Hackers skewed climate-change emails: scientists
- Thread starter Praxius
- Start date
and if faux news had a competition in it's market it would be dead in the water - especially if the comptitor provided a quality news service.
Right, we'll just take your word for it.
and if faux news had a competition in it's market it would be dead in the water - especially if the comptitor provided a quality news service.
How would you define other "competition" for Fox News, if you don't mean CNN and MSNBC?
It's comforting to see that as usual Johnny Rico is on the verge of having an aneurysm. Take it easy, man. We don't want you to pop a blood vessel.
Ok, now I feel better.
Excuse me:
Ok, now I feel better.
It just means that people are supremely stupid. No big revelation, really.
Right, we'll just take your word for it.
Neither 'trusted' nor 'popular' are the same as 'truth'.
and if faux news had a competition in it's market it would be dead in the water - especially if the comptitor provided a quality news service.
How would you define other "competition" for Fox News, if you don't mean CNN and MSNBC?
* snicker * Nice one.
To get back to Climategate, they're going after the children. More propaganda in our schools. Is this really needed if the science was really settled?
http://tinyurl.com/yaxagtq
Climate, Weather and Environment are all connected, just as all the oceans are connected. You can't just excude the factors of one thing as if they don't matter to the overall because they don't give you the results that support your side of the argument.
This isn't just a my neck of the woods thing, this is what it's been like all accross Canada for the last number of years, and considering how everybody is going on about the ice caps melting and all the temps going up and up.... you'd think that our collective temps and snow falls in the last number of years would match with such claims, you know, since we're right up there by the ice cap and all. Instead, we've had record breaking snow falls we haven't seen similar since the 60's, and our low temps have also broken records over the last couple of years.
And I know why too, but I'll get into that later.
That was the argument in the 80's, I didn't make it up, that's what was shoved in my face growing up almost everyday and they sure seemed to make it sound like the two were connected. It doesn't suprise me it's a load of crap, because everything else they said was going to happen in the mid 90's didn't happen, thus a load of crap too.
2009 is likely to be the 5th warmest year on record, right in line with predictions made last year. I would also be interested in seeing links to back up many of the statements you made. Specifically predictions like several meters of sea level rise by 1996!
Funny that you have no issue laughing as such a claim when if you've been following your so-called new accurate claims of global warming, that's what they're claiming again.
And considering this information all came out in the late 80's.... around 1988 I believe..... BEFORE THE INTERNET became main stream, information from back then isn't easy to come by..... I know this because I've already debated this topic multiple times before and went to look for said information again, but found very little except all the crap given to us today.
Global Warming Might Sink America's Coasts
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/GlobalWarming/story?id=1769298&page=1
"With glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica melting into the ocean at up to double the speed of just a few years ago, all the water has to go somewhere -- and that could mean an end to America's coastlines as we know them.
The water wouldn't come crashing down city streets the way it did in the movie, "The Day After Tomorrow." Instead, according to the new issues of the journal Science, the oceans fed by rapidly melting glaciers would rise steadily over years -- a total of 13 to 20 feet by the end of this century, threatening huge chunks of American cities like New Orleans, Miami, Charleston, S.C., and New York."
While I can not located much information from the 80's on the internet (go figure) The above is exactly what was said was going to happen in the span of less then 10 years ie: 1996, and now it's the exact same argument only they pushed it from a decade to a century.
There's plenty out there from the mid-90's up to today and all their predictions but it seems that most of the information that came out around 1988 when the decade was seeing some of it's hottest temps, seems to be not included online very much.
You sure you know what you're talking about?
Global cooling gains momentum among scientists
http://deltafarmpress.com/news/robinson-column-0825/
Four scientists: Global Warming Out, Global Cooling In
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/07/12/four-scientists-global-warming-out-global-cooling-in/
Russian scientist predicts global cooling
http://www.physorg.com/news75818795.html
Canadian Scientists Fear Global Cooling
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nathan-burchfiel/2008/02/08/canadian-scientists-fear-global-cooling
In order to deny something, it first has to exist.
Regardless of all of this, in the original report of this thread, it has been shown that numerous documents that have been confirmed to be legit have shown some scientists cooked their numbers.... thus if this is the case, which is apparently is, any and all claims made by those said scientists should be thrown out as unreliable because they did not come to existence through factual scientific methods.
Want something interesting to read?
