222503 Bullies, 3903 online  
  • Register
Our Sponsors:

Results 21 to 30 of 343
Page 3 of 35 FirstFirst 123 456713 ... LastLast
Sponsored Links Spacer Image
  1. W. Rabbit is offline
    W. Rabbit's Avatar

    insight combined with intel, fuse, and dynamite

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Work
    Posts
    7,919

    Posted On:
    6/17/2011 2:04pm

    supporting member
     Style: (Hung Ga+BJJ+MT+JKD) ^ Qi

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Cullion View Post
    The request to delete all emails in case an FOI request was submitted, by itself, is clear evidence of intent to deceive the public.

    The conclusions do not remain in place after 'minor tidying up', and I'm not sure where you got that impression.
    I don't agree it was clear intent to deceive the public. Every company and institution including educational ones are hounded by their legal departments to constantly clean up and destroy email, solely because leaks occur. It is not a conspiracy, it is actually best practice in information management to routinely destroy email, because email is not supposed to be a document repository and is difficult to secure from hackers.

    Which is why the hackers who penetrated CRU got nothing more damaging than a bunch of email exchanges that caused a brief political stir in the news....but went away.

    There are currently still no major challenges to the IPCC conclusions, of which CRU was but one contributor, right?
  2. W. Rabbit is offline
    W. Rabbit's Avatar

    insight combined with intel, fuse, and dynamite

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Work
    Posts
    7,919

    Posted On:
    6/17/2011 2:07pm

    supporting member
     Style: (Hung Ga+BJJ+MT+JKD) ^ Qi

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Cullion View Post
    They don't demonstrate a meaningful trend unless you genuinely believe that a sample of ~120 years is of statistical significance in geological time.
    The years from 2001-2010 are 10 of the 11 warmest on record.

    Not significant geologically, no, but this is the same argument they used against Phil Jones by taking his words during an interview out of context and then spamming the internet with bogus reports that he made a "U-Turn".

    DailyMail proliferated this, and Fox picked this up too. And it all turned into a huge "THE LEAD SCIENTIST CHANGED HIS MIND" when in fact...no...bullshit.

    Skepticalscience.com sided with Jones:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Phil...since-1995.htm

    You can check online that Jones was significantly misquoted, yet that misquote made its way to a lot of anti-climate change politicos, including Fox and AM radio.

    20 warmest years on record (C anomaly from 1901–2000 mean) Year Global[40] Land[41] Ocean[42] 2005 0.6183 0.9593 0.4896 2010 0.6171 0.9642 0.4885 1998 0.5984 0.8320 0.5090 2003 0.5832 0.7735 0.5108 2002 0.5762 0.8318 0.4798 2006 0.5623 0.8158 0.4669 2009 0.5591 0.7595 0.4848 2007 0.5509 0.9852 0.3900 2004 0.5441 0.7115 0.4819 2001 0.5188 0.7207 0.4419 2008 0.4842 0.7801 0.3745
    Last edited by W. Rabbit; 6/17/2011 2:12pm at .
  3. Cullion is offline
    Cullion's Avatar

    Everybody was Kung Fu fighting

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Oxford, UK
    Posts
    6,525

    Posted On:
    6/17/2011 2:09pm

    supporting member
     Style: Tai Chi

    0
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by W. Rabbit View Post
    I don't agree it was clear intent to deceive the public. Every company and institution including educational ones are hounded by their legal departments to constantly clean up and destroy email, solely because leaks occur.
    There was no legal department involved. The e-mails sent by senior CRU academics themselves specifically referenced the fear of an FOI request being submitted when colleagues were asked to delete the emails.

    It is not a conspiracy, it is actually best practice in information management to routinely destroy email, because email is not supposed to be a document repository and is difficult to secure from hackers.
    Yes, and Enron executives ordered documents shredded in case they were burgled..

    See above.

    Which is why the hackers who penetrated CRU got nothing more damaging than a bunch of email exchanges that caused a brief political stir in the news....but went away.

    There are currently still no major challenges to the IPCC conclusions, of which CRU was but one contributor, right?
    I don't think you read the email archive.
    !!RENT SPACE HERE FOR 10 VBUCKS PER LINE PER MONTH!!

    !! PM ME FOR SPEEDY SERVICE !!

    Sponsored by our first customer: Repulsive Monkey



    I <3 Sirc.
  4. Rivington is offline
    Rivington's Avatar

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    East Bay, CA
    Posts
    4,733

    Posted On:
    6/17/2011 2:11pm

    supporting member
     Style: Taijiquan/Shuai-Chiao/BJJ

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Cullion View Post
    The article is entitled "Climate change is real: an open letter from the scientific community", and then the first item is the very letter.
    Yes. And?

    'Oh but I meant a different consensus'. You are the one back pedalling.
    Let's see. In post one I point out that an open letter is not the same as research consensus and that you conflated the two for reasons of your own. In my latest post, I said exactly the same thing. If you think that's backpedaling, you don't know what that word means either.

    Science is based on falsifiable predictions.
    Some is, some isn't. Some science is observational and depends on looking at "natural experiments."

    If 1000 leading astronomers agree that light isn't warped by the presence of a massive object, and your theory predicts just that to be detectable during an eclipse, which is then detected then you have a better theory than the 1000 worthies.
    Not quite. A single negative result is and should be insufficient to invalidate a hypothesis. This is why experiments are repeated, examined and critiqued, altered and tried again with different methodologies or data sets, etc. That is why a consensus is considered important by scientists. The abstract I linked to wasn't a strawpoll, it was an analysis of the results of publication and citation data—that is, the very stuff being predicted, explained, etc. Could it potentially all be wrong? Sure! Kuhn and others have talked about how scientific revolutions are a long haul virtually every time. And yet, measurements of the consensus is the one way to determine whether the evidence corroborates some claim.

    Why don't you list the falsifiable predictions of this hypothesis for us.
    Of which hypothesis? That you're a crank playing a rhetorical game? Well, that's just pure observation. Or do you mean warming? A couple elements of global warming that can be tested include:

    1. If CO2 and other greenhouse gases absorb radiation, we should see a decrease in outgoing radiation. Do we? Yes: http://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006...per_100737.htm

    2. If warming is happening due to greenhouses gases, nights would warm faster than days as less head would radiate outward. Do nights warm faster than days and has this tendency been increasing? Yes: http://www.knmi.nl/publications/showAbstract.php?id=706


    I hope you're not about to claim exoneration by Muir Russell et al.

    Go on, do it.
    Gosh, sounds like you hope I DO do it, actually. I wasn't going to, but now I will. I'm sure you have some canned denier stuff ready to go, so let's see it.
  5. Rivington is offline
    Rivington's Avatar

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    East Bay, CA
    Posts
    4,733

    Posted On:
    6/17/2011 2:15pm

    supporting member
     Style: Taijiquan/Shuai-Chiao/BJJ

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by WhiteShark View Post
    Climate change science that doesn't consider the sun and water vapor is a steaming pile of ****. When I read long articles that never mention anything but Carbon (instead of saying Carbon Dioxide) and rule out methane and other green house gases in the first paragraph I get pretty skeptical about the whole thing.
    Have you actually read articles that say such things, or just popular summaries of articles that leave this stuff out? Tech/science journalism is certainly frustrating, of course.

    http://www.explainxkcd.com/2011/04/06/significant/
  6. W. Rabbit is offline
    W. Rabbit's Avatar

    insight combined with intel, fuse, and dynamite

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Work
    Posts
    7,919

    Posted On:
    6/17/2011 2:16pm

    supporting member
     Style: (Hung Ga+BJJ+MT+JKD) ^ Qi

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Cullion View Post
    I don't think you read the email archive.
    I didn't, I just read about how the leak was politicized and how Phil Jones was misquoted by anti-climate change media outlets to ensure that everyone thinks the sideshow is, in fact, meaningful. They were leaning on his every word and once they caught something they misunderstood, they published it everywhere.

    That is how the anti-climate change lobby works: misdirection, planting doubt, weasel words, and outright bad science. They call the IPCC "bad science" but as of yet...no credible scientific body has challenged IPCC.

    The hard truth, even if you are a sincere climate change disavower, is that what happened at CRU is over and no longer considered relevant to mainstream scientists. Any single scientists opinions on this matter are largely irrelevant to the search for truth here....you don't know who's been paid off and who hasn't but it's not ALL of them in either camp.

    If a credible BODY does exist, source it and I'll read it. I don't consider Gray to be mainstream and neither do a lot of his peers.

    This is turning into a debate between me and my father-in-law.

    Like I said, until IPCC's report is actually countered by a separate, respected scientific body, I won't really factor media sensationalism, hacktivists claims, and charges of conspiracy into my understanding of climate change science.

    For that I will just look at the data.
    Last edited by W. Rabbit; 6/17/2011 2:23pm at .
  7. Cullion is offline
    Cullion's Avatar

    Everybody was Kung Fu fighting

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Oxford, UK
    Posts
    6,525

    Posted On:
    6/17/2011 2:26pm

    supporting member
     Style: Tai Chi

    0
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Rivington View Post
    Yes. And?



    Let's see. In post one I point out that an open letter is not the same as research consensus and that you conflated the two for reasons of your own. In my latest post, I said exactly the same thing. If you think that's backpedaling, you don't know what that word means either.
    The article itself was using the letter as rheotorical device to demonstrate consensus. It's pretty obvious.

    Some is, some isn't. Some science is observational and depends on looking at "natural experiments."
    No

    Not quite. A single negative result is and should be insufficient to invalidate a hypothesis. This is why experiments are repeated, examined and critiqued, altered and tried again with different methodologies or data sets, etc. That is why a consensus is considered important by scientists. The abstract I linked to wasn't a strawpoll, it was an analysis of the results of publication and citation data—that is, the very stuff being predicted, explained, etc. Could it potentially all be wrong? Sure! Kuhn and others have talked about how scientific revolutions are a long haul virtually every time. And yet, measurements of the consensus is the one way to determine whether the evidence corroborates some claim.
    'I can measure the evidence in favour of a hypothesis by counting how many people agree with it'..? Nope.

    Of which hypothesis? That you're a crank playing a rhetorical game? Well, that's just pure observation.
    Ah, you're stooping to ad hominem already. I win.

    Or do you mean warming? A couple elements of global warming that can be tested include:

    1. If CO2 and other greenhouse gases absorb radiation, we should see a decrease in outgoing radiation. Do we? Yes: http://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006...per_100737.htm

    2. If warming is happening due to greenhouses gases, nights would warm faster than days as less head would radiate outward. Do nights warm faster than days and has this tendency been increasing? Yes: http://www.knmi.nl/publications/showAbstract.php?id=706
    Both of which are insufficient to proceed to the alarmist AGW hypothesis because you cannot build a predictive model for future climate without examining the complex feedbacks of the earth's biosphere. Remember how badly out Tyndall's 19th century predictions were ?

    Gosh, sounds like you hope I DO do it, actually. I wasn't going to, but now I will. I'm sure you have some canned denier stuff ready to go, so let's see it.
    If you made shorter replies, you wouldn't get so behind in the thread and you'd see that I'd already done that.
    !!RENT SPACE HERE FOR 10 VBUCKS PER LINE PER MONTH!!

    !! PM ME FOR SPEEDY SERVICE !!

    Sponsored by our first customer: Repulsive Monkey



    I <3 Sirc.
  8. Cullion is offline
    Cullion's Avatar

    Everybody was Kung Fu fighting

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Oxford, UK
    Posts
    6,525

    Posted On:
    6/17/2011 2:33pm

    supporting member
     Style: Tai Chi

    0
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by W. Rabbit View Post
    I didn't, I just read about how the leak was politicized and how Phil Jones was misquoted by anti-climate change media outlets to ensure that everyone thinks the sideshow is, in fact, meaningful. They were leaning on his every word and once they caught something they misunderstood, they published it everywhere.

    That is how the anti-climate change lobby works: misdirection, planting doubt, weasel words, and outright bad science. They call the IPCC "bad science" but as of yet...no credible scientific body has challenged IPCC.
    Read the emails for yourself. Don't take any guff about things being 'out of context' until you've looked at the primary source with your own eyes.

    You currently have a very warped, second hand, impression of what the emails actually say. The idea that the deletion requests had anything to do with a legal department looking to protect the CRU from hackers is the most obvious red flag. It's really way off base.
    !!RENT SPACE HERE FOR 10 VBUCKS PER LINE PER MONTH!!

    !! PM ME FOR SPEEDY SERVICE !!

    Sponsored by our first customer: Repulsive Monkey



    I <3 Sirc.
  9. W. Rabbit is offline
    W. Rabbit's Avatar

    insight combined with intel, fuse, and dynamite

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Work
    Posts
    7,919

    Posted On:
    6/17/2011 2:43pm

    supporting member
     Style: (Hung Ga+BJJ+MT+JKD) ^ Qi

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Cullion View Post
    You currently have a very warped, second hand, impression of what the emails actually say.
    Possibly, but I definitely don't care about the email exchanges. I'd care more if a scientific body had read them and published some new reports denouncing the work of the IPCC and CRU.

    That never happened. Dead story, all things considered.

    Remember it was you who suggested that the people who exonerated CRU are, in fact, covering it up. So you're falling into the conspiracy theory crowd. Careful...

    Quote Originally Posted by Cullion View Post
    The idea that the deletion requests had anything to do with a legal department looking to protect the CRU from hackers is the most obvious red flag. It's really way off base.
    I was speculating there. Sorry.
  10. Cullion is offline
    Cullion's Avatar

    Everybody was Kung Fu fighting

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Oxford, UK
    Posts
    6,525

    Posted On:
    6/17/2011 2:54pm

    supporting member
     Style: Tai Chi

    0
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by W. Rabbit View Post
    Possibly, but I definitely don't care about the email exchanges. I'd care more if a scientific body had read them and published some new reports denouncing the work of the IPCC and CRU.

    That never happened.
    The Berkeley temperature project has been set up by the physicist Richard Muller to reinvestigate the temperature record in light of the problems found with the CRU's, and others' work



    Remember it was you who suggested that the people who exonerated CRU are, in fact, covering it up. So you're falling into the conspiracy theory crowd. Careful...
    I don't have to speculate or suggest, there's clear evidence. Read the e-mails. When you're told 'the emails don't really say X', and they clearly do say X, that should be sufficient for you to see what's going on.

    Watch the video. How much do you trust the IPCC's reports now?
    Last edited by Cullion; 6/17/2011 3:02pm at .
    !!RENT SPACE HERE FOR 10 VBUCKS PER LINE PER MONTH!!

    !! PM ME FOR SPEEDY SERVICE !!

    Sponsored by our first customer: Repulsive Monkey



    I <3 Sirc.
Page 3 of 35 FirstFirst 123 456713 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Powered by vBulletin™© contact@vbulletin.com vBulletin Solutions, Inc. 2011 All rights reserved.