Global Warmists -- Read ( Climategate )

[Jaybar]

You must be a few scientists.

All glory to the Shiro...toad.

[Beckwin]

I can't believe Max is posting the "trick" email.

christ man there've been several clarifications of that posted. it's considered a legitimate technique by scores of scientists and publications.

the question is now, since these emails, is.... where is the flaw in AGW theory? where can you point at the science and say "that's incorrect"? I'm not talking about speculation about one source of numbers being fudged (again, no proof of that has arisen either), I'm talking about the workings of the theory itself. What is fundamentally wrong with our knowledge of CO2 as a heat-trapping gas and how much CO2 we've pumped (and continue to pump) into the atmosphere?

[Linliel]

I can't believe Max is posting the "trick" email.

christ man there've been several clarifications of that posted. it's considered a legitimate technique by scores of scientists and publications.

the question is now, since these emails, is.... where is the flaw in AGW theory? where can you point at the science and say "that's incorrect"? I'm not talking about speculation about one source of numbers being fudged (again, no proof of that has arisen either), I'm talking about the workings of the theory itself. What is fundamentally wrong with our knowledge of CO2 as a heat-trapping gas and how much CO2 we've pumped (and continue to pump) into the atmosphere?

You know it's interesting because I was in a meeting for an EU research project recently (nothing to do with climate change, actually to do with ethics!) and the project manager was talking about how we needed to use a "trick" for something or other in our deliverable so that we gave the proper results, and it was so innocuous and definitely not intended to be any sort of deceptive thing, because well, there was nothing to deceive about! but it showed me just how easily these sorts of words can be misinterpreted -- in this case it meant "clever analysis", not "deceptive coverup". So yeah. Just thought it was interesting.

[Tristam]

You know it's interesting because I was in a meeting for an EU research project recently (nothing to do with climate change, actually to do with ethics!) and the project manager was talking about how we needed to use a "trick" for something or other in our deliverable so that we gave the proper results, and it was so innocuous and definitely not intended to be any sort of deceptive thing, because well, there was nothing to deceive about! but it showed me just how easily these sorts of words can be misinterpreted -- in this case it meant "clever analysis", not "deceptive coverup". So yeah. Just thought it was interesting.

I've had similar situations, I chucked some of my data through a 10Hz lowpass filter just to see what would happen and saw some pretty cool shit. I e-mailed my co-advisor who made the suggestion and said, literally, "that was a helluva trick!"

[pahnphoenix]

I've had similar situations, I chucked some of my data through a 10Hz lowpass filter just to see what would happen and saw some pretty cool shit. I e-mailed my co-advisor who made the suggestion and said, literally, "that was a helluva trick!"

yeah. godel's incompleteness theorems rely on a trick too, but they're not disingenuous or invalid in any way. it's a little murkier when a "trick" is an ad hoc part of a theory, but even then it's not so clearly bad... it'd be wonderful if all the architecture or scientific or philosophical theories could be motivated by raw data or the problem being looked at, but that's just not how it is, so some times we need to shore up an otherwise good theory with some reasonable (but in some sense arbitrary) support. however, a "trick" in philosophy or science is normally the kind of thing you win a brilliancy prize for in chess; a novel idea that has not or would not occur to other experts in the field.

[Max™]

I can't believe Max is posting the "trick" email.

christ man there've been several clarifications of that posted. it's considered a legitimate technique by scores of scientists and publications.

the question is now, since these emails, is.... where is the flaw in AGW theory? where can you point at the science and say "that's incorrect"? I'm not talking about speculation about one source of numbers being fudged (again, no proof of that has arisen either), I'm talking about the workings of the theory itself. What is fundamentally wrong with our knowledge of CO2 as a heat-trapping gas and how much CO2 we've pumped (and continue to pump) into the atmosphere?

Actually, I think I posted the link where they "clarify" what it is, and if you read the bit before, you'd see there is something that they can't figure out how to replicate which was done to the charts to produce the bit at the end.

Which is where the "nature trick" would fit in?


I'm not talking about the climate part, again, for the bajillionth time, it might actually BE that we are warming the planet.

The problem is, I can't understand how any scientist could willfully sign off on what has been shown as if it were absolute proof of it, purely on the basis of scientific rigor, and morals.

[Tristam]

Actually, I think I posted the link where they "clarify" what it is, and if you read the bit before, you'd see there is something that they can't figure out how to replicate which was done to the charts to produce the bit at the end.

Which is where the "nature trick" would fit in?


I'm not talking about the climate part, again, for the bajillionth time, it might actually BE that we are warming the planet.

The problem is, I can't understand how any scientist could willfully sign off on what has been shown as if it were absolute proof of it, purely on the basis of scientific rigor, and morals.

No, that was not the clarification. Your links collectively were intentionally confusing and unintentionally stupid. This is the best explanation I was able to find.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2...tm_medium=link

also, going to competing blogs doesn't mean you're getting a balanced discussion, it's the fallacy of the golden mean. They are not equally right.

[Max™]

No, I didn't mean to imply I thought it was a balanced discussion.

I meant to imply that they are from blogs, that one can only treat the data as being from a blog, and that it is best to use them only as a sieve to point you towards other sources of uncompromised data.

A blog is most assuredly to be considered compromised, as are my posts.

This is why I like to give links, and examples of images to compare with your own findings, so you can hopefully search out more information and reach an informed decision on your own.


I'm not saying you have to believe me that it is wrong, as I'm not actually saying it's wrong, though it may appear that way.

I'm saying NOTHING should be considered above being questioned, and anything which is stated as a fact should be examined more closely than something which is presented as merely a possible explanation.


The hard language used is that it is a fact, and that it is MOST likely caused ALMOST entirely by HUMAN actions.

The data does not support that claim, as it does not include disproof of counterclaims, it does not include full disclosure of how they attained their results, it is not reproducible, as those blog posts were meant to demonstrate.

I myself have been searching for how to reproduce these findings, and while I do not have the specific models on my computer, it seems to me that SOMEONE should have been able to show how it was done... in particular the scientists who made the claim.

[Tristam]

Max you're basing all your information on very limited data. I keep asking you to go to the literature because there is so much more data than temperature records and proxies. I've posted links to literature and examples and public resources that you can use.

The FACT is that the earth is getting warmer. The FACT is that the atmosphere can contribute to a warming earth. The FACT is that the greenhouse effect is real and independently observable on other planets. The FACT is that solar irradiance can not account for current warming. The FACT is that other heat sources (the core lol?) can not account for current warming. The FACT is that statistical noise can not account for the warming, despite your "fluctuations" explanation. The FACT is that we have a model that can fit the data reasonably well. The FACT is that the model can be improved. The FACT is that more data will help the model.

The FACT is that you are entirely unaware of how this process works. You seem to have this naive concept that the model is the answer, when it is a small part of the answer. It is part of an explanation. The model isn't the fact, the model HELPS EXPLAIN THE OBSERVED FACTS. One or two freaking sets of data in one or two papers is not the entire field. It's not even an entire paper! AGW would exist without Mann et al. papers. A paper came out recently using a model to explain sexual selection in evolution. Is the imperfection of that model cause to denounce evolution? No. Poking at a model and saying it's not perfect isn't helpful, especially when you have literally zero expertise and your "arguments" are riddled with logical fallacies and factual errors.

Stop saying someone should have been able to show how it was done. You are just plain ignorant and not an expert, as is everyone else on this board. Expertise is learned, through years and possibly decades of training. If science was easy, grad school wouldn't be difficult. Other people HAVE done it and come up with similar answers. The people who have come up with different answers have been schooled by the process you're asking for, which is why the Fisher paper was proved to be bullshit.

The full disclosure is in their methods, I've given you links. Go read.

[Max™]

Max you're basing all your information on very limited data. I keep asking you to go to the literature because there is so much more data than temperature records and proxies. I've posted links to literature and examples and public resources that you can use.

I've been to more than just temperature records and proxies... that isn't where I'm basing my information on, actually. Sorry I didn't specify that.

The FACT is that the earth is getting warmer. The FACT is that the atmosphere can contribute to a warming earth. The FACT is that the greenhouse effect is real and independently observable on other planets. The FACT is that solar irradiance can not account for current warming. The FACT is that other heat sources (the core lol?) can not account for current warming. The FACT is that statistical noise can not account for the warming, despite your "fluctuations" explanation. The FACT is that we have a model that can fit the data reasonably well. The FACT is that the model can be improved. The FACT is that more data will help the model.

The FACT is that I have not seen disproof of those other hypothetical explanations.

The FACT is that I have not seen anyone able to reproduce the findings you're basing your FACT arguments on.

The FACT is that you are entirely unaware of how this process works. You seem to have this naive concept that the model is the answer, when it is a small part of the answer. It is part of an explanation. The model isn't the fact, the model HELPS EXPLAIN THE OBSERVED FACTS. One or two freaking sets of data in one or two papers is not the entire field. It's not even an entire paper! AGW would exist without Mann et al. papers. A paper came out recently using a model to explain sexual selection in evolution. Is the imperfection of that model cause to denounce evolution? No. Poking at a model and saying it's not perfect isn't helpful, especially when you have literally zero expertise and your "arguments" are riddled with logical fallacies and factual errors.

Poking at findings which are claimed to be factual, and being unable to find a way to reproduce those findings, nor find anyone else who was able to do so... that is what I am doing.

I am not as naive as you're thinking, my argument is naive because it is intended to be as obvious and simplistic as possible.

Stop saying someone should have been able to show how it was done. You are just plain ignorant and not an expert, as is everyone else on this board. Expertise is learned, through years and possibly decades of training. If science was easy, grad school wouldn't be difficult. Other people HAVE done it and come up with similar answers. The people who have come up with different answers have been schooled by the process you're asking for, which is why the Fisher paper was proved to be bullshit.

The full disclosure is in their methods, I've given you links. Go read.

I am ignorant about many things, though I enjoy chipping away at that list, and have been all of my life.

I've apparently missed where they showed how to reproduce their results, and the scientists who stated they were able to do so, I will go review your claims when I return from my errands later.


Science is easy btw, being HONEST about it, and exercising the proper rigor to state something is scientific, that is the hard part.

[Rhinox]

xy/zx=1988/24586*4



Proves the existence of global warming.

I already worked out all the math here if you want to check my math.

Spoiler: show

Spoiler: show

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Coz_cpLaGS...tiousPanda.jpg
lol trolled

[Leif]

Let's assume, for instance, that global warming is not a complete hoax.

Why is warming so bad? Well, obviously, there are advantages and drawbacks.

Drawbacks include possibly rising sea levels, Phoenix, AZ being 111 instead of 110.

Advantages include crops that grow faster, plants that grow taller, and an increased agricultural output.



Now, if the temperature hits the temperature of Venus, we're in for some serious trouble. If the temperature hits the temperature of Saturn we're also in for some serious trouble. But who is to say a slight increase or decrease is actually better or worse?

I think it's fair to say it possibly changes how things work on Earth, but humans can certainly adapt. If, in fact, it rises so much that we realize there actually is a huge problem, then we can shut down the world economy. I have a feeling that's not a problem this generation will even have to wonder about.


And all of that is completely ignoring the fact that if we overcame the left's irrational fears of nuclear energy, we could manufacture more energy for less money with less pollution.

[Jaybar]

Let's assume, for instance, that global warming is not a complete hoax.

Why is warming so bad? Well, obviously, there are advantages and drawbacks.

Drawbacks include possibly rising sea levels, Phoenix, AZ being 111 instead of 110.

Advantages include crops that grow faster, plants that grow taller, and an increased agricultural output.



Now, if the temperature hits the temperature of Venus, we're in for some serious trouble. If the temperature hits the temperature of Saturn we're also in for some serious trouble. But who is to say a slight increase or decrease is actually better or worse?

I think it's fair to say it possibly changes how things work on Earth, but humans can certainly adapt. If, in fact, it rises so much that we realize there actually is a huge problem, then we can shut down the world economy. I have a feeling that's not a problem this generation will even have to wonder about.


And all of that is completely ignoring the fact that if we overcame the left's irrational fears of nuclear energy, we could manufacture more energy for less money with less pollution.

The problem is that climate change is much more complex than "oh air temperature is higher hurr durr". We don't know what it does to wind patterns or ocean currents (at least from what I've tried finding), which can GREATLY affect agricultural output (negatively).

[Tristam]

The problem is that climate change is much more complex than "oh air temperature is higher hurr durr". We don't know what it does to wind patterns or ocean currents (at least from what I've tried finding), which can GREATLY affect agricultural output (negatively).

Not to mention seasons getting fucked up, Leif seems to think that plants can grow anywhere, anytime, anyplace, yet the "hide the decline" e-mail was specifically due to plants being unexpectedly stressed (as their tree rings were not as large as expected) and growing poorly despite an abundance of CO2 and heat.

Sea levels aren't "possibly" rising, they are. When did facts become subject to debate?

The economy will adjust to alternative energy sources. Industry is awakening to it. People like leif are irrelevant, which is a good thing.

[Leif]

The economy will adjust to alternative energy sources. Industry is awakening to it.

Yes, the economy will adjust to alternative energy sources... if people like you let it.

Forcing the economy to switch cripples it. It's a free market. If it is better for the country to switch to alternative energy, it will happen naturally.

[Jaybar]

But the best things in life are free. And we have the freest energy available to us EVERYDAY! Why doesn't the free market move towards free energy? Oil and coal have costs attached to them as materials, then there's the cost of reproducing these raw materials into energy. Why doesn't the free market put money into making a more efficient (possibly cheaper) solar cell? Then the free market can stop relying on imports from infidels or rely on deadly mine shafts.

[Leif]

Except solar panels and windmills are not cheaper energy. They cost more per unit energy than coal and oil.

Right now, solar panels and windmills need government subsidies to survive, which essentially means that they are not cheaper.

[Jaybar]

The material is free. The process is expensive. It's entirely possible to make things more efficient and therefore cheaper. It's a costly investment that saves money in the long run. Why don't free markets do this?

[Leif]

Obviously, because that's not the case. They obviously disagree that it will save money in the long run. Considering companies would be the first to benefit, it would be in their interest to pursue these technologies if it was worth it.

[Tristam]

Except solar panels and windmills are not cheaper energy. They cost more per unit energy than coal and oil.

Right now, solar panels and windmills need government subsidies to survive, which essentially means that they are not cheaper.

Yeah, carbon based energy sources didn't require gov't subsidies to develop ataaaaaallll.

Shell economists did a piece in Nature the other week, alternative energy is inevitable. Welcome to the 21st century. You're taking a position held by noone with any stake in the future.