| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/01/2009 10:14:23 PM · #26 |
For an interesting perspective on the climate change debate, I highly recommend reading this recent article by Dr. Jeff Masters, Senior Meterologist and co-founder of Weather Underground (the Internet weather site, not the other one).
In it, Dr. Masters draws some interesting parallels between public health debates of past decades and the climate change debate of today. Doctor Masters is a good scientist, and his analysis is a worthwhile read (as is his blog in general, especially if you have an interest in hurricanes, which is the usual focus of his blog).
|
|
|
|
12/01/2009 10:29:24 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by cloudsme:
I don't see how Mann can be validated, if the review process is genuine, when he can't produce his original data. |
A. They're reviewing the stolen emails— a separate issue.
B. You're being scammed by bloggers and tabloid entertainers trying to sensationalize a non-story of discarded formats (magnetic and paper tapes) and data that isn't CRU's to release. Information originally written on a SyQuest disk is not "lost" just because you migrate to other media and toss the cartridge, and failure to provide someone else's property upon demand (the real issue here) is not a cover up.
C. Not a single original word of the Bible exists either, so unless you think that material should also be completely invalidated on the same basis, this is a losing argument for you.
Funny thing— if the reviewers find something inappropriate, however insignificant it may be, skeptics will claim "proof" that all data from all climatologists all over the world for the past hundred years is fake. If nothing is found, they'll claim that the reviewers themselves are part of the conspiracy. "Validation" is simply not possible with this group. Meanwhile the poles and glaciers continue to melt, and within a couple of decades skeptics will have no more to stand on than the polar bears. |
|
|
|
12/01/2009 11:13:21 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by cloudsme:
I don't see how Mann can be validated, if the review process is genuine, when he can't produce his original data. |
A. They're reviewing the stolen emails— a separate issue.
B. You're being scammed by bloggers and tabloid entertainers trying to sensationalize a non-story of discarded formats (magnetic and paper tapes) and data that isn't CRU's to release. Information originally written on a SyQuest disk is not "lost" just because you migrate to other media and toss the cartridge, and failure to provide someone else's property upon demand (the real issue here) is not a cover up.
C. Not a single original word of the Bible exists either, so unless you think that material should also be completely invalidated on the same basis, this is a losing argument for you.
Funny thing— if the reviewers find something inappropriate, however insignificant it may be, skeptics will claim "proof" that all data from all climatologists all over the world for the past hundred years is fake. If nothing is found, they'll claim that the reviewers themselves are part of the conspiracy. "Validation" is simply not possible with this group. Meanwhile the poles and glaciers continue to melt, and within a couple of decades skeptics will have no more to stand on than the polar bears. |
A. You are correct, but they should be reviewing the lost data as well.
B. They admitted they lost the data, after they said they would do everything in their power not to release it. I think it really isn't lost, that they just don't want to release it because real independent analysis will show that they are fraudulent in their manipulations of the data.
C. Funny you should bring up religion. Many accuse radical environmentalism to be a religion. Religion is based on faith. Science should be based on reproducable observation. |
|
|
|
12/01/2009 11:15:01 PM · #29 |
I never really understood the anger in the debate..... This is way oversimplified but....
* Does anyone honestly think that dumping crap into the air is good.
* So it comes down to...
- Spend a LOT of $ to reduce the pollution => Black swan result - Less $ and a large cost to the world economies.
- Do Nothing => Black swan result - We are all dead (They are dead, Dave, There are all dead).
Seems to me that the outlier on one side is a tad more serious then the other.....
Message edited by author 2009-12-01 23:15:45.
|
|
|
|
12/01/2009 11:25:34 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
For an interesting perspective on the climate change debate, I highly recommend reading this recent article by Dr. Jeff Masters, Senior Meterologist and co-founder of Weather Underground (the Internet weather site, not the other one).
In it, Dr. Masters draws some interesting parallels between public health debates of past decades and the climate change debate of today. Doctor Masters is a good scientist, and his analysis is a worthwhile read (as is his blog in general, especially if you have an interest in hurricanes, which is the usual focus of his blog). |
Interesting pov. I never believed the ozone hole theory. Is it fixed now? Don't here much about it. I still see a lot of skin cancer though. I always thought cigaretts were bad. Here is an interesting article from another meterologist published in the Wall Street Journal.
