Where reasonable people discuss reason using methods both reasonable and unreasonable...
I got a chuckle out of this... Thought I'd share...
I'll hijack this one. I find it interesting, csm, that we haven't had a thread started for Climategate. I realize this, ahem, problem goes against your stance, though certainly doesn't disprove your stance, but your love of science and the scientific process would make me think you might mention it. Looks like many of the "Chicken Littles" wanted to keep healthy skepticism out of the public arena. Now that isn't very sciencey is it?By the way, I love how Gore and Mann and company love to call the enemy the "naesayers" of global warming when the truth may be closer to the idea that we aren't going to experience the "worst case scenario". Patrick Michaels is in this camp. He does believe climate change exists, he just doesn't think it will manifest in the worst case scenario. This is how he sees the data. Maybe the oceans won't rise 26 feet. Maybe it is more like 2 feet. Now that could still be detrimental to many people, but certainly won't be as catastrophic as these data manipulators want us to believe. Then again, maybe the "Chicken Littles" are right and we are headed for trouble with a capital T. I just wish they were a little more accomodating with their data and a little more tolerant of (healthy) skepticism.
This was and has always been about money and new funding investing in radical business ventures lead by the likes of Gore. Do you realize the implications? Do you realize how much money Al Gore has now loss due to this new revelation? I, of course have been saving my change to pay for the CO2 I have dispelling at an embarrassing rate.Science has lost her virginity here and rapidly in other areas of interest where power and money are concerned. When the conversation turns to "But scientists contend" we all must listen with the same skepticism we listen to a priest.Seattle has always been a hot-bed for environmentalism. But, any good movement taken to the extreme turns into a huge pimple on the face of the prom queen.Climate change of course exists. It is much more a natural phenomenon than we are led to believe. Any significant man-made impact will not happen in the US but in nations like China & India who belch out toxic gases at alarming rates. Maybe Big O can convince them to bring in cap and trade? How else can the dragonfly continue to breath in clean air.
Well, Bawdy, I didn't find it very interesting. It was science working as it should. We are all humans, scientists included. Some of them did some stupid things. Those things have been exposed. And then independent groups re-studied and re-affirmed global warming is absolutely occurring and that man is likely playing a big role in it. So it is messy (all things with fallible humans are), but correctable (as science always is). Thomas Friedman had a nice op-ed piece on this where he extols the virtue of following Dick Cheney's approach... Yes... Dick Cheney. You can read it here if you are so inclined.Dragonfly, your contention about science is absurd. There have been numerous times in the past when science has been wrong (or, indeed, the victim of hoax and fraud... Piltdown man?). The very reason science is the best approach man has for gaining knowledge and assuring our survival is its self-correcting capability. Let's take your stupid priest example. The priest keeps on saying the same thing in the face of all the evidence because it is written in an ancient text. The scientist, faced with new data and evidence revises his/her theories to fit the revised data. So should we blindly trust anything? NO! That is faith and faith is foolish. We follow the process and let science correct its wrongs and over time we get the best answers to our questions. Note, that best does not always mean 100% accurate. But it does mean that it is better than any other approach for gaining knowledge.Dragonfly crush! (Before you can release on me, that is...)
csm, did the same scientists as the ones in the e-mails re-affirm the results? The problem I am reading is that these scientists are not releasing the original raw data so others can either confirm or contest the original findings. That is not the self-correcting scientific process I am used to.Also, you are right Mike. When the global warming alarmists speak of the other side, they usually bring up the big money who would like this to go away(which is true), but there is just as much money to be made on the side of Gore and the Chicken Littles which rarely gets mentioned.
