http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34392959/ns/us_news-environment/?GT1=43001

Review: Climate e-mails petty, not fraudulent
Climate experts, AP reporters go through 1,000 exchanges
By Seth Borenstein, Raphael Satter and Malcolm Ritter
The Associated Press
updated 12:18 p.m. ET, Sat., Dec . 12, 2009

LONDON - E-mails stolen from climate scientists show they stonewalled skeptics and discussed hiding data — but the messages don't support claims that the science of global warming was faked, according to an exhaustive review by The Associated Press.

The 1,073 e-mails examined by the AP show that scientists harbored private doubts, however slight and fleeting, even as they told the world they were certain about climate change. However, the exchanges don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions.

The scientists were keenly aware of how their work would be viewed and used, and, just like politicians, went to great pains to shape their message. Sometimes, they sounded more like schoolyard taunts than scientific tenets.

The scientists were so convinced by their own science and so driven by a cause "that unless you're with them, you're against them," said Mark Frankel, director of scientific freedom, responsibility and law at the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He also reviewed the communications.

Frankel saw "no evidence of falsification or fabrication of data, although concerns could be raised about some instances of very 'generous interpretations.'"

Some e-mails expressed doubts about the quality of individual temperature records or why models and data didn't quite match. Part of this is the normal give-and-take of research, but skeptics challenged how reliable certain data was.

The e-mails were stolen from the computer network server of the climate research unit at the University of East Anglia in southeast England, an influential source of climate science, and were posted online last month. The university shut down the server and contacted the police.

Million words reviewed
The AP studied all the e-mails for context, with five reporters reading and rereading them — about 1 million words in total.

One of the most disturbing elements suggests an effort to avoid sharing scientific data with critics skeptical of global warming. It is not clear if any data was destroyed; two U.S. researchers denied it.

The e-mails show that several mainstream scientists repeatedly suggested keeping their research materials away from opponents who sought it under American and British public records law. It raises a science ethics question because free access to data is important so others can repeat experiments as part of the scientific method. The University of East Anglia is investigating the blocking of information requests.

"I believe none of us should submit to these 'requests,'" declared the university's Keith Briffa in one e-mail. The center's chief, Phil Jones, e-mailed: "Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will be hiding behind them."

When one skeptic kept filing Freedom of Information Act requests, Jones, who didn't return AP requests for comment, told another scientist, Michael Mann: "You can delete this attachment if you want. Keep this quiet also, but this is the person who is putting FOI requests for all e-mails Keith (Briffa) and Tim (Osborn) have written."

Mann, a researcher at Penn State University, told The Associated Press: "I didn't delete any e-mails as Phil asked me to. I don't believe anybody else did."

The e-mails also show how professional attacks turned very personal. When former London financial trader Douglas J. Keenan combed through the data used in a 1990 research paper Jones had co-authored, Keenan claimed to have found evidence of fakery by Jones' co-author. Keenan threatened to have the FBI arrest University at Albany scientist Wei-Chyung Wang for fraud. (A university investigation later cleared him of any wrongdoing.)

"I do now wish I'd never sent them the data after their FOIA request!" Jones wrote in June 2007.

In another case after initially balking on releasing data to a skeptic because it was already public, Lawrence Livermore National Lab scientist Ben Santer wrote that he then opted to release everything the skeptic wanted — and more. Santer said in a telephone interview that he and others are inundated by frivolous requests from skeptics that are designed to "tie-up government-funded scientists."

Contempt for contrarians
The e-mails also showed a stunning disdain for global warming skeptics.

One scientist practically celebrates the news of the death of one critic, saying, "In an odd way this is cheering news!" Another bemoans that the only way to deal with skeptics is "continuing to publish quality work in quality journals (or calling in a Mafia hit.)" And a third scientist said the next time he sees a certain skeptic at a scientific meeting, "I'll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted."

And they compared contrarians to communist-baiting Sen. Joseph McCarthy and Somali pirates. They also called them out-and-out frauds.

Santer, who received death threats after his work on climate change in 1996, said Thursday: "I'm not surprised that things are said in the heat of the moment between professional colleagues. These things are taken out of context."

When the journal, Climate Research, published a skeptical study that turned out to be partly funded by the American Petroleum Institute, Penn State scientist Mann discussed retribution this way: "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal."

The most provocative e-mails are usually about one aspect of climate science: research from a decade ago that studied how warm or cold it was centuries ago through analysis of tree rings, ice cores and glacial melt. And most of those e-mails, which stretch from 1996 to last month, are from about a handful of scientists in dozens of e-mails.

Still, such research has been a key element in measuring climate change over long periods.

As part of the AP review, summaries of the e-mails that raised issues from the potential manipulation of data to intensely personal attacks were sent to seven experts in research ethics, climate science and science policy.

"This is normal science politics, but on the extreme end, though still within bounds," said Dan Sarewitz, a science policy professor at Arizona State University. "We talk about science as this pure ideal and the scientific method as if it is something out of a cookbook, but research is a social and human activity full of all the failings of society and humans, and this reality gets totally magnified by the high political stakes here."

In the past three weeks since the e-mails were posted, longtime opponents of mainstream climate science have repeatedly quoted excerpts of about a dozen e-mails. Republican congressmen and former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin have called for either independent investigations, a delay in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulation of greenhouse gases or outright boycotts of the Copenhagen international climate talks. They cited a "culture of corruption" that the e-mails appeared to show.

'Trick' reference explained
That is not what the AP found. There were signs of trying to present the data as convincingly as possible.

One e-mail that skeptics have been citing often since the messages were posted online is from Jones. He says: "I've just completed Mike's (Mann) trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (from 1981 onward) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

Jones was referring to tree ring data that indicated temperatures after the 1950s weren't as warm as scientists had determined.

The "trick" that Jones said he was borrowing from Mann was to add the real temperatures, not what the tree rings showed. And the decline he talked of hiding was not in real temperatures, but in the tree ring data that was misleading, Mann explained.

Sometimes the data didn't line up as perfectly as scientists wanted.

David Rind told colleagues about inconsistent figures in the work for a giant international report: "As this continuing exchange has clarified, what's in Chapter 6 is inconsistent with what is in Chapter 2 (and Chapter 9 is caught in the middle!). Worse yet, we've managed to make global warming go away! (Maybe it really is that easy...."

But in the end, global warming didn't go away, according to the vast body of research over the years.

None of the e-mails flagged by the AP and sent to three climate scientists viewed as moderates in the field changed their view that global warming is man-made and a threat. Nor did it alter their support of the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which some of the scientists helped write.

"My overall interpretation of the scientific basis for (man-made) global warming is unaltered by the contents of these e-mails," said Gabriel Vecchi, a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientist.

Gerald North, a climate scientist at Texas A&M University, headed a National Academy of Sciences study that looked at — and upheld as valid — Mann's earlier studies that found the 1990s were the hottest years in centuries.

"In my opinion the meaning is much more innocent than might be perceived by others taken out of context. Much of this is overblown," North said.

Mann contends he always has been upfront about uncertainties, pointing to the title of his 1999 study: "Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties and Limitations."

Several scientists found themselves tailoring their figures or retooling their arguments to answer online arguments — even as they claimed not to care what was being posted online.

"I don't read the blogs that regularly," Jonathan Overpeck of the University of Arizona wrote in 2005. "But I guess the skeptics are making hay of their (sic) being a global warm (sic) event around 1450AD."

'Good faith,' says one critic
One person singled out for criticism in the e-mails is Steve McIntyre, who maintains Climate Audit. The blog focuses on statistical issues with scientists' attempts to recreate the climate in ancient times.

"We find that the authors are overreaching in the conclusions that they're trying to draw from the data that they have," McIntyre said in a telephone interview.

McIntyre, 62, of Toronto, was trained in math and economics and says he is "substantially retired" from the mineral exploration industry, which produces greenhouse gases.

Some e-mails said McIntyre's attempts to get original data from scientists are frivolous and meant more for harassment than doing good science. There are allegations that he would distort and misuse data given to him.

McIntyre disagreed with how he is portrayed. "Everything that I've done in this, I've done in good faith," he said.

He also said he has avoided editorializing on the leaked e-mails. "Anything I say," he said, "is liable to be piling on."

The skeptics started the name-calling, said Mann, who called McIntyre a "bozo," a "fraud" and a "moron" in various e-mails.

"We're human," Mann said. "We've been under attack unfairly by these people who have been attempting to dismiss us as frauds as liars."

Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34392959/ns/us_news-environment/?GT1=43001

MSN Privacy . Legal
© 2009 MSNBC.com

This will come as little surprise to the proponents of global warming, and will be ignored by it opponents.

Unfortunately the damage has already been done. There's been a month or two of right wing talking heads complaining about the evidence in the leaked emails, and it never mattered that no such evidence existed. It matters even less now.

Nope liberal media.

Sebster- Sad truth, sir.

Wait, so you're saying that there isn't an international cabal of scientists, a group of people with the social skills and leadership of a talented hamster, actively deluding the public about the truth behind the science?

I don't know, it sounds far fetched. When I think savvy conspirators, I think "science majors."

LONDON - E-mails stolen from climate scientists show they stonewalled skeptics and discussed hiding data — but the messages don't support claims that the science of global warming was faked, according to an exhaustive review by The Associated Press.

The 1,073 e-mails examined by the AP show that scientists harbored private doubts, however slight and fleeting, even as they told the world they were certain about climate change. However, the exchanges don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions.

