The Science is Settled: GW is Conspiracy/Fraud (1 Viewer)

[saintfool]

That's really, really nice. We can pat ourselves on the back and feel wonderful after knowing this. How exactly does it alter the facts that I posted above?

it's fine that the environment is changing of its own accord. the fact is that our contribution to the changing environment - however obscured in the raw data - is hastening things and altering it in the process. the precedent - a partnership between government, science, and industry that had an almost immediate impact - has been set with the acid rain treaties and regulation.

Again, that's wonderful news. Seriously. But by what portion a reduction of overall greenhouse gases does that represent?

if our contribution to climate change is hastening the process then what does that matter? i don't disagree that climate change is happening independent of our actions. however, our actions are contributing to matters as well. if those contributions are accelerating things and throwing the planet off its "natural schedule" then we have have the capacity to deal with it.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Data involving CO2 levels aren't relevant to claims about human contributions to greenhouse gases? I'm not sure I buy that. What are your sources for the facts you presented?

This is exactly what I am talking about. Why wouldn't you do some research instead of expecting me to present data to you? The data on this is readily available in numerous places, both in pro and anti-AGW arguments. Charts comparing CO2 levels and temperatures invariably show temperatures increasing prior to CO2 levels increasing. Take 10 minutes and do a web search on it. It's easy to find this correlation in many places.

You made a very specific claim:

If man were suddenly to become extinct tomorrow - to cease to exist entirely, and therefore to contribute absolutely nothing to greenhouse gases - the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere would decrease by about 0.28%. The remaining 99.72% of greenhouse gases would still be emitted by other naturally occurring sources. So if we tried really, really hard as an entire species globally and managed to reduce AGW emmissions by half world-wide (a virtual and unrealistically impossible task even if applied over 50 years) - with all humans in all areas of the globe cooperating - we'd be able to reduce greenhouse gas emmissions to being 99.86% of what they are right now.

I'm asking for your sources for this "incontrovertible" fact. That's a reasonable request. Everyone's killing the pro-GW crowd for presenting results without producing sources, is it too much to ask to hold both sides to the same standard? Or can I now conclude that your claim is actually false, because you didn't produce the data you used to produce these figures?Keep in mind, I lean towards believing your side of the argument. I'm just asking for you to support it so I can have more confidence that you're right, and not just doing the same exact thing you accuse the other side of doing.

 

[Joseph]

In short, our capability to impact the climate is literally insignificant. To think humans can make that much of an impact is shortsighted and not supported by any data.

this is a mind bogglingly stupid generalization. ever been to LA or Tokyo? smog is caused by PPM (part per MILLION) emissions caused by humans. you then try to make a case that our contribution to emissions in the range of THOUSANDS of PPM cannot possibly have any effect whatsoever. talk about shortsighted. humans can have a VERY strong influence on the environment. while i agree that our CO2 emissions aren't likely to be a driving cause of climate change, to say that there is no effect is ludicrous. we've successfully poisoned habitats around the globe and caused the extinction of literally hundreds of thousands of species through our actions. to assume no harm and say "lalala it doesn't matter" is the position of recklessness.

Tell that to the cap and trade "market based" solution that forces companies to pay for the amount of carbon they emit... If carbon isn't driving climate change what purpose does it serve to limit our carbon emissions?

 

[pantagrapher]

Actually, brain trust, both the adjusted and raw data charts show the same brief cooling period that occurred during the past decade. The fear-mongering, data-manipulating climate goblins that haunt your nightmares would have hidden that.

Thanks for the insults...but this is what I was talking about, not that you care about facts. You just love to demonize people with your childish posts.

You just linked to the same two charts, boy genius.Tracing it backward, this chart and this chart don't diverge until roughly 1960.

 

[P Boy]

You keep bouncing between making broad generalized statements about pollution and the human effect on the environment to narrow assertions on global warming and greenhouse gases. As far as global warming specifically, I am a supporter of neither global warming or anti-global warming. What I am a supporter of is science. And if the scientific community has a consensus on something, I'm not well enough trained to look at cherry-picked or incomplete data to judge otherwise. Apparently you are and can so bully for you. But I'm not entering that morass of a debate.I do not think that anyone needs a background in science, however, to say that the environment is degrading in ways that are important to our survival as a species. Do you disagree?

I'm not the one equating evidence of occurences of highly localized man-made pollution as being incontrovertible evidence of changing global climate parameters. Others are making that mistake, I'm just pointing out the mistake they are making.In regard to consensus, since when is sciencitific theory based upon "consensus"? It's based upon facts substantiating a hypothesis, or modifying a hypothesis depending upon the circumstances. It's also fascinating that a lot of scientists have backed away relatively recently from AGW positions that Al Gore put on the national stage a while ago. If consensus is important to you, why wouldn't you use that to modify your opinion?As far as pollution - sure, I'd love to eliminate all pollution in a fantasy world. But it's not possible. Lot's of things pollute the environment, and some of those things create pollution on a scale much grander thn anything humans can do. Should humans be more respectful of the evironment they live in? Sure, I support that - no one should #### were they sleep. But should we create substantial economic hardships in trying to reduce what is already a minimal impact on the overall condition of the planet? That doesn't make sense to me. We aren't in a global crisis due to any man-made climate changing influence - that impression has only been created by those who seek to gain from the impression that we are.

 

[jonessed]

Data involving CO2 levels aren't relevant to claims about human contributions to greenhouse gases? I'm not sure I buy that. What are your sources for the facts you presented?

This is exactly what I am talking about. Why wouldn't you do some research instead of expecting me to present data to you? The data on this is readily available in numerous places, both in pro and anti-AGW arguments. Charts comparing CO2 levels and temperatures invariably show temperatures increasing prior to CO2 levels increasing. Take 10 minutes and do a web search on it. It's easy to find this correlation in many places.

You made a very specific claim:

If man were suddenly to become extinct tomorrow - to cease to exist entirely, and therefore to contribute absolutely nothing to greenhouse gases - the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere would decrease by about 0.28%. The remaining 99.72% of greenhouse gases would still be emitted by other naturally occurring sources. So if we tried really, really hard as an entire species globally and managed to reduce AGW emmissions by half world-wide (a virtual and unrealistically impossible task even if applied over 50 years) - with all humans in all areas of the globe cooperating - we'd be able to reduce greenhouse gas emmissions to being 99.86% of what they are right now.

I'm asking for your sources for this "incontrovertible" fact. That's a reasonable request. Everyone's killing the pro-GW crowd for presenting results without producing sources, is it too much to ask to hold both sides to the same standard? Or can I now conclude that your claim is actually false, because you didn't produce the data you used to produce these figures?Keep in mind, I lean towards believing your side of the argument. I'm just asking for you to support it so I can have more confidence that you're right, and not just doing the same exact thing you accuse the other side of doing.

That's not how it works. You can't prove a negative. If you want to come up with a hypothesis and create a study/experiment to demonstrate that hypothesis you have to document it so it can be reproduced. If you can't hand it over to someone else to reproduce then your analysis loses credibility. Science is built on this principle. It's something every kids learns in Jr. High.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

I find it hard to imagine that the AGW crowd can't at least admit that the AGW 'threat' was at minimum hyperbolically overstated for political purposes.

 

[P Boy]

I'm asking for your sources for this "incontrovertible" fact. That's a reasonable request. Everyone's killing the pro-GW crowd for presenting results without producing sources, is it too much to ask to hold both sides to the same standard? Or can I now conclude that your claim is actually false, because you didn't produce the data you used to produce these figures?

Keep in mind, I lean towards believing your side of the argument. I'm just asking for you to support it so I can have more confidence that you're right, and not just doing the same exact thing you accuse the other side of doing.

