Climategate independently proven to be a storm in a tea cup
Discussion
Somewhatfoolish said:
mybrainhurts said:
Somewhatfoolish said:
mybrainhurts said:
Somewhatfoolish said:
mybrainhurts said:
Somewhatfoolish said:
mybrainhurts said:
Somewhatfoolish said:
mybrainhurts said:
Somewhatfoolish said:
mybrainhurts said:
ludo, a word...
Why do you keep typing skeptics?
Are you American, or dumb, or both...?
It's an excellent point that, because spelled with either 'k' or 'c' the majority of the hardcore s(k/c)eptics are not s(c/k)eptical at all... they're pretty credulous in fact. Very kind of you Why do you keep typing skeptics?
Are you American, or dumb, or both...?
BJWoods, my viewpoint is very simple. I will accept what the scientific consensus is. Until "Climategate", as it is termed, I was under the impression that there was significant uncertainty. As someone else trained in the sciences and forced, possibly uniquely, through both my profession and philisophical beliefs to see the world as essentially chaotic, if not entirely random, I was under the impression that whatever we could deduce about the past we were unable to predict the future reasonably.
Still, to an extent, I believe that, for what it's worth. No climate models properly take into account biological uncertainty - and if take all global warming as entirely anthropogenic it refutes itself, for who knows if for example photosynthesis becomes more efficient and respiration less so in future life forms if the composition of the atmosphere changes? I don't but I can see it.
But when those emails did come out, and it was apparent to me that they showed nothing, despite the shrillness in the blogosphere, I began to recognise the same kinds of arguments that creationists show towards biologists and geologists; homeopaths use against doctors, and so on.
I saw no smoking gun.
Therefore I will side with the scientific consensus - and it does exist until I see enough reputable people saying it doesn't, not screen-names on pistonheads - and try to work towards a sensible government response (that is to say minimal if not non existent).
You're a plant, aren't you...?
If not, how much time did you spend with the emails...?
Yeah, that's right, you got me.
I'm probably far less of a left winger than you...
How long did you spend with the emails...?
And how did you conclude they showed "nothing"...?
I haven't seen anything remotely wrong headed. I've seen things that taken out of context may look odd to the scientifically ignorant, but nothing else.
Try reading some more...
If you're going to rummage around, this will help you search...
http://www.climate-gate.org/index.php
Edit...silly me, that's not your current mission, is it?
Edited by mybrainhurts on Monday 19th April 00:04
It is not.
You said you found "nothing". I'm giving you the tool to find something, if you so wish.
But you don't, do you..?
Just give me a link to a really nasty email.
I don't give a toss if you follow it up and I'm not getting into a tedious session listening to you drool on about why something is out of context.
If you're curious, everything forward and trust in the lord...
If you're not curious (you're not, are you?), do nowt.
Or you could dive into the big thread and tear that apart, but I fear your buddies will have covered everything already.
This topic is as irrelevant as anything.
What we are looking for is an actual link between methodology, data and the impact of anthropogenic emissions on global temperatures.
The data, methodology and conclusions should clearly speak for themselves and be statistically credible to be worthy of any sort of action.
If the scientists are on the case and acting properly, this should be visible and defined.
What we do appear to see is a load of pseudo-religious wishful politik by a party with none of the above.
Things appear to be within normal variation. That is the deniers perspective.
The fact that the conclusions of the experts seems to contradict reality, influence the peer review process, alter data, causes concern.
When I read:-
"Climategate independently proven to be a storm in a tea cup"
I expect to see that the data, methodology and conclusions are outlined in detail and repeatable by ANYONE WITH ACCESS TO THE KIT. There is nothing more to it that this.
I want to see something which is open, accountable, scientific and open to scruitiny.
The whole scenario of how things have been done is highly unsatisfactory and it needs to have integrity.
We have every fallacial argument and position in this thread.
Get the data out. Not models or corrected data. Raw data, incuding where the data was collected. Then an outline of the methodology. Then let every undergrad/old man/granny/A'Level student tear it to bits and test it's rigour.
This is what science is about.
If the s
t has integrity, it stands.
What we are looking for is an actual link between methodology, data and the impact of anthropogenic emissions on global temperatures.
The data, methodology and conclusions should clearly speak for themselves and be statistically credible to be worthy of any sort of action.
If the scientists are on the case and acting properly, this should be visible and defined.
What we do appear to see is a load of pseudo-religious wishful politik by a party with none of the above.
Things appear to be within normal variation. That is the deniers perspective.
The fact that the conclusions of the experts seems to contradict reality, influence the peer review process, alter data, causes concern.
When I read:-
"Climategate independently proven to be a storm in a tea cup"
I expect to see that the data, methodology and conclusions are outlined in detail and repeatable by ANYONE WITH ACCESS TO THE KIT. There is nothing more to it that this.
I want to see something which is open, accountable, scientific and open to scruitiny.
The whole scenario of how things have been done is highly unsatisfactory and it needs to have integrity.
We have every fallacial argument and position in this thread.
