Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.