Since you simply refuse to do your own research in order to make a more educated opinion, I'll offer this up as one of many sources. It's pretty easy to read and uses some nice graphics to help illustrate its points. Please read it carefully, and then if you are interested, do that web search and verify this with the many more resources available.link

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Data involving CO2 levels aren't relevant to claims about human contributions to greenhouse gases? I'm not sure I buy that. What are your sources for the facts you presented?

This is exactly what I am talking about. Why wouldn't you do some research instead of expecting me to present data to you? The data on this is readily available in numerous places, both in pro and anti-AGW arguments. Charts comparing CO2 levels and temperatures invariably show temperatures increasing prior to CO2 levels increasing. Take 10 minutes and do a web search on it. It's easy to find this correlation in many places.

You made a very specific claim:

If man were suddenly to become extinct tomorrow - to cease to exist entirely, and therefore to contribute absolutely nothing to greenhouse gases - the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere would decrease by about 0.28%. The remaining 99.72% of greenhouse gases would still be emitted by other naturally occurring sources. So if we tried really, really hard as an entire species globally and managed to reduce AGW emmissions by half world-wide (a virtual and unrealistically impossible task even if applied over 50 years) - with all humans in all areas of the globe cooperating - we'd be able to reduce greenhouse gas emmissions to being 99.86% of what they are right now.

I'm asking for your sources for this "incontrovertible" fact. That's a reasonable request. Everyone's killing the pro-GW crowd for presenting results without producing sources, is it too much to ask to hold both sides to the same standard? Or can I now conclude that your claim is actually false, because you didn't produce the data you used to produce these figures?Keep in mind, I lean towards believing your side of the argument. I'm just asking for you to support it so I can have more confidence that you're right, and not just doing the same exact thing you accuse the other side of doing.

That's not how it works. You can't prove a negative. If you want to come up with a hypothesis and create a study/experiment to demonstrate that hypothesis you have to document it so it can be reproduced. If you can't hand it over to someone else to reproduce then your analysis loses credibility. Science is built on this principle. It's something every kids learns in Jr. High.

Every kid develops reading comprehension skills in school, too. Or so I thought. I didn't ask anyone to prove a negative. P Boy made a very specific assertion. I asked him for his sources. It's unbelievably simple. And I'm not even arguing against his point, I actually think he's probably right. But thank you for your valuable contribution to the conversation.

 

[jon_mx]

Actually, brain trust, both the adjusted and raw data charts show the same brief cooling period that occurred during the past decade. The fear-mongering, data-manipulating climate goblins that haunt your nightmares would have hidden that.

Thanks for the insults...but this is what I was talking about, not that you care about facts. You just love to demonize people with your childish posts.

You just linked to the same two charts, boy genius.Tracing it backward, this chart and this chart don't diverge until roughly 1960.

???? Besides continuing to be a junvenile, what is your point? The data was manipulated to show an upward trend. That was not to illustrate what the emails were talking about, but another example of data manipulation. I was not talking about the brief cooling period of the past decade.

 

[the moops]

I find it hard to imagine that the AGW crowd can't at least admit that the AGW 'threat' was at minimum hyperbolically overstated for political purposes.

Probably was.Just as the anti-AGW crowd was at minimum hyperbolically overstated for political purposes.

 

[pantagrapher]

Actually, brain trust, both the adjusted and raw data charts show the same brief cooling period that occurred during the past decade. The fear-mongering, data-manipulating climate goblins that haunt your nightmares would have hidden that.

Thanks for the insults...but this is what I was talking about, not that you care about facts. You just love to demonize people with your childish posts.

You just linked to the same two charts, boy genius.Tracing it backward, this chart and this chart don't diverge until roughly 1960.

???? Besides continuing to be a junvenile, what is your point? The data was manipulated to show an upward trend. That was not to illustrate what the emails were talking about, but another example of data manipulation. I was not talking about the brief cooling period of the past decade.

Processing data is not the scandal, manipulating data to hide the fact that we haven't seen warming in the last 10 years is.

You're killing me, man.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I'm asking for your sources for this "incontrovertible" fact. That's a reasonable request. Everyone's killing the pro-GW crowd for presenting results without producing sources, is it too much to ask to hold both sides to the same standard? Or can I now conclude that your claim is actually false, because you didn't produce the data you used to produce these figures?

Keep in mind, I lean towards believing your side of the argument. I'm just asking for you to support it so I can have more confidence that you're right, and not just doing the same exact thing you accuse the other side of doing.

Since you simply refuse to do your own research in order to make a more educated opinion, I'll offer this up as one of many sources. It's pretty easy to read and uses some nice graphics to help illustrate its points. Please read it carefully, and then if you are interested, do that web search and verify this with the many more resources available.link

It's a shame you have such a negative attitude and an insulting tone towards someone who agrees with you and is trying to better understand your point. It's also a shame that you don't see the blatant hypocrisy of the stance you've taken here. You present an "incontrovertible fact" but rather than produce the sources, you immediately take a defensive stance and say the burden is on me to dig up whatever source material you used to make your extremely specific claims. Save the rest of the childish insults for someone who respects your opinion enough to care. Your attitude is an embarrassment to anyone who actually wants to engage in a rational discussion. Thanks for providing a link (finally).

 

[Challenge Everything]

Is the Earth warming due to human consumption, manipulation? Yes and No.

Do humans have an impact on the Earth and its resources? Yes.

If the Earth is cooling on a global scale naturally, why are certain things in the environment happening?

If the Earth is warming on a global scale naturally, why are certain things in the environment happening?

For those that are saying the Earth is cooling in the last decade or how many ever years, why are ice caps melting and not growing back to their previous state? Why are glaciers disappearing at an exponential rate? Why are parts of the ocean warmer than years previous?

These are all separate issues within the global warming/climate change aspect. There is a 100% certainty that humans have an impact on all of these. What degree do humans have an impact on all of these is the question. Taking small bits of information and concluding that those could happen on a large scale versus "the Earth goes up an down naturally" are two completely different arguments. Yes, the Earth has natural trends. Yes, humans can speed up some of these trends by what we do.

Take a small sample, test it within different environments and if those tests show similar results, voila, those may then happen on a larger scale. To simply dismiss these types of things is not a good thing to do yet many are doing it. Sure, this science facility messed up with its data and whatever else, however, that in no way concludes that everything else within global warming/climate change should be dismissed or even negated.

 

[jon_mx]

You're killing me, man.

Those were two DIFFERENT points. That was a DIFFERENT example of data manipulation. DIFFERENT than the CRU emails. That was in NEW ZEALAND. Not the same. They were several sentences apart. Can you please keep stuff in context and grow up a bit in the process?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

You're killing me, man.

Those were two DIFFERENT points. That was a DIFFERENT example of data manipulation. DIFFERENT than the CRU emails. That was in NEW ZEALAND. Not the same. They were several sentences apart. Can you please keep stuff in context and grow up a bit in the process?

Still projecting your own posting faults on others...

 

[jon_mx]

You're killing me, man.

Those were two DIFFERENT points. That was a DIFFERENT example of data manipulation. DIFFERENT than the CRU emails. That was in NEW ZEALAND. Not the same. They were several sentences apart. Can you please keep stuff in context and grow up a bit in the process?

Still projecting your own posting faults on others...

Still trying desperately to change the subject and make it personal. You guys are lame. Debate the subject or go somewhere else.

 

[jonessed]

I'm asking for your sources for this "incontrovertible" fact. That's a reasonable request. Everyone's killing the pro-GW crowd for presenting results without producing sources, is it too much to ask to hold both sides to the same standard? Or can I now conclude that your claim is actually false, because you didn't produce the data you used to produce these figures?

Keep in mind, I lean towards believing your side of the argument. I'm just asking for you to support it so I can have more confidence that you're right, and not just doing the same exact thing you accuse the other side of doing.