//online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html |
|
|
|
12/01/2009 11:32:52 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by cloudsme:
They admitted they lost the data, after they said they would do everything in their power not to release it. I think it really isn't lost, that they just don't want to release it because real independent analysis will show that they are fraudulent in their manipulations of the data. |
No, they said they don't have some of the old punchcards and magnetic tapes anymore (hardly a surprise), but they do have the the relevant info— all of which was reviewed and checked at the time. They're not trying to avoid releasing info, they CAN'T release the material because it's legally forbidden by some of the sources. The data WAS independently analyzed, and that peer review would have revealed any manipulation (competing scientist LOVE to find mistakes in someone else's work).
The science IS reproducible observation. That's why so many independent researchers and related fields have overwhelmingly reached the same conclusions, and climatologists all over the world are in nearly unanimous agreement on this. You'd be hard pressed to find many other broad principles with the same concurrence. |
|
|
|
12/01/2009 11:37:58 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by cloudsme:
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
For an interesting perspective on the climate change debate, I highly recommend reading this recent article by Dr. Jeff Masters, Senior Meterologist and co-founder of Weather Underground (the Internet weather site, not the other one).
In it, Dr. Masters draws some interesting parallels between public health debates of past decades and the climate change debate of today. Doctor Masters is a good scientist, and his analysis is a worthwhile read (as is his blog in general, especially if you have an interest in hurricanes, which is the usual focus of his blog). |
Interesting pov. I never believed the ozone hole theory. Is it fixed now? Don't here much about it. I still see a lot of skin cancer though. I always thought cigaretts were bad. Here is an interesting article from another meterologist published in the Wall Street Journal.
//online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html |
The author of this is Richard Lindzen, a leading climatologist meteorologist and physicist. Also on the payroll of Exxon:
Dr. Lindzen is a member of the Advisory Council of the Annapolis Center for Science Based Public Policy, which has received large amounts of funding from ExxonMobil and smaller amounts from Daimler Chrysler, according to a review Exxon's own financial documents and 990s from Daimler Chrysler's Foundation. Lindzen is a also been a contributor to the Cato Institute, which has taken $90,000 from Exxon since 1998, according to the website Exxonsecrets.org and a review Exxon financial documents. He is also a contributor for the George C. Marshall Institute.
PBS: Hot Topics: The Doubters of Global Warming
I would question his bias. His 'employers' benefit most if we do nothing.
Message edited by author 2009-12-01 23:54:14. |
|
|
|
12/02/2009 12:17:50 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by VitaminB:
Originally posted by cloudsme:
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
For an interesting perspective on the climate change debate, I highly recommend reading this recent article by Dr. Jeff Masters, Senior Meterologist and co-founder of Weather Underground (the Internet weather site, not the other one).
In it, Dr. Masters draws some interesting parallels between public health debates of past decades and the climate change debate of today. Doctor Masters is a good scientist, and his analysis is a worthwhile read (as is his blog in general, especially if you have an interest in hurricanes, which is the usual focus of his blog). |
Interesting pov. I never believed the ozone hole theory. Is it fixed now? Don't here much about it. I still see a lot of skin cancer though. I always thought cigaretts were bad. Here is an interesting article from another meterologist published in the Wall Street Journal.
//online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html |
The author of this is Richard Lindzen, a leading climatologist meteorologist and physicist. Also on the payroll of Exxon:
Dr. Lindzen is a member of the Advisory Council of the Annapolis Center for Science Based Public Policy, which has received large amounts of funding from ExxonMobil and smaller amounts from Daimler Chrysler, according to a review Exxon's own financial documents and 990s from Daimler Chrysler's Foundation. Lindzen is a also been a contributor to the Cato Institute, which has taken $90,000 from Exxon since 1998, according to the website Exxonsecrets.org and a review Exxon financial documents. He is also a contributor for the George C. Marshall Institute.
PBS: Hot Topics: The Doubters of Global Warming
I would question his bias. His 'employers' benefit most if we do nothing. |
And PBS doesn't have an agenda? It could go on and on. The science is more polluted than our atmosphere. It is all politics, not science. At some point you have to think for yourself. Water is the biggest greenhouse gas, not CO2, and there is a lot more of that in our atmosphere. The sun controls the temperature of our planet, not our lightbulbs or cars. Nuclear energy is an excellent alternative to fossil fuels, and if people were really worried about CO2 pollution, the answer is staring us in the face, but they aren't really worried, they just want to make money off of it. The earth's climate changes without our intervention quite a bit. If we are lucky, the next change will be warming, because another ice age would be a lot more trouble for us than warming.
