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 > Climategate: the Global Warming Conspiracy

Climategate: the Global Warming Conspiracy (Page 3)
Thread Tools
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 24, 2009, 10:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
HAR HAR. Clever boy.

Are you saying that there is no credible dissent over how old the planet may be, among scientists?

I'm not talking about the difference between Genesis old, and where scientific data will generally lead to - but is everyone really in lockstep on the date the Earth came into existence?

Is there really no debate about when humans came into existence? Again, I'm not saying between those who believe the Biblical chronology and scientists who believe it happened a lot longer ago. I could of sworn over the past 30 years or so there being dissent, and the round about dates shifting over a long period of time.

Consensus did nothing for the old way of thinking once it was proven not to be accurate. Consensus has never found the truth. The truth eventually finds consensus. That's why appeals to majority or popularity are logical fallacies when used to debate an argument.
How old is Earth and how long have man been on this planet? What's your opinion? What's the scientific consensus?
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 24, 2009, 10:28 PM
 
Lets deny what we don't want to accept. Lies from 'scientists', lies from politicians - mostly european- and lies from politically funded pop-science groups. See any parallels between the ACORN creeps who left some interesting stuff in a couple offices? Untrustworthy and fuzzy thinking liberals.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 24, 2009, 10:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
The burden of proof isn't on me. I'm not saying I can predict for sure one way or another. I'm saying though that 150 years is just a teeny tiny microscopic snapshot of the bigger picture and that there well could have been lower and higher temperatures on Earth not caused by man than what the 150 year snapshot shows. I'm saying you really want to convince people, you really need to show us the big picture and how this relates.



I think that what you can assume is that when you are dealing with something that has a number set about 5 billion in length, sampling 20 or 150 really isn't going to make that much of a difference.

You want to take a cherry picked sample of 150 because that's the sample that shows what you want. That's really not very scientific.
They started measuring world temperature with thermometers 150 years ago.

How do they measure temperature from 2000 years ago?

Do you believe there was a Medieval Warming Period? How was that measured?
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 24, 2009, 10:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Lets deny what we don't want to accept. Lies from 'scientists', lies from politicians - mostly european- and lies from politically funded pop-science groups. See any parallels between the ACORN creeps who left some interesting stuff in a couple offices? Untrustworthy and fuzzy thinking liberals.
Global Warming - Liberal Agenda
Gay Marriage - Liberal Agenda
Nobel Peace Price - Liberal Agenda
Olympics - Liberal Agenda
UN - Liberal Agenda
Education - Liberal Agenda
Evolution - Liberal Agenda
Science - Liberal Agenda
Math - Liberal Agenda
Statistics - Liberal Agenda
Physics - Liberal Agenda
Old Earth - Liberal Agenda
Round Earth - Liberal Agenda
Media - Liberal Agenda
Hollywood - Liberal Agenda
Blogs - Liberal Agenda
Wikipedia - Liberal Agenda
Internet - Liberal Agenda
Net Neutrality - Liberal Agenda


Joe Scarborough - Not a conservative
Glenn Beck - Not a conservative
Ronald Reagan - Not a conservative


Summing up conservative logic and arguments

1. Liberal Agenda, Liberal Media
2. S/he not a true conservative
3. S/he not a true Christian

All arguments should just be based on the above 3 arguments if you are a conservative.

Don't believe in anything conservatives.

Stick with the 3 G's as Glenn Beck put it.

God, Gold, and Guns.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 25, 2009, 12:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
They started measuring world temperature with thermometers 150 years ago.

How do they measure temperature from 2000 years ago?

Do you believe there was a Medieval Warming Period? How was that measured?
Core samples, tree rings

Ever see a show called Connections? James Burke was the host and one episode dealt with the Medieval Warming period.

In this episode, he talks about it "suddenly getting hot"' YouTube - James Burke : Connections, Episode 1, "The Trigger Effect", 4 of 5 (CC)
( Last edited by Chongo; Nov 25, 2009 at 10:40 AM. )
45/47
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 25, 2009, 07:51 AM
 
Wait... now we're using popular-science TV shows from the 1970s?

Great stuff. Just... great stuff.

Originally Posted by ebuddy
I like how German nuclear physicist Max Planck puts it; "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die."
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 25, 2009, 08:03 AM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
They started measuring world temperature with thermometers 150 years ago.

How do they measure temperature from 2000 years ago?
So you are saying that these politicians are making all these doom and gloom predicts which would force us to accept a severely lower standard of living (which still wouldn't solve the problem) based on just a teeny tiny collection of data that couldn't really be used as any kind of random sample to develop a bigger picture of what we are looking at?
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 25, 2009, 09:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
So you are saying that these politicians are making all these doom and gloom predicts which would force us to accept a severely lower standard of living (which still wouldn't solve the problem) based on just a teeny tiny collection of data that couldn't really be used as any kind of random sample to develop a bigger picture of what we are looking at?
Haha...

