Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Met Office report: global warming evidence is 'unmistakable'

Met Office report: global warming evidence is 'unmistakable'
Thread Tools
mattyb
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Standing on the shoulders of giants
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2010, 01:41 AM
 
A new climate change report from the Met Office and its US equivalent has provided the "greatest evidence we have ever had" that the world is warming.

And they're OFF !!!!
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2010, 08:16 AM
 
In Before the "Climate Scientists Are Frauds" Claim
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2010, 08:34 AM
 
In before we all die !!1!1!oneone

-t
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2010, 09:22 AM
 
Is it derailing to point out we have a gigantic thread dedicated to posting stuff like this in?
     
kylef
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Northern Ireland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2010, 09:28 AM
 
Watergate. Climategate. Antennagate. What is the fascination with gate?
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2010, 09:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by kylef View Post
Watergate. Climategate. Antennagate. What is the fascination with gate?
Hint: one of those three happened before the rest
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Warren Pease
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2010, 09:41 AM
 
The world is warming, the question is what role do humans have in it.
     
Warren Pease
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2010, 09:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Is it derailing to point out we have a gigantic thread dedicated to posting stuff like this in?
That one is dedicated to criticizing a single person.
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2010, 09:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by kylef View Post
Watergate. Climategate. Antennagate. What is the fascination with gate?
Watergate is the name of the office complex which was burglarized in the "Watergate scandal" that eventually brought down Nixon. The Nixon's cover-up and impeachment had such an impact that the "gate" suffix now stands in to signify scandal or cover-up more generally.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2010, 09:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by Warren Pease View Post
That one is dedicated to criticizing a single person.
Last time I checked the links and discussion in there covered GW in general.
     
mattyb  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Standing on the shoulders of giants
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2010, 10:09 AM
 
But this is NEW evidence and shouldn't be tainted by previous discussions/threads involving cover-ups, frauds or eight-legged diversions.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2010, 10:14 AM
 
Isn't GW an on-going discussion? Do we really look at all new evidence in a vacuum, with no regard for everything that came previous?
     
mattyb  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Standing on the shoulders of giants
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2010, 10:20 AM
 
Depends on where that previous evidence came from. Haven't you learned anything from the Pol Lounge?
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2010, 10:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by mattyb View Post
Depends on where that previous evidence came from. Haven't you learned anything from the Pol Lounge?
No one learns anything from the Pol lounge. Except how to hate humanity.

Edit: I'll bow out so as to not further dilute the thread.
     
mattyb  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Standing on the shoulders of giants
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2010, 10:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
No one learns anything from the Pol lounge. Except how to hate humanity.
I didn't realise that you were as cynical as I am.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Edit: I'll bow out so as to not further dilute the thread.
I had too much to drink at lunch, probably wise that I do the same.
     
ort888
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Your Anus
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2010, 10:33 AM
 
I want to see a scandal involving gates, that can be called Gategate. That would be awesome.

...or maybe if Bill Gates does something scandalous, it can be Gatesgate.

Or what about PheobeCatesGate?

My sig is 1 pixel too big.
     
ironknee
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2010, 01:17 AM
 
jesus is comin' back soon so who cares?
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 2, 2010, 07:52 AM
 
This is all a moot point anyway. Remember, the people who used to deny that global warming existed no longer deny it at all. They just deny that we've done anything to cause it. Well, most of them anyway - it looks like a few of them are starting to finally give up on that position and have of course moved on to the "denying that we can do anything to fix it" position. It's a slow, yet inexorable process - can't wait for the "but it's not worth doing anything to fix it at this point anyway" phase in 2020.


And remember, now that it's shown that we've been in an extended solar minimum for the last few years, whatever you do - don't do a Search for any claims pointing to a solar cause! Nothing to see here! Move along people!

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
mattyb  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Standing on the shoulders of giants
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 2, 2010, 08:16 AM
 
There are some interesting solutions to cool down the earth, the trouble is they involve science and not spending too much money instead of restricting people's lifestyles, so the lefties don't like it.

I recommend reading the book Superfreakonomics.
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 2, 2010, 08:44 AM
 


Oh yay, Superfreakonomics. Wish I had the proverbial nickel for every non-climate-science-aware person who told me to read it, as if it contained a solution.

