EPTClimate Scientists Hacked - Page 10
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Balentine
United States14 Posts
| ||
|
WhiteNights
United States252 Posts
At all. | ||
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
By confirming their initial findings and creating models that extrapolate to disaster, society will give their field more prestige and more funding and possibly economic applicability if the government around the world believe the climate change story. This pattern of exaggeration and self promotion is really ubiquitous. I wouldn't be surprised if there really was some level of academic dishonesty. | ||
|
WhiteNights
United States252 Posts
On November 25 2009 12:43 TanGeng wrote: If you look at the behavior of scientists, I would say that there is plenty of reason for scientists in a fringe field like climate study to collude to create hysteria about climate change. It's one of the ways for those in that field to stay socially relevant and get funding. By talking up the possible dangers of climate change, they can draw interest from those with money in the form of grants. By confirming their initial findings and creating models that extrapolate to disaster, society will give their field more prestige and more funding and possibly economic applicability if the government around the world believe the climate change story. This pattern of exaggeration and self promotion is really ubiquitous. I wouldn't be surprised if there really was some level of academic dishonesty. There are also reasons that my city officials would take bribes in exchange for political favors (more money!) and reasons why I would personally evade taxes (more money!). These facts are not proof that my city's politicians are corrupt or that I have committed tax fraud. A plausibility argument isn't evidence of anything. Not to mention that these scenarios are far more likely than a massive conspiracy by all climate scientists, everywhere, to fabricate studies in the hopes of more grant money. | ||
|
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
In the world of academics, with peer review journals as the "gold standard" again the players and referees are the same body of people. The system is susceptible to academic dishonesty. In a small closely knitted field like climate science, it's largely beneficial for all the scientists to collude and overstate the importance of their research. It's especially true in the 1970's when they had that Global Cooling scare. Even now there aren't many climate scientists around the world. | ||
|
Balentine
United States14 Posts
jobs created by the Stimulus Bill. In the 86 district of Florida, 5 jobs were created with 3 million dollars. and Florida only has 26 districts. this kind of stuff happens all the time. when Barack Obama was told about this he just said, "It's an imprecise science." anybody else would have been like "Whoa, I'd better investigate this. "There is pee all over the toilet seat"-"it's an imprecise science","you keep putting your vults behind your tanks"-"imprecise science" politicians sure are good at making excuses. one word, Blogoiavich (spelling is wrong) imprecise science | ||
|
L
Canada4732 Posts
I think we're comparing two different frameworks of argument here. You're talking about asymmetric information, while I'm generally focused on the foresight individual parties and their resultant interests, and how interests effect the level of foresight that parties will use. Completely different viewpoints, but there's something to gain in the exchange either way. Its interesting how economists perceive the legal system for instance. Sometimes the speed of learning the is quite slow, so I expect humanity will endure many more painful lessons. But overall the welfare of the human race will improve. But here's where I need to disagree; You need to define 'welfare of the human race' very, very carefully in order to make that claim. You also need to presuppose that we have full knowledge and adaptive capability when it comes to upcoming problems, and make the additional jump that these adaptive capabilities or cultural changes will not come because of reasoning that I am presenting. If you can't do the second, then dismissal of my position is circular, because my position will become a part of the cultural adaptation which solves the problem. Whether or not the end result is one of top down control or bottom up control is irrelevant to me as long as the problem is solved. Instead, rather it's like a young couple expecting a child with an unsteady financial foundation. They don't know what the future will hold for them, but they know that they want to bring their child into the world anyways. It's a source of happiness, hope, perhaps it might cause a little desperation, but that's life. The problem is that it isn't a personal dilemma or a temporary hardship; its the fall of civilizations entailing the death of thousands if not millions. If one were to take your position here, morally one could not provide any aid to haiti and just say "that's life". China's birth control measures alone, since implementation, have reduced the population of the earth by a staggering 400 million humans. Think about the effect that 'void' has on us. And just to address this: Over history, the plight of human being has improved with more population. Is this a causal relationship, or has the bettering of the plight of human beings been the