Since you simply refuse to do your own research in order to make a more educated opinion, I'll offer this up as one of many sources. It's pretty easy to read and uses some nice graphics to help illustrate its points. Please read it carefully, and then if you are interested, do that web search and verify this with the many more resources available.link

It's a shame you have such a negative attitude and an insulting tone towards someone who agrees with you and is trying to better understand your point. It's also a shame that you don't see the blatant hypocrisy of the stance you've taken here. You present an "incontrovertible fact" but rather than produce the sources, you immediately take a defensive stance and say the burden is on me to dig up whatever source material you used to make your extremely specific claims. Save the rest of the childish insults for someone who respects your opinion enough to care. Your attitude is an embarrassment to anyone who actually wants to engage in a rational discussion. Thanks for providing a link (finally).

Oh, the irony.

 

[ElGatoLoco]

You're killing me, man.

Those were two DIFFERENT points. That was a DIFFERENT example of data manipulation. DIFFERENT than the CRU emails. That was in NEW ZEALAND. Not the same. They were several sentences apart. Can you please keep stuff in context and grow up a bit in the process?

Still projecting your own posting faults on others...

Still trying desperately to change the subject and make it personal. You guys are lame. Debate the subject or go somewhere else.

:reported:

 

[P Boy]

It's a shame you have such a negative attitude and an insulting tone towards someone who agrees with you and is trying to better understand your point. It's also a shame that you don't see the blatant hypocrisy of the stance you've taken here. You present an "incontrovertible fact" but rather than produce the sources, you immediately take a defensive stance and say the burden is on me to dig up whatever source material you used to make your extremely specific claims. Save the rest of the childish insults for someone who respects your opinion enough to care. Your attitude is an embarrassment to anyone who actually wants to engage in a rational discussion. Thanks for providing a link (finally).

Enough of playing a victim. You claimed yourself to be uneducated in this, and all you have to do is a minimal amount of research of data from both sides (which I emplored you to do) - of which there is ample resources. Instead you sit here repeatedly asking me to prove my point when you've done very little to enhance your own understanding. If you aren't going to make an effort to improve your knowledge of the position, given that it could cost this country hundreds of millions of dollars and the very real potential for a bunch of businesses to close if we end up with some kind of "cap & trade" restrictions on us, that's on you. Belief in this fallacy could cost this country dearly. You need to get some facts to understand both sides of the argument. One of the worst places to get them is here - you need to find the facts on your own, make a decision that you are comfortable with, and then join the fray. Don't try to put it off on me being mean.

 

[Bonzai]

It's a shame you have such a negative attitude and an insulting tone towards someone who agrees with you and is trying to better understand your point. It's also a shame that you don't see the blatant hypocrisy of the stance you've taken here. You present an "incontrovertible fact" but rather than produce the sources, you immediately take a defensive stance and say the burden is on me to dig up whatever source material you used to make your extremely specific claims.

Save the rest of the childish insults for someone who respects your opinion enough to care. Your attitude is an embarrassment to anyone who actually wants to engage in a rational discussion. Thanks for providing a link (finally).

Enough of playing a victim. You claimed yourself to be uneducated in this, and all you have to do is a minimal amount of research of data from both sides (which I emplored you to do) - of which there is ample resources. Instead you sit here repeatedly asking me to prove my point when you've done very little to enhance your own understanding. If you aren't going to make an effort to improve your knowledge of the position, given that it could cost this country hundreds of millions of dollars and the very real potential for a bunch of businesses to close if we end up with some kind of "cap & trade" restrictions on us, that's on you. Belief in this fallacy could cost this country dearly. You need to get some facts to understand both sides of the argument. One of the worst places to get them is here - you need to find the facts on your own, make a decision that you are comfortable with, and then join the fray. Don't try to put it off on me being mean.

Isn't the bolded the same position as the CRU?

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I'm asking for your sources for this "incontrovertible" fact. That's a reasonable request. Everyone's killing the pro-GW crowd for presenting results without producing sources, is it too much to ask to hold both sides to the same standard? Or can I now conclude that your claim is actually false, because you didn't produce the data you used to produce these figures?

Keep in mind, I lean towards believing your side of the argument. I'm just asking for you to support it so I can have more confidence that you're right, and not just doing the same exact thing you accuse the other side of doing.

Since you simply refuse to do your own research in order to make a more educated opinion, I'll offer this up as one of many sources. It's pretty easy to read and uses some nice graphics to help illustrate its points. Please read it carefully, and then if you are interested, do that web search and verify this with the many more resources available.link

It's a shame you have such a negative attitude and an insulting tone towards someone who agrees with you and is trying to better understand your point. It's also a shame that you don't see the blatant hypocrisy of the stance you've taken here. You present an "incontrovertible fact" but rather than produce the sources, you immediately take a defensive stance and say the burden is on me to dig up whatever source material you used to make your extremely specific claims. Save the rest of the childish insults for someone who respects your opinion enough to care. Your attitude is an embarrassment to anyone who actually wants to engage in a rational discussion. Thanks for providing a link (finally).

Oh, the irony.

The hits keep on coming.

 

[jonessed]

It's a shame you have such a negative attitude and an insulting tone towards someone who agrees with you and is trying to better understand your point. It's also a shame that you don't see the blatant hypocrisy of the stance you've taken here. You present an "incontrovertible fact" but rather than produce the sources, you immediately take a defensive stance and say the burden is on me to dig up whatever source material you used to make your extremely specific claims.

Save the rest of the childish insults for someone who respects your opinion enough to care. Your attitude is an embarrassment to anyone who actually wants to engage in a rational discussion. Thanks for providing a link (finally).

Enough of playing a victim. You claimed yourself to be uneducated in this, and all you have to do is a minimal amount of research of data from both sides (which I emplored you to do) - of which there is ample resources. Instead you sit here repeatedly asking me to prove my point when you've done very little to enhance your own understanding. If you aren't going to make an effort to improve your knowledge of the position, given that it could cost this country hundreds of millions of dollars and the very real potential for a bunch of businesses to close if we end up with some kind of "cap & trade" restrictions on us, that's on you. Belief in this fallacy could cost this country dearly. You need to get some facts to understand both sides of the argument. One of the worst places to get them is here - you need to find the facts on your own, make a decision that you are comfortable with, and then join the fray. Don't try to put it off on me being mean.

Isn't this the bolded the same position as the CRU?

Yes, which is exactly why there is a problem. Anyone can form an opinion, but when you conduct a scientific study there is a strict set of rules to follow. My mentor in my early data mining career sat me aside my first day in the office and told me that what we were doing wasn't science. It kind of took me aback, but most of my co-workers spent a lot of time in science academia (PhD's in Physics, Statistics, etc.) and it was important to them that all of us lower level analysts understand that while there was a process, it was not a standard used in science.

The idea of the scientific process, of re-creating and sharing information, is a fundamental part of science. This topic has become so politicized that we allowed climatologists to deny peer review for opposing viewpoints, withhold sharing data (they didn't even keep the data), and withhold their models. Hell, it took this scandal to get them to even share their code. These are studies being run on the public dime. Studies we are proposing trillions of dollars of economic changes to accomodate and they are being worked in a black box.

This is absurd. Not scientific theory should be above the scientific process.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Still trying desperately to change the subject and make it personal. You guys are lame. Debate the subject or go somewhere else.

