• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
- - - - -

Climategate


  • Please log in to reply
155 replies to this topic

#31 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 18,997 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 30 November 2009 - 05:34 PM

If all the emails are real, the lead scientists have colluded to prevent FOI requests for climate data, on which the greatest world-wide policy/regulation EVER created will be based!! This is bad. I can't believe there are people (and scientists) who say it is much ado about nothing - just a few guys talking in private. Unbelievable hypocrisy. Most of the climate theory and data sets have been developed openly and rigorously as they should be, because there is a lot at stake (no matter which side of the political debate you happen to be on). These few at the top have set things back and there should be consequences.

#32 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 30 November 2009 - 09:42 PM

If all the emails are real, the lead scientists have colluded to prevent FOI requests for climate data, on which the greatest world-wide policy/regulation EVER created will be based!! This is bad. I can't believe there are people (and scientists) who say it is much ado about nothing - just a few guys talking in private. Unbelievable hypocrisy. Most of the climate theory and data sets have been developed openly and rigorously as they should be, because there is a lot at stake (no matter which side of the political debate you happen to be on). These few at the top have set things back and there should be consequences.

Things have certainly been set back. There is a new wave of distrust and disbelief in science. Is that the fault of a few scientists talking amongst themselves, or is it the fault of the criminals who stole private emails and sorted through thousands of them to find the few that "looked the worst", given a complete lack of the context that exists between the two parties to the email? I don't see evidence of collusion to break the law here. "Don't leave the data on an ftp server" is not illegal collusion, it's common sense when there is a mob trying to undercut the truth by any means possible.

One of the things that I find disturbing is that otherwise-logical and scientific people can declare that they "don't believe" in global warming, despite the evidence, which goes beyond the station data, despite the melting glaciers and receding arctic ice, despite the changes in plant and animal behavior all over the world, despite the unquestionable increase in the concentration of CO2 and methane over the years, and the known physics of those gasses. I suppose some will say "OK, I believe that warming is happening, I just don't believe man is causing it." In this case, one needs to explain how rising concentrations of greenhouse gasses don't cause warming, as well as come up with a non-anthropogenic cause for the warming that we are observing. I don't think either of the kinds of "not believing" are tenable at this stage of the game.

If you view this whole affair through the eyes of someone who "doesn't believe" in AGW, who is suspicious of and has a poor understanding of science, who sees "the government" and "the scientists" in a giant conspiracy to enact one-worldism, or anti-capitalism, or environmentalism, or some other -ism, then you are likely to view this badly. My bias is that I am a scientist and know a lot of scientists, and I do not view them as venal or evil. I do not see any conspiracies here, although the fossil fuel industry funding denialists comes close. I think that the governments of the world, by and large, want to keep their economies growing and not wreck the planet to the point it has a negative impact on their countries. I'm very aware of energy technologies and believe that we can gradually transition to a mostly carbon-free economy without wrecking our economy.

#33 valkyrie_ice

  • Guest
  • 837 posts
  • 142
  • Location:Monteagle, TN

Posted 30 November 2009 - 09:45 PM

If all the emails are real, the lead scientists have colluded to prevent FOI requests for climate data, on which the greatest world-wide policy/regulation EVER created will be based!! This is bad. I can't believe there are people (and scientists) who say it is much ado about nothing - just a few guys talking in private. Unbelievable hypocrisy. Most of the climate theory and data sets have been developed openly and rigorously as they should be, because there is a lot at stake (no matter which side of the political debate you happen to be on). These few at the top have set things back and there should be consequences.



Thank you Mind. That is my point. Whether the science is correct or not is besides the point. By conspiring to ensure that ONLY THEIR VIEWPOINT IS PUBLISHED, they have cast suspicion on ALL SCIENCE PUBLISHING EVERYWHERE.

They have undermined public trust in the scientific method. They must be publicly rejected to show THIS IS NOT HOW SCIENCE IS DONE.

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#34 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 30 November 2009 - 09:50 PM

By conspiring to ensure that ONLY THEIR VIEWPOINT IS PUBLISHED...

I don't think that's what they did. It sounds like it was more a flight from a journal that bypassed peer review and published something that just wasn't good science. A journal where half the editors quit in protest.