Or for that matter, a quarter for the mischaracterizations, out-of-context quotes, out-and-out mistakes, or just plain lack of understanding of climate science found in Superfreakonomics....

(Don't get me wrong - it's an interesting take on it. Just that: interesting.)

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
ort888
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Your Anus
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 2, 2010, 10:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by mattyb View Post
There are some interesting solutions to cool down the earth, the trouble is they involve science and not spending too much money instead of restricting people's lifestyles, so the lefties don't like it.

I recommend reading the book Superfreakonomics.
I do my part by leaving my refrigerator open 24 hours a day.

My sig is 1 pixel too big.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 2, 2010, 04:59 PM
 
Ort,

Don't you know? Thats not enough! You best eat all of that ice cream and leave both doors open.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 2, 2010, 05:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
This is all a moot point anyway. Remember, the people who used to deny that global warming existed no longer deny it at all. They just deny that we've done anything to cause it. Well, most of them anyway - it looks like a few of them are starting to finally give up on that position and have of course moved on to the "denying that we can do anything to fix it" position. It's a slow, yet inexorable process - can't wait for the "but it's not worth doing anything to fix it at this point anyway" phase in 2020.


And remember, now that it's shown that we've been in an extended solar minimum for the last few years, whatever you do - don't do a Search for any claims pointing to a solar cause! Nothing to see here! Move along people!

greg
No, Greg, We denied that MMGW is made up. Key Qualifier: MM.

And sun-flare activity (the minimum you speak of) has little to do with the output of light/energy to the earth's atmosphere with regards to MMGW.
     
sek929
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 2, 2010, 05:14 PM
 
Actually most of you guys have been denying that the earth is warming at all, and that the scientists are fudging data for profit.

I look forward to the glacially slow backpedaling process as everyone insists they were arguing against only MMGW and not the whole shebang.
     
Warren Pease
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 2, 2010, 05:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
We denied that MMGW is made up.
So, it's real, then?
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 2, 2010, 05:19 PM
 
The worst are the "oh yeah, well look at how cold it's been in such and such region this year" arguments...
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 2, 2010, 05:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by sek929 View Post
Actually most of you guys have been denying that the earth is warming at all, and that the scientists are fudging data for profit.

I look forward to the glacially slow backpedaling process as everyone insists they were arguing against only MMGW and not the whole shebang.
Really? Can you cite this? Let me clarify my arguments and of those I agree with

-Man is not causing GW, or Climate Change, or Weather - whatever you want to call it these days.
-The earth may be warming, but it is part of a natural cycle and this knowledge has been abused to make a buck. There is nothing alarming about GW as it stands today, and nothing we're doing that has a tangible effect on it.
-The "scientists" portraying the data used in these "reports" are funded on the premise that there is a problem. No problem? No work.
-The scientists who are excluded from the reports (or included and misrepresented) have widely varying theories, dataset values, and conclusions that support a multitude of viewpoints that tell us for sure only that this science is in its infancy, and shouldn't be used to drastically change the lives of millions.
-The mean temperature for the earth rises and falls with time.
-MMGW as presented by Al Gore and the IPCC is an attempt at manufactured demand - much like bottled water in the US (an example of a success on their endeavor). This time though, the demand is for taxes and regulation to fit an agenda thats been known even back to "Global Cooling" in the 70s.

These are my stances, and have been since the issue cropped up. I'm sure you'll find that most on here on my side of the fence share some or all of these stances, but in past may not have been able to articulate it very well. Some may have changed their stances altogether as new data came out.

But using the qualifier "most" and describing your opposition as backpedalers is academically dishonest, as you and I both know this isn't true. Maybe you'd like to believe that for a "gotcha" moment, but, its not.
     
Warren Pease
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 2, 2010, 05:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
The worst are the "oh yeah, well look at how cold it's been in such and such region this year" arguments...
From our man Watts: NOAA graphs: 62% Of Continental US Below Normal In 2010 | Watts Up With That?