I think the environment is important. I like the beauty of the earth like all of you. I also like modern society like all of you, and that requires energy. I don't believe the earth is warming because of man, and I don't think it is warming at all. I think the global warming science is a scam, designed to take our wealth from us. I get this from using my common sense and my observations of people and the world. I have a place on the beach. I haven't seen the water levels rise at all in the last 30 years, and I pay attention to that. We had a bad year of hurricanes in 2005, and a great year in 2009. We had a warm year in 1998, and a colder one in 2009. You have to think for yourselves because the science is corrupt. |
|
|
|
12/02/2009 12:23:26 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by cloudsme:
Originally posted by VitaminB:
Originally posted by cloudsme:
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
For an interesting perspective on the climate change debate, I highly recommend reading this recent article by Dr. Jeff Masters, Senior Meterologist and co-founder of Weather Underground (the Internet weather site, not the other one).
In it, Dr. Masters draws some interesting parallels between public health debates of past decades and the climate change debate of today. Doctor Masters is a good scientist, and his analysis is a worthwhile read (as is his blog in general, especially if you have an interest in hurricanes, which is the usual focus of his blog). |
Interesting pov. I never believed the ozone hole theory. Is it fixed now? Don't here much about it. I still see a lot of skin cancer though. I always thought cigaretts were bad. Here is an interesting article from another meterologist published in the Wall Street Journal.
//online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html |
The author of this is Richard Lindzen, a leading climatologist meteorologist and physicist. Also on the payroll of Exxon:
Dr. Lindzen is a member of the Advisory Council of the Annapolis Center for Science Based Public Policy, which has received large amounts of funding from ExxonMobil and smaller amounts from Daimler Chrysler, according to a review Exxon's own financial documents and 990s from Daimler Chrysler's Foundation. Lindzen is a also been a contributor to the Cato Institute, which has taken $90,000 from Exxon since 1998, according to the website Exxonsecrets.org and a review Exxon financial documents. He is also a contributor for the George C. Marshall Institute.
PBS: Hot Topics: The Doubters of Global Warming
I would question his bias. His 'employers' benefit most if we do nothing. |
And PBS doesn't have an agenda? It could go on and on. The science is more polluted than our atmosphere. It is all politics, not science. At some point you have to think for yourself. Water is the biggest greenhouse gas, not CO2, and there is a lot more of that in our atmosphere. The sun controls the temperature of our planet, not our lightbulbs or cars. Nuclear energy is an excellent alternative to fossil fuels, and if people were really worried about CO2 pollution, the answer is staring us in the face, but they aren't really worried, they just want to make money off of it. The earth's climate changes without our intervention quite a bit. If we are lucky, the next change will be warming, because another ice age would be a lot more trouble for us than warming.
I think the environment is important. I like the beauty of the earth like all of you. I also like modern society like all of you, and that requires energy. I don't believe the earth is warming because of man, and I don't think it is warming at all. I think the global warming science is a scam, designed to take our wealth from us. I get this from using my common sense and my observations of people and the world. I have a place on the beach. I haven't seen the water levels rise at all in the last 30 years, and I pay attention to that. We had a bad year of hurricanes in 2005, and a great year in 2009. We had a warm year in 1998, and a colder one in 2009. You have to think for yourselves because the science is corrupt. |
I think PBS does not stand to gain financially if we do something about global warming. Exxon stands to lose a lot if we do.
It is science, but the politics is getting in the way.
Water isnt that much of a problem, because it rains back down. CO2 doesnt.
I like the environment, and I like my standard of living. I just think that we have to be more responsible in our actions, minimizing our impact on the environment while maintaining our standard of living as much as possible. Doing something about climate change does not have to limit our standard of living. Europe and Japan have been doing much more than North America, but their standards have not fallen catastrophically.
The science is not corrupt. The politics is. The science is peer reviewed, and will continue to be scrutinized.
