|
|
11/24/2009 06:14:11 PM · #319 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
For gawdsake, Shannon, Doc didn't SAY that the "trick" involves deception. No, what he actually *said* is "Anybody who has a statistical background knows there are "tricks" to spinning data. |
I know what he said, but this wasn't spinning data. I take issue with, "the actions of these scientists when they thought nobody was looking are abyssmal[sic]." The words "trick," "hide," and the purported actions of these scientists were totally innocuous banter taken out of context. Heck, the people trying to paint this molehill as a mountainous conspiracy are pointing fingers at the Hadley Centre's scientists... which isn't even the same group! It's ironic that anyone would question the credibility of the science as a whole based upon these reports of "scandal" from a few scientists that are themselves riddled with such glaring inaccuracies and intentionally misleading statements. |
|
|
|
11/24/2009 07:50:33 PM · #320 |
| Dang. I hate being the source of a [sic] quote! |
|
|
|
11/24/2009 07:58:49 PM · #321 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Dang. I hate being the source of a [sic] quote! |
Well, I hate people who find it necessary to (sic) a quote in normal, polite discourse. If i did that every time I found a typo I'd be hooted out of town. But I guess you're fair game as far as Shannon's concerned...
R, |
|
|
|
11/24/2009 08:04:16 PM · #322 |
"I got a paper to review (submitted to the Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Sciences), written by a Korean guy and someone from Berkeley, that claims that the method of reconstruction that we use in dendroclimatology (reverse regression) is wrong, biased, lousy, horrible, etc. ... If published as is, this paper could really do some damage ... It won't be easy to dismiss out of hand as the math appears to be correct theoretically (...) I am really sorry but I have to nag about that review -- Confidentially I now need a hard and if required extensive case for rejecting."
Ouch. If I were that "Korean guy" I'd be fairly pissed.
""The two MMs [Canadian skeptics Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick] have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone."
That's not standard operating procedure in basic, honest science.
Like I said, I'm a firm believer in human induced global warming, but with friends like this, who needs enemies? |
|
|
|
11/24/2009 08:04:44 PM · #323 |
Okay, to be clear: I work in a science based industry where we do a lot of research. If I EVER said the word "trick" or "hide" when talking about calculations of anything other then the lunch bill I'd be tossed from the room. If i put it in an email I'd be fired. Maybe global warming scientists talk like that, but they don't in aerospace.
Also, when someone needs to use a lot of big words, names and numbers to explain trick and hide, they are probably trying to trick you to hide something. Seriously, read that paragraph a few times. Are they not dazzeling you with BS? Reading through that paragraph a few times I can shorten it down to: When we use this data it doesn't show us what we want so we just ignore it.
What about the email asking people to delete things? In what industry is it okay to ask people to delete things (other then politics)?
What about the email conspiring to blackball publications that dispute them? Where is it okay to silence your opposition rather then address them? You made the comment that they are "crackpots" but that is BS. People a lot smarter then any of us on global warming think it's a sham. Just because they disagree with some other smart people that you happen to believe doesn't mean they are "crackpots" and should be dismissed. This shows how the concensus was formed. Blackball and silence the critics and we have our happy little concensus. It also shows why they always stessed the argument that non of the skeptics were peer reviewed, they controlled it! That is politics, not science!
|
|
|
|
11/24/2009 08:43:51 PM · #324 |
Occasionally there are unethical scientist that have other purposes or agendas. These folks appear to have something up their slieves; political, money, power, being just being noticed, et al. It reminds me of the unethical biologists that placed the Canada Lynx hair they collected at a zoo on a barbwire fence to prove lynx were in an area. They didn't want logging/developed of that area. As a Biologist, I have a real problem with these type of folks, no matter what they think they are saving.
I have never believed man had/has the power to warm the earth. I believe it is all related to the sun, sun spot activity, magnetic energy, etc.
I guess that's my Bible thumping ideas, that God is in control.
Message edited by author 2009-11-24 20:45:17. |
|
|
|
11/24/2009 09:07:27 PM · #325 |
| I've been reading a lot more of these emails, documents and programs the last hour or two. There is far too much to post and ask "explain this". The actions of these guys in the name of "science" is offensive. |
|
