Author
|
Topic: Global Warming Denialist (Read 29524 times)
|
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
 Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 3874
We did. You did. Yes we can. No.
|
Being saturated with CO2, even at a reduced capacity, would still be very very bad.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Angelfish
Enlightened
Offline
Posts: 568
|
Apparently, Climatologists are withholding data that could disprove the whole global warming theory.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3874
We did. You did. Yes we can. No.
|
They've withheld some data for some reason. But if there were a global warming conspiracy, don't you think that would have figured a lot more prominently in their email? Alternately, if they were being organized about it, wouldn't they keep their email scrupulously clean of any hints of it?
Anyway, looking down the list, the first six quotes are nothing. Really nothing at all, for various reasons. After that there are a few things that look bad to me - their attempts to protect themselves from vicious hacks by somewhat underhanded means. I don't do anything like that, but I'm not under assault.
For example, in the last one before the update at 3:45, the real critical phrase here is 'end effects', in which a LOESS or related fit at the end weights the ending points more heavily than any other points get weighted. If you're in the middle of a spike, it can manufacture a trend where there isn't one. That's not dishonest.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
oddSTAR
Zebranky food
Offline
Posts: 9
|
Doesn't a "conspiracy" group generally have some kind of goal to further their own agenda or to gain advantage over others? Exactly what is supposed to be the great benefit to the scientific community (or at least the leaders of it) by perpetrating a massive global warming hoax? I don't think it's going to lead to some kind of scientific community takeover. Unless they all have stock in some alternative energy company (and really suck at manipulating markets), I have a hard time seeing what they would expect to gain from it...
Protecting the status quo, on the other hand, has some really clear benefits to those who are already rich and powerful and want to keep it that way...
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3874
We did. You did. Yes we can. No.
|
Upon discovering more about the avoidance of FOIA requests, I see that there's not really much there either.
You see, their data was of two types:
1) publicly available for free on their website
2) proprietary data sets they had purchased the use of from various national weather services, contractually bound not to be released to the public.
Meanwhile, they're getting repeated FOIA requests designed to to waste their time by making them deal with paperwork, annoy them, put them off balance, and perhaps get them to do something they could be nailed on -- anything but letting them do their jobs.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zeracles
Frungy champion
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 69
Icon of X
|
Being saturated with CO2, even at a reduced capacity, would still be very very bad.
Damn straight, that screws with ocean chemistry, and oceans cover most of the planet.
Bring on the high seas! I live a few blocks from the coast so this should work out well 
We're also finding any excuse we can to turn away asylum seekers coming to our country who might sink our continent.
On a more serious note, last friday night in Sydney it was 32 degrees C - at f*ing midnight. On sunday we got up to 42 degrees C. It isn't even summer here yet.
Apparently, Climatologists are withholding data that could disprove the whole global warming theory.
People don't seem to understand what ``scientific consensus" means. It means that an idea has been through a collective review process, been passed around a community of fairly intelligent people, had some cranks do their best to discredit it and fail, and survive years of data collection, statistical games and remodeling.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: November 24, 2009, 04:12:50 pm by Zeracles »
|
Logged
|
Fear not the Arch Viles and Spectres of the Deepest Reaches, for the X is strong in this place.
|
|
|
|
|
Shiver
Guest
|
I'm in no way, shape or form in opposition to the general sentiment of the thread, but I poked through some of those leaked e-mails and what the heck...?
From: Phil Jones <email address removed>
To: ray bradley <email address removed>, michael mann <email address removed>, malcolm hughes <email address removed>
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: keith briffa <email address removed>,timothy osborn <email address removed>
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim's got a diagram here we'll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow.
I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. Mike's series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit <telephone number removed>
School of Environmental Sciences <fax number removed>
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email <email address removed>
NR4 7TJ
UK
That appears highly suspect. Some of the e-mails like this one may need to be addressed in an official capacity.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3874
We did. You did. Yes we can. No.
|
I'm in no way, shape or form in opposition to the general sentiment of the thread, but I poked through some of those leaked e-mails and what the heck...?
...
That appears highly suspect. Some of the e-mails like this one may need to be addressed in an official capacity.
That one can easily be explained if one knows what the data set is.
It's a bunch of tree ring specimens. Under normal conditions, the growth of the trees is based on temperature reasonably tightly - enough that if you average a bunch of them it's a worthwhile measure of temperature.
Now, some but not all tree ring samples, after holding tightly to the thermometer-based record for a long time, suddenly diverged in a downward direction in the 60's. There are no solid explanations for this, though I would suspect aquifer depletion, fallout from nuclear tests, or some other artifact of human interference that only started at that time. Some of these folks are looking into it, but at any rate, it's pretty easy to tell when a consistent number is coming out from the trees and when they're all over the place. In the latter case, they aren't trusted - some other factor besides temperature is clearly the limiting factor on growth.
Since we know what the temperatures were during that time period - we have had thermometers for a time span exceeding 50 years - the proposal was, in a graph, to have one of the data sets in a graph not be 'tree ring temperatures', but 'tree ring temperatures prior to 1960, thermometer measurements after 1960'.
That was the 'trick' used in the paper mentioned, and when used in that paper, it was explained at the time so no one was under a false impression.
All in all, what was being hidden was misleading non-data, and the fact that this was being hidden was not going to be hidden.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: November 25, 2009, 09:31:33 pm by Death 999 »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Shiver
Guest
|
That's amazing that you know exactly what the e-mail was referring to. Thanks for taking the time to explain it.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
