http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/hadley_hacked/
Well now, it turns out that some whistleblowers got a hold of tons of confidential emails that show one of the most influential Global Warming groups was... well, just making shite up.
I am Burger King Diamond!
I'm shocked. [/sarcasm]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climategate
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2009/11/23/why-climategate-aint-nothing/
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/11/climate-hack
I loved that "Discover" blog...that was great. We need to go to Copenhagen to deal with our "warming, melting planet." Haha...melting. Give me a break.
Newman: I loved that "Discover" blog...that was great. We need to go to Copenhagen to deal with our "warming, melting planet." Haha...melting. Give me a break.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/1023esuice.html
We're all melting and it's because we drive cars!!
What I've never really understood about this global warming debate is that one of its central themes seems to be politicians and corporations accusing scientists of having an agenda. Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black?
Newman: We're all melting and it's because we drive cars!!
When you make an actual point, I'll let you know...
Neil Annwn: What I've never really understood about this global warming debate is that one of its central themes seems to be politicians and corporations accusing scientists of having an agenda. Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black?
I'm with you on that. Quite frankly, the Earth may indeed be warming...it may be cooling (I've seen quite a bit of data to suggest a cooling period for the past decade), it may be staying the same. It's done this for the entirety of it's existence. It has warmed and cooled even when there were no cars or industry. I don't think I'll ever be convinced that it's man made. Global warming? Maybe. Man-made global warming? Not so much, IMHO.
rost0031: Newman: We're all melting and it's because we drive cars!! When you make an actual point, I'll let you know...
Or you'll post a link to a leftist blog, wikipedia, or NASA.
Newman: I don't think I'll ever be convinced that it's man made.
I don't think I'll ever be convinced that it's man made.
Not saying I have the answers, but out of curiosity, what exactly are you basing this belief on?
The air was cleaner before bovine roamed the land.
Newman: rost0031: Newman: We're all melting and it's because we drive cars!! When you make an actual point, I'll let you know... Or you'll post a link to a leftist blog, wikipedia, or NASA.
Really? You take issue with NASA?!?! You're right. The people who sent a man to the fuckin' moon 50 years ago and launch satellites that look at the planet clearly have no fuckin' clue what they are talking about. I'm glad that you, of all people, have taken it upon yourself to "study" the highly complex problem of climate change and have reached the conclusion that 99.9% of scientists who have spent their lifetimes studying the subject are wrong. You should run for president. Maybe a Palin/Newman ticket?
Neil Annwn: Newman: I don't think I'll ever be convinced that it's man made. Not saying I have the answers, but out of curiosity, what exactly are you basing this belief on?
Do rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations cause increasing global temperatures, or could it be the other way around? This is one of the questions being debated today. One thing is certain-- earth's climate has been warming and cooling on it's own for at least the last 400,000 years, as the data below show. At year 18,000 and counting in our current interglacial vacation from the Ice Age, we may be due-- some say overdue-- for return to another icehouse climate!
Here's another way to look at this debate.
If you're going to believe in "Global Warming" as the phrase is commonly used, you must believe all of the following:
a) The planet is warming at an unnaturally fast rate.
b) Human civilization is the cause for that warming trend.
c) If the planet were significantly warmer than it is now, it would threaten our survival as a species.
The only way to establish the bedrock of these beliefs is to rely on scientific data. It would seem that this particular organization is the first to be CAUGHT falsifying scientific data because it did not support their intended findings in each of these three areas. They can't explain the cooling trend, which means they can't pin it on human industry (which are roadblocks to premises #1 and #2), and they can't have evidence of a warmer time-period in human history in which human civilization thrived without countering premise #3.
So what do they do? Manipulate the data to support the message they WANT to send. Attempt to hide the evidence.
These folks got caught, luckily. But if some of the most prestigious scientists in the Climate Research Unit of one of the top schools for this kind of research are not getting the data they need from the scientific process to promote their desired findings, it stands to reason that others looking at the same data and conducting the same research may be coming across the same problem. I use "problem" because i frankly believe that global warming is a far less precarious climate trend than is global cooling.
Now I wonder, if the scientific data on global warming does not, in fact, support the three premises I listed earlier, who would not question their belief in it?
OwenIsStillanAsshole: So what do they do? Manipulate the data to support the message they WANT to send. Attempt to hide the evidence. These folks got caught, luckily.
These folks got caught, luckily.
Holy shite:
From my Wired article:
Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming ? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low…. The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.
Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming ? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low….
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.
But Trenberth, who acknowledged the e-mail is genuine, says bloggers are missing the point he’s making in the e-mail by not reading the article cited in it. That article – An Imperative for Climate Change Planning (.pdf) — actually says that global warming is continuing, despite random temperature variations that would seem to suggest otherwise.
