Not going to quite jump into the debate as of yet, but just want to comment that I think way to much of this debate is politicized. or seems like that anyways.
Paranoid environmentalists and liberal politicians with political clout to gain will push for the idea that global warming is growing out of control and that we're all going to die if we don't change our ways, regardless of evidence.
On the other side of that, certain industrialists and those who care more about turning a profit than preserving the environment will fight to maintain that global warming is a hoax or inconsequential.
I'd be very curious to find out who's truly objective in this debate...
Climate Gate
120
December 10, 2009 08:12 PM
Quote: Original post by Nayem
Not going to quite jump into the debate as of yet, but just want to comment that I think way to much of this debate is politicized. or seems like that anyways.
Paranoid environmentalists and liberal politicians with political clout to gain will push for the idea that global warming is growing out of control
I still don't get this supposed "liberal politicization."
The Democrats stand to gain .... what exactly that would compromise their objectivity?? Are we supposed to believe that the super-powerful scientist lobby is outclassing ExxonMobil and the rest of the energy industry? Where exactly is the compromising upside for politicians who support an issue that doesn't exactly fire up masses of voters and doesn't make the deep-pocketed lobbyists happy?
If anything, it seems politicization and manufactured controversy are all that the denialists have, since (of the 75+ organizations) there's not a single scientific body of national or international standing that agrees with the denialist position.
Quote: Original post by NayemWell ... that's supposed to be the role played by peer-reviewed science.
...and that we're all going to die if we don't change our ways, regardless of evidence.
On the other side of that, certain industrialists and those who care more about turning a profit than preserving the environment will fight to maintain that global warming is a hoax or inconsequential.
I'd be very curious to find out who's truly objective in this debate...
But, if that's not enough, then one can at least say that a gambling man probably wouldn't bet for much objectivity from the politicians whose side has mountains of lobbying from the world's richest corporations and the support of ZERO national scientific bodies.
In any case, perhaps it'd be interesting to hear what someone has to say when they've come in with their preconceptions, reviewed the evidence for years and had to do a 180 with their feelings on the subject. A guy perhaps, like former Republican strategist Frank Luntz
[Edited by - HostileExpanse on December 12, 2009 5:12:26 PM]
100
December 10, 2009 09:17 PM
Yeah yeah yeah so now the hackers are actually part of a conspiracy, rather than the climate activists, w/e. Anyways, what matters is that the leaked docs are genuine and show fake data. And yes it is fake even with all the explanations and excuses that were given...
CODE from CRU used to generate temperature data:
Value of the valadj array plotted:
source
And its not just the CRU, from what this guy Eduardo Zorita from IPCC say, you can see right away its a worldwide conspiracy:
source
Yeah that should paint the picture in the right colors.
CODE from CRU used to generate temperature data:
;; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!;yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factorif n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,’Oooops!’yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)Value of the valadj array plotted:
source
And its not just the CRU, from what this guy Eduardo Zorita from IPCC say, you can see right away its a worldwide conspiracy:
Quote:
Research in some areas of climate science has been and is full of machination, conspiracies, and collusion, as any reader can interpret from the CRU-files. They depict a realistic, I would say even harmless, picture of what the real research in the area of the climate of the past millennium has been in the last years. The scientific debate has been in many instances hijacked to advance other agendas. [...] editors, reviewers and authors of alternative studies, analysis, interpretations,even based on the same data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed. In this atmosphere, Ph D students are often tempted to tweak their data so as to fit the 'politically correct picture'. [...] Policy makers should be aware of the attempts to hide these uncertainties under a unified picture.
source
Yeah that should paint the picture in the right colors.
1,415
December 10, 2009 09:23 PM
Politicization is what happens when a scandal involving a small number of scientists suddenly become fodder for a massive media operation pushing the canard that thousands of scientists have been involved in a decades long conspiracy to destroy capitalism.
Here's some more politicization for you: Going Cheney on Climate (December 8, 2009)
Here's some more politicization for you: Going Cheney on Climate (December 8, 2009)
Quote:
In 2006, Ron Suskind published “The One Percent Doctrine,” a book about the U.S. war on terrorists after 9/11. The title was drawn from an assessment by then-Vice President Dick Cheney, who, in the face of concerns that a Pakistani scientist was offering nuclear-weapons expertise to Al Qaeda, reportedly declared: “If there’s a 1% chance that Pakistani scientists are helping Al Qaeda build or develop a nuclear weapon, we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response.” Cheney contended that the U.S. had to confront a very new type of threat: a “low-probability, high-impact event.”
...
