| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/24/2009 11:38:12 PM · #326 |
I am a physician and a scientist. There is a proper way to conduct science and an improper way. Real science does not presume an outcome. When the data produced does not support your hypothesis, the hypothesis has to be questioned. There is a lot of data not supporting the theory of man made global warming. The main "scientific" body whom the EPA and UN have used to reach their conclusions have had an agenda. They have been at best suppressing data that didn't support their conclusion, and at worst, changing it. Scientists who didn't agree with them were not allowed to publish, and I'm sure, didn't receive funding.
The whole debate of global warning has not been science but politics. Any objective person would have to conclude that at best, we have no clue what is going to happen with the climate, and CO2 has little if any effect on the outcome of our survival. Any objective person who looks at the vituperations of the history of the earth's climate, from ice age to tropical warming of the planet, should realize that man has nothing to do with it. Any objective person would look at the glowing orb in the sky (the sun) as the primary source of heat or lack of heat.
Many can not face the obvious fact revealed by the release of these conversations that global warming theory is a hoax, perpetrated on us to steal our wealth. We should be joyous that it is being exposed. If you are still clinging on to the hoax, you should question your objectivity. Why are you personally investid in a weak scientific theory?
This will be the scientific scandal of the decade, maybe the century. We should be angry at those who tried to steal from us, those who corrupted the scientific ethic, those who became wealthy from this fraud, those who have tried to scare an increasingly ignorant public.
The New York Time did report on this scandal, but held up details of the emails because they were not meant to be seen by the public. The media (except fox and the internet) have been slow to report this as well. This is all political in motivation and not scientific.
A little more fodder:
//www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/24/taking_liberties/entry5761180.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody |
|
|
|
11/25/2009 05:13:12 PM · #327 |
One thing I hope this all highlights is that the "liberal media" is plenty happy to sell papers by reporting on a story that can only help the right and not the left. It's not just FOX that's digging into these guys with fully bared fangs.
EDIT: Ha. I'll add I hadn't even seen cloudsme's post above which talks about the media too (although to a potentially different conclusion).
Message edited by author 2009-11-25 17:14:37. |
|
|
|
11/26/2009 07:09:31 AM · #328 |
Originally posted by cloudsme:
Any objective person would look at the glowing orb in the sky (the sun) as the primary source of heat or lack of heat.
Many can not face the obvious fact revealed by the release of these conversations that global warming theory is a hoax, perpetrated on us to steal our wealth. We should be joyous that it is being exposed. If you are still clinging on to the hoax, you should question your objectivity. Why are you personally investid in a weak scientific theory? |
From a PR perspective, the story is a bit of a disaster for climate change science generally.
However, you attack climate change as a hoax, and then blame it on solar activity. If there is no climate change, why look to the sun as an explanation?
The sun's impact on climate change has been demonstrated to be weak by people studying data (as opposed to people making an emotive call on individual perception). You are describing a subjective position:
//www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm
The issue that I see is that an important dataset has errors, and the errors were disguised. The fact that one group of climate scientists have disguised flaws in their crown jewels is depressing though perhaps unsurprising. It is however a huge leap of logic to conclude that all datasets are flawed, that all scientists reaching the same conclusion are equally flawed, or that the conclusions are necessarily flawed.
For example, I would not rubbish everything that you say just because you claim to be a scientist then make leaps of logic and cling onto a disproven argument using emotive, subjective arguments while pretending to be objective.
Message edited by author 2009-11-26 07:09:42.
|
|
|
|
11/26/2009 09:50:04 AM · #329 |
For those who can read french, an article about Canada's "sitting on our asses" strategy to fight the problem caused by artic's warming.
La Presse's article
Fixed the link
Message edited by author 2009-11-26 09:51:03. |
|
|
|
11/26/2009 10:16:40 AM · #330 |
Originally posted by merchillio:
For those who can read french, an article about Canada's "sitting on our asses" strategy to fight the problem caused by artic's warming.
La Presse's article
Fixed the link |
I read it and can't say I am overly impressed.
The final proposals that Ottawa obtain additional scientific data on the future climate impact on Canada's north does little to rectify the problem at hand. Similarly, changes to the existing building codes and a better financing for infrastructures address the impact of climate change but do little to rectify the cause of the problem.