reason for a higher population? It seems relatively obvious amongst sociologists that the massive upspike in population during this century was caused by decreased warfare, the post WWII green revolution and massive advances in technology, not the reverse. Additionally, the plight of humans has bettered in areas with stagnant population sizes, like tikopia or the majority of the first world, and is typically rapidly deteriorating in certain areas specifically because of higher than sustainable populations, like current day rwanda or haiti. Again, the example of post-plague europe is pretty key in demonstrating the exact opposite of your claim. What you're referring to is economic insufficiency, wherein there aren't enough people to have the society specialize enough to run a proper economy, which really doesn't apply here for a number of reasons I simply don't feel I need to get into. :3 | ||
|
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
The giant difference between today's China and that of the Great Leap Forwards isn't in the fewness of the number of people. That number has instead increase. Instead it's the great advancement in social and economic institutions. The transformation hinged on two events, the death of Mao and TianAnMen Square. After TianAnMen, China's economy transformed into a free market economy. The Communist Party retreated from tight central controls into an all out defense of its political power. The roll-back of socialism and the de facto culture of private property provided for better stewardship of natural resources and of the environment. What is necessary in Haiti isn't strictly a reduction in population, although that would help achieve more of a balance. Its current population is merely above what its social, economic, and technological institutions can support. When there is severe overcrowding with respect to what society's institutions can handle, there will be a natural pressure against population growth. Depending on how excess population taxes the society's institutions, you might see mass crime, mass poverty, racism, or organized violence (wars or de facto wars). The one possibility you mentioned was social stigma against excess reproduction, but that's provided the society hasn't succumb to these others first. There are many traits that combine together to enable a society to handle large populations. Aversion to war is the highest. A culture that is averse to war has far more resources to allocate to feeding its people and developing medicine to ward against disease. Next in importance would be the Rule of Law and property rights. Then in about equivalent importance are geographical features like land and natural resources, social institutions like schools and local associations, technological capital like tools and equipment, and economic institutions like well operated businesses. The difference in institutions is why South Korea easily supports its 50 million people while North Korea struggles to support its 20 million while sitting on superior natural resources. On November 25 2009 14:25 L wrote: You're talking about asymmetric information, while I'm generally focused on the foresight individual parties and their resultant interests, and how interests effect the level of foresight that parties will use. Completely different viewpoints, but there's something to gain in the exchange either way. You are terrible at discussing foresight and resultant interests. You are much too pessimistic or unimaginative. Priorities are completely out of touch, too. | ||
|
L
Canada4732 Posts
Haiti could easily support its current population. Haiti has people trying to practice subsistence agriculture on areas deemed approximately a hundredfold smaller than equivalent american sizes. Haiti also has a massive diaspora because people simply can't live at home, and a huge amount of Haiti's finances come from expatriate cash. No, it can't support itself. Maybe it could at one time prior to the deforestation of their half of Hispaniola, but that's rather in the past now. Soils are now heavily eroded, overfarmed and very susceptible to natural disasters because of the lack of windbreaks and natural water holding capacities that forests normally bring. There is some problems with natural resources destruction but China and its 1.3 billion in population have manage in their country. China has a third of the population density of haiti and has far more arable land and natural resources. Haiti, by contrast, is completely deforested and the majority of its good soils have erroded. Compare haiti to the dominican republic which shares their island.The US, as a point of reference, has a population density of around 1/12th of haiti and 1/4th of china; the new world provided a huge pressure release to population tensions over the past 400 years. Sadly, there's no undiscovered Atlantis. DR has 9 times Haiti's GDP, 2/3rds of their population density and hasn't deforested their side of the island. The giant difference between today's China and that of the Great Leap Forwards isn't in the fewness of the number of people. That number has instead increase. Instead it's the great advancement in social and economic institutions. The transformation hinged on two events, the death of Mao and TianAnMen Square. After TianAnMen, China's economy transformed into a free market economy. The Communist Party retreated from tight central controls into an all out defense