#35 valkyrie_ice

  • Guest
  • 837 posts
  • 142
  • Location:Monteagle, TN

Posted 01 December 2009 - 02:40 AM

By conspiring to ensure that ONLY THEIR VIEWPOINT IS PUBLISHED...

I don't think that's what they did. It sounds like it was more a flight from a journal that bypassed peer review and published something that just wasn't good science. A journal where half the editors quit in protest.



Supression of opposing viewpoints in a single magazine is not all, niner. There are multiple emails reffering to attempts to supress articles written in magazines, newspapers, in one case, threatening to alter the peer review rules to ensure that an article did not get published.

Basically, no matter what their reasoning, what they have done is given a basis to the conspiracy theorists, which will no be used to justify EVERY CONSPIRACY THEORY.

#36 Singularity

  • Guest
  • 138 posts
  • -1

Posted 01 December 2009 - 10:15 AM

After looking some of this over, I think it is much ado about very little. People say things in email that they would never say in public. One guy said he would be "very tempted" to beat the crap out of some denialist who had done something scummy. Then Fox news tries to spin it a "threat" to the denialist. That's nonsense. If he sent the email to the denialist and said "I'm going to beat the crap out of you", that would be a threat. One guy saying to his friend that he'd "be tempted" is in no way a threat. As far as attempting to keep other people's papers out of journals, I recall a situation where a right wing economist and and engineer managed to get a paper into the journal Science that was an incredibly flawed analysis which attempted to throw a monkey wrench into the nascent electric car industry about ten or fifteen years ago. It bordered on fraud, and I don't know how it got into a real journal, but it provided fodder for the pro fossil fuel crowd. Such things happen when things are politicized, and nothing is politicized like climate change. Is it wrong for scientists to collude to prevent a dangerous piece of misinformation from being published? Not in my book. Is it a slippery slope? Of course. When you have ideological think tanks paying people to write papers in the service of an ideology, do they belong in the scientific literature? I don't think so.

The denialist community doesn't "play fair". They distort or ignore the facts, and frequently don't know what they are talking about. They seem to be more interested in ideology than in the truth, and have their own political agenda. Often they work for the fossil fuel industry, either directly or under the table. Some of the things that they do are utterly infuriating to scientists who have spent their careers in pursuit of the truth. If that leads the scientists to do things that aren't entirely pure, I can at least understand where it comes from.

I didn't see any cases of falsification of data or true scientific fraud. It looks more like it was all about not providing fodder for denialists. Most science is not conducted in an environment where there is a mob waiting to comb through your papers looking for anything they can use to convince a lay audience that you are wrong.

Finally, those emails weren't "leaked", they were stolen. That puts things in a slightly different light.


wow

#37 Bluejay1

  • Guest
  • 66 posts
  • -5

Posted 05 December 2009 - 05:23 PM

Global warming... another liberal success story.

#38 Bluejay1

  • Guest
  • 66 posts
  • -5

Posted 05 December 2009 - 05:26 PM

I think the moral of the story is to never trust a liberal... Just think of Al Gore's huge mansion and how much more CO2 the heating of his mansion takes than the average home. What about his private jets? Liberals are the biggest liars, the biggest perverters of science. Only unreasonable morons can't see this.

#39 Singularity

  • Guest
  • 138 posts
  • -1

Posted 06 December 2009 - 09:58 AM

I think the moral of the story is to never trust a liberal... Just think of Al Gore's huge mansion and how much more CO2 the heating of his mansion takes than the average home. What about his private jets? Liberals are the biggest liars, the biggest perverters of science. Only unreasonable morons can't see this.


To think that only liberals are corrupt and stupid would make one a reasonable moron I suppose. The truth is they are the two heads of the same monster. Don't fall for the false left-right paradigm.

#40 Bluejay1

  • Guest
  • 66 posts
  • -5

Posted 06 December 2009 - 07:11 PM

Clinton: flaming liberal pervert
W. Bush: ruinous liberal neocon (fake conservative)
McCain: limp-dick liberal fake conservative, (the neocon GOP's way of defaulting the election to Obama)
Obama: flaming Marxist radical

Cap & tax is a Communist agenda. Here is your liberal idol telling his little white lies as well as outright blatant lies.



