Toronado3800
Gold Member
- Nov 15, 2009
- 7,608
- 560
- 140
I'm for prosecuting anyone who falsified scientific information to make a point. To me this is the same as an investment ranking company giving false high ratings to (in)securities.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The emails were stolen.
The investigation has just begun.
In the end I think you will see some people go to jail for stealing private information and the data will hold firm.
The best scientific evidence very strongly suggests (but cannot prove without any shadow of a doubt) that climate change is real and that human activity is contributing.
In spite of an attempt to create the illusion of a lack of consensus among the scientific community - an overwhelming consensus (in fact NO peer-reviewed work has refuted the premise of Anthropogenic climate change) has emerged.
Does it mean that it is impossible that they are all wrong? Nope - it is possible they are wrong.
As to a vast conspiracy among the world's scientific community to perpetuate a hoax - absurd. WAAAY TOO MANY people would have to be involved with not a single one EVER "coming clean." Also, when have people from all over the globe ever been able to agree to secretly participate in something like this. Too absurd for serious consideration.
AND the profit motive would support denying climate change far more than it would support accepting it.
The absolute best information available and the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community supports the premise that our climate is changing and that human activity is contributing to that change (although the extent to which human activity is contributing is certainly not agreed upon).
So there are the simple facts. Twist, spin, hurl faux science as your political ideology and your commitment to your rhetorical heros demand - but the facts don't change.
you're some kind of a fucking idiot aren't you ?
you stupid bitch keep repeating the talking points from Al Gore movie but did you ever actually pass the science class in your kindergarden ?
could you explain what the science is and the evidence instead of writing that Al Gore has already proven everything while he was inventing the internet ?
ahhh that elevated Borat IQ on display once more. I'm having such a hard time understanding some of your bigger words ....
google beyond the ivory tower.
It clearly puts to rest any nonesense about a lack of consensus in the scientific community.
Facts we all agree on:
In enclosed environment experiments those with higher CO2/greenhouse gas content experience higher temperatures than those with a normal atmospheric make up.
Humans increase atmospheric CO2 by at least 5% yearly, and thanks to this its according high historically right now according to ice core samples.
That seems to be it anymore.
Besides that, everyone has an opinion concerning even the formerly "obvious" decade long trend of the loss of polar ice (weird, ask shipping companies that go through the northwest passage now if its more open than before)
Regardless, that opening could be part of a natural cycle, or could not.
What percentage of could or could not is up for debate. Also is the percentage of risk different ppl are willing to take in regards to "it could be our fault"
My point would be, "If there is a 5% chance giving your kid milk out of a lead cup will make him 5% dumber do you take the chance to avoid buying a proper bottle?" 50% 25% 75% who knows how important that buck we can save in exhaust technology is.
1. Extrapolating from the models is foolhardy as the models are not scientific (they are not falsifiable as there exists no data set for which the models are inconsistent - I'm speaking of the oft-cited compilation of IPCC models). 2. Extrapolating from the models is beyond foolhardy because the models were made on data that cannot be trusted.so code, I will modify my statement.
Facts we all agree on:
In enclosed environment experiments those with higher CO2/greenhouse gas content experience higher temperatures than those with a normal atmospheric percentages.
Humans increase atmospheric CO2 up to 5% yearly, and thanks to this its according high historically right now according to ice core samples. (a steady 2% doubles it in 50 years or so, 5%,20)
That seems to be what we agree on.
Besides that, everyone has an opinion concerning even the formerly "obvious" decade long trend of the loss of polar ice. Ask shipping companies that go through the northeast passage now if its more open than before. (sorry for calling it northwest in homage to the old search)
Regardless, that opening could be part of a natural cycle (like you mentioned), or could not.
What percentage of could or could not is up for debate. Also is the percentage of risk different ppl are willing to take in regards to "it could be our fault"
Can I say:
"Extrapolating the small scale tests on greenhouse gas effects on enclosed environment onto a world wide level is thought of as foolhardy by some." (I feel this is akin to being careful increasing the presence of any substance around humans that causes cancer to rats.)
My point would be, "If there is a 5% chance giving your kid milk out of a lead cup will make him 5% dumber do you take the chance to avoid buying a proper bottle?" 50% 25% 75% who knows how important that buck we can save in exhaust technology is.
********************
Don't take me wrong. I post a lot on this issue but I'm not going to do anything crazy like outlaw buying oil from terrorists or post de facto outlaw older cars. I'd even maintain CAFE standards which make sure cars don't fall below 1990 horsepower levels (I won't make CAFE standards so high everyone has to buy an Aveo)
No no, I need to be more clear. Not computer models. I mean relatively simple experiments such as filling up a fish tank with a CO2 rich atmosphere and comparing the temperature inside it with a "normal" atmosphere fish tank.1. Extrapolating from the models is foolhardy as the models are not scientific (they are not falsifiable as there exists no data set for which the models are inconsistent - I'm speaking of the oft-cited compilation of IPCC models). 2. Extrapolating from the models is beyond foolhardy because the models were made on data that cannot be trusted.
Global warming, global cooling, save the whales, save the trees, save the endangered species and all the rest of what ever it is that the idiots are yelling that needs to be saved is all a big scam. If there is money to be made, something will always need to be "saved".
A fish tank IS a model, and not a very good one at that. I fail to see what point you have.No no, I need to be more clear. Not computer models. I mean relatively simple experiments such as filling up a fish tank with a CO2 rich atmosphere and comparing the temperature inside it with a "normal" atmosphere fish tank.1. Extrapolating from the models is foolhardy as the models are not scientific (they are not falsifiable as there exists no data set for which the models are inconsistent - I'm speaking of the oft-cited compilation of IPCC models). 2. Extrapolating from the models is beyond foolhardy because the models were made on data that cannot be trusted.
Still not a full proof experiment. I find it logical to pay some attention to it though like its logical to pay some attention to what poisons kill canaries despite the fact we're a much bigger animal.
And, some big names in that community have sold out their scientific integrity for a political agenda. They are sellouts. So, their credibility is a problem. They have done more damage to their agenda with this lack of integrity than any others could have done.Huh?
"Flat-earth global warmers"?
If you're going to be insulting, at least think through it. You'll have a better chance of making sense that way.
Flat-earth was a concept debunked by the scientific process.
Global warming is a concept being introduced by scientific process. ....
Of this pool of scientists, they have as much credibility as someone in the press..... Who you going to trust, a scientist or a radio commentator?
All scientists are entrusted with this process. The process is thus abusable to scientists. Most scientists do not abuse or corrupt that process as the integrity of it is more important than their fame, agenda, etc.So, I believe we agree then. Its the scientists, not the process.
And the same would hold true for the press. Its the commentators, not the process.
Of course, the media does not submit itself to peer review. Someone could just write something up and send it out there as if it were credible. Have you ever tried to get something published in an acedemic journal?
Apparently scientists that don't agree with the methods of the scientists whose emails were hacked STILL believe that humans contribute to global warming.
IMO, this is pretty much a no brainer. How could we not be affecting the earth's atmosphere with our polluting ways and deforestation?
Natural Resources and the Environment - Dot Earth Blog - NYTimes.comDo the percolating data issues matter to the overall integrity of a) anthropogenic warming and b) “dangerous” anthropogenic warming?
A response has come in from Roger A. Pielke Sr., a climate scientist at the University of Colorado who has often been a critic of what he has called “the climate oligarchy” — including some of the scientists involved in the e-mail strings taken from the Climatic Research Unit. Aspects of his comment may be unwelcome to just about everyone in one way or another, but I think it is worth noting that he says that the data issues don’t detract from clear evidence of a long-term warming trend and that carbon dioxide is “a major climate forcing” (along with many others):
Apparently scientists that don't agree with the methods of the scientists whose emails were hacked STILL believe that humans contribute to global warming.
IMO, this is pretty much a no brainer. How could we not be affecting the earth's atmosphere with our polluting ways and deforestation?
Natural Resources and the Environment - Dot Earth Blog - NYTimes.comDo the percolating data issues matter to the overall integrity of a) anthropogenic warming and b) dangerous anthropogenic warming?
A response has come in from Roger A. Pielke Sr., a climate scientist at the University of Colorado who has often been a critic of what he has called the climate oligarchy including some of the scientists involved in the e-mail strings taken from the Climatic Research Unit. Aspects of his comment may be unwelcome to just about everyone in one way or another, but I think it is worth noting that he says that the data issues dont detract from clear evidence of a long-term warming trend and that carbon dioxide is a major climate forcing (along with many others):
Pollution and warming don't neccesarily go hand in hand. Sulfur, as a f'rinstance contributes to cooling as it reflects sunlight back into space. The same is true of contrails. Volcanoes belch plenty of CO2 into the air, but also much more plentiful sulfur and ash and dust. Volcanoes have a net cooling effect on the planet.
Go figure. Air pollution is a proven coolant for the planet. Can we please abandon the "pollution is bad so let's stop the warming" swindle?
CO2 is below 400 ppm of the atmospohere. Let's call it that, though. 4 tenths of one percent of our air is CO2. In the past, scientists think it was at 7000 ppm. It obviously has fallen dramatically since then. Of that 4 tenths of 1 percent, 97% comes from nature and 3% comes from man.
Man's annual contibution to the atmosphere as a percent of our air is 1.2 100's of one percent per year. Start a savings program today in which you sock away 1.2 100's of one penny every year. This is $0.0000012 per year. In 100,000 years you will have 12 cents.
Is this a cause to re-arrange our entire economy?
Jay, my understanding is the CRU massaged data, the data revealed in the e-mails, the data the scientists in question used their "trick" to "hide declines" was the same data all scientists were using in their predictions.
When I took science in college, we called this GIGO...Garbage In, Garbage Out.
Meaning if your model contains corrupted data, there is no escaping a corrupted result.
So, you may say, let's just compare the un-massaged data, the original data, the data that was requested under the Freedom of Information Act, the data that was referred to in the CRU e-mails discussions on how they could thwart that FOIA request....
Well...uh...you see...that data is missing.
Gone, erased, dumped, thrown away.
Convenient, isn't it.
Ever heard of a scientist THROWING AWAY THE RAW DATA !
Me either.
I take it you can prove that what was lost was purpously thrown away and what was lost was proof that man-made climate change in fact does not exist?
Yes Jay, I can prove the original data was thrown away:
SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.No, no one can prove anything contained in the original data...mostly due to the fact...wait for it...the scientists threw it away.
It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.
Can I prove that the data was intentionally destroyed to hide discrepancies? No, I cannot...but I can INFER from the PATTERN of deceit proven by the hacked emails that it is possible...even likely...that this is the indeed the case.
In another exchange, Mr. Jones told Mr. Mann: "If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone" and, "We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind." Mr. Jones further urged Mr. Mann to join him in deleting e-mail exchanges about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) controversial assessment report (ARA): "Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re [the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report]?"
In another e-mail, Mr. Jones told Mr. Mann, professor Malcolm K. Hughes of the University of Arizona and professor Raymond S. Bradley of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst: "I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!"
At one point, Mr. Jones complained to another academic, "I did get an email from the [Freedom of Information] person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn't be deleting emails." He also offered up more dubious tricks of his trade, specifically that "IPCC is an international organization, so is above any national FOI. Even if UEA holds anything about IPCC, we are not obliged to pass it on." ...
Repeatedly throughout the e-mails that have been made public, proponents of global-warming theories refer to data that has been hidden or destroyed. Only e-mails from Mr. Jones' institution have been made public, and with his obvious approach to deleting sensitive files, it's difficult to determine exactly how much more information has been lost that could be damaging to the global-warming theocracy and its doomsday forecasts.
See a trend forming?
Me too.