The scientists were keenly aware of how their work would be viewed and used, and, just like politicians, went to great pains to shape their message. Sometimes, they sounded more like schoolyard taunts than scientific tenets.

The scientists were so convinced by their own science and so driven by a cause "that unless you're with them, you're against them," said Mark Frankel, director of scientific freedom, responsibility and law at the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He also reviewed the communications.

Frankel saw "no evidence of falsification or fabrication of data, although concerns could be raised about some instances of very 'generous interpretations.'"

That's all I would have been worried about in the first place.

Just making stuff up whole cloth would be pretty strange.

Doesn't suprise me that they tried to put a spin on it, having worked in scientific research. Also doesn't suprise me that they have doubts. I always assume a certain amount of spin whenever I see anything coming out of a research institute, and definitely they are likely to exaggerate the facts. Doesn't alter the fact that climate change is certainly happening and that humans contribute to it though.
Glad to see the overblown reaction deflated, interested to see that the rebuttal didn't attract as much of a response as the initial statement.

Da Boss wrote:Doesn't suprise me that they tried to put a spin on it, having worked in scientific research. Also doesn't suprise me that they have doubts. I always assume a certain amount of spin whenever I see anything coming out of a research institute, and definitely they are likely to exaggerate the facts. Doesn't alter the fact that climate change is certainly happening and that humans contribute to it though.
Glad to see the overblown reaction deflated, interested to see that the rebuttal didn't attract as much of a response as the initial statement.

It seems inconsistent with the theory that the media is dominated by leftist power.

Trust nothing. Believe no one. Just saying.

Frazzled wrote:Trust nothing. Believe no one. Just saying.

Or take your pick between:

Some folks with nothing to profit from it telling us the world may be in trouble.

Some other folks, with lots to profit from it telling us there's no cause for alarm.

The question is not whether or not you're being paranoid, the question is whether you're being paranoid enough...

Well, here we go, then ... My New Hat.

It looks as if it is designed to let you clean windows as you genuflect.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Trust nothing. Believe no one. Just saying.

Or take your pick between:

Some folks with nothing to profit from it telling us the world may be in trouble.

Some other folks, with lots to profit from it telling us there's no cause for alarm.

The question is not whether or not you're being paranoid, the question is whether you're being paranoid enough...

Don't forget the folks who have billions to profit from it, telling us the world is going to end.
Don't forget the politicians and bureaucrats chomping at the bit to gain power or tax revenues from it, telling us the world is going to end.

The reason why we have science is to be able to examine evidence objectively in order to disabuse ourselves of false ideas generated by the vapid blandishments of one or another self-interested pressure group.

Everyone on the planet is self interested and use all data accordingly. People who aren't are usually referred to in religious terms. Usually very few of them at any one time.

Science used in argument is just statistics.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Some folks with nothing to profit from it telling us the world may be in trouble.

Not all profit is in dollars.

Fraz, could I see some specifics about who would profit from doomsaying? And then maybe some documentation connecting them in any way to the climate researchers?

Gods know those guys aren't making billions. But the guys doing the anti-climate change research do seem to wind up being funded by petroleum companies quite often.

Mannahnin wrote:Fraz, could I see some specifics about who would profit from doomsaying? And then maybe some documentation connecting them in any way to the climate researchers?

Gods know those guys aren't making billions. But the guys doing the anti-climate change research do seem to wind up being funded by petroleum companies quite often.

You mean other than Al Gore, GE and a host of other companies? Check out how much he's made so far...

Where is the money trail between him and the researchers though? They’re the guys doing the gritty work, finding the evidence. They’re not getting as profit from it, nor are they going to be appointed our Overlords.

Grant money. Besides if it were just scientists it wouldn't be an issue. Scientists warn us about everything under the table.

Scientists tell us GM crops areperfectly safe, but does anyone listen?

Scientists tell us vaccines are perfectly safe, but there continues to be a firestorm about it, such that the Swine flu vaccine was delayed to put it into single batches because on nonscientific concerns about a carrier chemical.

Scientists tell us reactors are perfectly safe.

The issue is being pushed by parties that are not scientiests. It has become a matter of faith (and profit).

I faked a climate change once, if you know what I mean.

I hope someone does because I sure don't.

Hang on, you're talking about scientists being ignored due to nonscientific factors. Okay, so let's look at the specific examples you raise.

I agree that scientists should not be ignored, nor the data manipulated to support a wrong conclusion.

GM crops- I need to do more reading. I've seen evidence both ways. And there's definitely a major corporate profit motive to call them safe.


Vaccines- I agree that the these are documented to be safe, as a rule. So they should be widely deployed, and their use should not be obstructed or delayed.

Nuclear reactors- I agree that the scientific data generally supports that these are safe, and that irrational prejudices have restricted them excessively.

Climate Change- Again, 97%+ of climate scientists agree that it is happening, that we are contributing to it, and that it has potentially terrible consequences, including the flooding and loss of many coastal cities.

I agree that we should not allow anyone to sway or distort the truth and the evidence, and that non-scientists frequently do so. However, if a non-scientist is supporting and propagating the conclusion that the scientists have come to, how is that bad? SOMEONE will find a way to profit either way we go- whether it's green tech companies if we agree the threat is real, or the good ol' oil companies if we say it's BS and keep up our current rate of fossil fuel consumption. Right now the climate researchers, who are certainly not getting rich off it, and very likely would get much fatter grants from petroleum companies to find the opposite, are finding data supporting a threat.

Raggie baby, I'm just saying there are strong financial and nonfinancial interests on both sides of the debate.

Actually scientists don't tell us GM crops are perfectly safe.

http://www.badscience.net/2009/12/criticising-the-gm-industry/

Frazzled wrote:Raggie baby, I'm just saying there are strong financial and nonfinancial interests on both sides of the debate.

Did you just call Mannahnin Raggedy Anne?

We’ve never met in person, so he’s never seen my face as I read it. I’m sure he means it in a friendly way, and so I take it that way.

All we moderators hate each other intensely, but we hate users even more and that keeps us tight.

Frazzled wrote:Raggie baby, I'm just saying there are strong financial and nonfinancial interests on both sides of the debate.

Sure. Agreed. But that doesn’t mean both sides are equally correct.

It’s like that BS Intelligent Design argument- “teach the controversy”. They manufacture a controversy/debate, then argue that their position has weight and must be respected because there is this made-up controversy. Same with the cigarette companies and lung cancer. Same with the petroleum industry and climate change.

Kilkrazy wrote:All we moderators hate each other intensely, but we hate users even more and that keeps us tight.

Exactly.

Raggie-short for Ragnar.
Who's Raggedy Anne by the way?

Raggedy Anne and Andy were dolls that were pretty popular for a long time. I just thought it was funny when you said "Raggie, Baby..." .



Apparently Raggie is also slang for smelly homeless looking person.

Obviously that is not what you meant, but I don't know exactly what the interpretation that you were using was.

I thought he was referring to ex-BBC reporter Rageh Omaar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rageh_Omaar

People seem to forget that the climate in the early 1900's isn't the same as the climate through the history of the Earth, we grew out of an ice age, its been getting warmer ever since and people are still suprised, i just don't get it.

All that industial nations have done is sped it up a little, the world would be like this by itself soon if humans didn't exsist.

Frazzled: Science in an argument is just statistics?
What do you mean by that?

BluntmanDC wrote:People seem to forget that the climate in the early 1900's isn't the same as the climate through the history of the Earth, we grew out of an ice age, its been getting warmer ever since and people are still suprised, i just don't get it.

All that industial nations have done is sped it up a little, the world would be like this by itself soon if humans didn't exsist.

But humans do exist, and the changing climate does affect us, and we need to think about how to cope with that.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Trust nothing. Believe no one. Just saying.

Or take your pick between:

Some folks with nothing to profit from it telling us the world may be in trouble.

Some other folks, with lots to profit from it telling us there's no cause for alarm.

The question is not whether or not you're being paranoid, the question is whether you're being paranoid enough...

Nothing to profit from it? Are you really that naive? Al Gore has made 10s of millions on this already. IPCC members have also profited in the millions, not to mention Green promoting corporations which stand to make billions. Both sides have something to gain and just cherry picking like you are is doing nothing for the debate.

Kid_Kyoto wrote:The scientists were so convinced by their own science and so driven by a cause "that unless you're with them, you're against them," said Mark Frankel, director of scientific freedom, responsibility and law at the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He also reviewed the communications.

Frankel saw "no evidence of falsification or fabrication of data, although concerns could be raised about some instances of very 'generous interpretations.'"

Ah... The American Association for the Advancement of Science. An independent neutral third party right?

In December 2006, the AAAS adopted an official statement on climate change in which they stated, "The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society....The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now."[7]

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Association_for_the_Advancement_of_Science

So a Global Warming group reviews the emails and finds them supporting Global Warming theories... what a shock!

http://factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/

Bookwrack wrote:http://factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/

ok look I can post a link too

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1806245/posts

You... you don't actually know what factcheck.org is, do you?

Perhaps you should fix that rather regrettable lapse and try again?

What's the point? He didn't even post a relevant link...

That some people understand relevance, and support, while others do not?

How about this link?

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/global-warming-in-superfreakonomics-the-anatomy-of-a-smear/

All you have to do is APPEAR to oppose the idea of manmade Global Warming and you get trashed. It's a dogma just as fervent as any religion.

This whole thread is about the idea that 'climategate' was significant at all in the first place (which is pretty obvious from the get-go... but anyway). Going from a link from factcheck.org, to a random link 'debunking' the entirety of the theory, completely ignoring the point of the original link in the first place...