Global warming: predictions versus reality
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/archivos_pdf/globalwarmingpredictions_versusreality.pdf
^ In paticular:
Fallacy Four: Global climate models provide reliable forecasts of future climate:
"Global climate models are computer simulations of global climate. The scientists who construct these models accept that they do not adequately handle key aspects of the climate system, such as the role of clouds and aspects of heat transfer in ocean circulation. Water vapour dominates the greenhouse effect, and global-warming predictions are based heavily on how water vapour is likely to respond to increased CO2. But climate science is not yet capable of predicting this response. From their inception, global climate models have predicted spuriously high global temperatures. As the models have improved over the past decade, the IPCC's best estimates of global warming by the year 2100 have become progressively smaller: 3.3º C in 1990, 2.8º C in 1992 and 2º C in 1996. IPCC 2001 breaks the tradition of giving a best estimate; instead, it introduced the concept of “storylines” to speculate about warming as high as 5.8º C in 2100. Storylines depict future states, and replace the “scenarios” used in the 1996 report, which in turn replaced “predictions” and “projections” used even earlier. The predictions from global
climate models are of little value until they are more consistent and reliable. A climate model is just a hypothesis until there is
empirical evidence that proves it is correct. In a good deal of the literature on global warming the research content is based solely on model results that are treated as real data, but are, in fact, far removed from reality."
^ Which confirms one of the other things I was saying.
Wow Igu, how about next time you actually post something worthwhile and contribute to the topic rather then trolling.
Got an issue with something I said?
Refute it.
Don't have the energy to do that? Sure had enough energy to rant off about nothing. How about you do something worth while for once?
I've read more papers over more years then you probably ever did.... speaking of parroting crap, your post was nothing new or unexpected and it typical of people who don't mind prancing around acting like they know what they're talking about because they jump the bandwagon of whatever popular science theory is out there and act like a religious wing nut towards those who don't believe as they do.
The key flaw in your side of the argument is that your argument is all based on half-assed computer simulations, which was once again proven to be nothing but crap in my previous post based on how limited they are in the information they calculate.
Secondly, I haven't even mentioned the benefits and good things that Hurricanes have on the Climate/Environment, which many Global Warmongers keep using as a bad thing.
They continue say that if we don't act now, temps will get warmer and thus hurricanes will become larger and appear more often, not to mention much stronger and cause all sorts of destruction.
^ This is a half truth, and if Global Warmongers knew anything about what they were talking about, they wouldn't pull such a lame ass argument to fearmonger their views onto the masses.
But whatever... keep building your little Green Bunker in your back yard for when the end of days comes, don't forget your little tin foil hat just in case.
Like what? Whining on a Trek board about the evil scientists taking away your toys? Because this is serious business, isn't it.
However you are right, I don't have the energy to repeat the same arguments over and over again and I'll just link to the last thread about this. I invite you to read PlixTixiplik and cultcross posts especially. Maybe you'll learn something.
That's quite... dubious.
There is some stereotype you missed in your rant? Maybe you should say something about lesbian feminists, I'm sure they are out to get you, too.
Who's they? The evil conspiracy of climatologist, I guess.
Funny thing, it seems like "the masses" are actually quite closed to the idea of climate changes, using rigorous arguments like "we had snow here yesterday, so global warming can't be true".
This is why people like you are not taken seriously. Nobody is talking about green bunkers, dismantling civilization, or taking away your car and heating. You deliberately misrepresent others' position hoping because it's the only way you can hope to get an advantage. You build a straw man as big as a house and then proceed to take it apart, thinking you are the great debater. You are not interested in debate or solutions, just in bashing scientists because their conclusions bug you the wrong way. I guess you argue with your physician about his diagnosis, and scream against the engineer that is building your house, as you obviously know more about their job than they could possibly know.But whatever... keep building your little Green Bunker in your back yard for when the end of days comes, don't forget your little tin foil hat just in case.
If man-made climate change weren't a crock of shit, why all the secrecy of the data? It's a fucking money game, like that Carbon-Credits bullshit.
One set of data was thrown away at the Climate Research Unit due to space issues in 1980, years before this will become a political hot topic. So now it's a world-wide, multi-national, 30 years old conspiracy?
Also, there is more than one independent data set on temperature. Does the fact that this one is not available make all of them invalid, too?
One set of data was thrown away at the Climate Research Unit due to space issues in 1980, years before this will become a political hot topic. So now it's a world-wide, multi-national, 30 years old conspiracy?
Also, there is more than one independent data set on temperature. Does the fact that this one is not available make all of them invalid, too?
