|
Post by smlbstcbr on Jan 15, 2010 11:22:21 GMT -4
Surprised I did not find any thread on this matter, though, given that it has been acknoledged that the stolen and revealed material is authentic, I guess Climategate can be considered a true conspiracy?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 15, 2010 12:10:43 GMT -4
I'm not sure I would call it an organized conspiracy, though it certainly involved willful deception. I have written quite a bit on the matter in the "Doomsaying Environmentalists are Always Wrong" thread in the "Beyond Belief" section, but I believe I have avoided calling it "Climategate". I think the propensity to put the suffix "-gate" behind every political scandal is pretty annoying, actually.
|
|
|
Post by smlbstcbr on Jan 15, 2010 12:23:37 GMT -4
Then we need to name it properly. How about, don't no, ummm... Warming deception?
|
|
|
Post by archer17 on Jan 16, 2010 13:29:00 GMT -4
Surprised I did not find any thread on this matter, though, given that it has been acknoledged that the stolen and revealed material is authentic, I guess Climategate can be considered a true conspiracy? Nah. You'll have things like this no matter what the subject matter. That's one of the reasons why I'm a fence-sitter instead of a denier...I can't fathom all AGW-leaning scientists (which is most of them) to be in on some kind of conspiracy.
|
|
|
Post by smlbstcbr on Jan 18, 2010 0:03:01 GMT -4
Surprised I did not find any thread on this matter, though, given that it has been acknoledged that the stolen and revealed material is authentic, I guess Climategate can be considered a true conspiracy? Nah. You'll have things like this no matter what the subject matter. That's one of the reasons why I'm a fence-sitter instead of a denier...I can't fathom all AGW-leaning scientists (which is most of them) to be in on some kind of conspiracy. Certainly. What makes this peculiar case more relevant is that the deception involves high profile people. Jones and company did several things wrong, such as hiding the decline, applying certain tricks to fit data, deny access to information for peer review. All of them unethical and that's why it is believed that the release of these material might have been an inside job. To deny a climate change is just nonsense but to attribute all of the change to human activity needs more investigation and the case with Jones is that his investigation already had someone to point at, despite the data collected and his denial to debate results with skeptics made things worse.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 18, 2010 15:47:20 GMT -4
Surprised I did not find any thread on this matter, though, given that it has been acknoledged that the stolen and revealed material is authentic, I guess Climategate can be considered a true conspiracy? Nah. You'll have things like this no matter what the subject matter. That's one of the reasons why I'm a fence-sitter instead of a denier...I can't fathom all AGW-leaning scientists (which is most of them) to be in on some kind of conspiracy. I'm sort of in the same position. It's hard to believe that there is a large conspriacy over it, but then when you have strange things happening like being told that 7-8 of the months NZ had last year were the coldest in 30+ years, but overall the year was an average year for NZ and also the 5th hottest on record, you really have to start scratching your head and saying "Huh?" Interestingly they did later amend this by saying that "well it was on the colder side of average." And then there is the whole situation where 9 of 10 temp reading stations in the US are reading 2+ degrees hotter than they should be due to their positioning by artifical heating sources and new paint (latex vs lime white wash), and yet their temp graphs are adjusted upwards in the last 50 years and downwards in the first 50 odd years if last century indicating that the stations should have been reading hotter than they should during the first part of last century and colder than they should in the later part. How does that one work?
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jan 18, 2010 16:09:08 GMT -4
One of the more astute observations on Climategate I have read points out that the community scientist doing real research on the causes of GW is not really large and is dominated by even fewer researchers with high levels of funding and peer review status on top journals. Combined with the apparent attempts to withhold data and stifle dissent, it opens the possibility that what at first blush appears to be the work of many independent researchers may not be so independent after all.
This is just another reason why the public should be skeptical of political plans based on emerging research. Given that there has been no clear indications that the drastic plans that the government proposes will have any positive effects on our future, I maintain my preference to wait until a less invested generation of scientists have a chance to look at the data. The data that is left that is.
|
|
|
Post by trevor on Jan 18, 2010 18:05:51 GMT -4
Anyone see this US Weather Bureau Report
The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen , Norway . Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.
|
|
|
Post by trevor on Jan 18, 2010 18:06:30 GMT -4
I’m sorry, I neglected to mention that this report was from November 2, 1922 as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jan 18, 2010 21:00:02 GMT -4
Got me there for a minute. I was about to respond withe an article from the Telegraph stating that climate scientist will having to reverse earlier findings about the melting of Himalayan glaciers. It seem, the glaciers won't disappear by 2035 after all. Actually wouldn't that mean that the Titanic sinking was hoaxed?
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jan 18, 2010 22:20:06 GMT -4
I’m sorry, I neglected to mention that this report was from November 2, 1922 as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post. Thank goodness! It was scary to read...
|
|
|
Post by smlbstcbr on Jan 19, 2010 18:32:49 GMT -4
I’m sorry, I neglected to mention that this report was from November 2, 1922 as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post. It would be interesting to know the globe's temperature trend in that decade.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Gorsky on Jan 25, 2010 5:59:06 GMT -4
I think the whole problem with the climate change debate is the usual one ... that opinions have become so polarised that what comes across to the general public is "everything mankind does is killing the planet and we need to change the way we live right now or we all die" vs "the climate is always changing naturally and mankind is doing nothing that makes any difference to it".
Maybe it is my naivety about climate science, but I find it hard to believe that all the CO2, Sulphur Dioxide and other noxious chemicals we release into the atmosphere are having no effect whatsoever on the health of our planet. The question is how much?
My concern is that we are so obssessed with global warming and whether or not that is (a) happening and (b) man-made that we ignore other harmful effects of our activities that do not manifest in changing temperatures, but serve simply to render our atmosphere less and less liveable in.
As usual, the truth probably lies somewhere in between the two extremes of the argument and it is a pity that a more reasoned and informative debate isn't happening where your average member of the population (like me) can see what might really be going on.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jan 25, 2010 10:46:46 GMT -4
As usual, the truth probably lies somewhere in between the two extremes of the argument and it is a pity that a more reasoned and informative debate isn't happening where your average member of the population (like me) can see what might really be going on. I agree. People become entrenched in their activities and projections over time. It frequently takes a fresh look from a second or third generation of researchers to get a clear picture.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 25, 2010 12:10:43 GMT -4
Total mass of Carbon Dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere: about 3,000 gigatons. Human CO2 release from the burning of fossil fuels, per year: about 27 gigatons. Natural decay of organic material in forests and grasslands: about 220 gigatons. Nearly an order of magnitude more.
Roughly 95% of the CO2 released into our air each year is the result of natural processes, not human activity.
So yes, we're releasing a lot of carbon into the air, but it's a tiny fraction of what is already being released into the air all around us by processes we have no real control over.
|
|