You haven't made an argument that is worth considering.Your claims are1) Private E-Mails that were hacked which show the egotistical, competitive, sometime impolite side of individual means that there work as climate scientist must be invalidated.2) Private E-Mails that were hacked which show that a web page dedicate to presenting current information about the climate offered some scientists a forum to defend itself against attacks that the site's owners did not believe originated in "science" but instead "politics".3) Private E-Mails that were hacked which show that the author of the E-Mail used the term "tricked".4) That raw data 20 or more years old was not retained when moving to new facilities, but the "altered" data that resulted from this raw data still exists.5) That when plotted out the raw data from New Zealand looks different than the "altered" data.What else did I miss? So based on this one is suppose to conclude that millions of people are involved in a grand conspiracy to falsify evidence that the world is warming because of man's activities? Again you might ultimately be correct that the science is wrong, but even calling the above evidence of anything is silly. This isn't a debating club where you win by catching others unprepared to refute your claims, this is about science. None of the above deals with science. Maybe the data here was wrongly tweaked and inappropriately trusted and lots of work that built off of this is fatally flawed. But the claim that since the raw data doesn't exists and/or the phrase "tricked" was used we must conclude or even highly suspect that it must have been fraudulently manipulated is absurd. But the real problem you have is offering evidence that millions of scientist have put their own ambition, their own egos, their own pettiness, their own human faults aside in order to go with the flow and simply nod their heads in agreement with this organization. Is this really your position?Maybe I should get out of this thread if all it is is a bunch of "anti AGW Crusaders" slapping each other on the back over this nonsense.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Enough of playing a victim. You claimed yourself to be uneducated in this, and all you have to do is a minimal amount of research of data from both sides (which I emplored you to do) - of which there is ample resources. Instead you sit here repeatedly asking me to prove my point when you've done very little to enhance your own understanding. If you aren't going to make an effort to improve your knowledge of the position, given that it could cost this country hundreds of millions of dollars and the very real potential for a bunch of businesses to close if we end up with some kind of "cap & trade" restrictions on us, that's on you. Belief in this fallacy could cost this country dearly. You need to get some facts to understand both sides of the argument. One of the worst places to get them is here - you need to find the facts on your own, make a decision that you are comfortable with, and then join the fray. Don't try to put it off on me being mean.

Says the guy who posts "incotrovertible facts" here and lambasts anyone who doesn't immediately agree with their validity, despite his senseless resistance to produce a source for said facts. You'd change more minds if you changed your attitude, that's all I'm saying. And my mind didn't even need changing, just confirmation.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Still trying desperately to change the subject and make it personal. You guys are lame. Debate the subject or go somewhere else.

You haven't made an argument that is worth considering.Your claims are1) Private E-Mails that were hacked which show the egotistical, competitive, sometime impolite side of individual means that there work as climate scientist must be invalidated.2) Private E-Mails that were hacked which show that a web page dedicate to presenting current information about the climate offered some scientists a forum to defend itself against attacks that the site's owners did not believe originated in "science" but instead "politics".3) Private E-Mails that were hacked which show that the author of the E-Mail used the term "tricked".4) That raw data 20 or more years old was not retained when moving to new facilities, but the "altered" data that resulted from this raw data still exists.5) That when plotted out the raw data from New Zealand looks different than the "altered" data.What else did I miss? So based on this one is suppose to conclude that millions of people are involved in a grand conspiracy to falsify evidence that the world is warming because of man's activities? Again you might ultimately be correct that the science is wrong, but even calling the above evidence of anything is silly. This isn't a debating club where you win by catching others unprepared to refute your claims, this is about science. None of the above deals with science. Maybe the data here was wrongly tweaked and inappropriately trusted and lots of work that built off of this is fatally flawed. But the claim that since the raw data doesn't exists and/or the phrase "tricked" was used we must conclude or even highly suspect that it must have been fraudulently manipulated is absurd. But the real problem you have is offering evidence that millions of scientist have put their own ambition, their own egos, their own pettiness, their own human faults aside in order to go with the flow and simply nod their heads in agreement with this organization. Is this really your position?Maybe I should get out of this thread if all it is is a bunch of "anti AGW Crusaders" slapping each other on the back over this nonsense.

Um, you forgot the buggy code and corrupt data in their database. But who cares whether the data is corrupt or if programs they use to convince us that global warming is real just continue on when errors occur, right?

 

[P Boy]

Enough of playing a victim. You claimed yourself to be uneducated in this, and all you have to do is a minimal amount of research of data from both sides (which I emplored you to do) - of which there is ample resources. Instead you sit here repeatedly asking me to prove my point when you've done very little to enhance your own understanding. If you aren't going to make an effort to improve your knowledge of the position, given that it could cost this country hundreds of millions of dollars and the very real potential for a bunch of businesses to close if we end up with some kind of "cap & trade" restrictions on us, that's on you. Belief in this fallacy could cost this country dearly. You need to get some facts to understand both sides of the argument. One of the worst places to get them is here - you need to find the facts on your own, make a decision that you are comfortable with, and then join the fray. Don't try to put it off on me being mean.

Says the guy who posts "incotrovertible facts" here and lambasts anyone who doesn't immediately agree with their validity, despite his senseless resistance to produce a source for said facts. You'd change more minds if you changed your attitude, that's all I'm saying. And my mind didn't even need changing, just confirmation.

Okay, I provided green house gas components and the amount man has contributed - which no one has refuted. These numbers are consistent withy many other sources.I would defy anyone to refute the ice age/interglacial material I posted. It is extremely well documented.

I'll stand by that. Again - I strongly encourage anyone to do even a modicum of research, and then enter the fray. This stuff is very important, and we're headed down a path that's going to damage the country. We can't keep taking economic hits and expect to remain a leader in the world. Cap & trade legislation based upon AGW myths could be a huge hit.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Still trying desperately to change the subject and make it personal. You guys are lame. Debate the subject or go somewhere else.

You haven't made an argument that is worth considering.Your claims are1) Private E-Mails that were hacked which show the egotistical, competitive, sometime impolite side of individual means that there work as climate scientist must be invalidated.2) Private E-Mails that were hacked which show that a web page dedicate to presenting current information about the climate offered some scientists a forum to defend itself against attacks that the site's owners did not believe originated in "science" but instead "politics".3) Private E-Mails that were hacked which show that the author of the E-Mail used the term "tricked".4) That raw data 20 or more years old was not retained when moving to new facilities, but the "altered" data that resulted from this raw data still exists.5) That when plotted out the raw data from New Zealand looks different than the "altered" data.What else did I miss? So based on this one is suppose to conclude that millions of people are involved in a grand conspiracy to falsify evidence that the world is warming because of man's activities? Again you might ultimately be correct that the science is wrong, but even calling the above evidence of anything is silly. This isn't a debating club where you win by catching others unprepared to refute your claims, this is about science. None of the above deals with science. Maybe the data here was wrongly tweaked and inappropriately trusted and lots of work that built off of this is fatally flawed. But the claim that since the raw data doesn't exists and/or the phrase "tricked" was used we must conclude or even highly suspect that it must have been fraudulently manipulated is absurd. But the real problem you have is offering evidence that millions of scientist have put their own ambition, their own egos, their own pettiness, their own human faults aside in order to go with the flow and simply nod their heads in agreement with this organization. Is this really your position?Maybe I should get out of this thread if all it is is a bunch of "anti AGW Crusaders" slapping each other on the back over this nonsense.

Um, you forgot the buggy code and corrupt data in their database. But who cares whether the data is corrupt or if programs they use to convince us that global warming is real just continue on when errors occur, right?

Fair enough, butWho said to just ignore it? All I have said is that it is an absurd conclusion that this proves that "GW is Conspiracy/Fraud". Maybe in this individual case it is where the fraud can be hidden in a program so no one else notices. Maybe it is just honest mistakes. Maybe the results are meaningless. Maybe the bugs are meaningless, or long squashed. I'm not jumping to any conclusions based on this, but you guys, at least some of you guys are closing the book. If you want to stop "Cap and Trade" and other GW policies based on actual facts maybe someone can do the hard work and show how these things are actually wrong rather than just jumping to conclusions about what some support programmers comments must mean. I'm not on any real side of this particular debate. I have no position to defend other than a belief that most, but not all policy that address this topic also address pollution and more importantly energy and defense issues. Connect the dots how this one institution (ignoring the independent New Zealand claims) can fool everyone else? Are the other institutions that it lists as being bigger also in on this grand conspiracy?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

...This stuff is very important, and we're headed down a path that's going to damage the country. We can't keep taking economic hits and expect to remain a leader in the world. Cap & trade legislation based upon AGW myths could be a huge hit.