Bawdy, the only thing that seems to be in dispute with this climate-gate crap is what was meant by certain phrases in certain cherry-picked, stolen e-mails. So even my first, broad statement that these "humans" did something "stupid" or rising to the level of a "hoax" might, indeed, be wrong.Regarding healthy skepticism: the attack on these scientists is broad and non-stop. They constantly get inundated with freedom of information requests and the like, to the point of it interrupting their work. This was not the intent of these laws.That said, skepticism is healthy and I applaud it. But not to the point of it destroying the habitability of the Earth. I am an advocate of the Cheney doctrine in this case.Regarding the science of global climate change:United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon rejected the view that the leaked e-mails had damaged the credibility of climate science. Speaking at the Copenhagen conference on climate change, he said: Nothing that has come out in the public as a result of the recent email hackings has cast doubt on the basic scientific message on climate change and that message is quite clear – that climate change is happening much, much faster than we realized and we human beings are the primary cause.The science journal Nature discussed this in an editorial in its December 3 issue, remarking that [a] fair reading of the e-mails reveals nothing to support the denialists' conspiracy theories...If there are benefits to the e-mail theft, one is to highlight yet again the harassment that denialists inflict on some climate-change researchers, often in the form of endless, time-consuming demands for information under the US and UK Freedom of Information Acts. Governments and institutions need to provide tangible assistance for researchers facing such a burden.
Don't you think, csm, that the raw data these scientists used to build their models should be open for use by all who want to experiment with them. Don't you think transparency is the best way to go.Roger Pielke, Jr., professor of emvironmental studies at Colorado University, was the one who originally asked for the raw data. The Climate Research Unit of East Anglia basically told him, "We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added data." Does this sound like good science?I love how Nature calls them denialists. This is what I am speaking of when I posted that some people believe there is global warming and that humans caused it, but that it isn't going to be on the magnitude that the fearmongers want us to believe. That is denial, it is a matter of degree. This and the fact that the fear mongers control the data makes skepticism not only a healthy stance, but a logical one also.As for orgaizations like the UN and Nature, it makes sense they take the stand they do, their reputations are at stake and how good would it look if they had a mea culpa to offer up to us.
Scientist all over the world were shot down for their arguments against the Gore paradigm. Their very credentials were attacked and climate change was not to be questioned. Fall in line you foolish clones!Your child-like assertion that climategate was foiled by scientific review has cause dragonfly to lose his lunch laughing. It was only the the resourcefulness of those willing to unmask the cover up among the scientist. Nobody argues protecting the environment is wise and all should. We are not amused by deceit, lies and knee-jerk actions.Dragonfly has recovered.....back to the EEC.
I see... Hacking into a computer and stealing e-mails and other data is now "resourcefulness"?Of course, I think that data should be shared with reputable scientists. I do not think it needs to be shared ad nauseum with denialists.And I do not know whether what you cite is good science or not... nor do you. Are you a climate scientist? Do you know exactly what is meant by "value add" in this case? I think folks are trying to find sinister intent where none exists.
"I do not think it needs to be shared ad nauseum with denialists."Why not? I'm sure these important people have administrative people to take care of such things or better yet just post in on their web site. If they are so certain of their findings, why would they care? Poor excuse.
I have no issues with scientists sharing data. That is to be desired. I have issues with opponents to science being intrusive and overbearing to the point of blocking the work of others.You can say it is a "poor excuse" until you are faced with extreme, partisan tactics yourself.
The date should be shared with reputable scientist? That opens up the old and worn Pandora's box. Who is deemed reputable? Those who will agree with your conclusions? We have already seen that reputable meant only those who follow the Gore paradigm. No, the data should be made available to all who pay the bill. The "reputable" label is nothing more than a salacious label.The problem here again is the amount of money to be mad in the environmental arena. Without question we have those who truly care about the climate but the big drivers are those who stand to make big money. Then you have some who just want it to be true and refuse to listen to data that does not support their beliefs.Remember Dragonfly was abuzz in '80 with global cooling and abuzz again in '84 with the 20 year climate disaster watch. As the who so subtly put it "We wont get fooled again!"