Get the data out. Not models or corrected data. Raw data, incuding where the data was collected. Then an outline of the methodology. Then let every undergrad/old man/granny/A'Level student tear it to bits and test it's rigour.
This is what science is about.
If the s
t has integrity, it stands. mybrainhurts said:
I have nothing to prove.
I don't give a toss if you follow it up and I'm not getting into a tedious session listening to you drool on about why something is out of context.
If you're curious, everything forward and trust in the lord...
If you're not curious (you're not, are you?), do nowt.
Or you could dive into the big thread and tear that apart, but I fear your buddies will have covered everything already.
Are you insane? You do realise you guys are entirely losing outside of the comfort of the P&P?I don't give a toss if you follow it up and I'm not getting into a tedious session listening to you drool on about why something is out of context.
If you're curious, everything forward and trust in the lord...
If you're not curious (you're not, are you?), do nowt.
Or you could dive into the big thread and tear that apart, but I fear your buddies will have covered everything already.
You really need to link me to it. I'm hoping someone more reasonable than you will.
Open invitation: Can someone link me to, say, the worst couple of emails?
Somewhatfoolish said:
mybrainhurts said:
I have nothing to prove.
I don't give a toss if you follow it up and I'm not getting into a tedious session listening to you drool on about why something is out of context.
If you're curious, everything forward and trust in the lord...
If you're not curious (you're not, are you?), do nowt.
Or you could dive into the big thread and tear that apart, but I fear your buddies will have covered everything already.
Are you insane? You do realise you guys are entirely losing outside of the comfort of the P&P?I don't give a toss if you follow it up and I'm not getting into a tedious session listening to you drool on about why something is out of context.
If you're curious, everything forward and trust in the lord...
If you're not curious (you're not, are you?), do nowt.
Or you could dive into the big thread and tear that apart, but I fear your buddies will have covered everything already.
You really need to link me to it. I'm hoping someone more reasonable than you will.
Open invitation: Can someone link me to, say, the worst couple of emails?
Earlier somewhatfoolish said:
But when those emails did come out, and it was apparent to me that they showed nothing, despite the shrillness in the blogosphere, I began to recognise the same kinds of arguments that creationists show towards biologists and geologists; homeopaths use against doctors, and so on.
I saw no smoking gun.
You've satisfied yourself already.I saw no smoking gun.
I haven't time to read the whole thread, but I believe there were several investigations all funded by the UEA? I guess it's been covered already, but how thick do you like your white wash sir? One coat or two? Lol no matter how many coats, the great global warming scam will always remain transparent, unless you happen to be on the pay roll of course.
Somewhatfoolish said:
mybrainhurts said:
I have nothing to prove.
I don't give a toss if you follow it up and I'm not getting into a tedious session listening to you drool on about why something is out of context.
If you're curious, everything forward and trust in the lord...
If you're not curious (you're not, are you?), do nowt.
Or you could dive into the big thread and tear that apart, but I fear your buddies will have covered everything already.
Are you insane? You do realise you guys are entirely losing outside of the comfort of the P&P?I don't give a toss if you follow it up and I'm not getting into a tedious session listening to you drool on about why something is out of context.
If you're curious, everything forward and trust in the lord...
If you're not curious (you're not, are you?), do nowt.
Or you could dive into the big thread and tear that apart, but I fear your buddies will have covered everything already.
You really need to link me to it. I'm hoping someone more reasonable than you will.
Open invitation: Can someone link me to, say, the worst couple of emails?
hidetheelephants said:
Assuming of course we haven't all been killed when the plague of locusts comes/the waters rise over the land/the crops fail in the terrible drought, or some other biblical disaster of your choice.
I thought we were all going to freeze to death now, in some sort of Global Warming/Gulf Stream extravaganza? Thats why we in the Northern Hemisphere had the coldest winter for decades, damned Global Warming causing us to freeze our knackers off due to man made trace amounts of carbon dioxide. More Green taxes I say and quick, before we all freeze to death next winter!Speaking as someone who has no strong views one way or the other on MMGW's truth or falsehood because I am almost entirely ignorant of the subject's detail, but nonetheless speaking as someone with a reasonable background in physics and stats, I can tell you that my reading of this thread is that there are two contributors who come across as calm, rational and focussed on the science ... ludo and somewhatfoolish.
And unfortunately most (though certainly not all) of the other posters made fools of themselves.
And unfortunately most (though certainly not all) of the other posters made fools of themselves.
deeps said:
hidetheelephants said:
Assuming of course we haven't all been killed when the plague of locusts comes/the waters rise over the land/the crops fail in the terrible drought, or some other biblical disaster of your choice.
I thought we were all going to freeze to death now, in some sort of Global Warming/Gulf Stream extravaganza? Thats why we in the Northern Hemisphere had the coldest winter for decades, damned Global Warming causing us to freeze our knackers off due to man made trace amounts of carbon dioxide. More Green taxes I say and quick, before we all freeze to death next winter!ATG said:
Speaking as someone who has no strong views one way or the other on MMGW's truth or falsehood because I am almost entirely ignorant of the subject's detail, but nonetheless speaking as someone with a reasonable background in physics and stats, I can tell you that my reading of this thread is that there are two contributors who come across as calm, rational and focussed on the science ... ludo and somewhatfoolish.
