Welcome to PatsFans.com

The oil companies last card -- Climategate

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Patters, Dec 11, 2009.

  1. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,421
    Likes Received:
    226
    Ratings:
    +351 / 15 / -12

    Having largely lost the scientific argument in the scientific community, the oil companies and their allies have resorted to hacking emails and trying to alter public perception on the issue. They've made some progress in the US, but fortunately we currently have an enlightened government.

    This is a good article that in my opinion explains why Climategate is getting very little attention except from right-wing political types and their wealthy oil nation/company allies.

    The Truth Behind the Leaked Climate-Change E-Mails - TIME

    "The content of the stolen e-mails has no impact whatsoever on our overall understanding that human activity is driving dangerous levels of global warming," wrote 25 leading U.S. scientists in a letter to Congress on Dec. 4.

    ...

    According to PSU's Mann, that statistical "trick" that Jones refers to in one e-mail — which has been trumpeted by skeptics — simply referred to the replacing of proxy temperature data from tree rings in recent years with more accurate data from air temperatures. It's an analytical technique that has been openly discussed in scientific journals for over a decade — hardly the stuff of conspiracy.

    As for Mann and Jones' apparent effort to punish the journal Climate Research, the paper that ignited his indignation is a 2003 study that turned out to be underwritten by the American Petroleum Institute. Eventually half the editorial board of the journal quit in protest.


    The article goes on to say that the CRU (from where the emails were hacked) data used for global warming is one of four sources of data, all of which have similar results. As far as the harsh attack by these scientists on the skeptics, the article points out that science is as rough as any other field. There's no particular reason to expect scientists to be less committed to their conclusions than politicians, philosophers, and others. But, the skeptics are a fragile group who respond badly to criticism.

    The article points out that the emails have no bearing on the science behind global warming, but may have a political effect, which of course is what the big oil companies, the Saudis, and their puppets are hoping for.

    Perhaps one reason for the panic by the right wing is that even some prominent skeptics have been slowing changing their tunes and coming over to the mmgw side as this well sourced Wikipedia article points out:

    On a related note, it's interesting to see that some skeptics have been shifting their position away from solid skepticism over the last few years as this well sourced Wikipedia article points out:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy#Changing_positions_of_skeptics)
     
    Last edited: Dec 11, 2009
  2. Jase

    Jase On the Roster

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2009
    Messages:
    85
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Sorry, but there are skeptics who are real scientists and not merely tools of the oil conglomerates.

    As for the "trick"... it's pretty damning if you understand what it was. The decline was there, and they decided to omit it. What they hid was the point at which they prematurely terminated the data set.

    More...

    (don't have 30 posts and can't post a link so you'll have to reassemble the url)

    climateaudit .org/2009/11/26/the-trick/
     
  3. apple strudel

    apple strudel Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2008
    Messages:
    5,894
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    Skepticism is not the same as outright denial of plainly obvious things. Many of the oft-cited "real skeptics" have been shown, on this very board, to be in error.

    They published on the decline 10 years ago. It was in plain sight, and scientists agree on not using it.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hide_the_decline#Jones_e-mail_of_16_Nov_1999

    Penn State professor: Research is sound | Philadelphia Inquirer | 12/03/2009
    CRU update 2 - University of East Anglia (UEA)
    The Truth Behind the Leaked Climate-Change E-Mails - TIME
     
  4. apple strudel

    apple strudel Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2008
    Messages:
    5,894
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    And for those still claiming that the CRU data is somehow incorrect, here it is correlated with other independent data sources. Several of the other data sources all make their raw data available for everybody to look at.

    Does anything stand out here? Yeah.

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Dec 11, 2009
  5. MrSparkle

    MrSparkle Third String But Playing on Special Teams

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2007
    Messages:
    813
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    Oh boy, you are going to get attacked by the left now. Sleep with one eye open. You are not smart enough to have opinions for yourself. They will call you an ignorant denier on your petty attack against global warming.

    Don't you know that it's been conclusively proven, set in stone. No chance that they are wrong and on, btw, it's the Oil companies who are behind your doubt...wait, that's the subject of this entire thread...It's not like scientist have been wrong in the past.