I'm more concerned that the rest of the industrial world sees this as an opportunity to get ahead of us via innovation. Do we really want to be forced to buy our energy technology from China?

 

[StrikeS2k]

Um, you forgot the buggy code and corrupt data in their database. But who cares whether the data is corrupt or if programs they use to convince us that global warming is real just continue on when errors occur, right?

Fair enough, butWho said to just ignore it? All I have said is that it is an absurd conclusion that this proves that "GW is Conspiracy/Fraud". Maybe in this individual case it is where the fraud can be hidden in a program so no one else notices. Maybe it is just honest mistakes. Maybe the results are meaningless. Maybe the bugs are meaningless, or long squashed. I'm not jumping to any conclusions based on this, but you guys, at least some of you guys are closing the book.

I don't think many of us are. Maybe Pboy but I can't say for sure. My stance is that we need REAL research in to whether AGW is real or not. These scandals are problematic because these are some of the more influential "climate change" researchers and now their conclusions are suspect at best. What that means to me is we say "whoa" on any additional policy changes re: AGW until we can get to the bottom of these scandals and, if their conclusions are worthless, go back to the drawing board and compile new evidence. Also, the fact that these people can't explain why GW has STOPPED for the last ten years despite their supposed advanced computer models that didn't predict it would stop, suggests that we don't understand this issue nearly as well as we're being told we do.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

...This stuff is very important, and we're headed down a path that's going to damage the country. We can't keep taking economic hits and expect to remain a leader in the world. Cap & trade legislation based upon AGW myths could be a huge hit.

I'm more concerned that the rest of the industrial world sees this as an opportunity to get ahead of us via innovation. Do we really want to be forced to buy our energy technology from China?

I may be wrong, but I don't think China is on board with Cap and Trade. They'll use this as an opportunity to continue unfettered growth and production. If they accelerate innovation, it will be due to market forces, not Cap and Trade.

 

[jonessed]

Still trying desperately to change the subject and make it personal. You guys are lame. Debate the subject or go somewhere else.

You haven't made an argument that is worth considering.Your claims are

1) Private E-Mails that were hacked which show the egotistical, competitive, sometime impolite side of individual means that there work as climate scientist must be invalidated.

2) Private E-Mails that were hacked which show that a web page dedicate to presenting current information about the climate offered some scientists a forum to defend itself against attacks that the site's owners did not believe originated in "science" but instead "politics".

3) Private E-Mails that were hacked which show that the author of the E-Mail used the term "tricked".

4) That raw data 20 or more years old was not retained when moving to new facilities, but the "altered" data that resulted from this raw data still exists.

5) That when plotted out the raw data from New Zealand looks different than the "altered" data.

What else did I miss? So based on this one is suppose to conclude that millions of people are involved in a grand conspiracy to falsify evidence that the world is warming because of man's activities? Again you might ultimately be correct that the science is wrong, but even calling the above evidence of anything is silly. This isn't a debating club where you win by catching others unprepared to refute your claims, this is about science. None of the above deals with science.

Maybe the data here was wrongly tweaked and inappropriately trusted and lots of work that built off of this is fatally flawed. But the claim that since the raw data doesn't exists and/or the phrase "tricked" was used we must conclude or even highly suspect that it must have been fraudulently manipulated is absurd.

But the real problem you have is offering evidence that millions of scientist have put their own ambition, their own egos, their own pettiness, their own human faults aside in order to go with the flow and simply nod their heads in agreement with this organization. Is this really your position?

Maybe I should get out of this thread if all it is is a bunch of "anti AGW Crusaders" slapping each other on the back over this nonsense.

Um, you forgot the buggy code and corrupt data in their database. But who cares whether the data is corrupt or if programs they use to convince us that global warming is real just continue on when errors occur, right?

Fair enough, butWho said to just ignore it? All I have said is that it is an absurd conclusion that this proves that "GW is Conspiracy/Fraud". Maybe in this individual case it is where the fraud can be hidden in a program so no one else notices. Maybe it is just honest mistakes. Maybe the results are meaningless. Maybe the bugs are meaningless, or long squashed. I'm not jumping to any conclusions based on this, but you guys, at least some of you guys are closing the book.

If you want to stop "Cap and Trade" and other GW policies based on actual facts maybe someone can do the hard work and show how these things are actually wrong rather than just jumping to conclusions about what some support programmers comments must mean. I'm not on any real side of this particular debate. I have no position to defend other than a belief that most, but not all policy that address this topic also address pollution and more importantly energy and defense issues. Connect the dots how this one institution (ignoring the independent New Zealand claims) can fool everyone else? Are the other institutions that it lists as being bigger also in on this grand conspiracy?

I think it shows we need to slow the train down and allow people to scrutinize the models and data (what's left of it) that are behind the decision-making process. It's time to open this back up to the scientific process before we continue to make large-scale economic decisions.I have always supported alternative energy, but that has the added benefit of weening us off of oil. Cap and trade is targeted moreso at our coal industry, which is one of our more abundant resources. Artificially inflating energy prices while simultaneously trying to cover trillion dollar annual deficits makes no sense unless you are damn sure those changes are urgent and are going to make a reasonable impact.

 

[Bonzai]

It's a shame you have such a negative attitude and an insulting tone towards someone who agrees with you and is trying to better understand your point. It's also a shame that you don't see the blatant hypocrisy of the stance you've taken here. You present an "incontrovertible fact" but rather than produce the sources, you immediately take a defensive stance and say the burden is on me to dig up whatever source material you used to make your extremely specific claims.

Save the rest of the childish insults for someone who respects your opinion enough to care. Your attitude is an embarrassment to anyone who actually wants to engage in a rational discussion. Thanks for providing a link (finally).

Enough of playing a victim. You claimed yourself to be uneducated in this, and all you have to do is a minimal amount of research of data from both sides (which I emplored you to do) - of which there is ample resources. Instead you sit here repeatedly asking me to prove my point when you've done very little to enhance your own understanding. If you aren't going to make an effort to improve your knowledge of the position, given that it could cost this country hundreds of millions of dollars and the very real potential for a bunch of businesses to close if we end up with some kind of "cap & trade" restrictions on us, that's on you. Belief in this fallacy could cost this country dearly. You need to get some facts to understand both sides of the argument. One of the worst places to get them is here - you need to find the facts on your own, make a decision that you are comfortable with, and then join the fray. Don't try to put it off on me being mean.

Isn't this the bolded the same position as the CRU?

Yes, which is exactly why there is a problem. Anyone can form an opinion, but when you conduct a scientific study there is a strict set of rules to follow. My mentor in my early data mining career sat me aside my first day in the office and told me that what we were doing wasn't science. It kind of took me aback, but most of my co-workers spent a lot of time in science academia (PhD's in Physics, Statistics, etc.) and it was important to them that all of us lower level analysts understand that while there was a process, it was not a standard used in science.

The idea of the scientific process, of re-creating and sharing information, is a fundamental part of science. This topic has become so politicized that we allowed climatologists to deny peer review for opposing viewpoints, withhold sharing data (they didn't even keep the data), and withhold their models. Hell, it took this scandal to get them to even share their code. These are studies being run on the public dime. Studies we are proposing trillions of dollars of economic changes to accomodate and they are being worked in a black box.

This is absurd. Not scientific theory should be above the scientific process.

Cool story, bro.To say that the CRU works in a "black box" is just dumb. Simply because they don't respond to each and every skeptic doesn't mean that they're withholding information. Their research has been shared and re-created by peers in the scientific community (most prominently by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies). They don't have an obligation to share it with every Tom, ****, and Harry, especially if they think they might be politically motivated or acting in bad faith.