Just because you havent seen the water rise, doesnt mean climate change isnt happening. Global climate change is GLOBAL, not just at your place on the beach. |
|
|
|
12/02/2009 01:00:28 AM · #35 |
Originally posted by cloudsme:
Water is the biggest greenhouse gas, not CO2, and there is a lot more of that in our atmosphere. The sun controls the temperature of our planet, not our lightbulbs or cars. |
Correct, but very wrong implication on both water and the sun. |
|
|
|
12/02/2009 02:27:50 AM · #36 |
| I have a hard time believing you like the environment if you're endorsing nuclear energy. Unless of course you've never seen what a uranium mining operation looks like or does to an area, which is perfectly likely. Visit a uranium mining operation, open pit or after an in situ operation has been in action, and you might think differently. Or if you are en-route to Yucca Mountain. Not without its own consequences. |
|
|
|
12/02/2009 07:34:49 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
I have a hard time believing you like the environment if you're endorsing nuclear energy. Unless of course you've never seen what a uranium mining operation looks like or does to an area, which is perfectly likely. Visit a uranium mining operation, open pit or after an in situ operation has been in action, and you might think differently. Or if you are en-route to Yucca Mountain. Not without its own consequences. |
I also said I like energy (as you surely do or you wouldn't be on a computer for a hobby). Every form of energy will have a major environmental impact. Oil and gas drilling, along with their inevitable spills soil a lot of land. Even green energy will have major consequences. Millions of windmills will make a major mark on the landscape and kill countless birds. Covering the floor of the desert with solar panels will also destroy that environment.
The point is, if we really face a hellish environment that will destroy the earth through co2 production, nuclear energy is an immediate solution with relatively small impact on the environment. Leaks, mining and waste storage are problems to be faced, but they don't compare to global destruction (supposed) from fossil fuels. This is cthe common sense I am talking about. |
|
|
|
12/02/2009 08:05:08 AM · #38 |
The thing is, many people either choose to ignore or flat out don't care about the effects of mining or storage of used fuels- a simple case of NIMBY. This is especially true of nuclear fuels.
I agree with your sentiment that something needs to be done, I just have a hard time believing something that is as damaging (on both sides, supply and disposal) as nuclear is ultimately feasible. It also serves as a convenient fuel source for WMDs. IMO, it would be more intelligent for developed countries to invest in R&D for other resources that are adopted more readily without the public outcry, which means pretty much every other source. That way, we could export the technology instead of pretending that we can sustain a competitive labor-based economy with third world countries (who have abundant labor and need clean, efficient energy). Again, my opinion...
Message edited by author 2009-12-02 08:05:47. |
|
|
|
12/02/2009 09:08:56 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by cloudsme:
Leaks, mining and waste storage are problems to be faced, but they don't compare to global destruction (supposed) from fossil fuels. |
Leaks, mining and waste are not the only hazards of nuclear plants. There's another rather significant one that the surviving residents of Pripyat, Russia can attest to. Hopefully, a better option will be available soon. |
|
|
|
12/02/2009 09:22:19 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by cloudsme:
Leaks, mining and waste storage are problems to be faced, but they don't compare to global destruction (supposed) from fossil fuels. |
Leaks, mining and waste are not the only hazards of nuclear plants. There's another rather significant one that the surviving residents of Pripyat, Russia can attest to. Hopefully, a better option will be available soon. |
Or another option :) |
|
|
|
12/04/2009 10:44:07 PM · #41 |
Does NASA have the same problem as CRU? Did they share data? Maybe all this independent data really isn't independent. The scandal widens with major effects on the upcoming Copenhagen conferance, and the major TV networks have yet to cover the story.
//www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/03/researcher-says-nasa-hiding-climate-data/ |
|
|
|
12/05/2009 12:07:58 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by cloudsme:
...the major TV networks have yet to cover the story. |
That's because there IS no story. The author is not a scientist, but a lawyer working for an ExxonMobil-sponsored "think tank" (to the tune of $2 million) to invent PR controversy. It's completely baseless.
"Nothing in the e-mails undermines the scientific case that global warming is real — or that human activities are almost certainly the cause. That case is supported by multiple, robust lines of evidence, including several that are completely independent of the climate reconstructions debated in the e-mails.