I see a pattern here, all the DESTROYERS are LIBERALS. There hasn't been a non-radical / non-liberal president since Reagan.

Look at who caused the economic meltdown - LIBERALS.

Also, don't assume I'm a conservative bc I'm more liberal than most of you liberals pretend to be. I am Jewish and a moderate.

As far as I'm concerned there is no liberal / conservative issue.. There is only a LIBERAL issue. These radical liberals will destroy America as they have been doing since the antisemite Carter.

If Al Gore and his Red party want to raise taxes so bad why don't they start with themselves?

Sorry if the truth hurts, Shalom

Edited by Bluejay1, 06 December 2009 - 07:23 PM.


#41 maxwatt

  • Guest, Moderator LeadNavigator
  • 4,949 posts
  • 1,625
  • Location:New York

Posted 06 December 2009 - 10:26 PM

"This isn't right. This isn't even wrong."
Wolfgang Pauli, on a paper submitted by a physicist colleague
Swiss (Austrian-born) physicist (1900 - 1958)

#42 valkyrie_ice

  • Guest
  • 837 posts
  • 142
  • Location:Monteagle, TN

Posted 07 December 2009 - 02:49 AM

More than anything, this has illustrated how little AGW resembles SCIENCE, and how much of a religion it's become.

Were the e-mails stolen, or leaked? In truth, it doesn't matter, but to a TRUE BELIEVER, stolen means INVALID. That does not make them any less damning, but by claiming invalidity, it can be brushed over as "someone trying to sabotage "The Truth!"

Yes, that is indeed what the e-mails are intended to do, regardless of if they are leaked or stolen. What it comes down to is the same. A consistent record of Data manipulation, attempts to hide data from confirmation, deliberate destruction of data, disregard for the process of peer review, attempts to suppress publications which refuted their conclusions, and DISREGARD FOR THE LAW.

I don't care how badly you want to deny the "denialists" fuel for their attacks, subverting the Freedom of Information act is a violation not only of the scientific method, but of the law.

If your data cannot withstand the scrutiny of those actively seeking to poke holes in it, than so sorry, it's not a good enough source of evidence on which to draw conclusions. Find better data.

That's how every other science has to work.

But not global warming theory? Why? Because it's such a moral crusade? Because "MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING IS KILLING THE PLANET!!!"?

That's still not science, that's belief.

I'm sorry Niner, but on this issue you sound anything BUT objective. You've already made your conclusion, and are defending it as zealously as any religious fanatic. You're willing to forgive the bad science done by the people who formed the very foundations on which your belief is based, just because you believe in the conclusions so strongly that you are unwilling to tolerate any evidence against them.

These are the people who's work forms the heart of the AGW theory. The supporting evidence is meaningless, given that it all was interpreted BASED ON THIS RESEARCH, WHICH IS NOW SUSPECT.

And that's the thing everyone is trying so hard to gloss over. That the very basis for AGW is bad science. Bad science every bit as biased, deceitful, and agenda driven as they claim those who are trying to discredit them are.

Even if I give you as a fact that global warming exists, which whether you wish to admit it or not is STILL under debate and has conflicting evidence on both sides, it's still not the issue. What is at issue is the ANTHROPOGENIC in AGW.

It's so easy to believe MAN has sole responsibility. It appeals so strongly to the need in humans to feel in control. Even when we fuck up, it's still because WE fucked up, and not because NATURE had any involvement. It also appeals to the Malthusian mindset of Alpha Dominance. Limited resources = need to control = proof of superiority via control = I get laid most. We're hard wired to think in terms of superiority, and AGW certainly gives people that smug certainty that they are "superior" to any one who doesn't "Follow the True Faith."

AGW is a political game, one driven by systems of belief, not science. The sooner that is admitted too, the sooner the real science can be extracted from the beliefs, and the sooner it can be determined if GW is actually happening, and what the proper solution will be.

Because if the denialists are right that man is not the cause, but GW is STILL PROVEN to be occurring, then it's going to be pretty obvious that simple carbon caps are not a solution, but merely a feel good faith reward that ignored the real issues to win brownie points with the true believers.

And the planet will still be fucked, only we'll have much less time to react, and who know how many trillions wasted.

