On February 17 2010 00:39 TanGeng wrote: The facts don't say anything yet on the medieval warming period. It's all reconstruction, anecdotes, and theory.
At this point, the "science" is all noise and very little truth. When the science actually settle i.e. waiting another 30 years for evidence, it would be useful as actionable theories and truths. The problem is that people are screaming in their echo chambers to act immediately.
BTW The medieval warm period is an old idea. The roman warm period is also an old idea. It's built from the historical anecdotal evidence and some early proxies around the world. The lack of the medieval warm period is a new idea introduced as recently as 10 years ago by Mann featuring a hockey stick and a remarkably stable climate system up until the most recent century.
It's fact that Greenland used to be green at one point and vikings were growing wheat there.
On November 22 2009 09:51 gchan wrote: What is a scary thought is that it took something as radical as this for it to make news. What modern news sells is fear and sensationalism. Al Gore's presentation on climate change brought to light a lot of the issues, and propagated fear...so the media picked up on it. In the years since then, with more scientists raising doubts about the accuracy of the data, whether there really is global warming, etc., the media hardly gave it any coverage. That's because it's not fear or sensationalism. It took something this drastic to stir the media enough to actually cover the topic.
Well since the media isn't a global united organisation i don't think it "thinks" anything so to say. It's more like people generally thought the climatechange where controversial (interresting news). And now when climatechange is all we hear everyday, the idea that it is fake/not accurate enough suddenly is interresting again (= good news).
Also, regardless on how much burning fossils really affect global warming and if the temprature really is rising, the fact that a huge part of icecaps all over the world are melting and that the permafrost is suddenly dissapearing is a real problem. And we know that it will mess up the planet regardless if it depends on global warming or not.
So we can't just sit and do nothing regardless of the credibility of globalwarming
Pretty hilarious all these ignorant folk think they know something about global warming that thousands of climate related scientists and every major, credible organization believes doesn't.
On February 17 2010 00:39 TanGeng wrote: The facts don't say anything yet on the medieval warming period. It's all reconstruction, anecdotes, and theory.
At this point, the "science" is all noise and very little truth. When the science actually settle i.e. waiting another 30 years for evidence, it would be useful as actionable theories and truths. The problem is that people are screaming in their echo chambers to act immediately.
BTW The medieval warm period is an old idea. The roman warm period is also an old idea. It's built from the historical anecdotal evidence and some early proxies around the world. The lack of the medieval warm period is a new idea introduced as recently as 10 years ago by Mann featuring a hockey stick and a remarkably stable climate system up until the most recent century.
It's fact that Greenland used to be green at one point and vikings were growing wheat there.
Do you have a source on that? I seem to recall being taught that the Viking that originally discovered Greenland attempted to CALL the country Greenland just to pursuade his family to move from Iceland to Greenland with him
On February 17 2010 00:39 TanGeng wrote: The facts don't say anything yet on the medieval warming period. It's all reconstruction, anecdotes, and theory.
At this point, the "science" is all noise and very little truth. When the science actually settle i.e. waiting another 30 years for evidence, it would be useful as actionable theories and truths. The problem is that people are screaming in their echo chambers to act immediately.
BTW The medieval warm period is an old idea. The roman warm period is also an old idea. It's built from the historical anecdotal evidence and some early proxies around the world. The lack of the medieval warm period is a new idea introduced as recently as 10 years ago by Mann featuring a hockey stick and a remarkably stable climate system up until the most recent century.
It's fact that Greenland used to be green at one point and vikings were growing wheat there.
Do you have a source on that? I seem to recall being taught that the Viking that originally discovered Greenland attempted to CALL the country Greenland just to pursuade his family to move from Iceland to Greenland with him
Erik (who had given the island its attractive name, the better to lure settlers there)
While the name was a bit of salesmanship, it wasn't like they were aiming to survive on bare ice. Once the land stopped being farmable they left, rather than live like their Inuit neighbors.