In one of the more controversial exchanges, UEA scientists sharply criticized the quality of two papers that question the uniqueness of recent global warming and vowed to keep at least the first paper out of the upcoming Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Whatever the e-mail authors may have said to one another in (supposed) privacy, however, what matters is how they acted. And the fact is that, in the end, neither they nor the IPCC suppressed anything: when the assessment report was published in 2007 it referenced and discussed both papers.
One e-mail talked of displaying the data using a 'trick' — slang for a clever (and legitimate) technique, but a word that denialists have used to accuse the researchers of fabricating their results. It is Nature's policy to investigate such matters if there are substantive reasons for concern, but nothing we have seen so far in the e-mails qualifies.
If there are benefits to the e-mail theft, one is to highlight yet again the harassment that denialists inflict on some climate-change researchers, often in the form of endless, time-consuming demands for information under the US and UK Freedom of Information Acts... Researchers are barred from publicly releasing meteorological data from many countries owing to contractual restrictions. Moreover, in countries such as Germany, France and the United Kingdom, the national meteorological services will provide data sets only when researchers specifically request them, and only after a significant delay. The lack of standard formats can also make it hard to compare and integrate data from different sources."
Message edited by author 2009-12-05 00:15:25. |
|
|
|
12/05/2009 01:40:49 AM · #43 |
| I tend to expect self aggrandizing from all the religions of the world but I had hoped that science trod a higher road, served a higher God in its search for truth. I recommend the death penalty for those who manipulate data to proselytize false scientific conclusions in support of their "agenda." I don't know if Global Warming is man-made. I don't know if Global Warming is a problem worthy of human attention and global action. But if we can't look for the truth scientifically, objectively, transparently ... we will surely draw the wrong conclusions and end up doing more harm than good. |
|
|
|
12/05/2009 08:37:50 AM · #44 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
[quote=cloudsme]...the major TV networks have yet to cover the story. |
That's because there IS no story.
I can understand disagreement on the signicance of the story, but so much has happened, with a wide range of consequences. The hacking or whistleblowing of the e-mail, resignation of Jones, investigation of Mann, UN questioning IPCC, Australia legislature voting down cap and trade, and now NASA being questioned. Not to mention the large effect this story will have on Copenhagen.
To say you disagree is one thing, but to say there is no story only makes those of us who question global warming increasingly suspicious that there is a huge cover up going on. |
|
|
|
12/05/2009 08:44:20 AM · #45 |
The guy making the accusations is Chris Horner of the Competitive Enterprise Institute
From Wiki:
CEI's stated belief is that humans are best helped not by government regulation of commercial interests, but by humans being allowed to make their own choices in a free marketplace
CEI is an outspoken opponent of global warming constituting a problem, and of government action that would require limits on greenhouse gas emissions. It favors free-market environmentalism, stating that market institutions are more effective in protecting the environment than is government.
Accusing NASA of wrongdoing with climate data seems to be part of their political agenda.
Its as much of a story as Democrats not liking Republicans, or Republicans not liking Democrats..... Nothing new! |
|
|
|
12/05/2009 11:07:04 AM · #46 |
Originally posted by Dr.Confuser:
I recommend the death penalty for those who manipulate data to proselytize false scientific conclusions in support of their "agenda." |
That would be Chris Horner, et al.- all part of a PR campaign literally paid to fabricate doubt. Show me something, anything, that scientists actually manipulated to create a false conclusion in this case. |
|
|
|
12/06/2009 12:01:56 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
I have a hard time believing you like the environment if you're endorsing nuclear energy. Unless of course you've never seen what a uranium mining operation looks like or does to an area, which is perfectly likely. Visit a uranium mining operation, open pit or after an in situ operation has been in action, and you might think differently. Or if you are en-route to Yucca Mountain. Not without its own consequences. |
If you read this thread at Daily Kos, you will find some liberals endorsing Nuclear Energy
//www.dailykos.com/story/2009/12/6/808371/-Book-Review:-Storms-of-my-Grandchildren |
|
|
|
12/06/2009 07:51:52 PM · #48 |
|
|
|
12/06/2009 08:27:13 PM · #49 |
|
|
|
12/06/2009 09:05:52 PM · #50 |
I will reiterate... Christopher Booker is hardly the kind of journalist editorialist I trust to give me info on scientific matters. If I did trust him, I would have cancer from second hand smoke and asbestos. |
|