Yes, because the nature of their research has become politicized, they have a giant target on their backs. And as a result, they got defensive and hostile with certain parties. Having the option to do it differently, I think they might have. But it's easy to understand why they got their panties ruffled when folks who aren't even qualified to replicate the research are asking for information to try to find some loophole or technicality in an attempt to distort and bring down their life's work.

 

[jonessed]

It's a shame you have such a negative attitude and an insulting tone towards someone who agrees with you and is trying to better understand your point. It's also a shame that you don't see the blatant hypocrisy of the stance you've taken here. You present an "incontrovertible fact" but rather than produce the sources, you immediately take a defensive stance and say the burden is on me to dig up whatever source material you used to make your extremely specific claims.

Save the rest of the childish insults for someone who respects your opinion enough to care. Your attitude is an embarrassment to anyone who actually wants to engage in a rational discussion. Thanks for providing a link (finally).

Enough of playing a victim. You claimed yourself to be uneducated in this, and all you have to do is a minimal amount of research of data from both sides (which I emplored you to do) - of which there is ample resources. Instead you sit here repeatedly asking me to prove my point when you've done very little to enhance your own understanding. If you aren't going to make an effort to improve your knowledge of the position, given that it could cost this country hundreds of millions of dollars and the very real potential for a bunch of businesses to close if we end up with some kind of "cap & trade" restrictions on us, that's on you. Belief in this fallacy could cost this country dearly. You need to get some facts to understand both sides of the argument. One of the worst places to get them is here - you need to find the facts on your own, make a decision that you are comfortable with, and then join the fray. Don't try to put it off on me being mean.

Isn't this the bolded the same position as the CRU?

Yes, which is exactly why there is a problem. Anyone can form an opinion, but when you conduct a scientific study there is a strict set of rules to follow. My mentor in my early data mining career sat me aside my first day in the office and told me that what we were doing wasn't science. It kind of took me aback, but most of my co-workers spent a lot of time in science academia (PhD's in Physics, Statistics, etc.) and it was important to them that all of us lower level analysts understand that while there was a process, it was not a standard used in science.

The idea of the scientific process, of re-creating and sharing information, is a fundamental part of science. This topic has become so politicized that we allowed climatologists to deny peer review for opposing viewpoints, withhold sharing data (they didn't even keep the data), and withhold their models. Hell, it took this scandal to get them to even share their code. These are studies being run on the public dime. Studies we are proposing trillions of dollars of economic changes to accomodate and they are being worked in a black box.

This is absurd. Not scientific theory should be above the scientific process.

Cool story, bro.To say that the CRU works in a "black box" is just dumb. Simply because they don't respond to each and every skeptic doesn't mean that they're withholding information. Their research has been shared and re-created by peers in the scientific community (most prominently by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies). They don't have an obligation to share it with every Tom, ****, and Harry, especially if they think they might be politically motivated or acting in bad faith.

Yes, because the nature of their research has become politicized, they have a giant target on their backs. And as a result, they got defensive and hostile with certain parties. Having the option to do it differently, I think they might have. But it's easy to understand why they got their panties ruffled when folks who aren't even qualified to replicate the research are asking for information to try to find some loophole or technicality in an attempt to distort and bring down their life's work.

Their models have always been held relatively secret (it took a Freedom iof Information suit to even get them to release the data, much less the models). They are releasing them now for the first time because of all of the scrutiny they are under. This shouldn't be proprietary information. It's built off of the public dime with data centers funded by public monies. If they want to be held up as scientists they need to subject their work to the scientific process. That means skeptics and those with differing opinions on what is causing Global Warming need to have access to the studies.

 

[Bonzai]

Still trying desperately to change the subject and make it personal. You guys are lame. Debate the subject or go somewhere else.

You haven't made an argument that is worth considering.Your claims are

1) Private E-Mails that were hacked which show the egotistical, competitive, sometime impolite side of individual means that there work as climate scientist must be invalidated.

2) Private E-Mails that were hacked which show that a web page dedicate to presenting current information about the climate offered some scientists a forum to defend itself against attacks that the site's owners did not believe originated in "science" but instead "politics".

3) Private E-Mails that were hacked which show that the author of the E-Mail used the term "tricked".

4) That raw data 20 or more years old was not retained when moving to new facilities, but the "altered" data that resulted from this raw data still exists.

5) That when plotted out the raw data from New Zealand looks different than the "altered" data.

What else did I miss? So based on this one is suppose to conclude that millions of people are involved in a grand conspiracy to falsify evidence that the world is warming because of man's activities? Again you might ultimately be correct that the science is wrong, but even calling the above evidence of anything is silly. This isn't a debating club where you win by catching others unprepared to refute your claims, this is about science. None of the above deals with science.

Maybe the data here was wrongly tweaked and inappropriately trusted and lots of work that built off of this is fatally flawed. But the claim that since the raw data doesn't exists and/or the phrase "tricked" was used we must conclude or even highly suspect that it must have been fraudulently manipulated is absurd.

But the real problem you have is offering evidence that millions of scientist have put their own ambition, their own egos, their own pettiness, their own human faults aside in order to go with the flow and simply nod their heads in agreement with this organization. Is this really your position?

Maybe I should get out of this thread if all it is is a bunch of "anti AGW Crusaders" slapping each other on the back over this nonsense.

Um, you forgot the buggy code and corrupt data in their database. But who cares whether the data is corrupt or if programs they use to convince us that global warming is real just continue on when errors occur, right?

Fair enough, butWho said to just ignore it? All I have said is that it is an absurd conclusion that this proves that "GW is Conspiracy/Fraud". Maybe in this individual case it is where the fraud can be hidden in a program so no one else notices. Maybe it is just honest mistakes. Maybe the results are meaningless. Maybe the bugs are meaningless, or long squashed. I'm not jumping to any conclusions based on this, but you guys, at least some of you guys are closing the book.

If you want to stop "Cap and Trade" and other GW policies based on actual facts maybe someone can do the hard work and show how these things are actually wrong rather than just jumping to conclusions about what some support programmers comments must mean. I'm not on any real side of this particular debate. I have no position to defend other than a belief that most, but not all policy that address this topic also address pollution and more importantly energy and defense issues. Connect the dots how this one institution (ignoring the independent New Zealand claims) can fool everyone else? Are the other institutions that it lists as being bigger also in on this grand conspiracy?

I think it shows we need to slow the train down and allow people to scrutinize the models and data (what's left of it) that are behind the decision-making process. It's time to open this back up to the scientific process before we continue to make large-scale economic decisions.I have always supported alternative energy, but that has the added benefit of weening us off of oil. Cap and trade is targeted moreso at our coal industry, which is one of our more abundant resources. Artificially inflating energy prices while simultaneously trying to cover trillion dollar annual deficits makes no sense unless you are damn sure those changes are urgent and are going to make a reasonable impact.

 

[Bonzai]

Their models have always been held relatively secret (it took a Freedom iof Information suit to even get them to release the data, much less the models). They are releasing them now for the first time because of all of the scrutiny they are under. This shouldn't be proprietary information. It's built off of the public dime with data centers funded by public monies. If they want to be held up as scientists they need to subject their work to the scientific process. That means skeptics and those with differing opinions on what is causing Global Warming need to have access to the studies.

Again, the CRU's research is available to the scientific community and is heavily peer reviewed.

 

[jonessed]

Their models have always been held relatively secret (it took a Freedom iof Information suit to even get them to release the data, much less the models). They are releasing them now for the first time because of all of the scrutiny they are under. This shouldn't be proprietary information. It's built off of the public dime with data centers funded by public monies. If they want to be held up as scientists they need to subject their work to the scientific process. That means skeptics and those with differing opinions on what is causing Global Warming need to have access to the studies.