You don't need to know what the temperature is 5000 years ago to figure out increasing world temperatures is bad.

You don't need to if the dinosaurs were kills by an asteroid millions of years ago to figure out that a gigantic asteroid can kill us all.


There is no dispute over the warming trend in the last 150 years. I know the world temperature is increasing.


I'm going to believe NASA, IPCC, and NOAA over conservative thinkers like you with no scientific background.

NOAA Paleoclimatology Global Warming - The Data

Anything past 150 years will have lots of variances. Here are a few reconstructions of world temperature readings.



The website also has a list of other reconstructions.

Overpeck et al., 1997
Briffa et al., 1998
Jones et al., 1998
Mann et al., 1998
Pollack et al., 1998
Jones et al., 1998
Mann et al., 1999
Mann et al., 2000
Briffa et al., 2001
Esper et al., 2002
Jones and Mann 2004
D'Arrigo et al. 2006


Lots of great information on Global Warming. Even mentions other "warm period".

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globa...sitemapgw.html
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 25, 2009, 09:51 AM
 
Temperature record - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1850 till today.

The most detailed information exists since 1850, when methodical thermometer-based records began.

Instrumental Temperature Record



Those who don't think there is a warming trend in the last 150 years are idiots who can't read a simple graph.


1850 and before


Proxies: tree rings, ice cores: the last 2000 years


Here's where most of the debate goes on. The reconstruction of temperatures for the last 2000 years using proxies.


Man made Global Warming skeptics latch onto the so called "Medieval Warming Period". They decided to latch onto 1 reconstruction which shows the "Medieval Warming Period" and ignore all the other reconstructions.


2000 years reconstruction

Graph shows reconstruction done by half a dozen different people.

Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 25, 2009, 10:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
So you are saying that these politicians are making all these doom and gloom predicts which would force us to accept a severely lower standard of living (which still wouldn't solve the problem) based on just a teeny tiny collection of data that couldn't really be used as any kind of random sample to develop a bigger picture of what we are looking at?
I love how you find 20 years of data more than enough to conclude that the Earth is cooling, but 150 years insufficient to conclude that it is warming.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 25, 2009, 10:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Nice list of acts? But what does most of them have anything to do with global warming or clean energy?
Climate change affects a wealth of sectors as you might imagine. Cap and Trade for example brings in a host of new lobbyists.

I thought the argument you were trying to make was that GE spends tons of money lobbying for Global Warming. I think you are confuse. This is a global warming thread. Not a I hate GE cause they own NBC thread.
GE does spend tons of money lobbying for climate change legislation, but you're right. It's not about "I hate GE" because I'm sure I've got a GE lightbulb in this house somewhere. It's much more than GE, but GE was a nice "face" to put on the explosive lobbying efforts. Take the members of the US Climate Action Partnership (USCAP) who support the Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill for example;

* AES
* Alcoa
* Alstom
* Boston Scientific Corporation
* BP America
* Caterpillar
* Chrysler
* ConocoPhillips
* Deere & Company
* The Dow Chemical Company
* Duke Energy
* DuPont
* Environmental Defense Fund
* Exelon Corporation
* Ford Motor Company
* FPL Group
* General Electric
* General Motors Corporation
* Johnson & Johnson
* Natural Resources Defense Council
* The Nature Conservancy
* NRG Energy
* PepsiCo
* Pew Center on Global Climate Change
* PG&E; Corporation
* PNM Resources
* Rio Tinto
* Shell
* Siemens Corporation

Isn't that crazy? I see *shhhhh... oil companies in this list. When I use terms like "big oil", surely you understand that I'm responding to the standard argument of those who support climate change legislation by demonizing oil companies. Not all of the oil companies you list are fighting climate change legislation my friend.


$187 million on lobbying in 10 years.
Wow, impressive for a company like GE that makes everything from lightbulbs to refrigerators.

Money spent on lobbying in 2008 by Oil Companies
Exxon Mobil - $29 million
Shell - $3.3 million (member of USCAP and supports Waxman-Markey)
BP - $10.5 million (BP America, member of USCAP and supports Waxman-Markey)
Chevron - $14.5 million
Conoco Philips - $8.5 million (member of USCAP and support Waxman-Markey)
You make the mistake of assuming because it's an oil company, they don't want to stake their claim on a changing market condition; namely, oppressive environmental legislation.

The top 5 oil companies spent $65.8 million in 2008 on lobbying efforts. Seems a lot more than GE spends on lobbying in 2008. From your list, it seems most of the money GE spent on lobbying has nothing to do with clean energy or alternative energy. How much was spend on lobbying for clean energy? $1 million?
Don't think of climate change legislation as only related to clean energy. There is a substantial investment and finance component to this issue. Climate change legislation has very broad implications from media to manufacturing.