    Some scientist is going to end up wrong in this debate. Many in fact. No matter what ends up being the truth.
     
  6. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,421
    Likes Received:
    226
    Ratings:
    +351 / 15 / -12

    There certainly are real scientists among the skeptics, but when you get down it it, I think there are very few real scientists actively engaged in climatology who are skeptics. My basis for that is that when you read articleson global warming by skeptics, they are almost always by the same few authors.

    The trick is damning at all if you understand what it was. As the article I linked to states, "According to PSU's Mann, that statistical "trick" that Jones refers to in one e-mail — which has been trumpeted by skeptics — simply referred to the replacing of proxy temperature data from tree rings in recent years with more accurate data from air temperatures. It's an analytical technique that has been openly discussed in scientific journals for over a decade — hardly the stuff of conspiracy."

    The support for global warming is based on many different types of data and data sets. The only reason that the skeptics are focusing on the tree ring issue is because the author of the email used the word "trick," and they felt that would generate some negative publicity for those who want to make our air cleaner. It did generate negative publicity, but almost only in the right wing media.

    (And welcome to the forum!)
     
    Last edited: Dec 11, 2009
  7. apple strudel

    apple strudel Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2008
    Messages:
    5,894
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    If he's going to play in the land of ideas he's got to bring valid ones. That is, you know, how science works. Ignorance and science don't mix, you know.

    Again, you've got to make valid arguments. But keep playing the victim.

    More or less. Of course it's not as simple as a syllogism or a proof, and there are some issues around the edges that are not understood, but the core science is well understood. Buy a book and learn a little something.

    In science there's always a chance you'll learn something that changes your assumptions. But the deniers have presented nothing like this, of course.

    Follow the money.

    Oops. That would be one of those errors I'm talking about.

    Affirming the consequent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Make good arguments, people.

    Some scientist is going to end up wrong in this debate. Many in fact. No matter what ends up being the truth.[/quote]
     
  8. MrSparkle

    MrSparkle Third String But Playing on Special Teams

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2007
    Messages:
    813
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    Wait, I thought it was to stop global warming, not make the air cleaner. Why didn't you say that in the first place. I mean, who wants dirty air and all. No sane person wants dirty air do they.


    Nice way to turn things about a little.
     
  9. Jase

    Jase On the Roster

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2009
    Messages:
    85
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    This response sounds like you didn't read the link I posted.

    Steve McIntyre, is not a "skeptic", per se, but he has carved a nice niche in analyzing the methodologies of climate researchers.

    By all means, please proceed to stick your head in the sand.

    The trouble with this subject is that it's become too politicized. People (including the researchers involved) are so wrapped up in their preconceived notions that the facts get thrown by the wayside. And the process of peer review gets hindered because there is too much money involved to spin results in both directions.

    Based on appearances, I bet you've already sized me up as a righty who watches glenn beck and frequents blogs that froth at the mouth over kenyan birth certificates and the like. Actually, this couldn't be further from the truth.
     
  10. Mabeyitstrue

    Mabeyitstrue Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2009
    Messages:
    460
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0


    Hey why wear a condom then? I mean your nv going to get an STD right?

    Its called being prepared and being smart enough to not block out the truth.

    Even if there is no global warming, do you like smog? have you ever been to China? there are health risks too.

    You forget this is my planet too, and I don't like you ****ting in my backyard.
     
  11. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    40,649
    Likes Received:
    222
    Ratings:
    +813 / 2 / -9

    I have always liked OIL, oil keeps my family warm, runs my car, runs my boat, keeps the chain on bike lubricated, runs my lawnmower, runs my snow blower and it keeps my gun clean, it probably does a lot of other little things that I can't think of right now.

    Nothing is perfect, no person is perfect (Bush/Obama) if something comes along that can replace oil and do all the things oil does for us fine get rid of oil but remember the people that will run the "new energy" will be just as bad as the "oil people" people are people, 97.5% of America's Business Leaders are f-cking greedy scumbag crooks.