This also goes beyond just withholding data from reputable scientists; it also has to do with getting scientists with a different view of the subject black-balled from peer-reviewed journals and the fact the data this(extreme global climate models) is all mainly based on just three sources(NASA, the National Climatic Data Center in Colorado and the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia)which seems pretty restrictive especially if they don't want to give it out.Now I do believe the planet is warming and that human behavior is mostly responsible, but I don't think it is as catastrophic as Gore and his ilk are portraying. And when the answers they would like to see will cost as much money and will fundamentally change our economy to a tremendous degree(which these guys rarely talk about) I feel the need to get the truth. And if the truth is being covered up(basically these e-mailing scientists have found no warming in their data since 1998, of course they blame their data, not the hypothesis)then I want to know about it. Isn't that just reasonalble with us rational types?
"We have already seen that reputable meant only those who follow the Gore paradigm."We have seen nothing of the sort."No, the data should be made available to all who pay the bill."And even to those who do not pay the bill. It does not always come down to the almighty fucking dollar."The reputable label is nothing more than a salacious label."No, it is not. There are charlatans looking to misuse and thwart reputable science."The problem here again is the amount of money to be mad in the environmental arena."Again with the money? Sure, there are greedy bastards everywhere. But most scientists are not guided by pursuing money at all costs - if they were they would have done something more lucrative than become a scientist. Many resort to teaching eventually because of the lack of money to be made in industry... which should tell you about what scientists earn."Then you have some who just want it to be true and refuse to listen to data that does not support their beliefs."And you base this on what? Can you read minds? It amazes me the number of people who just dream up their own little shitty stories and believe them without any reason. Go ahead and think whatever you want, but there is nothing that suggests this to be true.
Bawdy, IF the truth is being covered up, then yes, that needs to be addressed.And IF these e-mailing scientists have found no warming in their data since 1998, AND they blame their data WITHOUT REASON TO BLAME THEIR DATA, then yes, that needs to be addressed, too.
"No, it is not. There are charlatans looking to misuse and thwart reputable science."And the scientific process left unfettered my anybody will expose these charlatans no matter whose data they are using.
"AND they blame their data WITHOUT REASON TO BLAME THEIR DATA, then yes, that needs to be addressed, too."That cannot be done if they don't cough up the data.
CLIMATE CHANGE IS NATURAL: 100 REASONS WHY
Ironic, I have been getting much of my news from the UK of late. They have been a great source over the last year. I tend to believe the vast majority of the global warming is a natural as well. The evidence for the warming phenomena never implicates man as the major culprit. Until China and India come on board on any global efforts, any measure the US would take is like pissing in the ocean. Kill the economy for a ,00001 deg F in the earths temperature is idiocy.
My POV on global climate change:There is warming. Look at the polar ice caps and visit Alaskan glaciers (Mendenhall, for example) if you don't believe this.To "believe" that humans have had no effect on this is, IMHO, folly.We (humans) should be looking to alternate fuels sources that are more climate-friendly. This should be one of our most urgent goals in order to stave off, or at least minimize, our contribution to global climate change.
National Geographic: Global Warming Fast Facts
Here's an interesting approach on letting the "free market" decide on global warming issues... let's all bet on it!Place Your Bets on When the Polar Bear Population Disappears
Is National Geographic a peer review journal?
Fear tactics are a favorite source of motivation for the knee-jerk environmentalist. Although there is a great disagreement on the role of man in global warming they keep putting the polar bear out there as their mascot for climate change. The big guys gets put out there like a child in a Feed the World commercial. They are wasting their precious time and energy here in the US. They need to be making their pitch in China and/or India. They are in a 50s - 60s mode when it comes the the manufacturing sector. But then again, maybe climate change is not their true motivation? We all truly realize the earth is going through a warming crisis but where is the proof this is not just part of the natural cycle many scientist have pointed out from the past data?
No, National Geographic is not a peer reviewed journal; nor is the Daily Express.
Restoring truth to the energy and climate change debate
Russians confirm that UK climate scientists manipulated data to exaggerate global warming
How to Manufacture a Climate Consensus
Post a Comment