#43 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 07 December 2009 - 05:14 PM

the EPA plans to act on CO2 emissions even if congress doesn't.

http://online.wsj.co..._LEFTTopStories

lovely.

Edited by eternaltraveler, 07 December 2009 - 05:21 PM.


#44 maxwatt

  • Guest, Moderator LeadNavigator
  • 4,949 posts
  • 1,625
  • Location:New York

Posted 07 December 2009 - 06:24 PM

One thing that's largely ignored is the effect of carbon dioxide in the oceans. The level is increasing in correlation with the atmospheric rise. The oceans are becoming more acidic, which dissolves the calcium skeletons of marine life, from coral to plankton to clams and oysters, shrimp and crabs. If this affects primary production in the oceans, there could be a massive die off of marine life, with possible oxygen depletion of the ocean. Even if global warmingis a hoax, the increased acidity of the oceans is not.

This has all happened before, in geologic time. Pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 was lower than at any time in the past billion years, so the planet, if not the human race, might have some wiggle room. Over the last 20 million years or so, there has been an undeniable correlation between atmospheric CO2 and climate. CO2 drops, we have an ice age, it rises and we get palm trees in Greenland. It is undeniable that the current rise in CO2 is anthropogenic. The industrial countries, at least, can adapt to warmer climate and higher sea levels, though it will be uncomfortable. But if the oceans continue to become more acidic from CO2, the effect on ocean life will be disastrous. In geologic time when ocean acidity was high, the predominant marine life had silicatious skeletons. This may also have coincided with anoxic conditions below depths of perhaps a few hundred feet as is found in the Black Sea today -- no bottom life. The oceans are likely to become much less productive than they are today. Not only no more clams, shrimp or crabs, but no more sushi!

One may argue over details and time frames, but I do not see how a rational and informed person can deny we are changing the composition of our atmosphere in ways known to have a greenhouse effect, and to acidify the oceans. The probable consequences are serious enough to threaten the long-term survival of any immortalist, if not the human race. There will be no fix coming out of Copenhagen. Even if a treaty is agreed to, and our congress and the Chinese agree to abide, it will not be more than a band-aid on a gaping wound. We are already beyond the point of no return in terms of emissions. Climate-gate is all a tempest-in-a-teapot, irrelevant on a larger time scale.

The one possible entrepreneurial fix I have glimpsed, comes from some of the research on photosynthesis. The chromatophores in plants use quantum computing to efficiently route a photon to make carbohydrates from CO2 and water. When (or if) biophysicists learn to duplicate the effect, it will become possible to generate energy while depleting CO2 from the atmosphere. We could burn CO2 and water to generate energy.

#45 brokenportal

  • Life Member, Moderator
  • 7,046 posts
  • 589
  • Location:Stevens Point, WI

Posted 07 December 2009 - 07:11 PM

It looks more like it was all about not providing fodder for denialists....

...Finally, those emails weren't "leaked", they were stolen.


Thats what it looked like to me too.

#46 Bluejay1

  • Guest
  • 66 posts
  • -5

Posted 07 December 2009 - 09:04 PM

How is Dictator Obama getting away with this? His Stalinist agenda is going to quickly destroy America's economy and redistribute wealth to countries like China (you can't trust a country to keep its promise when this type of behavior is commonplace: http://www.wnd.com/n...RTICLE_ID=56056 ). Is he just in 'innocent' denial, or is he attempting to use Hitler's Big Lie propaganda strategy?

"never admit a fault or wrong":
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8378890.stm

This decision is based on ILLEGITIMATE (fraudulent) science! "To cut emissions by 17% from 2005 levels. 42% by 2030 and 83% by 2050":
http://en.wikipedia....erence_2009#USA

OBAMA = fastlane to a Communist NWO


What gall this man has, him and his phony Nobel prize... and what did he do to earn this distinction?!? Oh, I forgot the Nobel prize is a fraud much like global warming.

BTW mods, if you choose to silence me (which is the only way a liberal can retaliate) you only prove that Imminst.org is a radical leftist forum and I wouldn't want any part of such a forum anyway.

Edited by Bluejay1, 07 December 2009 - 09:10 PM.