Occam's Razor. The most convoluted conspiracy theory is almost always the correct one.
well, this may be a different skew on climate change, but i think YES THERE IS CLIMATE CHANGE!!!
of course in my version i'm considering that the earth began as a giant cloud of space dust, eventually a big hunk of goo, eventually a rock, then a molten fiery thingamajig, then a rock again, then a volcano farm, then a big pop-sicle, then a lava farm again, maybe a nice peacefull leafy landmass for a bit, POOF volcano farm again... etc
of course in my version i'm considering that the earth began as a giant cloud of space dust, eventually a big hunk of goo, eventually a rock, then a molten fiery thingamajig, then a rock again, then a volcano farm, then a big pop-sicle, then a lava farm again, maybe a nice peacefull leafy landmass for a bit, POOF volcano farm again... etc
Following the money trail with the Wall Street Journal...
It's op-ed, but where the money is going is factual.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...24250205490.html?mod=rss_Today's_Most_Popular
It's op-ed, but where the money is going is factual.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...24250205490.html?mod=rss_Today's_Most_Popular
Like what? Whining on a Trek board about the evil scientists taking away your toys? Because this is serious business, isn't it.
Yeah, ha ha... what the heck are you talking about again in regards to what toys?
"Praxius, you do not have permission to access this page."
Nice link.
So, still nothing worthwhile to contribute to the thread other then to troll and trying to antagonize me with more banter that has nothing to do with the topic at hand?
Keep it up all you want, it doesn't help your argument, nor does it have any effect on me or my views.
And if you think my argument only relies on what happened "yesterday" then clearly you don't know how to read, let alone understand what is being said.... or maybe you're just trolling on purpose because you like attacking people who don't snap in line with what you blindly believe.
Either way, are you going to contribute something worthwhile yet or are you going to just continue with this crap?
If you're just going to continue with this trivial crap, then perhaps you should just save yourself some time and leave the thread for something more productive for yourself and allow others to debate this topic in a more mature manner.
Oh really? Considering I began this debate in a serious and respectable manner only for you to come rolling in here with your holier then thou attitude, tossing side-line trolling insults and remarks at anybody who doesn't agree with you, you contributing nothing but attacks towards other members in here...... and then when it's flung back your way in an equal fashion..... suddenly it's my fault and it's no wonder why nobody takes me seriously??
Way to be, hypocrite.
And nobody was talking about "lesbian feminists" that are out to get me.... yet there they are.
Pot meet Kettle.
Well thank you for your brilliant observations about me, and I also love the touch you added about how only people who make a job out of something are the only ones who know anything about that something, where nobody else is allowed to have an opinion, let alone present alternative arguments.
You talk about me not being interested in a debate, yet I'm the only one so far who actually provided sources, links and factual information that supports my side of the argument.
What have you done for the debate?
Nothing except rant off in a childish manner by flinging crap and trolling, while only providing a link that goes nowhere, claiming it proves everything you support.
You also referenced two memebers' posts thatI should review, yet why would you somehow support those member's views and points (which can't be viewed mind you) while trivializing other member's views and opinions?
Are they experts and are they directly involved in the study and analysis of Gobal Warming/Climate Change, thus making their views more valid to you?
Are you an expert in these things?
No?
Then where do you get off picking and choosing who is right and who is wrong as if you're the be all end all say on the matter?
You don't, because you're not. They're all opinions, they're all views and they're all based on everyone's personal understanding and observations of the given information, or lack there of..... and nobody will really know what is going to happen until it does happen.
Thus you don't know anything more then I do or anybody else for that matter. I stated my views and my opinions based on the given information. If there are things you don't like about my view, challenge them, present your arguments, but you can't say without a doubt that I am right or wrong, because you don't know, nor have you provided anything mature, or in relation to the topic other then your personal attacks towards me and my views.
But it's pretty predictable on what you're trynig to do here, which is #1 - Attempt to get me angry in a way that will result in me breaking a forum rule, thus being punished, or #2 - Attempt to destabilize the thread and topic to a point where a mod will come in and lock the thread due to these childish rant attacks back and forth.
#1 won't work because I've dealth with worse people then you in the past (sorry, you're not that good) and #2 - So be it.... if that's what the mods wish to do. Regardless, my point has been made, you're is irrelevant since you haven't posted anything relevant to begin with and it also appears the most of the members who have posted thus far agree more with my side of the argument then they do with your's, so locking the thread now due to it being no longer productive isn't going to phase me either.
Since I already know any additional responses from you in this thread will just be more of the same trivial attacks and responses, I see no logic in responding to you any further, thus feeding the troll.
Have a wonderful day.
Pretty good information on there, I'd like to see some try to refute or explain away.
He linked to a thread in TNZ. You need to opt-in to have access to that forum on this board (http://www.trekbbs.com/profile.php?do=editusergroups).
