|
CBS reports on the internet attack
Doubtless, the competing camps in the global warming "debate" will both spin this incident as best they can. But, in the same way that the earth's climate (and the human impact on it) is what it is despite what we think about it (read: a fact) -- the emails are what they are.
Has anyone done any research on the emails? Is there any serious attempt by the climate scientists to hide information? If so (which, from the vague reports mentioned, doesn't seem likely) we could all get behind THAT as being wrong, right? Or would lying, or distorting the truth about the climate be ok?
--This may be impossible, but I hope this can be a flame free discussion. If you want to scream about the truth or falsity of man-made global warming, please, do so elsewhere.
|
There is clear and obvious intent to hide information, if you read some of it. The files are still on torrents/rapidshare/etc, if you want to read them.
|
|
|
Yes, it is well-known by climate scientists that tree ring chronologies stop being good temperature proxies after 1940. The "divergence problem" is well-known, well-studied, and many papers on dendroclimatology include it. Usually, when you are attempting an approximation, you do not include the approximation in places where you know it fails. If you are to contest the "breaking off" of the tree line approximation, you need to argue one of the following:
1. We should include approximations in the entire plotted range, including the areas where the approximation fails.
2. Tree ring data makes a shit proxy for temperature in general and should not have been included at all.
Take your pick.
|
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.
|
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.
|
On November 22 2009 09:52 WhiteNights wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Yes but with new evidence they can change their opinion
|
Most meaningless evidence ever. So someone claims that some emails were intercepted, and not simply written by the people claiming to have intercepted them.
|
On November 22 2009 09:52 WhiteNights wrote:Show nested quote +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 22 2009 10:07 Vedic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2009 09:52 WhiteNights wrote: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?
Can you give me the name of some climate scientists (defined as having at least a few papers in the field of atmospheric or climate science) who support the statement of the petition? You would not ask a biologist for judgment on theoretical physics, or a chemist for judgment on neurology. Even the scientists who are considered skeptics do not say that there isn't global warming.
[[EDIT]] Their criterion for "scientist" is "has a BS, MD, or PhD."
|
On November 22 2009 10:07 Vedic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2009 09:52 WhiteNights wrote: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?
That turned out to be a PR stunt, half of those people weren't even real scientists and NO ONE of those 31.000 people were climate scientists.
|
Thank god! i finally can hope that people will realize that global warming is a joke. Going 'green' is simply a business opportunity for smart people to exploit idiots. 'buy this green thing and that green thing, you save the planet- but it will cost you more. lol
|
Before the global warming fact or fiction debate thing gets rolling lets just pass this thought through our heads:
If global warming happens and we have done things against it we win.
If we do the contrary/do nothing we get fucked.
Now, if we do things to prevent global warming from happening and it turns out to be false, we still just cleaned up our messy lifestyles and made the world nicer place to live in.
|
On November 22 2009 10:19 BuGzlToOnl wrote:
Before the global warming fact or fiction debate thing gets rolling lets just pass this thought through our heads:
If global warming happens and we have done things against it we win.
If we do the contrary/do nothing we get fucked.
Now, if we do things to prevent global warming from happening and it turns out to be false, we still just cleaned up our messy lifestyles and made the world a little nicer to live in.
I agree with this. Reducing waste and environmental destruction is a win regardless of climate change. The destruction we've wrought from our current consumption practices is apparent even to a lay person.
|
I find it sad that the average man can be so greatly influenced by sections of the media against something when all the research points to the exact opposite.
|
On November 22 2009 09:52 WhiteNights wrote:Show nested quote +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.
this will make great newz either way
|
You guys and your hokey conspiracy theories. Run a search in the literature (think peer reviewed journals, if you even know what that means) looking for articles which take a stance on the global warming issue. There's almost a thousand of them. Guess what they say? 100% of them agree that global warming is not a "joke."
|
On November 22 2009 11:17 Biochemist wrote:
You guys and your hokey conspiracy theories. Run a search in the literature (think peer reviewed journals, if you even know what that means) looking for articles which take a stance on the global warming issue. There's almost a thousand of them. Guess what they say? 100% of them agree that global warming is not a "joke."
the earth is warming. the issue is whether or not we are the cause and also if a tax on one of the most abundant elements, carbon, is the solution to anything.
|
Oh what a wonderful idea 'peer reviewed articles', as they are as free as oxygen and corruption is inexistent in the scientific community.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On November 22 2009 10:19 BuGzlToOnl wrote:
Before the global warming fact or fiction debate thing gets rolling lets just pass this thought through our heads:
If global warming happens and we have done things against it we win.
If we do the contrary/do nothing we get fucked.
Now, if we do things to prevent global warming from happening and it turns out to be false, we still just cleaned up our messy lifestyles and made the world nicer place to live in.
Or just screw the entire economy up. But we can hand wave our way through that.
Peer review journals have a way of being very political. At best, it's a bunch of scientists engaging in mutual masturbation in the name of expert commentary. At worst, it's gatekeeper against publishing "undesirable," "uncomfortable," or "inexpedient" material or a way of carrying out personal revenge in academia.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