So the people that wrote a book are defending its content, and you're taking their statements as fact?

Anyway, its pretty common for intellectual critics to discredit work based on their disagreement with a single statement. That's not something which is exclusive to global warming debates. Academics are no less petty than any other group of people when it comes to topics which they care about. Interestingly, you appear to be doing the same thing by rejecting the global warming hypothesis based on the behavior of some of it supporters.

Edit: Ninjitsued

Earth, who needs it?

dogma wrote:Edit: Ninjitsued

JUDO CHOP!!!

Kilkrazy wrote:

BluntmanDC wrote:People seem to forget that the climate in the early 1900's isn't the same as the climate through the history of the Earth, we grew out of an ice age, its been getting warmer ever since and people are still suprised, i just don't get it.

All that industial nations have done is sped it up a little, the world would be like this by itself soon if humans didn't exsist.

But humans do exist, and the changing climate does affect us, and we need to think about how to cope with that.

i was going on the lines that people are still arguing over it, the scientists and governments involved should just buckle down, stop arguing and get things done. the additional man made elements that have sped up climate transition are pretty obvious, its research into dealing with it is what is falling behind, someone need to make inexpensive ways of gathering energy, such as paperthin solar power collectors (make 'em cheap, every roof gets covered in them, lots of energy) or that guy who had the idea with the speed bumps (using energy transfered into a speed bump to power street lights)

You mean like this?



The really difficult problems are the economics of distributing such technology effectively. We will have solar fabric soon enough, making solar clothes to power your already self charging smart phone... soooo... yeah.

Here, buy some and get some diesel in that market already.

http://www.siliconsolar.com/flexible-solar-panels.html

There has been development in that area for going on a decade now if I am not mistaken, NASA surely has some sort of insanely advanced materials to work with now. Not that the best stuff is really cost effective right now.

Wrexasaur wrote:This whole thread is about the idea that 'climategate' was significant at all in the first place (which is pretty obvious from the get-go... but anyway). Going from a link from factcheck.org, to a random link 'debunking' the entirety of the theory, completely ignoring the point of the original link in the first place...

I find it amusing that you think factcheck.org is infallible and unbiased. After reading the "factcheck" article it is quite clear that the author is biased towards the man made global warming fallacy. He fails to even consider the scientific ramifications of the University of East Anglia deleting their source data, preventing any other scientific body from scrutinizing their findings. If you know anything about science then you would know that deleting data like that is a huge no no and would normally invalidate any findings. Yet that didn't happen with the East Anglia findings because they stonewalled and conspired to hide it. Until they actually redo the study and publish the real data their findings are meaningless and should be completely disregarded.

ChaosDave wrote:
I find it amusing that you think factcheck.org is infallible and unbiased. After reading the "factcheck" article it is quite clear that the author is biased towards the man made global warming fallacy. He fails to even consider the scientific ramifications of the University of East Anglia deleting their source data, preventing any other scientific body from scrutinizing their findings. If you know anything about science then you would know that deleting data like that is a huge no no and would normally invalidate any findings. Yet that didn't happen with the East Anglia findings because they stonewalled and conspired to hide it. Until they actually redo the study and publish the real data their findings are meaningless and should be completely disregarded.

See, this is a strawman; arguing against a premise which does not exist in, or is not implied by, the target. Wrex didn't claim that factcheck.org was in anyway unbiased. He claimed that it relates directly to the topic at hand, while the link you provided did not.

dogma wrote:

ChaosDave wrote:
I find it amusing that you think factcheck.org is infallible and unbiased. After reading the "factcheck" article it is quite clear that the author is biased towards the man made global warming fallacy. He fails to even consider the scientific ramifications of the University of East Anglia deleting their source data, preventing any other scientific body from scrutinizing their findings. If you know anything about science then you would know that deleting data like that is a huge no no and would normally invalidate any findings. Yet that didn't happen with the East Anglia findings because they stonewalled and conspired to hide it. Until they actually redo the study and publish the real data their findings are meaningless and should be completely disregarded.

See, this is a strawman; arguing against a premise which does not exist in, or is not implied by, the target. Wrex didn't claim that factcheck.org was in anyway unbiased. He claimed that it relates directly to the topic at hand, while the link you provided did not.

Is it? the tone of his post "going from factcheck.org to something completely unrelated" implies that he thinks factcheck.org is a proper source. If he had said "going from a related link on a site to an unrelated link" I would agree with you. He didn't however, he specifically mentions factcheck.org as if it is the truth and untouchable.

I remember back in the 70's all the talk and articles were how we were going into a new ice age.

ChaosDave wrote:

dogma wrote:

ChaosDave wrote:
I find it amusing that you think factcheck.org is infallible and unbiased. After reading the "factcheck" article it is quite clear that the author is biased towards the man made global warming fallacy. He fails to even consider the scientific ramifications of the University of East Anglia deleting their source data, preventing any other scientific body from scrutinizing their findings. If you know anything about science then you would know that deleting data like that is a huge no no and would normally invalidate any findings. Yet that didn't happen with the East Anglia findings because they stonewalled and conspired to hide it. Until they actually redo the study and publish the real data their findings are meaningless and should be completely disregarded.

See, this is a strawman; arguing against a premise which does not exist in, or is not implied by, the target. Wrex didn't claim that factcheck.org was in anyway unbiased. He claimed that it relates directly to the topic at hand, while the link you provided did not.

Is it? the tone of his post "going from factcheck.org to something completely unrelated" implies that he thinks factcheck.org is a proper source. If he had said "going from a related link on a site to an unrelated link" I would agree with you. He didn't however, he specifically mentions factcheck.org as if it is the truth and untouchable.

No matter how bad you think a source is, you still need to cite a better source or you can't really impeach it.

KK did you know that if you insert random phone numbers into the 'fudge' program that Mann used to create his hockey stick graph for temperatures you get... a hockey stick graph for phone numbers...

This 'AP review' is done by 2 reporters with a history of warming alarmism and they will not name the third.

Since climategate the IPCC data sets used for Neww Zealand, Northern Australia, and Scandinavia have all shown to have been modified from the true data to 'adjusted data' all with rises in temp. But the raw data doesn't show it.

Also and I hope lastly.... The world has not heated up for 10 years, Artic ice is 10% higher this year, and was between 2-5% higher last year, the artic temperatures in the 1930's and 1940's was 2 degrees warmer than it is now, coral grows quicker than the sea levels are rising, so atolls won't sink, the Tuvalu climate rep ate Copenhagen is a Greenpeace activist who lives in a town just outside of Canberra Australia and has never even been to Tuvalu, Phil jones scored 25 million dollars in grants from governments (who won't be giving out cash if you were to say everything is alright), the climategate emails show how peer review is acctually peer collusion and the deliberately try to stop any reports that don't follow their thinking, AND the IPCC is being led by a railway engineer who is head scientist for an indian Steel manufacturer and flew 190,000 MILES in 9 months including a single day in India to watch the Indian cricket team practice, then flew back to UK same day.... all first class.

I saw An Inconvenient Truth, I believed what Gore said... then our PM tried to slap a massive tax on us just before Climategate hit and I did some research of my own.

Sure the climate is changing, it has been for 4 billion years. I accept that no question.

But the alarmism and downright lies is what really gets me going.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

ChaosDave wrote:
Al Gore has made 10s of millions on this already. IPCC members have also profited in the millions, not to mention Green promoting corporations which stand to make billions. Both sides have something to gain and just cherry picking like you are is doing nothing for the debate.

He left officee in 2000 with 2 million dollars including his 2 properties.

He is now worth between 32 and 36 million dollars.

He was going to charge $1500 for a handshake, photo and 5 minutes of his time at Copenhagen but it got into the press and he canned it.

ChaosDave wrote:
Is it? the tone of his post "going from factcheck.org to something completely unrelated" implies that he thinks factcheck.org is a proper source. If he had said "going from a related link on a site to an unrelated link" I would agree with you. He didn't however, he specifically mentions factcheck.org as if it is the truth and untouchable.

He doesn't specifically mention it in that fashion. He specifically mentioned factcheck.org, and you inferred that such specificity indicates a belief in its infallibility. Most likely because the name of the site itself carries that connotation. However, as that is a proper name, and not an argumentative clause, the inference is invalid.

Incidentally, given that the post in question was only two sentences long, quoting it out of context is incredibly poor form. This makes it seem to me that you didn't even consider the entire thought, and chose instead to impeach the critic on the basis of his disagreement rather than the merit of his critique.

For reference:

Wrezasaur wrote:
This whole thread is about the idea that 'climategate' was significant at all in the first place (which is pretty obvious from the get-go... but anyway). Going from a link from factcheck.org, to a random link 'debunking' the entirety of the theory, completely ignoring the point of the original link in the first place...

Wrex clearly indicated that the thrust of his criticism is the relevance of a citation which is meant to debunk the whole of the global warming hypothesis within a conversation about the impact of the CRU emails.

There are 2 things that put me in the not belivers camp.

1)There is a Consensus, in Science (with capitals) there is not consensus, there is proven or not proven theories. Special Relativity is a fact because Einstein managed to proved it and none of the opposition could prove him wrong not because there was a consensus. Right now we have people saying that AGW is true and people saying it is not but other than postulating models none of them have managed to prove the theory true or false. And BTW I can have a consensus about me being the best guy on Earth too by only asking my friends.