#47 rwac

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • 4,764 posts
  • 61
  • Location:Dimension X

Posted 07 December 2009 - 09:59 PM

It looks more like it was all about not providing fodder for denialists....

...Finally, those emails weren't "leaked", they were stolen.


Thats what it looked like to me too.


I see.
So what that means is that you've chosen a side, damn the science.

These scientists are refusing to allow anyone to examine the data to find the flaws in their work.

#48 maxwatt

  • Guest, Moderator LeadNavigator
  • 4,949 posts
  • 1,625
  • Location:New York

Posted 07 December 2009 - 10:18 PM

It looks more like it was all about not providing fodder for denialists....

...Finally, those emails weren't "leaked", they were stolen.


Thats what it looked like to me too.


I see.
So what that means is that you've chosen a side, damn the science.

These scientists are refusing to allow anyone to examine the data to find the flaws in their work.

It looks to me like they stooped to the level of their perceived opponents, with unfortunate and predictably disastrous results.

#49 Grail

  • Guest, F@H
  • 252 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Australia

Posted 07 December 2009 - 10:28 PM

I thought you people were the smart ones.

Please see http://www.newscient...ked-emails.html for some answers regarding the hacked emails. I'm not saying they did nothing wrong, I'm saying that the emails do nothing at all to debunk the theory of AGW. Please stop listening to fox.

Whatever you believe about GW, weening ourselves off a carbon based economy is an inevitable and necessary step. Carbon caps aid this.

Thanks Val, for showing the fodder of denialist arguments: excessive use of the caps lock, much bluster, and sadly misinformed views.

Edited by Grail, 07 December 2009 - 10:31 PM.


#50 Bluejay1

  • Guest
  • 66 posts
  • -5

Posted 07 December 2009 - 10:52 PM

TAX! SPEND! SPEND!... TAX! TAX! SPEND! SPEND! SPEND!... TAX! TAX! TAX! TAX! SPEND! SPEND! SPEND! SPEND! SPEND!... That's the fascist liberal way.

What ever happened to limited government, the Constitution and liberty?

There isn't any substantial evidence behind the GW scam to warrant the destruction of the American economy.

#51 rwac

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • 4,764 posts
  • 61
  • Location:Dimension X

Posted 07 December 2009 - 11:54 PM

It looks to me like they stooped to the level of their perceived opponents, with unfortunate and predictably disastrous results.


...they stooped to the perceived level of their perceived opponents, with unfortunate and predictably disastrous results.

#52 rwac

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • 4,764 posts
  • 61
  • Location:Dimension X

Posted 07 December 2009 - 11:58 PM

Please see http://www.newscient...ked-emails.html for some answers regarding the hacked emails. I'm not saying they did nothing wrong, I'm saying that the emails do nothing at all to debunk the theory of AGW. Please stop listening to fox.


It is impossible to find the flaws in the various hockey sticks without the data.
Not releasing the raw data/code puts serious doubt on the credibility of the research that was generated by using that data.

#53 Grail

  • Guest, F@H
  • 252 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Australia

Posted 08 December 2009 - 12:38 AM

The data is mostly freely available if they care to look for it, but they'd rather waste researcher's time with requests for information that they know will be denied. The data not publicly available is not the property of the researcher's involved, and they are prohibited by law from releasing it.

#54 rwac

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • 4,764 posts
  • 61
  • Location:Dimension X

Posted 08 December 2009 - 01:40 AM

The data is mostly freely available if they care to look for it, but they'd rather waste researcher's time with requests for information that they know will be denied. The data not publicly available is not the property of the researcher's involved, and they are prohibited by law from releasing it.


That's what's interesting about those emails. They specifically talk about deleting data or pretending to delete data if it will fall into the hands of the "wrong people". Note that this data is not legally restricted, because it is vulnerable to FOI requests.

In any case how would you trust someone's conclusions if the data were not made public.
It doesn't take much time to put the data up on a server.

We're talking about restructuring the world economy.
Given how important these results are, shouldn't the science be open to examination and criticism ?

Instead they block all the requests.

What about the code used to process the data? They should absolutely have rights to that.

Edited by rwac, 08 December 2009 - 01:40 AM.


#55 valkyrie_ice

  • Guest
  • 837 posts
  • 142
  • Location:Monteagle, TN

Posted 08 December 2009 - 02:08 AM

I thought you people were the smart ones.