Tyler Dean: Neil Annwn: Newman: I don't think I'll ever be convinced that it's man made. Not saying I have the answers, but out of curiosity, what exactly are you basing this belief on? I surely won't claim to have the answers either, but looking at Ice Core data trends of the last 400,000 years seems to help see some patterns.http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html. Do rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations cause increasing global temperatures, or could it be the other way around? This is one of the questions being debated today. One thing is certain-- earth's climate has been warming and cooling on it's own for at least the last 400,000 years, as the data below show. At year 18,000 and counting in our current interglacial vacation from the Ice Age, we may be due-- some say overdue-- for return to another icehouse climate!
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11659
Now, with more references and citations!
OwenIsStillanAsshole: Neil Annwn: What I've never really understood about this global warming debate is that one of its central themes seems to be politicians and corporations accusing scientists of having an agenda. Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black? Here's another way to look at this debate. If you're going to believe in "Global Warming" as the phrase is commonly used, you must believe all of the following: a) The planet is warming at an unnaturally fast rate. b) Human civilization is the cause for that warming trend. c) If the planet were significantly warmer than it is now, it would threaten our survival as a species. The only way to establish the bedrock of these beliefs is to rely on scientific data. It would seem that this particular organization is the first to be CAUGHT falsifying scientific data because it did not support their intended findings in each of these three areas. They can't explain the cooling trend, which means they can't pin it on human industry (which are roadblocks to premises #1 and #2), and they can't have evidence of a warmer time-period in human history in which human civilization thrived without countering premise #3. So what do they do? Manipulate the data to support the message they WANT to send. Attempt to hide the evidence. These folks got caught, luckily. But if some of the most prestigious scientists in the Climate Research Unit of one of the top schools for this kind of research are not getting the data they need from the scientific process to promote their desired findings, it stands to reason that others looking at the same data and conducting the same research may be coming across the same problem. I use "problem" because i frankly believe that global warming is a far less precarious climate trend than is global cooling. Now I wonder, if the scientific data on global warming does not, in fact, support the three premises I listed earlier, who would not question their belief in it?
You have a fair point in this context. What I'm trying to figure out is that, and I'm making assumptions so if I'm wrong apologize, based on your posts in the past I'm lumping you into the "global warming cynicism" crowd. The "global warming cynicism" crowd shares a couple of beliefs I take issue with.
I can say that with regards to your three premises, I don't view points B and C as completely inconceivable. Keep in mind this is different that this is different than saying they are true or untrue. I'm just saying I don't see what in and of themselves prevents them from being inconceivable.
This is the crux of what I don't understand with Newman in saying "I don't think I'll ever be convinced of global warming." I'm not understanding what facts he has access to that I don't that completely takes those options off of the table.
Newman: I'm with you on that. Quite frankly, the Earth may indeed be warming...it may be cooling (I've seen quite a bit of data to suggest a cooling period for the past decade), it may be staying the same. It's done this for the entirety of it's existence. It has warmed and cooled even when there were no cars or industry. I don't think I'll ever be convinced that it's man made. Global warming? Maybe. Man-made global warming? Not so much, IMHO.
I disagree with you, but for the sake of argument let's say that it's only naturally warming. There could still be consequences - - isn't there still some cause for a bit of alarm? Not panic, but doing something?
In the "entirety of its existence," species have been eliminated from earth. Civilizations have been destroyed. All from "natural" occurrences.
So... do we just say "this is a natural global warming" and then sit back and see where the chips fall?
Guile: So... do we just say "this is a natural global warming" and then sit back and see where the chips fall?
Yes. Humans do not own the Earth.
Razor Shines: Guile: So... do we just say "this is a natural global warming" and then sit back and see where the chips fall? Yes. Humans do not own the Earth.
Let's hypothetically assume that with 100 percent certainty, Owen's premises are true. Mankind's industrial practices are warming the earth significantly. This warming threatens the survival of our species. I don't think anybody would say that taking measures to reverse our practices in this scenario as motivated by our survival would be inappropriate, particularly based on the premise "Humans do not own the Earth." Isn't that somewhat analogous to saying it's inappropriate to build a tornado shelter to protect ourselves because humans don't own the Earth? I'm not buying this argument.
What I'm saying is, is that if the Earth warms and cools itself naturally, humans shouldn't feel the need to control the uncontrollable. That's all I'm saying. I'm not saying lets all die in a tornado cuz that's what the Earth wants. A shelter is different than humans trying to decide if tornadoes are allowed to form or not. I'm not speaking of being more energy efficient or going green - I'm leaving that out of the equation and speaking only of natural occurrences.