2)Life on Earth, and the planet itself, is doing great thanks. It is our way of life what it could be threatened by AGW. This planet has been hit by several massive extinctions and life always managed to come back. So stop saying Save the Earth! you sound like politicians with their "Think of the Children!"

Once the issue about warming or the lack of has been settled by science come and talk to me again about how I can help the enviroment.

M.

Frazzled wrote:Science used in argument is just statistics.

There was a time when this kind of fuzzy non-thought was a plague on the left wing. Now we're seeing this trotted out more and more to defend indefensible right wing ideas, Iraq, intelligent design, opposition to climate change. Instead of attempting to defend their ideas based on fact and reason, they just claim everyone is biased so you should just pick whatever conclusion you like.

It is not a useful way to form opinions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BluntmanDC wrote:All that industial nations have done is sped it up a little, the world would be like this by itself soon if humans didn't exsist.

No, that isn't supported by the science at all. The temperatature increases caused by industrial emissions are doing more than increasing heating 'a little'. And instead of levelling off, the rate of increase is expected to grow.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ChaosDave wrote:ok look I can post a link too

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1806245/posts

Your link sucks. The author of that is a retired highschool teacher. Which does not, in and of itself, make a paper worthless, but it is a worry that encourages a closer look at the methodology employed. Basically, Beck accepts atmospheric readings that were taken from a range of scientific instruments over a 180 period and notes that they show greenhouse gases fluctuating wildly over that time. He doesn't consider the possibility that cruder instruments produced more erratic results, nor does he attempt to marry his findings with other sources measuring CO2 or temperature levels. He just takes the readings as infallible and then argues that because ancient scientific gear produced erratic results, then greenhouse gases must be erratic.

I'm left wondering what thinking you did about that article. Surely you must have read it, pondered it and accepted it as reasonable before you posted the link here? Or did you just skim it, agree with its conclusion and then assume it must be true.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The Green Git wrote:How about this link?

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/global-warming-in-superfreakonomics-the-anatomy-of-a-smear/

All you have to do is APPEAR to oppose the idea of manmade Global Warming and you get trashed. It's a dogma just as fervent as any religion.

No, the problem with Superfreakonomics is that the primary climatologist relied on to argue the case for says he was completely misrepresented. Caldeira, who is investigating specific geo-engineering methods, has explicitly stated that geo-engineering will only mitigate some of the problems if we first dramatically reduce CO2 emissions. Leavitt claimed his work was a permanent alternate solution to climate change.

So exactly what response would you consider justified when an author has direcly mistated the opinion of his primary source?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Miguelsan wrote:2)Life on Earth, and the planet itself, is doing great thanks. It is our way of life what it could be threatened by AGW. This planet has been hit by several massive extinctions and life always managed to come back. So stop saying Save the Earth! you sound like politicians with their "Think of the Children!"

My argument has always been one of basic economics. It costs a lot less to control emissions than it will to rebuild infrastructure to account for new weather patterns in a more CO2 heavy environment.

Once the issue about warming or the lack of has been settled by science come and talk to me again about how I can help the enviroment.

97% of climatologists active in the field agree that global warming is real and is caused by man. Welcome on board.

Solar Fabric?

It'll be like the 80s all over again! Sweet!

Global warming is a joke. You know how cold it is right now? *rimshot*

malfred wrote:Solar Fabric?

It'll be like the 80s all over again! Sweet!

I knew I should have kept my mirror glasses and parachute pants.

Sebster wrote: Automatically Appended Next Post:

BluntmanDC wrote:All that industial nations have done is sped it up a little, the world would be like this by itself soon if humans didn't exsist.

No, that isn't supported by the science at all. The temperatature increases caused by industrial emissions are doing more than increasing heating 'a little'. And instead of levelling off, the rate of increase is expected to grow.

i'll just go back to my 3rd year of analytical chemistry and realise i'm not a scientist.lol

a. by soon i ment a couple of 1000 years, soon in world time
b. not all data supports this (i still believe the world climate is changing) and the deletion of data is one of the biggest crimes to science, just below making stuff up or stealing someone elses work, without peer review, of findings and original data it cannot be accepted.
c. it still would get hotter without us, as long as there is ice caps its an ice age, as my housemates geography lecturer will tell you the world goes through hot and cold cycles all the time, they are just very long cycles.
d. we need to spend our resources on working out ways to adapt to the climate, or control it.
e. a closed minded view point were you are right no matter what, which is what alot of enviromental scientists are (on both sides) is the most un-scientific viewpoint possible and is shameful that they have acted like that.




and those solar paperthin tech is amazing, we need to find a way of making them cheaper than normal roofing materials and just as durable and strong (some kind of backing and lamination) then create tax incentives for home owners and the grid will be full of 'free' energy. the planet will be fine, its our way of life that is under threat, Earth always bounces back

BluntmanDC wrote:i'll just go back to my 3rd year of analytical chemistry and realise i'm not a scientist.lol

Did I say you weren't a scientist? I said your claim wasn't supported by the science... the only way that could mean you weren't a scientist is if you believe that every claim made by every scientist was fully supported by science. Do you believe that?

a. by soon i ment a couple of 1000 years, soon in world time

The difference to us in the planet heating up over decades and over centuries is a big deal.

b. not all data supports this (i still believe the world climate is changing) and the deletion of data is one of the biggest crimes to science, just below making stuff up or stealing someone elses work, without peer review, of findings and original data it cannot be accepted.

It would be very odd if all data completely supported anything. But the models that have demonstrated predictive power are the ones that acknowledge industrial emissions are increasing global temperatures.

c. it still would get hotter without us, as long as there is ice caps its an ice age, as my housemates geography lecturer will tell you the world goes through hot and cold cycles all the time, they are just very long cycles.

And what we are observing now is not a long cycle - it's a dramatic increase over a very short period of time.

d. we need to spend our resources on working out ways to adapt to the climate, or control it.

There is an argument for specific geo-engineering solutions, but as the climate change debate has shown the climate is very complex thing. We're having a hard enough time establishing exactly how everything in the climate inter-relates, so we really shouldn't start thinking we can undertake geo-engineering projects without causing some really surprising and probably catastrophic consquences. The primary solution must be a reduction in emissions, with geo-engineering approaches to address specific issues as needed.

e. a closed minded view point were you are right no matter what, which is what alot of enviromental scientists are (on both sides) is the most un-scientific viewpoint possible and is shameful that they have acted like that.

Meh. I care more about the truth of the situation and what we should do about it, than whether or not people have acted diplomatically.

and those solar paperthin tech is amazing, we need to find a way of making them cheaper than normal roofing materials and just as durable and strong (some kind of backing and lamination) then create tax incentives for home owners and the grid will be full of 'free' energy. the planet will be fine, its our way of life that is under threat, Earth always bounces back

Solar power direct to the house is awesome. And yeah, the Earth will be here and there'll be life on it no matter what. I'd go so far as to say humanity will certainly be here as well, the issue is what living standard we'll have. How much cheaper is it to begin controlling emissions now, than to play catch up in the decades to come?

Solar panels will come down a lot in price once they are bulk manufactured.

They will be bulk manufactured if people can get recover the price of installing them within a reasonable time.

ATM a solar power installation might cost you £10,000. If your current electricity bill is £1,500 a year and you hope to get it down to £1,000, it is obviously going to take a long time to get your £10,000 back.

Not to mention that a lot of householders don't have £10,000 spare cash lying around.

This is why governments can help 'prime the pump' by two things: 1-- subsidy of the cost of the installation, 2-- pay a good price for generated electricity put back into the grid.

You can see why a lot of people would be against climate change adaptation measures.

sebster wrote:



Your link sucks. The author of that is a retired highschool teacher. Which does not, in and of itself, make a paper worthless, but it is a worry that encourages a closer look at the methodology employed. Basically, Beck accepts atmospheric readings that were taken from a range of scientific instruments over a 180 period and notes that they show greenhouse gases fluctuating wildly over that time. He doesn't consider the possibility that cruder instruments produced more erratic results, nor does he attempt to marry his findings with other sources measuring CO2 or temperature levels. He just takes the readings as infallible and then argues that because ancient scientific gear produced erratic results, then greenhouse gases must be erratic.

I'm left wondering what thinking you did about that article. Surely you must have read it, pondered it and accepted it as reasonable before you posted the link here? Or did you just skim it, agree with its conclusion and then assume it must be true.

My intent was to show that posting clearly biased links was easy to do and posting one with no comment did nothing to advance the discussion. I wonder if you would so enthusactically scrutinize the East Anglia study or do you just accept tainted data at face value? The fact that they deleted their source data making it impossible to actually scrutinize their study would normally invalidate the entire thing. That is the real result of the Climate gate, it puts the entire man caused global warming theory in jepordy because so much of the "theory" is based on the East Anglia study. Given this situation that factcheck.org link, to use your words, "Sucks".

sebster wrote:

BluntmanDC wrote:i'll just go back to my 3rd year of analytical chemistry and realise i'm not a scientist.lol

Did I say you weren't a scientist? I said your claim wasn't supported by the science... the only way that could mean you weren't a scientist is if you believe that every claim made by every scientist was fully supported by science. Do you believe that?

its more of the fact that you said 'the science' not all of 'the science' comfirms it so the blanket statement was annoying, the main problem is that all the data that is collected is usually put through the same algerithm, the same one that prediced the future big freeze, just inverted, its the data manipulation that is the most worrying. the main issue is that we should be finding ways to cut our reliance on dwindling fossil fuels and make productin processes cleaner.