of its political power. The roll-back of socialism and the de facto culture of private property provided for better stewardship of natural resources and of the environment. Basically you're saying social developments that aren't related to population growth have increased the standard of living in china, which is exactly what I said last post. My position is that once you tip OVER the carrying capacity bad thing start happening when a cyclic downturn in resource availability causes tragedies and social unrest. China itself has been proactive in this field and would have 1.7 billion citizens without their current policies. The idea is to develop sustainable positive progress instead of progress punctuated by massive tragedies. Its current population is merely above what its social, economic, and technological institutions can support. Err, not exactly. Their natural resources are near depleted, and without those you simply can't build 'social, economic and technological resources'. First and foremost, people need to eat. There are many traits that combine together to enable a society to handle large populations. Aversion to war is the highest. A culture that is averse to war has far more resources to allocate to feeding its people and developing medicine to ward against disease. Next in importance would be the Rule of Law and property rights. These aren't borne out in quite a few successful civilizations (including western civilizations), but they help depending on the context of the society themselves. The Maori, for instance, needed to engage in war or risk going far above their carrying capacity. The tikopians had no need to go to war, but never really had a system of property; their system of resource allocation basically involved talking to everyone on the island and getting consent from the vast majority of people. While that doesn't work in our social context, they're far more developed along collective lines than we are. One could say that they exemplify a 'miracle of the commons'.What you're mentioning is our specific institutions that play large roles in our method of resource distribution; they aren't prerequisites, they're specific adaptions to problems. For instance, once the Mediterranean was 'recaptured' following the crusades, the institution of roman (now civil) law was rapidly adopted as a solution to problems arising with long distance sea trade and increased inter-city travel. Civil law didn't create the opportunity to trade and break free from subsistence farming, but it sure pushed it along its way once it started. Common law resisted the spread of roman law for a simple reason; it worked fine the way it was. The problem had already been solved so there was no need to adapt further. You've got things completely backwards. Then in about equivalent importance are geographical features like land and natural resources, social institutions like schools and local associations, technological capital like tools and equipment, and economic institutions like well operated businesses. These aren't 'about equivalent'. They're causal precursors of any of your other requirements. Without arable land, societies simply won't develop. Degrading arable land by trying to overexploit it by running over carrying capacity undoes societies, and haiti is one of these. These aren't 'equally important'. The mayans had a functioning legal system as well as massive technological prowess and well developed institutions and it didn't matter because they overfarmed their land and had a huge drought and left. You are terrible at discussing foresight and resultant interests. You are much too pessimistic or unimaginative. Priorities are completely out of touch, too. You're terrible at discussing foresight and resultant interests too. You are much too optimistic and unbased in historic facts. Priorities are completely out of touch, too.Lots of content in that last one. You've ignored a massive battery of arguments against many of the propositions you've advanced as well as historical evidence of this being a recurring problem. This isn't going to provide much more in the way of enlightening discussion unless you decide to go and address our disagreement in an axiomic manner. You can't really do much else, partially because you don't seem to be familiar with any of the examples we're discussing, or the limits of the models we're discussing. | ||
|
uiCk
Canada1925 Posts
| ||
|
WhiteNights
United States252 Posts
On November 26 2009 06:20 uiCk wrote: im no scientist, cant anyone explain to me what is happening here? what i understood for now, is that there is a group within the "Scientist" circle who are being exposed for over-exaggerating global warming for opportunity to make money in this up and coming green revolution, and that there is a huge agenda, and people front running to get their fingers into new "green" money. im trying too look at the higher picture, since im sure none of this disproves global warming as human derived. What happened: A hacker broke into the University of East Anglia's computer system and retrieved the emails pertaining to it's Climate Research Unit, which releases global temperature data as well as doing many other climate-science-related things, and afterwards put many of them on the internet. Many people who think global warming is a scam (termed "denialists" or "skeptics") jumped on this, and combed the emails for evidence of a massive scam. "Evidence" of a scam they brought out were various statements, most notably one from Trenberth saying "it's a travesty we can't account for the current lack of warming," Wigley saying "blah blah adjustments to reduce the blip," emails discussing why Climate Research is a bad journal, somebody saying "good news, <insert skeptic/denialist name here> is dead," Jones saying "please delete the emails relating to AR4" with a subject titled FOI, various emails going "McIntyre (a popular skeptic/denialist) does crap work don't give him your data" and notes and code from some guy named Harry who was working on some code that gave bad numbers. So far the only actual evidence of wrong-doing is the email relating to email deletion, and you have tons of people are acting like it's the 2096034573th final nail in the coffin of the global warming theory, that climate science is a fundamentally corrupt field, and how since all of CRU has been discredited, the IPCC is discredited too and we have no evidence of global warming (all of which is garbage). | ||
|
uiCk
Canada1925 Posts
| ||
|
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
On November 26 2009 02:48 L wrote: + Show Spoiler + Haiti could easily support its current population. Haiti has people trying to practice subsistence agriculture on areas deemed approximately a hundredfold smaller than equivalent american sizes. Haiti also has a massive diaspora because people simply can't live at home, and a huge amount of Haiti's finances come from expatriate cash. No, it can't support itself. Maybe it could at one time prior to the deforestation of their half of Hispaniola, but that's rather in the past now. Soils are now heavily eroded, overfarmed and very susceptible to natural disasters because of the lack of windbreaks and natural water holding capacities that forests normally bring. There is some problems with natural resources destruction but China and its 1.3 billion in population have manage in their country. China has a third of the population density of haiti and has far more arable land and natural resources. Haiti, by contrast, is completely deforested and the majority of its good soils have erroded. Compare haiti to the dominican republic which shares their island.The US, as a point of reference, has a population density of around 1/12th of haiti and 1/4th of china; the new world provided a huge pressure release to population tensions over the past 400 years. Sadly, there's no undiscovered Atlantis. DR has 9 times Haiti's GDP, 2/3rds of their population density and hasn't deforested their side of the island. The giant difference between today's China and that of the Great Leap Forwards isn't in the fewness of the number of people. That number has instead increase. Instead it's the great advancement in social and economic institutions. The transformation hinged on two events, the death of Mao and TianAnMen Square. After TianAnMen, China's economy transformed into a free market economy. The Communist Party retreated from tight central controls into an all out defense of its political power. The roll-back of socialism and the de facto culture of private property provided for better stewardship of natural resources and of the environment. Basically you're saying social developments that aren't related to population growth have increased the standard of living in china, which is exactly what I said last post. My position is that once you tip OVER the carrying capacity bad thing start happening when a cyclic downturn in resource availability causes tragedies and social unrest. China itself has been proactive in this field and would have 1.7 billion citizens without their current policies. The idea is to develop sustainable positive progress instead of progress punctuated by massive tragedies. Its current population is merely above what its social, economic, and technological institutions can support. Err, not exactly. Their natural resources are near depleted, and without those you simply can't build 'social, economic and technological resources'. First and foremost, people need to eat. There are many traits that combine together to enable a society to handle large populations. Aversion to war is the highest. A culture that is averse to war has far more resources to allocate to feeding its people and developing medicine to ward against disease. Next in importance would be the Rule of Law and property rights. These aren't borne out in quite a few successful civilizations (including western civilizations), but they help depending on the context of the society themselves. The Maori, for instance, needed to engage in war or risk going far above their carrying capacity. The tikopians had no need to go to war, but never really had a system of property; their system of resource allocation basically involved talking to everyone on the island and getting consent from the vast majority of people. While that doesn't work in our social context, they're far more developed along collective lines than we are. One could say that they exemplify a 'miracle of the commons'.What you're mentioning is our specific institutions that play large roles in our method of resource distribution; they aren't prerequisites, they're specific adaptions to problems. For instance, once the Mediterranean was 'recaptured' following the crusades, the institution of roman (now civil) law was rapidly adopted as a solution to problems arising with long distance sea