Of course, Mr. Cheney would never accept that analogy. Indeed, many of the same people who defend Mr. Cheney’s One Percent Doctrine on nukes tell us not to worry at all about catastrophic global warming, where the odds are, in fact, a lot higher than 1 percent, if we stick to business as usual. That is unfortunate, because Cheney’s instinct is precisely the right framework with which to think about the climate issue — and this whole “climategate” controversy as well. [LB Note: the IPCC report confidence level for AGW is greater than 90%]
...
Frankly, I found it very disappointing to read a leading climate scientist writing that he used a “trick” to “hide” a putative decline in temperatures or was keeping contradictory research from getting a proper hearing. Yes, the climate-denier community, funded by big oil, has published all sorts of bogus science for years — and the world never made a fuss. That, though, is no excuse for serious climatologists not adhering to the highest scientific standards at all times.
That said, be serious: The evidence that our planet, since the Industrial Revolution, has been on a broad warming trend outside the normal variation patterns — with periodic micro-cooling phases — has been documented by a variety of independent research centers.
...
"I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes." - the Laughing Man
100
December 10, 2009 09:35 PM
All evidence that says global warming is happening is likely to be fake. Once again I shall repeat the quote from a scientist that supported global warming and worked for the IPCC for a long time, and has NOTHING to do with any oil companies whatsoever. He chose to do this because he cares about the truth, and so do we should care about the truth.
source
Quote: Research in some areas of climate science has been and is full of machination, conspiracies, and collusion
source
1,239
December 10, 2009 09:40 PM
Quote: Original post by Momoko_FanEduardo Zorita is not exactly a reliable source.
All evidence that says global warming is happening is likely to be fake. Once again I shall repeat the quote from a scientist that supported global warming and worked for the IPCC for a long time, and has NOTHING to do with any oil companies whatsoever. He chose to do this because he cares about the truth, and so do we should care about the truth.
100
December 10, 2009 09:55 PM
So a small scientific mistake in 2004 somehow makes him non-credible regarding climategate? I don't see the correlation.
3,128
December 10, 2009 10:00 PM
Quote: Original post by Momoko_Fan
All evidence that says global warming is happening is likely to be fake. Once again I shall repeat the quote from a scientist that supported global warming and worked for the IPCC for a long time, and has NOTHING to do with any oil companies whatsoever.
From your link:
Quote: These words do not mean that I think anthropogenic climate change is a hoax.And yet you still took his words to mean that anthropogenic climate change is fake which is pretty much synonymous with calling it a hoax. The rest of his comments in that link are about how he thinks that climate scientists are stifling research and otherwise coercing other scientists to toe the line of AGW. Actually he doesn't even go that far, he writes "research in some areas of climate science has been and is full of machination, conspiracies, and collusion." There is probably something to be said about that. And furthermore, Codeka's link shows that even then he's not above reproach in his own method of studying climate.
edit: emphasis added
C++: A Dialog | C++0x Features: Part1 (lambdas, auto, static_assert) , Part 2 (rvalue references) , Part 3 (decltype) | Write Games | Fix Your Timestep!
1,239
December 10, 2009 10:01 PM
Quote: Original post by Momoko_FanIt was hardly a small mistake!
So a small mistake in 2004 somehow makes him non-credible regarding climategate? I don't see the connection..
But let's assume for a minute that you're right, and this guy is the only person who's actually telling the truth (unless you can find more people who are telling the truth?). That means that there's one guy telling the truth and about 5,000 other scientists who are "in" on the "conspiracy". Right? It's not me who's crazy, it's the whole world who's crazy!
And just on that "code" you provided, where is the link between the graph that code outputs and any actual graphs that people are using to describe warming? So you found a snippet of code where the comment says "fudge factor" and immediately it brings every temperature graph into question?
100
December 10, 2009 10:13 PM
at HostileExpanse: liberal politicians can have very much to gain. the very scientists that are researching the climate change can be lobbying for their support, because the government spends alot of money on that research, thus the climate scientists are making money off of the concept. add the environmentalists and other such groups... plus, haven't quite a few politicians gotten some good reputation for the concern and actions they take to save the environment or stem global warming? I mean, aren't you more likely to vote for the guy who's doing something than the guy who isn't?
And even if there is no necessarily organized group that disagrees, there are a large amount of scientists that provide compelling evidence against at least the idea that we're mainly at fault.
And just because a national scientific organization supports a concept doesn't mean its necessarily true. Humans are fallible, even in groups; especially in like-minded groups.
and in regards to betting on politicians' objectivity, I'd just play it safe and bet on neither. I don't really trust politicians much.
And even if there is no necessarily organized group that disagrees, there are a large amount of scientists that provide compelling evidence against at least the idea that we're mainly at fault.
And just because a national scientific organization supports a concept doesn't mean its necessarily true. Humans are fallible, even in groups; especially in like-minded groups.
and in regards to betting on politicians' objectivity, I'd just play it safe and bet on neither. I don't really trust politicians much.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