I said GE makes everything from lightbulbs to refrigerators. I didn't say GE only makes lightbulbs and refrigerators or GE is limited to making lightbulbs and refrigerators.
No, you tried to imply that they are simply an appliance manufacturer with blatant disregard for the financial arm of the business, its most substantive revenue generating unit. You and I both know why you did it. Either you were genuinely ignorant of this or willfully ignorant. Take your pick.

No wonder why you are having problems reading a simple graph that shows a warming trend in world temperatures.
You mean the warming trend graphs you showed using Mann's debunked hockey stick graph? That's my favorite. There's a neat little math "trick" you can use with Mann's hockey stick methodology where any combination of data used for inputs produces a hockey stick.

Yes, ebuddy. GE makes lightbulbs, refrigerators, washers, dryers, jet engines, owns NBC, involve in energy, involve in oil & gas, finance, and so forth.
Excellent. I'd ask that you not say "from 1 to 10" when you mean "from 1 to 20" then if you want to be taken seriously.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 25, 2009, 10:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
I love how you find 20 years of data more than enough to conclude that the Earth is cooling, but 150 years insufficient to conclude that it is warming.
What if you conclude that it both warms and cools? Is this bad?
ebuddy
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 25, 2009, 12:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
I love how you find 20 years of data more than enough to conclude that the Earth is cooling, but 150 years insufficient to conclude that it is warming.
The Earth has cooled over the past 10 years. That's really not in debate. Since the standard is just what has happeded during that time frame, and the data is readily available. 10 years ago were told that based on the limited info we had, that the Earth would be warmer. We were promised the models were correct and that there would be major life changing problems by now if we didn't act then. Those people who had consensus behind then, were wrong.

So, yeah - the data we have is enough to conclusively determine whether there has been recent cooling (though it really can't show whether that trend will continue or abate - that's what screwy computer models are for). It however is not enough to determine what the mean temperature of 4.6 billion year old planet should be which would be necessary to know to be able to determine if recent temperatures are way outside the normal temperature flucuatuons of the planet.

I'm really suprised I had to actually type this out.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 25, 2009, 12:25 PM
 
150 years of data? Show us accurate data for 10 thousand years.
     
Warren Pease
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 25, 2009, 12:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
I think that what you can assume is that when you are dealing with something that has a number set about 5 billion in length, sampling 20 or 150 really isn't going to make that much of a difference.
I thought we were going to talk about human impact on Earth's climate and not just general climate. Going back 5 billion years is interesting, but doesn't do much to address the present situation. Anthropogenic effects on the Earth and it's climate probably start 10-20k years ago (Agricultural Revolution) and have only recently begun to have a noticeable impact (Industrial Revolution).

Will write more later.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 25, 2009, 02:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by Warren Pease View Post
I thought we were going to talk about human impact on Earth's climate and not just general climate. Going back 5 billion years is interesting, but doesn't do much to address the present situation.
The "present situation" needs to be put into perspective against the bigger picture before you can make any kind reasonable assessment. If my kid shoots up 3 inches over the summer, that doesn't mean we need to take them to the Doctor to combat giantism if his height is still within norms.

Anthropogenic effects on the Earth and it's climate probably start 10-20k years ago (Agricultural Revolution) and have only recently begun to have a noticeable impact (Industrial Revolution).

Will write more later.
One thing is certain: change. Nothing stays the same. You can't stop it even if you wanted to.

People with an agenda are overplaying their hand, and I fear it's trust of science that will be the victim in all this. When and if we can prove any real climate or environmental catastrophes are imminent, no one's going to heed the warnings because we've heard the same alarmism over and over. The fact that 10 years ago scientists where assuring us that computer models proved it would be warmer today doesn't help convince someone that the same is true of tomorrow when they were wrong the first time. Chicken Little couldn't be a more appropriate comparison.

Again, that's not to say that it won't get warmer. I might. It might not. A lot of scientists guessed wrong 10 years ago. There's no reason to believe that might not be the case now. Especially as it becomes clearer and clearer this has more to do with an agenda than real science.
( Last edited by stupendousman; Nov 25, 2009 at 02:31 PM. )
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 25, 2009, 03:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Global Warming - Faulty data treated as fact
Gay Marriage - Liberal Agenda
Nobel Peace Price - Liberal Agenda
Olympics - Liberal Agenda
UN - Liberal Agenda- why would you think otherwise?
Education - PC Agenda
Evolution - scientific Agenda
Pop Science - Liberal Agenda
Math - no Agenda
Statistics - mostly political agenda on both sides
Physics - no Agenda
Mainstream Media - Liberal Agenda- proven everyday by such pundits as Maddow, Matthews, Couric etc
Hollywood - Liberal/nut-job Agenda
Blogs - confused Agenda
Wikipedia - Opinion stated as facts
Internet - every Agenda
Net Neutrality - Questionable motives


Joe Scarborough - Not a conservative
Glenn Beck - Irritating to liberals (see also Palin, Coulter, Limbaugh)
Ronald Reagan - conservative


Summing up conservative logic and arguments( as mis-characterized by liberal)

1. Liberal Agenda, Liberal Media
2. S/he not a true conservative
3. S/he not a true Christian

All arguments should just be based on the above 3 arguments if you are a conservative.