trade and increased inter-city travel. Civil law didn't create the opportunity to trade and break free from subsistence farming, but it sure pushed it along its way once it started. Common law resisted the spread of roman law for a simple reason; it worked fine the way it was. The problem had already been solved so there was no need to adapt further. You've got things completely backwards. Then in about equivalent importance are geographical features like land and natural resources, social institutions like schools and local associations, technological capital like tools and equipment, and economic institutions like well operated businesses. These aren't 'about equivalent'. They're causal precursors of any of your other requirements. Without arable land, societies simply won't develop. Degrading arable land by trying to overexploit it by running over carrying capacity undoes societies, and haiti is one of these. These aren't 'equally important'. The mayans had a functioning legal system as well as massive technological prowess and well developed institutions and it didn't matter because they overfarmed their land and had a huge drought and left. You are terrible at discussing foresight and resultant interests. You are much too pessimistic or unimaginative. Priorities are completely out of touch, too. You're terrible at discussing foresight and resultant interests too. You are much too optimistic and unbased in historic facts. Priorities are completely out of touch, too.Lots of content in that last one. You've ignored a massive battery of arguments against many of the propositions you've advanced as well as historical evidence of this being a recurring problem. This isn't going to provide much more in the way of enlightening discussion unless you decide to go and address our disagreement in an axiomic manner. You can't really do much else, partially because you don't seem to be familiar with any of the examples we're discussing, or the limits of the models we're discussing. Most important Aversion to War + Rule of Law. Your environmental protection technologies and social pressures are at least 50 years away for most of these places you are talking about. It's not that they eventually don't become a part of a society's institutions but they are low low on importance. Your posts amount to "I'm smarter and more prescient than everyone else, so I fancy myself a tyrant for the world." ==== This is what pisses me off when the tragedy of commons argument is applied to disastrous human population growth. It amounts to a combination of pessimistic outlooks towards the word. First of all, it's a pessimism in their fellow man. It's an assertion that people will never work out a socially supported solution to slow down reproduction. It's an assertion that these kinds of solutions has to be imposed upon the people by a "more intelligent" body of people. The imposition of solution by force amounts to decreeing that "the pen is not mightier than the sword" that "violence is superior to reason." Perhaps it's also a pessimism in oneself that persuasive powers are insufficient to win over peers. Second of all, it's a pessimism in human ingenuity. It's an assertion that the same problems down the same economies of scale that currently challenge the human race will always challenge the human race for perpetuity. Humans will never find the solution. Third of all, it's a pessimism of outcomes. Basically, the assertion is that each and every failure will be utterly disastrous to the point that we have to put all our resources into preventing such a failure even if there is only a small chance of the failure happening - Dick Cheney's "one percent doctorine" at work. Failures will never happen on a small scale and failures will never be opportunities for reconsideration and reassessment. Oh and it's a shallow analysis of the situation, too. Every observed failure is a failure born of out the free will of humans. We are evil evil creatures. It's the universal explanation. ===== | ||
|
deth
Australia1757 Posts
| ||
|
synapse
China13814 Posts
On November 25 2009 12:23 Balentine wrote: I'd like to make a point about the global warming graph that is commonly known as the Hockey Stick (phenomena?) (i'm not sure what the real name is). In the late 80's at the fall of communist Russia (and the subsequent collapse of the economy) the government had to shut down most of it's arctic weather stations. Now most of the temperatures that they were getting from these stations were sub-zero temperatures. Once these temperatures stopped getting measured and then averaged into the overall amount you have the sudden "increase" that you see in the temperature data. I laughed. Just because you can't measure an arithmetic mean doesn't mean everyone else is that stupid. | ||
|
Balentine
United States14 Posts
don't believe me or anybody else. whenever you question somebody you should do your own research before you say anything. ever heard of Google? | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10800 Posts
Where everyone with a clue, whiteout a clue and with a computer is having his own opinion and spitting it all over the internet. | ||
|
Piretes
Netherlands218 Posts