It must also be remembered that Canada cannot act in isolation when addressing the issue of climate changes, and that others must also be convinced to play an active part in addressing this issue.
Ray |
|
|
|
11/26/2009 10:53:00 AM · #331 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
The fact that one group of climate scientists have disguised flaws in their crown jewels is depressing though perhaps unsurprising. |
Where did that happen? The "trick" thing had nothing to do with the data itself, but the presentation. It's like Langdon discussing a "trick" to remove ghost account votes from site averages: it's data that's still available if anyone cares, but even the original authors say shouldn't be included in legitimate assessments.
Moreover, that particular study isn't a "crown jewel" that all other climate research depends upon. It's just a small part of an overwhelming body of evidence. To call this the scandal of the decade or century would be akin to making a big deal out of a distracting power line cloned out of the background of one photo in a National Geographic series— maybe not a good idea, but also generally meaningless. |
|
|
|
11/26/2009 11:05:38 AM · #332 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by cloudsme:
Any objective person would look at the glowing orb in the sky (the sun) as the primary source of heat or lack of heat.
Many can not face the obvious fact revealed by the release of these conversations that global warming theory is a hoax, perpetrated on us to steal our wealth. We should be joyous that it is being exposed. If you are still clinging on to the hoax, you should question your objectivity. Why are you personally investid in a weak scientific theory? |
From a PR perspective, the story is a bit of a disaster for climate change science generally.
However, you attack climate change as a hoax, and then blame it on solar activity. If there is no climate change, why look to the sun as an explanation?
The sun's impact on climate change has been demonstrated to be weak by people studying data (as opposed to people making an emotive call on individual perception). You are describing a subjective position: |
I was giving my point, "if" there was global warming, it isn't caused by man, but by the sun. I have never believed in from the start we are in global warming. |
|
|
|
11/26/2009 11:17:15 AM · #333 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Matthew:
The fact that one group of climate scientists have disguised flaws in their crown jewels is depressing though perhaps unsurprising. |
Where did that happen? |
The article that cloudsme posted is pretty good in terms of providing background.
As I understand it, the historical climate data in UEA's database is one of the world's foremost resources (and hence the crown jewels of that research team) - and the leak reveals that there are material flaws in how the data has been collated in the database. Hence my comment - that is the serious bit, not the "trick" or "hiding" comments (which I agree are overhyped).
I agree that this should not be blown out of proportion - any manipulation of the data is likely to have taken place because it became apparent that the UEA data did not correlate with other sources (ie the adjustments were corrections, not inflations) - not because there is some cover up or conspiracy.
|
|
|
|
11/26/2009 11:29:08 AM · #334 |
Originally posted by vtruan:
I was giving my point, "if" there was global warming, it isn't caused by man, but by the sun. I have never believed in from the start we are in global warming. |
But there are numerous studies that conclude that there is no persuasive connection. Do you recommend generally that nations should start taking decisions based on gut feelings rather than observational evidence?
|
|
|
|
11/28/2009 02:25:55 AM · #335 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
But there are numerous studies that conclude that there is no persuasive connection. Do you recommend generally that nations should start taking decisions based on gut feelings rather than observational evidence? |
Who conducted those studies? The same folks who lied and covered up other studies? Or someone credible? No gut feelings here, I've read numerous studies from both sides of the discussion, and I concluded that there wasn't enough information. Now we find out some studies covered up data. How can you keep trusting the scientist who are supposed to be the experts, when they have an agenda. Kind of like AlGore and the billions he will make off the lie if folks let him. and many cool-aid drinkers will follow. |
|
|
|
11/28/2009 11:12:33 AM · #336 |
Originally posted by vtruan:
Now we find out some studies covered up data. |
What data, specifically, was covered up that would lead you to the conclusion that the overwhelming majority of studies by climatologists from all over the world were part of a vast, multi-generational conspiracy? |
|
|
|
11/28/2009 01:45:00 PM · #337 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by vtruan:
Now we find out some studies covered up data. |
What data, specifically, was covered up that would lead you to the conclusion that the overwhelming majority of studies by climatologists from all over the world were part of a vast, multi-generational conspiracy? |
The leaked documents come from the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in eastern England. In global warming circles, the CRU wields outsize influence: it claims the world's largest temperature data set, and its work and mathematical models were incorporated into the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 2007 report. That report, in turn, is what the Environmental Protection Agency acknowledged it "relies on most heavily" when concluding that carbon dioxide emissions endanger public health and should be regulated.