Don't believe in anything conservatives.

Stick with the 3 G's as Glenn Beck put it.

God, Gold, and Guns.
While the liberal agenda and logic pretends to be ironclad, while ignoring history, or fabricates one.
     
Orion27
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Safe House
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 25, 2009, 03:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Global Warming - Liberal Agenda
Gay Marriage - Liberal Agenda
Nobel Peace Price - Liberal Agenda
Olympics - Liberal Agenda
UN - Liberal Agenda
Education - Liberal Agenda
Evolution - Liberal Agenda
Science - Liberal Agenda
Math - Liberal Agenda
Statistics - Liberal Agenda
Physics - Liberal Agenda
Old Earth - Liberal Agenda
Round Earth - Liberal Agenda
Media - Liberal Agenda
Hollywood - Liberal Agenda
Blogs - Liberal Agenda
Wikipedia - Liberal Agenda
Internet - Liberal Agenda
Net Neutrality - Liberal Agenda


Joe Scarborough - Not a conservative
Glenn Beck - Not a conservative
Ronald Reagan - Not a conservative


Summing up conservative logic and arguments

1. Liberal Agenda, Liberal Media
2. S/he not a true conservative
3. S/he not a true Christian

All arguments should just be based on the above 3 arguments if you are a conservative.

Don't believe in anything conservatives.

Stick with the 3 G's as Glenn Beck put it.

God, Gold, and Guns.
Liberalism is a lie: Obama Science Czar and Climategate

How the deed was done
“A perfect person and opportunity appeared. On 16th October 2003 Michael Mann, infamous for his lead in the ‘hockey stick’ that dominated the 2001 IPCC Report, sent an email to people involved in the CRU scandal; “

Dear All,

Thought you would be interested in this exchange, which John Holdren of Harvard has been kind enough to pass along…” At the time Holdren was Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy & Director, Program in Science, Technology, & Public Policy, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, John F. Kennedy School of Government. He is now Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology—informally known as the United States Science Czar.

““In an email on October16, 2003 from John Holdren to Michael Mann and Tom Wigley we are told:

”“I’m forwarding for your entertainment an exchange that followed from my being quoted in the Harvard Crimson to the effect that you and your colleagues are right and my “Harvard” colleagues Soon and Baliunas are wrong about what the evidence shows concerning surface temperatures over the past millennium. The cover note to faculty and postdocs in a regular Wednesday breakfast discussion group on environmental science and public policy in Harvard’s Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences is more or less self-explanatory.”

The Wednesday Breakfast Group
“This is what Holdren sent to the Wednesday Breakfast group.

“I append here an e-mail correspondence I have engaged in over the past few days trying to educate a Soon/Baliunas supporter who originally wrote to me asking how I could think that Soon and Baliunas are wrong and Mann et al. are right (a view attributed to me, correctly, in the Harvard Crimson). This individual apparently runs a web site on which he had been touting the Soon/Baliunas position.”

“The exchange Holdren refers to is a challenge by Nick Schulz editor of Tech Central Station (TCS). On August 9, 2003 Schulz wrote;

“In a recent Crimson story on the work of Soon and Baliunas, who have written for my website [1 techcentralstation.com, you are quoted as saying: My impression is that the critics are right. It s unfortunate that so much attention is paid to a flawed analysis, but that’s what happens when something happens to support the political climate in Washington. Do you feel the same way about the work of Mann et. al.? If not why not?”

“Holdren provides lengthy responses on October 13, 14, and 16 but comments fail to answer Schulz’s questions. After the first response Schulz replies, “I guess my problem concerns what lawyers call the burden of proof. The burden weighs heavily, much more heavily, given the claims on Mann et.al. than it does on Soon/Baliunas. Would you agree?” Of course, Holdren doesn’t agree. He replies, “But, in practice, burden of proof is an evolving thing-it evolves as the amount of evidence relevant to a particular proposition grows.” No it doesn’t evolve; it is either on one side or the other. This argument is in line with what has happened with AGW. He then demonstrates his lack of understanding of science and climate science by opting for Mann and his hockey stick over Soon and Baliunas. His entire defense and position devolves to a political position. His attempt to belittle Soon and Baliunas in front of colleagues is a measure of the man’s blindness and political opportunism that pervades everything he says or does.