And unfortunately most (though certainly not all) of the other posters made fools of themselves.
That is because you are almost entirely ignorant of the subject's detail.And unfortunately most (though certainly not all) of the other posters made fools of themselves.
Somewhatfoolish said:
mybrainhurts said:
I have nothing to prove.
I don't give a toss if you follow it up and I'm not getting into a tedious session listening to you drool on about why something is out of context.
If you're curious, everything forward and trust in the lord...
If you're not curious (you're not, are you?), do nowt.
Or you could dive into the big thread and tear that apart, but I fear your buddies will have covered everything already.
Are you insane? You do realise you guys are entirely losing outside of the comfort of the P&P?I don't give a toss if you follow it up and I'm not getting into a tedious session listening to you drool on about why something is out of context.
If you're curious, everything forward and trust in the lord...
If you're not curious (you're not, are you?), do nowt.
Or you could dive into the big thread and tear that apart, but I fear your buddies will have covered everything already.
You really need to link me to it. I'm hoping someone more reasonable than you will.
Open invitation: Can someone link me to, say, the worst couple of emails?
read this.
Edited by Diderot on Monday 19th April 08:37
Edited by Diderot on Monday 19th April 08:37
ATG said:
Speaking as someone who has no strong views one way or the other on MMGW's truth or falsehood because I am almost entirely ignorant of the subject's detail, but nonetheless speaking as someone with a reasonable background in physics and stats, I can tell you that my reading of this thread is that there are two contributors who come across as calm, rational and focussed on the science[b] ... ludo and [b]somewhatfoolish.
And unfortunately most (though certainly not all) of the other posters made fools of themselves.
Are you serious? Somewhatfoolish? How apt given his comments thus: I read it and saw nothing . . oh for about an hour . . a summary; can someone tell me where to look?And unfortunately most (though certainly not all) of the other posters made fools of themselves.
Well . . .
But thank you for your contribution!
Edited by Lost_BMW on Monday 19th April 19:48
ATG said:
Speaking as someone who has no strong views one way or the other on MMGW's truth or falsehood because I am almost entirely ignorant of the subject's detail, but nonetheless speaking as someone with a reasonable background in physics and stats, I can tell you that my reading of this thread is that there are two contributors who come across as calm, rational and focussed on the science ... ludo and somewhatfoolish.
And unfortunately most (though certainly not all) of the other posters made fools of themselves.
LOL, so you thought you'd join in and make a fool of yourself too.And unfortunately most (though certainly not all) of the other posters made fools of themselves.
Curious as to why you don't care that man could be altering the climate and destroying the planet? Doesn't even bother you enough to have a view on? Whether it's true or whether you are being conned isn't important? Most who believe MMGW Theory is bulls
t will openly admit so, fence sitters on the other hand are usually proven to be closet true believers. deeps said:
ATG said:
Speaking as someone who has no strong views one way or the other on MMGW's truth or falsehood because I am almost entirely ignorant of the subject's detail, but nonetheless speaking as someone with a reasonable background in physics and stats, I can tell you that my reading of this thread is that there are two contributors who come across as calm, rational and focussed on the science ... ludo and somewhatfoolish.
And unfortunately most (though certainly not all) of the other posters made fools of themselves.
LOL, so you thought you'd join in and make a fool of yourself too.And unfortunately most (though certainly not all) of the other posters made fools of themselves.
Curious as to why you don't care that man could be altering the climate and destroying the planet? Doesn't even bother you enough to have a view on? Whether it's true or whether you are being conned isn't important? Most who believe MMGW Theory is bulls
t will openly admit so, fence sitters on the other hand are usually proven to be closet true believers. I'm neutral and I like cars........BUT there are all sorts of things that make me think MMuGW might be true
Won't wash, lads, better think up a new approach...
Somewhatfoolish said:
What on earth has liking cars got to do with scientific veracity?
it is very clear that the 'scientists' involved in cooking up the dubious 'results' are 'activist' scientists, and should be stripped of their title - the 'veracity' of the conclusions, especially in the IPCC report (cut and pasted Greenpeace articles!) should be treated with the contempt it so richly deserves.Get some objective, non partisan researchers to start from scratch and publish the findings in as transparent a way as possible, and let's take it from there....
Edited by chris watton on Monday 19th April 19:32
chris watton said:
Get some objective, non partisan researchers to start from scratch and publish the findings in as transparent a way as possible, and let's take it from there....
if gw is such an urgent global calamity post all of the raw data on the internet for anyone to do what they want with. i'm really struggling to understand why the world has entrusted possibly the most important research ever conducted, if their results are to be believed, to east anglia university. if we can rustle up a panel from oxford, cambridge, imperial, mit and ethz just to review the emails surely we can find a few phds that remember some stats.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff