|
| Author
|
Post |
 
|
|
twotap
F L I N T O I D
|
EDITORIAL: Hiding evidence of global coolingRate this story
EDITORIAL: Hiding evidence of global cooling
By THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Scientific progress depends on accurate and complete data. It also relies on replication. The past couple of days have uncovered some shocking revelations about the baloney practices that pass as sound science about climate change.
It was announced Thursday afternoon that computer hackers had obtained 160 megabytes of e-mails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in England. Those e-mails involved communication among many scientific researchers and policy advocates with similar ideological positions all across the world.
Those purported authorities were brazenly discussing the destruction and hiding of data that did not support global-warming claims.
Professor Phil Jones, the head of the Climate Research Unit, and professor Michael E. Mann at Pennsylvania State University, who has been an important scientist in the climate debate, have come under particular scrutiny.
Among his e-mails, Mr. Jones talked to Mr. Mann about the "trick of adding in the real temps to each series ... to hide the decline [in temperature]."
Mr. Mann admitted that he was party to this conversation and lamely explained to the New York Times that "scientists often used the word 'trick' to refer to a good way to solve a problem 'and not something secret.' " Though the liberal New York newspaper apparently buys this explanation, we have seen no benign explanation that justifies efforts by researchers to skew data on so-called global-warming "to hide the decline." Given the controversies over the accuracy of Mr. Mann's past research, it is surprising his current explanations are accepted so readily.
There is a lot of damning evidence about these researchers concealing information that counters their bias. 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." Another professor at the Climate Research Unit, Tim Osborn, discussed in e-mails how truncating a data series can hide a cooling trend that otherwise would be seen in the results. Mr. Mann sent Mr. Osborn an e-mail saying that the results he was sending shouldn't be shown to others because the data support critics of global warming.
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.
We don't condone e-mail theft by hackers, though these e-mails were covered by Britain's Freedom of Information Act and should have been released. The content of these e-mails raises extremely serious questions that could end the academic careers of many prominent professors. Academics who have purposely hidden data, destroyed information and doctored their results have committed scientific fraud. We can only hope respected academic institutions such as Pennsylvania State University, the University of Arizona and the University of Massachusetts at Amherst conduct proper investigative inquiries.
Most important, however, these revelations of fudged science should have a cooling effect on global-warming hysteria and the panicked policies that are being pushed forward to address the unproven theory.
|
_________________
"If you like your current healthcare you can keep it, Period"!!
Barack Hussein Obama--- multiple times. |
|
Tue Nov 24, 2009 9:02 am |
|
|
Domet
F L I N T O I D
|
Busy, busy, busy - but I'll take a second on this one.
Skepticism is a healthy thing to have. In the 1970s, skepticism over the "Global Cooling" phenomenon was what lead scientists to take the theory and largely abandon it. Global Warming is the current "sexy" issue in science these days - governments give out money, academies get a lot of funding - there are definitely monetary reasons for them to get behind this idea. However, calling it a "conspiracy" is pretty crazy, and the opinions article twotap posted above takes much out of context without adding anything substantive to the debate.
Is global warming real? Christ, who knows - in reality scientists have models and theories, very little experimentation has been, or can be, done on the topic. Much as with Global Cooling Theory, we can see the limitations of modeling versus reality - they don't always match up. Regardless of the "lame" defense offered by Mr. Mann, he has a couple of points that should be considered.
First, these emails are being taken out of context - GW Theory is science politicized (always bad for science by the way). Information is used by both sides to support or attack those against them. Being a skeptic doesn't allow you to selectively pick which material you are concerned over - to be any good at scientific endeavors requires skepticism of both good and bad data or information. The emails that were hacked by black hats from Russia should be considered in the light they unveil, and we should be asking exactly what they mean in context of the work these scientists have been doing.
