Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Back to Climate GateClimateGate: CRU Agrees To Publish All The Data. That They Haven’t Thrown AwayPosted on November 29, 2009 Yesterday, the “scientists” involved in ClimateGate made an important announcement

at
the University
of East Anglia,
who were
accused of manipulating
climate change
data – dubbed Climategate – have agreed to publish their figures in full.In a statement welcomed by climate change sceptics, the university said it would make all the data accessible as soon as possible, once its Climatic Research Unit (CRU) had negotiated its release from a range of non-publication agreements.

Today, “um, well, ya see, our Bad!”

(UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 988
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Yes. The conclusion was that it had to do with the fact that it's WINTER.

Boom. It's on page 2 now.

Hmm. I wonder if anything significant has happened in the past 100 or so years that might affect global warming. I mean, I can't think of a single damn thing. Not one.

Posted Images

I love reading the old global warming threads... this is a good one http://www.fullcontactpoker.com/poker-foru...t&p=1772617here were two of my favorite quotes

And it's not even liberal, it's scientific.
there is no debate, just some lies by the people who think they have the credentials to overrule scientists who spend their lives researching this stuff.
or this gem: jmkiserhttp://www.fullcontactpoker.com/poker-foru...t&p=1708340I think the point being made is to just watch out before you start making conspiracy theories about scientists. Scientists become scientists so they can seek out the world, make discoveries, etc.. And they are paid to do just that.You will be very hard pressed to find too many "dirty" scientists, as I like to call them, that will screw with data.
Link to post
Share on other sites
it's just the tone in general. I do not begrudge people their anger/disappointment/viewpoint (someday I will write a post about why I still like Obama enough.....but am appalled by his decision to relive 1992-1994....it's going to be really long-winded) but you cannot deny that this is basically a conservative forum at this point. That's all.I'm not whining; it's a statement of fact. If I felt mistreated, I could move on but I am not being mistreated. Just in the minority. It's kinda like being white in Miami. (Dammit)
Yeah, I have to agree, and I'm very disappointed by that. I am seriously interested in the debate, not in the winning or losing. I want my views challenged and polished; that doesn't happen if everyone agrees. I'm left debating drug policy with BG
Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, I have to agree, and I'm very disappointed by that. I am seriously interested in the debate, not in the winning or losing. I want my views challenged and polished; that doesn't happen if everyone agrees. I'm left debating drug policy with BG
The problem is that the Obama issues are nearly indefensible. Why come here when you have nothing to say?
Link to post
Share on other sites

I read this today:

So, basically we are being asked to restructure the entire economy of the planet on the say-so of a few "scientists" whose work cannot be verified or even reconstructed. Is there any intellectually honest person who thinks that is a good idea?
Link to post
Share on other sites
I read this today:
We just really can't afford to be this brazenly careless about this issue. If you take a look at the impact of human life on the planet, it's quite inconceivable that what we've done will not have any effect at all on the global environment. The landscape where I live has gone from green plains to computer chip in less than a generation. Whether the temperature will rise long-term or not is an issue worthy of attention, but we should absolutely be ready to change our economy based to keep the planet habitable, and we should quite expect that we will have to do so at some point.
Link to post
Share on other sites
We just really can't afford to be this brazenly careless about this issue. If you take a look at the impact of human life on the planet, it's quite inconceivable that what we've done will not have any effect at all on the global environment. The landscape where I live has gone from green plains to computer chip in less than a generation. Whether the temperature will rise long-term or not is an issue worthy of attention, but we should absolutely be ready to change our economy based to keep the planet habitable, and we should quite expect that we will have to do so at some point.
Well I would suggest the only people that have been careless are those folks cooking the data and cooking the models to get their way. Oh and the politiicians who believe this guff.You are a man of science - what would happen in your field if this type of shenanigans was taking place? If someone can forth with some research that said playing poker causes brain damage and therefore it must be banned immediately. Would you quit playing poker immediately or might you look into it a bit, given your background?And does it not piss you off maybe just a little that maybe your area of research may be more deserving of some of the funds that these clowns have been gathering for a misstated problem?Really curious to get your answers to this.
Link to post
Share on other sites
That's just not what I said. Not at all. And taking shots at Rush is just good old fashioned fun.It would be easier to just not post here than spend a lot of time peeing uphill into the wind but thats what a couple of us do. It certainly does not make us the voice of reason but it definitely means we are gluttons for punishment and it definitely means we have some patience. I readily admit there are certain conservative elements (like Rush) that I have nothing but contempt for.Who said anything about being mistreated? I honestly dont understand what you are talking about.
I just want to add that I appreciate having someone present reasoned arguments from the other side of the fence, even if you are all a bunch of dirty lying communists.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't read much of this thread, but I get the sense that there is a school of thought that believes that the Earth is not being harmed and we should go ahead with business as usual. I have a question for these people: Are you fucking kidding me?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn't read much of this thread, but I get the sense that there is a school of thought that believes that the Earth is not being harmed and we should go ahead with business as usual. I have a question for these people: Are you fucking kidding me?
CORK THE VOLCANOES!!Also, as long as we still have our National Parks, we're ok.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn't read much of this thread, but I get the sense that there is a school of thought that believes that the Earth is not being harmed and we should go ahead with business as usual. I have a question for these people: Are you fucking kidding me?
I think very few people actually think that this is the case. I think a lot of us are trying to say "sit the F down and let's think about this before we destroy our economy". Of course man made pollution is harming the environment, but it has, for a long time, defied common sense the degree to which the more vocal global warming crowd has said that we are doomsday scenario-ing the earth with carbon emissions. Now that we know we have more than 3 years before we're completely under boiling water, hopefully we can come at this with a more measured response that doesn't involve legislation that drives every major energy producer out of the US with taxes and sends them to countires with far less interest in keeping them accountable at all, or force ourselves into technologies that aren't actually ready yet (ethanol, etc). The pushback from the right is often construed as "F the earth" when in reality it's a pushback against the nonsensical reactions (and let's be honest, cap and trade is nonsense) to the apparently at least somewhat exaggerated claims made in the name of science.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I think very few people actually think that this is the case. I think a lot of us are trying to say "sit the F down and let's think about this before we destroy our economy". Of course man made pollution is harming the environment, but it has, for a long time, defied common sense the degree to which the more vocal global warming crowd has said that we are doomsday scenario-ing the earth with carbon emissions. Now that we know we have more than 3 years before we're completely under boiling water, hopefully we can come at this with a more measured response that doesn't involve legislation that drives every major energy producer out of the US with taxes and sends them to countires with far less interest in keeping them accountable at all, or force ourselves into technologies that aren't actually ready yet (ethanol, etc). The pushback from the right is often construed as "F the earth" when in reality it's a pushback against the nonsensical reactions (and let's be honest, cap and trade is nonsense) to the apparently at least somewhat exaggerated claims made in the name of science.
QFT
Link to post
Share on other sites
Well I would suggest the only people that have been careless are those folks cooking the data and cooking the models to get their way. Oh and the politiicians who believe this guff.You are a man of science - what would happen in your field if this type of shenanigans was taking place? If someone can forth with some research that said playing poker causes brain damage and therefore it must be banned immediately. Would you quit playing poker immediately or might you look into it a bit, given your background?And does it not piss you off maybe just a little that maybe your area of research may be more deserving of some of the funds that these clowns have been gathering for a misstated problem?Really curious to get your answers to this.
These kind of shenanigans have taken place in my field. Once, in a situation I was very close to. The short answer is that the process of science is resilient and has built-in mechanisms to heal from this kind of thing. This is one reason why replication is one of the keys to the scientific method. One person falsifying data does not invalidate a theory which has other evidence to support it. That said, I have finally had time to take a look at this alleged scandal and I am quite baffled that such a big deal is being made out of it. From what you guys had posted here, it seemed like data was falsified, or that there was some huge consipiratorial cover-up that totally invalidates the case for global warming. I have seen nothing of the sort. There are lots of emails which sound totally normal, and a few that sound fishy but also seem out of context. The single email that sounds like it is the "smoking gun" is this one: "I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."I don't really understand the surrounding context of this "trick" but it sounds to me like it has to do with presenting the data in a favorable light. This writer comments: There are precisely two emails that even sound scandalous: one in which a scientist refers to borrowing another scientist's "trick"—which skeptics interpret as falsifying data and which actual legitimate scientists say means "a clever way of doing something"—to "hide the decline," which is a poor way of saying he is attempting to correct for the fact that tree rings don't reflect modern warming trends that are well-documented by actual thermometers.The other email he refers to is this one: "I can't see either of these papers being in the next [intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"And his comment on that one is:One of these papers which was published in the journal Climate Research turned out to be so badly flawed that the scandal resulted in the resignation of the editor-in-chief.So the scandal is that a researcher thought a paper was flawed and said he would do anything to keep it from being published, not because it said something dangerous that he is trying to keep hidden, but because he thought it was bad science. And then it turned out to be bad science.Certainly this whole thing is a PR disaster for the scientists involved, but calling this some kind of "nail in the coffin" for the theory of human involvement in global warming just seems outrageous, unless you guys have seen something that I haven't?
Link to post
Share on other sites
These kind of shenanigans have taken place in my field. Once, in a situation I was very close to. The short answer is that the process of science is resilient and has built-in mechanisms to heal from this kind of thing. This is one reason why replication is one of the keys to the scientific method. One person falsifying data does not invalidate a theory which has other evidence to support it. That said, I have finally had time to take a look at this alleged scandal and I am quite baffled that such a big deal is being made out of it. From what you guys had posted here, it seemed like data was falsified, or that there was some huge consipiratorial cover-up that totally invalidates the case for global warming. I have seen nothing of the sort. There are lots of emails which sound totally normal, and a few that sound fishy but also seem out of context. The single email that sounds like it is the "smoking gun" is this one: "I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."I don't really understand the surrounding context of this "trick" but it sounds to me like it has to do with presenting the data in a favorable light. This writer comments: There are precisely two emails that even sound scandalous: one in which a scientist refers to borrowing another scientist's "trick"—which skeptics interpret as falsifying data and which actual legitimate scientists say means "a clever way of doing something"—to "hide the decline," which is a poor way of saying he is attempting to correct for the fact that tree rings don't reflect modern warming trends that are well-documented by actual thermometers.The other email he refers to is this one: "I can't see either of these papers being in the next [intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"And his comment on that one is:One of these papers which was published in the journal Climate Research turned out to be so badly flawed that the scandal resulted in the resignation of the editor-in-chief.So the scandal is that a researcher thought a paper was flawed and said he would do anything to keep it from being published, not because it said something dangerous that he is trying to keep hidden, but because he thought it was bad science. And then it turned out to be bad science.Certainly this whole thing is a PR disaster for the scientists involved, but calling this some kind of "nail in the coffin" for the theory of human involvement in global warming just seems outrageous, unless you guys have seen something that I haven't?
I for one am comfortable doubting that you are telling the truth because your buddies in the science world are so free with the ability to lie that it makes everything you say suspect.So if you would, could you please stop posting this distraction so we can continue with our discussion about how SUVs are cool and not bad for the environment?
Link to post
Share on other sites
These kind of shenanigans have taken place in my field. Once, in a situation I was very close to. The short answer is that the process of science is resilient and has built-in mechanisms to heal from this kind of thing. This is one reason why replication is one of the keys to the scientific method. One person falsifying data does not invalidate a theory which has other evidence to support it.
VB is this Standard Operating Procedures?SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based. It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 yearshttp://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/envi...icle6936328.ece
Link to post
Share on other sites
VB is this Standard Operating Procedures?SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based. It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 yearshttp://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/envi...icle6936328.ece
They needed the space for the new move they were planning.You can't be lugging around old data forever.I mean we already have the foundational benchmark laid down in the 1700's by Obadiah and Jedediah when they slid that candlewick down that gopher hole to get a reading of the temperature of the earth's magma for future generational comparisons.why would we need all that other stuff?
Link to post
Share on other sites
They needed the space for the new move they were planning.You can't be lugging around old data forever.I mean we already have the foundational benchmark laid down in the 1700's by Obadiah and Jedediah when they slid that candlewick down that gopher hole to get a reading of the temperature of the earth's magma for future generational comparisons.why would we need all that other stuff?
and inspired Caddyshack...what a great day that was!!
Link to post
Share on other sites
It's more a nail in the coffin of "OMG WE ARE GONNA DIE IN LESS THAN A YEAR" and now we have enough time to actually sit down and think about the economic reprecussions these GW fixes have.
1. Why? Which study that showed global warming do you now no longer believe as a result of these emails? Why was that particular study so important? 2. You exaggerate the global warming position to the point where it is a straw man.
VB is this Standard Operating Procedures?SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based. It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 yearshttp://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/envi...icle6936328.ece
It depends. We usually plan to keep raw data for 5-10 years, but it's not really unusual for it to be lost, as hard drives fail, people change computers and offices, etc. It's a very rare case that we have to go back to raw data so people aren't as careful about keeping it as they probably should be. I don't know how it is in other fields though.Certainly lost data from the 1980s is not evidence of a cover-up. I'd have a particularly hard time finding the data for studies I did in the 90's where it was kept on floppy disks.
Link to post
Share on other sites
These kind of shenanigans have taken place in my field. Once, in a situation I was very close to. The short answer is that the process of science is resilient and has built-in mechanisms to heal from this kind of thing. This is one reason why replication is one of the keys to the scientific method. One person falsifying data does not invalidate a theory which has other evidence to support it. That said, I have finally had time to take a look at this alleged scandal and I am quite baffled that such a big deal is being made out of it. From what you guys had posted here, it seemed like data was falsified, or that there was some huge consipiratorial cover-up that totally invalidates the case for global warming. I have seen nothing of the sort. There are lots of emails which sound totally normal, and a few that sound fishy but also seem out of context. The single email that sounds like it is the "smoking gun" is this one: "I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."I don't really understand the surrounding context of this "trick" but it sounds to me like it has to do with presenting the data in a favorable light. This writer comments: There are precisely two emails that even sound scandalous: one in which a scientist refers to borrowing another scientist's "trick"—which skeptics interpret as falsifying data and which actual legitimate scientists say means "a clever way of doing something"—to "hide the decline," which is a poor way of saying he is attempting to correct for the fact that tree rings don't reflect modern warming trends that are well-documented by actual thermometers.The other email he refers to is this one: "I can't see either of these papers being in the next [intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"And his comment on that one is:One of these papers which was published in the journal Climate Research turned out to be so badly flawed that the scandal resulted in the resignation of the editor-in-chief.So the scandal is that a researcher thought a paper was flawed and said he would do anything to keep it from being published, not because it said something dangerous that he is trying to keep hidden, but because he thought it was bad science. And then it turned out to be bad science.Certainly this whole thing is a PR disaster for the scientists involved, but calling this some kind of "nail in the coffin" for the theory of human involvement in global warming just seems outrageous, unless you guys have seen something that I haven't?
I think you are not seeing all of it. There is discussion in one email of how to hide the data that shows warming; there is discussion of throwing data away rather than letting the other side see it and try to prove them wrong; there is discussion of how to rig the journals so only articles that agree with them are published; there is discussion of how the science doesn't agree with what the IPCC wants to see and how to meet the two needs; there is discussion of how to stall FOI requests. Does ANY of this sound the least bit scientific to you? (Hint: If you say yes, I no longer trust your scientific credentials). I've been in a semi-scientific profession for 25 years, and have never once said anything close to those things. Science proceeds on sharing data, reproducibility, and facing contradictions straight on. This lab seems to be the antithesis of science, yet their data lays some of the foundations of the theory of AGW.Also, scientists are starting to speak up more about how they've seen similar behavior at other institutions, and how they've been shouted down and intimidated into keeping their results quiet.You don't see that in physics or in energy or in biology or in medicine -- no, just surrounding the theory of AGW. But we should turn our heads away and ignore it? Not a chance.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Certainly lost data from the 1980s is not evidence of a cover-up. I'd have a particularly hard time finding the data for studies I did in the 90's where it was kept on floppy disks.
If your theory was the basis of discussion about trillion dollar government programs that dramatically alter the world's economy, then the standard of data keeping is a bit higher than if your research is finding out if the Coralis Maximus Area fires when you look at porn.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn't read much of this thread, but I get the sense that there is a school of thought that believes that the Earth is not being harmed and we should go ahead with business as usual. I have a question for these people: Are you ****ing kidding me?
I think NC's post sums up much of it, but here's a question that may be more at your level:Would you spend $100 today to save $50 a ten years from now? It's a simple yes no question, and is really the relevant one to ask. Asking if humans affect the Earth in some way is meaningless, since so do lions and tigers and bears and plants, yet nobody is proposing eliminating those.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...