As for the debate at hand, I've long since given up on trying to debate this issue. But I do enjoy reading these threads on occasion to see what kind of ridiculous arguments some come up with.
As for the debate at hand, I've long since given up on trying to debate this issue. But I do enjoy reading these threads on occasion to see what kind of ridiculous arguments some come up with.
Obviously doesn't understand anything about university research grants.
I received a $135,000 grant from NSF last year (for paleoecology related to deep-time climate change). Total amount of salary I get from that grant - $0 (it is possible to take some summer salary - a few thousand $ - from grants, but the budgets are typically too low and that gets pared down or taken out in revision). The money goes to support a graduate student, pay an undergraduate to do some work, and pay for research travel and laboratory expenses. And yes, Praxius, cultcross also has done paleoclimatology research.
Here's a better analysis of "following the money." Energy lobbyists outnumber environmental lobbyists 7:1 and energy companies outspend environmental groups 14:1.
Right. The Wall Street Journal doesn't understand issues concerning money. Thanks for playing, here's your copy of the home game.
Clearly the writer doesn't because he tried to imply that Phil Jones is raking in cash from getting many research grants - "one of its likeliest beneficiaries." After all, he got $19 million dollars - he must be super rich! This is a common tactic, hoping the public will believe that university researchers are making big bucks from research grants when they are not. University researchers are paid a salary by their school for teaching and doing research (the type of research is irrelevant).
Also, why single out the environmental lobbyists? "None of these outfits is per se corrupt, in the sense that the monies they get are spent on something other than their intended purposes. But they depend on an inherently corrupting premise, namely that the hypothesis on which their livelihood depends has in fact been proved."
How can the poor, poor industry groups survive in the face of these powerful environmental interests.
Considering industry spends many times more money and has many times more lobbyists, I think his article was mis-targeted!
The biggest concern for the anti-climate change crowd seems to be the fear that taxes and prices will rise to deal with environmental regulations and, fuel-consuming cars will be confiscated and heating and electricity will be rationed. Is this your main concern, or not?Yeah, ha ha... what the heck are you talking about again in regards to what toys?Like what? Whining on a Trek board about the evil scientists taking away your toys? Because this is serious business, isn't it.
Get access TNZ if you are interested. It's not that difficult.
Yes, your multi-paragraph reply shows how much you don't really care.
I call bullshit when I see it, and most arguments from the anti-climate change crowd are off the meter.
Yeah, like calling other posters trolls. Very mature indeed.
Oh really? Considering I began this debate in a serious and respectable manner only for you to come rolling in here with your holier then thou attitude, tossing side-line trolling insults and remarks at anybody who doesn't agree with you, you contributing nothing but attacks towards other members in here...... and then when it's flung back your way in an equal fashion..... suddenly it's my fault and it's no wonder why nobody takes me seriously??
Way to be, hypocrite.
Easy, champ. You don't want to pop a blood vessel. I called your reasoning bullshit, your evidences shallow and your attitude annoying. Again, where is the trolling? Let your accusation be specific, or shut up.Yeah, funny that. Listening to the opinion of people that actually know what they are talking about. The nerve! I love how the creeping anti-intellectualism always seems to seep into this kinds of threads.
Called on your bullshit. I think it's more that enough. Your links and factual informations were shown to be sensationalist bullshit. Now what?
Yes, sure it's me ranting, whining and flinging crap around. Your quiet and peaceful posts are really zen-like.
Because they are climatologists and they know what they are talking about. Unlike a lot of other people, for example.
Yes. Funny that.
I'm not a climatology expert but I'm a scientist, and I can actually see the difference between actual scientific arguments and wacky conspiracy theories.
Actually, no. Somebody's position is based on the professional opinion of actual experts about the subject at hand, while some other's position are based on pop science and politicized journalism. Guess who is me and who is you?
If you wanna go all philosophical, nobody can know anything for sure. But for the time being, I will trust actual scientists above people that have read something on a blog, somewhere, some day or the other. The difference between you and me it's that I'm more than willing to say that I'm not a leading expert on climatology, and thus I give weight to the informed opinion of real climatologists, not professional opinion-makers. In this time and age, science is complex and extremely specialized, and this is how the scientific community works. You, on the other hand, assume you know more than people that studied the subjects for years. You should use your own advice and learn a bit of humility.
Actually, nothing of the sort. Defensive much?
Locking the thread? What are you talking about? I posted my view, based on the opinion of thousands of actual experts on the subject, some of them actually on this board. You just copied and pasted various bits from less than trustwhorty magazines and newspapers, with various bolding, italicizing, and underlining and sometime all three together, and then play the victim. Color me unimpressed.
What I can say? Good riddance?