This is the leading global warming alarmist group, hailed by everyone isn't it? And even our EPA bought off on it. So, I'd guess all in favor of the hoax used their data, and those against didn't. |
|
|
|
11/28/2009 02:57:48 PM · #338 |
Originally posted by vtruan:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by vtruan:
Now we find out some studies covered up data. |
What data, specifically, was covered up that would lead you to the conclusion that the overwhelming majority of studies by climatologists from all over the world were part of a vast, multi-generational conspiracy? |
This is the leading global warming alarmist group, hailed by everyone isn't it? |
You didn't answer the question. What specific data was covered up? The CRU is only one of dozens of competing major scientific institutions that have reached the same conclusion. The phenomenon of CO2-based global warming was well established before most of these people were even born, and no single group could perpetuate such a hoax across multiple countries and generations in the face of readily available data. |
|
|
|
11/30/2009 10:14:16 AM · #339 |
Does anyone know or have an idea what was covered up or destroyed. Or do you really care? The so called scientists were the top and most influential researchers on "global warning".
read on if you want
So, I can not possibly give you the answer you want, because it would be very difficult and time consuming to determine what data was used by researchers. But if you want to provide me this I will look at it. |
|
|
|
11/30/2009 10:24:30 AM · #340 |
So isn't CRU responsible for gathering all the data from the weather stations and and creating all the baseline global temperature data?
I'd think if that is wrong, pretty much everything would be wrong. |
|
|
|
11/30/2009 10:30:08 AM · #341 |
Originally posted by vtruan:
Does anyone know or have an idea what was covered up or destroyed. |
Yeah, nothing was covered up or destroyed. "From the date of the first FOI request to CRU (in 2007), it has been made abundantly clear that the main impediment to releasing the whole CRU archive is the small % of it that was given to CRU on the understanding it wouldn’t be passed on to third parties. Those restrictions are in place because of the originating organisations (the various National Met. Services) around the world and are not CRU’s to break. As of Nov 13, the response to the umpteenth FOI request for the same data met with exactly the same response. This is an unfortunate situation, and pressure should be brought to bear on the National Met Services to release CRU from that obligation. It is not however the fault of CRU. The vast majority of the data in the HadCRU records is publicly available from GHCN."
You're being scammed by conspiracy wackos. Speaking of whom...
Message edited by author 2009-11-30 10:44:59. |
|
|
|
12/04/2009 01:28:39 PM · #342 |
Excellent essay in the Wall Street Journal by a CRU scientist.
The science and politics of climate change
I'll quote his closing paragraphs:
The central battlegrounds on which we need to fight out the policy implications of climate change concern matters of risk management, of valuation, and political ideology. We must move the locus of public argumentation here not because the science has somehow been "done" or "is settled"; science will never be either of these things, although it can offer powerful forms of knowledge not available in other ways. It is a false hope to expect science to dispel the fog of uncertainty so that it finally becomes clear exactly what the future holds and what role humans have in causing it. This is one reason why British columnist George Monbiot wrote about climategate, "I have seldom felt so alone." By staking his position on "the science," he feels alone and betrayed when some aspect of the science is undermined.
If climategate leads to greater openness and transparency in climate science, and makes it less partisan, it will have done a good thing. It will enable science to function in the effective way it must in public policy deliberations: Not as the place where we import all of our legitimate disagreements, but one powerful way of offering insight about how the world works and the potential consequences of different policy choices. The important arguments about political beliefs and ethical values can then take place in open and free democracies, in those public spaces we have created for political argumentation.
|
|
|
|
12/04/2009 02:37:05 PM · #343 |
"The former vice president and Nobel Peace Prize winner had been scheduled to speak to more than 3,000 people at a Dec. 16 event hosted by the Berlingske Tidende newspaper group. The group says Gore canceled the lecture Thursday, citing unforeseen changes in his schedule.
Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider says the decision was made because of "all the events going on with the summit." Dec. 16 is a key date for the meeting because that's when the ministerial segment starts.
Chief editor Lisbeth Knudsen says it's a "great disappointment" that Gore canceled and that all tickets will be refunded. " |
|
|
|
12/04/2009 03:56:32 PM · #344 |
From The Atlantic Monthly, "27 Brave Thinkers who are Shaping the Future":
************
Name: Freeman Dyson
Job: Professor Emeritus, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton
Why he’s brave: He’s taking a contrarian view on the Kyoto Protocol.
Quote: “I like to express heretical opinions. They might even happen to be true.”
Dyson, a renowned physicist and pioneer in quantum electrodynamics theory, has lately committed a heresy without equal in modern science: questioning climate-change orthodoxy. Dyson doesn’t deny that excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is warming the planet. But he predicts that advances in bio-technology—especially the creation of genetically engineered carbon-eating plants, which he foresees within two decades—will mitigate the damage with a minimum of economic and social disruption. In the meantime, he argues that large-scale carbon-restricting approaches like the Kyoto Protocol are ineffective and disproportionately hurt developing countries like China and India, where the potential to lift millions of people out of poverty now hinges on access to carbon-spewing industries. Such arguments have won him few friends; he describes the interaction between the majority of scientists holding conventional climate-change views and the skeptical minority as a “dialogue of the deaf.” But in Dyson’s case, at least, those arguments have evolved from a lifetime of scientific rigor and intellectual honesty.
*************
Want to dismiss HIM as a whacko and a conspiracy theorist?
R.
Message edited by author 2009-12-04 15:57:29. |
|
|
|
12/04/2009 05:14:52 PM · #345 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
...he predicts that advances in bio-technology—especially the creation of genetically engineered carbon-eating plants, which he foresees within two decades—will mitigate the damage with a minimum of economic and social disruption. |
According to your snippet, he's not denying that climate change is happening, but promotes the idea that we will find a future technological solution.
Are you backing the idea that we should rely upon future discoveries to combat the effects of climate change? Does this strike you as being at all risky?
|
|
|
|
12/04/2009 05:55:34 PM · #346 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Are you backing the idea that we should rely upon future discoveries to combat the effects of climate change? Does this strike you as being at all risky? |
Nah. I'm just throwing out someone who goes against the "conventional wisdom" who's NOT a whacko...
R. |
|
|
|
12/04/2009 06:01:24 PM · #347 |
| No comments on the WSJ article? Is rant so partisan that nobody can say, "hey, that dude presents both sides pretty well and elucidates the real problem with is the merging of politics and science."? |
|
|
|
12/04/2009 06:05:23 PM · #348 |
Hey, that WSJ guy hits both sides of the argument nicely, and underscores a critical point: the real problem isn't with science, it's with the interface of science and politics, and that's very scary.
(better?)
R. |
|
|
|
12/04/2009 06:19:49 PM · #349 |
| lol. Don't patronize me! :P |
|
|
|
12/11/2009 03:10:19 PM · #350 |
According to a study by Brenda and Robert Vale published in New Scientist, and also in their new book, Time to Eat the Dog: The real guide to sustainable living, A German Shepherd dog has a larger carbon footprint than a Toyota Land Cruiser...
"A lot of people worry about having SUVs but they don't worry about having Alsatians and what we are saying is, well, maybe you should be because the environmental impact ... is comparable."
In a study published in New Scientist, they calculated a medium dog eats 164 kilograms of meat and 95kg of cereals every year. It takes 43.3 square metres of land to produce 1kg of chicken a year. This means it takes 0.84 hectares to feed Fido.
They compared this with the footprint of a Toyota Land Cruiser, driven 10,000km a year, which uses 55.1 gigajoules (the energy used to build and fuel it). One hectare of land can produce 135 gigajoules a year, which means the vehicle's eco-footprint is 0.41ha – less than half of the dog's.
Save the planet, eat a dog.
R.
Message edited by author 2009-12-11 15:10:38. |
|