This brings us to the second serious point - many of these emails talk specifically about data following 1998. There has been a push amongst scientific skeptics who point out that since 1998 the temperature has been declining. Politicians have picked up on this as "proof" that global warming is bunk, conveniently ignoring (as skeptics have not) that, despite these declines, the temperature is still substantially higher than it was 30 years ago. A trend in decline within a trend of higher temperatures is not proof that a theory is wrong. Global Warming does not speculate that temperatures must increase every year, but rather that temperatures will be higher and will be higher while generally increasing. This still generally holds true. Whether that will be bear out in the coming years? Who knows.
Third - statisticians given this data, without knowing its source or its link to climate change, have shown that there is only a statistically significant change in numbers if you "cherry pick" years following 1998. In stats, this in many ways means you are trying to find spurious reasons to support claims - general averages, not specific times within a time span, are what give us our data. Picking 1998 as the year to look at up to this point ignores all the other data which suggests that this trend in decreasing temperatures is likely temporary.
Finally - a single group of scientists "hiding" information is not proof of a greater conspiracy. The document presented by the IPCC has been the most vetted and debated topic in scientific history. The process has involved scientists from all over the world going through data, presenting their own data, having debates - the process generated over 10,000 questions which have been or are being addressed, line by line. To suggest that there is some vast conspiracy of science to put one over on the good people of the world is, obviously, as loony as suggesting that Jews run all the banks and that the Illuminati have been planning the New World Order for centuries. Regardless of how these men acted in the UK, the vast majority of scientists have not been shown to be interested in conspiracy and have involved, at every level of the IPCC vetting process, skeptics from whom questions came from and were addressed.
I have never on this board come out in support of Global Warming - I have pointed out when twotap used anecdotal evidence in an attempt to prove his position (which obviously is neither scientific nor accurate nor correct). My position on the matter is pretty basic - we have models which indicate trends towards a particular end. Believing that human activities on this planet have zero impact on it is a little crazy - for every action, there is an opposite and equal reaction (I'm stretching that for effect, not fact in this issue). There is an incredible body of evidence which tells us sea levels are rising, ice is melting, temperatures are higher than they have been for quite some time, weather patterns are changing - something is going on here which should be investigated. Fact is, just as with evolution, we can't really know 100% without experimentation or observation. We won't really know the effects or patterns of climate change for many, many years or without more exacting scientific experimentation. What we can say is that the body of evidence does point out that something is happening, and it could have catastrophic effects on the planet/humanity, and as such warrants further investigation.
Does anybody have to believe in Global Warming? Nah - as I said above, skepticism in science is an essential part of the process. Should we disbelieve or believe it because politicians say it is or isn't happening? Of course not.
Though twotap has attempted to argue on this board that "climate change" is the "new" phrase for global warming - that is not true. Climate Change is a greater realm in which both Global Warming and Global Cooling both fit - Climate Change is a fact of reality, as the climate changes here or there. Trend towards one end or another constitute, in many ways, the ideas of Global Warming or Cooling within the greater field. What we do know? Climate Change has seen warmer temperatures and some serious changes in weather around the world. Whether it will bear out as a catastrophic change is something we cannot know for certain, that is all probabilities generated my simulations and modeling. All we can do in the meantime is, what we have been doing - studying what has been responsible for climate change and how we can change it to serve our ends more effectively (if possible). Such studies can only get better with technological changes, telling us more exactly how and why climate changes, what our impact is on it (if any) and whether we can do anything about it in the long run. Turning it into a debate about right and wrong is intellectually dishonest - science is a process which determines correct or incorrect based on long standing evidence which a couple of politicians and warring factions cannot do on their own because they are for or against such an idea.
That's all, back to work now! |
_________________
Lack of support for your assertions does not make you a sage, it just makes the rest of us doubt your reasoning skills. - Elias12, Flint Talk Poster |
|
|
Tue Nov 24, 2009 1:47 pm |
|
|
twotap
F L I N T O I D
|
My eyes hurt. Hey little acorn how about shortening your posts you could have said the same thing by simply stating they got caught trying to cover their asses.  |
_________________
"If you like your current healthcare you can keep it, Period"!!