On November 22 2009 09:51 gchan wrote: In the years since then, with more scientists raising doubts about the accuracy of the data, whether there really is global warming, etc., the media hardly gave it any coverage. That's because it's not fear or sensationalism. It took something this drastic to stir the media enough to actually cover the topic.
The number of climate scientists who believe there isn't global warming is in the single digits out of thousands. It's not newsworthy because there aren't any.
31,000+ scientists have signed a petition against man-made global warming theories. Did you not even watch the senate debate?
On November 23 2009 00:56 Biff The Understudy wrote: It's amazing how you guys see the "governement" as the ultimate evil, are so obsessed by the State taking control when basically all your economy, all your medias, all your cultural life is controlled by big companies which structurally don't obey any other law than making as much money as quickly as possible for their shareholders, which represents the 1% richest part of your population.
When you knnow the incredible amount of lobbying that theses companies are doing, chose who you should fear the most: your governement or your capitalist amoral system.
Global warming doesn't benefit anybdoy. Not doing anything and denying it benefits all major companies.
I'm sorry, but American's view on politic is so naive.
I gotta say this is, ironically, one of the most naive posts written (nice try though, guy). A quick survey of history shows that a huge majority of problems with human society are results of the state not multinational corporations. Up to and including the 20th century, where governments get in bed with said multinational corps (how are you so incredibly naive as to believe that govt and business are at odds? lol). Also you may want to check the track record of heavily statist nations in the past 100 years. Not very good, in fact, its spectacularly bad.
On February 17 2010 01:20 0neder wrote: The sun is by far the largest influencer of global temperature.
Also, there is a natural conflict of interest for researchers who want more funding and need to be seen as important.
This is probably the most annoyingly oft-repeated comments that is completely wrong. You obviously do not work in science because you don't understand how it works at all. Scientists don't get funding for figuring out something that has already been figured out, they get funding for stuff that people want to know about that hasn't been discovered yet. If they really wanted to continue getting funding they would be saying that we don't know enough about the climate and they need more funding to get a good result.
So how come scientists don't constantly act like they don't know whats going on to get funding? Because science doesn't work like that. If two scientists made a conspiracy to act together and doctor their data to make it seem like they need more funding to get at whats going on they could get a little more funding, but if one of them proves the other scientists research is total shit he gets to take all of the other scientists funding. Basically the competition in science makes it so your retarded conspiracy theory doesn't work.
EDIT: I misread your statement so it doesn't exactly apply to you, but rather all those people who say that scientists are fearmongering to get more money. Politicians may fearmonger for money, "green" tech people can fearmonger for money, but science doesn't work that way.
this new bit of leak is only a recurrence of it already happening. the UN, gore, have already been well documented and proven to hide, alter, spin, and falsify critical info. this incident can be a new spike that opens it further, but it's really not likely to get big, since the AP is not likely to make this a big issue. very selective, very controlled.
nwo this new bit can should be discussed in and of itself, as the OP is desiring it to be. but it can also not be completely separated from the big picture and the question: "is global warming real?" i will note that in this regard, getting admissions or confessions from perpetrators is only one way of going about an investigation/building a case. If u can get other instances of the same thing, if you can empirically disprove it, it's even stronger. (sometimes there is no way to prove or disprove things empirically, in which case u gotta rely on confessions and testimonies, but with global warming, this is fortunately not so!)
For anyone interested in the global warming debate in general, this video is a rich addition to your body of info.
This new incident is additional info on the "case" and should definitely not be dismissed or marginalized. however, to go about speculating on this piece alone, is kind of a dead end. look to the science, and add this to the entire body of similar falsification incidents and put it all together for the big picture.
microscopes are necessary but u cannot accomplish much if u refuse to back out from the microscope either. but of course there is a time to zoom in, and this can be one of them. but u always need to relate it back to the other body of evidence.
Global Warming: Russian analysts accuse Britain's Meteorological Office of cherry-picking Russian temperature data to "hide the decline" in global temperatures. Is Copenhagen rooted in a single tree in Siberia?