One of the best ways would be for the removal of happy meal toys, a waste of plactic that will get chucked out within a week.
Goverments like the US need to stop giving tax incentives to companies to set up production plants out of the US.


the main problem, specifically in the US is that it is now a republicians vs. democrats, choosing sides just cos they are told to choose that

ChaosDave wrote:Given this situation that factcheck.org link, to use your words, "Sucks".

Hardly. The topic of this thread is that unlike the spin that's been getting so much promotion, the hacked e-mails do not 'blow the global warming myth wide open.' The factcheck.org link directly addresses that fact and explains why the e-mails are not particularly damning in any way, shape or form.

Bookwrack wrote:

ChaosDave wrote:Given this situation that factcheck.org link, to use your words, "Sucks".

Hardly. The topic of this thread is that unlike the spin that's been getting so much promotion, the hacked e-mails do not 'blow the global warming myth wide open.' The factcheck.org link directly addresses that fact and explains why the e-mails are not particularly damning in any way, shape or form.

They are damning in that they shed light on other things East Anglia did, specifically deleting their source data. The emails themselves may not be damning but the attention they bring to the East Anglia methodologies is completely damning. Why do you so fervently refuse to discuss those effects? Is it that you yourself may be completely biased and not ready to accept actual scientific method?

ChaosDave wrote:
They are damning in that they shed light on other things East Anglia did, specifically deleting their source data. The emails themselves may not be damning but the attention they bring to the East Anglia methodologies is completely damning. Why do you so fervently refuse to discuss those effects? Is it that you yourself may be completely biased and not ready to accept actual scientific method?

Scientific method dictates that a predictive model can be considered proven in the event that it provides accurate predictions. The absence of original data does not mean that the CRU model should be discarded, it simply means that it requires substantiation. Or do you believe that general relativity can be discarded because the equation was not formulated from observation?

Think I ma going to waste some energy and contribute to some Global Failing after reading all of this dribble.

sebster wrote:
And what we are observing now is not a long cycle - it's a dramatic increase over a very short period of time.

One that shot up in the first half of last century when CO2 output was miniscule compared to today, then dropped during and after WW2 when the US and Europe went bananas with production and saw the first real surge in CO2.
And one that has failed to increase for the last 10 years despite CO2 levels going up even faster.


Even if man is involved we should look at global warming as a good thing. Remember the medieval warming period when temperatures were hotter than now, and people had farms and sheep grazing on Greenland?
Well the Europeans also went on a bonanza of invention, farming and building.

Sure we should use less oil/petrol/coal, not because of how bad it is for global warming but because it is a finite resource and eventually we should be looking to change to a new energy source (and not an unreliable and super expensive one like solar or wind)

One of the aims of the conference was to give a hundred billion dollars a year, every year to developing countries.
If we are going to be wasting money, waste it here, and build some nuclear power plants.

And top cap it off if I were the Liberals (in Oz) and that tool Rudd asked where we'd build them I'd reply with... 'In strongly held labor electorates'. Shenanigans would ensue.

ChaosDave wrote:

Bookwrack wrote:

ChaosDave wrote:Given this situation that factcheck.org link, to use your words, "Sucks".

Hardly. The topic of this thread is that unlike the spin that's been getting so much promotion, the hacked e-mails do not 'blow the global warming myth wide open.' The factcheck.org link directly addresses that fact and explains why the e-mails are not particularly damning in any way, shape or form.

They are damning in that they shed light on other things East Anglia did, specifically deleting their source data. The emails themselves may not be damning but the attention they bring to the East Anglia methodologies is completely damning. Why do you so fervently refuse to discuss those effects? Is it that you yourself may be completely biased and not ready to accept actual scientific method?

Except for the fact there is literally no proof that that occurred. An angry email saying something is suspicious , but it does not at all prove the data to have been destroyed. And aside from the criminals who stole the data what proof do you have it wasn't on another server (or backed up in paper format). Just because it may not have been stolen that does not mean the data is lost. It may not be convenient but I bet that are hundreds of thousands of data points in pen sitting in a legal box some where.

efarrer they have thrown out the old data.

It occured about 20-25 years ago when the CRU (different name at the time) moved to new offices and realised they didn't have enough room for all the stored data (adjusted and raw) that went back 130 or so years (at the time).

So they threw out the raw data (doh!) and kept the 'adjusted data' (LOL).

So now even if someone wanted to go back and look though the data that had not been fudged with 'best guesses' and as per one of their programs code lines... 'fudge factor' there is zero chance to.

This is well before Phil Jones and his lackeys turned up and he had nothing to do with it.

And remember RE: Copenhagen...

Your future in their hands...



Copenhagen yesterday...

sebster wrote:

Once the issue about warming or the lack of has been settled by science come and talk to me again about how I can help the enviroment.

97% of climatologists active in the field agree that global warming is real and is caused by man. Welcome on board.

There you go again with the consensus thing again, 97% in science is like 99,999999%. Useless if the only remaining guy manages to prove then wrong (and so far neither side has managed it). And as I say before, reaching an agreement is very easy if you discount the other side supporters.

M.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:This is why governments can help 'prime the pump' by two things: 1-- subsidy of the cost of the installation, 2-- pay a good price for generated electricity put back into the grid.

You can see why a lot of people would be against climate change adaptation measures.

Spain´s example, right now all the big electricity generating corps have "eco" divisions that are powerhouses on the field´s know how. Spanish nuclear know how? close to 0 as we have a moratorium on building new nuclear power plants so if we wanted to cut CO2 emissions that way we would have to contract that know how either from Japan or France. Care to wager a bet what the companies were selling at Copenhague?

M.

Miguelsan wrote:

sebster wrote:

Once the issue about warming or the lack of has been settled by science come and talk to me again about how I can help the enviroment.

97% of climatologists active in the field agree that global warming is real and is caused by man. Welcome on board.

There you go again with the consensus thing again, 97% in science is like 99,999999%. Useless if the only remaining guy manages to prove then wrong (and so far neither side has managed it). And as I say before, reaching an agreement is very easy if you discount the other side supporters.

M.

.

Cool. All I need is one scientist to say gravity isn't real and I can fly.

The word you are looking for is "prove" (as in prove true or false), not say, not tell, not wish. Everything else is rethoric and a poor attempt at that.

M.

efarrer wrote:

Miguelsan wrote:There you go again with the consensus thing again, 97% in science is like 99,999999%. Useless if the only remaining guy manages to prove then wrong (and so far neither side has managed it). And as I say before, reaching an agreement is very easy if you discount the other side supporters.

M.

.

Cool. All I need is one scientist to say gravity isn't real and I can fly.

Is it me, or is that statue wearing pjamers.

Miguelsan wrote:The word you are looking for is "prove" (as in prove true or false), not say, not tell, not wish. Everything else is rethoric and a poor attempt at that.

M.

That isn't really how proof works. Simply because a proof is valid does not mean that it corresponds with reality. Nor does it mean that all scientists will be forced to accept its conclusions. To this day there are people who actively challenge the constancy of the speed of light, and the veracity of general relativity. What you mean by 'prove' here, is 'develop a proof which I will accept'. There is always dissent in science, even with respect to conventionally accepted conclusions. Simply stating that no one has proven X yet is to really misunderstand the process.

Dogma, are you implying that somebody in the Dakka OT might not have an understanding of the scientific method? I think it's been pretty well established that all of the posters here, especially those that seem very fixated on an issue, have a deep and profound understanding of how science works, the culture of science, etc.

Oh wait... it's the opposite.

Seriously, the truth or falsity of a theory isn't really the end point for science. It's utility. Newton's Laws, while technically not as true as everybody thought, are extremely useful: they predict things that actually happen, and they model the world in a way that enables more science, as well as technology.

The person who is attacking this from the best angle is Waagh Gonads, and even he is sniffing around the edges of the main issue: that none of the climate change models have been horribly useful so far, defining utility as predicting events before they occur. They've been decent, but a lot of scientific ideas eventually have a "smoking gun" that shows their worth. Michelson-Morely showed that there wasn't aether (by trying to measure it's effect and getting zero, but still), relativity was shown through a transit of venus, the structure of DNA boosted genetics, and the transitional whale fossils explained one of the bigger mysteries in evolution.

In terms of college football talk, the Human Global Warming doesn't have a marquee win yet. That doesn't mean it's wrong, it just means that there isn't the slam dunk that shows it's utility.

sebster wrote:This will come as little surprise to the proponents of global warming, and will be ignored by it opponents.

So true!

I think the main point is that even if climate change is man made or not we should be researching better ways of getting energy and cleaner ways of production and waste disposal (if not one day we will be mining the landfills of the world for metal and plastics).
On top of the benifits to health (less pollutants) it would also stabalise economies, if oil isn't needed in such massive quantities, or wanted, its price gets very low and at a constant level (losing its control it has on a counties economies) plus wait till no one needs the middle-east's oil, islamic middle-easter states with no barganing chip may start being nice to others.
there is so much potential for research that is being overlooked because of this infighting and the political ideological opposition

Polonius wrote:Dogma, are you implying that somebody in the Dakka OT might not have an understanding of the scientific method? I think it's been pretty well established that all of the posters here, especially those that seem very fixated on an issue, have a deep and profound understanding of how science works, the culture of science, etc.

Oh wait... it's the opposite.

Seriously, the truth or falsity of a theory isn't really the end point for science. It's utility. Newton's Laws, while technically not as true as everybody thought, are extremely useful: they predict things that actually happen, and they model the world in a way that enables more science, as well as technology.

See, that wit is the reason you have a law degree, while I have a hangover.