Again, the CRU's research is available to the scientific community and is heavily peer reviewed.

The results have always been available, but no, the code has never been made publicly available. It's not really peer review to have people that agree with you rubber stamp the process. If you want to claim you are peer reviewed then it all of it needs to be available to all of your peers. You don't get to pick and choose.

 

[jonessed]

Their models have always been held relatively secret (it took a Freedom iof Information suit to even get them to release the data, much less the models). They are releasing them now for the first time because of all of the scrutiny they are under. This shouldn't be proprietary information. It's built off of the public dime with data centers funded by public monies. If they want to be held up as scientists they need to subject their work to the scientific process. That means skeptics and those with differing opinions on what is causing Global Warming need to have access to the studies.

Again, the CRU's research is available to the scientific community and is heavily peer reviewed.

The results have always been available, but no, the code has never been made publicly available. It's not really peer review to have people that agree with you rubber stamp the process. If you want to claim you are peer reviewed then it all of it needs to be available to all of your peers. You don't get to pick and choose.

Do you have any idea on what peer review actually means?Generally speaking, not all of what you do is made available to made all of your peers. You see, this is the problem of being judged and condemned by Random Internet Guy on a fantasy football board. He has zero idea of what he's thinking about but is 100% certain that he is correct. And this is why I'm letting my opinion on global warming go with the common wisdom of the scientific community.

Fortunately Random Internet Guy is qualified to determine that proper review of an analysis cannot occur without the data and without the model.

 

[Statorama]

I'm glad to see this debated here. Still haven't seen it reported on the nightly news.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

...This stuff is very important, and we're headed down a path that's going to damage the country. We can't keep taking economic hits and expect to remain a leader in the world. Cap & trade legislation based upon AGW myths could be a huge hit.

I'm more concerned that the rest of the industrial world sees this as an opportunity to get ahead of us via innovation. Do we really want to be forced to buy our energy technology from China?

I may be wrong, but I don't think China is on board with Cap and Trade. They'll use this as an opportunity to continue unfettered growth and production. If they accelerate innovation, it will be due to market forces, not Cap and Trade.

It is the opportunity to continue unfettered growth and production that has the rest of the industrial world looking ahead to being the leaders in the next wave of energy solutions, not compromised policies like "Cap and Trade". You don't need to believe in AGW to want to be the innovators of the future. Have you read an annual statement of an energy company lately? Seen the commercials? Whether there is AGW or not, the opportunities are already there.

 

[Phurfur]

...This stuff is very important, and we're headed down a path that's going to damage the country. We can't keep taking economic hits and expect to remain a leader in the world. Cap & trade legislation based upon AGW myths could be a huge hit.

I'm more concerned that the rest of the industrial world sees this as an opportunity to get ahead of us via innovation. Do we really want to be forced to buy our energy technology from China?

I may be wrong, but I don't think China is on board with Cap and Trade. They'll use this as an opportunity to continue unfettered growth and production. If they accelerate innovation, it will be due to market forces, not Cap and Trade.

China and India. How can you accomplish anything without these two countries?

 

[Bonzai]

Their models have always been held relatively secret (it took a Freedom iof Information suit to even get them to release the data, much less the models). They are releasing them now for the first time because of all of the scrutiny they are under. This shouldn't be proprietary information. It's built off of the public dime with data centers funded by public monies. If they want to be held up as scientists they need to subject their work to the scientific process. That means skeptics and those with differing opinions on what is causing Global Warming need to have access to the studies.

Again, the CRU's research is available to the scientific community and is heavily peer reviewed.

The results have always been available, but no, the code has never been made publicly available. It's not really peer review to have people that agree with you rubber stamp the process. If you want to claim you are peer reviewed then it all of it needs to be available to all of your peers. You don't get to pick and choose.

Please. Their research is made available to the vast majority of the scientific community. There's no secret club. To paint them as "picking and choosing" is misleading. There's really only two that I'm aware of that the CRU has issue with. One is with the journal Climate Research. In 2003, the credibility of the journal took a dive when editor Chris de Freitas accepted an article funded by the American Petroleum Institute. Much of the staff left after that, and De Freitas went on to advise the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which is partly funded by Exxon Mobil. Not exactly a conspiracy to have issue with these guys. The other is with Stephen McIntyre, the guy who runs ClimateAudit.org. This is the guy that's really gotten under their skin and that they probably just should've gone along with. He's not in the scientific community; he was in the mineral biz and was a strategic advisor for the oil and gas exploration company CGX Energy Inc. from 2000 through 2003. He's been riding a wave of credibility since he got NASA to adjust their temperature records in 2007. The changes were small, but give the guy credit. I'm not aware of any other beefs. If you have any, link them up.

 

[jonessed]

...This stuff is very important, and we're headed down a path that's going to damage the country. We can't keep taking economic hits and expect to remain a leader in the world. Cap & trade legislation based upon AGW myths could be a huge hit.

I'm more concerned that the rest of the industrial world sees this as an opportunity to get ahead of us via innovation. Do we really want to be forced to buy our energy technology from China?

I may be wrong, but I don't think China is on board with Cap and Trade. They'll use this as an opportunity to continue unfettered growth and production. If they accelerate innovation, it will be due to market forces, not Cap and Trade.

China and India. How can you accomplish anything without these two countries?

You likely couldn't accomplish anything even if they were on board. If we assume the popular scientific position is correct it's too late to turn the ship around. The amount of CO2 reduction required to avoid the tipping point would grind the global economy to a halt.

 

[jonessed]

Their models have always been held relatively secret (it took a Freedom iof Information suit to even get them to release the data, much less the models). They are releasing them now for the first time because of all of the scrutiny they are under. This shouldn't be proprietary information. It's built off of the public dime with data centers funded by public monies. If they want to be held up as scientists they need to subject their work to the scientific process. That means skeptics and those with differing opinions on what is causing Global Warming need to have access to the studies.

Again, the CRU's research is available to the scientific community and is heavily peer reviewed.

The results have always been available, but no, the code has never been made publicly available. It's not really peer review to have people that agree with you rubber stamp the process. If you want to claim you are peer reviewed then it all of it needs to be available to all of your peers. You don't get to pick and choose.

Please. Their research is made available to the vast majority of the scientific community. There's no secret club. To paint them as "picking and choosing" is misleading. There's really only two that I'm aware of that the CRU has issue with. One is with the journal Climate Research. In 2003, the credibility of the journal took a dive when editor Chris de Freitas accepted an article funded by the American Petroleum Institute. Much of the staff left after that, and De Freitas went on to advise the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which is partly funded by Exxon Mobil. Not exactly a conspiracy to have issue with these guys. The other is with Stephen McIntyre, the guy who runs ClimateAudit.org. This is the guy that's really gotten under their skin and that they probably just should've gone along with. He's not in the scientific community; he was in the mineral biz and was a strategic advisor for the oil and gas exploration company CGX Energy Inc. from 2000 through 2003. He's been riding a wave of credibility since he got NASA to adjust their temperature records in 2007. The changes were small, but give the guy credit. I'm not aware of any other beefs. If you have any, link them up.

No, the data and the code were never made available outside of a select group of people. Their results and methodology were made available but there is no way to review that. Why do you think it's now just coming to light that the raw data has been lost for decades? How did it go through peer review without the original data?They also have a beef with Willie Soon, an astrophysicist from Harvard University-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, who happens to believe Global Warming has more to do with solar activity. Why would the idea that the sun has more to do with climate change than man-made CO2 be so far fetched as to deny him access to data/models?

 

[jon_mx]

Facing Scandal, Head of Climate Research Lab to Temporarily Step Down

Tuesday, December 01, 2009

The director of the prestigious Climatic Research Unit is stepping down pending an investigation

The director of the embattled Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in the United Kingdom is stepping down pending an investigation into allegations that he overstated the case for man-made climate change.