Barack Hussein Obama--- multiple times. |
|
|
Tue Nov 24, 2009 3:56 pm |
|
|
Domet
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
twotap schreef:
Hey little acorn how about shortening your posts you could have said the same thing by simply stating they got caught trying to cover their asses.
But that's the exact opposite of what I was getting at. I was pointing out that politics has invaded science on this issue and, as a result of that, some scientists feel the need to be extra careful about how their data is presented. Unfortunately this comes off to folks such as yourself as a "conspiracy."
The emails are taken out of context, and don't indicate (from the few out of 3000+ that were stolen) that the scientists were necessarily doing anything incorrect. They were playing with data, which every person doing statistics does in one way or another. Crying foul on this relatively minute and largely irrelevant matter gives emotional credence to your claims against climate change and global warming, not logical nor factual ones. |
_________________
Lack of support for your assertions does not make you a sage, it just makes the rest of us doubt your reasoning skills. - Elias12, Flint Talk Poster |
|
|
Tue Nov 24, 2009 4:21 pm |
|
|
twotap
F L I N T O I D
|
| What this boils down to is my "
out of context post
" actually involves a cover up by those who are involved in what more people everyday are seeing as a scam. Its interesting that little acorn invites debate on the subject which of course is meaningless, while all those are who actually trying to push this junk science down the American taxpayers throats wont allow it. |
_________________
"If you like your current healthcare you can keep it, Period"!!
Barack Hussein Obama--- multiple times. |
|
|
Tue Nov 24, 2009 6:14 pm |
|
|
Domet
F L I N T O I D
|
I have to say - making up a name for me because you don't have an argument is certainly a useful tactic - you really make good "points" by calling me "little acorn" (which is tremendously clever, by the way). Since I've already posted my arguments and you have nothing further to say (hence the mockery and lack of argument in your last post) I guess I'll just hope people read this and realize that you haven't really posted anything of relevance.
While it's sad that you resort to mockery because you don't actually have a point to make, your insecurities come out more and more. I look forward to your next name calling session - you turn to mock somebody because you don't like them very much due to your zealot-like ideologies. It gives me great insight in how your mentality works, and while it's sad, I can certainly see the draw! You aren't nearly as complex as you should be.
***For the Record: Because your reading comprehension is lacking, I figured I would try to point out that I didn't say your post was out of context. What I said was that the letters, taken out of 3000+ emails, are of course taken out of context. My explanation made sense, yours still does not. No big surprise, and I don't expect that to make sense to you, but at least I'm trying. |
_________________
Lack of support for your assertions does not make you a sage, it just makes the rest of us doubt your reasoning skills. - Elias12, Flint Talk Poster |
|
|
Tue Nov 24, 2009 7:01 pm |
|
|
Domet
F L I N T O I D
|
I don't know why I am so interested in getting you to understand this, and I realize that this post is a waste of energy. More or less, I am hoping that if not you somebody else reads it and realizes what I am trying to get at.
I am not saying that you are wrong to be skeptical of global warming, I am saying that it is wrong for you to simply reject it, especially based on an argument which claims, "Some people in the UK were using statistics in a way which isn't fully explained by the limited emails I have been provided with, therefore the entire theory is 'junk.'" You have not actually presented any science which contradicts the positions or models of global warming, you have not actually presented any factual information which makes global warming "wrong."
What I am saying is that you are being gullible and are incapable of seeing past political ideology. Sorry if science contradicts your moral and personal political ideas - fortunately your opinion on the matter does not merit a scientific conclusion of correct or incorrect. The article you posted, as usual in place of your actual opinions or arguments, doesn't actually present any information which undermines global warming. At best it alludes to the idea that a small group of people (what, four scientists out of hundreds?) have been talking about how to handle data. What you don't acknowledge is that this is just political theater and is completely outside of scientific inquiry or thought. You assert that your position is correct without presenting any arguments or even trying to reason why four scientists talking about how to handle data somehow merits an entire theory, being posited by many climate scientists worldwide, is incorrect.
Since I don't expect you to actually back your position up with verifiable scientific data or modeling, I will for just a moment try to explain the lack of reasoning your position possesses. As I said above - global warming is a theory not controlled simply by these four scientists in the UK. Further, the emails that are highlighted are part of a greater body of emails, and thus (as the very definition of it is) are taken out of context. You are making broad claims from an exceptional minority with information that you cannot actually claim to understand since you have no idea the contexts that they are in. As I said above, all you have done is bring emotional credence to the issue - what you have not done is logically connect points or explain scientifically why global warming is "junk" science.
Like I said in my original post in this thread - being skeptical of global warming is not a bad thing. It is not based on 100% fact, and is therefor debatable. The problem here is that you are not debating the matter but are rather substituting politically motivated ideology for argument. Your positions as a conservative zealot do not by themselves explain why you are correct or incorrect. Rather they just go to show your lack of understanding and disinterest in exploring concepts contrary to your conservative positions. The least you could do is try harder. |
_________________
Lack of support for your assertions does not make you a sage, it just makes the rest of us doubt your reasoning skills. - Elias12, Flint Talk Poster |
|
|
Tue Nov 24, 2009 7:34 pm |
|
|
twotap
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
While it's sad that you resort to mockery
You gotta be kidding maybe you should backtrack on some of your posts. My main argument is that amongst those who are pushing this as a done deal is their total lack of debate on the subject. By the way I am not interested in you trying to convince me of anything least of all something you have no bearing on. But I guess you havent grasped that fact yet. Your opinon is meaningless ill stick with words and quotes coming from those actually involved in the scam. |
_________________
"If you like your current healthcare you can keep it, Period"!!
Barack Hussein Obama--- multiple times. |
|
|
Tue Nov 24, 2009 8:26 pm |
|
|
back again
F L I N T O I D
|
try words and quotes from those involved in the actual science.
have you seen the latest national geographic??   |
_________________
even a small act of goodness may be a tiny raft of salvation across the treacherous gulf of sin, but one who drinks the wine of selfishness, and dances on the little boat of meaness, sinks in the ocean of ignorance.
P.Y. |
|
|
Tue Nov 24, 2009 9:29 pm |
|
|
twotap
F L I N T O I D
|
"try words and quotes from those involved in the actual science". You mean like algores full of crap movie.  Thats also being pushed on us as real science yet is full of lies. The lefty educators even believe its fine to show it in the classroom. We saw a movie today and Algore said if daddy dosent sell his SUV all the polar bears are gonna die. National geographic Oh ya they dont have a leftist agenda. Hey you go ahead and believe that man is causing global warming and that somehow we have the abilty to control the weather, sunspots, whatever and ill continue to call out all those who are attempting to push the junk science and keep debate out of the process. But like you said "try words and quotes from those involved in the actual science". Which of course is what I am doing and why little acorns opinion is meaningless. |
_________________
"If you like your current healthcare you can keep it, Period"!!
Barack Hussein Obama--- multiple times. |
|
|
Wed Nov 25, 2009 8:56 am |
|
|
Dave Starr
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
back again schreef:
try words and quotes from those involved in the actual science.
have you seen the latest national geographic??
National Geographic?? You lookin at dirty pichurs agin???  |
_________________
I used to care, but I take a pill for that now.
Pushing buttons sure can be fun.
When a lion wants to go somewhere, he doesn’t worry about how many hyenas are in the way.
Paddle faster, I hear banjos. |
|
|
Wed Nov 25, 2009 9:44 am |
|
|
Domet
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
twotap schreef:
You gotta be kidding maybe you should backtrack on some of your posts.
To paraphrase your bible - when you live by the sword you should expect to die by it. You start a vast majority of squables. Before I came here and met you, I had never before encountered a man as frustratingly difficult to talk with in my entire life. Generally, I don't let my emotions get the better of me. For a time there, I did. Thankfully, I have realized that you are a zealot, with little to add to the debate, so I can simply override your opinion with general facts and stop resorting to the low tactics you decide to take on (often to avoid debate or conversation since you never actually have anything real to add to the conversation). Once I realized this was a a debating tactic on your part, I have moved on.
quote:
twotap schreef:
Your opinon is meaningless ill stick with words and quotes coming from those actually involved in the scam.
This is such a funny thing coming from you - what makes your opinion meaningful? You obviously believe it is because a: you post your positions here and b: you argue with people who disagree with you. You aren't actually using anything from the people involved - you are selecting a small group and then ignoring the facts from people who aren't part of that group. By your own standards, your opinion is equally as meaningless. Since your posting here indicates that you don't think your opinion is meaningless, it logically follows that mine is not either. Further, you clearly think my opinion is meaninful enough for you to respond bitterly to it, despite not actually using anything meaningful in the conversation. Instead, you attack and harrass as though that will make facts vanish into the air.
quote:
twotap schreef:
But like you said "try words and quotes from those involved in the actual science". Which of course is what I am doing
No, you're not. You are selecting specific instances which fulfill your agenda. You haven't actually made an argument, and the fact that a small minority of scientists might, according to your post, be involved in a "conspiracy" is something you still have yet to prove with "their words." You set standards for argument that you don't even bother to meet, making you not only the conservative zealot we know you to be but also a general hypocrite. |
_________________
Lack of support for your assertions does not make you a sage, it just makes the rest of us doubt your reasoning skills. - Elias12, Flint Talk Poster |
|
|
Wed Nov 25, 2009 11:40 am |
|
|
twotap
F L I N T O I D
|
| as backagain says so often ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ you
STILL
think I give a rats ass about your meaningless posts on subjects on which your opinon has NO bearing on the end result. God what a dunce. |
_________________
"If you like your current healthcare you can keep it, Period"!!
Barack Hussein Obama--- multiple times. |
|
|
Wed Nov 25, 2009 12:52 pm |
|
|
Domet
F L I N T O I D
|
It's not a matter of what I think, it's a matter of your actions. A man who truly does not care about something does not spend portions of his time pointing out time and time again that he doesn't care. All that does is verify that you are worried that my opinion carries weight, and therefor do concern yourself with it. Shakespeare said it best when he wrote, "The lady doth prostest too much, methinks." Pointing it out once is one thing, pointing it out time and time again just shows you care.
Thing is this: you realize that you discredit yourself, and you realize that I discredit you by calling you on your lame arguments and lacking of proof - so, instead of arguing or defending yourself, you claim "not to care" in an effort to put yourself above the fray. It's an attempt on your part to make others believe that by not caring, my arguments aren't relevant. Sadly for you, your constant denials of not caring not only give my arguments greater credence but continue to show that you are incapable of defending your baseless positions.
Checkmate, kid. |
_________________
Lack of support for your assertions does not make you a sage, it just makes the rest of us doubt your reasoning skills. - Elias12, Flint Talk Poster |
|
|
Wed Nov 25, 2009 2:59 pm |
|
|
back again
F L I N T O I D
|
Domet-9
2Tap- 0
BAM!!!!!!
tap, i told you not to mess with this dude!!!! |
_________________
even a small act of goodness may be a tiny raft of salvation across the treacherous gulf of sin, but one who drinks the wine of selfishness, and dances on the little boat of meaness, sinks in the ocean of ignorance.
P.Y. |
|
|
Wed Nov 25, 2009 5:13 pm |
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
FlintTalk.com Forum Index
> Political Talk