Polonius wrote:
The person who is attacking this from the best angle is Waagh Gonads, and even he is sniffing around the edges of the main issue: that none of the climate change models have been horribly useful so far, defining utility as predicting events before they occur. They've been decent, but a lot of scientific ideas eventually have a "smoking gun" that shows their worth. Michelson-Morely showed that there wasn't aether (by trying to measure it's effect and getting zero, but still), relativity was shown through a transit of venus, the structure of DNA boosted genetics, and the transitional whale fossils explained one of the bigger mysteries in evolution.

Exactly. I actually agree with Gonads' point in that I don't believe the evidence for climate change merits major economic alterations. However, I don't really think his methods are that sound. Were I leveling the criticism, I would focus on the lack of detail with respect to the various climatological models available. To put it mildly, the world is a complicated place. More so than even the universe.

Polonius wrote:
In terms of college football talk, the Human Global Warming doesn't have a marquee win yet. That doesn't mean it's wrong, it just means that there isn't the slam dunk that shows it's utility.

Ducks! Ducks! Ducks! Ducks! Ducks!

In many ways, it's the very nature of how science is learned by the educated man that somewhat hurts our appreciation for the climate models. In terms of the history of science, the single biggest change is probably the switch in astronomy from geocentric to heliocentric orbits (Yes, I'm a giant Kuhn fan boy). In that shift, increasingly arcane and complex systems of epicycles helped to model the observed orbits of the planets. In a few steps, Copernicus traded a complicated system for an elegant one, and in a few generations kepler wrote three simple rules that (nearly) perfectly model the orbits of the planets.

The moral of the story is that complicated and arcane formulae are often used to cling to principles and paradigms that need to be replaced. That's often true, but far more true in classical newtonian physics than in modern systems analysis.

The atmosphere is a lot harder to model than newtonian objects moving through a vacuum. There are going to be tons of variables, dozens of factors, and more equations than I want to deal with. Look at the models for a simple chemical process like a distillation collumn, now imagine something many times more complex.

Thus, we have climate models, which so far have born little fruit (in terms of successfully tested predictions), and are notoriously complicated. For many people, their natural bias against a system that can clearly be tweaked without the public knowing is off putting.

OTOH, the thought experiment model for how greenhouse gasses works is very engaging, and simply correlation (the world got hotter at roughly the same time we started burning lots of coal) makes it easy to sense a link. Of course, conflating correlation for causation is poor science, even for amateurs.

The indoctrination paradox is a horrible, yet seemingly necessary mistress.

I'm interested to see what happens when/if global warming is ever proven. Even today you can peek into high school (and collegiate) physics classrooms that feature uneducated dissent against relativity on sensate grounds (and because relativism is EVIL!). How will people react to the notion that the world has gotten warmer when, by and large, those living have no experiential connection to a cooler period?

It seems like a cop-out, but I suspect that nothing will result from all this posturing. Well, nothing accept the generation of ungodly brand loyalty with respect to the positive side in the event they are proven correct.

BluntmanDC wrote:its more of the fact that you said 'the science' not all of 'the science' comfirms it so the blanket statement was annoying, the main problem is that all the data that is collected is usually put through the same algerithm, the same one that prediced the future big freeze, just inverted, its the data manipulation that is the most worrying. the main issue is that we should be finding ways to cut our reliance on dwindling fossil fuels and make productin processes cleaner.

No, there isn't a single alogrithm being used to make all these predictions. That's just... not a thing that's happening.

There is a wide range of models, taking a wide range of approaches to predicting the effects of increased CO2. The quality of the predictive power of those models is somewhat subjective, I'd argue it's been a lot more powerful than Polonius argues... but obviously he argues the opposite.

One of the best ways would be for the removal of happy meal toys, a waste of plactic that will get chucked out within a week.

You can take my Happy Meal toy from my cold, dead hands. Or Monday's trash, whichever comes first.

the main problem, specifically in the US is that it is now a republicians vs. democrats, choosing sides just cos they are told to choose that

Yes, this is a big part of the issue. It's a very odd thing that issues that should be determined by fact, industrial emissions are heating the planet or not, would see people so neatly form into the same groups they formed over arguments over economic policy. But well, people are ridiculous.

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:One that shot up in the first half of last century when CO2 output was miniscule compared to today, then dropped during and after WW2 when the US and Europe went bananas with production and saw the first real surge in CO2.
And one that has failed to increase for the last 10 years despite CO2 levels going up even faster.

The science is a lot more complex than CO2 = immediately hotter tomorrow. There are a range of factors that naturally influence temperature, the 11 year temperature cycle based on the distance from the Earth, the 4-6 year el nino cycle that traps and releases CO2 in the oceans, the number of sunspots causing temperature spikes and the release of other gases into the atmosphere. This means you will never get a neat mapping of CO2 to emissions.

But you can control for those other factors. From the 1940s to the 1970s you had several factors that are known to reduce temperatures. There were significantly less sunspots. There were several volcanic eruptions, which release sulfur dioxide which forms sulphuric acid that reflects sunlight back into space, cooling the Earth.

But the really big thing to understand is that human emissions were nowhere near the scale they are now - while they were a factor they were drowned out by the wide range of other factors, whereas now with the modern scale of emissions human influence is the dominant factor in temperature changes.

Even if man is involved we should look at global warming as a good thing. Remember the medieval warming period when temperatures were hotter than now, and people had farms and sheep grazing on Greenland?
Well the Europeans also went on a bonanza of invention, farming and building.

Actually, there's no evidence of globally higher temperatures during the medieval warm period. Europe noted warmer temperatures but there is no evidence that temperatures were any warmer in the rest of the planet. It is likely the increase in temperature in Europe was due to local weather events.

And the issue is not over what would be a nice temperature, but the impact of changing temperature. Changing temperature alters weather patterns and we have an entire economy built around the expectations of the weather we have right now. If the temperature were to increase by one degree over the next century then we'd adjust to the slow change without really noticing. But if it changes 4 or 5 degrees over that time, then we're talking about tens of trillions of dollars to reconfigure infrastructure to account for global weather patterns, only to see them change again as temperatures keep increasing.

Sure we should use less oil/petrol/coal, not because of how bad it is for global warming but because it is a finite resource and eventually we should be looking to change to a new energy source (and not an unreliable and super expensive one like solar or wind)

The idea that wind and solar is unreliable is a very odd one. It's as if the idea were to put one single panel or wind turbine in place and then hoping that one alone would be enough to provide the energy needed for your house. But these things work in aggregate.

And cost is a function of technology. It isn't practical to replace all our fuel requirements with solar and wind tomorrow, but they are still developing technologies

And solar technology, once you begin to factor in its decentralised nature is actually very close to being cost efficient right now. The cost of generation is about greater than that of coal, but most of that efficiency is lost in getting power to the home. When you look at the ability of solar to actually generate power right there at the point of use then we're not that far if it being a cheaper source of power.

A similar model is being generated with wind power and hydrogen. It take a lot of power to seperate hydrogen from water... but if that's done on site with wind power in the face of increasing oil prices it will start to be cost efficient very soon.

One of the aims of the conference was to give a hundred billion dollars a year, every year to developing countries.

The reality is that we are very rich, and much of that wealth came from going through a stage of using very basic, high polluting industry. The developing world is undergoing or about to undergo a similar process. We simply can't stop them from developing, and I don't mean that in a moral sense. I mean we couldn't physically stop them from developing even if we wanted to. Instead, the best model to fix the problem is to encourage them to use more green tech from the outset, and the only way to make that happen is to subsidise cleaner tech.

I know, people really hate the idea of giving other people money, but you gotta go with what works.

If we are going to be wasting money, waste it here, and build some nuclear power plants.

Nuclear has it's place, but I'm not sure that place is in Australia. Nuclear power uses a lot of water and we are a desert continent. You can use salt water in your reactors but it is highly corrosive and I'm not sure a nuclear reactor is the kind of place you want to have corrosion problems. It's odd that the country with the most uranium is the one least capable of using it, but the world is an odd place.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Miguelsan wrote:There you go again with the consensus thing again, 97% in science is like 99,999999%. Useless if the only remaining guy manages to prove then wrong (and so far neither side has managed it). And as I say before, reaching an agreement is very easy if you discount the other side supporters.

M.

What do you want? There'll never be a complete consensus on the issue - 97% is an overwhelming results by the standards of scientific discourse - you won't get that level of agreement on gravity.

And quite frankly, claiming that it doesn't matter that there is overwhelming consensus among experts in the field if it isn't 100% is a copout. It would have merit if you were willing to spend the time to becoming an expert yourself, but you aren't. So instead you're saying 'I don't know and am not going to spend the time finding out, so instead I'll wait for an impossible thing to happen'.

efarrer wrote:

Except for the fact there is literally no proof that that occurred. An angry email saying something is suspicious , but it does not at all prove the data to have been destroyed. And aside from the criminals who stole the data what proof do you have it wasn't on another server (or backed up in paper format). Just because it may not have been stolen that does not mean the data is lost. It may not be convenient but I bet that are hundreds of thousands of data points in pen sitting in a legal box some where.

Then why are they refusing to release the data to the public? Why keep it a secret? The freedom of information act requires that they release that data but they still refuse to give it up. I love how you have blind faith in your new religion and its priests.

Obviously the data provides clear proof that climate change isn't happening. It is the only reasonable explanation.

dogma wrote:

ChaosDave wrote:
They are damning in that they shed light on other things East Anglia did, specifically deleting their source data. The emails themselves may not be damning but the attention they bring to the East Anglia methodologies is completely damning. Why do you so fervently refuse to discuss those effects? Is it that you yourself may be completely biased and not ready to accept actual scientific method?