“Schulz provides a solid summary when he writes, “I’ll close by saying I’m willing to admit that, as someone lacking a PhD, I could be punching above my weight. But I will ask you a different but related question. How much hope is there for reaching reasonable public policy decisions that affect the lives of millions if the science upon which those decisions must be made is said to be by definition beyond the reach of those people?”

“We now know it was deliberately placed beyond the reach of the people by the group that he used to ridicule Soon and Baliunas. Holdren was blinded by his political views, which as his record shows are frightening. One web site synthesizes his position on over-population as follows, “Forced abortions. Mass sterilization. A “Planetary Regime” with the power of life and death over American citizens.”

“Holdren has a long history of seeking total government control. He was involved in the Club of Rome providing Paul Ehrlich with the scientific data in his bet with Julian Simon. Ehrlich lost the bet. Holdren’s behavior in this sorry episode with Soon and Baliunas is too true to form and shows the leopard never changes his spots,” Ball concludes.

Meanwhile, even with an AWOL mainstream media, the Climategate snakes continue to slither out from under the rocks.

Link:John Holdren, Obama's Science Czar, says: Forced abortions and mass sterilization needed to save the planet

Email: 1047388489.txt
From: “Michael E. Mann” <[email protected]>
To: Phil Jones <[email protected]>,[email protected], [email protected],[email protected]
Subject: Re: Fwd: Soon & Baliunas
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 08:14:49 -0500
Cc: [email protected],[email protected]... .columbia.edu, [email protected],[email protected], [email protected]
Thanks Phil,
(Tom: Congrats again!)
The Soon & Baliunas paper couldn’t have cleared a ‘legitimate’ peer review process
anywhere. That leaves only one possibility–that the peer-review process at Climate
Research has been hijacked by a few skeptics on the editorial board. And it isn’t just De
Frietas, unfortunately I think this group also includes a member of my own department…
The skeptics appear to have staged a ‘coup’ at “Climate Research” (it was a mediocre
journal to begin with, but now its a mediocre journal with a definite ‘purpose’).
Folks might want to check out the editors and review editors:
[1]http://www.int-res.com/journals/cr/crEditors.html
In fact, Mike McCracken first pointed out this article to me, and he and I have discussed
this a bit. I’ve cc’d Mike in on this as well, and I’ve included Peck too. I told Mike that
I believed our only choice was to ignore this paper. They’ve already achieved what they
wanted–the claim of a peer-reviewed paper. There is nothing we can do about that now, but
the last thing we want to do is bring attention to this paper, which will be ignored by the
community on the whole…
It is pretty clear that thee skeptics here have staged a bit of a coup, even in the
presence of a number of reasonable folks on the editorial board (Whetton, Goodess, …). My
guess is that Von Storch is actually with them (frankly, he’s an odd individual, and I’m
not sure he isn’t himself somewhat of a skeptic himself), and without Von Storch on their
side, they would have a very forceful personality promoting their new vision.
There have been several papers by Pat Michaels, as well as the Soon & Baliunas paper, that
couldn’t get published in a reputable journal.
This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the
“peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal!
So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a
legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate
research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also
need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently
sit on the editorial board…
What do others think?
mike

And we will suppress and discredit all science which do not validate our view of the world.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 25, 2009, 04:10 PM
 
Prediction: One person will read that entire post.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 25, 2009, 04:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
Prediction: One person will read that entire post.
Excluding Google Bot?

He had me at his opening salvo of "Liberalism is a Lie".
     
Warren Pease
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 25, 2009, 04:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
The "present situation" needs to be put into perspective against the bigger picture before you can make any kind reasonable assessment.
and
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
One thing is certain: change. Nothing stays the same. You can't stop it even if you wanted to.
You seem to be using two contradictory positions to make your case. 1) the present situation needs to be compared to some time in the past for perspective, then 2) nothing stays the same.

Which is it?

Are we dealing with analogous periods in the past, or all periods different due to inevitable change?
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 25, 2009, 04:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
150 years of data? Show us accurate data for 10 thousand years.
10 thousand years? Why not 100,000 years? What not 1,000,000 years? Why not 100,000,000,000 years?

You gave me reconstructions for the last 1,000,000 years?

FAKE! LIBERAL AGENDA!

I don't think it matters how many years of data is given.

Cause to a conservative, all data is fake.


Earth is more than 10,000 years old? FAKE. LIBERAL AGENDA!
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Orion27
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Safe House
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 25, 2009, 04:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
Prediction: One person will read that entire post.
You're probably right. The truth is sometimes painful.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 25, 2009, 04:58 PM
 
Global Warming is a global liberal conspiracy to create the New World Order with Barrack Obama as King. Under the new regime, they will forced abortions and mass sterilization.

With the help of the 2010 Census and Obama's secret army disguise under "community organization", conservatives will be forced into concentration/reeducation camps.