    Mother Nature Will Take Care Of The Oil Fumes And Cow Farts, Mother Nature Has Handled Far Worse Millions Of Years Ago.

    Until then, Fill Her Up Then Go Out To The Barn And Milk Your Cow.
     
    Last edited: Dec 11, 2009
  12. Jase

    Jase On the Roster

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2009
    Messages:
    85
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Thanks, patters. I would also like to point out that climate research is an exclusive club to begin with. I would say that Mann et al. has their hands in most of the cookie jars of climate research.

    And it's true -- tree rings are only one data set.

    So then the question becomes, if only one data set is in disagreement, then why not include it and state it as an outlier? At the very least, it's intellectually dishonest.
     
  13. MrSparkle

    MrSparkle Third String But Playing on Special Teams

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2007
    Messages:
    813
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    Valid points, there should be controls and oversight. What they are proposing with Cap and Trade is way beyond anything that will make any difference except making all of us poorer and themselves richer. China and India are not going along and unless they do, it matters not what we do. It's simply another transfer of wealth.

    Explain how I'm wrong.
     
  14. Mabeyitstrue

    Mabeyitstrue Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2009
    Messages:
    460
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0


    Lead by example, I don't care if China and India are going to the moon and back its not about them its about us!!!

    What it J.Robinson said "I'm not going to play baseball, no other blacks are" or C.Columbus said"I'm not going to try and find the new world cause China and India aren't going to"

    I could go on and on but you get my point. If China wants to be the big old bad superpower so be it! big deal....we aren't #1 anymore who cares!

    Don't sacrifice your values for your ideology.......
     
    Last edited: Dec 11, 2009
  15. apple strudel

    apple strudel Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2008
    Messages:
    5,894
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    They told the world 10 years ago why they do not include the data. Scientists who disagree with that can publish and make their arguments.

    That's how science works.
     
  16. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Hall of Fame Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,907
    Likes Received:
    154
    Ratings:
    +438 / 5 / -23

    #18 Jersey

    I'll support cap & trade as long as it doesn't result in 2 things:

    1. Increased costs to the consumer
    2. Gov't money going to the oil companies

    To support the the above makes no sense to anyone!
     
  17. Jase

    Jase On the Roster

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2009
    Messages:
    85
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Science is the pursuit of truth.

    Peer review and catching inconsistencies is a big part of finding truth.

    Are climate researchers right about many things? Yes.

    Do their methodologies often skew their results? Absolutely. I cringe every time I hear man talk about a new method for adjusting raw data.

    The question is -- how can we better facilitate the open exchange of information to find the truth? I believe people like Mann are doing a lot to hinder this.
     
  18. MrSparkle

    MrSparkle Third String But Playing on Special Teams

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2007
    Messages:
    813
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    Don't be so naive. Any industry that cap and trade will effect will just move. How many more jobs do we need to lose. How much more do we need to pay in taxes. How many other countries need to get a competitive advantage on us so we shrink even more.

    We need to be good stewards of our earth, just not at the expense of everything. There is only so much we can do and there is only so much we effect. That line is what is being drawn right now. The problem is it's not being drawn with definitive proof. There is still much doubt how much we are really doing to raise the temps. The earth has mechanisms to deal with CO2, that why many of their models are not working like they expect.

    Pollution is something that concerns me always. Don't confuse the two issues into one.

    I would agree with that as well.
     
  19. apple strudel

    apple strudel Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2008
    Messages:
    5,894
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    By publishing frequently and posting his arguments online and discussing the issue with other scientists? You've formulated a premise to fit your already established conclusion.

    Further, raw data needs to be homogenized so that you're comparing apples to apples. Scientists finding legitimate flaws in those methods publish and the field incorporates the new methods and gets better data.
     
  20. Jase

    Jase On the Roster

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2009
    Messages:
    85
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I have not found any explanation of this omission other than those dated just recently.

    I'm sorry, but this just isn't valid. The divergence should have been shown and addressed, rather than hiding it for the purpose of an overall "intent."

    Facts don't have intent. Opinons have intent. Science shouldn't be in the business of marketing opinions.
     
    Last edited: Dec 11, 2009

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>