Michael Mann, a Penn State meteorologist, wrote in Friday's Washington Post that "stolen" e-mails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit still don't alter the evidence for climate change.
Mann, a creator of the discredited hockey-stick graph used in reports from the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to show man-made warming, attacks climate skeptics, including former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, saying they "confuse the public."
Chutzpah has been redefined.
As Ronald Reagan used to say, facts are stubborn things. The fact is that imminent man-made climate disaster has been shown to be a massive fraud driven by manipulated data and deliberate suppression of facts to the contrary.
The latest Climate-gate shoe to drop is the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) accusation that the Hadley Center of Britain's Meteorological Office deliberately relied on a carefully selected 25% of Russia's weather stations that fit its theory of global warming.
By ignoring those that don't, the Russians say, the CRU overestimated warming in the country by more than half a degree Celsius.
Russia accounts for 12.5% of the earth's land mass and has weather stations throughout, so ignoring vast swaths of it can greatly skew any analysis. The IEA says CRU ignored data covering 40% of Russia, preferring data from urban centers and data that showed a warming trend. On the final page of the IEA report is a chart that shows the CRU's selective use of Russian data produced 0.64C more warming than using all the data would have done.
Steve McIntyre at ClimateAudit reports that the CRU has long been suspected of misusing Russian data. He notes a March 2004 e-mail from CRU director Phil Jones to Mann that says: "Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either appears (in these journals) I will be very surprised, but you never know with GRL." (JGR and GRL are scientific journals).
Siberia has played a pivotal role in this outright fraud. In 1995, a paper by the CRU's Keith Briffa asserted the medieval warm period was actually really cold, and recent warming is unusually warm. It relied on tree ring data from trees on Siberia's Yamal Peninsula.
On February 17 2010 01:37 Sandrosuperstar wrote: Well since the media isn't a global united organisation i don't think it "thinks" anything so to say.
The problem is that the majority of media figureheads take the attitude that the media has a responsibility to convince the public of "the truth." I'm not just talking in terms of environmental themes of this thread, but in terms of general political ideology. That isn't journalism. This is not a reporting of the facts. It's more like religion except without ever mentioning god.
The media might not "think" anything, as you say, but because media figureheads all take this attitude, mainstream fashions in ideology develop whenever enough of them spout the same opinions. A journalist cannot be trusted to have the integrity to tell you the facts; only their opinions.
This is not freedom of thought. It is just yet more proof that humans, as social creatures, are slaves to fashion and therefore the collective IQ of any population is inversely proportional to its size.
The thing that bothers me the most about this e-mail scandal is that there has not been any kind of serious criticism about the professional ethics of the alleged scientists who tried to hide data that contradicted their theories (they are not scientists -- they are fraudsters and politicians, not scientists; a scientist does science, hiding data that disagrees with your theory is not science).
If a medical researcher tries to hide the side effects of a drug, all of you will be quick to jump on him as unethical. The same standard should be held towards anyone doing research. Science does not make progress unless the truth is realized.
On November 22 2009 09:51 gchan wrote: In the years since then, with more scientists raising doubts about the accuracy of the data, whether there really is global warming, etc., the media hardly gave it any coverage. That's because it's not fear or sensationalism. It took something this drastic to stir the media enough to actually cover the topic.
The number of climate scientists who believe there isn't global warming is in the single digits out of thousands. It's not newsworthy because there aren't any.
31,000+ scientists have signed a petition against man-made global warming theories. Did you not even watch the senate debate?
31,000+ scientists have signed a petition against man-made global warming theories. Did you not even watch the senate debate?
what scientists do (sign petitions, playing golf, agreeing by faith what another scientist did without having studied it for himself) doesnt have anything to do with the science they do (satelite data, adhereing to the scientific method and not falsifying stuff)
The vikings did not leave. They were killed by the Inuit, who arrived at greenland after the vikings did and exploded in population because they weren't afraid to fish.
EPT