They are being funded by George Soros, ACORN, and a secret elite group of businessman.

2010 Census - Fascist Liberal Agenda
Community Organization & Charity Organizations - Socialist Liberal Agenda
( Last edited by hyteckit; Nov 25, 2009 at 05:08 PM. )
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Orion27
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Safe House
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 25, 2009, 06:07 PM
 
Condescending and insulting. Why must incremental socialism be unworthy of any challenge? Quite frankly, I dislike the fact this whole climate science debate has been politicized. Unfortunately, the debate has been politicized. The point is there are policy proposals which are worthy of debate. Anthropogenic global warming is not settled science. By what process humans cause global warming is not settled. Policy agendas are pursued as if it were. So, let's uncouple the political debate and just do the science.
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 25, 2009, 06:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
What if you conclude that it both warms and cools? Is this bad?
It does warm and cool, but it's warming on average.
"…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
Nov 25, 2009, 07:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
150 years of data? Show us accurate data for 10 thousand years.
I have a radical idea. How about you read a book on the various methods for determining the temperature, then report back here on how it is possible to get accurate data for the past 10 thousand years, or even as far back as *gasp* hundreds of thousands of years!

I'll even give you a few hints to get you started; who knows, maybe you'll actually learn something: coral growth, tree rings, radio isotopes in ice, and sediment.
"…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
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 25, 2009, 07:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by Orion27 View Post
So, let's uncouple the political debate and just do the science.
lol?
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Gee-Man
Senior User
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 25, 2009, 09:56 PM
 
BadKosh - I find your I-really-really-hate-all-liberals posts far more interesting and coherent when they are formatted as a poem, and the appropriate punctuation is added. Take this one from earlier in the thread for example:

Lets deny

what we don't want.

To accept

Lies from 'scientists'

lies from politicians

mostly european!

And lies from

politically funded

pop-science groups

See any parallels between?

The ACORN creeps

who left some interesting stuff

in a couple offices?

Untrustworthy and fuzzy.

Thinking liberals!
     
JoshuaZ
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Yamanashi, Japan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 25, 2009, 10:29 PM
 
Well you could look at it one of four ways.

1) Global Warming false. We do nothing and save money. Pollution get worse, but not planet ending.

2) Global Warming is false. We clean things up anyways, limiting pollution and cleaning up the environment.

3) Global Warming is true. We do nothing and our planet gets much much worse for everyone.

4) Global warming is true. We clean things up and try to move things back to normal.

I personally would rather go with #2. I'd rather we find out global warming is completely false, but we took steps anyways to improve the environment.

I personally believe that #4 is what is happening.

I don't understand how anyone can argue against trying to improve the environment. We only have one. If fisheries collapse because of overfishing and pollution, we all lose. If crops fail because of horrible weather, we all fail. If areas don't get rainfall and massive outbreaks of wildfires happen, we all lose. If massive amounts of flooding hit coastal cities, we all lose. It doesn't matter if we're "conservative" or "liberal", in the end we all have to survive in the same environment. Yes things cost money, and yes, changing behaviors takes time, but wouldn't you rather things chance for the better?
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 26, 2009, 12:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by Gee-Man View Post
BadKosh - I find your I-really-really-hate-all-liberals posts far more interesting and coherent when they are formatted as a poem, and the appropriate punctuation is added. Take this one from earlier in the thread for example:
How about a BadKosh Haiku?

Let us all deny
What we don't want to accept
Lies from scientists

Or

Politically
Untrustworthy and fuzzy
Thinking Liberals
( Last edited by olePigeon; Nov 26, 2009 at 12:45 AM. )
"…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
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 26, 2009, 12:51 AM
 
Originally Posted by JoshuaZ View Post
Well you could look at it one of four ways.

1) Global Warming false. We do nothing and save money. Pollution get worse, but not planet ending.

2) Global Warming is false. We clean things up anyways, limiting pollution and cleaning up the environment.

3) Global Warming is true. We do nothing and our planet gets much much worse for everyone.

4) Global warming is true. We clean things up and try to move things back to normal.

I personally would rather go with #2. I'd rather we find out global warming is completely false, but we took steps anyways to improve the environment.

I personally believe that #4 is what is happening.

I don't understand how anyone can argue against trying to improve the environment. We only have one. If fisheries collapse because of overfishing and pollution, we all lose. If crops fail because of horrible weather, we all fail. If areas don't get rainfall and massive outbreaks of wildfires happen, we all lose. If massive amounts of flooding hit coastal cities, we all lose. It doesn't matter if we're "conservative" or "liberal", in the end we all have to survive in the same environment. Yes things cost money, and yes, changing behaviors takes time, but wouldn't you rather things chance for the better?
In other words, the downside risk (false reject) is far greater than the upside reward (false alarm), so a balanced hedge has us erring on the side of false alarm. The Right has an equivalent issue, terrorism. I'll turn your question around by translating it to that issue:

1) Terrorist threats are false. We do nothing, and save liberty. Terrorism gets worse, but not catastrophic.