Please see http://www.newscient...ked-emails.html for some answers regarding the hacked emails. I'm not saying they did nothing wrong, I'm saying that the emails do nothing at all to debunk the theory of AGW. Please stop listening to fox.

Whatever you believe about GW, weening ourselves off a carbon based economy is an inevitable and necessary step. Carbon caps aid this.

Thanks Val, for showing the fodder of denialist arguments: excessive use of the caps lock, much bluster, and sadly misinformed views.



And at what point did I deny anything? I have been unconvinced that warming is anything but a natural cycle since day one. If warming is occuring on other planets than just earth, which seems to be the case on mars and saturn, then MANKIND cannot be the sole factor.

However, since I am not of the mankind hating true faith, I must be burned at the stake right?

At which point you simply prove my point that irregardless of the science, AGW has become a fundamentalist religion.

And P.S. if you had actually bothered to read my previous posts you would know I have absolutely no problems with green technology, and believe quite strongly that pollution needs to be curbed and stopped. However, since I only agree with the ecological philosphy, but don't buy into the MANKIND ALONE IS RESONSIBLE meme, I deal with ad hoc attacks like yours all the time.

The inability to examine a group of ideas individually is the first sign someone is following an IDEOLOGY instead of considering things rationally.

Edited by valkyrie_ice, 08 December 2009 - 02:15 AM.


#56 Grail

  • Guest, F@H
  • 252 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Australia

Posted 08 December 2009 - 02:52 AM

The data is mostly freely available if they care to look for it, but they'd rather waste researcher's time with requests for information that they know will be denied. The data not publicly available is not the property of the researcher's involved, and they are prohibited by law from releasing it.


What about the code used to process the data? They should absolutely have rights to that.


Whether any laws have been broken remains yet to be determined. Anyone has the right to delete certain personal emails should they see fit. The people involved can defend their own positions, I can't speculate as to their intentions.

As for the release of software code and data, it is common practice to withhold such things to some extent to ensure that you can publish what you can using the information you have collected and processed using the software you have created before other people can do the same. In a career that runs on what and how much you publish, this makes sense. Scientists have been known to be petty about data and software for this reason.

Alternately, the CRU is hardly the center of the universe concerning climate change research. We are talking thousands of scientists, from hundreds of universities and research institutes, and research that has been ongoing for a century.

And at what point did I deny anything? I have been unconvinced that warming is anything but a natural cycle since day one. If warming is occuring on other planets than just earth, which seems to be the case on mars and saturn, then MANKIND cannot be the sole factor.

As far as I can see, you are denying that human activity has had anything to do with the recent changes in climate.
Sole factor? No, but our emissions are surely the catalyst.

The other planets in the solar system are nothing like our own. Even the most similar have rather different climate mechanisms to our own. We are having such a hard time agreeing upon what the climate trend is here on Earth with the massive amount of data we have access to, and you think we can determine them on planets that we have comparably minuscule amounts of data? Even if it were true, three planets out of eight is hardly a consensus. Is this really what you're basing your decision on?

However, since I am not of the mankind hating true faith, I must be burned at the stake right?


Mankind hating? True faith? What noots have you been overdosing on? I simply said you were misinformed, which is true.

#57 rwac

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • 4,764 posts
  • 61
  • Location:Dimension X

Posted 08 December 2009 - 03:12 AM

Whether any laws have been broken remains yet to be determined. Anyone has the right to delete certain personal emails should they see fit. The people involved can defend their own positions, I can't speculate as to their intentions.

As for the release of software code and data, it is common practice to withhold such things to some extent to ensure that you can publish what you can using the information you have collected and processed using the software you have created before other people can do the same. In a career that runs on what and how much you publish, this makes sense. Scientists have been known to be petty about data and software for this reason.

Alternately, the CRU is hardly the center of the universe concerning climate change research. We are talking thousands of scientists, from hundreds of universities and research institutes, and research that has been ongoing for a century.


These weren't personal emails. AR4 (IPCC Fourth Assessment Report) is hardly personal in nature.

This may be good strategy, but it's certainly bad science, especially when it's publicly funded and of such importance. How would you convince a skeptic that the results are reliable when there's evidence of hiding/deleting data ?

Thousands of scientists is a deception. A lot of names were put on the report, and some people actually had to sue to get their names taken off.

Also, the gatekeepers here make sure that only supporting research gets funded and published.

#58 valkyrie_ice

  • Guest
  • 837 posts
  • 142
  • Location:Monteagle, TN

Posted 08 December 2009 - 03:43 AM

As far as I can see, you are denying that human activity has had anything to do with the recent changes in climate.
Sole factor? No, but our emissions are surely the catalyst.

The other planets in the solar system are nothing like our own. Even the most similar have rather different climate mechanisms to our own. We are having such a hard time agreeing upon what the climate trend is here on Earth with the massive amount of data we have access to, and you think we can determine them on planets that we have comparably minuscule amounts of data? Even if it were true, three planets out of eight is hardly a consensus. Is this really what you're basing your decision on?



Mankind hating? True faith? What noots have you been overdosing on? I simply said you were misinformed, which is true.


Thanks Val, for showing the fodder of denialist arguments: excessive use of the caps lock, much bluster, and sadly misinformed views.


So sorry, I took that as an attack simply because you disagreed with me. (sarcasm font)

Misinformed? No. Sadly I've read FAR TOO MUCH from both sides. I've seen enough evidence for warming and cooling to decide that the Earth has a severe case of bi-polar disorder since it's warming and cooling simultaneously.

Nor at any point have I stated that man isn't a FACTOR. Simply that to claim man is SOLE CAUSE is dangerously short sighted. By taking the humanocentric view to the point that NO OTHER CAUSE IS ALLOWED leads to short sighted solutions. Capping carbon is a feel good measure, not a solution. A solution would be to actively fund research into alternative energy, geoengineering and carbon mining technology. Cap and trade is a political piece of BS that does too little, costs too much for how little it does, and is nothing more than a band aid, but so long as people keep buying into the MAN IS THE SOLE FACTOR, it will continue to be seen as "solution"

Now, when the malthusian human hating "We must kill off 80% of humanity so the other 20% can live in rural paradise" meme that is using AGW as a cover stops being a factor in the religion of AGW, then perhaps some good might come of it, but at present it's just too little, and a useless waste of resources because it is far too little.

I plan to live on this planet for at least a few centuries, so band-aids and half measures simply won't do. Geoegineering and full climate control are the only LONG TERM solutions.

#59 Bluejay1

  • Guest
  • 66 posts
  • -5

Posted 08 December 2009 - 04:09 AM

GW scam = liberal fascism at its finest.

Looks like Denmark gets a rather good deal from this Stalinist treaty:
http://www.nypost.co...yyvy19b0ZTHaGwO

Edited by Bluejay1, 08 December 2009 - 04:11 AM.


#60 Grail

  • Guest, F@H
  • 252 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Australia

Posted 08 December 2009 - 04:22 AM

I'm sorry if you felt insulted by my post Val, I simply don't like sensationalism and generalisations when dealing with such a complex issue. Also, the inclusion of large amounts of upper case text in your posts makes them hard to read, and makes people feel like they are being shouted at, which is never good in a discussion.

I agree with some of what you say, emissions trading and carbon caps are insufficient and misleading answers to a massive problem. If done correctly, emissions trading has potential, but the watering down of policies and massive concessions made to the big polluters to appease the conservative members of the public rends the whole scheme useless. It's not a matter of carbon caps instead of and excluding all other approaches, it's about a wholesale approach to change the way our economies run, the way we utilise our resources, and the ways in which we produce and use energy. AGW proponents are not promoting carbon caps above all else at all. It's just a part of the solution. There is also a lot of research being done on geoengineering and renewable and sustainable power sources too.

Now, when the malthusian human hating "We must kill off 80% of humanity so the other 20% can live in rural paradise" meme that is using AGW as a cover stops being a factor in the religion of AGW, then perhaps some good might come of it, but at present it's just too little, and a useless waste of resources because it is far too little.


I don't really understand where you're coming from with this. I honestly don't know what you mean. Are you referring to the small number of people who do not care about the predicted effects of global temperature increases because it will likely result in the death of a large percentage of the world's poor?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users