In a statement posted to its Web site, the University of East Anglia says Phil Jones will relinquish his position until the completion of an independent review into allegations that he worked to alter the way in which global temperature data was presented.

Professor Jones said, "What is most important is that CRU continues its world leading research with as little interruption and diversion as possible. After a good deal of consideration I have decided that the best way to achieve this is by stepping aside from the Director's role during the course of the independent review and am grateful to the University for agreeing to this. The Review process will have my full support."

Details of the independent review will be releasd in the next few days, according to the statement.

Matt Dempsey, spokesman for Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., thinks more is still to come from the scandal coming to be known as Climategate. “It certainly shows that there’s more to the investigation and there’s more to come, and we’re only at the beginning stages of learning about climate-gate," he told FoxNews.com.

Dempsey added that Inhofe plans to request a hearing on the topic formally from Enivornment and Public Works Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer in a letter later today.

Jones's biography page, published on the CRU's servers, notes his research interest "in instrumental climate change, palæoclimatology, detection of climate change and the extension of riverflow records in the UK using long rainfall records. I am principally known for the time series of hemispheric and global surface temperatures, which I update on a monthly basis. I have numerous research papers over the last 20 years and these are available in the CRU Publications List."

The loss of the data prevents other scientists from checking it to determine whether, in fact, there has been a long-term rise in global temperatures during the past century and a half.

"They are making scientific progress more difficult now," says Willie Soon, a physicist, astronomer and climate researcher at the solar and stellar physics division of the Harvard University-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. "This is a shameful, dark day for science," he said in an interview with FoxNews.com.

 

[P Boy]

Facing Scandal, Head of Climate Research Lab to Temporarily Step Down

Tuesday, December 01, 2009

The director of the prestigious Climatic Research Unit is stepping down pending an investigation

The director of the embattled Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in the United Kingdom is stepping down pending an investigation into allegations that he overstated the case for man-made climate change.

In a statement posted to its Web site, the University of East Anglia says Phil Jones will relinquish his position until the completion of an independent review into allegations that he worked to alter the way in which global temperature data was presented.

Professor Jones said, "What is most important is that CRU continues its world leading research with as little interruption and diversion as possible. After a good deal of consideration I have decided that the best way to achieve this is by stepping aside from the Director's role during the course of the independent review and am grateful to the University for agreeing to this. The Review process will have my full support."

Details of the independent review will be releasd in the next few days, according to the statement.

Matt Dempsey, spokesman for Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., thinks more is still to come from the scandal coming to be known as Climategate. “It certainly shows that there’s more to the investigation and there’s more to come, and we’re only at the beginning stages of learning about climate-gate," he told FoxNews.com.

Dempsey added that Inhofe plans to request a hearing on the topic formally from Enivornment and Public Works Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer in a letter later today.

Jones's biography page, published on the CRU's servers, notes his research interest "in instrumental climate change, palæoclimatology, detection of climate change and the extension of riverflow records in the UK using long rainfall records. I am principally known for the time series of hemispheric and global surface temperatures, which I update on a monthly basis. I have numerous research papers over the last 20 years and these are available in the CRU Publications List."

The loss of the data prevents other scientists from checking it to determine whether, in fact, there has been a long-term rise in global temperatures during the past century and a half.

"They are making scientific progress more difficult now," says Willie Soon, a physicist, astronomer and climate researcher at the solar and stellar physics division of the Harvard University-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. "This is a shameful, dark day for science," he said in an interview with FoxNews.com.

FOX NEWS! FOX NEWS! MUST BE FALSE! CAN NOT POSSIBLY BE TRUE! FOX NEWS! aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

 

[tommyboy]

you cant peer review models if you don't know what code was used or what data was used as the inputs.

that's just statistics 101.

and reading the CRU emails, stolen or not, its obvious even they didn't know what the code was. Since they lied/obfuscated/hid the data they used then essentially the work is useless from a scientific standpoint. Or more directly:

The reason why even the Guardian's George Monbiot has expressed total shock and dismay at the picture revealed by the documents is that their authors are not just any old bunch of academics. Their importance cannot be overestimated, What we are looking at here is the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Professor Philip Jones, the CRU's director, is in charge of the two key sets of data used by the IPCC to draw up its reports. Through its link to the Hadley Centre, part of the UK Met Office, which selects most of the IPCC's key scientific contributors, his global temperature record is the most important of the four sets of temperature data on which the IPCC and governments rely – not least for their predictions that the world will warm to catastrophic levels unless trillions of dollars are spent to avert it.

Dr Jones is also a key part of the closely knit group of American and British scientists responsible for promoting that picture of world temperatures conveyed by Michael Mann's "hockey stick" graph which 10 years ago turned climate history on its head by showing that, after 1,000 years of decline, global temperatures have recently shot up to their highest level in recorded history.

Given star billing by the IPCC, not least for the way it appeared to eliminate the long-accepted Mediaeval Warm Period when temperatures were higher they are today, the graph became the central icon of the entire man-made global warming movement.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columni...generation.htmland

Dr Phil Jones steps aside during investigation

 

[P Boy]

In any case, this is some of what I've found.

Article 1:

Though a causal link between human carbon-dioxide emissions and accelerated warming has not been proved,

Did you miss this line intentionally? Also - where is the discussion of all green house gases - specifically water vapor, which man has no practical impact on whatsoever and which accounts for over 95% of the green house gas emmissions?The article is comparing man-made CO2 emmissions from one period to another, and stating that they have gone up. Well thanks, Sherlock. That doesn't mean that man-made CO2 emmissions compose anything other than an insignificant portion of green house gases.

Nice try, though it pretty much demonstrates that you don't understand this stuff very well in that you think that you scored some kind of point here.

 

[bueno]

But in any case, I'm not going for a cause. I'm not fighting "for" global warming. I'm just following the wisdom of the scientific community. If they decide that it isn't so, then I'm happy to take their word for it.

Right. That same "wisdom" that can't explain why global temps have been stagnant for the last 10 years. That same "wisdom" with the great buggy computer models that couldn't predict this stagnation. Yet we should make major changes without even being able to explain something that should be so simple if the science on it was "established".Please.

This isn't the same thing as rolling a ball down a plane and measuring the acceleration, you know. Not being 100% correct or being able to explain everything down to the degree does not invalidate the whole model.Or should I just say, "Right. Random Internet guy has better 'wisdom' than the entire scientific community who spends their life doing this. Please. "

The failure of a predictive model to accurately predict sounds like cause for invalidation to this member of the scientific community. The manipulation of data to hide that failure is completely unethical, and those that did so should suffer a lifetime ban from publishing. The model doesn't work. Deal with it.

 

[bueno]

Pretty crazy how the "it's all a fraud" crowd keep projecting their behavior in this very thread (religious fanaticism, fear mongering, jumping to rash conclusion, relying on biased sources, shouting down opposition, etc.) on their opponents. Maybe this will turn out to be a gotcha moment in the debate and the tides will turn to more modest models, but nothing that has been posted so far in this thread as evidence of this "major conspiracy" is all that compelling in the big picture so far. Maybe instead of all the high five "I knew it" hysterics one of you would like to layout a real argument as to how these three or four pieces (E-Mails, New Zealand temperatures, data not taken to new facilities, ???) adds up to much of anything. Seriously, this is what constitutes proof? Is it any wonder that the vast majority of educated people around the world dismiss your arguments? I'm not even saying you are wrong. I'm not very well informed in this area of science and I need to make a lay person's decision on who to trust. Based on your nonsense in this thread I'm suppose to trust you guys as authorities? Sure these few science institutions really look bad at the moment, but you guys are looking worst.

So you would rather put your faith in groups that destroy and tamper with data, won't release raw data, etc.?