2) Terrorist threats are false. We go ape-**** on Muslims anyways, limiting the basal level of terrorism and clearing out the "dangerous" Islamic radicals.

3) Terrorist threats are true. We do nothing, and all our base are belong to them.

4) Terrorist threats are true. We go ape-**** on Muslims and avoid getting blowed up.

Now, would you still put your money where your mouth is, and bet it all on (2)? Or are you willing to admit that it's more complicated than that, and there are secondary effects of our actions that are not insignificant (like giving up our liberty, either to the terrorism nanny-state or to the carbon footprint nanny-state; or like making things worse by creating more terrorists than we kill or by making more pollution than we save *cough*ethanol*cough*)?
     
JoshuaZ
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Yamanashi, Japan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 26, 2009, 01:49 AM
 
Wow, I like how you completely derail this Global Warming thread by completely changing it to a Terrorism thread through loose logic and and curse words.

I also never said the solutions were easy, or that I was for ethanol, any more than it would be proper for me to say that "You have an ass, thus you must like being ****ed in it every day by random men at rest stops." That would very wrong.

What I was saying is that doing NOTHING (aka what we're doing now) is WORSE than doing SOMETHING (aka finding solutions or looking for solutions).

Though you know I guess I could bring this back to terrorism. Doing NOTHING (aka what we've been doing with foreign policy in the middle east for the past 70 years) is WORSE than doing SOMETHING (opening peace talks, changing our foreign policy, removing our military from certain areas).

So in a way, I guess you are right.

Except the parts where you wrote stuff. Those parts would be wrong.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 26, 2009, 02:00 AM
 
Let us all deny
What we don't want to accept
Lies from scientists
<dramatic pause>
0bama
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 26, 2009, 03:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by JoshuaZ View Post
Wow, I like how you completely derail this Global Warming thread by completely changing it to a Terrorism thread through loose logic and and curse words.

I also never said the solutions were easy, or that I was for ethanol, any more than it would be proper for me to say that "You have an ass, thus you must like being ****ed in it every day by random men at rest stops." That would very wrong.

What I was saying is that doing NOTHING (aka what we're doing now) is WORSE than doing SOMETHING (aka finding solutions or looking for solutions).

Though you know I guess I could bring this back to terrorism. Doing NOTHING (aka what we've been doing with foreign policy in the middle east for the past 70 years) is WORSE than doing SOMETHING (opening peace talks, changing our foreign policy, removing our military from certain areas).

So in a way, I guess you are right.

Except the parts where you wrote stuff. Those parts would be wrong.
Until you see things from the other side's point of view with an open mind, you're just going to be spinning your wheels indefinitely. I'm giving you the tools you need to see the other side's point of view. They see us as scare-mongers trying to grab power by intimidating the public with a scapegoat boogeyman. It's the same way we see them when they talk about terrorism. The solution is somewhere in the middle. You won't get to the middle by saying "I don't understand how anyone can argue against the environment." Likewise, they won't get anywhere by saying "I don't understand how anyone can argue against fighting terrorism." If you can't learn to find common ground, then discussion is futile. If you can't take lessons from the other side's (seemingly) irrational fear mentality and apply those lessons to your own side's (seemingly) irrational fear mentality, then discussion is futile.
     
mattyb
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Standing on the shoulders of giants
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 26, 2009, 06:29 AM
 
Strange, I see Global in the thread title and most people start focusing on US politicians, US bloggers ,US news channels, US party funding and all that bollocks.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 26, 2009, 06:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by mattyb View Post
Strange, I see Global in the thread title and most people start focusing on US politicians, US bloggers ,US news channels, US party funding and all that bollocks.
Colonial introspection.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 26, 2009, 08:39 AM
 
liberals do seem to need to stereotype others as a way to relate, instead of actually paying attention to the real person. Its all about labels, and name calling.
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 26, 2009, 08:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
liberals do seem to need to stereotype others as a way to relate, instead of actually paying attention to the real person. Its all about labels, and name calling.
Was that SUPPOSED to be joke or was that accidental?
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.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 26, 2009, 08:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
10 thousand years? Why not 100,000 years? What not 1,000,000 years? Why not 100,000,000,000 years?

You gave me reconstructions for the last 1,000,000 years?

FAKE! LIBERAL AGENDA!

I don't think it matters how many years of data is given.

Cause to a conservative, all data is fake.


Earth is more than 10,000 years old? FAKE. LIBERAL AGENDA!
i picked 10k years to make a point. I think 500 million years of verifiable data is about minimum to discuss climate on earth. No I don't believe any of the religion driven 'science' and do think our earth is almost 5 billion years old, but that until about 4 billion years ago, was too hot to support life. We are still learning about the early solar system and what was going on there, and only recently did we have devices in space to more closely look at our sun. Real science is much more interesting than the political pop science that is more guilt driven than anything else.

Again, stereotypes that the media types - not scientists - so easily quote in teeny sound bits. There is a cycle of warming and cooling as has been observed through many ice ages and eventual warmings, and these events are not driven by a few decades or centuries of weather but suggest something else going on. The sun goes though similar changes, but that would mean that again mans assumptions are wrong, and again many are jumping to conclusions.

The most recent glitch seems to be that the data and conclusions are suspect. The political atmosphere and the differing conclusions suggest that there is still too much guesswork and game playing in the background. Credibility is gone.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 26, 2009, 08:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by smacintush View Post
Was that SUPPOSED to be joke or was that accidental?
It was an observation. The MSM does it, and leftys do it. It's an easily observable trait.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 26, 2009, 09:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
It was an observation. The MSM does it, and leftys do it. It's an easily observable trait.
lol! And "righties" *never* stereotype or resort to "name calling".
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 26, 2009, 09:27 AM
 
Yeah…uh…you shouldn't actually use labels and stereotyping in an "observation" about how badly a group uses labels and stereotyping.
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.
     
mattyb
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Standing on the shoulders of giants
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 26, 2009, 10:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
Colonial introspection.
Its sad.
     
Orion27
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Safe House
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 26, 2009, 10:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by JoshuaZ View Post
Well you could look at it one of four ways.

1) Global Warming false. We do nothing and save money. Pollution get worse, but not planet ending.

2) Global Warming is false. We clean things up anyways, limiting pollution and cleaning up the environment.

3) Global Warming is true. We do nothing and our planet gets much much worse for everyone.

4) Global warming is true. We clean things up and try to move things back to normal.

I personally would rather go with #2. I'd rather we find out global warming is completely false, but we took steps anyways to improve the environment.

I personally believe that #4 is what is happening.

I don't understand how anyone can argue against trying to improve the environment. We only have one. If fisheries collapse because of overfishing and pollution, we all lose. If crops fail because of horrible weather, we all fail. If areas don't get rainfall and massive outbreaks of wildfires happen, we all lose. If massive amounts of flooding hit coastal cities, we all lose. It doesn't matter if we're "conservative" or "liberal", in the end we all have to survive in the same environment. Yes things cost money, and yes, changing behaviors takes time, but wouldn't you rather things chance for the better?
Believing in # 4 does not make global warming abnormal. It might just be the "normal" cycle of the planet. I don't expect the planet to remain static forever. We may still be in the process of coming out of the ice age and moving into a profoundly warm era. The science has failed to prove or even suggest by what process warming in occurring, or that it is man made in origin or acceleration. The time frames thrown around this forum and others have been
ridiculously small in universal terms. I would suggest that this whole warming argument to maintain some artificial climate bench mark is laughable. That is not to say human beings have not had an impact on the planet. Overfishing, big mammals, localized pollution ect. These issues should be addressed and they are, most notably and successfully in the United States.
The damage done to the scientific community by global warming ideologues has not been calculated as yet. It is up to the scientific community to address and correct the peer review process in the light of day. And I'm not just pointing a finger a Global warming apologists. Big pharma and the FDA in the United States is another example.
Sustainability will be market driven. That is the fundamental nature of things. Whether it be the private market or communist or socialist driven. Here in the United States, our smoke stack industries have moved offshore to China and other Asian countries. None of these countries regulate like the United States. Let the UN focus on regulating these countries and industries. And we can throw human rights into that mix as well. Good luck.
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 26, 2009, 11:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by Orion27 View Post
The science has failed to prove or even suggest by what process warming in occurring, or that it is man made in origin or acceleration.
more lol?
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Orion27
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Safe House
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 26, 2009, 12:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
more lol?
Smarty pants. CO2 or Water Vapor? and prove it!
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 26, 2009, 01:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by Warren Pease View Post
and

You seem to be using two contradictory positions to make your case. 1) the present situation needs to be compared to some time in the past for perspective, then 2) nothing stays the same.

Which is it?
They aren't contradictory.

Things ARE always in a state of change. You can however determine if the change in question is within norms. If you've got a 4.6 billion year old planet and you decide to figure out if something is normal by just looking at a hundred years or so, you aren't going to be able to scientifically know the answer. It's no different than my analogy regarding children and growth.
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 26, 2009, 05:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by Orion27 View Post
Smarty pants. CO2 or Water Vapor? and prove it!
What?? Both of course, with H2O being far and away more dominant.

Should I assume you haven't looked up any basic atmospheric chemistry in the past 25 years?

greg
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
Nov 27, 2009, 08:55 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
Prediction: One person will read that entire post.
At least two.
     
 
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 06:47 PM.
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.,