We keep hearing from NOAA and in the press about 2010 being the hottest year ever. Apparently, objective and unbiased scientists are rushing this incorrect information to press before La Niña spoils their party, and before the ruling party gets tossed out of Congress. An analysis of the above and below normal portions of the map yields some surprising data that contrasts with recent “official” announcements.
...
So how are things looking in the US? Despite the second strongest El Niño on record, 62% of the US has had below normal temperatures for the year so far.
Unsurprisingly, he doesn't link to any of those "official" press releases, which deal with temperatures around the globe.

NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - NOAA: June, April to June, and Year-to-Date Global Temperatures are Warmest on Record
NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - NOAA: U.S. Had Eighth Warmest June on Record, Above-Normal Precipitation
NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - NOAA: May Global Temperature is Warmest on Record
NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - NOAA: NOAA: Warmest April Global Temperature on Record
NOAA - NOAA: Global Temps Push Last Month to Hottest March on Record
NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - NOAA: Sixth Warmest February in Combined Global Surface Temperature,

Rather, he wants to make the point that averaging in a cool winter over several months, the US (contiguous only, best not to think about AK, with the greatest area of any state and most warming) which comprises 2% of the earth's surface is slightly cooler than average. To do so, he takes an averaged temperature map of the US, then resamples it to a lower resolution, before proceeding with his analysis.

Not surprisingly, NOAA, full of biased scientists who are supposed to be lying to us, agrees on this one point...
NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - NOAA: U.S. Winter and February Cooler Than Average
Watts somehow missed this press release. Probably just an oversight...

Great sleight of hand, and the audience laps it up...
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 2, 2010, 05:46 PM
 
Warren: I think you missed my point. My point was that hotter or colder temperatures in a particular region do not adequately refute the theories of climate change on their own, nor do colder temperatures. Arguments along these lines are weak ass...
     
Warren Pease
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 2, 2010, 05:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Warren: I think you missed my point. My point was that hotter or colder temperatures in a particular region do not adequately refute the theories of climate change on their own, nor do colder temperatures. Arguments along these lines are weak ass...
I understand your point. And it's my point as well...
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 2, 2010, 06:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by Warren Pease View Post
I understand your point. And it's my point as well...

Sorry, I didn't catch on to that...
     
sek929
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 2, 2010, 09:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Really? Can you cite this? Let me clarify my arguments and of those I agree with
Honestly I don't have the time to sift through 100+ pages of the Al Gore thread, and offhand you don't stick out in my mind as a vocal 'the scientists are lying' poster.

However, it is my recollection that many of the anti-Al Gore crowd suspected a worldwide scientific conspiracy and data fudging.

I've always been on the fence whether or not humans have had or are having a massive impact on our climate, but to me that's a moot point anyways.

What is the MMGW crowd telling us that's so bad? Reduce our dependency on foreign oil? Use alternative methods of energy production? Oh noes! Even if we are not changing our environment our environment IS changing. This is a fact most Al Gore haters like to skirt because it still brings about myriads of problems and obstacles that the 'junk' science was pushing in the first place. Great extinctions have occurred frequently in our planet's past, and to think we are somehow above this is downright silly.

I, for one, am very glad there are billions of dollars going towards climate research. Remember the dust bowl? Do you have any idea what a gigantic disaster that would be today if this nations breadbasket stopped producing food?
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 2, 2010, 11:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Really? Can you cite this? Let me clarify my arguments and of those I agree with

-Man is not causing GW, or Climate Change, or Weather - whatever you want to call it these days.
-The earth may be warming, but it is part of a natural cycle and this knowledge has been abused to make a buck. There is nothing alarming about GW as it stands today, and nothing we're doing that has a tangible effect on it.
-The "scientists" portraying the data used in these "reports" are funded on the premise that there is a problem. No problem? No work.
- Scientists contributing to climate change and warming theory are equally susceptible to all facets of human nature including, but not limited to insecurity, financial needs, cliques (often referred to as peer review), bias, corruption, and antagonism. They are not a single, unified, cold, mechanical oracle. (often referred to as "consensus")
-The scientists who are excluded from the reports (or included and misrepresented) have widely varying theories, dataset values, and conclusions that support a multitude of viewpoints that tell us for sure only that this science is in its infancy, and shouldn't be used to drastically change the lives of millions.
-The mean temperature for the earth rises and falls with time.
-MMGW as presented by Al Gore and the IPCC is an attempt at manufactured demand - much like bottled water in the US (an example of a success on their endeavor). This time though, the demand is for taxes and regulation to fit an agenda thats been known even back to "Global Cooling" in the 70s.

These are my stances, and have been since the issue cropped up. I'm sure you'll find that most on here on my side of the fence share some or all of these stances, but in past may not have been able to articulate it very well. Some may have changed their stances altogether as new data came out.

But using the qualifier "most" and describing your opposition as backpedalers is academically dishonest, as you and I both know this isn't true. Maybe you'd like to believe that for a "gotcha" moment, but, its not.
The whole shebang. I only added one for fun.
ebuddy
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 2, 2010, 11:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
-Man is not causing GW
I'm pretty sure Obama disagrees. And so does GHW

-t
     
mattyb  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Standing on the shoulders of giants
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2010, 04:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Oh yay, Superfreakonomics. Wish I had the proverbial nickel for every non-climate-science-aware person who told me to read it, as if it contained a solution.

Or for that matter, a quarter for the mischaracterizations, out-of-context quotes, out-and-out mistakes, or just plain lack of understanding of climate science found in Superfreakonomics....

(Don't get me wrong - it's an interesting take on it. Just that: interesting.)
Pardon me, I forgot that if Al Gore doesn't approve, then propositions should be dismissed out of hand. You still think that Carbon Dioxide is the baddy do you? You'll learn.
     
mattyb  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Standing on the shoulders of giants
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2010, 05:24 AM
 
And there's more.

One thing is certain: this part of the Arctic warmed up after the end of the Little Ice Age around 250 years ago, cooled down from the middle of the last century and has been warming up again since 1990
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2010, 05:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by mattyb View Post
Pardon me, I forgot that if Al Gore doesn't approve, then propositions should be dismissed out of hand. You still think that Carbon Dioxide is the baddy do you? You'll learn.
1. You're being an idiot. I said nothing about Al Gore. Care to refute my statement about their errors?
2. Teach me, master.

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2010, 12:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
1. You're being an idiot. I said nothing about Al Gore. Care to refute my statement about their errors?
2. Teach me, master.

greg

I'll teach you a few things, but first, go make me a sandwich.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2010, 01:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Really? Can you cite this? Let me clarify my arguments and of those I agree with
+1

*Whew* in before the page 62 lock.
     
mattyb  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Standing on the shoulders of giants
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 4, 2010, 05:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
1. You're being an idiot. I said nothing about Al Gore. Care to refute my statement about their errors?
2. Teach me, master.
I am no scientist, I know nothing about earth sciences, geography, climate physics, chemistry etc. I do however listen to people who have said knowledge before listening to life-long politicians. I also like the idea that we should try solutions that cost under $100 million, before solutions that cost $100 billion.

Or for that matter, a quarter for the mischaracterizations, out-of-context quotes, out-and-out mistakes, or just plain lack of understanding of climate science found in Superfreakonomics
You can obviously find several articles that support your point of view. I could do the same. What is unfortunate in the GW/MMGW debate is that science has been ignored (by both sides) and political agendas have come to the forefront. I'd be lying if I said that I an unbiased due to my political leanings. For me personally if Al Gore is against it, it's probably a good idea.

Teach me, master
You're being an idiot.
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 5, 2010, 07:07 AM
 
Originally Posted by mattyb View Post
I am no scientist, I know nothing about earth sciences, geography, climate physics, chemistry etc. I do however listen to people who have said knowledge before listening to life-long politicians. I also like the idea that we should try solutions that cost under $100 million, before solutions that cost $100 billion.
Rephrase: "I'm no scientist and know nothing about the subject, but I would rather listen to a maverick who is heavily criticized by the vast majority of those working in these appropriate fields, and the two economists that wrote an error-filled chapter about said maverick."

Right.

You can obviously find several articles that support your point of view. I could do the same.
I didn't say "point of view." I said "mischaracterizations, out-of-context quotes, out-and-out mistakes, or just plain lack of understanding of climate science found in Superfreakonomics."

That is demonstrable. You won't find an article saying "they didn't mischaracterize so-and-so and/or make a verifiable mistake and/or take so-and-so's quote out of context. They did, in fact, do all those things.

Please, by all means, do go out of your way to do a Google Search.

You're being an idiot.
Well at least it got you to somewhat address what I said instead of going off on a irrelevant tangent hmm?

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2010, 12:08 AM
 
So Shortcut, are you just going to ignore my post and be continue making unfounded blanket statements? Would you care to clarify your position so that I, and the rest of us, may better understand it?
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2010, 06:44 AM
 
That depends.

Have you publicly admitted that the scientists behind "Climategate" actually didn't do anything wrong at all? Or that the Hansen "hockey stick" graph has actually been proven to be valid?

Otherwise, you're still delusional. And I don't need to waste my time addressing statements made by delusional people.

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
brassplayersrock²
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2010, 06:55 AM
 
But Greg, he’s only harnessing the best of powers. Cut him some slack…. geeze.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2010, 07:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Have you publicly admitted that the scientists behind "Climategate" actually didn't do anything wrong at all?
You sure there was no rebuke of anything exposed in the stolen emails greg? Otherwise, you might be a smidgen biased in your assessment that they've done nothing wrong at all. I'm pretty sure a concerted effort to use your contacts in getting someone you disagree with removed from the peer review process is "wrong".

Or that the Hansen "hockey stick" graph has actually been proven to be valid?
The "Hansen" hockey stick graph? I thought the problem was with Mann's hockey stick graph.
ebuddy
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2010, 08:10 AM
 
Yes, Mann's graph, exactly. Not Hansen at all.

Rebuke? Oh yes, there was "rebuke." Rebuke for things said that they apparently should've been more careful about in personal emails, because after all the intarweb is no longer the free domain it once was. What next? Personal recorded conversations later dug up and subsequent "rebukes" about Mann expressing his desire to choke the living daylights out of Andrew Montford?

Or are you talking about "the science"? I expected numerous accusations about the scientific underpinnings to come to light, especially given the enormity of the information breach - you can always find someone fudging something, somewhere. And yet... nothing.

Except on MacNN Pol Lounge, of course. Startling.

greg
( Last edited by ShortcutToMoncton; Aug 6, 2010 at 09:28 AM. )
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2010, 12:36 PM
 
Stuff Greg says is truth:

"The scientists behind "Climategate" actually didn't do anything wrong at all? Or that the Hansen "hockey stick" graph has actually been proven to be valid?
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2010, 01:42 PM
 
MAN IS CAUSING GLOBAL WARMING!

NO THEY'RE NOT!

YES THEY ARE!

NUH-UH!

UH-HUH!



This is the conclusion I've come to:

This same old tennis match wears thin and it's not really the point we should be discussing over-and-over-and-over. That is the realm of scientists, not laymen.

What IS relevant is what, if anything, should be done by government about it.

Doncha think?
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2010, 01:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by kylef View Post
Watergate. Climategate. Antennagate. What is the fascination with gate?
I'm waiting for Gates McFadden Gate.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2010, 02:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
So Shortcut, are you just going to ignore my post and be continue making unfounded blanket statements?
Snow-i, that's exactly what you just did. Unfounded, blanket statements. Shortcut (and my) position is backed up by mountains of evidence and scientific data, information that's interpreted by scientists and specialists in their respective fields, then presented to you in numerous published science journals. Stop asking us to "prove our side," the evidence is already presented to you. I don't know if it's laziness on your part, or a just simple bullheadedness to not attempt to understand the rationalization behind the findings, but you seem intent on trusting conservative talk show hosts instead.

You need to provide evidence to the contrary.

It's good to ask questions and to be skeptical, but sticking your head in the sand and refusing to even attempt to understand the other side is not the same thing.

People will feed their kids organic foods claiming they're protecting their children, then not vaccinate their children because of something they saw on Oprah, only to have their kids die from pertussis. They'll question, and question, and question, and question all the relevant scientific evidence no matter how much there is, then visit a homeopath or chiropractor without a second thought.

It's confounding.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:15 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,