Scientific method dictates that a predictive model can be considered proven in the event that it provides accurate predictions. The absence of original data does not mean that the CRU model should be discarded, it simply means that it requires substantiation. Or do you believe that general relativity can be discarded because the equation was not formulated from observation?

Ahh but the problem is that the predictive model for man caused global warming isn't providing accurate predictions. In fact nothing it has predicted has actually happened. As for General relativity the equivalency would be to delete the mathematical equations and tell everyone to just accept it. Besides General relativity actually has confirmation from observation.

ChaosDave wrote:Then why are they refusing to release the data to the public? Why keep it a secret? The freedom of information act requires that they release that data but they still refuse to give it up.

Scientists hoard data, and postpone publication all the time. Most often this is done in order to present the most compelling case for their work as possible, lest anything they release without substantiation work against their reputation.

Anyway, I don't know how it works in the UK, but in the United States the FOIA only applies to federal agencies, so at least under US law the CRU doesn't have to release anything. Though I understand that they plan to publish soon.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

ChaosDave wrote:
Ahh but the problem is that the predictive model for man caused global warming isn't providing accurate predictions. In fact nothing it has predicted has actually happened.

I've not heard of any models that have made short-term predictions which we can definitely say have not occurred. Most of the prognostication seems to look out roughly 30 years.

ChaosDave wrote:
As for General relativity the equivalency would be to delete the mathematical equations and tell everyone to just accept it. Besides General relativity actually has confirmation from observation.

Yes it has, that's the point. And no, deleting the proofs behind general relativity would not be tacit to the deletion of the CRU data. All those do is prove that the model is internally consistent, and that it does in fact relate according to the mathematical concepts it is meant to. Deleting the CRU data is tacit to asking people to accept general relativity without proof, which Einstein did in fact do. It happens all the time.

ChaosDave wrote:Ahh but the problem is that the predictive model for man caused global warming isn't providing accurate predictions.

Where are you getting that from? Hansen's 1988 paper predicted the temperature in 2000 quite accurately. Below is a chart comparing recorded temperature versus the IPCC predictions. As you can see, outside of the 1998 temperature spike their predictions closely match the observed increase.

I'll gladly pay your taxes if you pay mine!

As this is the climate change thread...

51% of the continental US is now covered in snow...


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/21/over-50-of-the-usa-is-now-covered-in-snow/#more-14390

Now remember chums that there is a difference between weather and climate.

A very hot day does not = global warming, and neither does massive snowstorms covering most of 2 continents = global cooling....


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also the UK Met office is now dumping a heap of data that only a year ago they would not release under FOI... because it may have broken national security.

Wat?

Weather forecasts were highly valuable secrets during WW2.

There was fighting in Spitzbergen (Svalbard) throughout WW2 to control weather stations or deny them to the enemy.

sebster wrote:

ChaosDave wrote:Ahh but the problem is that the predictive model for man caused global warming isn't providing accurate predictions.

Where are you getting that from? Hansen's 1988 paper predicted the temperature in 2000 quite accurately. Below is a chart comparing recorded temperature versus the IPCC predictions. As you can see, outside of the 1998 temperature spike their predictions closely match the observed increase.

Interesting how you can produce a graph stating exactly what you want it to say. I too can do this

Kilkrazy wrote:

Da Boss wrote:Doesn't suprise me that they tried to put a spin on it, having worked in scientific research. Also doesn't suprise me that they have doubts. I always assume a certain amount of spin whenever I see anything coming out of a research institute, and definitely they are likely to exaggerate the facts. Doesn't alter the fact that climate change is certainly happening and that humans contribute to it though.
Glad to see the overblown reaction deflated, interested to see that the rebuttal didn't attract as much of a response as the initial statement.

It seems inconsistent with the theory that the media is dominated by leftist power.

Scientific reality just tends to sway leftist, while media coverage tends to sway conservative. The myth of the liberal media dominance doesn't really survive the reality of conservative talk radios dominance on the airwaves and foxes dominance on cable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ChaosDave wrote:

sebster wrote:

ChaosDave wrote:Ahh but the problem is that the predictive model for man caused global warming isn't providing accurate predictions.

Where are you getting that from? Hansen's 1988 paper predicted the temperature in 2000 quite accurately. Below is a chart comparing recorded temperature versus the IPCC predictions. As you can see, outside of the 1998 temperature spike their predictions closely match the observed increase.

Interesting how you can produce a graph stating exactly what you want it to say. I too can do this

I think that the big issue here is that you're graph is wrong, misleading, and incorrectly made.







The air didn't just start to exist in this last decade, and it's rather easy to skew relative date when you can pick your dates. It's a hell of a lot colder now than it was six months ago. Glad climate change was wrong. Your graph doesn't even imply anything, and the big green arrow is placed incorrectly on it. I mean, yeah this is a silly graph fight, but at least learn to use excell.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Where are you getting that from? Hansen's 1988 paper predicted the temperature in 2000 quite accurately. Below is a chart comparing recorded temperature versus the IPCC predictions. As you can see, outside of the 1998 temperature spike their predictions closely match the observed increase.

I think that the big issue here is that you're graph is wrong, misleading, and incorrectly made.







The air didn't just start to exist in this last decade, and it's rather easy to skew relative date when you can pick your dates. It's a hell of a lot colder now than it was six months ago. Glad climate change was wrong. Your graph doesn't even imply anything, and the big green arrow is placed incorrectly on it. I mean, yeah this is a silly graph fight, but at least learn to use excell.

Seriously, are you arguing over the accuracy of the graphs when clearly you agree that the graph fight is silly? In that case my graph has to be the accurate one because its bigger, sure you posted more but they can't be as important as mine since they are so small in comparison.

ChaosDave wrote:
Seriously, are you arguing over the accuracy of the graphs when clearly you agree that the graph fight is silly? In that case my graph has to be the accurate one because its bigger, sure you posted more but they can't be as important as mine since they are so small in comparison.

The graph you posted is based on temperatures change and that, while the line slopes downward, indicates a positive shift over all but 2 points over its duration. Before you want to argue about the graph fight being 'silly' please learn to actually process the information being presented.

In addition, the best fit line you produced is incorrect based on nothing more than visual assessment. The fact that you have a downward curve, despite a larger number of positive outliers shows that it can't be correct. Those lines that people draw on such graphs are not determined by eye. They're the result of a relatively simple, if tedious, mathematical process called linear regression.

I really need a chart showing the growth of fuzzy bunnies is directly proportional to the number of screamining preteen girls attending Twilight movies.

Seriously, are you arguing over the accuracy of the graphs when clearly you agree that the graph fight is silly? In that case my graph has to be the accurate one because its bigger, sure you posted more but they can't be as important as mine since they are so small in comparison.

Graphs are just a visual representation of data. Much like spoken words they can be twisted and incorrect Your graph was twisted and incorrect. I call it a stupid graph fight because it is, and because your graph sucks and you don't know how to read graphs. Not because the concept of visual representation of data on a time based scale is somehow bad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:I really need a chart showing the growth of fuzzy bunnies is directly proportional to the number of screamining preteen girls attending Twilight movies.

No, because much like ChaosDaves graph that one would be stupid. Though more for being pointless than for being misleading or incorrect. It's obvious that fuzzy bunnies incite squeals, we don't need to visually represent it.

dogma wrote:

ChaosDave wrote:
Seriously, are you arguing over the accuracy of the graphs when clearly you agree that the graph fight is silly? In that case my graph has to be the accurate one because its bigger, sure you posted more but they can't be as important as mine since they are so small in comparison.

The graph you posted is based on temperatures change and that, while the line slopes downward, indicates a positive shift over all but 2 points over its duration. Before you want to argue about the graph fight being 'silly' please learn to actually process the information being presented.

In addition, the best fit line you produced is incorrect based on nothing more than visual assessment. The fact that you have a downward curve, despite a larger number of positive outliers shows that it can't be correct. Those lines that people draw on such graphs are not determined by eye. They're the result of a relatively simple, if tedious, mathematical process called linear regression.

Yeah but you didn't take into account the actual size of the graph, clearly it has global implications to the MCGW debate. Size does matter.

ChaosDave wrote:

dogma wrote:

ChaosDave wrote:
Seriously, are you arguing over the accuracy of the graphs when clearly you agree that the graph fight is silly? In that case my graph has to be the accurate one because its bigger, sure you posted more but they can't be as important as mine since they are so small in comparison.

The graph you posted is based on temperatures change and that, while the line slopes downward, indicates a positive shift over all but 2 points over its duration. Before you want to argue about the graph fight being 'silly' please learn to actually process the information being presented.

In addition, the best fit line you produced is incorrect based on nothing more than visual assessment. The fact that you have a downward curve, despite a larger number of positive outliers shows that it can't be correct. Those lines that people draw on such graphs are not determined by eye. They're the result of a relatively simple, if tedious, mathematical process called linear regression.

Yeah but you didn't take into account the actual size of the graph, clearly it has global implications to the MCGW debate. Size does matter.

If you want I can upload a vector graph to an image host and then have it rasterized at 1200 DPI and 30x40 inches in size. It will be a terrabyte at that point. Do you really want a big graph fight? Or will you just admit that you're being stupid?

Someone post the graph that shows as the number of pirates goes down, the earths temp goes up. I love that graph.

