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.

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.