On November 25 2009 12:23 Balentine wrote: I'd like to make a point about the global warming graph that is commonly known as the Hockey Stick (phenomena?) (i'm not sure what the real name is). In the late 80's at the fall of communist Russia (and the subsequent collapse of the economy) the government had to shut down most of it's arctic weather stations. Now most of the temperatures that they were getting from these stations were sub-zero temperatures. Once these temperatures stopped getting measured and then averaged into the overall amount you have the sudden "increase" that you see in the temperature data. On November 26 2009 20:12 Balentine wrote: syanpse, maybe you should do your research instead of mocking people who do. don't believe me or anybody else. whenever you question somebody you should do your own research before you say anything. ever heard of Google? I laughed twice. Pure self-righteous ignorance here folks. | ||
|
L
Canada4732 Posts
Most important Aversion to War + Rule of Law. Your environmental protection technologies and social pressures are at least 50 years away for most of these places you are talking about. It's not that they eventually don't become a part of a society's institutions but they are low low on importance. Your posts amount to "I'm smarter and more prescient than everyone else, so I fancy myself a tyrant for the world." I'm a tyrant? I haven't proposed ANY changes other than turning up social pressure against having 7 kids, not letting companies ransack countries and then leave and support aid aimed at producing sustainable recovery instead of a temporary reprieve to an otherwise worsening situation. Way to mischaracterize, demonize, and dismiss. First of all, it's a pessimism in their fellow man. It's an assertion that people will never work out a socially supported solution to slow down reproduction. The first world already found a socially supported solution to slow down reproduction; inheritance laws, health care and contraceptives. The rest of your post is a gigantic rant against an argument which was never made and a position which was never held. Maybe you should deal with the text on the page instead of turning to Alex Jones and thinking I'm part of a NWO conspiracy to kill off your children and steal your nation from you. Humans can NEVER deal with the problem? Uh, I already mentioned that the majority of successful societies DID deal with the problem. I've specifically highlighted absolutely brilliant examples of such; Tikopia is absolutely ingenious when it comes to this. Look them up. I'm seriously in awe of how evasive you've been in attempting to respond to my points; you don't. I noticed it in previous posts too. I'd neutralize your main propositions, and you'd continue as if your conclusion still held without it without bothering to try and rebuild it. In this post: not a single point addressed. What's more? First I'm advocating eugenics. Now I'm a tyrant. None are even remotely borne out by what I've said. Even statements like "its a shallow analysis of the situation" are absolutely mindboggling; You've brought up a grand total of zero outside research, whereas I've presented a multitude of case studies over a span of millenia; if there's something shallow here, its your predisposition to ignore the argument because it presents evidence which would challenge your ideology and world view. Well played good sir, throwing mud in a discussion between gentlemen is always a fine way to proceed towards the discovery of truths. Have at you! | ||
|
lOvOlUNiMEDiA
United States643 Posts
On November 27 2009 02:41 L wrote: I'm a tyrant? I haven't proposed ANY changes other than turning up social pressure against having 7 kids, not letting companies ransack countries and then leave and support aid aimed at producing sustainable recovery instead of a temporary reprieve to an otherwise worsening situation. Way to mischaracterize, demonize, and dismiss. The first world already found a socially supported solution to slow down reproduction; inheritance laws, health care and contraceptives. The rest of your post is a gigantic rant against an argument which was never made and a position which was never held. Maybe you should deal with the text on the page instead of turning to Alex Jones and thinking I'm part of a NWO conspiracy to kill off your children and steal your nation from you. Humans can NEVER deal with the problem? Uh, I already mentioned that the majority of successful societies DID deal with the problem. I've specifically highlighted absolutely brilliant examples of such; Tikopia is absolutely ingenious when it comes to this. Look them up. I'm seriously in awe of how evasive you've been in attempting to respond to my points; you don't. I noticed it in previous posts too. I'd neutralize your main propositions, and you'd continue as if your conclusion still held without it without bothering to try and rebuild it. In this post: not a single point addressed. What's more? First I'm advocating eugenics. Now I'm a tyrant. None are even remotely borne out by what I've said. Even statements like "its a shallow analysis of the situation" are absolutely mindboggling; You've brought up a grand total of zero outside research, whereas I've presented a multitude of case studies over a span of millenia; if there's something shallow here, its your predisposition to ignore the argument because it presents evidence which would challenge your ideology and world view. Well played good sir, throwing mud in a discussion between gentlemen is always a fine way to proceed towards the discovery of truths. Have at you! Perhaps you two should propose a specific thesis to debate. | ||
| ||