Thats it, I'm making the graph and then crashing anyone on IE6.

We are getting a blizzard. This data is not fake.

That is all I have to say.

Oh and down with green living. Al Gore is making billions because hippies are pushing for greener earth.

Didn't being a hippie used to mean being anti-establishment so wouldn't doing what Obamanation wants and what Al Gore started and is pushing still today be pro-establishment?

Oh and down with green living. Al Gore is making billions because hippies are pushing for greener earth.

Billions. Off of what? His clothing line? You really gotta stop making gak up.

Fateweaver wrote:
Didn't being a hippie used to mean being anti-establishment so wouldn't doing what Obamanation wants and what Al Gore started and is pushing still today be pro-establishment?

I think the answer you're looking for is this:

The word hippie doesn't really mean anything.

K, tree hugger; peace lover.....hippie might be an outdated term but todays tree huggers/peace lovers are essentially the same thing.

Fateweaver wrote:K, tree hugger; peace lover.....hippie might be an outdated term but todays tree huggers/peace lovers are essentially the same thing.

I didn't know peace lover was a derogatory term. Do you read your posts before hitting submit?

Fateweaver wrote:We are getting a blizzard. This data is not fake.

That is all I have to say.

...
...

Despite the fact that last weekend it snowed, the weather has got warmer and it is raining. This data is not fake.

Fateweaver wrote:K, tree hugger; peace lover.....hippie might be an outdated term but todays tree huggers/peace lovers are essentially the same thing.

Those are also outdated terms. In any case 'hippie' refers to a large collection of individual cultural values that may, or may not be reflected in any given individual's personality. Just because you think someone is a hippie it does not follow that they will consider all 'hippie' values in the same light.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Oh and down with green living. Al Gore is making billions because hippies are pushing for greener earth.

Billions. Off of what? His clothing line? You really gotta stop making gak up.

Well it isn't billions (atm) but he owns a carbon credit company. When he got criticized for pushing enough electricity through his home to power a small town he made ammends by buying carbon credits...from himself. Or something like that.

Killkrazy's avatar is freaking me out.

Well it isn't billions (atm) but he owns a carbon credit company. When he got criticized for pushing enough electricity through his home to power a small town he made ammends by buying carbon credits...from himself. Or something like that.

He was a millionaire before he started with the green agenda.

Ahtman wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Oh and down with green living. Al Gore is making billions because hippies are pushing for greener earth.

Billions. Off of what? His clothing line? You really gotta stop making gak up.

Well it isn't billions (atm) but he owns a carbon credit company. When he got criticized for pushing enough electricity through his home to power a small town he made ammends by buying carbon credits...from himself. Or something like that.

Killkrazy's avatar is freaking me out.

It took me two lunchtimes to make.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Well it isn't billions (atm) but he owns a carbon credit company. When he got criticized for pushing enough electricity through his home to power a small town he made ammends by buying carbon credits...from himself. Or something like that.

He was a millionaire before he started with the green agenda.

Sure, but I think that was what FW was referring to. You did ask what he meant after all.

Sure, but I think that was what FW was referring to.

I'm pretty certain that it wasn't.

He's made money off this BS global warming.

That cannot be disproven (except by Gore ass kissers but I don't think anyone on Dakka falls into that category).

Fateweaver wrote:He's made money off this BS global warming.

That cannot be disproven (except by Gore ass kissers but I don't think anyone on Dakka falls into that category).

Ok? It's his job. He made a movie. He turned his house into his office. What's the issue with him making money off of his effort? As for BS global warming.. Yeah.

So it's not wrong that he is making money off something that isn't real?

The carbon credits scam is to make him richer and those associated with him in his scheme.

If he were an actor in a movie or a director like Spielberg than it'd be okay but he is making money off telling people that the more green we go the better off the earth is. No, the greener we go the more green he sees.

So it's not wrong that he is making money off something that isn't real?

ShumaGorath wrote:

Sure, but I think that was what FW was referring to.

I'm pretty certain that it wasn't.

I'm pretty certain it was.

Fateweaver wrote:The carbon credits scam is to make him richer and those associated with him in his scheme.

And I would be right.

And I would be right.

The same guy that doesn't know the point of the magna carta is probably talking about the carbon credit scam that conservapedia references, not the company that Gore runs.

I'm starting to think that FW and SG are the same person.

Keep on Shuma, this is fun. I'm sure in a few hours I'll be banned but it will all have been worth it.

Though on the bright side you aren't exactly playing the flesh flute of some of the mods like certain other posters do and get away with personal attacks so maybe if I report you something will get done but frankly you aren't worth the effort.

Gee Shuma, you had better attack Ahtman. He agrees with me. Anyone who agrees with me according to you is a nutjob and an idiot.

Keep on Shuma, this is fun. I'm sure in a few hours I'll be banned but it will all have been worth it.

For all parties involved apparently.

Though on the bright side you aren't exactly playing the flesh flute of some of the mods like certain other posters do and get away with personal attacks so maybe if I report you something will get done but frankly you aren't worth the effort.

Aren't like three mods posting in this thread?

Gee Shuma, you had better attack Ahtman. He agrees with me. Anyone who agrees with me according to you is a nutjob and an idiot.

Nah, his avatars cool, though I can't place where I've sen it before.

I'm not talking in just this thread. It's known on dakka the mods have favorites (nothing new as everyone has favorites) so don't act shocked because I've seen you accuse mods of the same thing.

I get banned I get banned. I retract nothing and apologize for nothing.

Fateweaver wrote:So it's not wrong that he is making money off something that isn't real?

That's only true if you don't believe its real. If that's the case, then don't go into business with Gore. Its really quite simple.

A) The majority of the actual data, and the vast majority of people who do actual climate research, indicate clearly that the earth is warming (on the whole), that the climate is shifting, and that we are contributing to it.

B) While we may never be able to PROVE that we are contributing to the extent to constitute a significant danger to ourselves, it is within our own self-interest to act in a manner consistent with our own self-preservation.

C) As Sebster (IIRC) has repeatedly pointed out, whether you believe in human industrialization’s contribution to the warming trend or not, doesn’t make a lot of difference if the current data shows that your kids or grandkids might miss out on seeing glaciers, or your favorite coastal city is going to be underwater within the next 50-100 years. The further in advance we make changes and prepare for the problems, the LESS it COSTS us. Emergency damage-abatement at the last minute is more difficult and costly, and less effective.

D) If Al Gore, or you, or me, are able to predict something happening in the world, and are able to make business decisions to take advantage of that, without harming people, then more power to us. Isn’t that sort of profit-minded entrepreneurism usually supported by conservatives? Or only when it’s done by guys you agree with? Now, I can understand the idea that you’re worried about a conflict of interest, but he’s not in government anymore. He can’t pass laws to benefit himself. He lobbies and speaks to governments and private individuals, both to benefit the world and to benefit himself. Feel free to question his motives, but seriously, there are lots of easier and more fun ways for a guy who’s already a millionaire to spend his time.

Ponzi schemes are illegal. His GW capital credit deal is just a, somehow, legal ponzi scheme.

A ponzi scheme has a defined meaning. Do you ever pause to check a dictionary or any sort of reference work before you post?

Mannahnin wrote:A ponzi scheme has a defined meaning. Do you ever pause to check a dictionary or any sort of reference work before you post?

Finally other people start to get it.

How many ports are on the water? How many of those ports provide a vital service to distributing goods, and keeping the world economy flowing?

Now, how many of those ports will disappear if the ocean rises? I am going to guess most of them...

ShumaGorath wrote:

Oh and down with green living. Al Gore is making billions because hippies are pushing for greener earth.

Billions. Off of what? His clothing line? You really gotta stop making gak up.

But then he could never post at all!

Fateweaver wrote:Ponzi schemes are illegal. His GW capital credit deal is just a, somehow, legal ponzi scheme.

No it isn't, not at all. A ponzi scheme is a system in which people are told about some miraculous investment which will have very large, and predictable returns. When people invest in the system, they are eventually paid (theoretically) with the funds of later investors. Since the people see the returns, its unlikely they will attempt to remove their money from the system, and so the con-man is essentially free to use those funds as he wishes.

Is it really all that surprising that Fateweaver uses terms without having any idea whatsoever what they mean?

No, and were this a serious environment I would ignore him completely. But, since it isn't, I let the fact that responding amuses me dictate my actions.

Are you trying to tell me that the internets is NOT serious business?

...shocking.

Guys please stop focusing on each other and discuss the pertinent issues.

You do not need to attack another user because he/she has intractable views on an issue alternative to your own view.

@Fate Al Gore uses a bs business to make money of a real threat. He doesn't use a ponzi scam he uses carbon credits wich are complete and utter bull gak when he could actually be doing something to reduce carbon emissions. he didn't make up global warming.

he didn't make it, but he is the most famous alarmist, and the angst and alarm generated by his ridiculously over the top movie has given him a huge cash dividend.

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:he didn't make it, but he is the most famous alarmist, and the angst and alarm generated by his ridiculously over the top movie has given him a huge cash dividend.

What an inconvenient truth!

youbedead wrote:when he could actually be doing something to reduce carbon emissions.

Such as?

I'm going to say that he was thinking of the private jet... just a guess though.

dogma wrote:

youbedead wrote:when he could actually be doing something to reduce carbon emissions.

Such as?

He could stop breathing! But then the internet would fail because Al Gore invented the internet and is a series of tubes...

Wrexasaur wrote:I'm going to say that he was thinking of the private jet... just a guess though.

that might help

Thought this was an interesting read:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm